No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities 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, 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, rather than bring up an immigration bill that attempts to secure our border or address the broken immigration system, the Republican majority has brought us a bill that would simply bankrupt States and localities that have chosen a different path on immigration than the Republican agenda.

I am not surprised that this bill offers no solutions, though. Republicans have made it very clear that they are more interested in trying to scapegoat immigrants and score cheap political points, especially in these weeks leading up to the election, than in working to solve problems.

This legislation would prevent so-called sanctuary jurisdictions--in some cases entire States, like New York, California, and North Dakota-- from receiving any Federal funds that might ``benefit'' undocumented immigrants, resulting in drastic cuts to education, transportation, law enforcement, and healthcare. This bill is being rushed to the floor without following regular order. Given how poorly written this bill is, it is clear why its supporters might have wanted to shield it from greater scrutiny.

The title of the bill implies that it is narrowly crafted and targeted at Federal funds for undocumented immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions. In reality, however, its impact would be much, much wider. It would target not only States led by Democrats like New York, California, and Illinois, but Republican strongholds like Utah and North Dakota, and its impact would be felt across the country.

Let's think about how this bill would affect our communities. For example, local police protect the public. They do not check a person's immigration status when responding to a call for help or answering a 911 call. As a result, under this bill, State and local police forces will lose millions of dollars in Byrne JAG grants from the Department of Justice, one of the main ways that the Federal Government supports police equipment purchases, training, and officer salaries.

Likewise, States are required by law to provide students with a K-12 public education regardless of immigration status. As such, States receive billions of dollars from the Department of Education to fund K- 12 education. Under this bill, any so-called sanctuary jurisdiction would lose this funding for all its students, regardless of their immigration status.

One more example that highlights how truly absurd this bill is: Last year, the Federal Government provided the States of California and New York, both of which are considered sanctuary jurisdictions under this bill, with $5 billion and $2.3 billion respectively to build and maintain highways, bridges, and pedestrian infrastructure. This funding benefits all of the States' residents, including undocumented immigrants, which puts the funding at risk under this bill.

My Republican colleagues will argue that we are reading the bill too broadly, but we know this is exactly what Republicans want to do.

The Trump administration has previously tried to condition Department of Justice funding on States changing their sanctuary city policies. Further, this concept is straight out of Project 2025, which specifically calls on a potential future Trump administration to try to coerce States and localities into adopting anti-immigrant policies by withholding Federal funds.

Republicans used the term ``sanctuary city'' the same way that Donald Trump tells stories about immigrants eating cats and dogs. They want their constituents to be afraid of immigrants and to imply that some cities harbor criminals and refuse to comply with Federal law. The truth is, in some cities, gaining the trust of immigrant communities is a key component of good policing.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association argues that when local police are viewed as colluding with immigration authorities, they may spur ``increased crime against immigrants in the broader community, create a class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.'' Following this guidance, many cities across the country have adopted policies that limit contact between local police and Federal immigration agencies.

However, regardless of how someone may feel about sanctuary jurisdictions and community trust policies, the answer is not a blunt instrument that claws billions of dollars away from these States and localities. Our constituents send us here to fight for their interests, not to take away funds they depend on.

This is a dangerous and overly broad bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let's be real. The reason these migrants are in New York is because they were bused there involuntarily by Governor Abbott of Texas.

Mr. LaLota's bill would remove from New York all Federal funding for schools, all funding for transportation, because it says that in a sanctuary State or city, anything that may benefit migrants will not be paid. As I said in my opening remarks, roads benefit migrants like anybody else, so no funding for roads, bridges, and highways. Schools benefit migrants like anybody else, so no funding for the schools.

This bill would essentially take all Federal funding away from New York State. Why Mr. LaLota would introduce a bill to take basically all Federal funding away from our joint State of New York is a question his constituents are going to have to address in 2 months.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Chair, once again, I point out that what everyone thinks of the Biden administration's immigration policies, the only effect of this bill would be to take all Federal funds away from States like New York, California, North Dakota, Utah.

Again, for Mr. Molinaro, who represents New York, he will have to explain to his constituents why he thinks all Federal funds should be taken away from New York.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), a new member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as we get closer to the end of our fiscal year with no resolution in sight, we are wasting our time with these absurd bills.

I know that Members of this Chamber have very mixed feelings about appropriations bills and the earmarks that go along with them, but only in this backwards Congress would Members think that stripping their constituents of Federal funding is good policy.

This legislation, which offers no solutions and would serve only to punish our communities, is opposed by law enforcement, organized labor, and civil and immigrant rights organizations.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a bad bill even worse. The underlying legislation is already dangerous and overly broad. It would prevent so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, in some cases entire States, from receiving any Federal funds that might benefit undocumented immigrants, resulting in drastic cuts to education, transportation, law enforcement, and healthcare.

