Equal Representation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last President tried to include a citizenship question on the decennial Census in 2020 and tried to count only U.S. citizens for the purpose of Census and reapportionment, and the effort failed miserably in court, for obvious reasons.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment states that apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives is based on ``the whole number of persons in each State,'' persons being the all-encompassing category, much larger than that of citizens.

When the Framers wanted to impose a citizenship requirement in the text of the Constitution, they knew how to do it. Take the President of the United States, for example. It says that you have got to be a born U.S. citizen in order to run for President. Some of the historians tell us that was because Thomas Jefferson was trying to block Alexander Hamilton from running for President. He was foreign born. In any event, however, it was very clear that you needed to be a born U.S. citizen to run for President. For those of us in the House, it says we must have been a citizen for at least 7 years.

There are lots of citizenship requirements in the Constitution. There is no citizenship requirement for being counted in the Census and for purposes of reapportionment. On the contrary, the Census and reapportionment have included all persons, including noncitizens, like permanent resident green card holders, since 1790. That has been the unbroken practice since the beginning of the Republic.

This point was made even more clearly and emphatically by the Supreme Court in its unanimous 2016 decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, rejecting precisely the argument my distinguished friend is trying to make. Like this legislation itself, Evenwel involved a challenge to congressional apportionment based on a total count of the entire population

instead of a limited count of the total citizen or voter population. Justice Ginsburg held for a unanimous court that section 3 of the 14th Amendment ``retained total population as the congressional apportionment base.'' She cited the speech made on the floor of the Senate by Senator Jacob Howard upon introduction of section 2 of the 14th Amendment:

``The basis of representation is numbers . . . . The committee adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis, and this is the principle upon which the Constitution itself was originally framed, that the basis of representation should depend upon numbers; and such, I think, after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which the government can rest. Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property; this is the theory of the Constitution.''

My colleague needs to remember that when the Republic was founded, the vast majority of people were not citizens who could vote. Women could not vote, children could not vote, enslaved Americans, obviously, could not vote. So the Census and apportionment was for everybody who was here. That was the whole basis of the three-fifths compromise. Because enslaved Americans were being counted, too, what percentage should they count for purposes of reapportionment? Well, Congress arrived at 60 percent, three-fifths. It was the Southern States who were saying they should count completely for these purposes because they wanted the enslaved Americans to be enlarging and inflating the congressional delegations from the slave states. For these purposes, the Northern States said: No, they shouldn't count at all; they should count zero percent in the apportionment. They arrived at three-fifths. In any event, everybody agreed that everybody would be counted.

Justice Ginsburg included lots of decisive legislative authority like this, including the floor statement here in the House of Representative James Blaine, who stated: ``No one will deny that population is the true basis of representation; for women, children, and other nonvoting classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation of the country as those who actually deposit the ballot.''

For all of you constitutional textualists out there, the plain reading of the text is clear as day.

For all of you constitutional originalists out there, the original purposes of the passage of the 14th Amendment have been carefully articulated by the Supreme Court on a unanimous basis and never rebutted.

For all of you Members who like to follow precedent, every apportionment since 1790 has included every single person residing in the United States, not just those lucky enough to have been given the right to vote. As the Evenwel Court noted, the 14th Amendment contemplates that ``Representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote.''

The constitutional meaning is indisputable, a point which settles this for those who actually want to follow the Constitution in all cases, not just when it favors our own preferred policy outcome.

The House should be getting real work done instead of wasting more time on another MAGA bill that will never pass the Senate, let alone get signed by the President, much less approved by the courts. The bill is an insult, and it is an affront to the great radical Republicans who wrote the 14th Amendment. Their party was a profreedom, pro-union, proimmigrant, anticonspiracy theory, anti-Know Nothing Party that wanted to make sure everybody in the country was counted and made visible.

The Census is essential to democracy. Just as the Framers endorsed Thomas Paine's ``Common Sense,'' they endorsed a common Census, but this bill would destroy the accuracy of the Census, which may have something to do with its actual legislative motivation.

In the 2010 Census, the undercount of Hispanic citizens was 1.4 percent. In 2020, that number grew to 5 percent, with many observers crediting that jump to the Trump administration's simple attempt to add a citizenship question to the Census and all of the intense publicity and rumor surrounding it.

