Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of announcing the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, the House will meet next Monday at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. At 9 p.m. the House and Senate will assemble for a joint session to receive President Biden's address on the State of the Union. Members should be seated in the House Chamber by 8:25 p.m.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will be considering several bills under suspension of the rules during the week. The complete list of suspension bills has been posted on the Clerk's website.

Next week, the House is expected to consider a number of bills under rules: H.R. 185, to terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of CMS for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers and for other purposes.

H.R. 185 rescinds the Biden administration's vaccine requirement on travelers who are coming to visit the United States.

The House is also expected to consider H.J. Res. 26, disapproving the District of Columbia's City Council revised Criminal Code Act of 2021. H.J. Res. 26 makes it clear that Congress does not approve of the City Council's radical decision to reduce penalties for a variety of crimes, including many violent crimes.

Finally, we expect to consider H.J. Res. 24, disapproving the action of the District of Columbia's City Council in approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022. What this resolution would do is reverse the decision by the D.C. Council that would allow illegal aliens to vote.

As we all know, our southern border has been wide open under President Biden. Millions of people have come into our country illegally, and he continues to keep that border open. We have talked about bringing legislation to this floor, which we are working on in committee, to secure America's border.

But, in the meantime, the idea that allowing people that are here illegally to vote here, not only undermines one of our most sacred rights in the United States, but it also sends the wrong message to those who are seeking to come into our country illegally.

We need President Biden to close the southern border, secure the southern border, get back to a legal process of immigration. That is what H.J. Res. 24 would do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), my friend, the new majority--minority whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, what I would first say to the American people is, thank you for giving the Republicans the House majority to finally stop this mad rush toward socialism that we have seen in the last 2 years by the Biden administration: the taxing; the spending; the out-of-control policies that have led our country into one of the worst economic times we have ever seen. Inflation through the roof to the point where families can't even afford to put gasoline in their car. Inflation through the roof to the point where families can't even go to the grocery store and buy all the things that they would want. That is what the American people surely were fed up with.

The good news is, as I thank them for giving the Republicans the majority, which they did in the last election, Republicans have already gone to work delivering for those families. We have actually brought-- it is interesting, as the gentlewoman talks about scoring points, we have scored a number of points for those American people to the point where we have actually had a number of Democrats vote with us.

The bills that were called partisan just 2 weeks ago--we brought a bill to the floor to say, on energy, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is supposed to be America's security blanket in case there is some major disruption with American energy supply. I am not talking about the disruption we have seen from President Biden's attack on American energy, which has been so severe that it has made our country dependent on foreign nations again, which is unconscionable, when we can produce our own energy, cleaner, better than anybody else in the world.

But it said, if you are going to raid, Mr. President, that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, you certainly can't do it

to sell it to China. It was called partisan when we filed it. What is interesting is a majority of Democrats actually voted for that legislation, and it is now over in the Senate.

I hope it ends up on President Biden's desk. I hope he signs it. But if he vetoes it, there was a veto-proof majority that passed that bill.

We just brought a piece of legislation a few minutes ago on to the floor to reject the ills of socialism; not just what we are seeing here in the United States socialist movement that has been damaging to our economy, but all throughout time, so many examples of socialist dictators killing millions and millions of people.

I am glad to say a majority of Democrats joined with us to vote for that bill. It is still a little bit shocking that 86 Democrats were not willing to stand up against the ills of socialism and that, I would consider, an extreme position, but clearly, there is still work to be done.

The American people, I am sure, will continue to engage their Members of Congress on those issues, but we are also going to continue to move policies to help families who are struggling; energy policies, obviously, and there is more to come on that.

The Energy and Commerce Committee just got constituted. They are working now on a good energy security package. The Natural Resources Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are doing the same thing.

I had mentioned to the gentlewoman earlier, on the border, as we would like to see real security from our southern border. I hope President Biden, when he is speaking from the podium here in just a few days, will address that problem.

More people have come into our country illegally under President Biden's watch than the entire population of the State of New Mexico. Where it has caused real damage is more than 100,000 young kids, our young kids, have died because of drug overdoses from drugs like fentanyl because the drug cartels in Mexico now have operational control of America's southern border. That is disgraceful.

That is all brought on by President Biden's policies. He could end those today through executive action; reverse the things that he did that created the problem. He won't do that, so I do think it is important that this Congress take that action.

We still wait for the President to do it on his own, but we are not going to stand by. We will take our own action and show the country how we can get a secure southern border. I hope that would be a bipartisan vote when we bring that to the floor.

The 87,000 IRS agents--I don't know of any Member of Congress--I would love to hear from any of them--who have gotten phone calls from their constituents saying please double the size of the IRS.

Now, what they have said is please get Federal employees back to work because some people--I have got constituents that have been waiting 2 years for their tax return and, yet, you have still got about half of the Federal workforce that is working remotely, not coming into work.