To make matters worse, this amendment would force this bill into effect within 60 days of passage. So even if States and localities wanted to change their policies to comply with this bill, they likely would not be able to do so in time.

Many State legislatures are only in session for parts of the year. The legislature for my State of New York, for example, is only in session 6 months out of the year and does not convene again until January 2025.

There has been no consultation with the relevant agencies to determine if this short timeline is feasible, not only to determine every sanctuary jurisdiction, but also what funds and programs are impacted.

This amendment makes this dangerous bill even more absurd.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, this bill would take funds away not from illegal immigrants only; it would take funds away from everybody in many States and many cities. It would take virtually all funds for police; virtually all funds for highways, bridges, and roads; and virtually all funds for health and hospitals.

Most of the people who would suffer under this bill are American citizens.

The Republicans say: So what? They have made the choice to be a sanctuary space.

American citizens have this choice. They have the right to make decisions. That is what self-government is all about, and this bill comes along and says, let's take away the right of all of the people of New York, of California, of Utah, of North Dakota, and of Illinois to make decisions about their government. They are not really Americans. Let's take those rights away.

It is pernicious, and this amendment would say: Don't even give them the time to do it, and don't even give the Federal agencies the time to adjust their policies to do it.

This makes no sense.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into a debate over the Biden administration's immigration policy. That is a separate debate that is happening.

The fact of the matter is that this bill would take virtually all Federal funds away from many States and many cities in this country.

A sanctuary jurisdiction is ineligible to receive any Federal funds that the sanctuary jurisdiction intends to use for the benefit, including the provision of food, shelter, healthcare services, legal services, and transportation of aliens who are present in the United States without lawful status.

Aliens present in the United States without lawful status use our roads and highways, so no road and highway money for all the people who are born who are here. Aliens who are here go to schools, so no funding for education. Aliens who are here go to hospitals when they are sick, so no funding for healthcare.

This makes no sense. This bill would take large amounts of money and virtually all Federal funds in fact away from many States in the Union.

Mr. Ogles says it would leave more money for Tennessee. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it would take virtually all Federal funds away from most States, and frankly as a Representative from New York which would lose all Federal funds, I wouldn't vote for a nickel for Tennessee in that case. That is because all Americans, whether in Tennessee or New York or Pennsylvania or Illinois, should be treated equally and not sacrificed on the altar of someone's opinion of immigration policy.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide an annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees listing all the jurisdictions that failed to comply with a detainer request or inform the Department about the release of an individual. It is important for us to take a step back and remember what this bill is about. This bill is intending to strip Federal funding from jurisdictions that have ``sanctuary'' policies.

I think a report like this would be quite illuminating for Members across the aisle because it would show Republicans just how many of their own constituents are being harmed with their own legislation.

Communities in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, just to name a few, would lose out on funding for central services, like public schools, infrastructure, and policing.

Yes, I think this report would help show exactly how damaging this legislation is, and, therefore, I do not oppose this amendment.

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

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

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 H.R. 5717.

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

Mr. Chairman, in just 3\1/2\ years, President Biden and his border czar, Kamala Harris, have allowed more than 7.6 million unvetted, illegal aliens into the United States. That is the equivalent of adding an entirely new State almost the size of Arizona, our 14th largest State, with nine congressional districts. Those not engaged in criminal activities are almost entirely destitute and are overwhelming public schools, hospitals, food banks, public housing, and social services.

This began the very first day of this administration, when Biden and Harris rescinded the remain in Mexico policy, ordered construction on the border wall halted, and literally instructed ICE to stop enforcing court-ordered deportations.

Today, ICE remains hog-tied in discharging its duty to remove even criminal illegal aliens from our midst. Before they can do so, they are now required to first develop a full profile of the criminal and to identify mitigating circumstances, such as if the criminal has high blood pressure or is a caregiver.

A former top ICE official told the Judiciary Committee that the Biden-Harris policies have made immigration enforcement more dangerous, more difficult to carry out, and less efficient overall. The flood of illegal mass migration at our southern border has thinned the ranks of ICE officers available to enforce laws within the interior because so many have been siphoned off to process illegals being allowed into our country.

When constituents ask me how this could be happening to their communities, I have to remind them that if they voted for Biden and Harris, this is exactly what they voted for, and if that surprises them, they weren't paying attention.

In 2019, Kamala Harris told the ACLU she would slash funding for immigration detention and close private immigration detention centers. As ABC News has been forced to confess, Harris did, in fact, endorse taxpayer funding to provide transgender surgeries for illegal aliens detained in the United States.