The addition of a question about citizenship will indeed deter many immigrants, including people who are permanent residents, including citizens, from completing the Census. Many noncitizen immigrants who are seeking asylum or are refugees will avoid responding because of uncertainty over their status and fear of arbitrary law enforcement action.

Extensive research over the last decade shows that many residents wrongly believe the Census Bureau will share their responses with other agencies. To be clear on this point, it does not. Federal law prohibits it. However, that pervasive worry has prevented some people from answering questions about immigration status or responding to the Census at all.

Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose this legislation as unconstitutional and unwise. It dishonors our own history and the values of the Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman from North Carolina observes that we don't have anybody wearing a black robe in the House of Representatives today, but you don't have to wear a black robe in order to read the Constitution, interpret the Constitution, and follow it.

If you need people with black robes, then I would urge the gentleman to read the Supreme Court's decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, where the Supreme Court unanimously found that the Census and reapportionment must include the entire population, all persons; not all citizens, not all voters, the alternative suggestions that are being made today.

Mr. Speaker, what do we have here? Since 1790, all persons have been included in the Census, in every Census on a decennial basis since the beginning of the Republic.

The Supreme Court rejected the theory that is being advanced by my friends in the majority today in Evenwel v. Abbott that the Constitution requires citizens rather than persons, and the gentleman from North Carolina invites us to think it has something to do with immigration.

We actually had an immigration deal coming out of the Senate for hundreds of new Border Patrol officers and asylum officers and asylum judges and fentanyl detection machinery, and it was vetoed by the fourth branch of government, Donald Trump, who said he didn't want a border solution, he wanted a border crisis to run on.

Despite the fact that Senator Lankford, perhaps one of the most conservative Senators that we have in the Republican Party, said that this was a great deal and the best that he had ever seen coming out of the Senate, and despite the fact that Senator McConnell was for it, they blew it all up.

You judge for yourself the seriousness of the claims that they want to do something about immigration. This is another useless and needless distraction.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield to my friend from New York (Ms. Meng), but I am inspired by the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin, especially about the word ``Republic'' which, of course, comes from res publica, the public thing.

He happened upon a subject that is of a lot of interest to me because I wrote a paper about it when I was in sixth grade.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a radical Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy--I am not sure if the gentleman is aware of that--on the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the new world.

Reverend Bellamy, who was an abolitionist in Vermont, was concerned about the continuing salute of the Confederate battle flag in the southern States.

He wanted to write a flag salute that would be unifying for the union, and he wrote: I pledge allegiance to my flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, with liberty and justice for all.

You notice what is not in there. He did not have ``under God.'' That was added in 1954 by Congress several weeks after the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

In any event, I am not quite sure what the relevance is of the gentleman's invocation of the Republic or of Ben Franklin and the famous vignette about him saying: If you can keep it.

Ben Franklin was, of course, a big supporter of immigration to the country, although he did display an anti-German bias in some of his writings.

I will tell you a little story about Ben Franklin that might be of relevance to what the gentleman is talking about because I just did a tour in Philadelphia with the Ben Franklin people up there, and we learned this wonderful story.

He made a loan to a friend of his for $100, and then he recorded in his diary that this gentleman he made the loan to for $100, Josiah, was always disappearing behind a tree or a building whenever Ben came along.

He finally caught up with him, and he said: Josiah, I loaned you a hundred bucks, and I am wondering, am I going to be able to get my principal back or at least the interest?

Josiah said: Well, Ben, look. The $100 is well invested somewhere else, so you don't have to worry about that.

Franklin said: Well, what about the interest?

Josiah said: Well, I forgot to tell you that it is against my religion to pay interest, so I can't pay you the interest.

Franklin said: You mean to tell me it is against your principle to pay me the interest, and it is against your interest to pay me the principal?

Josiah said: That's right.

Franklin said: Well, I can see I am not going to get either.

Well, here our principles and our interests converge very much. The principles are set forth in the Constitution, which is we count everybody, and everybody is part of the Census, and everybody is part of the reapportionment process.

It has been like that since 1790. We don't need to start finger painting on the Constitution with this silly election year proposal.

It is also in our interest because, as my colleagues have said, this is a land that is built on immigration. Except for the Native Americans who are already here and the people who were brought over as slaves, all of us are the descendants of immigrants to this country.

