Protecting Americans’ Investments from Woke Policies Act

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 3724, what my Republican colleagues call the End Woke Higher Education Act.

H.R. 3724 seeks to circumvent the First Amendment to establish a whole new scheme to regulate speech and association rights on campus outside of established precedents and practices.

The First Amendment protects some of our most deeply cherished rights as Americans. Any student currently who believes their First Amendment rights are being violated can bring a Federal case against their public college or university. In doing so, they have over 200 years of precedent and case law that carefully define and determine what those rights are under the First Amendment.

This includes precedents that specifically address the unique nature of colleges and universities as public entities that both must uphold constitutional rights and must provide students with safe learning environments.

With today's bill, the majority would have us throw out all of the centuries of case law and replace it with a hastily drafted substitute that claims to remove barriers that limit constitutional rights.

What the bill actually does is make public colleges and universities, who could be acting in good faith attempting to protect the safety and security of everyone present on their campus, subject to monetary judgments and possible loss of title IV student aid, counter to Supreme Court precedent.

In so doing, my colleagues, who purport to favor limited government, are micromanaging how colleges and universities must handle their internal governance processes.

Another one of the harmful, misguided policies contained in the bill creates a license for religious student organizations at public institutions to discriminate against LGBTQ+ and other students by allowing these organizations to avoid nondiscrimination requirements that apply to all other student clubs funded by student activity fees.

Student groups are an essential part of the college experience, but if this bill becomes law, minority students would be forced to subsidize student groups that discriminate against them.

In addition to micromanaging how college campuses dispute the First Amendment cases, this bill would undermine the legitimacy of the college accreditation process. For decades, federally recognized accreditors have served as one-third of the oversight triad of the U.S. higher education system, along with States and the Federal Government.

Accreditation is meant to be the gold standard for college quality and performance. After all, accreditation is the gateway to billions of dollars of Federal student aid each year. I recognize that the accreditation systems need improvement, but, unfortunately, H.R. 3724 does not make constructive reforms. Rather, it is a baseless attempt to inject culture wars into an ever-important accreditation process.

For example, the ``prohibition on litmus tests'' invites additional Federal oversight into the accreditation process. Under this bill, accreditors may not assess a school's ``commitment to any ideology, belief, or viewpoint.''

The majority complains that this will prevent a school from losing accreditation if they do not have a diversity, equity, and inclusion office. The reality is that there is no evidence that that is happening.

There are, conversely, several examples of State officials pressuring schools not to teach certain classes or hold subjects that they believe cross the line between academic pursuit and ideological beliefs. That is why the bill is so dangerous.

For example, under this bill, the Department of Education could potentially revoke an accreditor's recognition if that accreditor required science programs to teach evolution. If the accreditor said, no, if it is science, you have got to teach evolution, the Department could potentially revoke the accreditation, suggesting that such standards were an attempt to force a university to commit to a specific partisan, political, or ideological viewpoint or belief.

Well, I think if you are going to teach a science course, that the accreditors ought to have the option of requiring the fundamental basis be science.

H.R. 3724 represents a solution in search of a problem, fundamentally seeks to undermine students' First Amendment rights and their right to be able to join a student organization free of discrimination, and it undermines our accreditation system.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. Chair, we have received a letter from the American Council on Education, which says, in part, rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has been done to apply its principles across a wide range of higher education institutions, the provisions of title II of H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free speech and ensure student safety.

We are particularly concerned with the impact this legislation would have on campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful incidents at a time of widespread national attention.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the American Council on Education.

American Council on Education,

September 17, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On

behalf of the undersigned higher education associations, we

write regarding H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act,

which will be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives

this week. Title II of H.R. 3724 incorporates the provisions

of H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus

Act. We opposed the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus

Act during its consideration by the Committee on Education

and the Workforce. We now ask you to remove Title II from

H.R. 3724 as it would undermine efforts to protect free

speech on campus and provide safe learning environments free

from discrimination. If Title II is not removed from the

underlying bill, we would urge you and your members to oppose

the bill if it is considered on the floor.