Americans are beginning to realize the severe danger to public safety posed by cities and States that refuse to notify ICE so that dangerous criminals can be turned over to them for deportation once they have served out their sentences, as the law requires. Instead, the woke left releases these criminals back onto our streets and into our communities to prey on new victims.

Instead of ICE being able to take these criminals into custody while they are disarmed and in custody, ICE agents, instead, must track them down and confront them when they are armed and at large. This is the very essence of the sanctuary policies that so many Democrats, including Biden and Harris, have supported and facilitated.

Although current law already prohibits jurisdictions from refusing to cooperate with Federal immigration officials, jurisdictions controlled by leftist officials continue to do so. This bill changes that.

The growing list of Americans victimized by criminal aliens released back onto our streets, in defiance of Federal law, is truly appalling.

According to ICE, Cook County, Illinois, saw law enforcement release 1,070 criminal aliens and immigration violators in fiscal year 2019 despite requests by ICE to notify the agency before they are released from local custody. One of those criminals was a Mexican national who had been arrested for theft. After his release from custody, that illegal alien lured a 3-year-old girl into a McDonald's bathroom and sexually assaulted her. Had Chicago authorities cooperated with Federal officials, that man, a convicted aggravated felon who previously had been deported, could have been in ICE custody and instead removed to Mexico.

In January 2023, a 27-year-old illegal alien from Mexico was allowed to remain in the United States through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program despite his arrest for domestic violence in New Jersey. Local law enforcement ignored an ICE detainer and released him, where he went on to murder his girlfriend and a married couple.

Without this legislation, we should brace ourselves for what is to come. In 2019, Kamala Harris committed to ending ICE detainers. H.R. 5717 would prevent any jurisdiction from ever doing so again.

Specifically, this bill renders sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible to receive certain taxpayer dollars that would bankroll illegal immigration in American communities. By denying certain Federal funding to jurisdictions that prohibit or restrict their cooperation with Federal immigration officials, the bill encourages sanctuary jurisdictions to end their anti-enforcement policies in favor of working with the Department of Homeland Security.

Today, Democrats will present far-fetched hypotheticals about how Republicans want to strip funding from program after program. On the contrary--to continue to receive these

funds, the jurisdiction would simply need to follow existing law. Isn't that what a nation of laws is all about?

It is absurd that a bill like this is even necessary. As we have seen time and time again, far-left jurisdictions would prefer to release dangerous criminal aliens back onto American streets than to deport them once they have served their sentence, as Federal law requires. This bill helps end this dangerous and tragic absurdity.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), the author of this bill.

Mr. Chair, every grant the Federal Government makes to States and localities comes with conditions that they must fulfill in order to receive those funds. This measure simply says to get Federal funds, you must obey Federal law.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee received chilling testimony from Sheriff Mike Boudreaux of the rural Central Valley county of Tulare, California. What he told us should be an earsplitting alarm for every town and every city in America.

In the sanctuary State of California, the criminal cartels have sunk deep roots throughout the State. In his county alone, a single assassin for the Sinaloa cartel admitted to over 25 murders. The sheriff said:

That he was responsible for a certain area of California

and there were many other assassins assigned by cartels in

California, throughout California, that were responsible for

those areas.

Then he spoke to California's sanctuary State law. He told of a reign of terror committed by an illegal migrant over a 24-hour period in his county: a murder in Visalia, attempted murders an Exeter and Tulare, as well as shootings in Pixley, Sultana, and Visalia and an armed robbery in Exeter.

Here is the fine point of the matter: 2 days before this nightmare unfolded, this monster had been arrested, and ICE had requested a detainer so that they could deport him.

As Sheriff Boudreaux testified again:

Due to California's sanctuary State law, the Sheriff's

Office was legally prohibited from recognizing or honoring

the detainer of this would-be murderer and we were further

prohibited from notifying ICE of his release from jail.

This is the dystopian world the Democrats have created in California with their sanctuary law which was supported at the time by then-State Attorney General Kamala Harris.

As Sheriff Boudreaux told us:

Much of what I speak of in regard to California and the

violence, as well as the human trafficking, it is mirrored in

other States all throughout the United States. The cartel

wants to control these migrant towns and truly lead the same

way that they are in other countries, specifically in Mexico.

He estimated that well over 50 percent of the crimes that he is dealing with in his county are now being committed by illegal immigrants, but since he can't report or confirm these numbers, the official number is zero.

I might add that the NYPD estimates that 75 percent of the crimes that they are now dealing with in Manhattan are committed by illegal migrants.

If it has not come to your neighborhood yet, Mr. Chairman, it soon will if we continue down the path that we are on.

