Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again,…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again, House Republicans are spending a week on legislation that fails to solve many of the very real issues facing our constituents.
Last week, when I was in my district, my constituents shared with me their aspirations, their worries, and their vision for how to make our communities thrive for generations. Veterans from Hobbs described how hard it is to travel for access to healthcare and other services-- services that they have earned.
Seniors from Hobbs described the concern about paying their bills on a fixed income and the need to reduce costs. The Lovington mayor led us on a tour of the wastewater plant as he described the need to invest in water infrastructure in rural communities and thanked us for doing that and promoting such investment.
In Taos, New Mexico, ranchers and farmers working with the New Mexico Acequia Association, which for those of you who don't know, is a centuries-old system of providing irrigation to farmers and ranchers in New Mexico.
They talked to me about their concerns about growing their business amid the climate crisis that we are seeing and the drought conditions. These are real challenges that our constituents want us to fix, challenges that Congress has the ability and responsibility to address.
Does this rule make in order any bills to help address veterans' need to access healthcare?
Does it make in order any bills to help seniors pay their bills?
Does it help our rural communities access rural clean water systems?
Does it help our farmers keep their heritage and grow our foods?
Nope. It doesn't.
What are we doing this week?
We have a bill that prevents the use of Federal lands to provide temporary shelters for certain noncitizens, including migrants who are legally applying for asylum. It is a bill that fails to address the humanitarian crisis or security needs at our border.
Our colleagues across the aisle have consistently repeated harmful theories, like the invasion theory, where they seek to demonize the communities I represent and from which I come. Their talking points simply inflame the issue rather than looking to solve it.
This is just more of the same from a majority that is unable to govern effectively. Instead, we should pass legislation that actually improves our immigration system and acknowledges and upholds the dignity of immigrant communities.
There are real solutions to deal with the border. The Republican majority just doesn't want us to vote on them on this floor.
For example, the Dream and Promise Act has vast support from Americans, but will we see Republicans put it on the floor?
Nope.
The Farmer Workforce Modernization Act that has bipartisan support would help agricultural communities and help farmworkers, but will we see Republicans put it on the floor?
Nope.
We could move these bills, if only Republicans would stop blocking them. We will also consider today a resolution to reverse a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule. That rule would require lenders to collect and report information about the small business credit applications they receive, including geographic and demographic data, lending decisions, and the price of credit.
We know that many rural small businesses struggle with access to financial resources. It is important to know whether or not the banks, especially the big banks, are serving them.
Americans, the middle class, and small businesses want somebody on their side because they know the big banks and corporations aren't. That is why Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Despite the strong public support, Republicans continue to attack the Bureau. The Democrats are on the side of small businesses when we stand up for the Bureau and its work.
We should support initiatives to bring capital to entrepreneurs and innovators, especially in rural America. A lot of that work happens because of credit unions, I might add. I support efforts to address the credit unions' concerns about the smaller entities.
A CRA, though, as proposed by the Republicans, is an overly broad and blunt tool that prevents an agency from promulgating any regulation in an area that it addresses.
This CRA that they have put forward would tie the hands of the Bureau. It would prevent them from rulemaking regarding data for small businesses, women-and minority-owned businesses.
We need access to this data to make sure that small businesses, women- and minority-owned businesses, rural businesses have access to capital. Investing in these small businesses is how we grow the middle class, and that is what Democrats are focused on. How do we grow the middle class.
Lastly, H.R. 5961 would freeze certain Iranian funds involved in the 2023 hostage deal between the U.S. and Iran. We must acknowledge, and do acknowledge, that Iran is dangerous and a state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot allow the terror to continue.
I must remind my Republican colleagues that the Rules Committee already reported a rule for this bill. Their own party blocked the House from voting on this bill when they voted down the rule on the floor.
This week we should be debating a bill with aid for our allies, including Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others around the world, but I guess we are not.
I guess we should not be surprised with this rule. This is just a continuation of the chaos and closed process that has been a hallmark of this Republican-led House. We have seen over 40 closed rules on the floor that have blocked two-thirds of bipartisan amendments, including blocking half of all Republican amendments.
