No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act

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

Let me first start off by saying the President of the United States did the right thing. It is easy to say why we should vote against this bill.

My good friend, the chairman, has talked about October 7 over and over. Our committee has had several family members come before our committee where we have vowed to do everything we can to get their family members back home.

For me, it has been very personal. Yesterday, we talked to a group of family members. We told them we will not stop until we get their family members back home.

Negotiating to bring our hostages home is hard because you have to do it with bad people.

Guess what? Hamas committed the heinous acts on October 7, but who are we negotiating with to get the hostages home? Hamas. It is not easy, but we vowed in front of these witnesses.

I wonder what we would say to those five individuals and families, who are now safe at home, before they were released? Would we have promised them and didn't we promise them we would do everything we could to get them back home?

Yes, President Biden did the right thing. He brought five Americans home who were rotting in Iran's notorious Evan prison.

Every Member of Congress--I repeat, every Member of this Congress who was aware of these cases wanted our fellow citizens to come home. Now, they are saying they should not have come home.

This was done, wanting them to come home, with a bipartisan voice. President Biden thus succeeded in doing what his predecessors could not. He got them home.

Iran, of course, as is Hamas, is a murderous and corrupt regime. They are not pleasant, and this isn't easy. Thanks to this agreement, five American families are now whole again, and Iran has lost the leverage of holding these American hostages.

Now, H.R. 5961 would sanction parties that carry out the financial terms of the hostage agreement in question. These include three European commercial banks and the Central Bank of Qatar, who, by the way, has been very instrumental in working with us to get hostages home that were taken on October 7, but let's really talk about the facts.

Yes, I have been in classified sessions and nonclassified sessions and have heard it, as all of us have. Let's talk about the facts.

Billions of Iran's own profits from oil sales were sitting in a restricted account in South Korea. It was done by the prior administration. It was established by the Trump administration for Iran to make approved humanitarian purchases. This wasn't done by the Biden administration. It was sitting in South Korea, by the Trump administration, for humanitarian purchases.

The United States had no control over that account while it was sitting there. The agreement moved that $6 billion from the restricted account in South Korea, converted it to euros, and relocated it into the restricted account in Qatar, which now the United States has visibility over--not a single penny--facts, not conjecture, facts.

I don't think anyone can refute the fact that not a single penny has moved into Iran. Not one. Not a penny, much less a dime. Not a penny has moved into Iran.

Under the terms of the agreement, Iran can use the money in Qatar to make approved humanitarian purchases to acquire medicine, medical equipment, agricultural goods, and food. Iran's government physically will never touch this money. The entirety of the transaction occurs outside of Iran, and Iran only receives the vetted humanitarian goods.

By the way, that is consistent with our values, and that is why we, in all of this, are talking about humanitarian concerns for people who are just victimized by bad people.

Thus far, Iran has not made any requests of the humanitarian fund, and nothing has been gained by Iran. All of the money remains in the account, an account that the United States can watch.

We have leverage over that account due to our relationship with the correspondent banks in Europe that would help process any transactions. In other words, we know we now have more control over this money than we did when it was sitting in South Korea. In fact, this account provides us with leverage, not the other way around.

Furthermore, following the horrific attacks in Israel on October 7, the United States and Qatar froze the humanitarian fund, so it is frozen now in Qatar. No humanitarian purchases will be approved any time soon. Again, nothing has changed.

The money remains in the account and we continue to have leverage. Nothing has changed from when the money was sitting in South Korea.

The only thing that has changed is five American citizens are no longer sitting in an Iranian prison. They are back home with their families.

Madam Chair, if H.R. 5961 is passed into law, that leverage will be gone. It will disappear. We will also lose our ability to conduct diplomacy with Iran and others in the future. If we blow up this agreement by passing this bill, we, the United States, will be the ones breaking yet another sensitive negotiated agreement.

Our word and integrity will no longer be good in negotiations, whether it is with Iran or any other parties. The United States must continue to address--and here is where I think we agree--no one is saying that the United States needs to continue to address Iran's backing of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Iranian-supported Hamas terrorists unleashed pure evil when they broke a cease-fire in the attacks on October 7. The population of Gaza would not be engulfed in war right now if it were not for Hamas. But we must also remain sober and serious about the challenge of Iran's nefarious nuclear

program. None of the bad options we possess to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions are better than the diplomatic track, which has already proven successful.

It was the United States who actually violated the JCPOA, not Iran. Pulling out of this hostage agreement will be the second time we violate an agreement with Iran's leaders. Passage of this bill would mean potentially slamming the door closed on future diplomacy, leaving us only with dangerous and highly risky options of confronting Iran's nuclear program.

We all agree, Iran must not ever have a nuclear weapon, but guess what, since we pulled out of JCPOA, they are closer to getting a nuclear weapon than had we been in there.

Madam Chair, the prisoner swap confirms to the Iranian regime that the United States is a reliable negotiating partner, just as we see taking place right now.

As we bring the hostages home from Gaza, they have to deal with Hamas. Both sides have to keep their word. We have warned Israel, who is a strong, diplomatic, honest country moving forward, fighting for its existence but have to deal with Hamas. They made an agreement, and they are living by that agreement. Hostages are coming home, and we want that to continue for each and every one of them. They are not just simply being released, Israel is giving something back in return.

In our case, Iran is actually not getting anything because they are not getting a dime to be utilized for their nefarious purposes.

Madam Chair, let me conclude with this: The agreement has freed five Americans--I repeat, five American citizens--who were suffering in an Iranian prison, who we all, in a bipartisan way, said we would do anything to get them home. We wanted them to be home.

It shifted Iran's own money from an account in Korea that we did not control, to one where we play a role and have control that we didn't in South Korea.

Not a single penny has left the account. I don't think anybody can refute that. Not a single penny has left the account. Not a single penny has entered Iran. Not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar has been involved.

This fund remains frozen indefinitely by the United States in Qatar, which has been working closely with us and Israel.