Colleges and universities are strongly committed to

fostering open, intellectually engaging debate enriched by a

diverse set of voices and perspectives. Freedom of speech,

free inquiry, and academic freedom are fundamental to the

quest for knowledge and to the educational mission of higher

education institutions. Institutions take seriously their

obligations to uphold the laws protecting these freedoms,

which, for public institutions, include the First Amendment.

Consistent with these obligations, institutions must also

provide safe learning environments that are free from

discrimination and harassment and in compliance with

applicable federal and state laws, including Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act. Any proposed federal legislation in this

area must reflect these twin institutional obligations.

Despite Title II's purported aims of ensuring that public

institutions uphold First Amendment protections and provide

clarity regarding campus speech policies, Title II would

instead create new counterproductive federal mandates,

undermining the goals it seeks to advance. Title II would

impose a rigid, highly prescriptive, and costly regulatory

and enforcement framework on nearly 1,900 public colleges and

universities. Already subject to the protections afforded by

the First Amendment, public institutions would have to

implement a new campus-wide compliance scheme on top of

existing policies and practices. As an example of the

difficult and costly mandates that the legislation would

impose, it would require institutions to develop ``objective,

content- and view-point neutral and exhaustive standards'' in

allocating funds to student organizations, which are

extraordinarily varied. This could create a regulatory

quagmire.

Under Title II's enforcement provisions, failure to comply

with even minor reporting or disclosure requirements could

result in loss of Title IV funding for an entire award year

and often significantly longer. Penalizing students with a

loss of financial aid does nothing to further the goals of

this legislation and is disproportional to the underlying

violation. While the bill exempts private institutions from

some of its most onerous requirements, the legislation would

nonetheless create a dangerous precedent that encourages

further governmental intrusions into matters of academic

freedom and institutional autonomy, which would undoubtedly

have a chilling effect on private institutions as well.

In addition to the needlessly harsh penalty of loss of

Title IV aid, the legislation would also spawn costly and

time-consuming litigation by creating a new federal cause of

action allowing individuals to sue a public institution for

damages for any violation of Title II's requirements. Adding

this new cause of action on top of existing legal remedies is

unnecessary, duplicative, and would harmfully drain

institutional resources away from efforts to protect students

and campus free speech. Further, the bill would take the

unprecedented and troubling step of waiving a public

institution's sovereign immunity rights under the 11th

Amendment based on its receipt of Title IV funding.

Given the recent focus of the Education and the Workforce

Committee and other House Committees on incidents of

antisemitism and the need for campuses to provide safe,

discrimination-free environments for all students, we are

mystified by Title II's inclusion of provisions that would

tie the hands of campus administrators to address these

issues, likely making campuses less safe. For example, the

bill would mandate that any publicly accessible area of the

campus be designated as a ``public forum,'' open to anyone--

even if they are not a student, staff, or faculty member--

making it more difficult for institutions to secure their

campuses against outside agitators like the kind seen in some

recent protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Further, Title II

would prohibit institutions from factoring in potential

student and public reactions when determining security fees

for events, limiting their ability to safely manage

controversial speakers and events which necessarily entail

far greater security costs.

Rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has

been done to apply its principles across a wide range of

higher education institutions, the provisions in Title II of

H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free

speech and ensure student safety. We are particularly

concerned with the impact this legislation would have on

campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful

incidents at a time of widespread national tension. We urge

the House to remove Title II from H.R. 3724, the End Woke

Higher Education Act, or vote against the broader bill if it

reaches the floor with Title II included.

Sincerely,

Ted Mitchell,

President.

On behalf of:

American Association of Community Colleges,

American Association of State Colleges and Universities,

American Council on Education,

Association of American Universities,

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,

National Association of Independent Colleges and

Universities.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

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

Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from the Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, which says, in part, the bill's ``purported solutions would radically undermine First Amendment jurisprudence, threatening the ability of public universities to ensure State property can be used for its intended educational purposes, and represents an astonishing level of Federal intrusion in matters traditionally respected as the purview of States and State entities.''