Tom Paine, when he got to America in 1774, 2 years before the Revolution, he said: This land, if it lives up to its principles, will become an asylum to humanity--not an insane asylum, mind you--an asylum to humanity, a place of refuge for people seeking freedom from religious, political, and economic oppression. That is who we are.

Every day I have in my office people from the hotel industry, people from the construction industry, and people from the restaurant industry saying: We have huge labor shortages. We need people in America.

I am for a whole lot more lawful immigration to America, less unlawful immigration to America like the deal that was worked out in the Senate that was rejected by the Republicans, and a lot less demagoguery about who we are as a country because the Census and reapportionment provisions in the 14th Amendment tell it all.

This is a country that is for everybody seeking opportunity and hope,

willing to follow the law and follow our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).

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

Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Burchett's prayers go right to the top.

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

It is always great to be with my friend from Tennessee. Just two quick points on his always trenchant remarks.

One is that one should be clear that under this legislation, they are not roping out of the reapportionment just undocumented people. They are also roping out of the reapportionment permanent residents, people who are green card holders who are on the pathway to citizenship already. They are talking about disenfranchising from the Census reapportionment process millions of people who are lawfully within it. They should be aware of that.

Also, if we were being cynical politically, we would embrace this legislation because it is the red States like Texas and Florida whose congressional delegations are inflated by virtue of counting people who are not citizens. We are simply trying to follow what the Constitution says, which I know is kind of a radical proposition around here these days.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

If you strip away all the bombast and all the rhetoric, the gentleman just basically delivered a tirade about immigration but never addressed the fact that their legislation is totally unconstitutional.

If you want to deal with immigration, we had a bill, and the bill would have added hundreds of Border Patrol officers, asylum officers, and judges. The Republican leadership in the Senate said it was a great deal. They got most of what they wanted. It was a great compromise. Yet, who didn't want it? Donald Trump, still the putative leader of those who are left in the GOP, Lincoln's party. Donald Trump didn't want it because he didn't want a border solution. He wants a border crisis.

They are left with a bunch of completely superficial, empty bills like this one, which I doubt will even pass the House. If it does pass the House, it certainly won't pass the Senate. It will never be signed by the President, and it would be struck down immediately by the Supreme Court.

Why are we wasting our time on that instead of getting to the legislation that actually a majority of the Senate was behind? I wish one of my colleagues would address that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always delightful to hear my friend from Colorado speak. One thing that I do want to point out, however, because there might be some students in the gallery today, is that there can be no illegal aliens and there can be no green card holders in Congress because the Constitution very clearly specifies that you must have been a citizen for 7 years before you run for the House, you must have been a citizen for 9 years before you run for the Senate, and you must be a born U.S. citizen in order to run for President of the United States, which some historians, as I think I mentioned before, attribute to Thomas Jefferson trying to write Alexander Hamilton out of the Presidential sweepstakes.

In any event, I think that my colleagues should probably relax with some of the hyperbole and exaggeration here. After all, all we are saying is: Let's keep doing what we have done since 1790 in the country.

This is the way that the Census and the reapportionment have always been run in the United States of America, and what they are proposing is obviously a radical departure from what the Constitution ordains.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear someone on that side of the aisle denounce Vladimir Putin, and I thank him for his remarks. We should definitely avoid putting in a President of the United States who looks up to Vladimir Putin and calls him a genius.

In any event, I could be persuaded by the gentleman's policy arguments, but then we have got to amend the Constitution. This is the way it has been done since the beginning of the Republic. The language in the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear, that it is all of the persons of the State who have to be counted.

Mr. Speaker, I thought you guys were constitutional textualists. I thought you followed the language of the Constitution, the original intent of the Constitution, and the precedent that has been set. I could be persuaded by it. I don't like the fact that Texas and Florida, or any State for that matter, gets an inflated congressional delegation because of this reason or that. Let's have that discussion, but you have got to amend the Constitution. You can't just say: Well, I don't like what is in the Constitution, and therefore I am going to ignore it.

The point about the territories I am not sure I understood. That undercut the gentleman's argument because, of course, the people in the territories are not represented in the House of Representatives except by nonvoting delegates whose votes ultimately don't count and can't count according to a D.C. circuit court decision called Michel v. Anderson.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, why do you need to amend the Constitution if you can just go ahead and do it by statute here?