There is no reason to jeopardize future negotiations or further inflame an already dangerous situation by passing this bill. The fact of the matter is, I don't see why we would want to pass this bill. We know that diplomacy is the first thing we need to move forward in bringing our people home.

Lastly, let me just say this because I want to be absolutely clear: I don't want Iran's leaders to benefit from our actions in any shape, fashion, or form. This hostage agreement that stands today, they have not benefited from it and will not benefit from it.

Unfortunately, this legislation will shoot American global credibility in the foot without even touching Iranian regime leaders. We encourage this House not to rush into passing this bill. Let's keep the door open for diplomacy.

This stands as an example with Iran and others because we have adversaries, but you always have to deal with those adversaries and negotiate and talk to try to figure out how we can live in a better place.

Let's think ahead. Let's not play checkers. Let's play chess. That is what this is all about.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just say that I keep hearing this demonstrates weakness. The Biden administration demonstrated strength in being willing to stand with your enemies and negotiate.

I can recall, for me, even in our own country, what I learned to live by. Many folks were thinking that when Dr. King was moving forward with nonviolence, he was demonstrating weakness and that we should go back and fight. He demonstrated strength. Sometimes when dealing and negotiating, that is where strength comes from, and if you just go out swinging, you demonstrate weakness.

What Joe Biden has done was kept his word, number one. He said that he would bring, whenever he could, American hostages home. This body has said to American families that we would do everything and anything to bring their families home. We should keep our word.

President Biden kept his word to those five American hostages, and the United States House of Representatives should keep its word and not challenge the agreement that the President made to return those five American hostages.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I haven't heard a reply. Not one penny has gone to Iran. If I am wrong, then someone tell me. Not one cent. The money is frozen in Qatar. Not one penny.

None of this could have been used by Hamas, Iran, or anyone for October 7. They didn't have a dime.

The money was there already, put there for humanitarian purposes by the Trump administration. It was in South Korea, but we didn't have any control over it.

I didn't hear anybody talk about that when the Trump administration was there, that he should not have sent the money to South Korea. This should not be something that we are playing politics on.

The money shifted from South Korea and was changed into euros and sent to Qatar, where we have now more visibility than ever. Not a dime is going to Iran. We have five American hostages home, and then we are going to question the deal.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me say this: The United States has values. What is taking place and what took place in Israel and is taking place in Gaza right now is why we are fighting so hard to make sure that we have a supplemental that includes humanitarian aid.

We know that there are people in Gaza, Palestinians, who are not part of Hamas. Everyone wants to make sure, as we are doing in this pause, that humanitarian aid is getting to them. It shows the best of who we are as Americans.

It is also so in Iran. Every Iranian is not part of the regime. In fact, the regime is cruel and does not provide humanitarian aid to many of its citizens.

We don't want to be like the regime. We want to show our humanity. Yes, when human beings are suffering, we want to make sure that we get in humanitarian aid so that we can take care of them. That is what is happening right now. That is why we are having the pause in the Middle East, in Gaza.

Doing the hostage exchange, bringing people home, is what we should be doing. What we are also doing is bringing in humanitarian aid to those individuals who Hamas would never aid.

So people around the world will respect and know who we are, we should never give up on our values. The money that we are talking about is not going to be used or getting into the hands of the Iranian regime. We are talking about trying to show that we have care and humanity for those who are the victims of the regime.

Humanitarian aid. That is who we should be. We should be proud of the fact that we want to try to take care of those who are a part, unfortunately, of dictators and authoritarian regimes who will not take care of their people. That is not who we are.

If, in the future, through the constraints that we have and the approval that needs to take place we can help somebody that has been victimized, I think that is the right thing to do.

To say that we don't care is the wrong thing to do. I just wonder if we would invite those five families of those who have now returned home, what would we say to them?

We wish your folks would have stayed in the prison because the President should not have made this deal because of humanitarian aid?

What would we say to them?

What can we say to them now? They are listening to us.

We should renege on the deal and let their loved ones stay in prison?

Thank God President Biden understands being a humanitarian, bringing our folks home, and at the same time having a hard line against Iran and Hamas and its affiliates.

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

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

Mr. Chair, one question that I think remains unanswered to my colleagues on the other side: Are you willing to go and tell the family members of those five hostages that are now home that they should still be in that prison?

Are you willing to tell them that we should not have worked out a deal with the $6 billion frozen for humanitarian

concern and that we should renege on the deal and they should go back to prison?

The one thing that is missing is that we got these hostages home, and that can't be held over our heads by Iran anymore.

I don't hear an answer to that.

What do you say to those families?

We have talked to families who have loved ones that are hostages. What do you say to them? You should still be there? We should not have made the deal?

Is that what you are saying? I think that what I am hearing is that this deal should not have been made and those American hostages should still be sitting in that Iranian prison?

I ask my colleagues on the other side: What do you say to those five families?

Do we renege on the deal?

Do you tell them they should not be home, so we should not have made the deal?

We have hostages before us all the time. What do you say to them?

I know what I am going to say to them. I am glad their family members are home and I am glad Joe Biden made the deal to get them home. He is not threatening and not using any U.S. dollars. There is no threat from Iran in regard to that $6 billion to be utilized for any aggression on their part.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. First, the debate on the House floor today is a rare moment where the House Foreign Affairs Committee is debating legislation under a rule, rather than under suspension.

For those who don't know what that means, it signifies that this bill is not bipartisan. That is in contrast to the great majority of legislation that comes out of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

This is the first primary Foreign Affairs bill this year that we are debating under a rule this Congress. In the previous two Congresses, under the Democratic leadership, we debated a total of one bill under a rule.

One thing I will say, as I have talked throughout this debate, one thing that is a fact is that Mr. McCaul is my friend. We always try to reach an agreement on all bills. There is no question about that. I am not questioning that at all. We are frequently, as we did yesterday, very successful.