We received another letter from the ACLU, which says, in part, ``H.R. 3724 purportedly prohibits: partisan, political, ideological, social, cultural, or political viewpoints and beliefs; the disparate treatment of any individual or group of individuals on the basis of any protected class under Federal civil rights law; and violation of any right protected by the U.S. Constitution. In reality, H.R. 3724 would encourage these unlawful actions by permitting postsecondary institutions to eliminate curricula that covers historical contributions and lived experiences of some racial and ethnic groups while continuing such curriculum of other groups.''

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Association of Public &

Land-Grant Universities,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: As

president of the Association of Public and Land-grant

Universities (APLU), a membership association of more than

230 public research universities and systems, I write to

express APLU's strong opposition to Title II of H.R. 3724,

the ``End Woke Higher Education Act,'' which is expected to

be considered on the House Floor this week. Title II contains

the text of the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act,

provisions of which are predominantly aimed at state entities

given the application of the First Amendment to public

institutions.

While APLU appreciates goals of the legislation to ensure

public colleges and universities are upholding their

obligations under the First Amendment and fostering learning

environments in which students are exposed to a variety of

perspectives, its purported solutions would radically

undermine First Amendment jurisprudence, threatening the

ability of public universities to ensure state property can

be used for its intended educational purposes, and represents

an astonishing level of federal intrusion in matters

traditionally respected as the purview of states and state

entities.

Further, the timing of the legislation is particularly

perplexing given the enormous challenges public universities

faced in the spring and continue to face as targets from

outside organizations seeking to sow campus unrest to

generate global attention. The legislation would be a major

boon to such organizations by making it substantially more

difficult for public universities to preserve its property

for intended educational uses while protecting the rights of

the vast majority of campus communities simply seeking to

receive an education, further scientific advancement, and

fully enjoy the enriching experiences afforded on public

university campuses. The legislation would also raise the

need for institutions to direct substantial resources to

administration rather than in support of students, including

exposing state institutions to new threats from unscrupulous

lawyers seeking paydays from state coffers through the

legislation's waiver of state sovereign immunity and creation

of new private rights of action.

The First Amendment combined with case law provides deep

protections for free speech and association on campuses of

public universities, while enabling institutions to put in

place reasonable, viewpoint neutral restrictions to protect

public safety and speakers while enabling their higher

education mission. While some aspects of the legislation

related to designated public forums reinforce precedent

within some circuits, not all circuit courts have adopted

such standards. As such, the bill would treat all public

university outdoor property as if it was traditional public

fora like a town square or the quintessential public

university ``quad.'' However, public institutions own and

maintain an incredible diversity of property including

hospitals, bus stations, agricultural field stations,

athletics fields, sewage plants, parking lots, residence

halls, forests, nature preserves, museums, etc. We find it

highly unusual that Congress would insert itself into the

designation of state property in ways it would likely never

consider for other non-federal public lands.

APLU is also concerned with the manner in which the

legislation will drive up legal expenses of institutions,

diverting resources that could otherwise be devoted in

furtherance of public universities' education, research, and

community engagement missions. For example, creating new

private rights of action and conditioning participation in

Title IV federal student aid programs on waiving state

sovereign immunity are deeply concerning. Additionally, the

legislation contains incredibly harsh penalties of loss of

Title IV eligibility for what could be unintentional

infractions due to ambiguities with the bill's extremely

prescriptive standards. APLU questions the need for such

penalties, waivers of sovereign immunity, and creation of

private rights of action as the First Amendment provides

adequate protections for free speech on campus and judicial

remedies for institutional noncompliance.