That is rather curious. I think the gentleman doth protest just a little bit too much. I admire the intellectual honesty in putting forth a constitutional amendment, because that is precisely what needs to be done. I am happy to look at that. I appreciate his candor in admitting that the Constitution needs to be amended in order to overturn more than 2 centuries of practice and everything the Supreme Court has ever said about the issue.

It also should be clear to everybody that only U.S. citizens of majority may vote in Federal elections, that is Federal law, but everybody, including children, who are U.S. citizens are counted even though they can't vote in Federal elections.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be in the position of lecturing my colleagues about something that they often like to say, but the Constitution is the Constitution, and nobody yet has laid a glove on the Constitution or explained how the Supreme Court erred in the unanimous Evenwel decision.

None of them has been able to explain away the very plain language of the 14th Amendment, that it is all the persons of the States who are counted, not the citizens, and that has been the basis for both the Census and the reapportionment since the country began.

So the rest of it just strikes me like election year political rhetoric. To the extent that we want to deal with immigration, we had a great bargain that came out of the Senate, which everybody in this body and that body seemed to be behind, until they heard from Donald Trump that no, he didn't want to see any legislative progress, he wanted to be able to demagogue the immigration issue out on the campaign trail, although he has been severely undermined by all of the exposure that went into that decision.

Again, I haven't heard anyone either explain why their legislation is constitutional, nor have I heard anybody explain what is wrong with the immigration package that we have for hundreds of new Border Patrol officers, hundreds of new Border Patrol and asylum judges and a crackdown of drugs at the border.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1194 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), 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

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

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

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1194, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, to be considered under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and provides for one motion to recommitment.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.J. Res. 109, a joint resolution associated with a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121.''

H.J. Res. 109 would be considered under a closed rule, and it provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 to be considered under a closed rule.

It also provides 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

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

Beginning with H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, Madam Speaker, I am glad this rule provides for consideration of this legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor.

The core premise of this legislation is simple. The Census should be an accurate reflection of this country's citizenry.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, noncitizens comprise approximately 6.7 percent of the Nation's 333 million people.

Including noncitizens in the apportionment of congressional districts will directly impact representation in Congress.

This, to me and most Americans, seems to be a way to take Representatives away from red States and add them to blue States; to literally change the makeup of this body by diluting the influence and number of red districts and adding blue districts in their place.

Under President Biden's watch, nearly 4.7 million illegal aliens have been released into the country, and more than 1.8 million known illegal alien got-aways have escaped into the United States. When added up, these numbers are larger than the population of 32 States.

This isn't simply a constitutional argument. This is a deliberate effort by Joe Biden and the Democrat machine in Washington.

On day one of taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 13986 requiring noncitizens to be counted in the Census both for the purposes of enumeration and determining congressional apportionment.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Having an accurate count of U.S. citizens for the purpose of congressional representation should not be a partisan issue. Yet, here we are with two sides debating the question of who should be counted.

This is a question firmly in Congress' purview. In Department of Commerce v. New York, following the Trump administration's attempt to reinstate a citizenship question on the decennial Census, the Supreme Court made clear this decision is up to the Congress.

I appreciate the leadership of the authors of this bill to ensure Congress is carrying out that responsibility. I hope this measure will have the full support of my colleagues.

Moving on to the financial sector, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I am glad to see floor consideration of H.J. Res. 109.

This legislation addresses an SEC action that bypassed proper rulemaking procedures. Rather than following the processes laid out by the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedures Act, the SEC relied erroneously on a staff accounting bulletin.

You don't have to take our word for it. SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce is on record having said the staff accounting bulletin may not be the appropriate vehicle through which to make this accounting change.

Beyond that, however, this rule brings more uncertainty into the crypto industry by going beyond clarifying how to account for digital assets.

Indeed, this rule effectively requires banks and financial institutions to place digital assets on their balance sheets.

This makes it unclear if customers' assets will be lost if the custodian becomes insolvent. It also increases capital, liquidity, and other requirements for financial institutions in order to manage the risk associated with these assets that should never really be on their books.

The digital assets ecosystem needs more clarity, not less. My colleagues and I on the Financial Services Committee have worked hard this Congress to provide clear rules of the road for digital assets innovation. This rule clearly does the opposite.

The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.

One thing we all have come to expect from this administration is the persistent attacks on American energy and consumer choice. This legislation is another attempt by the Republican majority to defend against the latest attack as the focus of congressional Democrats has now turned inside every American's home.