Republican leadership clearly hasn't made good on their promise to make the legislative process more open, inclusive, and accommodating.
This year, Republicans will have wasted nearly a month on internal politics just to elect a Speaker--time that could have been spent lowering costs for seniors and helping those veterans I mentioned earlier, time that could have been spent helping our farmers and ranchers, time that could have been spent helping to grow our middle class.
As Republicans continue to press forward legislation that seeks to further destroy and divide, House Democrats are working to improve the lives of everyday people.
House Democrats are committed to putting people over politics, to do what is right for everyday Americans; lowering costs, growing the middle class, and defending fundamental freedoms.
As we have all year, House Democrats continue to extend the hand of partnership to get things done for the American people, including passing legislation that invests in working families and keeping our Nation safe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This entire Congress, Republicans have tended to use titles for their bills that are extremely misleading. For example, today's rule includes the so-called Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act. Interestingly, though, this bill does not actually secure the border. In fact, it does not include any resources for States to deal with migrants who are awaiting processing. How is that protecting our communities? Let's invest where we need to address this issue.
Instead of addressing real problems at the border, Republicans are bringing up this unnecessary legislation to attack vulnerable migrants under the guise of protecting public lands. Remember, this is a public lands bill. It came out of the Natural Resources Committee. If they really cared about protecting public lands, they wouldn't have passed an Interior appropriations bill out of their committee that cuts nearly a billion dollars from the Federal land management agencies that are tasked with protecting these public lands.
The concern really isn't about protecting public lands, and it is not really about addressing the real immigration concerns. If they were really, truly interested in that, they would work with us to address the root causes of migration.
The most effective way to control the number of asylum-seekers arriving at our ports of entry is to help them stay in their home countries. They talk about that in some of their bills, but look at what they say and what they do.
Let's focus on what they actually do. They have put forward appropriations bills that actually cut funding for customs and border officers. They cut CBP funding. They cut money for fentanyl interdiction. That is what they actually do.
They may have bills with fancy titles and all this talk, but what happens when it comes to what they are funding? They are not funding with the necessary resources to address these issues.
For example, the last time we were in the Rules Committee, they were cutting funding for the FBI, DEA, and law enforcement agencies that we need to work on these issues. They are not supporting the kind of cutting-edge inspection machines that we need to detect fentanyl at our southwestern border ports of entry, like in the President's national security supplemental request.
I asked them if they were going to support the national security supplemental request with those provisions in it, if they were going to support the Democratic amendments in the border package earlier this year that would have made that bill better.
It is not a great bill. They focus on that wall. They are fixated on that wall. It is not what we need. We have seen report after report that it does not work. They just keep using migrants to score political points. This is the third bill we have seen this year, but none of them are true solutions.
If they were serious about solving the issues at our border, they would work with us on comprehensive legislation instead of these things that do absolutely nothing to fix the problem.
The problem isn't in New York City. It is their failure to work with us on legislation that would solve the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter of support for proposed section 1071, CFPB rule, which highlights the benefits of collecting lending demographic data for small farmers and farmers of color.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This letter tells us a lot about how Democrats see the issues in rural America, how Democrats see the issues affecting our small businesses, our women-owned businesses, and our minority-owned businesses. It is one of wanting to make sure that the playing field is level, that there is transparency and fairness at the same time that we use the market to build up thriving communities.
This is a letter that comes from ranchers, farmers, cooperatives, our rural areas. It is signed by dozens of organizations, and they read that the section 1071 rule is profarmer. Young, beginning, and small farmers have consistently demanded more transparent and fair markets.
Having accurate and public data will help farmers and consumers make better-informed financial decisions.
For some reason, the Republicans don't want to make sure that we have access to this data. What are they hiding? If big banks aren't serving our rural farmers, let's find that out.
This isn't just about that. This is about promarket. They say section 1071 is promarket. The data required by section 1071 will help lenders identify unmet credit needs and expand new markets.