I have got veterans who call my office all the time who can't get their benefits that they earned. They showed up for work, by the way, they showed up and said I am going to go defend the rights of this country, and some of them got injured. Some of them are trying to get their benefits today and can't because some of those people working, getting their full salary at the VA, are not showing up for work.

People that are waiting for passports to go visit loved ones overseas can't get their passports processed because some Federal employees feel they should get their full salary but not show up for work.

So we brought a bill this week to say you should show up for work. It seems pretty basic. It is unfortunate that there were less than a handful of Democrats that joined with us to do that.

So we are addressing the needs of those families who are struggling. Some of those votes have been bipartisan; some haven't. But we are going to continue to address them because they are bipartisan issues for America, even if they are not bipartisan in this Chamber and, hopefully, that improves over time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, the good news is, we not only have already brought some bills to achieve cost savings, we are going to continue to bring bills to achieve cost savings. In one example, the gentlewoman referred to a piece of legislation that deals with drug prices, and it was failed to mention that part of what that bill did was limit about 40 percent of lifesaving drugs to come to market.

We are already seeing right now a reduction in R&D and drugs being developed to cure new diseases because many of those countries that have government-fixed pricing also don't have many of the lifesaving drugs that America has because of that very policy.

I am curious to see which lifesaving drugs they don't want to have on the market in America anymore. You can go to Canada, you can go to France, and you can see a long list, unfortunately, of drugs that you can't get in those countries that you can get in America that save lives every day.

That bill also raised taxes to the tune of over a trillion dollars on Americans. It raised spending to the tune of over a trillion dollars in America. That has increased inflation.

The biggest concern I hear from families who want cost savings is to stop the mad spending in Washington. It has not only caused them to have to pay more for everything they buy, it has literally taken a paycheck a year--at least one month's pay a year--out of their pockets because of all of the spending we have seen in the last 2 years in Washington. Our constituents just want Congress to try to rein in that spending.

In fact, we brought another bill this week. We can talk about D.C., we can talk about other places, but all across America, most Americans are saying, let's get back to our lives, let's end this COVID emergency. We announced last week that we were going to bring a bill during this week to end the COVID emergency.

What was interesting was, after we took the lead, President Biden himself actually acknowledged that it does need to end, but he said he wants to wait until May to do it. What is interesting about waiting until May is it allows the Federal Government to continue spending billions and billions of dollars under the guise of COVID that has absolutely nothing to do with COVID, like paying people not to work.

Millions of people today are able-bodied, fully capable of working, but because of the waiving of things, like welfare-to-work requirements, where people can right now get $25,000, $35,000

a year to sit at home and not work, well, you know what that does. We want to reverse that policy. If somebody is capable of working, they should be working.

We believe in a social safety net for people. If somebody comes on hard times, that is why you have programs there.

We are in America. If you want to stay at home and not work, that is your right. Just don't ask that hardworking taxpayer, the single mom who is working two jobs, to pay for you to stay at home.

The Biden administration policies that pay millions of people to stay at home from work undermines Social Security because those are millions of people who our seniors are counting on to be in the workforce. These people are fully capable of being in the workforce paying into Social Security so that those who work their whole lives and earn that benefit can have confidence that it will be there for them.

When you have millions of people being paid by the Federal Government to stay home, of course it adds trillions to our deficit, but it also takes billions of dollars out of Social Security that we want to put back in. We want to shore up Social Security, but President Biden has undermined it with these policies that pay people not to work.

Our bill would end that immediately. Let's get those people back to work who are fully capable of working. Let's shore up Social Security immediately. We shouldn't have to wait more and more months like President Biden said he would want to do. Of course, if we didn't file that bill, he probably never would have wanted to end that emergency.

Hopefully, as we continue to lead, we will see the President follow along. We welcome him to join us in saving this country and getting the country back on track, so we will continue to bring bills to address those many problems our country is facing.

I earlier pointed out, I reject what President Biden did to undermine Social Security. In their discussions about the debt ceiling yesterday, Speaker McCarthy discussed with President Biden what Republicans are hoping to do. Frankly, I think most Americans have been hungry for us here in Washington to have the same adult conversation that they have been having at their kitchen tables for years as to how we can actually get spending under control in Washington.

We have talked about the problems of paying people not to work. It not only adds to our deficit and debt; it also undermines Social Security. Let's get people back to work who are fully able-bodied.

Let's talk about the Nation's credit card. The debt ceiling is a symptom of Washington's spending problem. According to Treasury, we are approaching in June the end of extraordinary measures where the Nation would exceed its debt limit. What that means for a family is: Families have credit cards. The credit card has a limit, a maximum amount you can spend. Many families would not like to spend up to that limit. Some like to pay their credit card off fully at the end of the month. Many don't have that luxury, so they watch what the maximum is so they know, okay, if I have got $300 before I hit it, I am not going to spend 300 bucks, because then the card will be declined.