The Biden administration is now willing to reduce the affordability and reliability of everyday household appliances in pursuit of an out- of-touch, unrealistic, and unaffordable green agenda.

Under the guise of increased efficiency, the administration has offered new rules on home appliances that will raise costs, thus making these household necessities less available, especially to people of modest means. This is at a time when homeowners are already spending 34 percent more on home appliances than they did less than two decades ago.

When Americans are struggling to pay for food under the crushing reality of Bidenflation, they now must also worry about affording the appliances they use to prepare it. Instead of relief, the administration offers more obstacles. That is why we need to pass H.R. 6192.

Finally, the rule provides for H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024. Simply put, our country is blessed with a diverse array of abundant natural resources. We must be responsible stewards of these resources, but responsible stewardship does not mean abandoning the resources that we have. It does not mean making ourselves more reliant on other countries in the name of unrealistic agendas that are divorced from national needs and our own national security.

This bipartisan bill provides certainty where certainty is lacking and allows necessary projects to responsibly move forward.

I look forward to consideration of all of these pieces of legislation and urge the passage of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I agree it is ridiculous that we must consider legislation like the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, but that is the level of ridiculousness that the Democratic Party has forced us into with their out-of-touch, woke agenda. The priorities of the American people are protecting their right to consumer choice, not to be policed in their own homes. Democrats are fighting for woke corporations. Republicans are fighting for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, this is just one piece of the Democrats' green agenda that is fast-tracking a path to all electric vehicles and appliances at a time when our grid can least afford it without any consideration for grid stability.

This move to all EVs and electric appliances in our homes is not something that consumers are ready for, and it is not something that consumers want. The American people want to have choice and affordability, and the actions of the Democrats on this issue are the opposite of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just unpack some of those arguments made against this bill, that H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, will discourage immigrants from participating in the Census.

Revealing that someone is not a citizen does not reveal if someone is here illegally. The individual could have lawful permanent residence, they could be a nonimmigrant residing in the U.S. during an authorized period of stay. Moreover, the Census Bureau must follow strict rules of confidentiality and cannot disclose data tied to an individual respondent in the decennial Census. It can only share aggregate information not attributed to a particular person.

Furthermore, even if respondents were reluctant to complete the Census questionnaire, they would still likely be enumerated by the Census Bureau using other methods, such as review of official records to determine the inhabitants of a particular address or by using proxy information such as reliable information from a neighbor.

Also, there was an argument that H.R. 7109 would skew the distribution of Federal assistance away from States and localities.

This argument is a red herring. H.R. 7109 makes absolutely no changes whatsoever to any laws implicating Federal assistance. Noncitizens would still be counted in the decennial Census. They would only be excluded from the congressional apportionment base.

One other argument that has just been made is that H.R. 7109 fundamentally misunderstands how apportionment was designed by the Framers of the Constitution.

While Democrats may claim that the Evenwel v. Abbott Supreme Court decision requires the phrase ``whole number of persons'' in section 2 of the 14th Amendment to be interpreted as any resident, regardless of citizenship status, section 5 of the 14th Amendment permits the use of implementing statutes for the 14th Amendment. It is this implementing statute which H.R. 7109 amends to explicitly exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base.

Beyond that, the historical context surrounding the phrase ``whole number of persons'' was specifically chosen to make clear that the drafters rejected counting individuals as partial persons. It does not in any way signify that any person taking up residence in a State should be counted for the purpose of apportionment, and certainly not that noncitizens must be included in the apportionment base.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just make note of a few things with regard to the Equal Representation Act. We have heard some comments from our Democrat colleagues that this is somehow unconstitutional.

The court case referenced in Department of Commerce v. New York, the lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claims under the Enumeration Clause, permitted claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and Due Process Clause.

However, the Supreme Court upheld requiring the citizenship question only on the claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and not on constitutional grounds, saying that it is Congress' responsibility to determine whether and how this should take place. That is what we are doing here today in the Equal Representation Act by saying precisely that noncitizens should not count in congressional apportionment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the Equal Representation Act. This bill would restore the one-person, one-vote principle in apportionment. Only citizens are eligible to vote for candidates for Federal offices, including Members of Congress and electors for President of the United States.

However, under the current practice, noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, nonimmigrants, and even illegal aliens are wrongly included in a State's population for purposes of the apportionment calculation. Thus, States with higher proportions of noncitizens residing in that State are advantaged over States with a lower concentration of noncitizens.

