Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act

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 the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is now after 4 o'clock in the afternoon. We were scheduled to be on the floor today around noon, but when I came to the floor prepared to debate this rule, we were told first to wait and then that the House would recess so the Republicans could go back behind closed doors to negotiate among themselves.

This is becoming a pattern in this Congress. For the second session week in a row, the Rules Committee met far into the night and reported out completely closed rules that allow no amendments on the floor.

Now, after Speaker McCarthy realized that he couldn't pass his own bill, he spent all day negotiating in secret to twist people's arms to get enough votes from his own party to get this bill or the rule passed on the floor.

No one has seen what is coming out of the backroom deal today and allegedly moving to the floor under this very rule.

This isn't how you run the people's House, although it is apparently how the new House majority runs the people's House--backroom deals that prioritize politics or policy over people.

Turning to the matters at hand, this rule moves two bills to the floor. The first bill is H.R. 2, although, as mentioned, we still don't know what the final version of that bill will be.

We should all be able to agree that immigration and border security present vast and complex issues. Despite my colleagues' pronouncements to the contrary, we all want a secure border that protects our national security, but we also need to address the realities of migration, the forces that are driving families, even young children, to flee their homes, and the serious workforce shortages confronting businesses in our country and elsewhere.

Given the complexities of these issues, they require comprehensive and nuanced solutions. H.R. 2 is neither. It is a great example of the old adage: For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, clear, and wrong.

During my legal career, I spent decades working on immigration cases and within our immigration system. I know it is underfunded and dysfunctional and has been for many years. We also know that American businesses, small and large, are asking for immigration reform so that they can hire the healthcare, agricultural, research, and food service workers they need.

Solving these issues is not simple, but I am extremely disappointed that my Republican colleagues want to create more chaos by bringing an extremist, cruel, and completely unworkable bill to the floor today.

The truth is, this isn't responsible or serious governance. Without any real proposal, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle resort to conspiracy theories, fact-free rhetoric, and political theater designed to stoke fear and chaos to distract from their lack of real solutions.

We have seen how the failed and inhumane immigration policies of the prior administration weakened our economy, undermined our moral standing in the world, inflicted unimaginable cruelty upon defenseless migrant children, and did not make us any safer.

However, Republican extremists want to take us back there again. Once more, they would rather fixate and waste American taxpayer dollars to build a wall that the experts, including Customs and Border Patrol, agree will not solve the issue.

I must call out the dishonesty of claiming that families seeking legal asylum are a source of the very real scourge of fentanyl and other dangerous drug trafficking. We know from Customs and Border Patrol data that over 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at U.S. ports of entry in trucks or cargo ships, not in areas that a border wall might cover.

Despite this fact, the bill fails to provide needed resources at ports of entry to fight fentanyl smuggling where it is actually happening.

Just last month, House Republicans voted to cap nondefense discretionary funding, which, according to DHS, would result in the cutting of 2,400 Customs and Border Patrol officers and agents that do this work fighting the scourge of fentanyl.

How can we begin to craft measures to address either the fentanyl crisis or humanitarian issues at our border if our Republican colleagues insist on starting from a place of misplaced blame and misguided policies?

Additionally, this bill, or at least the most recent version of it that we have seen, enacts a nationwide E-Verify system without providing other reforms that give meaningful pathways for undocumented workers to legalize their status, which employers across this country are screaming for.

In doing so, this provision has the potential to wipe out half of our agricultural workforce, cause huge disruptions in our Nation's food system, allow a mass offshoring of jobs, and sink American farms from California to Pennsylvania and throughout States across the Nation.

This isn't the first Congress in which Republicans have tried to move forward on this E-Verify proposal. In every Congress, it faces opposition from the small business community, civil liberties groups, religious organizations, agricultural organizations and growers, privacy advocates, libertarian think tanks, and immigration reform groups because it fails to address our broken immigration system in a meaningful way. This time around is no different.

H.R. 2 also bans Department of Homeland Security funding for critical nonprofit and religious partners that provide shelter, food, legal assistance, and other aid to vulnerable immigrants.

That means a faith-based NGO that helps an Afghan refugee to find housing or gives support to a woman here on a U visa, a special status set aside for victims of crimes, will no longer get assistance to do that important work.

How can our Republican colleagues say this bill is only about border security when it clearly and cruelly rips resources away from those in the country legally, too?