As public institutions, campuses have obligations to ensure

students and campus communities more broadly have exposure to

an array of speakers and events that further an educational

mission, including the arts and sciences. Public universities

receive countless requests for use of their facilities,

including from outside organizations, speakers, and

candidates for public office. As part of allowing public

university campus property to be used by outside

organizations, institutions must assess fees to recover

costs, including security fees. The legislation would

preclude an institution from taking into consideration ``an

anticipated reaction by students or the public'' as part of

determining a security fee. This provision is particularly

dangerous. Public universities can reasonably anticipate a

greater security need in hosting a controversial public

figure or provocative fringe organization than say a mundane

scientific conference of physicians. With this provision and

especially combined with provisions creating new legal

exposures, public universities would be faced with an

impossible choice of providing inadequate security creating

threats to public safety or having events bankrupt public

university budgets. As like other provisions of the

legislation, this would make public university campuses even

greater targets of outside provocateurs who under the bill

can pass along the financial costs of their events to state

taxpayers.

Lastly, APLU is concerned by numerous provisions of the

legislation that micromanage state university policies at the

federal level, needlessly overriding the judgments of states

and institutional leaders. For example, prescriptive

standards in the legislation regarding governance of student

organization policies override the discretion of campus

administrators who are best positioned to know the needs of

their communities.

APLU urges members of Congress to oppose the legislation

and instead work with the public university community on

legislation that better addresses policymaker concerns

without such deeply troublesome unintended consequences.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mark Becker,

President, Association of Public

and Land-grant Universities.

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

Mr. Chairman, we received another letter from the Association of American Universities which says, in part, ``On behalf of America's leading research universities, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act. Title II (`Respecting the First Amendment on Campus') of this misguided legislation would dangerously undermine public universities' ability to implement crucial time, place, and manner policies for campus expression, jeopardizing their ability to protect student safety--particularly for vulnerable groups such as Jewish students--and disrupting the educational environment.''

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Association of American Universities.

Association of American Universities,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington,

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I received another letter from the American Federation of Teachers which says, in part, ``Academic freedom and the right to peacefully protest on our college campuses are hallmarks of a functioning democracy and a thriving economy. Unfortunately, the bill before you today does not respect the vital and dynamic role that higher education plays in promoting knowledge, pluralism, and democracy. The bill would limit the ability of campuses to stand up against hate and bigotry, which runs counter to the very core of higher education's fundamental purpose.''

Mr. Chair, could you advise how much time remains on this side?

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

Mr. Chairman, we also received a letter from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance that says, in part, that ``we oppose the provision on `political litmus tests' in accreditation, because it is unnecessary and unwise.

``The provision seems aimed, in part, to allow religious colleges to ignore accreditation standards and still maintain accreditation. Current law and regulations, though, already require accreditors to give significant deference to religious schools.''

``This bill seeks to go further, though, by requiring accrediting agencies to permit religious schools to discriminate against all students and employees. The bill would allow religious schools to require adherence to a statement of faith or religious code of conduct, which could be written so broadly as to allow religious schools to discriminate against people because of sex, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Every single student, employee, and contractor, including janitors, IT administrators, nurses, and more, could face discrimination--and for students, perhaps even on the basis of their parents' relationship or frequency of church attendance.

``Moreover, this goes beyond what title VII allows religious colleges to do in employment. Religious employers may favor religion--and only religion--in their employment practices. Title VII `does not confer upon religious organizations a license to make those [employment] decisions' on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. Decades of case law makes clear that religious employers do not get a license to discriminate on other grounds, even when such discrimination is motivated by religion or carried out under a `code of conduct.' ''

Mr. Chairman, what we have heard today from the other side are attempts to micromanage and insert themselves into the colleges and universities under the thin guise of protecting students.

In reality, this bill is one of many culture war bills that would strip America's educational institutions of their freedoms to explore the subjects that make up a comprehensive and rigorous academic experience.

For a coalition that claims to support limited government, they are using valuable title IV funds as a weapon to beat colleges and universities into submission. This stops us from having the necessary discussions on difficult issues about race, gender, and inequity that would help us improve our higher education system.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, we must reject the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York seeks to add religion to the definition of political tests, which already includes COVID categories of race, color, or national origin.

I fear this may cause confusion. As drafted, the language in the underlying bill's definition conforms with classes protected under title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin in educational programs receiving Federal financial assistance.

