Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas, now the new vice chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to take in from the opening remarks the gentleman has provided. I want to say one thing. He says that the Republicans have a mandate. I think the message of the last two elections was that the overwhelming number of people in this country said no to extremism.

And mandate? Democrats picked up a seat in the Senate. The red wave that was predicted by my Republican friends turned into a pink splash.

The reason why was because people were turned off by their extremism, and this in spite of all kinds of gerrymandering, crazy redistricting plans, and money like we have never seen in an election before, and we have the narrowest of narrow margins.

So if the gentleman thinks that there is a mandate here to embrace extremism, I beg to differ with that.

Madam Speaker, there is no denying that the situation with COVID has improved. Cases are down, deaths are down, and most of us have returned to the lifestyles we had before the pandemic. That is because of the incredible steps we have taken to keep people safe: vaccines, expanded healthcare, telework flexibilities, and other programs and initiatives that ensure Americans can lead healthy, full lives.

The rule before us today allows for the consideration of four measures, four reckless and regressive measures, to turn back the clock on all that we have gone through and learned over these last 3 years, and all under closed rules. Let me repeat that: all under closed rules.

H.J. Res. 7 would terminate, effective immediately, the COVID national emergency declared in 2020 by President Trump and renewed by President Biden in 2021.

This immediate reversal offers no off-ramps for relief programs and benefits, threatening aid for nursing homes and hospitals, additional support for the VA, as well as help for small businesses and more. It would end flexibilities to ensure more food-insecure people have access to SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger.

H.R. 382, the Pandemic is Over Act, would similarly repeal Health and Human Services' public health emergency declarations. This would roll back significant expansions to healthcare access and services for millions across the country.

H.R. 139, the SHOW UP Act, would force Federal agencies to return to prepandemic telework policies, despite the fact that the pandemic demonstrated workers from many industries could complete their jobs remotely.

H.R. 497, the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act, would remove COVID vaccine requirements for Medicare and Medicaid healthcare workers.

Now, if you take a second to think about these bills, not a single one makes things easier, safer, or more effective. They are sound bites. That is what my Republican friends are good at, sound bites, not legislating. They are good at making political statements but not solving problems.

Eliminating vaccine mandates for healthcare providers will not help healthcare providers. Instead, it increases their chances of getting sick, increases their patients' chances of getting sick.

COVID vaccines are safe and effective. You wouldn't know that if you listened to some of the commentary in the Rules Committee last night, but they are. They have protected millions of healthcare workers and their families from infections, hospitalization, and death.

Pulling the plug on the national and public health emergency declarations will throw Federal programs in our healthcare system into chaos. No longer will Americans be able to receive free COVID testing and treatments. Hospitals that already struggle to stock their shelves with proper PPE will face an even greater uphill battle.

I am not saying that these declarations should continue indefinitely. Nobody is saying that. President Biden announced yesterday that he plans to end the declarations on May 11. But we need time to understand the impact that ending the declarations will have on our country.

The responsible thing to do is to provide an orderly off-ramp for these agencies so that essential benefits aren't suddenly ripped away from those who need them most.

Essentially, getting rid of telework for Federal agencies when it has allowed our Nation and government to function through this historic pandemic is nonsense. Studies have shown that telework has been largely beneficial, resulting in increased productivity, reduced absences, reduced turnover, and reduced office costs. If corporate America has chosen to harness the net positive effects of teleworking, government agencies should, too.

Madam Speaker, my Republican friends who are screaming against teleworking provisions, I point out, for the Record, that Republicans voted by proxy more than 14,500 times in the last Congress.

Let me repeat that. Republicans voted by proxy--that means they were operating remotely--more than 14,500 times in the last Congress.

It was kind of comical. Last night, my friend from Texas in the Rules Committee said that Republicans were voting by proxy because they felt Democrats pressured them, that Democrats made them do that. Really? I mean, I have heard a lot of crazy things in my life, but I have never heard that used as an excuse. Give me a break.

I find it outrageous that some Members are so worried about government workers getting their work done from home while they themselves took advantage of proxy voting over the last 3 years. Guess what? Proxy voting is called telework, and my friends are okay with telework for themselves, but when it comes to Federal workers, no, they are not okay. I guess for House Republicans, it is do as I say, not as I do.

We had the chair of the Oversight Committee testify very passionately against telework last night, and he voted by proxy--get this--83 times. You can't make this stuff up.

We all know that COVID has moved into a new phase, and thanks to the use of safe, effective vaccines and other prevention tools, we are moving forward. We are learning to live with it, but let's not forget that over a million of our fellow Americans have died from it.

We should not ignore the fact that COVID continues to spread and mutate. It still poses a danger to people.

It is clear that House Republicans just want to pretend that COVID isn't still a problem, that science doesn't exist, and that telework doesn't have a place in the 21st century.

At the end of the day, these measures were introduced really out of spite. Our colleagues across the aisle are looking to undo everything we did, even if that means getting rid of important, effective measures that help American workers, families, and patients.

In closing, Madam Speaker, none of these have gone through committee. There were no hearings, not a single hearing.

Again, there were lots of questions raised about these bills in the Rules Committee last night, including whether or not title 42 would be overturned. The administration has one opinion, and the Republicans have another opinion. I don't know what the truth is. A hearing would have made a difference, but they couldn't even wait a couple of days to do a hearing. They just wanted to rush this to the floor to get a press release out.

There were not only no markups, but there were no amendments. We had amendments submitted to the Rules Committee last night not just by Democrats but by Republicans. They said: No. Closed. Can't even have a debate on the floor. Can't have an up-or-down vote.

Fifteen out of the 16 measures that this Congress has considered so far have been totally closed. I am thinking I need to call the Office of Attending Physician and get a neck brace because I have whiplash trying to reconcile what my friends said they were going to do and what they are actually doing.

I mean, the last time the Republicans controlled Congress, they presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America. Let me repeat that. The last time they were in control, they presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country, and they are on track to try to beat their own record.

This is not what the Speaker promised. I didn't see the secret memo that Speaker McCarthy was circulating to get votes. Maybe there was some stuff in the secret memo that basically said that, you know, say one thing and do another.

The bottom line is this is not what anyone was promised, and there is absolutely no reason that we couldn't have waited a few days to do hearings on this stuff so we could decide whether or not any of these measures were the responsible thing to do or whether or not there were some additions that we could have made to these measures to make them responsible.

We all want to move on, but we want to do so responsibly. We all want to move beyond the national emergency, but we want to make sure that there are not unintended consequences. This is not serious legislating. This is political posturing, and it is a lousy way to begin the new Congress.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There is a lot to unpack here, but let me just tell the gentleman on the issue of national emergencies--by the way, I will add war powers-- we did a hearing in the Rules Committee on that in the last Congress. I did it with now-Chairman Cole. We thought that it was appropriate to do a hearing because we wanted to avoid any unintended consequences. So, we have done that.

It is now becoming very clear to me how this Congress is going to operate in the Rules Committee. The gentleman just made it clear that everything should go through regular order except what he thinks is important. If he thinks it is important, we can come here with a closed rule.

Then I am a little confused over the gentleman's pontificating on the fact these are only one-page bills and, therefore, they shouldn't be amended. I point out that the bill that they had the modified open rule on was a three-page bill, but is the number of pages of the bill going to be determinative of whether or not we have amendments or not?

The bottom line is people had some good ideas that they offered to the

Rules Committee last night. Not only that, but people also had a lot of questions. If you read the President's Statement of Administration Policy, he raises issues about title 42 that we seem to have a dispute on, but, boy, if you did a hearing and you did a markup, you might have been able to address those things.

I'm not saying we are moving too quickly. I am just saying we are not moving responsibly. Once your committees are constituted, you can have a hearing immediately. You can bring this to the floor next Monday or Tuesday if you want; but you chose to shut the system down.

Notwithstanding all of your rhetoric, not notwithstanding all of the pontificating on the need for more amendments to be made in order, a more open process, a more transparent process, you are beginning this session with closed rule after closed rule after closed rule.