When it comes to this bill, the immoral policies do not stop there. This legislation puts children in harm's way--the very ones the other side of the aisle claims they want to protect.

Children come or are brought to the U.S. because the conditions in their home countries are so horrific, whether due to poverty, violence, corruption, or climate change and how it is destroying their way of life.

This is a situation that has been building for decades, and H.R. 2 does nothing to address it.

During my legal career, I represented many of those children, those who were orphaned, those who were fleeing gang violence, starvation, or abuse.

If we really want to protect child victims of trafficking or children separated from their parents who arrive at our border, we don't limit their access to representation, as this bill does. We give them the tools to make the case that they are eligible to stay in this country, which a child simply cannot do unless they have a qualified attorney with them.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen up close how important representation is to anyone trying to navigate our immigration system, but especially kids.

When our colleagues say they want to send unaccompanied children home to safety, they are turning a blind eye to reality. The reality for most of these kids is there is no safe home. Their parents are dead or otherwise unavailable, and country conditions are so dangerous that the journey to our border is a safer alternative.

This bill would expose children to the very harms and exploitation my Republican colleagues hollowly insist they want to prevent. In addition to

limiting children's access to counsel, the bill allows them to be jailed. It guts the protections of the Flores settlement agreement, which has governed the conditions of children held in government custody for 26 years.

In doing so, the bill upends a carefully crafted system to minimize the detention of children due to the grave impact that it has on their physical and mental health. The evidence is clear: No amount of detention is safe for kids. Even a short period can cause long-term harm like psychological trauma and mental health risks.

Despite knowing this, my Republican colleagues wrote a bill that allows the long-term detention of minors who arrive in the U.S. and that jails kids and their families indefinitely.

I want to describe for a moment a tragic situation this bill creates. A mother and her child fleeing violence or starvation at home come to America in search of safety and legal asylum. When she finds the ports of entry are closed, which this bill would do, that mother takes her child and crosses between them. She then follows the rules and applies for asylum.

To be clear, she is not a risk for flight or violence. Even so, this bill requires that she and her young child could be jailed for what could be years if she is prosecuted for the misdemeanor of unlawful entry, a result that is prohibited by current law and the Flores litigation.

This legislation falsely states it is consistent with the Flores decision; although, it is clear that it is not, and that the Court has already ruled on that precise point.

If my colleagues want to come together and meaningfully work on immigration reform, it can't start from a place of cruelty against the most vulnerable. Instead, we need to recognize both the horrific conditions that cause migrants to flee their homes and the meaningful contributions that immigrants make to our country and, critically, we must provide functioning pathways for people to enter the U.S. lawfully.

Mr. Speaker, the second bill here is H.R. 1163. In addition to their misguided immigration plan, today House Republicans are bringing up a harmful bill that hinders antifraud programs, opens up new pathways to fraud in unemployment insurance programs, and opens workers up to surprise bills through no fault of their own.

My colleagues want to attack unemployment insurance, a benefit that helped millions of Americans stay afloat during the depths of the pandemic. Of course, it is important that we prevent fraud in our public programs and instances of fraud in unemployment insurance absolutely should be addressed and prosecuted.

In fact, just this morning, we learned that a Republican Member of this Chamber was indicted in New York on charges that, among other things, he allegedly stole public funds by fraudulently collecting pandemic unemployment benefits.

I hope all my colleagues agree that stealing public funds, especially during a global pandemic when so many working people lost their jobs and needed the support to keep their families healthy and fed, is unacceptable and absolutely should disqualify someone from serving in the United States Congress.

However, although my colleagues across the aisle claim that they want to fight fraud in unemployment insurance, their leadership continues to welcome the votes of this alleged fraudster in order to push a deeply unpopular and extremist agenda and they want to pass a bill that makes it harder to catch the kind of cross-State fraud that their colleague has allegedly committed by slashing $400 million in critical funding for Department of Labor antifraud programs.

It opens up opportunities for fraud in UI programs by halting the roll out of new identification verification systems and the legislation allows States to send surprise bills to workers for accidental overpayments of unemployment insurance benefits made during the pandemic.

These overpayments were made to workers who did nothing wrong and did not know they had been overpaid. These people spent their unemployment insurance on necessities like food for themselves and their children. They returned to work as soon as they could, but now Republicans, with this bill, want to send these working people a bill and punish them for an error that they didn't commit.