There were a lot of debates when the law was written as to whether or not to include religion, and just like as it is now, it was not covered in the underlying bill. I think we are going to confuse the matter by trying to stick it in now.

Further, while religion is included in title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which covers employment discrimination, title VII protects discrimination also on the basis of sex. Notably, ``sex'' is not included in either definition of the political tests in the bill or by the amendment, which suggests supporters of the bill do not feel that the political tests that discriminate on the basis of sex need to be outlawed.

Mr. Chair, I just think that the inclusion of religion here would just confuse the matter of title VI or title VII. You would have another provision here with a cause of action where religion is in some, not in others, and for no apparent good reason other than a last- minute thought.

Mr. Chair, I would hope we would not accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment, which restates what most of us think is present law, that violence is not protected by the First Amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I think any implication that the right to protest is an act of violence in and of itself would fly in the face of hundreds of years of First Amendment precedent. Those protests which, in fact, are violent are not protected. I am not sure that the amendment is necessary, but I am obviously not opposed to it.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, we received a letter, that I read from previously, from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance, which says, in part, relevant to this provision: ``We oppose the `Equal Campus Access' provision of the bill because it would sanction discrimination by religious student groups at public colleges and universities.''

I would say that the amendment doesn't really cure the problem of the provision in the underlying bill, as I am speaking both against the underlying bill as well as the amendment.

``To ensure that all students can participate, colleges and universities often have nondiscrimination policies, frequently called `accept-all-comers' policies, that require officially recognized student groups to allow any student to join, participate in, and seek leadership in those groups. These policies are important because they prevent student groups from discriminating. And because funding for student groups often comes from mandatory student-activity fees, accept-all-comers' policies also ensure that universities don't subsidize discrimination and guarantee that all students aren't forced to fund a group that would reject them as members.

``The Equal Campus Access provision, however, would prohibit public colleges and universities from enforcing accept-all-comers' policies.''

``Critically, this provision is not required by the First Amendment. Any student club can become a recognized group and access funds if it adheres to its school's nondiscrimination policy. And if a club decides it wants to impose requirements for membership and leadership that conflict with the school policy, it will not be silenced or driven off campus; instead, it, like any other club, simply will not be eligible for official recognition.''

I would hope that, Mr. Chair, that we would reject the amendment and the underlying bill on this provision because it would allow discrimination in violation of the policies, the accept-all-comers' policies, that many colleges elect to have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this continuing resolution, which would shortchange our veterans, absolve the House Republican majority of their responsibility to govern, and move us closer to a shutdown. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

The majority's proposal completely abandons our Nation's veterans. We have been informed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget that $12 billion more is required to provide necessary medical care for veterans who have been exposed to toxic substances.

Despite the urgency, the majority has decided to provide nothing, zero, for veterans' medical needs. I cannot understand how anybody who supports this bill can go home and look their veteran constituents in the eye and tell them that they voted to shortchange the medical care they earned with their service.

I am glad that the majority heard House Democrats' protests when we pointed out how cruel and misguided this bill was when it was first introduced. The original proposal would have shut off all funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which would have undercut support for over 1 million families.

While the majority may have fixed that, House Republicans' bill demonstrates a belief that the need to care for veterans who have been exposed to burn pits and other toxic substances is less of a priority than everything else in this bill. It is disgraceful.

We could have solved this issue had the majority considered a bipartisan path forward at any point in this entire process; but instead, just like last year, House Republicans squandered an entire year by taking us down a partisan path, forcing us to waste time considering extreme funding bills based on Trump's Project 2025 that they could not pass and that have no chance of becoming law.

Just like last year, House Republicans' refusal to meet Democrats at the table has left us without time to pass all 12 full-year appropriations bills before the end of September. Rather than admitting the inevitable defeat of their Project 2025 spending bills and passing a bipartisan bill to keep the government open while we finish our work, the majority proposes abandoning their obligation to govern, forcing a new Congress to clean up their mess. They have included an extraneous, partisan, controversial measure, nongermane to appropriations, that guarantees this continuing resolution will not become law.