Last night, the Committee on Rules reported out four more closed rules. That is the choice you have made. We have a sense of where you are going. The last time you were in charge, you presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States Government. I wouldn't be surprised if you beat your own record.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that none of the bills in this rule take effect unless it is certified that they do not decrease Social Security benefits.

Madam 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.

Madam 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 it provides should be a priority for this Congress.

As my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills, Democrats will continue taking action to protect Social Security. This is not the first time Social Security has been under attack by my friends on the other side of the aisle.

Don't be fooled by their phraseology that they are only interested in ``protecting Social Security.'' We know that that is code for cutting benefits, for raising the retirement age, for throwing people off the benefit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to discuss our proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Madam Speaker, oh my God. There are doctors who serve in Congress-- Democrats and Republicans. I hope that they will stand up and correct the misinformation. I mean, really.

The gentleman talks about herd immunity as if somehow that was some panacea here.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Harvard Medical School titled, ``COVID-19 diagnosis raises risks of heart attack, stroke.''

[From Harvard Health Publishing, Nov. 1, 2021]

COVID-19 Diagnosis Raises Risk of Heart Attack, Stroke

(By Julie Corliss)

In one of the largest studies of its kind to date,

researchers found strong evidence that heart attack and

stroke risk rises sharply in the weeks following a COVID-19

diagnosis. The findings were published Aug. 14, 2021, in The

Lancet.

The study included every person in Sweden diagnosed with

COVID-19 from Feb. 1, 2020, to Sept. 14, 2020--a total of

nearly 87,000 people. Their median age was 48, and 57 percent

were women. Researchers compared them with more than 348,000

Swedish people of similar age and sex who did not have the

virus.

In the week after a COVID-19 diagnosis, the risk of a first

heart attack increased by three to eight times. The risk of a

first stroke caused by a blood clot multiplied by three to

six times. In the following weeks, both risks decreased

steadily but stayed elevated for at least a month.

Other bacterial and viral infections (such as influenza)

are known to temporarily boost rates of heart attacks and

strokes. But COVID-19 infections appear to be especially

risky, perhaps because they trigger an exaggerated

inflammatory response that makes blood clots more likely .

Madam Speaker, a study found that in the week after a COVID diagnosis, the risk of a first heart attack increased by three to eight times. The risk of a first stroke caused by a blood clot multiplied by three to six times. In the following weeks, both risks decreased steadily but stayed elevated for at least a month.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a USA Today piece titled, ``Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines primarily designed to prevent serious illness, death.''

[From the USA TODAY, Jan. 21, 2022]

Fact Check: COVID-19 Vaccines Primarily Designed To Prevent Serious

Illness, Death

(By Valerie Paviionis)

As the omicron variant surges across the world and the

United States logs case numbers near and over 1 million per

day, the virus is prompting scientists to develop new

treatments and government officials to fight to curb the

spread.

While the Biden administration continues to urge Americans

to get vaccinated, a Jan. 10 Facebook post claims that Dr.

Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, said vaccines can't prevent COVID-19

transmission. Other sites have shared the same claim, linking

Walensky's words back to an interview with CNN in August

2021.

``Our vaccines are working exceptionally well,'' Walensky

said to CNN's Wolf Blitzer in the interview. ``They continue

to work well for delta, with regard to severe illness and

death--they prevent it. But what they can't do anymore is

prevent transmission.''

Though Walensky did say these words on CNN, the original

interview was aired in early August, not recently. And while

it's true vaccines can't entirely halt transmission, experts

say they do reduce it--and reduce the chances of

hospitalization and death--as USA TODAY previously reported.

USA TODAY reached out to the original poster of the claim

for comment.

Various websites have written about the same claim,

amassing thousands of interactions on Facebook.

vaccine effects depend on several factors

In an email, Walensky spokesperson Kathleen Conley wrote

that in August 2021--when the interview originally ran--the

delta variant was the dominant variant in the United States.

Experts at that time said it was clear the vaccines

provided protection.

``Vaccines provide significant protection from `getting

it'--infection--and `spreading it'--transmission--even

against the delta variant,'' a professor of immunobiology and

molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale

University, told USA TODAY in November.

However, Conley noted data did show vaccines were ``less

effective at preventing infections and transmission with

Delta than with previous other variants.'' Omicron has proven

even more difficult to contain.

While mRNA vaccines--produced by Pfizer and Moderna--

continue to offer some level of protection against

transmission of omicron, other vaccines--such as Johnson &

Johnson, Sinopharm and AstraZeneca--offer ``almost no

defense,'' according to a Dec. 19, 2021, report by the New

York Times.

Other factors beyond variant type, vaccination type and

booster status can also influence whether or not a person

contracts COVID-19.

Dr. David Dowdy, associate professor of epidemiology at

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said it's

difficult to succinctly explain the vaccines' nuanced effects

on transmission.

A vaccine might protect you from a passing interaction with

someone at a grocery store, but it may not prevent infection

from someone you live with and share air with for several

hours a day.

``It gets very easy to misconstrue,'' Dowdy said. ``If

someone asks, do vaccines prevent infection, and you have to

give a yes or no answer, then the answer is no, they're not a

perfect blockade. But do the vaccines offer some protection

against infection? The answer is yes.''

vaccines still protect against serious disease

While vaccinations don't offer perfect protection against

the transmission of COVID-19, experts still urge people to

get vaccinated.

According to Conley, COVID-19 vaccination remains effective

against hospitalization and death caused by the virus.

Getting a booster, she added, further decreases these risks,

and the CDC continues to recommend that Americans receive

vaccines and boosters.

Dr. Chris Beyrer, professor of public health and human

rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public

Health, said both the mRNA and J&J vaccines were never

designed to prevent infection entirely.

It's ``very hard'', he said, to prevent infection via an

injected vaccine when you're dealing with a virus that enters

the body through the nose and mouth. Instead, the vaccine

trials were designed to study reduction in serious illness,

hospitalization and death. All three vaccines were highly

effective by this measure, Beyrer said.

``People who say, well, why would I take it if it doesn't

prevent me from getting infected?'' Beyrer said. ``You have

to remember that having a COVID-19 infection can be

everything from completely asymptomatic . . . to a head-cold-

like symptoms or full flu-like symptoms, all the way to

death. So what the vaccines are doing is really dramatically

increasing the likelihood that you will have mild infection.

And that's incredibly important.''

A CDC study released Jan. 21 showed booster shots of the

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were 90% effective at

preventing hospitalizations from the omicron variant.

our rating: missing context

Because it can be misleading without additional

information, we rate MISSING CONTEXT the claim that the CDC

director says vaccines can't prevent transmission of COVID-

19. While vaccines do not offer 100% protection against

COVID-19 infection, they can still partially defend against

infection. Vaccines remain effective at protecting from

COVID-19-caused serious illness, hospitalization and death.

Madam Speaker, I would highlight one of the quotes that I guess the gentleman was referring to.

``Though Walensky did say these words on CNN, the original interview was aired in early August, not recently. And while it is true vaccines cannot entirely halt transmission, experts say they do reduce it--and reduce the chances of hospitalizations and death.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a study by the Commonwealth

Fund titled, ``Two years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of Hospitalizations and Deaths.''

[The Commonwealth Fund, Dec. 13, 2022]

Two Years of U.S. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Prevented Millions of

Hospitalizations and Deaths

(By Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, Seyed M. Moghadas, Abhishek Pandy, and

Alison P. Galvani)

It has been two years since the first COVID-19 vaccine was

given to a patient in the United States. Since then, the U.S.

has administered more than 655 million doses--80 percent of

the population has received at least one dose--with the

cumulative effect of preventing more than 18 million

additional hospitalizations and more than 3 million

additional deaths. The swift development of the vaccine,

emergency authorization to distribute widely, and rapid

rollout have been instrumental in curbing hospitalization and

death, while mitigating socioeconomic repercussions of the

pandemic.