Ultimately, both of these proposals from my Republican colleagues are unserious and unworkable. They will wreak harm on America's economy, especially businesses unable to find workers to grow or even survive. They will wreak harm on working families, law-abiding immigrants, and terrified refugees who have the right to seek asylum at our borders.

These bills are political stunts to stir up extremist supporters, not serious solutions to complex problems, problems that require comprehensive and nuanced solutions. We are eager to work with responsible legislators from any party on an immigration bill that truly secures the border, protects Dreamers, and solves the workforce challenges we are seeing from farms to pharmacies. Such a bill would grow our economy, help our communities combat crime, and stem the flow of illegal drugs into our country.

We firmly believe that we can reach an agreement that secures our border and reforms our immigration system in a way that reflects fundamental American values, and we are ready to work on that now. We welcome assistance in that from the House majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do find it a little hard to credit the expressions of concern for the migrants who are crossing our border when yet again, today, the Governor of Texas sent a busload of migrants from the border after announcing he was providing free transportation to them.

He refuses to tell the cities where they are headed, but the migrants are on their way. So as has occurred multiple times over the last year, people were dumped in Philadelphia at 6 o'clock in the morning. Thank God that the weather has turned because when they were dumping them on New Year's Eve, it was pretty darn cold. So please spare me the crocodile tears for the humanitarian concerns when you are not willing to help ease that process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have to push back a little bit on this idea that somehow immigrants coming to this country are taking advantage of our police and different parts of our society. I mean, the Cato Institute, of all places, has recently published a study that shows there is a net economic benefit for several generations when we have immigrants come to this country.

Of course, there is also the continuing inaccurate characterization of these folks coming here illegally when they are applying for asylum.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished

ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. McGovern raised a few good points, but one in particular: We haven't seen the bill that we are allegedly supposed to be considering with this rule.

Last night, Mr. Norman, who just spoke, correctly criticized this closed process. He said, ``That's a problem going forward, a huge problem because that is not the process we think is fair to everyone.''

I would simply say to the gentleman that the process has only gotten worse. Reportedly, there will be an amendment offered to this rule that we haven't even seen yet. Although, I guess the fact is we may know why we had to delay the hearing until this point; so that your Member could return from New York.

I wonder when we are going to see the open and transparent process that some of our Rules Committee colleagues have spoken so much about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleagues across the aisle. I didn't realize that I needed to delay my remarks until the next round.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a letter from the Department of Labor, which states that H.R. 1163 would hinder efforts to tackle unemployment insurance fraud, delay payments, and undermine State efforts to modernize and protect the system from fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are vital to many of our constituents' economic and health security. Many of my Republican friends across the aisle were calling for major cuts to these critical programs but recently some have changed their tune.

If they truly believe in a new position, I am offering my friends the opportunity to back it up with a vote in the people's House. This vote will give Members the opportunity to reassure Americans that the House won't eviscerate these foundational programs that our constituents rely upon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

Mr. Speaker, since the aftermath of World War II, the United States has championed its duty to uphold the international right to seek asylum by providing those fleeing persecution with safe haven here in America.

However, the Republican immigration plan in H.R. 2 and the rhetoric we have heard about it today does nothing more than sow chaos, anger, and fear about this important humanitarian system.

It puts the blame for our broken immigration system on the backs of families and children fleeing poverty and violence, instead of recognizing the complexity of the issues involving immigration and border security and blaming Congress for failing to address our broken system for decades.

It is clear that jailing families indefinitely or sending unaccompanied children back to dangerous and exploitive situations and refusing to provide working legal pathways to residents will not make us any safer; neither will wasting American taxpayer dollars to build a discredited and ineffective border wall, decimating our agricultural sector, or defunding trusted nonprofit organizations that provide support to immigrants.

These are not the comprehensive, multiprong solutions we need, the kind of solutions that Democrats have been imploring our Republican colleagues to come to the table on, solutions that secure our ports of entry, expand legal pathways, and address the root causes of migration.