Well, if you max out the card, which Biden has done in his last 2 years, $6 trillion minimum--those are the conservative estimates; some estimates go as high as $10 trillion that President Biden has racked up on the Nation's credit card. The $31.3 trillion maximum on the Nation's credit card has been hit by President Biden and the Democrat majority's spending the last 2 years.

Interestingly, when they were doing that spending, they didn't account for raising the cap on spending when they were spending the money. They pushed that off on us, so now we have to confront this problem that they created.

The conversation really should be focused on how we stop this from happening, how we stop maxing out the Nation's credit card. If a family maxed out their credit card, of course they would pay the minimum payment; of course they would pay the must-dos.

Again, Speaker McCarthy has made it very clear, we are fully committed to Social Security and those promises that have been made.

Why is it that the first thing President Biden threatens is Social Security?

A dollar is coming into the Federal Government; $1.29 is going out. That is the spending problem. If you really want to break it down in raw numbers, for every dollar the Federal Government takes in, it spends $1.29. Very few families sustain themselves on that kind of trajectory.

What we are saying is why don't we try to figure out, Republicans and Democrats--by the way, this shouldn't be a partisan exercise. Both sides should want to say if a dollar is coming in, how do we make sure that only a dollar goes out? That is not where we are today. Let's have that conversation. It is a responsible conversation to have.

In the meantime, let's make sure we are paying our debts and talking about how we can make reforms so we don't keep maxing out the Nation's credit card. That is what this debt ceiling discussion is about.

If we just give the President a blank check, which he asked for--he is not going to get it; nobody should just get a blank check, give me more money so they can just go spend more money--that is not responsible.

Let's figure out how we can stop the Federal Government from continuing to max out the Nation's credit card. There is no better time to have that discussion than after President Biden has maxed out the Nation's credit card.

We will have that conversation, and I think we can get to an agreement where both sides come together and say this is a problem we need to tackle together. Previous Presidents have done that, Republican and Democrat, working with Congresses of the other party. I think we can have that conversation.

Again, I think most of America has been saying it is about time Washington finally starts having that conversation because families have been having that conversation at their kitchen tables for decades and generations.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate you bringing up a number of constituencies that we need to fight to help.

Let's start with the people that have been struggling the most. The lower- and middle-income families, they have been struggling the most in the last 2 years. They thrived like never before during those Trump years that are being decried by the left.

Why did we see such growth from lower- and middle-income families into the middle class and into higher income categories?

Because we actually cut taxes so that we could be competitive as a Nation again and create millions of jobs. We actually created millions of jobs by cutting taxes and making our country competitive, and not keeping money in Washington, but actually freeing up power so that people could control their own destiny again. Those people did take control of their own destiny.

Again, we were losing our middle class during the Obama years. We were seeing great American companies leave America. You can get the list of them. It is a long list, unfortunately. Let's reverse that. Let's fight for those forgotten men and women.

The millionaires and billionaires have their attorneys and their accountants and all the folks on the left who took care of those millionaires and billionaires. How about we start fighting for those people who were left behind--because they were being left behind. We said, let's make a tax code that is competitive for them.

If you go back and look--and the good news is there is real data now. You don't have to wonder about it. You can throw away the talking points about the rich that are always thrown out there.

The income groups that benefited the most from those tax cuts were the lower- and middle-income groups, and millions of people became part of the middle class who were left behind. Those are the facts. The data is out there.

Some people are angry about that because they still want to live in this false universe where they just decry tax cuts because that takes power away from Washington. I think that is what scares the left so much, is when they see people being empowered again to be free to control their own destiny. Not bureaucrats and autocrats in Washington taking their money and then telling them what they can get back. Telling them how high they can go.

How about you break the ceilings and just let people go out and succeed and give them the tools to do it. If you want to go out and work and succeed and achieve the American Dream, it is there for everybody. We restored that again.

By the way, some of those tax cuts expire. I hope the gentlewoman and their side will join with us in continuing to keep that tax structure in place so those middle-income folks can continue to grow and thrive, but also for our seniors.

This is where the President, I think, is looking for ideas on how we can start living within our means again. As I will refresh, as the gentlewoman talked about, spending that has already been done and leverage and full faith and credit to the United States, none of that would even be a discussion point today, if--as the Democrats, when they had the House, Senate, and White House for 2 years, and spent over $6 trillion of money we don't have--they also would have addressed the debt ceiling at that time, we wouldn't be standing in this spot.

We literally took the majority weeks ago and the Nation has already hit its debt ceiling because of the spending; not by President Trump, he actually addressed the debt ceiling as we were putting policies in place that grew our economy and created a middle class again. That was already done.

Over the last 2 years, over $6 trillion in spending, but no time seemed to be

available to address the debt ceiling. So here we are. We are willing to have a discussion about how to get control over spending. There are really good ideas. In fact, many of these ideas will strengthen Social Security for our seniors.

I talked a little bit earlier about getting people that are being paid not to work back into the workforce. That will strengthen Social Security. How about we restore some of the work requirements that used to be there?