We had a completely bipartisan markup, including on a potentially game-changing bill that would codify an outbound investment regime to protect our economy and our national security. I would say that that is the way I do believe this committee is ran, and we work very closely together.

On this bill is one of those times where I do fundamentally disagree with the arguments put forward by the majority. I submitted an amendment that would have added a national security waiver to the legislation. Such a waiver is a very restrictive standard. The President can only waive the sanctions if it was vital to the national security of the United States. He could not waive the sanctions for trivial reasons, nor even for an important economic reason. He could only waive the sanctions to protect our national security. Of course, that amendment was not made in order.

Every major sanctions bill over the last 20 years has had basic exemptions and waivers, like the amendment I offered to this bill. This history includes numerous Republican sanctions, bills targeting Iran. By moving a bill today without those very basic guardrails, we are undermining bipartisan practices that have been held for decades. We are also forfeiting leverage to promote American interests and undercutting our credibility around the world.

As such, I oppose this legislation. It is the wrong time for this legislation. It is improper. It will hurt down the road. We need to look and have a vision for down the road because, for me, what we do is not just about today. It is about--I have three granddaughters, and I say this everywhere--it is about 5, 2, and 6 months, so it is about what takes place and what opportunities might be available 60 years from now.

As we look back at prior history, things that were done by prior Congresses had an effect 50 and 60 years later. People that are our allies now, 60 years ago were our enemy. Time changes things. People who were our enemies 60 years ago are now our allies.

Let's think forward. Let's vote this bill down--at least we should have the waivers in there. I must oppose this legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I strongly support this amendment.

The United States must stand for humanitarian aid and must stand for helping the people of Iran, even while we condemn the Iranian governing regime. The regime's medieval views on women's rights and religious freedom and their depraved agenda of financing terrorists around the region are separate from the people of Iran.

This amendment simply separates the government from the people, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this very good and humanitarian amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is counterproductive. The House has voted in a bipartisan manner to support general licenses to Iran to allow open internet access to the protesters against the regime of Iran. That could violate this vaguely drafted amendment. In the recent past, the United States has spent very small sums of money to promote civil society and democratic ideals in Iran, and that could violate this amendment.

This amendment, I believe, with all due respect, is carelessly drafted and unvetted. Therefore, I must oppose it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment targets Qatar, the most

important partner of the United States in freeing Americans and Israelis held hostage by Hamas.

Passage of this amendment and, in my opinion, this overall bill would jeopardize sensitive, ongoing diplomacy related to the hostage crisis in Gaza and further endanger Americans and Israelis in harm's way. Israel's National Security Adviser publicly praised Qatar's role as crucial to ongoing efforts to facilitate humanitarian solutions.

Furthermore, it was reported in late October that Qatar's Emir told Secretary of State Blinken that his government was open to reconsidering the presence of Hamas in Qatar once the hostage crisis is resolved.

I agree that Hamas' continued presence in Qatar and Turkiye is problematic. These terrorist leaders are living a life of luxury while their people suffer in Gaza. They should be held accountable, but this is not the way to go about it.

Let's free our hostages. Then, we can talk and work with Qatar to hold Hamas' leadership in Doha accountable.

This amendment is simply grandstanding and not the best way to deal with this issue, and certainly, it is being offered at the worst possible time.

Diplomacy is very important. If we challenge or damage these diplomatic channels, it further endangers Americans.

We can't pass this legislation. We should not pass this legislation. I ask my colleagues to please join me in voting ``no'' on this amendment. We shouldn't even need the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).

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

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

Mr. Chair, I will just simply say, very briefly, when you hear from Israel, its leaders, Israel's national security advisor publicly praising Qatar's role as crucial, and when I visited Israel and talked to the head of their defense, talked to Prime Minister

Netanyahu, all said that Qatar was crucial to this negotiation.

Let's not do this. It is the wrong time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is needless and simply not rooted in fact. The sponsor bases his claims for this amendment on the assertion that the administration has not condemned Houthi militants for their violent actions and continued destabilizing behavior. This simply is not accurate.

The Biden administration has repeatedly called out the violence of Houthi militants that they have perpetuated against civilians, including recent missile launches toward Israel, as well as our Gulf partners.

In fact, as recently as this past Tuesday, November 28, the State Department called out the violence of Iranian proxies across the region as well, and especially called on the Houthis to immediately cease attacks.

The United States led other G-7 nations in this public effort, which follows other similar statements. These statements include the State Department's condemnation of Houthi militants seizing the cargo ship Galaxy Leader on November 20.

Spokesperson Matt Miller called such actions flagrant violations of international law and demanded the immediate release of the ship and its crew.

The administration made similar statements earlier this year and last, calling out Houthi abuses against Yemeni civilians, missile launches against Gulf partners, and more.

I, along with many of my colleagues, have and will continue to call out abuses, escalatory actions, and violence throughout the region, just as the administration has.

This amendment is an unnecessary and ill-conceived attempt to misrepresent the facts, so I must oppose it, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do so as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say this.

Joe Biden has been one of the staunchest Israel supporters of any President of the United States.

You are going to take the word of the Ayatollah over the word of the President of the United States?

The President of the United States has said not a penny will get to the Ayatollah, but yet you want to take the side or believe in that brutal authoritarian dictator.

I think that the American people know better than that. I think that the American people understand better than that. I think that the American people can look at the facts and see what side Joe Biden is on, as he talks on a regular basis with the leadership of Israel, almost every day since October 7.

I wouldn't trust or believe anything that the Ayatollah says, but I do believe in Joe Biden.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be counterproductive to America's interest.

No President, whether he be Democratic or Republican, has used this waiver for anything but the most pressing reasons.

Rescinding this waiver would likely prevent the administration from waiving sanctions that allow Iraq to pay for electricity imports from Iran. Without this waiver, Iraq likely will be unable to import electricity from Iran, leading to electricity outages and instability across Iraq.

We have seen what instability in Iraq looks like over the past decade: the decay of central governance, the rise of ISIS, and a growing terrorist ideology that struck America and Europe in numerous deadly attacks.