A long and impactful history of immigration is at the heart of our American story. As such, we should meaningfully fix our immigration system so it works better and can continue making our county stronger. We shouldn't gut it or attempt to destroy it altogether. I want a better future than that for the United States and all of those who call it home.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis at our southern border that has captured the attention of the American people but has fallen on deaf ears among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and, much more importantly, the President and the administration at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Just yesterday, I received a text from multiple law enforcement officers along the southern border, whether it is with the Department of Public Safety from Texas or whether it is with Border Patrol. For example, this is a quote:

As of last night, the radios went crazy for west and south

Laredo, waves of folks, literally just group after group,

bum-rushing the border. The agents were spread thin as hell.

In my precinct, we are literally all doubled up because our

units are breaking down every other day. Ranchers are calling

every other day, stating there are folks on their property,

but we can't get there fast enough.

I hate to say this, but we are getting our rear-ends handed

to us. I used to have patterns, trends, and knew the dropoff,

pickup areas, but now it is an ``expletive'' free-for-all.

Approximately 600 bodies at the gate just half a mile east

from Yarbrough happening right now in El Paso.

I have hundreds of these texts right now flooding into my phone, like every other Member of Congress, because what is happening is an abject failure at the border. It is a humanitarian crisis for Americans and for migrants.

Mr. Speaker, 5 million have been encountered at the southern border, and 2 million have been released into the United States, incentivizing more to come.

Over 1.5 million have evaded apprehension--i.e., got-aways evading detection from Border Patrol since the beginning of this administration.

Fentanyl is pouring into our communities. Border Patrol has seized over 35,000 pounds of fentanyl. Just last Thursday morning, I met with three fentanyl moms out of dozens of moms that I met with because their children have died from fentanyl.

Eight children in the school district in the county in which I reside southwest of Austin have died of fentanyl poisoning since last August. Over 10 have had to be resuscitated, revived with Narcan.

Just last summer, 53 migrants were effectively cooked in a tractor- trailer in the hot Texas heat in San Antonio, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, 856 dead migrant bodies were found along the Rio Grande, in south Texas, and on ranches. Little girls are sold into the sex trafficking trade, held in stash houses in Laredo, Brownsville, El Paso, San Antonio, Houston, and throughout this country.

We know this to be true. It is documented to be true. Now, the administration can't even keep up with the children that we have, with 85,000, according to The New York Times, not able to be contacted.

My colleagues just blindly wipe that away, saying: That is not true. It was a phone call. They didn't get them. They must be with a family member.

What Member of this body would treat their child that way? Oh, I called and didn't get ahold of them. Oh, well.

We do that with 85,000 children. I guess that is not nearly as effective as a photo op in white pantsuits sitting next to kids in cages, allegedly, despite that those cages were created by the previous administration specifically for the protection of children. Oh, no. It doesn't look as good to have a photo op when you have 85,000 missing children.

Tomorrow, title 42 expires. Now, for the average American, title 42, they don't know what that is. What it is, is a part of our health code that allows us to say that we are going to turn people away in the middle of a pandemic.

Yet, the administration has been using that as effectively their only means of managing the border, to the extent you can call it managing the border.

In March, for example, there were approximately 200,000 apprehensions. We are going to blow right through that right now because we are at 10,000, 11,000, 12,000 apprehensions a day.

When you add those 200,000 apprehensions, not even counting all the parole, half of those are being turned away under title 42.

When title 42 expires tomorrow, more will come. There is an explosion at the border. None will be turned away because this administration has specifically chosen to ignore the law. This administration is refusing to do their job to defend the border of the United States.

The least compassionate, the least Christian, the least empathetic thing that a country could do is to allow human beings to be used as political pawns by cartels for profit while Americans die by the thousands, while migrants get raped, abused, and put in stash houses by cartels for profit by the thousands, while migrants die along the southern border by the hundreds, if not the thousands now, while our own people get overrun on their own ranches.

I sat and met with ranch owners in south Texas who had run across the dead body of a young woman, a mother with a baby, on their ranch.

Imagine the most powerful Nation in the history of the world thinking it is compassionate to have a system that allows that. Yet, that is precisely what we do.

Unfortunately, what my colleagues' response will be is, oh, we are going to have to do something about our immigration system and future flow in, figuring out what we are going to do to make sure that we reform immigration.

Don't you know that if we had comprehensive immigration reform, this would all just magically evaporate? That is completely not true.

The fact of the matter is, the starting point for any sensible border and immigration plan is a secure border in which you actually enforce the laws of the United States. Why? So people know what the rules are. We allow 600,000 to 1 million, 1.2 million, depending on the year, people to come into this country legally, as we should.