This is important if we are going to grow the middle class. Once again, I was a small business owner. I had a woman-owned business. I went and sought credit. I filled out those forms. It wasn't that hard. I wrote down that, yes, I am a woman-owned business, and, yes, I am a minority-owned business. I am a Latina. I am proud of it. I am from a State capital, by the way, the oldest State capital in the United States, which is very pro-immigrant because we know of the economic benefits it provides.
We know that having access to this information is good for our small businesses. It is good for rural America. Therefore, we are very much in support of this rule, despite the fact that, once again, Republicans want to hammer and beat up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite the great work it does for our consumers, the great work it does for our small businesses, the great work it does for Americans, which is why they support it the way they do.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a measure that clearly states that the people's House will keep its solemn promise to American seniors and workers. We will protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and fight against any cuts to these crucial programs that so many of our constituents depend on.
Reaffirming our promise is more important than ever. Republicans on the Budget Committee today, as we speak, are holding a hearing about fiscal commissions that could slash Social Security and Medicare. We cannot allow that to happen.
The top candidates for President in the Republican Party are also calling for cuts to Social Security. The House must stand against that. Democrats in the House will stand against that.
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 Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, actually the debate around Social Security, similar to the debate about the Consumer Protection Bureau and its regulations, does highlight the policies that the Democrats and Republicans pursue and who are the beneficiaries of those policies.
Let's look at Social Security and what the Republican Budget Committee is looking at. They are looking at raising the retirement age. Who actually pays for that?
When you raise the retirement age, it is going to be the janitors, nurses, educators, and the people doing the hard work in our manufacturing plants that are going to be required to work longer. They are going to be the ones who are going to have a hard time because they don't have additional savings like the wealthy. Right?
The wealthy aren't going to care about whether you raise the age to 67, 68, or 72 because they have the assets and they are not relying on Social Security. It is our workers who have paid into Social Security who have earned it and deserve it. They deserve to receive the benefits that we promised them when they started working and paying into the system.
What can we do to make sure that Social Security is solvent in the future?
Well, Democrats have a bill that we introduced last year, and we supported it this year. You make sure everybody pays--no matter how much money you make--into the system. Right now we know that the wealthy stop paying into the system at about $147,000.
Why doesn't everybody pay Social Security taxes on all their earnings?
Why aren't the wealthy paying their fair share?
That is a policy difference. It is the policy distinctions that we are focused on.
Once again, Democrats are standing with working Americans who are not earning $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, or $1 million a year. We say you should pay your fair share of your Social Security taxes rather than doing what they want to do, which is gut benefits. When you raise the Social Security age, you are gutting the benefits.
That is an example of the distinction of when you are standing with working Americans and when your policies that you support are increasing the middle class instead of standing with the wealthy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we need to remember why we faced inflation in the first place. We need to remember that this country and the world faced down a pandemic that threatened to destroy our economy.
Let's go back to those dark days when we moved from the Trump Presidency to the Biden Presidency. Our businesses were closed. Our Main Streets were going to fall apart. Our city, local, and State governments were worried about whether they would be able to keep people on the payroll.
The Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, and we did rescue the economy indeed. I go to my working-class district because my entire district is like that. That is my family. I come from those roots. I speak to those people on a regular basis.
Every town I go into, I look at the number of loans, the PPP, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, and they are open now. Those communities are thriving because of the work we did. That was not the reason we saw inflation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review.
Mr. Speaker, this is an article titled: ``How Much Have Record Corporate Profits Contributed to Recent Inflation?''
Firms raised markups to 2021 in anticipation of future cost pressures contributing to about 60 percent. Every American knows that record profits added to inflation. They just keep on trying to blame it on the fact that we kept our small businesses open. That is not the case. We made sure that people did not get thrown out of their homes.
It is the big corporations that they protect with their policies, and they want to make sure that they can cheat on their taxes. They bring that up every little while. He brought up issues with regard to Israel. Well, you know, they didn't allow a clean bill to come to the floor because they wanted to make sure that tax cheats could continue cheating on their taxes. They wanted to cut that funding.