As more transmissible and immune-evasive variants have

emerged over the past two years, the U.S. has responded by

deploying additional doses and variant-specific boosters. The

Omicron variants caused the largest wave of infections during

the pandemic. COVID-19 monovalent vaccines available at the

time were not as efficacious against the variant as bivalent

boosters introduced later, but the wave would have been more

devastating in the absence of vaccination.

As we mark the second anniversary of the U.S. COVID-19

vaccination campaign, understanding the impact of vaccines on

reducing disease burden is needed to inform future, evidence-

based actions. We therefore used a computer model of disease

transmission to estimate hospitalizations and deaths averted

through the end of November 2022. The model incorporates the

age-stratified demographics, risk factors, and immunological

dynamics of infection and vaccination. We simulated this

model to compare the observed pandemic trajectory to a

counterfactual scenario without a vaccination program.

Findings

From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that

the COVID-19 vaccination program in the U.S. prevented more

than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million

additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been

nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination

program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion (Credible

Interval: $1.10 trillion-$1.19 trillion) (data not shown) in

medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred.

Discussion

Our findings highlight the substantial impact of the U.S.

vaccination program on reducing infections, hospitalizations,

and deaths. Curbing hospitalization rates by reducing both

COVID-19 incidence and symptom severity is particularly

important amidst the strain on the health care system caused

by unusually high levels of flu and RSV (respiratory

syncytial virus). COVID-19 vaccination has preserved hospital

resources for individuals who would otherwise have not

received timely care.

Vaccination also has prevented many millions of COVID

infections. Although the acute phase of these infections may

not have required medical attention, each infection carries a

risk of long COVID and debilitating symptoms. Many of the

prevented infections would have been reinfections, which have

higher risk of death compared to initial infections. In

addition, as our previous analysis demonstrated, vaccines

have kept children in school, highlighting the societal value

of the ongoing vaccination program.

The estimated infections, hospitalizations, and deaths

averted by vaccination are particularly striking when

compared to the actual values observed during this time

period. Since December 12, 2020, 82 million infections, 4.8

million hospitalizations, and 798,000 deaths have been

reported in the U.S. In other words, without vaccination the

U.S. would have experienced 1.5 times more infections, 3.8

times more hospitalizations, and 4.1 times more deaths. These

losses would have been accompanied by more than $1 trillion

in additional medical costs that were averted because of

fewer infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

The impact of the vaccination program is more remarkable

given the challenges posed by the multiple variants that have

arisen. The Omicron variants have been particularly immune-

evasive and drove the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to

date. However, the vaccines provided broader and more durable

protection against severe clinical outcomes, including

hospitalization and death. The reported ``mild'' nature of

Omicron is in large part because of vaccine protection.

A limitation of our study is that we modeled only viral

dynamics within the U.S. However, vaccines developed by the

U.S. were also deployed around the world, changing the

trajectory of the pandemic on a global scale. Without them,

more variants could have emerged or there could have been

greater importation of COVID-19 cases. In this regard, our

study underestimates the true impact of COVID-19 vaccine

development on U.S. outcomes.

The unprecedented pace at which vaccines were developed and

deployed has saved many lives and allowed for safer easing of

COVID-19 restrictions and reopening of businesses, schools,

and other activities. This extraordinary achievement has been

possible only through sustained funding and effective

policymaking that ensured vaccines were available to all

Americans. Moving forward, accelerating uptake of the new

booster will be fundamental to averting future

hospitalizations and deaths.

Madam Speaker, we have lost over 1 million of our fellow citizens to COVID, over 1 million in the United States alone; mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and children, as well.

But the development of safe vaccines has meant that millions more lives have been saved. There is no question whether or not the vaccination is effective.

Madam Speaker, I would just highlight one of the findings in The Commonwealth Fund report.

It says, ``From December 2020 through November 2022, we estimate that the COVID-19 vaccination program in the United States prevented more than 18.5 million additional hospitalizations and 3.2 million additional deaths. Without vaccination, there would have been nearly 120 million more COVID-19 infections. The vaccination program also saved the U.S. $1.15 trillion in medical costs that would otherwise have been incurred.''

Here we are, after having gone through what we went through, after knowing the benefits of these vaccinations, and to hear what we are hearing on the floor, it really is disappointing.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the doctors in this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans, please stand up. Please correct the Record. Please tell people that vaccinations have been a good thing and that people should get vaccinated. They could save their lives.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I include in the Record a piece from the New York Post titled: ``GOP unveils `Commitment to America' plan to halt Biden, inflation, and crime.''

[From the New York Post, Sept. 23, 2022]

GOP Unveils `Commitment to America' Plan To Halt Biden, Inflation and

Crime

(By Steve Nelson)

House Republicans pledged Friday to end soaring inflation

and reduce crime by serving as a check on President Biden if

they reclaim power--calling the party's midterm election

platform a ``Commitment to America.''

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced

the big-tent framework inside an HVAC manufacturing plant

outside Pittsburgh, Pa.

``We want to roll [the plan] out to you, to the entire

country, to know exactly what we will do if you would trust

us and give us the ability to take a new direction for this

country,'' McCarthy said.

The kickoff featured a business-casual Q&A where dozens of

GOP legislators took turns fielding questions.

The Republicans vowed to rein in government spending to

lower the worst inflation in 41 years--with consumer prices

up 8.3 percent over 12 months as of August.

Speakers also promised to address crime, including record-

high illegal immigration, rising violent crime in cities and

fentanyl smuggling that's accelerated overdose deaths.

``The sad part is these Democratic policies have already

taken one month of your wages. So now the struggle that you

have is you're living through 12 months with only 11 months'

pay now because inflation is so high,'' McCarthy said,

blasting Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending

bill.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy unveiled the

Republican ``Commitment to America'' agenda at DMI Companies

in Monongahela, Pennsylvania.

``We've watched what's happened to our border--the millions

of people who are just walking across, people on the

terrorist watch list. Now we're watching it create every

community to be a border community,'' McCarthy said.

``Fentanyl is the number one killer of Americans between

the ages of 18 and 45. The poison starts in China and comes

across our border. Do you realize it's killing 300 Americans

every day? It's like an airliner crashing each day.''

No. 3 House Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York said

the GOP would be ``making sure that we stop the trillions and

trillions of reckless government spending that we have seen

under Democrat rule.''

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy vowed to stop

President Biden's spending policies if Republicans take the

House this fall.

``That will immediately help lower the cost of goods as we

seek to rein in inflation,'' she said at the event.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) said, ``We have to have

oversight of what's happening in the administration and go

after the wasteful spending of the last administration and

return to normalcy--that $1 today means $1 tomorrow.''

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said Republicans would declare

fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction. ``That's what this is.

It fits the categories completely. And we're going to declare

it as that and use every resource we possibly can,'' he said.

Rep. Jim Jordan promised Republicans will nix President

Biden's plan on hiring more IRS agents over the next decade.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.) said that unlike Democrats

under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), ``we're not

going to have this top-down leadership.''

``Kevin McCarthy is going to rely on all of us to have

bottom-up leadership that comes from the districts,'' he

said. ``We got members here from New York all the way to the

border with Tony Gonzales. We got people that have different

approaches--all the way from David Joyce to Marjorie Taylor

Greene. But we're all united behind Kevin McCarthy.''

Republican speakers vowed various oversight efforts focused

on the Biden administration and hearings on the origins of

the COVID-19 pandemic.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise said more hearings will

be held on border security.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said, ``We were

calling for hearings for over a year on the origin of COVID.

Shouldn't we know that? I mean, this is a basic question.

Millions of people across the globe died.''

Scalise said there would be many hearings on border

security too after more than 2 million people illegally

crossed the southwest border in fiscal 2022.

``We will give [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro]

Mayorkas a reserved parking spot, he will be testifying so

much about this,'' Scalise said.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed she will follow the

Republicans' new agenda.