Yes, we need to reform our immigration system, but none of it matters if

we are going to embrace lawlessness and wide-open borders and ignore the rule of law to the detriment of people and to the detriment of the very system that attracts people from around the world.

We should be exporting the rule of law rather than importing lawlessness, fentanyl, death, and destruction. The legislation we have before us would be a giant step toward ensuring that we can hold this administration accountable to make sure that we secure our border, protect our citizens, and protect migrants who seek to come here.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points.

First of all, this tired talking point of 90 percent of narcotics being captured at the ports of entry; well, of course, that is the only place where we have Border Patrol. Because they are overwhelmed doing processing, we don't have anybody patrolling the border between the ports of entry. So, of course, you are collecting and finding a higher percentage of narcotics at the ports of entry.

The second point, is this idea that this is treating kids inhumanely. Let's be very clear that what we do in this policy is treat children from other countries exactly as we treat them from Mexico and Canada under current law.

More importantly, President Obama, that radical, MAGA extremist, President Barack Obama asked for this fix in his bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I have to address, at least for a minute, this disparaging commentary about the Governor of Texas busing migrants.

Well, I guess my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to ignore the fact that the Democrat mayor of El Paso was teaming up with Governor Abbott to do that. The Democrat mayor of El Paso was teaming up with the Governor of Texas, Governor Abbott, to do just that. Walk a mile in our shoes in the State of Texas where we have hundreds of thousands of people pouring into our communities throughout the State of Texas. Welcome to the party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues that it was in December when we got a $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill that was 4,000 pages long around 1 a.m., and then we voted on it the next day. In that bill there was specific language that prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from actually securing the homeland by securing the border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

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

Mr. Speaker, this crisis has taken an unimaginable toll on the State of Texas, my home State, and the citizens there as well as the migrants seeking to come into this country. I get contacted every single day, like my colleagues from Texas.

In 2022, more than 2,000 Texans died from fentanyl poisoning, a 500 percent increase from 2019. I have already talked about the 53 migrants killed in a tractor-trailer in the Texas heat.

Texas has been forced to deal with it on their own, spending $4 billion of their own budget, $3 billion last cycle because we are having to deal with a job the Federal Government is supposed to do. El Paso, state of emergency; Laredo, state of emergency; Brownsville, state of emergency; San Antonio, beefing up to try to deal with the surge. We are dealing with it every single day in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen).

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

What we offer today through this rule will be legislation that will strengthen our southern border, secure this country, protect Americans, protect migrants, and ensure that our communities can be safe, particularly along our southern border in States like Texas where the Speaker pro tempore and I and many of our colleagues reside and other friends of ours in Arizona, New Mexico, and California, that are dealing with this every single day.

This bill is pretty simple. It strengthens and requires the administration to enforce existing law and closes the asylum and detention loopholes that have been exploited for years. It curbs release into the interior, a massive pull factor, by requiring DHS to detain, remove, or place in a safe third country, but in doing so allows a path for migrants to be able to pursue asylum claims and just simply follows current law to not be released into the United States. Again, it is pretty straightforward.

It reimplements the asylum deals that were working and ends the bogus asylum claims. It keeps families together while asylum claims are being processed.

It protects unaccompanied children by reforming TVPRA, a request from the Obama administration. It requires DHS to immediately resume border wall construction, which President Biden has halted.

The fact is the American people are very well aware of the crisis at the border that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to ignore.

I had some friends send me, while I was speaking here, the comment section from The New York Times. I am not talking about Breitbart or something. I am talking about The New York Times. Page after page after page of citizens saying, for example: Though I have always voted Democrat, my vote in the next Presidential election will go to whichever candidate has the best, most seemingly effective plan for securing our border. It is the most pressing issue for our country.

If only the President and my Democratic colleagues would agree.

The fact of the matter is we have a devastating crisis that is killing Americans and killing migrants. Right now, to be very clear, our Border Patrol agents and law enforcement community along the southern border are overwhelmed. They are crying out for help.

I had a man text me just a minute ago that works with Border Patrol and DPS. He said:

We are in a Broken Arrow moment. We are overrun. We have no

place to go. We have a crisis.