America has many interests in the Middle East, and this waiver is important for ensuring that this administration or any future administration has the flexibility it needs to promote American interests.

It is important for the Presidents, this one and those in the future, to have that flexibility. Thereby, I oppose my good friend from Texas' amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Jackson amendment.

The world in 2023 does not look like the world in 2018. Russia has invaded Ukraine. Hamas has attacked Israel. The Burmese partial democracy has collapsed in a coup.

On the positive side of the ledger, NATO is more united than divided. The AUKUS pact has fortified our relationship with our closest allies. Japan and Korea are cooperating with each other like never before.

In 2018, most of us were unfamiliar with the term ``coronavirus.'' In 2023, many of us are trying to forget it. The point here is that the world can change dramatically in just 5 years.

Congress does itself a disservice when we lock into policies without oversight or a chance to reconsider. Mr. Jackson's amendment would fix that flaw in the bill, and I strongly support his amendment.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, you heard the gentleman from Kentucky purport to describe what is in the bills that we are considering today. I think his description of these bills is somewhat inaccurate. The so-called No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act--and I say so-called because this bill does not actually do what the title suggests. It is really just about Republicans going after President Biden because they are mad he secured the release of American hostages.

It is as simple as that. Some Members of Congress would rather let these American hostages stay imprisoned in Iran than give credit to President Biden for bringing them home.

This is a bad bill. It undermines America's credibility in future negotiations. The money the United States unfroze--Iranian money, not American money--can only be used for humanitarian needs. That is the truth.

The money doesn't even go to the Iranian Government; it goes to a restricted account in Qatar where it can only be used for approved purchases. Those are the facts, and I won't waste any more time on this foolish political messaging bill.

The other bill contained in this rule is H.R. 5893, another extreme MAGA Republican spending bill. It is no shock that this radical Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriation bill couldn't even get a markup and a vote out of the full Appropriations Committee because it is nuts.

It defunds the police, which is ironic, but let's not even go there. It guts programs that help small businesses, slashes services that help missing and exploited children. I mean, really? It also makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns.

Madam Speaker, the truth is that the Republican Party is completely and totally broken. They are unable to govern themselves, let alone a country. The two extreme MAGA messaging bills that we are considering today are just the latest examples, just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, our job on the Rules Committee is to help run this place like professionals, to advance legislation in a thoughtful, orderly, deliberate manner, and to do it in a way that reflects well on the Congress and the country. Since Republicans took over, we have seen nothing but dysfunction and disaster in this Chamber. There has been chaos, confusion, and crisis at the hands of MAGA extremists who have turned this place into a circus. Republican incompetence over the last 11 months takes my breath away.

As this chart shows, Madam Speaker, we have a timeline up here that speaks for itself. There was a week wasted on 14 failed votes for Speaker while Kevin McCarthy agreed to shady backroom deals with MAGA extremists so he could win the gavel.

There was a month wasted on MAGA extremists threatening to default on America's debt unless Democrats agreed to draconian spending cuts.

We had an entire summer wasted after Democrats came to the table and negotiated a budget deal, but then Republicans didn't bring a single spending bill to the floor.

Finally, days before a government shutdown, Republicans brought to the floor appropriations bills they couldn't even pass. They had to call on Democrats to get a continuing resolution over the finish line, and then they kicked out their own Speaker for the terrible crime of keeping the government open. All because the MAGA extremists had a temper tantrum.

There were 20 days wasted while Republicans argued amongst themselves until they finally settled on someone who evidently everybody in their Conference disliked the least.

Here they are today, Mr. Speaker, right back where they started, with nothing to show the American people except dysfunction and disarray. We heard promise after promise from Republican leaders that this Congress would be different: more open and more accommodating, we kept on hearing.

Those promises have been broken. There have been over 40 closed rules on the floor, blocking 68 percent of bipartisan amendments. By the way, they even blocked over half of all Republican amendments. Twenty percent of Mr. Massie's own amendments have been blocked, never even considered on the floor.

I have a radical idea that in the world's greatest deliberative body we should, I don't know, deliberate? Yet time after time, despite their promises, Republicans are blocking amendment after amendment. Again, two-thirds of bipartisan amendments and over half of their own amendments have been blocked. Don't worry, though, they found a way to make in order every

single MAGA culture war amendment to ban abortion and go after women's reproductive rights. They tucked those into nearly every appropriations bill. You would think that after all of that, at least they would have something to show for it, right? You would be wrong.

At this point in the 116th Congress, when Democrats were in charge, during divided government, we had already enacted 68 laws; not just passed the House, but enacted into law, signed by the President. So far this Congress, Republicans have enacted 19 laws. That is it. Let that sink in. Democrats enacted over three times the number of laws at this point in our majority. Here is an idea: Maybe they would have had more bills signed into law if they didn't waste all their time fighting with one another.

Instead, they wasted an entire month, 26 days so far, fighting with themselves, holding midnight seances trying to revive the dead bills that divided their Conference and fighting a MAGA civil war about who should be in charge. Fourteen percent of all legislative days this Congress have been focused not on the American people, but on which one of them gets to be in charge. That is a national embarrassment.

Do you know how many days it took Democrats to pick a Speaker when we were in charge, Mr. Speaker? One. One. Americans expected us to govern, not fight with each other. That reminds me, it's not like we don't have a recent example of what it looks like when Congress gets stuff done in a productive and bipartisan way.

Now, let's compare their record this Congress with our record last Congress. Republicans have made fewer bipartisan amendments in order. They have even made fewer majority amendments in order, and only 19 bills signed into law. Again, we have a recent example of what this place looks like when it works.

Democrats enacted 58 laws last Congress, signed by the President at this point. I said a moment ago that it was 68 under divided government. It was 58 in the last Congress. We get things done, no matter who is in the White House. We take our job seriously. The facts speak for themselves, and the contrasts could not be more clear.