The majority all but admitted this bill could not pass the House last week, but they are forcing us to waste more time on it anyway. Despite the looming threat of a government shutdown, even if it has the votes in the House, this bill will not pass in the United States Senate. The President has said he would veto it. This bill has no path to becoming law. If the government shuts down, Republicans bear the responsibility.

A 6-month continuing resolution is a ploy to force the extreme Project 2025 manifesto agenda on the American people. They want to slash domestic investments in healthcare, education, job training, and every other discretionary program, which will hurt the middle class and the economy.

This Project 2025 is no wish list, I might add. If you look at the appropriations bills that are coming forward, you can see the direction and the cuts that Project 2025 proposes to make.

The Republican majority believes a continuing resolution to the end of March provides them with more leverage to force their unpopular cuts to services that American families depend on to make ends meet.

The majority knows that the fiscal year ends September 30 and that we cannot fund the government without the support of Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate. However, for the second time in the 118th Congress, the majority does not want Congress to finish its work until March, nearly halfway through the fiscal year, wasting time, avoiding the inevitable, and failing to meet our obligations to the American people. A half-year continuing resolution is no way to govern. This is no way to serve the American people.

The American people have a choice to make in November, and come January, we will have a new President, and we will have a new Congress. While we presumably disagree on who we think will be leading our country and which side of the aisle will hold the gavel, we should agree that it is not right, not in the interest of the American people for us to punt this year's work deep into next year for a different Congress and a different White House to be confronted with.

We must pass a continuing resolution that allows us to finish our work before the new President and Congress are sworn in and which addresses the immediate needs of American families, workers, and veterans. A continuing resolution that ends in December rather than one that lasts half a year better serves our national security and military readiness, veterans, their families, victims recovering from natural disasters, and all hardworking American taxpayers.

Instead, the majority's bill fails our veterans. The majority's bill fails our military.

Putting government funding on autopilot for 6 months means the Department of Defense cannot execute its strategic priorities, such as investing in cutting-edge technologies and capabilities. Investments in our defense industrial base will be put on hold, including the submarine and shipbuilding bases.

Last weekend, Secretary Austin said in a letter: ``Asking the Department to compete with the [People's Republic of China], let alone manage conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, while under a lengthy [continuing resolution], ties our hands behind our back while expecting us to be agile and accelerate progress.''

He continued: ``The single most important thing that Congress can do to ensure U.S. national security is to pass timely legislation for all 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2025.''

The majority's bill fails our seniors and Americans with disabilities on Social Security.

In a letter sent last week to the Appropriations Committee, Social Security Administration Commissioner O'Malley warned of the ramifications of a 6-month continuing resolution, stating: ``We would likely be forced to reduce the hours field offices are open to the public and would need to close offices over time, extending wait times for seniors and individuals with disabilities.''

He continues: ``Through a lifetime of hard work, the American people have paid for and earned their Social Security benefits, and they have also paid for and earned the customer service they need to access those benefits. Another 6 months at current funding levels, as the House has proposed, would be devastating for the many Americans we serve every day.''

The majority's bill also fails communities devastated by disasters by shortchanging emergency funds for FEMA. This one you almost cannot believe. The bill provides nothing to rebuild the Key Bridge in Maryland, nothing for block grants to help communities recover from devastating natural disasters, including the horrifying wildfires in Hawaii and the tornadoes that devastated communities in places like Oklahoma.

The majority is failing to live up to their own promises to the American people, that they are capable of being trusted to do the hard work of governing. They have unequivocally demonstrated that they cannot.

This bill is an admission that a House Republican majority cannot govern. They would rather gamble on an intervening election than attempt to complete their work on time.

Let us hope the majority does not drive us straight to a Republican shutdown. If they do shut down the government, I have no doubt the American people will know who is to blame.

Vote ``no'' on this continuing resolution. Abandon this partisan game. Join Democrats at the table. It is past time to govern.