In the case of illegal aliens, the status quo is particularly concerning as some States or major metropolitan areas within those States have declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions, shielding illegal aliens from Federal immigration law enforcement, with some even providing special services to the illegal alien population residing in those jurisdictions.

Illegal aliens incentivized to move to those jurisdictions, who reside in that State on Census day, and who are enumerated in the Census, would add to the State's population for the purposes of apportionment.

It is appropriate for Congress to direct the Census Bureau to collect one of the most fundamental data points regarding individuals residing in the United States: Whether or not they are a citizen.

Article I of the Constitution requires the Census of the population to be taken every 10 years. This is directed by law. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress is permitted by the Constitution to inquire about citizenship on this questionnaire, on the Census. Adding a citizenship question to the decennial Census is an appropriate exercise of Article I authority over the Census and is the responsibility of Congress

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Founders never would have intended a U.S. President allowing 6.7 million illegal immigrants into the country, including terrorists and the drug cartels. I think that is probably not something that was envisioned by the Founders.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we, once again, have before us today the opportunity to move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans, whether that is pushing back on the overreach and the administrative uncertainty of this bureaucratic state, or protecting the core functions of government agencies and protecting our very system of government.

The choice we have before us in this rule is clear, and we must take action.

H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, ensures that the Census count only U.S. citizens for congressional apportionment and Presidential electors. This should not be a novel concept. It should just be a minimum standard.

H.J. Res. 109 provides clarity in the digital assets sector, an area where the United States should be leading. Congress must provide clear rules of the road for digital asset innovators. However, the rule proposed by the SEC does just the opposite.

With respect to home appliances, I think we should all agree that less intrusion by the government is the answer here. This administration's reckless pursuit of its green agenda surely could stop in our kitchens, can it not?

At a minimum, we shouldn't be making living in this country more unaffordable than it already is by this administration. H.R. 6192 is a step in the right direction.

Regarding our natural resources, our country is blessed with a diverse array of abundant natural resources. We ought to use those resources responsibly. H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is responsible and worthy of our support.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Montana for yielding to me.

I have to start out, Mr. Speaker, and thank my friend Bruce Westerman, my colleague in the Arkansas delegation, for paying tribute on this tragedy that we witnessed in our central Arkansas area of a life lost of an honorable citizen doing the Lord's work, caring for kids every day, who tragically lost her life due to the drunk driving by an illegal alien who crossed our border more than one time without any repercussions.

I thank Congressman Westerman for his words in memory of Jennifer Morton. I join him with thoughts and prayers for her family, for her friends, for the loss of a skilled therapist at Arkansas Children's Hospital. However, Mr. Speaker, this is just emblematic of what we are confronting in this country: deaths like that, deaths from fentanyl, and massive human trafficking.

The Mexican drug cartels are making, truly, billions of dollars from those human trafficking fees of coaching, urging, pushing migrants across the southwest border of the United States to the point that there are millions entering our country illegally.

I thank my friend, Mr. Rosendale, for yielding me the time. My concern tonight that I want to highlight is the number of these that are potential terrorists in our country.

Just last year alone, 1 year, 169 individuals were caught on the terrorist screening database. That is more apprehensions, Mr. Speaker, than in the last 5 years combined. Isn't that an indication of just how open this border is?

The question is: Where are they once they cross into our country? What has become of them? They were encountered by Customs and Border Protection, they were encountered by TSA at an airport, but what has become of them? Those of us on the House Intelligence Committee and on the Homeland Security Committee have been tirelessly trying to get the answers to those most basic questions.

Since last fall, Congress has been requesting information from the executive branch to better understand the severity that this threat poses.

In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, it is a clear and present danger to our country, but how do we gauge that threat? How do we gauge the severity of it posed by known and suspected terrorists who have crossed our open southwest border at or between the ports of entry? Literally, with millions of got-aways, how are we supposed to extrapolate that risk? Is it greater because they obviously were avoiding detection, or should it be a ratio similar to what we witness today when they are encountered?

On numerous recent occasions, FBI Director Chris Wray has stated in Congressional testimony his concern about our open border and the increased threat of terrorism. He suggested that the threat of attack against Americans in the United States is at ``a whole other level,'' that is his quote, and that he sees ``blinking lights everywhere.'' That is his quote, Mr. Speaker, but it is from last fall, a year ago.