Speakers did not specifically mention expected

investigations of Biden's links to his son Hunter Biden and

brother Jim Biden's multimillion-dollar influence-peddling

businesses in China, Ukraine and other countries.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said the Republicans decided their

first bill will seek to nullify an IRS crackdown recently

authorized by Democrats to fund an environmental and health

care spending bill. He also mentioned oversight of allegedly

biased Justice Department actions.

``We're gonna look into this weaponization of the DOJ

against the American people . . . not to mention the border.

But specifically to the COVID issue . . . they told us so

many things that turned out not to be accurate,'' Jordan

said.

``They told us this thing [COVID] . . . didn't come from a

lab. Sure it looks like it did,'' he added. ``But they want

us to believe, `No, no, no, it was a bat to a pangolin to Joe

Rogan.' ''

``We are committed to doing the investigations that need to

be done,'' Jordan said.

The ``Commitment to America'' organizes various pledges

under four broad categories: the economy, safety, freedom and

accountability. The outline is an attempt to harness the

historical success of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's

1994 ``Contract with America,'' which propelled GOP gains

during President Bill Clinton's first term.

Madam Speaker, Republicans promised that as soon as they were in the majority, they would immediately move to address inflation. Well, we are a month into the 118th Congress with zero action to lower costs for families.

My question is, what happened? Why have Republicans spent all of January on messaging bills and trying to get their house in order?

I know it was a tumultuous week to try to elect a Speaker. We made history--4 days and 15 votes. Unprecedented.

Nonetheless, what happened to focusing on issues that were first and foremost on people's minds? Instead, we had abortion bans, and now we are dealing with this. I think we are dealing with a bill on socialism later today. I don't know what the heck prompted that.

In any event, I mean, really? Is that what my Republican friends think the American people want?

Again, I am going to just say that I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on my proposal, basically, which says that Social Security benefits must be protected, that there is nothing in any of these bills or any bills going forward that would in any way negatively impact Social Security. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress.

Quite frankly, none of us are comforted by any of the words that the Speaker has said. We don't know what is in the secret memo. I don't know what was promised on Social Security.

When Republicans say things like they want to protect the integrity of the program, that is code for they want to cut it. That is code for they want to raise the retirement age. That is code for all the things that our constituents, not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans, fear might be coming down the road.

They are trying to use Social Security. They are trying to hold it hostage as part of this effort to get some sort of a deal on the debt ceiling.

They are basically holding this economy hostage. The good faith and credit of the United States, they are holding it hostage, ready to just throw it into the wind until they get these cuts in programs that help people.

Again, before I yield back at this point and let the gentleman continue with any speakers he has, I would say that the measures that we are dealing with today are concerning to us because there is a right way to wind down and a wrong way to wind down.

What we suggested last night in the Rules Committee as the right way to do this, and you can do it quickly, is to do hearings and make sure there are no unintended consequences, make sure there aren't vulnerable people who could be adversely impacted by your quick change of the rules. The majority would have none of it.

So, again, this isn't a serious effort. This is about messaging, and it is really disappointing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's response, but I am not sure who he is responding to.

The question I asked was for physicians to come down here and to make it clear, contrary to what was said before, that these vaccines are not dangerous, that people should get vaccinated, that it could save lives.

People are still dying of COVID, by the way, and the idea that somehow we should be discouraging people from getting vaccinations by scaring them doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In fact, I think it is irresponsible.

I appreciate the gentleman's service to his patients, and I hope that he understands now his service is to the American people and that service includes getting out the truth and what is accurate and what is not accurate about these vaccinations.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

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

Madam Speaker, our side isn't afraid to embrace change. We know that living in the 21st century means that we can and should use technology to improve Americans' quality of life.

We know that vaccines save lives, and we know that science is real. We know that ending these emergencies immediately is irresponsible.

Most importantly, we know that we are here to make progress, not to go backward, which is what the four measures this rule includes would do.

Again, let me say none of these bills went through committee. They could have, but none of them did.

Madam Speaker, 94 percent of the rules this Congress has dealt with have been completely closed. That is 15 out of 16 measures with no hearings, no amendments, no markups.

Is this what Speaker McCarthy promised you in his secret memo, that this is the way you will conduct business?

On top of all that, we are deeply concerned that a small minority on the other side of the aisle representing the most extreme elements of the Republican Conference is calling the shots.

We are worried about Social Security, and we are worried about Medicare. That is why we are asking people to vote ``no'' on the previous question, because we want to be able to put in place protections so that a fringe group can't mess around with Social Security, can't take away from people what they have earned.

It is not an entitlement. It is what people have earned in this country.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a strong ``no'' vote on this rule.

There is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. The majority is in control and in charge. Take the time. Do the hearings. Ask the questions. Make sure there are no unintended consequences.

This is about the health and well-being of the American people. They deserve at least a hearing rather than a messaging bill rushed to the floor.

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

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

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 thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives. They control the schedule here. They control when bills get brought up for debate. They make the Calendar. We could be debating a bipartisan bill that actually helps get more people on to healthcare or lowers prescription drug costs and makes coverage more affordable, but instead Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. They are siding with billionaire corporations and insurance companies and actually spending money to kick people off of healthcare.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that makes it easier for regular middle-class Americans to buy a home, but instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill that literally increases mortgage fees charged to middle-income borrowers.

Time and time again, this majority brings to the floor bills that benefit billionaire corporations, insurance companies, the rich and powerful, Big Oil, Big Pharma, all at the expense of everyday people back home who send us here to fight for them.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that actually addresses our broken immigration system. Instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a nonbinding resolution that condemns a nonexistent problem so they can go after immigrants once again.

We had a Member in the Rules Committee last night yelling and screaming and ranting and raving about all he thinks is wrong with our immigration system and the border. It was actually kind of scary.

Listen, I get being passionate about this problem. I am not here to argue that our immigration system doesn't need to be fixed. We all know that it could use a comprehensive overhaul, but we don't need to be screaming at each other about this nonbinding press release of a bill that does literally nothing to help deal with our border. My God.

Republicans want to talk about immigration, so let's talk about immigration.

Let's talk about how the Republican solution to the border is building a stupid wall that even they know won't work.

Let's talk about fentanyl. Let's talk about how most of it is trafficked through legal ports of entry in the United States by U.S. citizens, by the way, and let's talk about how President Joe Biden seizes more fentanyl at the border than Donald Trump did. That is just a fact.

Yet, we had a Member last night have a complete meltdown over this issue. Would Republicans rather the Biden administration not seize fentanyl? I don't get it. Make it make sense.

Let's talk about how, since the end of title 42 on May 11, unlawful entries along the southern border have plummeted. As of June 6, Customs and Border Protection had an average of 3,700

encounters between points of entry or unscheduled encounters per day, a decrease of over 70 percent.

Republicans don't want to talk about any of that. Instead, they are going to try to get people all worked up by scapegoating vulnerable migrants who are fleeing awful circumstances in search of safety.

I can't believe I have to say this, but migrants are not political pawns. They come to our country seeking a better life, often fleeing violence and oppression. They are human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Yet, Republican Governors have treated migrants like they are garbage, busing them across the country like luggage, with no advance notice or coordination, dumping them outside after they call the press to show up and make a scene. I find it disgusting. I find it racist. I find it disrespectful to all that this country stands for.

This nonbinding press release that they are bringing to the floor isn't a serious attempt to solve a problem. They are dropping migrants off in New York City and then attacking New York City for trying to come up with solutions to the problem. This is absurd.

Then, Republicans claim gyms can't be used to house migrants because they want to ``protect students.'' Give me a break. Migrants have never been housed in a facility with kids. That is just a fact. In the Rules Committee last night, we asked the person who was bringing the bill before the committee to give us examples. She couldn't.

If we want to talk about protecting students, let us talk about protecting students. A thousand kids have died from gun violence this year. Where will the next school shooting be? Parents are terrified their kid will be next. Teachers are terrified that their class will be next. Students are terrified they will be next. Republicans are here regulating gyms instead of guns. What the hell is wrong with these people?