This goes back to Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who signed those work requirements. It helped get more people into the workforce. It helped give them a chance to achieve the American Dream, but it also strengthened Social Security. When the government is paying people not to work, they are not paying into Social Security. That undermines the program. We should be wanting to strengthen it.

By the way, there is also a long list, and we are going to be getting these lists out. I hope Democrats will go down this menu, and say, okay, we agree paying people tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars to get tax credits who don't even have Social Security numbers, who don't even live in America. If a tax credit is there, it is there for people who pay taxes, not for people who manipulate the system because, for whatever reason, this administration won't even verify a Social Security number. Just doing that verification would save tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars--we are talking about real money.

Those things could all help. These aren't cuts to things, these are savings for fraud; real fraud, waste, and abuse that equals hundreds of billions of dollars. We have been outlining these things. I haven't found any takers yet, but I am not going to give up. I think eventually we will get a lot of takers on the other side who will recognize this is something we all need to come together and do because there is no reason that the families who are working hard should be paying for somebody else to cheat the system. There are many, many examples.

We will continue to highlight them. We will actually bring bills to address those exact problems. All of that should be a part of this discussion so we don't keep maxing out the Nation's credit card.

Again, nobody just says, here, if their kid maxed out the card, they are not just going to give them a new card and say, go max out the next one. They are going to sit down and have an adult conversation about how you don't put the country in this situation again.

Mr. Speaker, I would say on that, you can go look at the tax cuts. After those taxes were cut, the Federal Government took in more money than it has ever done in the history of the country because more people were working, and lower- and middle-income people were making higher wages, lifting those at the bottom into the middle class, which was evaporating under the Obama years.

The data is very clear on that. Those tax cuts actually brought more money into the Federal Treasury. If anybody wants to dispute it, I challenge them to go to President Biden's Treasury website and find the numbers because they are there.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I enjoyed our first of many of these colloquies. As we look toward hearing from the President, which we welcome together into this Chamber, I look forward to working with the President to address these problems our country is facing so we can get the country back on track and focus on the challenges ahead. There will be many more conversations we will have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24, which seeks to nullify the duly enacted laws of the District of Columbia and violates the principle of local, democratic self-government, which is at the heart of the home rule charter for Washington, D.C., and also violates the equal protection and democratic principles that animate our Constitution.

I would like to begin just by observing a striking juxtaposition in contrast between the address we heard last night, the State of the Union Address from the President, and the lecture that we just received now from the floor leader.

President Biden appeared here with a message of unity under the powerful economic growth that we are experiencing as a country--12 million new jobs added, record progress that we are making on climate change, massive investment in the American people in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act, the $1.2 trillion investment in the roads, highways, bridges, ports, and airports.

We are dramatically reducing healthcare costs for people in the Medicare program, reducing to $35 a month what diabetics have to pay for their insulin shots.

We are making progress for America. So, what do our good friends across the aisle come back with today, the day after this great statement of national purpose and progress? They want us to become the supercouncil for the District of Columbia and begin to micromanage the bills that are being passed by the representatives locally of 713,000 people.

With no national agenda, with no plans for getting on board with American progress, what do they have? Well, they are going to bring us a whole series of these disapproval resolutions for the people of Washington, D.C.

They don't want to vote in Washington, D.C. They don't want to live in D.C. They can move to D.C. and run for D.C. Council if that is their interest, but no, they just want to lord it over the people of Washington.

They don't like the District of Columbia's voting rules, and they don't like the criminal justice reform they just engaged in for a period of a decade with judges and lawyers, the D.C. Bar, and the people participating. They don't have a hearing on any of it. They just want to decree that they are going to strike it down.

Just you wait, they will be coming back with gun safety laws that will appear in Congress from the people in D.C. because there is that part of the home rule charter that gives us this opportunity if we want to micromanage their policies.

We will see gun safety laws; we will see abortion legislation; we will see equal rights for the LGBTQ population--all of these things the Republican minority used to do a long time ago. They have brought back the worst possible instincts.

They don't want to have a hearing on it. We didn't have a single hearing in the Oversight and Accountability Committee about any of this legislation. None of it.

Did they go to the D.C. Council when it was debated? No, they didn't do that.

Did they invite the Mayor or the D.C. Council to come here? No, they didn't do that.

They just decided they are going to slap around the local population. None of us would accept it for the localities that we represent.

Now, it so happens that people in Washington, D.C., are not just a locality and municipality. The people in Washington are involved right now in a petition for statehood admission to the Union.

In fact, in the 116th Congress and the 117th Congress, this body voted to approve their petition for statehood, but our friends across the aisle opposed that.

It passed the House. If the Senate had approved it, well, then the people of D.C., or whatever their local system is, would be able to decide these things on their own, just like the people in New York City or Albany or any other town in New York would be able to decide for themselves.