Actions speak louder than words and why his warnings have our attention. The executive branch's lack of coordinated, fused action, in my judgment, contradicts what he said.

During the annual threat assessment hearing last March, in open forum, I pressed Mr. Wray on this commonsense question: Where are these individuals? How have they been handled? Who knows about it?

Mr. Wray at that time could not answer, and to date, the FBI's responses have been less than satisfactory to the Members of Congress on the House Homeland Security Committee and Intelligence Committee.

The information is trickling in, but it is not the comprehensive, coordinated response with actions that I believe, in my judgment, our Members are seeking.

House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner and House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green have joined me in pressing for these answers. We led a letter in April to the Government Accountability Office to review the process of identifying which terrorist watch list individuals are trying to come into our country and where they are once they are released. What is the policy there?

I have done more by adding language in the fiscal 2024 Intelligence Authorization Act to require Homeland Security and the FBI to regularly brief the Intelligence Committee on these policies, on these procedures, on just how these encounters, these individuals, are treated and how they are coordinated.

President Biden, Vice President Harris, and their agency heads bear the ultimate dereliction of duty and need to be reminded that border security isn't a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. Border security is a national security issue.

Here we are just after the recent 23rd anniversary of 9/11, and it serves as a stark reminder that we need to immediately address where these terrorists potentially are in our country and ensure that a day like 9/11 never happens again.

Congratulating Dr. Margie Scott

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Margie Scott, the medical director of the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, on a happy and healthy retirement.

Dr. Scott has devoted 26 years to serving veterans at the Central Arkansas VA, including 8 years as the director.

Dr. Scott orchestrated the challenging mission of providing care to nearly 70,000 veterans each year with an innovative and creative approach that has, over the years, modernized how the Central Arkansas VA operates.

The positive impact she has had is unquestionable, and the standard of care that she has set, I hope, will endure for many years to come.

I thank Dr. Scott for her steadfast commitment and service to our veterans. All of us in central Arkansas appreciate her tireless efforts that have led to veterans receiving the healthcare they rightfully deserve.

I congratulate Dr. Scott and wish her the best for a happy retirement.

Recognizing the 19th Airlift Wing's Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize members of the 19th Airlift Wing's Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team for their efforts in securing dangerous military explosives during a recent traffic incident on I-40 in central Arkansas.

Based out of Little Rock Air Force Base, the 19th Airlift Wing supports the largest C-130 transport fleet in the world, providing humanitarian relief to victims of disasters and essential supplies to troops in the heart of enemy territory.

Following a tragic accident involving a tractor-trailer carrying military explosives, the 19th Airlift Wing's EOD team sprang into action, along with our State's first responders, to secure the hazardous cargo and move it away from civilian populations while also restoring use of the highway, in short order.

I was proud to meet with the airmen during my recent visit to Little Rock

Air Force Base and thank them for their bravery during this incident. It was truly impressive. Hats off to these brave airmen from Team Little Rock. All of Arkansas is proud of their efforts and service to our country.

Recognizing Peggy McCall

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Peggy McCall for the nearly two decades of devoted work with Miracle League of Arkansas, an organization that provides opportunities for children with disabilities to play America's pastime.

While working at KIDsource Therapy, Peggy realized that children with special needs and their families should be able to make the same kind of memories at the ballpark that she had with her own children.

She partnered with Rotary Club of Little Rock's Club 99 in the spring of 2005 to bring a Miracle League field to central Arkansas, and that field hosted its first season that next year in 2006.

Since then, Peggy has been the cornerstone of Miracle League of Arkansas and currently serves as executive director of the organization.

In honor of nearly two decades of work to create unforgettable memories, Miracle League's field has a new name: Peggy McCall Field.

Peggy exemplifies passion and excellence for her work in our community, and all of Arkansas is better off because of her efforts.

Congratulating Lieutenant General Jonathan Stubbs

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Lieutenant General Jonathan Stubbs on becoming the new director of the Army National Guard.

Lieutenant General Stubbs is the first Arkansan and National Guardsman to be elevated to the rank of the Lieutenant General and the first to be assigned as the director the Army National Guard.

Governor Sanders had named General Stubbs as her adjunct general of the Arkansas National Guard.

General Stubbs' quality, his character, his work ethic, and his leadership sharpened as our own TAG and are now fully recognized nationally with this great honor of leading the Army National Guard across our Nation.