This right here, this is what Democratic leadership looks like in Congress. It looks like results for American families.

Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, ending the COVID crisis and reopening our economy.

Democrats passed the CHIPS and Science Act, bringing jobs back from China and supply chains back from overseas.

Democrats passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a historic investment that will rebuild our infrastructure for generations and generations to come.

What did almost every single Republican do on every single one of those bills? They voted ``no.''

Guess what, though? They are in charge now, and instead of rising to the occasion, they have totally, totally, totally failed at governing. They are running this place like babies. Actually, I think that is an insult to babies, Mr. Speaker. Their incompetence is staggering. Their infighting is so immature that it is stunning.

All the American people want, Mr. Speaker, is for Republicans to work with Democrats to get things done. It is that simple. It is that simple. Republicans barely control one-half of one branch of government. Democrats control the Senate and the White House. To get anything done, anything at all, we all have to work together. We have to compromise. We have to do things in a bipartisan way. That is, quite frankly, what the American people want. They want us to put people over politics to get stuff done, and that is what Democrats are focused on.

I can tell you, people are fed up with this Republican dysfunction and disarray. They are fed up with Republicans fighting with each other instead of for the people. They are fed up with Republican leadership caving to the MAGA extremists time after time after time. I am telling you right now, this majority will not be in the majority for long if things keep going like they have been.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the viewing public who is watching this may take note that the gentleman didn't respond to anything that I said in my opening remarks.

I will point out for the record so people understand that over half of the amendments that were offered to this bill were rejected. Actually, they were blocked. They were blocked by the Republican majority on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, 170 amendments, many of them Republican amendments, I should point out, were blocked. It was not because they added to spending. They were just blocked.

The point I was trying to make, and I will make it again, is that my friends on the other side of the aisle, my complaint with them is they have accomplished absolutely nothing. They have wasted their time in the majority.

The gentleman talks about all these deep cuts. Some of these appropriations bills, I will be honest with you, I object to them because they are going to hurt people, people I represent.

He talks about all these cuts. None of these are ever going to become law. We spent all of last week debating two appropriations bills, the Transportation bill and the Financial Services bill. We worked overtime, late into the night, debating all these amendments, and guess what? They pulled them.

They are in the majority. They can't even pass the crummy bills that are being sent from the Appropriations Committee to the Rules Committee.

It is mind-boggling. The bill we are talking about today, I am not even sure this is going to pass. I wouldn't be surprised if they pull this and the Labor-HHS bill, as well.

This is not how you run Congress. We are supposed to bring things to completion. The bill before us today was so bad that the full Appropriations Committee didn't even mark it up. Why? Because they probably couldn't get votes to get it out.

My friends have accomplished absolutely nothing in their majority. That is a tragedy. They barely struggle to do the basics, like keeping the lights on, but they need Democratic help to do that.

They have blocked the majority of their own Members' amendments. You can't make this stuff up. The gentleman, who is on the Rules Committee, had a big chunk of his amendments blocked, as well.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we are going to urge our side to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a measure that unequivocally states that the people's House will keep its promise to American workers and seniors and that we will protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and fight against any Republican cuts to these essential programs that so many of our constituents rely on.

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 distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me again point out that my friends on the other side of the aisle blocked most of the amendments that were brought before the Rules Committee. In fact, they have a habit of even blocking a majority of their own Members' amendments.

Even with this rigged process that we have been operating under that the Republicans have put in place, even under this rigged process--and they have yet to rebut this--they have accomplished nothing. They have accomplished nothing. They have normalized dysfunction.

A win for this majority is having Democrats keep the lights on for them so that we don't shut the government down.

I brought this chart out before, but this is a contrast of what we accomplished when we were in charge. I can go right down the list: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Honoring our PACT Act and helping our veterans to get additional healthcare, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the Chips and Science Act, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the Paycheck Protection Program and Healthcare Enhancement Act.

These are things that passed the House and the Senate and were signed by the President. These are real things.

Here we are today doing what we did last week, bringing up all these rightwing MAGA amendments with appropriations bills that are so bad that even Republican members on the Appropriations Committee do not want to vote for them in full committee, so we bypass that.

They come to the floor, and we are going to debate the amendments they made in order all day and all night, only to have them pull the stuff at the end of the day.

That is what they did last week. Two bills, after all the time on the floor debating, were just pulled.

I get it. We signed up for this, but I will be honest with you that I think it is a disservice to the staff who work up here and who take this job seriously to go through all of these kinds of gyrations for no reason at all. It is just ridiculous.

This majority, as we come to the close of this week--hopefully, we will break for Thanksgiving--has accomplished nothing. This has been a waste of time.

Do you want to talk about a waste of taxpayer money? It is the Republican majority in this House.

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

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

I don't even know where to begin. What we are witnessing here is called smoke and mirrors. The gentleman says we are not going to sneak things into a bill at the last minute. A whole bunch of stuff was snuck into this bill at the last minute. In fact, I repeat, this bill did not go before the full Appropriations Committee. It was not reported out by the full Appropriations Committee. Why? Because it is so extreme and so awful that they didn't have the votes.

The same thing last week, two appropriations bills, we wasted all of this time on the floor talking about those bills and then they pulled them because they didn't have the votes. Here we are again voting on another extreme bill that will probably, in all likelihood, be pulled.

When the gentleman is making the case that somehow amendments are blocked because they are not rule compliant, okay, all right, that is an argument to be made, but that is not the case with the overwhelming majority of the amendments that were blocked. I say to my Republican friends who are watching, a majority of your amendments were blocked, and you guys are in charge.

I get it. They blocked 72 percent of the amendments I offered, which by the way are rule compliant, but they blocked the majority of Republican amendments. The gentleman says: We were just blocking amendments that were not rule compliant. Last night in the Rules Committee, we offered amendments to strike out language that is in the bill. It is totally rule compliant.