I thought that our friends over there were interested in local self- government. I thought they supported home rule, but apparently not when it comes to the people of Washington, D.C.

We reject this throwback attempt at micromanaging the affairs of the people of Washington. They don't need lectures about voting rights. They need voting rights. They are the only population of taxpaying, draftable American citizens in the country who don't have equal voting rights in Congress.

When January 6 came and people stormed this Chamber and waged violence against the Capitol Police, against the Metropolitan Police Department, against hundreds of people who live in Washington, as well as in Maryland and Virginia, the people of Washington stood with democracy. They stood with Congress.

They have a legitimate grievance, not a phony, counterfeit grievance. They are not claiming to have won an election they didn't win. All they are asking for is equal rights.

Let's grant them their statehood. If you can't stomach the idea that they would be a State, at least allow them their home rule rights to decide for themselves who is going to vote in Washington, D.C., what their criminal laws are going to be, what their laws on abortion are going to be, and what their civil rights and civil liberties practices are going to be in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of corrections.

First of all, the D.C. legislation that would be disapproved by this resolution allows only for voting in local elections--school board elections, Advisory Neighborhood Commission elections, council elections. It does not allow voting in Federal elections for noncitizens.

The Constitution, contrary to what the gentlewoman said, permits noncitizen voting at the local level, and there are a number of jurisdictions that do that.

Mr. Speaker, yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I was just reviewing some materials that showed that both the States that the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from New York represent had noncitizen voting in the 18th, 19th, and, in the case of Colorado, up to the 20th century. So I think if they are talking about giving away the sacred right to vote, their States have done that before.

It has got a kind of interesting history to it. To me, it is basically irrelevant because it is not our decision to be making. It is up to the people of D.C., just like it is up to the voters of Colorado and it is up to the voters in New York.

But the history of it is intriguing because when the country started--as I am sure the gentlewoman is aware--there were race qualifications for voting and there were gender qualifications for voting. It was only through social struggle that these were removed. But at the beginning of the Republic, all that mattered was the property qualification--the wealth and property qualification--for White men. If you were a White man, regardless of your citizenship status, you had the right to vote.

That lasted basically up to the Civil War. But it became a bone of contention between the North and the South because the Northern States were continuing to defend alien suffrage and the Southern States opposed it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at Article I of the Confederate Constitution, the very first thing it does, it says that you must be a citizen of the Confederacy in order to vote there.

They didn't want noncitizens voting.

Why?

Because the immigrants were overwhelmingly antislavery.

It was very clear in the debates in Congress about this that the Southern States wanted to get rid of it, which is why the Confederacy banned it. After the Civil War, noncitizen voting spread around the country.

But the point is that when we are talking about local noncitizen voting--who is going to vote in your school board or town council elections--that should be decided locally.

My colleagues who are the ones determined not to make the District of Columbia a State should be the first ones to say that if it is just a local government, then let them decide on who is going to vote on matters of garbage collection and who their teachers are going to be. The jurisdictions that have done this, like Los Angeles, have wanted to make sure that parents in local public schools get the right to vote regardless of their citizenship status.

Most of the noncitizens, of course, are lawful residents, people with green cards, and permanent residents, and they want them to be engaged and involved.

In any event, if my friends really support home rule and local self- determination, they will allow the people of Washington, D.C., to decide.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to the gentleman before he goes, perhaps.

When I said that they were returning to their worst possible instincts, that was actually a bipartisan comment because in the old days it was Democrats, racist Dixiecrats on the House District Committee who lorded over the District of Columbia and denied the people of Washington their rights. They are returning us to those days where Congress will micromanage the affairs of Washington, D.C., and not allow the people their own self-government.

He said you don't need to be a Republican or a Democrat to understand the issue. It would actually help to know your Abraham Lincoln because, of course, Lincoln was a major defender of noncitizen voting to the extent you guys want to act like a super D.C. Council and get into the merits of it.

In fact, when he was elected, his Southern opponents said he was elected on the strength of the noncitizen vote in New York, as a matter of fact, and in Illinois and other States where they had so-called declarant alien suffrage, which means if you are on the pathway to citizenship you are allowed to vote, which is a policy that makes a lot of sense, but different jurisdictions have different policies according to home rule and self-government.

When Lincoln was here, his major legislative initiative, interestingly enough, was to abolish the slave traffic in the District of Columbia because he felt that freedom and democracy should obtain in the Nation's Capital. That is something that our colleagues should also think about in terms of defining an agenda of their party. I know they are careening from this issue to that issue, but if you are thinking about D.C., think about what Abraham Lincoln did.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado boasts that her State is number one in auto thefts, number one in bank robberies, and number two in fentanyl, as I understand it. It sounds like they have got their hands full with their own problems, and I don't know that they should be spending their time dictating to the people of Washington, D.C., what their voting rights policy is going to be.

Now both the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from New York invite the question of would it actually be administratively possible for a jurisdiction to have two separate voting lists for those who are eligible to vote just in local elections and those who are eligible to vote in both local and Federal elections?