This majority is obsessed with demonizing, demeaning, and targeting people who are coming to the United States in desperate search of a better life. Stop appealing to the worst instincts in people. Stop peddling hate. Stop fueling racism.

Here is a contrast I want people to know about. President Biden and the Democrats are working to expand the middle class, to build a strong economy from the bottom up and the middle out. Democrats are lowering costs for working families, helping cut inflation by more than half since last summer.

Democrats have taken on Big Pharma to reduce prescription drug costs, and Democrats continue to fight special interests to lower healthcare costs while making childcare and housing more affordable for working families.

Democrats are investing in America and have created more than 13 million jobs since President Biden took office. Democrats are bringing supply chains back home, fixing our roads and bridges, and delivering clean water and high-speed internet to more communities.

Democrats are making our communities safer. We are committed to building on the gun safety legislation we passed last year by strengthening background checks and keeping dangerous weapons of war off our streets to protect America's kids.

Democrats know that we don't have to choose between an immigration system that reflects our interests and our values, and we don't demonize and attack people who want to come to this country in search of a better life.

You are seeing on the floor today exactly what Republicans have to offer: nothing, not a thing, no plans, no ideas. They are just interested in helping the rich and powerful and using immigrants as political pawns to drive a wedge between people. It is a rotten, shameful thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to get serious about bringing legislation to the floor that will actually make a difference, that will actually help fix some of the challenges that we face in this country. This is a joke.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's tirade just now, but the bottom line is that nothing in this bill that his party is championing as somehow this important piece of legislation does anything to provide any assistance to any of these communities. Not one penny goes to offset any of the costs that might be incurred--nothing, not a thing.

I just don't get it. People come onto this floor and speak in sound bites and do press releases and then bring legislation to the floor that is nonbinding, that means nothing, that does nothing. This is ridiculous.

We need to fix our immigration system. We tried to do that when we were in charge. We had challenges in the Senate trying to overcome the filibuster, but we were trying to fix the system. That is a contrast to what we are doing here now, which is a nonbinding resolution.

By the way, a nonbinding resolution, to anybody who is watching, means it is just somebody's opinion. It doesn't do anything--no money, no assistance, no help to anybody. It is just like: ``I want to tell you what my opinion is.'' Big deal.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's duty to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

We know, because we have heard from my friends, that they have their eyes on these programs. We need to get people on record to make sure that they will not vote for any cuts.

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 gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Washington Post article titled: ``House GOP eyes Social Security, Medicare amid spending battle.''

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. To lower the national deficit, House Republicans plan to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. This includes potentially ``raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, targeting younger Americans who have yet to obtain Federal benefits.''

We have a number of Members on the Republican side who talk about privatization all the time. That is their favorite word when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. We want to make sure the American people understand who is on their side and who is trying to undercut things that are very meaningful to them.

Mr. Speaker, I also point out that my Republican colleagues have been in disarray since they took the majority, and they have failed to pass meaningful legislation into law on behalf of the American people. As I said, they control this Chamber, the schedule, the committees, and what they bring to the floor.

At this point in the 117th Congress, that is the previous Congress, Democrats had passed 17 bills into law. At this point in the 116th Congress, under divided government, we passed 21 bills into law.

You want to know how much this majority has passed into law?

Six.

They are failing the American people. They are incapable of bringing legislation to the floor that can garner bipartisan support that has any chance in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a comparison of the number of bills passed into law by May 31, which demonstrates how utterly unproductive this Congress has been.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the unproductiveness of my Republican friends and how they are squandering all opportunities to help the American people since they have been in control but let me just talk to you about some of the stuff that we did when we were in charge of this place.

Let me remind people that because of the Affordable Care Act, which I think almost everybody over there voted ``no'' on, 40 million Americans have health coverage under the ACA. Women have access to preventive health services like breast and cervical cancer screening at no cost to them. Prescription drugs are more affordable for older adults.

Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination on the basis of medical history or preexisting conditions. Lifetime caps on essential health benefits are gone. They are gone.

Since 2010 when the bill became law, Republicans have been obsessed with tearing it apart. Under Republican majorities, we have voted nearly 70 times to repeal and undermine the law. Nearly 70 times Republicans have tried to dismantle a law that provides healthcare coverage to 20 million people and covers preventive health services.

Today, Republicans are continuing this effort to undermine the ACA. It is maddening where their priorities are. It is maddening. Here is the deal. They know that they can't just repeal it outright because everybody doesn't want them to do that. What they are doing is they are going after it bit by bit by bit, trying to chip away at the edges and trying to kill it through a thousand cuts so that maybe people won't notice, that people won't notice when essential benefits are no longer guaranteed.

Healthcare ought to be a right in this country, and we ought to be building on the ACA, not tearing it apart, not tearing it down, not trying to make it more difficult for people to get the essential services they need, not to try to give people plans that don't provide the coverage for whatever may occur to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand--again, the good news here is that all the bills they are bringing to the floor today have no chance in hell of going anywhere in the Senate because they are just over the top and extreme.

Make no mistake about what is happening here. They have a target on healthcare. They have a target on Social Security. They have a target on Medicare. Rather than trying to fix our immigration laws, what are they doing?

They are trying to tear this country apart. They are trying to demonize immigrants. They have no solutions, just a nonbinding resolution that does nothing. It basically addresses a fake problem that was totally ginned up by FOX News. That is where their priorities are. Certainly, we can spend our time doing more productive things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that fentanyl is coming across the southern border because U.S. citizens are bringing it

across through ports of entry. Don't trust me on this. You can look to the conservative think tank CATO that will reinforce what I just said.

By the way, this bill that you are bringing here does nothing to solve the problem. It is a waste of time. There are no more resources; nothing to combat it. It is just a press release. What a joke that we are here debating something like this when we could be debating something that might make a real difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, what I am a little surprised about today is that nobody has raised the deficit or the debt because the Republicans were obsessed with that when they basically threatened to ruin this economy by not allowing us to move forward to increase the debt ceiling.

We had to have all these cuts from programs that help poor people. Throwing people off of programs like SNAP, the food benefit, that is what they did. I now understand why we are not talking about the deficit or debt today because of the bills that they are bringing to the floor.

One of the bills that we are talking about right now, the CHOICE Arrangement Act, cuts more than $348 million. That is what the CBO says.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the CBO score.

Mr. Speaker, that is just the beginning. House Republicans spent half a billion dollars on their H.R. 1 bill that would gut environmental protections and take tax credits away from people who want to upgrade their homes. Half a billion dollars was added to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, $6 billion was added to the deficit on their deeply flawed H.R. 2, a bill attacking immigrants and essentially ending asylum as we know it.

Get this, $114 billion--billion with a b--was added through their H.R. 23 to protect the wealthy from paying their fair share of taxes. That was their very first bill on the House floor in this Congress, their top priority adding $114 billion to the deficit.

Over $505 million was added through the Republicans' bill last week to enhance access to firearm stabilizing braces.

Republicans are on a spending spree, all on the backs of real people--not the rich, not billionaire corporations, not by reallocating funding from the bloated Pentagon budget. Maybe some of you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece a few weeks ago about the cost overruns, where former Pentagon officials said that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a switch that costs a couple hundred dollars.

We can't find a penny, yet they want to increase the Pentagon budget with no questions asked.

They can't touch any of the tax cuts for any of the billionaires or multimillionaires of big corporations. We can't do that, and we all know why. Google where they all spend their money on political campaigns. However, they spend all this money, and they want to balance the budget on the backs of regular, everyday people, and, in particular, the most vulnerable in our country.

Last night everybody was complaining about the CBO score--the CBO score. I guess I understand why my colleagues across the aisle would not want to support the hardworking, nonpartisan people at CBO. Maybe it is because they keep giving them bad news. Maybe it is because they keep saying to my friends that they are spending and spending and spending and it is adding enormously to our deficit and our debt.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this issue because my Republican friends like to come to the floor and talk about the deficit. Today they are not. I think it is because we had this conversation in the Rules Committee last night. I want people to know that they are driving up the deficit and the debt, and then when they want to talk about fiscal responsibility, where do they go?