This body needs to respond, and we need to take action as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be offering an amendment to the rule. The amendment is a very short, one-page modification that makes clear that Congress will address, within 60 days, the dangerous cartels confronting our country. It will add a sense of Congress to clarify certain language involving agricultural issues relating to E-Verify.

amendment offered by mr. roy

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 383, I call up the bill (H.R. 1163) to provide incentives for States to recover fraudulently paid Federal and State unemployment compensation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this crucial legislation will finally protect taxpayers and victims of fraud against the largest theft of tax dollars in American history.

Americans are suffering under a cost-of-living crisis fueled by Democrats' reckless spending. It has brought us to the brink of recession and spurred the highest increase in interest rates in 16 years.

It must be infuriating for folks to also see that it is not just the American Dream that is being stolen from them but their identities and their tax dollars.

Criminal organizations and foreign fraudsters exploited the pandemic to steal hundreds of billions in payments intended to keep workers afloat amidst government lockdowns, and the victims need our help.

How much has been stolen? The Department of Labor inspector general told the Ways and Means Committee that taxpayers may be on the hook for at least $191 billion in improper payments, and that is just the lower estimate. Outside experts estimate up to $400 billion of improper payments.

While working Americans were trying to piece their lives back together during the pandemic, Democrats did nothing to fight fraud. When Democrats held the majority on Ways and Means, they ignored, blocked, and shot down commonsense safeguards and refused to hold even one hearing on this fraud.

That inaction made it clear that their soft-on-crime agenda does not just apply to carjackings and looting department stores. It applies to defrauding the Federal Government, as well.

During his State of the Union, President Biden said the watchdogs are back. He rolled out the position of chief pandemic prosecutor at the Department of Justice. Since then, even as we have discovered more instances of fraud, the Biden administration official responsible for prosecuting it has resigned, and the position sits vacant for months.

That is not accountability. We couldn't afford inaction for the last 2 years, and we can afford it even less today.

These are stolen tax dollars, which makes every person in America a victim of this fraud. Today's vote is an important step toward ending suffering and delivering accountability.

The Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act gives States the tools they need to go after fraudsters and shores up vulnerabilities by improving identity verification and modernizing State UI systems.

It allows States to retain 25 percent of fraudulent Federal funds recovered. This is a real incentive for States to pursue what can be costly investigations and prosecutions because now they can use recovered funds to improve UI program integrity and fraud prevention. These dollars can go toward hiring investigators and prosecutors to go after criminals to recover fraud payments. This will also give States the resources to modernize systems and technology to better verify identity and income for unemployment and deter, detect, and prevent improper payments.

This legislation also allows States to keep 5 percent of UI overpayments recouped in the future to continue to improve benefit delivery and eligibility verification. This includes matching State lists against databases, which will help reduce payments to deceased and incarcerated individuals.

Many of these reform ideas are bipartisan and very long overdue. Some are supported by the Department of Labor inspector general and were even included in past budget requests from President Trump and President Obama. Even Biden has included several of the ideas in the Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act in his most recent budget request.

I am hopeful House Democrats will join here to also protect taxpayers and support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), chairman of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

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

My colleagues on the other side have noted their objection to this bill's rescission of unobligated COVID funds sitting unused at the Department of Labor. They claim these funds are important in combating UI fraud, but the reality couldn't be further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a February letter from the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.

Department of Labor

& Industrial Relations,

Jefferson City, MO, February 6, 2023.

Hon. Jason Smith,

Chair, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: Thank you for the opportunity to share

the Missouri Department of Labor & Industrial Relations,

Division of Employment Security's experience in administering

and combatting fraud in the unemployment insurance (UI) and

federal CARES Act programs throughout the duration of the

COVID-19 pandemic.

Missouri's Governor declared a state of emergency on March

13, 2020, and Missouri entered into an agreement with the

United States Department of Labor (USDOL) to administer the

federal CARES Act program on March 28, 2020. In a span of

only three weeks, Missouri realized an increase of over 3000%

in unemployment insurance claims. In addition to the historic

increase in workload, the combination of state and new

federal programs expanding eligibility and dramatically

increasing monetary benefits, rapidly evolving federal

guidance, rampant media coverage, and misinformation made for

an extremely challenging environment for program

administration.