Well, that is a great question that you could have posed at a hearing within the Oversight Committee if we had one, but we didn't have it. I actually happen to have researched this question, and there are a number of jurisdictions around the country which permit noncitizen voting at the local level, and they have one list for that. If you are a noncitizen when you enter, your name is checked off that list, and you get one ballot which is just for your school board elections and the local elections. Then if you are a citizen, you get a complete ballot that includes local, State, and Federal elections, so there actually is an answer, and it is working in multiple jurisdictions around the country, including several in my home State of Maryland. I think the same thing used to be able to work in New York State as well; so that is something that would be easily researchable, and it is something also that we could have answered if we had followed regular order and actually had so much as one hearing on this subject before deciding to jump in like King Kong and squash the people of Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I should say that none of those jurisdictions have been overrun with fentanyl or illegal aliens. All of those jurisdictions are functioning democratic self-governmental units, just as the jurisdictions in New York and Colorado that had the same practice were.

This really isn't about noncitizen voting, Mr. Speaker. This is about democratic self-government and allowing local jurisdictions to make home rule decisions for themselves because this isn't the end of it. It is just the beginning.

Tomorrow, I think we are going to be considering a resolution of disapproval for the District of Columbia's criminal justice reform that they have engaged in over the last 9 or 10 years involving Federal judges, local judges, council members, the D.C. Bar, and so on. We didn't know anything about that. We didn't have a hearing. Yet, someone is going to pick something out.

What the good chairman of our committee talked about in the Rules Committee was a carjacking law where I guess the minimum sentence changed. Well, we looked up Kentucky. Kentucky doesn't even have a carjacking law. You would have to use armed robbery, which can only get you 20 years. The District of Columbia would treat carjacking with up to a 24-year sentence.

These are the kinds of measurements we are going to have to go through with everybody's State and everybody's jurisdiction if we are really going to turn ourselves into the super-D.C. Council and try to get to know the people of Washington and what their concerns are and what they are into.

The whole reason we went to home rule in 1973 was so that Congress could spend its time on national policy issues, the kind that President Biden was talking about last night. We just added 12 million new jobs to the American economy. We passed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan to invest in the ports, airports, bridges, roads, and highways all across America, not just in the District of Columbia, no insult intended. That is a very tiny part of the jurisdiction of Congress, and they want to turn us basically into an appellate legislative division over the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This legislation promises to be the first of many. I think tomorrow criminal justice reform comes up. I know that the MAGA wing of the Republican Party doesn't like Medicaid-funded abortions in Washington, D.C. They don't like the stricter gun safety laws that the people of Washington, D.C., have passed. They don't like their progressive legislation protective of the LGBTQ community and so on.

We are headed now for a mini culture war between the dominant MAGA wing of the Republican Conference today and the people of the District of Columbia, who find themselves in an odd situation because they want to be admitted to the Union the way 37 States have been admitted to the Union after the original 13 were.

That means, by the way, that three-quarters of the States, nearly 75 percent of the States, came in after the original 13. They appealed to Congress to use our powers under Article IV of the Constitution to admit new States. They had exercised their powers under the First Amendment, under the Ninth Amendment, and under the 10th Amendment to organize a new statehood constitution and to petition for admission to the Union.

Our muscle memory is weak here because it hasn't happened since Hawaii and Alaska, but Thomas Jefferson thought that this was the destiny of communities under the United States of America. We would not be a colonial power that would continue to lord over people perpetually. On the contrary, when he talked about the Northwest Ordinance, he said as sufficient population formed and as commitment to democratic principles were realized, these new communities would be admitted as States.

I think, as a matter of basic civic respect and self-respect, we owe the people of Washington our attention when they are asking for admission to the Union. These are people who pay more per capita in Federal taxes than anybody in the country, more in hard dollars, I believe, than the people of 18 or 20 States. They have served in every war that America has ever fought. They are subject to the military draft.

It is just that when Eleanor Holmes Norton, the distinguished professor of constitutional law from Georgetown University, comes to this floor, she comes as a nonvoting Delegate. There is no representation and no voice over in the Senate. That is an offense to basic democratic principles that we teach children in second grade.

We should be passing statehood again in the 118th Congress the way we passed it in the 117th, the way we passed it in the 116th, and we should get the Senate to focus on it. Short of that, the very last thing we should be doing is rolling back the limited rights the people of Washington have to exercise home rule powers.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, 6 weeks into a new Congress, and the Republican majority has yet to bring substantive, serious legislation to the floor that does anything to address the serious issues confronting our great Nation.

Instead, we have seen Republican leadership buckle under time and again to the demands of a rightwing minority that seems more interested in stoking controversy and conspiracy theories than crafting actual legislation or governing.

Instead of delivering for the American people, we have seen precious time and taxpayer dollars wasted in power struggles and political stunts, rather than doing the people's business.