Throughout his 27 years spent serving the Arkansas National Guard, Lieutenant General Stubbs has demonstrated the extraordinary ability to inspire and lead those under his command.

Whether it is at home or deployed in defense of America's Constitution and interests, Lieutenant General Stubbs has exemplified dedication, leadership, and an unwavering commitment to our country.

Lieutenant General Stubbs knows what it takes to lead our brave men and women in uniform. Though we will miss him and his leadership at home in Arkansas, we look forward to the now impressive, positive impact that he will make in this crucial role in our national defense here in Washington.

Commending George H. Dunklin, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the exceptional work of a friend and great Arkansan, George H. Dunklin, Jr.

George has worked over the past four decades with conservation efforts to benefit Arkansas and the Natural State.

George has worked with Ducks Unlimited as an area chairman, president, chairman of the board of Ducks Unlimited, and has left a lasting mark on quality habitat preservation efforts for decades to come. He also has devoted time to serving as chairman of our Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.

George has led a life of service to the people of Arkansas and its wildlife and their habitat. All of us from the Natural State thank him for his lifetime of hard work and tremendous dedication to waterfowl. Arkansas' reputation as a world-class place for outdoor recreation and field sports stands taller thanks to the efforts of citizens like George.

Congratulating Steve Finnegan

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend Steve Finnegan on his first year of his broadcasting debut with his own radio show on 102.9 KARN in central Arkansas.

Steve is a passionate and gracious host who always strives to tell the truth and make sure that Arkansas voices are heard each Saturday from 12 to 3 central time.

Prior to his newfound radio career, Steve proudly served our Nation in the United States Army, helped lead the American Legion in Arkansas, and in the early 2010s, was CEO of Green Blue Environmental, a service- disabled, veteran-owned small business, for over a decade.

Over the past year, he has taken an impressive veteran and small business owner background and brought his voice and expertise to the people of Arkansas and beyond across KARN's Arkansas signal and its streaming reach.

Steve Finnegan is a dedicated patriot both in his service and love of country and love of our great State of Arkansas and her people.

I congratulate Steve on an outstanding accomplishment. I look forward to the show's continued success in the years ahead.

Recognizing Master Sergeant Michael Hester

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Master Sergeant Michael Hester, a central Arkansan and member of the Arkansas National Guard.

This past August, Master Sergeant Hester was part of a six-person, all-National Guard rifle team that won the Dogs of War Trophy, a national trophy for marksmanship excellence.

Winning this revered trophy requires incredible skill and teamwork from all members of the team. Sergeant Hester served as a gunsmith and machinist for the team, playing a crucial role in the National Guard's first Dogs of War Trophy in almost four decades.

I speak for all central Arkansans when I say how proud we are of Master Sergeant Hester and his teammates for this significant achievement.

Recognizing Weston Wakefield

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Weston Wakefield, an Arkansas teen golfer representing central Arkansas at the 2024 PURE Insurance Championship in Pebble Beach, California.

Weston started golfing when he was 8 years old and is a member of First Tee, a youth development organization that teaches life skills to kids and teens through golf.

The PURE Insurance Championship is in its 21st year and brings teens from First Tee chapters all over the country out to world famous Pebble Beach Golf Links and Spyglass Golf Course for the PGA TOUR Champions Tournament later this month.

Weston will be competing against 79 other teens from across the country for the pro-junior title. We wish him all the best luck in this tournament and will be sure to watch his continued success.

Recognizing Curtis Ferguson

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late Curtis Ferguson of Benton, Arkansas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my dear friend, Heide Harrell, on her nomination to be the next chair of the board of directors of the Public Relations Society of America. If elected, she would be the first Arkansan to lead the PRSA.

I had the privilege of working alongside Heide as she served for 5 years as the communication and marketing officer at my former company, Delta Trust and Bank. She serves as the director for communications for Central Arkansas Water, a metropolitan water system that serves over a half million residents.

Heide has more than 20 years of communication and marketing experience,

and just last year, she received the Public Relations Society of America's Crystal Award for her significant contributions to the PR profession.

Heide exemplifies passion and excellence in her communications work and beyond, and I know she will excel if she is elected to this national role.

I congratulate Heide. All her friends, her former coworkers, and her current coworkers are very proud of this accomplishment.

Open Border Is Security Threat

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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