We know that those kinds of things hurt America. We know that part of the reason for inflation was because of Putin's war, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and what happened to the markets from that.
On that side of the aisle, we have the Putin protectors who are fighting back and do not want to provide any resources to Ukraine.
So, the majority should not start talking to me about inflation when the majority's policies are continuing to add to those problems.
You might know, Mr. Speaker, that neither this Congress nor this Presidency controls interest rates. That is the Federal Reserve. We do not control that. The President does not control that.
I would love to see interest rates come down because they do impact jobs. The fact that we had the lowest job growth of the Biden administration tells you--oh, my God, you had to compare it just to the Biden administration because the job growth has been phenomenal under this administration. It has been phenomenal based on the policies of what we did in the last Congress. We have added so many jobs.
We are seeing that the Inflation Reduction Act is bringing down inflation. Inflation is lower now than it was 1 year ago. Fact-check that. Yes, indeed, we have brought down inflation.
We are creating good manufacturing jobs. In New Mexico, we are creating manufacturing jobs. We are now manufacturing wind turbines. We are manufacturing solar facilities. We are manufacturing more now in New Mexico than we have done in the past.
Those are the kinds of things that are being created with the policies that Democrats supported and were signed into law last Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the comment about not talking about interest rates. The gentleman talked about mortgage rates, and mortgage rates are tied to the Federal Reserve. So, once again, understanding how our economy works and which agency and entity has control over that is very important.
I also want to talk about the idea of who is trusted. He mentioned some polls with regard to who is trusted on the economy. The reality is that we are right now in the people's House. We are the Representatives who are closest to the people and who are out there meeting with them. This is what the Founders intended. When the Founders created the House of Representatives, they wanted to make sure that we were a miniature of America and that we were in constant communication.
I know that that is what we do. I know that is what my colleagues do and what I do. We go out and talk with them. We listen to their stories and bring them back. We decide, based on what we hear, what we are going to prioritize.
I like the fact that Democrats, that my party, those of us on this side of the aisle, go out to listen and come back and push for policies that are going to lower costs, like the Inflation Reduction Act did where we lowered the cost of prescription drugs and where we made sure that nobody is going to pay more than $35 a month for insulin. People have been asking for that.
For the first time, we are going to negotiate with Big Pharma to bring down those costs where there is going to be a $2,000 out-of- pocket limit for
prescription drugs. These are important ways in which we are lowering costs.
We are lowering costs by making sure that we are providing homeowners and renters with the ability to lower their energy costs, whether that is putting in renewable energy facilities and solar panels or insulating homes.
Those are the kinds of things that my colleagues across the aisle, my good friends, might not understand, like how important it is to insulate your house. I am from where it is cold, so getting those insulation credits is important. It lowers costs.
Because of this work that we have done, I know that there is an aggregated poll out that points to the fact that Democrat incumbents are trusted in the House at a rate that is so further beyond our Republicans. They are underwater by 14 points. Their own constituents know that they are not fighting for their economic benefit.
Nevertheless, what we have seen this year is chaos and dysfunction take over the House under Republican leadership. While Democrats have been ready to put people over politics and deliver for America through bipartisan legislation, our colleagues across the aisle continue to introduce bills like we are considering today that focus more on culture wars and nonsolutions.
Today, we have an immigration bill that does not address the root causes of migration, offer solutions for our broken systems, or provide any resources to help the U.S. citizenship or immigration system or Customs and Border Patrol address an increase in migrants.
In this bill, they might talk about a lot of things, but that is not what this bill does. This bill does not address any of those key issues. Instead, it restricts the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture's ability to manage their lands. These agencies are in charge of managing our public lands, and we need to let them do their job.
We have a bill that fails to help our small businesses even when we know that SBA low-interest loans have helped thousands of entrepreneurs grow their businesses and the economy. Instead, they would seek to make those Federal loans less transparent and would cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's ability to address disparities in lending.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.