We offered an amendment to strike the anti-abortion riders. We had a vote, and the gentleman voted with the majority of Republicans to block us even being able to offer an amendment to strike the anti-abortion riders. I guess they are afraid they would lose or afraid of the debate or afraid to put vulnerable Members in a tough position, whatever.

We had an amendment striking anti-LGBTQ riders. Again, all the Republicans, the gentleman included, voted to block it. It was totally rule compliant.

We had an amendment striking the anti-gun safety riders that were added into this bill. They were totally rule compliant. Every Republican, including the gentleman, voted to not make our amendment in order.

This is what you call smoke and mirrors. We had an amendment striking their anti-climate riders. Again, it is in the bill. We are not putting something new in the bill. This is their bill, totally rule compliant. Every Republican, including the gentleman, voted to block that.

Let's not have this kind of fantasy debate where we are saying, oh, all we did was we kept out amendments that were not rule compliant.

The bottom line is: You are afraid of the debates. My friends are afraid that they may lose on some of these issues. They also know that the majority of the American people do not like their position on women's reproductive rights where they want a national abortion ban. They also know that a majority of people in this country are sick and tired of bigotry against the LGBTQ+ community. They know that a majority of Americans are sick and tired of the rising level of gun violence in this country. They also know that a majority of Americans believe climate change is for real, and they want us to do stuff to try to reverse the current trends.

They blocked all of these amendments. I have the report from the Rules Committee last night with all the votes and the amendments. They are all rule compliant.

Let's get real here. We are here today to, again, talk about an appropriations bill that is not only extreme, that probably at the end of the day, they are not going to be able to pass it with Republican votes. It will certainly never become law. It is a joke of a bill. They wouldn't even bring it before the full Republican-controlled Appropriations Committee and then--or they are going to pull it. That is it.

You want to talk about wasting money, all of the money we wasted last week debating bills that are going nowhere. What about the money that we wasted while for 26 days we had no Speaker of the House but had to keep everybody here while they tried to fight amongst themselves on which member of the Republican Conference they disliked the least so they could move that person forward as Speaker. Give me a break.

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

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

I think I am beginning to understand the logic of the gentleman from Kentucky. He thinks that we have an open process as long as amendments that he agrees with are made in order, but any amendments that he doesn't agree with it is okay to block them.

I don't have any problem with some of the crummy amendments that the gentleman and the Republicans have made in order that, in my opinion, are really bad for this country. We will have those debates, and we will vote on them. I have no problem with that.

I don't know why my friends are afraid to have a debate on women's reproductive rights, whether or not we should protect a woman's right to choose, whether we should protect a woman's right to abortion in this country. They blocked it. They added language in that curtails women's rights, but they won't allow an amendment so we can have those 10 minutes of debate.

I don't know why the gentleman is afraid to have a debate on whether or not we should end bigotry against the LGBTQ+ community. If they believe that it is okay to continue prejudice and discrimination against that community, they can vote ``no'' on our amendment. Let's have the debate.

On climate change or even on--we have a different position on assault weapons. The gentleman can offer his amendment. We have a different amendment. Why is it that the amendment that we offered is blocked?

It is just a strange view of the world when you come up here and say we have a very fair and open process here. We block all your amendments, but we are making all the amendments that we agree with basically in order. I don't really think that is a fair process.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are a minority party that is masquerading as a majority party. I say that because I think my friends on the other side don't want to actually be in charge anymore. It is easier to be in the minority when you are a Republican. They think all you have to do is vote ``no'' on everything.

It is harder to be in the majority. It is especially hard because the Republican Party no longer represents a coherent political ideology that seeks to solve problems or govern. They just want to scream and yell about how this place is broken--when they are the ones that broke it.

They want to use crisis and scandal to mask their own selfishness and sedition, and to cover up their own incompetence and ineffectiveness. The American people see through it. They know this Republican majority is a disaster--a national embarrassment. They have normalized dysfunction.

We have Republican Members of Congress literally assaulting each other in the hallways. They are threatening to punch people in committee hearings. They are getting into fights on the House floor and having their supporters threaten each other's families with violence. That is the truth.

They have wasted away their majority fighting among themselves and acting like babies. They focus on retaliation and revenge. They are pursuing ridiculous impeachment inquiry sideshows. They are conditioning aid to our allies on tax cuts for billionaires here at home. They scream about the deficit when they keep passing bills that blow up the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the people watching this at home, you might not agree with Democrats on everything, but we are team normal. The Republicans are team totally off-the-deep-end nuts. I cleaned that up for the floor, Mr. Speaker, for civility.

Democrats ran this place like professionals. Republicans are running it into the ground. Democrats fight for the people. Republicans only care about fighting with each other. Democrats behave like adults. I hope rational, reasonable, moderate Republicans, if any are left, will join us and reject the MAGA extremists who behave like spoiled rotten children.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``hell no'' on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

House Resolution 891 provides for consideration of three measures: H.R. 5283, H.R. 5961, and S.J. Res. 32.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5283, the Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023 under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule makes in order two amendments.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5961, the No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule makes in order 12 amendments.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 32, a resolution of Congressional disapproval related to a rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on small business lending under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, since President Joe Biden took office, there have been 7.8 million illegal immigrant encounters, 1.7 million known got-aways, and hundreds of individuals on the terrorist watch list have been stopped at our southern border.

Instead of fixing this issue, the Biden administration and far-left radical Democrats have placed illegal immigrants in our public schools, in our airports, our police stations, and now our Federal lands.

In New York City, the Biden administration and far-left New York Democrats are housing hundreds of illegal immigrants on National Park Service land.

H.R. 5283 revokes New York City's lease and prevents all national parks and Federal lands from becoming tent cities.

Additionally, H.R. 5861 blocks President Biden's $6 billion ransom gift to the Iranian regime.

As an Iraq war veteran, I have seen firsthand Iran's death and destruction in the Middle East. They are responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans in the Middle East.