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

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

Let me make a point on veterans as well for my dear friend, the chairman. The fact of the matter is that the expansion of the PACT Act, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation, really is so important to the health and welfare of our veterans, our service people, who have been exposed to burn pits and toxic chemicals. That has exploded the participation within the VA for medical services.

This is a success story of reaching out and helping our veterans. In fact, they have a $12 billion shortfall. Do we say no? Do we say no to what we agreed to on a bipartisan basis for medical services for our veterans? My gosh, who are we and what are we about?

A final note on this: Further on in this continuing resolution, they tell the VA to spend faster the dollars for medical services. Do you know how much those dollars are? Zero. They said to spend zero dollars faster.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me state a fact. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits noncitizens from voting in Federal elections. It is not legal in any State for a noncitizen to vote for a Federal office. It is the law of the land of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, moving to appropriations, vote ``no'' on this bill. This bill is an admission that the House Republican majority cannot govern. It abandons veterans. It abandons our military, our Social Security recipients, and our cities and families who are grappling with disasters and no disaster relief.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that every appropriator on both sides of the aisle would prefer a 3-month continuing resolution. Republicans and Democrats need to come to the table. Let us move to setting a date in December. Let us get on with the business of governing, hammer out the programs and the numbers with regard to the programs,

and let the American people know that we are working on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly my Republican colleagues, it is now time to govern. Stop the game playing. Stop the foolishness and the wasting of the time we have, and let's get on to the business of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1430, I call up the bill (H.R. 9494) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2025, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 measure under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9494, the Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act of 2025.

Today's bill arises at a particularly challenging time for our country. For 4 years, President Biden and Vice President Harris' self- inflicted border crisis has caused chaos in communities across our country. Our national debt has risen to over $35 trillion, threatening the future financial stability of our country.

Across the world, America's adversaries continue to march forward, threatening our friends and democratic partners, and now we are facing a looming deadline to fund the government and keep it serving the American people.

Given the state of the world and our approaching election, this is no time to shut the government down. That means Congress needs to act, and we need to do so today.

The appropriations process is one that is never easy. It requires time and hard work to complete. Frankly, I am proud of what this body has accomplished this year. Even after a late start due to the delay of the fiscal year 2024 process and the President's late budget request, the Appropriations Committee succeeded in passing all 12 of our fiscal year 2025 bills out of committee.

The House also passed five of those bills across the floor, representing nearly 71 percent of overall discretionary spending. Unfortunately, time is drawing short, and our colleagues in the Senate, who have yet to pass a single fiscal year 2025 bill across the floor, have not kept pace with the House.

It is clear that we are unable to complete the full appropriations process by September 30. That means that a continuing resolution is needed. The bill before us extends government funding through March 28, 2025, ensuring that the government remains open and providing critical services to our constituents.

This extension will not only give us the time we need to complete our appropriations process for 2025 but also will allow the American people to have a say in the appropriations process.

The bill includes certain key extensions, including essential programs like flood insurance, WIC, and TANF. It also provides needed funding for disaster relief, helping communities across the country that have faced natural disasters this year or that will face them in the coming months.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in just 2 short months, Americans will go to the polls to elect a new President of the United States. This is a critical time for American democracy, and it is more important than ever that our elections are secure.

That is why H.R. 9494 includes the text of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which will ensure that only American citizens may vote in Federal elections. This commonsense legislation is necessary to protect the sanctity and security of our elections, making sure that it is American citizens alone who will choose the future direction of our country. This is as the Founding Fathers intended and as it should be.

Mr. Speaker, governance by continuing resolution is not ideal. It is always better to pass full-year appropriations bills through regular order, but we are out of time and we cannot afford a government shutdown, which would be greatly damaging to our national security, to critical government programs, and to the American people.

The stakes could not be higher. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 9494 today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would quickly make a point to my very good friend, who knows quite well I hold her in very high regard.

On the veterans issue, I just point out that we actually appropriated more to the VA than the administration asked for. We are certainly willing to sit down and have a discussion over any additional needs. Nobody wants veterans to be shortchanged.