They go to the middle class, and they go to the people who are poor. That is where their priorities are. So there is a big difference here.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no other speakers, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my friend has no further speakers. I thought because these bills were so important and unbelievably essential that there would be lots of speakers on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how valuable our time is here. We only have 13 scheduled legislative weeks until the end of the year--13 weeks that could be used to improve the lives of everyday Americans.

So how have Republicans in the House decided to use this week?

Are we working to make our communities safer or our educational system better?

No. We are not. Republicans would rather demonize immigrants and peddle hate than regulate guns or invest in schools.

They are in control. They can bring what they want to the floor. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Look at what they are bringing to the floor.

Are we here to help regular Americans purchase their first home?

No. We are voting on a bill today that will make it easier for those well-off to get even further ahead while making it more difficult on middle-class home buyers.

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up, but that is what this bill does.

Are we passing legislation that will continue to expand people's access to affordable healthcare?

No. Republicans want to chip away at popular policy that provides quality coverage to millions.

There are very real issues that regular people in this country face every day, and I wish House Republicans could wise up and address them.

This is such a colossal waste of time. One of the bills is nonbinding, but the other bills aren't going anywhere. This is a waste of time. Rather than working across the aisle trying to find common ground, they continue to bring these messaging bills. These are bills that demonize immigrants and that continue to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. These are bills that continue to screw people in the middle class, and they continue to bring these bills to the floor.

I don't know who their base is, but apparently it is popular amongst their base.

This is not about legislating. It is not about making law, and it is not about improving the lives of anybody in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation and a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam President, 4 months ago, the U.S. Senate, and then the U.S. House, came together to ban the app TikTok on all Federal Government devices--on tablets, on phones, on computers--on Federal contractors and their devices as well.

We acted, just a few months ago, with a sense of urgency because we decided that TikTok was a national security threat. A privacy threat? Yes. A data threat? Yes. But above all, a national security threat. And we were right to act just those few months ago.

And now we must take the next step: to ban TikTok nationwide, to protect the security of every single American whose personal lives, whose personal data, whose personal security is in danger from the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. And it is time to act now because we have seen, just in the last week, the TikTok CEO come before the U.S. Congress and confirm that the reasons we acted 4 months ago were right and valid and that the need at this hour is urgent.

In this last week, we learned--I should say we confirmed from the testimony of the TikTok CEO that TikTok has the ability to track Americans' data, to track Americans' location, to track Americans' personal lives--whether they want it to or not.

What am I talking about? Well, TikTok tracks your keystrokes. Now, think about this for a second. It is not just the videos you may upload if you have the app on your phone. It is not just the videos that you watch. It is the keystrokes that you enter--and not just while you are on the app. Oh, no. It tracks your keystrokes all the time--while you are texting, what you are emailing. It tracks your contact list. It reads your phone list.

We believe, based on independent third-party analysis, that it can get into email. And it does this whether or not the user consents. In fact, there is no way to turn it off. Americans are subject to this ongoing data collection--at all hours of the day and night--even if they have got TikTok turned off on their phone.

What else have we learned? Well, that TikTok is monitoring the location of Americans. It is not just your keystrokes. It is your location data. Where are you right now? What is it that you are doing? Where are you moving to? Are you in a car? Are you in a building? On what floor are you on? TikTok can use the settings of your phone to track exactly where Americans are.

And we know that they have been doing this--TikTok has been gathering this data--not just on American citizens but also on American journalists. We know that they are able to see what journalists are saying, to see where journalists are going.

New whistleblower revelations have shown that TikTok has spied on particular American journalists and tried to track them, tried to learn what they are writing, tried to control, in essence, or at least get an understanding of what their message might be.

Think about this. An app on your phone that tracks your keystrokes, that reads your personal information, that tracks journalists around, that tracks your location--you can't do anything about it. And we haven't even gotten to the worst part.

The worst part is all of this information is accessible to engineers based in China, accessible to the Chinese Communist Party.

When he was asked about this last week, the CEO of TikTok didn't deny this espionage. No, what he said instead is, well, ``I don't think spying is the right way to describe it.''

Maybe he preferred the word ``surveillance.'' Maybe he preferred the word ``monitoring.'' Maybe he preferred the word ``tracking.'' But I actually think ``spying'' just about captures it.

The problem with TikTok is not the videos on the app. The problem with TikTok is, it is a backdoor for the Chinese Communist Party into the personal lives and information into the most intimate details of every American's life.

And we know the link between TikTok and the Chinese Communist Party is real, and we know that it is strong. TikTok is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese parent company ByteDance. We know that ByteDance has Chinese Communist Party members in its senior leadership. In fact, ByteDance's editor in chief is a Communist Party secretary. We know the Communist Party has done trainings for TikTok and ByteDance personnel. We have video of it being done in Beijing, in China.

Whistleblowers have come forward to my office, and to others, and given us evidence that China-based engineers are able to access Americans' personal data at any time that they want. Again, the CEO did not deny that last week. No.

The links to the Chinese Communist Party are real, and they are inscribed in Chinese law. This isn't just a matter of what TikTok may want to do. No. TikTok is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese parent company and is subject to Chinese law, which both the 2014 espionage law in that country and their 2017 national security law, which required--required--the company to turn over data that the Chinese Communist Party, that Beijing, may request. Under those laws, they must make Americans' data available--must make it available--to Chinese communist officials.

This is in addition to the CCP members who are actually senior officials in these companies, who work in these companies, who have access to Americans' data as I stand here and speak to you today.

The intent of China in all of this is quite clear. They want to build a profile on every single American. We know that many of the recent data hacks of credit agencies, of other digital repositories of Americans' personal information have been carried out by communist China. They are hungry for information about the American people. They are gathering it on everybody that they can, as much as they can--just like they do to their own citizens. And they are using the app TikTok to do it.

Of course, that is not the only way that the Chinese Communist Party has tried to gather information on Americans. This is certainly not the only time that they have done it. Think about the Confucius Institutes all across the country that the CCP funded on America's college campuses. Think about the researchers they funded and tried to place into key programs, key institutes and universities all across the country. Heaven's sake, think about the Chinese spy balloon that just went over this country, right over my home State of Missouri, just a few weeks ago, photographing everything that they could.

Now, this is a pattern. The difference is, in those cases, we addressed it. We shut down the Confucius Institutes. Those who have lied about their money that they have gotten from China, the funding that they have gotten, have in some cases been prosecuted for attempted espionage on America's college campuses, and the spy balloon was belatedly shot down--but shot down, at least.

Now, we have taken action in these other instances to protect Americans to stop the efforts of the CCP to spy on America, to collect Americans' data, to put Americans at risk. And now we must do the same thing with TikTok.

This is why President Trump and the previous administration tried to ban it. Let's not forget this isn't the beginning of this debate. This is the end of it. We have been at this for years now.

Years ago, the last administration tried to ban TikTok for all of these same national security reasons that led us as a Congress to ban it on Federal devices.

This has been a long time coming. There is no rush to judgment here. This is what administration after administration has concluded; that it is time to take action.

Here is the real truth that if it were the Confucius Institutes, the Chinese spy balloon, if it were some American company that was coordinating with a foreign ally, we would shut it down immediately. And we have done it in these other cases. But with TikTok, now TikTok says: Oh, no, no, no, no. You can't do that to us. You can't hold us accountable. We have a special carve-out. No, we have the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects us.

Well, I must have missed the class in law school where we covered the First Amendment right to spy. The last time I checked my Constitution, there was no such protection. And I can be darn sure that there is no special First Amendment carve-out for communists.

Now, the First Amendment may protect dance videos, sure; upload those all you want. But the First Amendment does not protect the right to spy on American citizens. It does not protect espionage. It does not protect what the Chinese Communist Party is trying to do in harvesting the data of millions of Americans.