Federal programs, such as Pandemic Unemployment Assistance

(PUA), initially only required self-attestation to qualify

and allowed individuals to backdate their PUA claims, lacked

the checks and balances inherent within the state's regular

Unemployment Insurance program that are a key component of

program integrity. Additionally, eligibility for a single

dollar of benefit under any unemployment program

automatically qualified the individual to receive a

substantial supplemental Federal Pandemic Unemployment

Compensation (FPUC) payment, inviting and incentivizing

individuals and bad actors to attempt to collect benefits to

which they were not entitled. Constantly changing guidance

for the CARES Act programs added to the burden by creating

additional workloads, complexity and confusion. For example,

PUA guidance from the USDOL was amended four times in a

period of less than 6 months, and much of the amended

guidance applied retroactively to the beginning of the

pandemic assistance period for claims already processed.

Fortunately, in 2016 Missouri replaced its legacy mainframe

system with a modernized unemployment insurance application.

Prior to the pandemic, Missouri had existing identity

verification and fraud detection tools in place. This gave

Missouri the ability to address the CARES Act program

implementation challenges and successfully identify potential

threats and prevent both small and large-scale fraud attacks

that plagued some states, with nationwide estimates of

potential fraud overpayments exceeding $45 billion according

to the USDOL--Office of Inspector General (OIG). However, in

response to unprecedented fraud attacks, Missouri

continuously reviewed and modified its fraud detection tools

and methods. As a result, funding administered by the USDOL

for improved program integrity was mostly leveraged for the

provision of additional staffing resources to address the

increased volume of work and support enhancement of the

existing technologies.

More recent funding opportunities, such as the Equity and

Tiger Teams grants, provide limited flexibility to address

program integrity and ongoing fraud prevention strategies.

The Equity Grant is focused on improving recipiency and

equitable access to the UI program. The Tiger Teams grant

identifies three focus areas to be addressed, ``equity and

access, backlogs and timeliness, and integrity.'' Bad actors

are constantly striving to find new innovative ways to

defraud benefit programs and avoid detection. As such,

Missouri must continue to innovate and invest in fraud

prevention strategies and tools that prevent our states and

our citizens from becoming the next victims. The existing

use, at the federal level, of the Resource Justification

Model for funding UI administration and one-time grant

opportunities, fall short in meeting this need. Therefore,

prioritization should be given to consistent funding that not

only permits states to implement proven strategies and tools

to combat fraud but also provides states the ability to

support and maintain these solutions into the future.

Missouri will continue to place UI program integrity as a

critical priority. I appreciate this opportunity to share

Missouri's experience with the challenges we faced

administering the federal programs throughout the pandemic.

Sincerely,

Anna S. Hui,

Department Director.

In it, my State's workforce directory notes their experience with tiger teams.

It says: ``More recent funding opportunities, such as the equity and tiger team grants, provide limited flexibility to address program integrity and ongoing fraud prevention strategies.''

This doesn't sound like a glowing review.

I welcome Democrats to share any information that they have that the Department of Labor's efforts have helped us recover dollars for American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

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

Democrats are falsely claiming that this bill claws back relief funds from Americans who received an overpayment through no fault of their own.

The language in this bill is crystal clear. It is focused on recovering overpayments due to fraud. That means intent on the part of the individual. Existing law already protects individuals who receive overpayments through administrative error or otherwise. In fact, section 2401 of the CARES Act allows States to waive overpayments on a case-by-case basis if the payment would be contrary to equity and good conscience.

This bill also explicitly states in section 2(a)(2) and section 2(a)(3) that ``the State agency may retain 25 percent of any amount recovered from overpayments of pandemic emergency unemployment compensation''--this is the one you need to understand--``that were determined to be made due to fraud.'' Not overpayment. Due to fraud.

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

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

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

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

The only way that this bill punishes American families are American families who are fraudsters, American families who intentionally create and commit fraud. Give me a break.

After years of inaction when Democrats held the majority, taxpayers have lost anywhere from $191 billion upward to $400 billion in fraud, and their identities have been stolen.

Democrats ignored it. They blocked it, and they shot down commonsense safeguards. Guess what? They refused to hold even one hearing on fraud.

American workers, families, and small businesses are already dealing with a cost-of-living crisis, and they deserve better. That is why they elected a Republican majority on the promise of a government that is accountable.

Today's bill delivers on that accountability with commonsense reforms that empower the States to make things right. With this vote, we will end the greatest theft of taxpayer dollars in American history.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing and vote in favor of this bill and against fraud.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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