Approaching Congress at the last minute, when it gave you more money than you asked for, suggests a high level of incompetence in this administration's management of the Veterans Affairs Department.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), my very good friend and the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

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

I just remind my friends, for the VA, which we both support, we offered more money than the administration asked for. It is pretty notorious for not doing a very good job of budgeting. That hasn't changed over the years. That is why we took away their ability to build hospitals.

Finally, I agree with my good friend from Minnesota about the importance of trying to get things done for the military, but I would remind everybody here that there has been a long history of CRs on both sides of the aisle. These aren't that unusual.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the distinguished chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), my very good friend.

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.

Mr. Speaker, as usual, these debates, particularly at these moments, get a little overheated, and I think we have seen a lot of that. I think the essence of what we are talking about here is pretty simple, and I think some of the charges that have been made against my colleagues in the majority are pretty ridiculous.

We are told we want to shut down the government. Really? What we are proposing actually keeps the government open longer than anything my friends on the other side are proposing.

We are told we didn't get our work done. Really? The United States Senate hasn't passed a single bill. It has not passed all of its bills out of committee. To be fair to my friends, and I have been around here a long time, when Democrats were in the majority, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never got 71 percent of the bills passed in time, the money spent because Democrats couldn't pass a defense bill. My Democratic colleagues have never been able to do that. Once my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do that, the minority, frankly, will exceed whatever the Democratic target was.

All of this stuff about not getting our work done or whatever, or we are not taking care of veterans, we gave this administration more money than it asked for, for veterans. At the last minute, we come back. I am for the Honoring our PACT Act. I voted for the Honoring our PACT Act. I am anxious to make sure it is appropriately funded, but if my colleagues think I am going to take the word of this administration's Department of Veterans Affairs at face value, no, I am not.

Frankly, that agency has a long history of surprising administrations at the last minute, and this one is particularly bad.

We are more than happy to deal with this. It doesn't have to be dealt with in a CR. It ought to be dealt with in the full bill during the final negotiations, and that is true for most of the things my friends have brought up. My colleagues like to talk about a clean CR and then give us a list as long as our arm of what is not in it.

Mr. Speaker, a clean CR is a clean CR. It is not full of all these other things that you are requesting and demanding. My Democratic colleagues need to decide which one it is.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about what this bill does. It is pretty simple. It keeps the government open until the end of March, or roughly, March 28, about 6 months. If we can get our business done faster, I am with my friend, the ranking member. I would prefer to do that. Looking at the record of Congress, I wouldn't hold my breath. Having some extra time is not a bad idea.

Second, I am extraordinarily perplexed that the idea of reaffirming, in a time of unmitigated disaster at the southern border, that you have to be an American citizen to vote in an election is somehow controversial. That is mystifying.

Frankly, we have every reason to be worried given the disaster on the immigration front this administration has allowed to unfold. As colleague after colleague of mine have pointed out, they can talk to local supervisors in their district who tell them, yeah, we have some people here who are illegal, and they are registered, and they voted.

What is the big deal about saying we want to make sure, in what we know is going to be a close election, that only American citizens participate. That is incredible that that is a controversial thing.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by, number one, thanking my friends who participated in the debate and worked so hard to present this. All we are trying to do is what my colleagues are asking us to do: Keep the government open. This bill will do that.

The controversial poison pill, as it is called, is simply saying: If you are going to vote in a Federal American election, you have to be an American citizen, and we are asking for proof to be provided.

I still get carded when I order a drink at a bar in some places. It is pretty flattering, but the requirement is there that I have to pull out my driver's license. I think it is a lot more important when we are talking about somebody voting in a consequential election that they be able to do that, so I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing.

If my friends want to go on record opposing that, that is up to them. I hope my friends on my side of the aisle see the wisdom of keeping the government open, particularly a few weeks before an election, and see the importance of reaffirming that only American citizens can vote in American elections.

We put those two things together. I think that is a very sensible thing to do, and I urge the support of this legislation.

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

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