Now, TikTok has no special First Amendment carve-out. They don't get special privileges that no other entity or an American company would get. They are subject to the same rules. And when you try to spy on American citizens, when you try to use Americans' own phones as portals for collection, that ought to be stopped. You ought to be banned.

And the fact that they are a China-based company shouldn't help them or hurt them. The fact is, their ties to Beijing, their ties to the CCP, their ongoing efforts at espionage, and their ongoing lies, by the way, to this body--this is a company that has come before this body and lied time and time again. They said that they weren't controlled by ByteDance. Now we know they are. They said that China's China-based engineers couldn't access American user data. Now we know they can.

They said that the CCP had no influence. And yet last week, the CEO of TikTok couldn't even confirm that the CCP hadn't helped write his talking points. Now, this is an entity--this is a corporate interest-- that is influenced, if not, controlled, by the Chinese Communist Party.

The national security risks are severe and growing worse. And I haven't even talked about--I haven't even talked about--the materials on suicide promotion that you will find on TikTok. I haven't talked about the risks to mental health that it may pose.

And there is a reason that TikTok isn't even available in China. Did you know that? In China, TikTok isn't available. Why is that? Well, it is because Beijing isn't stupid. They know it is ``digital'' fentanyl.

TikTok wasn't designed to make our lives better. TikTok is designed to addict and then to be used as a gateway into our personal lives. It is designed to addict and then to be used as a portal to spy on American citizens.

Now, I tell you what, here is one thing that has changed since just December, a few months ago, when we banned TikTok on Federal Government devices. TikTok has gone into full damage control mode. And as Big Tech companies do all the time, they hired a fleet of lobbyists and have spent untold amounts of cash. I am told that even today TikTok lobbyists have been seen here in the building. I have no doubt that they are scurrying around right now. Maybe they are in the Gallery.

I just say this: We have the opportunity today to send a message to this corporate interest that the U.S. Senate is not for sale; that we cannot be bought; that we cannot be purchased; that we cannot be influenced by their lobbying campaign, by their corporate money; that we will instead side with the American people. We will tell the truth about what this app is. We will do our jobs and protect Americans.

Now, some say that we ought to have a broader bill that would not actually ban TikTok but would give new authority to the executive branch and leave it open. I don't agree with that. My view is, we should act decisively to ban TikTok directly. We shouldn't give new, open-ended authority to Federal bureaucrats; we should target this threat specifically. That is what this bill does that we have before us today. It goes right at the problem. It bans TikTok in this country. It protects the American people, and it sends the message to communist China that you cannot buy us.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 85 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Would the Senator from Kentucky entertain a question?

Madam President, I have never before heard on this floor a defense of the right to spy. I didn't realize that the First Amendment contained a right to espionage.

The Senator from Kentucky mentions the Bill of Rights. I must have missed the right of the Chinese Government to spy on Americans in our Bill of Rights, because that is what we are talking about here.

The Senator from Kentucky can watch as many dance videos as he wants. I have no objection to that. He can watch them on this floor for all I care. Fine. What I object to is the Communist Chinese Party using this app on Americans' phones to spy on Americans without their consent.

The Senator says that Americans can simply not use this app, just turn it off. That is not the case. If you turn it off, it continues to collect information. You don't need to consent. TikTok doesn't ask you do you want to share your information; it takes it. It doesn't ask you for permission to track your location; it takes it. It doesn't ask you for permission to share it with the Chinese Communist Party; it just does it. That is the problem.

Scour the Constitution. Scour the First Amendment. I promise you, you won't find any right to espionage. You won't find any right to spy. And this novel right that the Senator thinks he has discovered for Americans to be spied upon--I never heard of such a thing in the history of this country. I am astounded to learn that Americans have the right to be spied upon.

So not only does China apparently get the right to spy in the First Amendment, Americans have the inalienable right to be spied upon and have all of their data taken from them. That, apparently, is democracy.

That is not democracy. That is the abuse of our laws, the abuse of our economy, the abuse of our people by a foreign government for its purposes.

So I say again, watch dance videos to your heart's content; but spy on Americans, that is where we have to draw the line.

As to money, the Senator said--and I think he is exactly right--that TikTok wants to make money. No doubt about it. And, my, the money they are making; and, my, the money that they are showering on this building. And it is having an effect.

But in the end, the American people don't want to be treated as commodities to be bought and sold, because--make no mistake--it is the American people who are being bought and sold here by TikTok.

They are being sold to the Chinese Communist Party for influence and money. They are being sold for the wishes and the whims of Beijing, and they are being lied to every step of the way.

I will yield to the Senator from Florida.

Madam President, let me just finish with this, that the Senator from Kentucky decried the collection of personal data by American social media companies--and he is right to do that, by the way. I am concerned about that, too, no doubt. But he pointed out that many American social media companies collect all of this information, that they do it without users' consent, sometimes they sell it to third parties for profit, and you can't necessarily opt out of it. All fair enough, but he is protecting exactly what he decries.

The difference is with TikTok, that information is going to a hostile foreign government. It is not a market. It is total control.

So I would just say this to Americans out there who are using TikTok: Just know this--we need to tell you the truth about this app. Just know this: If you have it on your phone, it is tracking your key strokes; it is tracking your movements; it is tracking your location; and it is sending that information--whether you want it sent or not--to Beijing, to the Communist Chinese Party, where it can be accessed by anybody there who wants it, under China's national security laws.

That is a threat to your personal security, and that is why we should act to ban it.

Let me just finally ask the Senator from Kentucky--he and I talked about this before--would the Senator consider allowing us to set a rollcall vote, an up-or-down rollcall vote? Not unanimous consent passed but, as I said, a rollcall vote at a time certain. Would the Senator consent to that?

Madam President, I would just say in conclusion that the security risk from TikTok led us to ban it 4 months ago for the Federal Government. The facts cannot be denied, which is why the TikTok CEO had nothing to say a week ago. He could not deny any of these facts. The truth will carry the day, and we will continue to fight.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I understand that there is a vote scheduled at 5:45, and in order to clarify the voting procedure this evening, I would initially ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks and the following Senators be permitted to speak for five minutes each prior to the scheduled vote.

I also presume that Senator Tuberville will speak while he reserves his right to object; is that correct? So you do not need time?

In that case, I ask unanimous consent for Senator Lee, Senator Hirono, Senator Bennet, and Senator Marshall to be granted 5 minutes each prior to the scheduled vote.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the promotions and appointments of general and flag officers in the United States military, including several appointments to lieutenant general and vice admiral.

These are officers who would hold positions of particular importance and responsibility to the Nation. The promotions of these military leaders were reported out of the Armed Services Committee over the past 2 months.

There have been no substantive objections raised against these nominations. For the benefit of my colleagues who may not appreciate the nature and volume of military promotions and nominations considered by the Armed Services Committee, last year, the Committee considered and the Senate confirmed nearly 20,000 military officers, including 656 general and flag officers.

The Senate confirmed 20,000 nominations through bipartisan unanimous consent because the tradition of the Committee and of the Senate is to consider military nominations as apolitical and thus process them in a timely and respectful manner so our troops do not experience delays in their promotion or appointment or in their pay and benefits.

Moreover, the sheer volume of nominations we consider means we cannot subject them to the ordinary political gamesmanship we see with civilian nominations.

The senior Senator from Alabama has made these promotions a political matter. He and he alone placed a blanket hold on these officers, unrelated to their qualifications, because of a policy disagreement with the administration that these officers played no part in deciding.

This, in my view, is a profound assault on the professionalism of the men and women of the armed services.

The vast majority of these officers were selected by promotion boards, which are panels of military officers who decide promotions purely on merit, considering the skill, talent, and the military's collective assessment of their potential to lead in the grades for which they have been nominated.

Blanket political holds on military officers, in an attempt to overturn a civilian policy decision, sets a dangerous trend for our military, our political process, our Nation, and this Senate.

The senior Senator from Alabama placed his hold on February 16th, and as a result, not a single general or flag officer nominated in this Congress has been confirmed.