Since Hamas' attack on October 7 against our number one ally, Israel, Iranian-backed proxies have attacked U.S. forces over 70 times in Iraq and Syria.

This is unthinkable. What is more unthinkable is that on the 22nd anniversary of 9/11, the Biden administration announced $6 billion in sanctions relief from the number one sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

These billions in sanctions relief will undoubtedly lead to more terrorist attacks, more attacks on Americans, and more attacks on innocent Israelis. That is why House Republicans will take action to freeze the funding that the Biden administration wants to send to the Ayatollah.

Lastly, the underlying legislation we will consider this week will address the Biden administration's CFPB guidance that places burdensome regulations on lenders and small business.

This new CFPB regulation will result in more compliance costs, it will create privacy concerns for small businesses, and adds to the bureaucratic regulatory environment that hinders hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are about to witness a real-time fact check here. My colleague from New Mexico is talking about the amount of closed rules. I would remind my friends across the aisle that in the 117th Congress-- and that is when they were deciding which rules were going to be run-- 58 of their rules out of 89 were closed rules; that is approximately 61 percent. Spare me the lecture on closed rules.

We also have one bill coming to the floor that has 12 separate amendments. It is kind of rich hearing that criticism. What is even richer is the criticism that we, as Republicans, have done nothing about the border. Absolutely laughable.

As the Biden administration and far-left radical Democrats have ignored the southern border crisis, we passed H.R. 2 twice. Twice we passed it. I would invite any Democrat that actually wants to do something about the southern border to just vote for this underlying legislation that we are running.

Again, House Republicans have passed the Secure the Border Act of 2023. I will remind my friends across the aisle that act restarts construction of the border wall. It deploys advanced technology to the southern border. It increases Border Patrol agents and their pay. It strengthens and protects those provisions for unaccompanied minor children. It protects them from human trafficking, and it ends the disastrous policy of catch and release. It ends the catch and release policies of the far-left Democrats.

We have passed the FY24 Homeland Security Act as well that provides-- wait for it--over $2 billion for the border wall. It provides almost a half million dollars for 22,000 Border Patrol agents and billions in funding to remove dangerous criminals who have entered the United States interior illegally.

Now, this week, House Republicans will block the Biden administration and far-left radical Democrats from turning our Federal lands into the illegal immigrant housing that the Biden administration and far-left Democrats in our cities have turned them into.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

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

It is time for another real-time fact check, Mr. Speaker. Homeland FY 2024 increased funding for border agents, $496 million for 22,000 new Border Patrol agents. That is the highest ever funded.

It is rich when I hear my colleagues from across the aisle talk about bills that are named one thing and do another. This is from a party that hung their entire term on the Inflation Reduction Act, which neither reduced inflation nor helped the economy. They later said that it was about preventing global warming. Again, it is rich coming from a party that often misnames their key legislation.

Let's talk about sanctuary cities because there is one thing that we can do. We can end sanctuary city policies. For years, Democrats have criticized House Republicans and President Trump for wanting to secure our border and protect our communities. They criticize us when we say that. When the crisis comes to their own backyard instead of a small rural town on the southern border, when it comes to their sanctuary cities, Democrats are the first ones to declare an emergency.

Look at Martha's Vineyard. When Ron DeSantis sent a few illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, it took those woke yuppies less than 12 hours to call the National Guard to remove the illegal immigrants. I am willing to bet there were more ``Hate has no home here'' signs in the pristine, well-manicured yards at Martha's Vineyard

than actual illegal immigrants, but they still called the National Guard to remove those immigrants from Martha's Vineyard.

Don't just take my word for it. Take New York City Mayor Eric Adams'. Over 110,000 migrants have reached New York City. Mayor Adams decried: ``The national government has turned its back on New York City.''

When illegal migrants showed up in Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey declared a state of emergency and said the quiet part out loud: ``Massachusetts has stepped up to address what sadly has been a Federal crisis of inaction that is many years in the making.''

One thing is clear. Even Democrats now, in their sanctuary cities, are realizing that Biden has created this border crisis.

Democrats have ignored it for years. Republicans, thankfully, are finally stepping up and leading where they failed.

Any of my friends from across the aisle who want to help us, if they want to end this crisis, can vote for the rule today and vote for the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about the party as in 2003 or 2023 because the last time I checked, the Republicans are the party that supports the guys that shower after work not before.

The Chamber of Commerce has picked its side. It is with the Democrats. The billionaires that my friend from Pittsburgh was talking about--check how they are registered to vote. I am pretty sure--and I am willing to bet--that they all registered as Democrats, and far-left, extreme Democrats, by the way. All the Big Tech CEOs, Apple and Amazon, you name it, they are all far-left Democrats.

So this nostalgia for the day when Republicans supported big business and Democrats supported the little guy, it is just that, it is nostalgia. It is 2023, and we need to realize the new political realities.

When we are talking about numbers, I noticed that my friend from Pennsylvania didn't talk about the numbers relating to the destruction of Hamas during the over 3 minutes she had to address the Chamber. Let's talk about those numbers.

Hamas has killed over 1,500 Israelis since October 7, 2023. They have killed over 1,500 Israelis. They have injured over 6,900. Over 230 hostages were taken by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Over 9,500 rockets have been fired from Gaza toward Israel. There were 32 Americans killed and several Americans are still missing.

While we are throwing out numbers, let's not forget to talk about the destruction Hamas has brought.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, here is another real-time fact-check for you. Obama under ObamaCare took $700 billion from Medicare. You tell me who is trying to protect Medicare and Medicaid. It certainly wasn't the Obama administration when they were taking billions of dollars from the fund.

It is amazing the amount of time that my colleagues across the aisle talk about working families. Have they actually talked to working families?

When I am in my district talking to working families, not the woke yuppies

that my friends across the aisle represent, but actually working Americans, they are talking about inflation. Let's look at the numbers.

When President Biden took office, President Trump had inflation where it was just 1.4 percent. Since then, prices have risen by 17 percent. By the way, real wages are going down, hurting working families and working Americans.