True to that pattern, today's rule provides for the consideration of three deeply problematic measures, measures that further the objectives of that extremist minority, measures that stoke division, that undermine government institutions, and that threaten fundamental American freedoms when they don't align with the radical right's ideology.

By caving to these fringe forces, Republican leadership is squandering precious time and taxpayer dollars that would be better spent working together on the issues most Americans want us to address lowering prices; housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our planet.

The first two resolutions under consideration today would nullify legislation recently passed by the democratically elected D.C. Council and, in the process, would undermine the fundamental right of citizens of Washington, D.C., to political self-determination.

H.J. Res. 24 would overrule the Local Resident Voting Rights Act, which was recently passed by the D.C. Council.

With this measure, the citizens of D.C. decided to join other municipalities around the country in allowing noncitizen residents to vote in local D.C. elections.

H.J. Res. 26 would nullify the Revised Criminal Code Act, the RCCA, which reformed D.C.'s criminal code. That code has not been comprehensively revised since it was first enacted in 1901.

The American people expect their Members of Congress to prioritize their most pressing kitchen table issues, but instead of focusing on lowering costs or creating better-paying jobs, we are here today to interfere with legislation duly enacted by the citizens of D.C. and their government.

Not only is that not what our constituents sent us to do, it is distinctly antidemocratic to substitute our policy judgment for the local policy judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.

The nearly 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.

Instead of seeking to undo the work of that democratically elected body, we should be holding hearings and considering whether it is finally time to address the issue of D.C. statehood.

As my colleague, Mr. Raskin, said in the Rules Committee yesterday, if my Republican colleagues insist on acting as a colonial overseer of the District of Columbia, the least they can do is hear from the people of D.C.

Those promoting these resolutions should have called a hearing or at least attempted to engage the D.C. Council and community leaders in some way.

If my colleagues think they have the best interests of the people of D.C. at heart, let's hear from the D.C. residents.

I believe they have made it quite clear they don't appreciate being made a pawn in national political battles.

We owe it to the people of D.C. to enact statehood, not this radical attempt to interfere with the district's Democratic process.

The subject of these disapproval resolutions, the Revised Criminal Code Act and Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, should be irrelevant.

But just so we are clear, let's look at the legislative history of those two acts that our colleagues across the aisle want to overturn.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which is a Federal statute, the democratically elected 13-member D.C. Council is required to enact a new law twice, with at least 13 days intervening between each vote, in order to pass legislation.

Legislation passed by the council and affirmed by the Mayor or with a veto override is then transmitted to Congress for a review period.

The legislation takes effect at the expiration of the review period unless Congress intervenes by passing a resolution of disapproval.

Congress has only overturned duly elected D.C. laws three times before the misguided efforts that we are forced to consider today.

Now, the D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act by votes of 12-0 and 13-0. While the Mayor vetoed it, the council voted to override that veto by a vote of 12-1.

The Revised Criminal Code Act is the culmination of a 5-year process to revise and update D.C.'s criminal code, which, as mentioned previously, has not happened since it was first created over a century ago.

Everyone in the D.C. legal system, from prosecutors to judges to defense attorneys to scholars, agrees that this revision is long overdue.

Our colleagues across the aisle object to the revised criminal code that has been crafted with so much care to meet local conditions because they don't like some sentencing provisions that seek to match up the law with current standards.

They posit that harsher penalties would be a greater deterrent to the criminal conduct that they want to target when, in fact, the data shows that harsher penalties in some of the States that they represent does not, in fact, deter that conduct.

So think about this: Republican politicians from Georgia and Kentucky and Texas, who haven't bothered to take the time to hold a hearing or study this issue, have decided to parachute in and dictate to the 700,000 residents of D.C. that they know better than those residents and their elected Representatives how to run their city.

Can you imagine how those politicians would react if the D.C. Council tried to tell them how to run the jails in Athens, Georgia; Lexington, Kentucky; or Buffalo, New York?

What is particularly infuriating is that our Republican colleagues claim that they want to block the D.C. law because they want to be tougher on crime. But, once again, this is empty rhetoric. Overturning the D.C. criminal code will do nothing to increase public safety in D.C. or anywhere else.

As I mentioned at the outset, we are 6 weeks into the new Congress, and the Republican majority has not brought forward any legislation to address crime in America.

They won't consider legislation to block the flood of unregulated guns into American communities, they won't ban the weapons of war that take innocent lives in horrifying and predictably regular mass shootings, and they haven't taken any action to address the societal issues that produce violence.

The second resolution under consideration would vacate the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which the D.C. Council passed by votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding hearings and soliciting public comment.

This act would allow otherwise qualified D.C. residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local D.C. elections.

Qualified noncitizen residents could vote in races for Mayor, council, attorney general, neighborhood commissioners, school district, and local referenda.

Of course, this does not apply to Federal elections. Our colleagues are trying to paint this legislation as some radical new idea, but there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution--which I understand was read here on the floor today, so we could check--that prohibits noncitizens from voting in local, State, or Federal elections.