Let me repeat that.

Due to the senior Senator from Alabama's hold, not a single general or flag officer has been promoted.

As the Senator's hold moves into its third month, we will quickly reach a critical mass of backlogged nominations, if we are not already there, that will imperil our national security, degrade unit readiness, and place undue, and undeserved, hardships on military families.

It may not be his intent, but he is effectively accomplishing what our adversaries could only dream of: denying our military of its leadership and degrading our ability to fight and win the Nation's wars.

The bottom line is that military promotions are not a political matter and they are not toys for political gains, and military officers are not tokens in such a game. They are not hostages to issues that are determined by civilian authorities.

An administration's civilian nominees may be fair game, and they have been repeatedly, but not professional military officers. That has long been the Committee's and the Senate's tradition and practice.

And I want to turn to some specific claims made by the Senator from Alabama. He has asserted a number of times that the Department changed the law or that DOD somehow lacked authority. That simply isn't true.

To be clear, under its new policy--and this is with respect to reproductive rights for female soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians--the Department of Defense will provide administrative leave and paid travel if a member of the military or their dependent is stationed in a State or country that does not provide the healthcare needed.

The Department has broad statutory authority to provide travel benefits to servicemembers and their dependents, and it does so routinely, including for the provision of healthcare services. I am not aware of any assertion from anyone knowledgeable of the law and of the Department's actions that the Department does not have the authority to do this. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no serious lawyer has made this argument, and there has not been a single lawsuit filed on this matter.

These policies are, again, travel and administrative leave policies. They do not violate the Federal prohibition on DOD paying for noncovered reproductive health services. Such reproductive health services will still be paid for by members and dependents out of their own pockets. These policies merely facilitate the provision of health services for servicemembers and dependents who may be stationed in an area that does not provide the needed healthcare, including overseas locations.

Further, the senior Senator from Alabama has publicly stated:

``If Democrats are so worried about the nominations, then they can bring them up for a vote. We have more than enough time to vote on nominees.''

Setting aside the deeply troubling implication that certain Members of the Republican Party do not care enough about our national defense to ensure that senior military leaders are in place in a timely manner, it would take several months of constant attention on this floor just to move through the current batch of general and flag officers that are presently on the Senate calendar. And this is not even accounting for all the nominations still to come.

If we took this path, this Senate would be consumed entirely by nominating and confirming military officers ad infinitum, unable to do anything else.

And there are currently 184 general and flag officers, including 11 to be promoted to lieutenant general or vice admiral, subject to this political hold.

And let me highlight just three to show you the impact and the consequences of these holds.

One nominee is nominated to be Commander of the Navy's 7th Fleet. It is the largest of the Navy's deployed fleets and has responsibility for the Indo-PACOM area of operations.

And I hear constantly in the Committee and elsewhere on the floor: The Chinese threat--we have got to do more. We just listened to a long diatribe about TikTok and how dangerous it is.

I think what might be more dangerous is not having a confirmed leader for this fleet in the Pacific able to move out immediately to any type of threat coming from the Chinese.

In addition, the Commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet is responsible for the naval and combined maritime forces in the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, and it is under the overall command of U.S. Central Command. And we hear every day--we heard it just recently--about how the Iranians are taking advantage of us. They say we are not responding strongly enough.

Well, how effective will our response be if we are not quite sure who the Commander of this fleet is? We have got a nominee, but the officer is not confirmed. We have an officer who may have to leave for another assignment. This causes readiness problems, morale problems, and undermines the military that we all seem around here to suggest is our primary concern.

Another one: the U.S. Military Representative to NATO, who is the senior uniformed representative to NATO during a time when NATO is critical to our support of Ukraine, therefore, against Russia.

And, again, my colleagues would stand up and say: We have got to do more for Ukraine. We have to make sure they get the support they need, through coordination with NATO. We have to do all these things, but we really don't need anyone in Brussels to help with military advice and assistance. We will just ignore that.

These are just three examples, and I would like to look ahead because this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Within the next 8 months, we expect the Department to nominate approximately 650 general and flag officers, including 80 three- or four-star nominees, all of whom will come through the Armed Services Committee and require Senate confirmation.

These include the nomination of the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By law, General Milley will retire in September. If this hold persists, then we will be without a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

We also expect nominations for the service chiefs of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. The Chief of Staff for the Army, the CNO of the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps are scheduled to retire.

If this hold persists, we will not have leadership in the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, and that would be devastating to readiness, to morale, to the whole history of our government in which we move nominees based on merit, not as political hostages.

We are also talking about major combat commands--Cyber Command. Does anyone have to talk about the relevance of Cyber Command? Again, we just listened to a long, long discussion about cyber security and the stealing of information and governmental interference with that. Cyber Command is the key actor from the Department of Defense standpoint in all of those efforts. And, frankly, without a Commander of Cyber Command, I think the TikTok issue sort of diminishes in importance.

We also have SPACECOM and NORTHCOM. They are responsible for the defense of the United States so that we do not find ourselves here at home devastated by any type of attack, which, today, includes cyber, missile, hypersonics--all those possibilities.

There are also three Deputy Commanders who are coming on--CYBERCOM, CENTCOM, and AFRICOM.

So what you can see is, if this policy continues or this practice continues, we are wiping out the leadership of the Department of Defense and doing an extraordinary disservice to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.

We have always treated military nominations appropriately, as beyond the political fray, and we must continue to do so for the good of the service and all those who take the oath, and their families, too, because no military member serves alone. The families serve with him or her.

Now, I believe in a very strong military based on constitutional and professional values. We must not inject political theater into this process.

If we do not have a coherent, organized leadership at the Department of Defense, then we are putting our troops at risk. That is quite simple, and, to me, it is unacceptable.

With that, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, first of all, the notion that we can simply start confirming these officers is patently absurd. There are 184 nominations that are on hold now. We anticipate another 650 general and flag officer nominations throughout the remainder of this year.

Because we get very little cooperation--in fact, none at all--from the Republicans, we average about three nominations a week--Senator Durbin knows this well--because we have to wait, during quorum calls, to exhaust the hours necessary before we can take the final vote. So we would be working many months, just on this batch of 184, to confirm these officers. And then when we add 650 additional nominations--and they will keep coming and coming--that is absolutely preposterous. It is impossible. So that is not an answer to the problem.

He mentioned Senator Duckworth. Senator Duckworth held nominations for 3 weeks. She was not trying to change the policy of the Federal Government under the Trump administration. She wanted factual information whether President Trump had had politicized the military by interfering with Colonel Vindman's promotion. That is the exact opposite of what the Senator from Alabama is doing. He is holding everybody's nomination as a political action, just like President Trump was trying to do with Colonel Vindman, as reciprocation and as retaliation.

We had a hearing on recruitment at the request of the minority. What are the issues there? The issues are that we have a 3-percent unemployment rate. One of the most significant issues facing the military services is the low percentage of individuals who are eligible and interested in military service.

The issue of whether or not this policy affects recruiting, I think, was refuted by the Senator when he has indicated that he expects 4,000 people to take advantage of this policy. Well, that is not a trivial number. And I would suspect women considering the

military would think hard, regardless of their moral position. They would not like to be in a place where they cannot get access to reproductive care. Twenty percent of the military are women. It is going to have an effect on women. Just look at the polling across the United States about Roe v. Wade versus the Dobbs decision, and I think you will find that there is a significant number of women who are concerned.

So this is very simple. We are either going to politicize and completely ignore military nominations, using military officers as hostages for political decisions, or we can return to tradition and confirm expeditiously. And one final point, this issue will be considered in the usual order because during the Armed Services Committee markup, I presume there will be amendments on both sides that will be considered fairly, and this issue will be addressed, as it should be, in the context of the National Defense Authorization Act.

What the Senator of Alabama is doing is damaging the military of the United States, perhaps catastrophically, if he continues this policy for many more weeks. That is not appropriate.

With that I yield the floor.