Prices have risen 17 percent and real wages are down. Credit card, auto loan, and consumer loan delinquencies are at the highest levels since the Great Recession. Just this morning, CBS News--the conservative news bash--reported that Americans need an extra $11,400 today just to afford the basics when compared to when President Trump was in office.

You tell me who is looking out for the working American. Something tells me it is not extreme, far-left Democrats that are looking out for their woke, affluent suburbs. All the while, the President has been misleading the American people.

Last week, our 81-year-old leader claimed Thanksgiving dinner was the fourth cheapest ever on record. Of course, that was false. Maybe it is his age showing, I don't know, but the truth is that it was the second most expensive Thanksgiving dinner ever.

If you want to talk about an all-time high, last year's inflation under the President's watch is an all-time high. It is clear, Bidenomics is broken economics. Democrats do not care about working Americans. Republicans do.

Let's talk about some more Bidenomics statistics. With the economy adding just 1,500 jobs in October, coming in below expectations, this is the second worst jobs report of the Biden Presidency.

The unemployment rate rose to 3.9 percent in October where the labor force participation rate actually declined. The average middle-class household has lost over $33,000 in real wealth in just this past year. That hurts people that are driving to work, driving to construction sites, and driving to work shifts at diners. It is not hurting the woke, yuppie base that the Democrats represent sitting at home on Zoom all day, having their EVs charging in their garage.

The average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage is now at the highest level since 2000. This is bringing a disastrous effect to the housing market. Homeownership has been deemed unaffordable in 99 percent of the country. There are 73 percent of Americans that believe the economy is in bad shape, and more voters trust Republicans over Democrats to handle inflation, according to a recent AP-NORC poll.

Mr. Speaker, 58 percent of the Americans believe the economy is getting worse, and 69 percent believe the country is on the wrong track, according to an Economist/YouGov poll. That is not exactly a far-right polling outfit.

Half of Americans say their financial situation is worsening, according to a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll. Biden's approval rating on the economy is at just 32 percent, the lowest of his Presidency, according to CNBC's All-American Economic Survey.

It is very clear that the American people know that Biden and far- left Democrats are hurting not only their job prospects, not only their ability to afford a home, but the entire economy and their ability just to afford the basics.

Mr. Speaker, I question any time a Democrat tells me they are watching out for the working American.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is time for another real-time fact check. By the way, let's not conflate interest rates with inflation. They are two totally separate things.

Let's talk about inflation. My friend from New Mexico said that inflation started during COVID. We know that when President Trump left office, inflation was at 1.4 percent. In June 2022, when Biden was in office, it was 9.1 percent. That is almost a record high. Yes, inflation is slightly less than it was, coming down from the all-time high.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, facts don't care about your feelings, and they don't care about your political persuasion. Try arguing the difference between 9.1 percent inflation and 1.4 percent inflation. Good luck with that.

We all know who is to blame: Biden and far-left, radical Democrats.

Also, to talk about how great the economy is and unemployment, the unemployment rate actually rose in October to 3.9 percent while the labor force participation rate declined. It is actually worse than 3.9 percent if you are reading into that statistic, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this is quite amazing. Not only has President Biden totally botched the economy and Bidenomics, but he has repeatedly botched foreign affairs. Obama's own Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, once said that Joe Biden has managed to get every single foreign policy decision wrong in his entire career.

One of the big mistakes that Biden made, when we talk about foreign affairs, was when he decided to delist the Houthis as a terrorist organization. Here is a quick history lesson. In 2021, due to pressure from the Iranian regime, and for whatever reason the Biden administration is fixated on appeasing the Iranian regime, the Iranian regime was putting pressure on the Biden administration to delist the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization. For those who don't know, the Houthis are an Iranian-backed proxy group that wreaks havoc across the Middle East.

In recent weeks, the Houthis have carried out drone and missile attacks against Israel. They have attacked and seized commercial vessels in the Red Sea. They have fired rockets at the U.S. Navy, including the USS Mason, the USS Thomas Hudner, and the USS Kearny.

It is past time for the Biden administration to get tough with Iran and designate the Houthis as the foreign terrorist organization that they are.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that, once again, I am here on the House floor explaining to my friends across the aisle that there is a difference between interest rates and inflation. They are two separate things. They shouldn't be conflated. I am shocked that I have to explain this to Members who are elected to Congress. It is quite amazing.

It is very clear, the difference between inflation and interest rates.

There is another thing that is very clear that Democrats don't seem to understand, and that is that President Biden's foreign policy agenda benefits our foreign adversaries and not the American people. From the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan to the $6 billion in sanctions relief to Iran, to the draining of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and also the fast-tracking of Putin's Nord Stream 2 project, it has been disastrous.

Mr. Speaker, look at the invasion of Ukraine, a terrorist safe haven in Afghanistan, an emboldened China, and a destabilized Middle East. This legislation before us will protect our servicemembers in the Middle East. It will place additional pressure on the Iranian regime.

Additionally, we have another Biden-fueled disaster right here at home at our southern border. The White House now wants to exacerbate this crisis further by placing tent cities on Federal lands.

In Pennsylvania, our Commonwealth is home to several national parks, including the Flight 93 National Memorial, Fort Necessity National Battlefield, and Friendship Hill National Historic Site, all of which are in my congressional district. These are places for Americans and their families, not camps for those who broke our laws and are here illegally.

The underlying legislation will protect our national parks from the Biden administration's and the Democrats' radical, far-left immigration policies.

Finally, the Biden administration's attempt to burden our local lenders with extra costs would do irreparable harm to our Nation's 33 million small businesses. During a time when Bidenomics is failing the American people, it is critical we support efforts to make the American Dream more achievable, not insert partisan politics into small business lending. That is why the House will nullify this far-left, radical rulemaking by the Biden administration and Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 891 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of

Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social

Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening

motion or demand for division of the question except one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or

their respective designees.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Res. 178.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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