In fact, there is a long history in the U.S. of noncitizens being allowed to vote in those elections, and they have done so since at least 1704 in what would later become the U.S. At various points, 40 States have permitted noncitizens to vote. Congress only first prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal elections in 1996.

Currently, there are at least 15 municipalities that permit noncitizens to vote in local elections. They do so in recognition of the fact that noncitizens, who are allowed to vote under such local laws, pay a variety of State, local, and Federal taxes, and they have an inherent interest in helping to shape policies in the communities where they live.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to oppose these profoundly undemocratic and paternalistic resolutions.

Now, today's rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 185, which would terminate the CDC requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers to enter the U.S.

The CDC order was put in place to open the world back up and allow vaccinated foreign travelers to visit the U.S. while keeping our community safe.

Revising or revoking the COVID-19 public health guidance should be at the behest of public health experts with understanding and knowledge of global case trends, up-to-date data, and real-time safety information about emerging infections and COVID-19 epidemiology, not partisan politicians looking to settle political scores or curry favor with the disgraced former President and his base.

This bill would upend our current COVID-19 travel protocol, and worse, tie the hands of our public health experts by prohibiting any future order to require COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of entering the United States.

As I said last week when the majority brought several bills to the floor attacking COVID-19 emergency declarations and vaccines, we shouldn't jeopardize our progress in fighting COVID with political stunts.

This is just the latest bill inspired by anti-vax conspiracy theories that has been rushed to the floor, uninformed by any hearings or any scientific evidence.

It is dangerous to repeatedly mislead the public about the efficacy of these vaccines that are proven to save lives.

This bill increases the risk of spreading new variants, just as hospitals and public health infrastructure are trying to rebuild.

Once again, an extremist fringe is putting politics over science and undermining public health experts at the expense of the American people, and Republican leadership is letting them get away with it.

We need Republican leaders to embrace science and promote the public

good, instead of undermining them to score political points.

I am disappointed that my colleagues continue to waste this body's time and taxpayer dollars on frivolous bills and resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the resolutions and bill we are considering today do not address the issues we were elected to address for the American people.

We have now been in this Congress for over a month and have yet to take up any serious legislation. I hope my colleagues can work in a bipartisan manner to address the problems our constituents sent us here to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Sentencing Project advocacy group, which is signed by over a dozen civil rights organizations opposing the Republican efforts to obstruct the enactment of the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act.

It states: ``Washingtonians know best how to address criminal justice policies in their community and deserve the right to determine their own laws. Local leaders are better positioned and retain more expertise to address safety and justice issues in the District than Congress.''

The Sentencing Project,

February 6, 2023.

Re Oppose efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia's

Revised Criminal Code Act.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Chairman Jim Jordan,

Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our esteemed colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am afraid we have to dig into the weeds a little bit with Rules Committee process right now.

Earlier, the gentleman from New York said that with this rule, the new majority has tied the number of times that more minority amendments were made in order than majority amendments.

While I am certainly supportive of minority amendments, that sounded wrong, so we asked our staff to check. They haven't had much time while we have been speaking, but they have already found at least two times that the Democratic majority did this in the last Congress, H.R. 302 and H.R. 963. Perhaps our colleagues need to check their facts.

What I do know is that this rule contains the 18th and 19th closed rules of this new Congress. That is already over 30 percent of what we did during the first year of the Democratic majority. So it is more like a return to Republican habits, just like they ran the most-closed Congress in history last time they had control.

I am also astonished to learn that it was the possibility of family separation that inspired our colleagues to introduce H.R. 185, when the issue of family separation due to our outmoded, broken immigration system has not served to inspire any urgency to reform that system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that H.R. 185 does not take effect unless it is certified that it won't decrease Social Security benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Since its inception, it has lifted millions of our seniors out of poverty. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress, for everyone in this Congress, as my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills.

Democrats are going to continue to push to ensure that these vital benefits are protected and will continue to give Republicans every opportunity to ease the American people's anxiety by demonstrating with their votes, including on this measure, that they do not intend to cut Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, these measures today do nothing to address the important issues facing American families. These resolutions are misguided and unserious at best and deeply undemocratic at their core. House Republicans continue to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars on power struggles and political stunts.

Republican leadership's acquiescence to the fringe forces in their party is a disservice to the American public. With all of the challenges this Congress should contend with, an extremist overreach to nullify democratically passed legislation and rolling back lifesaving COVID protections is a waste of precious time and resources.

My Democratic colleagues and I are here to work on behalf of the American people and are ready to do the serious work of delivering for them, fighting for better jobs and safer communities. We will oppose extremist attempts to stoke division, to undermine government institutions, and to threaten fundamental American freedoms.

I invite my colleagues to work across the aisle, to work together on the issues that matter to all of our constituents: lowering prices; addressing housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.