Mr. Chairman, the American people have precious little time to awaken and stop this insanity before it engulfs their towns, neighborhoods, and communities if it hasn't already. In the meantime, measures like this will assure that policies like this never again are allowed to threaten our families.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, there are nearly 300 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States. That is 300 places in our Nation that refuse to cooperate with Federal law enforcement to detain and remove illegal aliens. That is why this underlying bill is so important.

There is not a single so-called sanctuary jurisdiction locality that intentionally refuses to uphold the law who should be receiving Federal funds. Every city, county, or State that has laws, regulations, resolutions, or policies protecting illegal alien criminals from ICE should not receive a penny of Federal funding for the benefits of those illegal aliens.

Unfortunately, these jurisdictions received over $300 million from the Department of Justice in 2021 alone.

My concern with this legislation, and it is a fairly minor one, is the timeline. Right now, the bill says that there will be a complete funding prohibition on food, shelter, healthcare, and other services for illegal aliens in sanctuary jurisdictions, but the funding ineligibility kicks in at the beginning of the fiscal year after the date of an enactment.

Practically, that could raise a circumstance in which the funding prohibition described in this bill wouldn't kick in until nearly a year after this bill becomes law.

In my view, that is too long. It is too long of a timeframe for these sanctuary cities, these jurisdictions, to get away with violating our laws and taking tax dollars from hardworking Americans.

This amendment amends section 3 of the text to ensure that the funding ineligibility for these jurisdictions become effective no later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this act and potentially even sooner.

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

Mr. Chairman, these jurisdictions are aiding and abetting criminals. They are ignoring and violating Federal law. They created this problem, so if they have to call a special session to fix the problem they created, that is on them. It shouldn't be the taxpayers of Tennessee who have to fund it.

I have got veterans in my community that aren't getting services because of illegal immigrants. There are only so many dollars to go around. Tennessee spends roughly $850 million a year annually for illegal immigrants. That is textbooks, that is computers for our kids, that is psychological evaluations and treatment for our veterans. If I have to choose between a citizen and an illegal who is violating our laws, I choose an American every single time.

Mr. Chairman, if Soros-funded sanctuary jurisdictions want to violate the law and turn their backs on America, on our citizens, and on law enforcement personnel, they should not be financially rewarded for doing so. There is no good argument my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can make that involves asking my constituents, hardworking Americans in middle Tennessee, to subsidize the lives of lawbreakers as well as the decisions of sanctuary jurisdictions who want to protect those lawbreakers.

It is time to defund and to deport. This is our country. We get to decide who comes in, and we get to decide who has to leave.

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

Mr. Chairman, the crazy conjecture of the consequences is clearly confounding.

Let's be honest. We are talking about the food, the shelter, and the healthcare that is going directly to illegal immigrants, nothing to American citizens. Keep in mind, it is the jurisdictions who created this problem. It is the jurisdictions that are violating our laws and making a mockery of our system and turning their backs on law enforcement.

Mr. Chair, you have girls and women all across the country who have been sexually assaulted by illegals. These are crimes that would never have happened if they were back in their home country if they had never been allowed in this country, if they had not been given sanctuary, had they not been released.

So when the gentleman talks about consequences, why doesn't he ask those women and those children?

Why doesn't the gentleman ask those families?

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

Mr. Chairman, what this does is asks Homeland Security to produce a report. So-called sanctuary jurisdictions choose to undermine Federal law enforcement when it attempts to enforce our immigration laws. I am grateful we are considering the underlying bill to hold them accountable. I thank the chairman.

One policy that would make a city a sanctuary city is a prohibition or a restriction on government entities or officials from complying with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

My modest amendment just asks that DHS provide an annual report to Congress detailing which jurisdictions have failed to honor such lawful requests. I believe having that information and having the report is important. Without it, it could be difficult to know which jurisdictions are complying with the law.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for supporting my amendment.

As we look at the jurisdictions across the country that may be ignoring current Federal law, whether by ordinance, whether by order of the mayor, by statute, or just an unwritten rule, this report would illuminate and bring to light those jurisdictions that, quite frankly, are putting America at risk.

A border crisis is a disaster for the country. It has turned every State into a border State. It spurred drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other crime. There was just a bodega that was shut down that was trafficking illegals today.

It has caused resource crises for cities and towns across the country who have found that they don't have the resources to deal with the influx, the mass influx, of people the Biden-Harris administration has released upon them.

Again, this information is critical as we move forward, as we look for solutions and put an end to this crisis that is plaguing our country.

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

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

Mr. Chair, in closing, again, it is a simple report. It is valuable information. It is time that all cities, all communities enforce the Federal law. It is time to deport the illegals who are draining our system, taking money away from American citizens.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.