DC CRIMES Act of 2024

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1227 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 1227 provides for consideration of eight measures: H.R. 8369, H.R. 7530, H.R. 7343, H.R. 8146, H.R. 7581, H.R. 354, H. Res. 1213, and H. Res. 1210. The rule provides for H.R. 7343 and H.R. 8146 to be considered under structured rules with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of two measures, H.R. 354 and H.R. 7581, under closed rules with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1210 and H. Res. 1213 under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 7530 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8369 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their designee and provides for one motion to recommit.

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

The rule before us provides for consideration of three measures to support our Nation's law enforcement in the face of the Biden administration's disastrous immigration policies.

H.R. 7343, the Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act, would bring real consequences on the heads of those in our country illegally. This legislation would require the immediate detention and deportation of any illegal alien who chooses to assault the men and women who keep our communities safe.

Additionally, H.R. 8146 would require that the Attorney General provide a full accounting of how this historic and dangerous border crisis has truly impacted the health and the safety of our Nation's law enforcement.

Finally, H. Res. 1210 condemns the Biden administration's failed border policies that have resulted in 9.3 million illegal alien encounters along our borders in less than 4 years--and that doesn't include those that have evaded Border Patrol.

America's law enforcement officers are on the front lines of the Biden border crisis, bearing the brunt of this President's open-borders policies that are threatening the security of our Nation and laying waste to our communities.

We have yet to fully know the true damage done to our national security by 4 years of flinging the doors open for those breaking our laws. One thing is certain, it is falling on our Nation's law enforcement officers--our police officers in big cities and small towns across America--to contend with the consequences of this administration's open-borders policies.

The Biden border crisis is only one challenge facing our Nation's law enforcement officers. As we witness an alarming surge in criminal activity thanks to the left's antipolice, soft-on-crime policies, it is imperative that we confront a harsh reality. Our law enforcement officers are under attack both physically and politically. They are being targeted by the radical left simply for doing their jobs, for upholding the rule of law, and for protecting our communities.

To that end, the rule today before us provides for consideration of several measures that stand with our law enforcement officers in the face of these asinine policies that seek to vilify them and prevent them from doing their jobs, including H.R. 7581, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act; H.R. 354, the LEOSA Reform Act; and H. Res. 1213, a resolution condemning violence against our law enforcement officers.

H.R. 7581 would require the Department of Justice to report to Congress about violent attacks on law enforcement officers and the response of Federal, State, and local governments to these attacks.

Additionally, H.R. 354 would fix a discrepancy under current law to ensure that qualified active or retired law enforcement officers are not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in public settings. There is no good reason why the men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day should have their Second Amendment rights curtailed as they are under the current law.

Finally, H. Res. 1213 expresses a sentiment that I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can fully embrace and get behind: full, unequivocal support for our law enforcement officers and strong opposition to any movement that seeks to defund the police.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of statistics or headlines. The soft-on-crime policies that the radical left have championed have only left American families in more danger. Years of Democrat-elected officials, including some right here in Congress, calling to defund the police have vilified our law enforcement officers, preventing them from doing their jobs, leaving the people that they serve less safe.

Nowhere is this displayed more vividly than right here in our Nation's Capital, and the rule before us today also provides for consideration of a bill to combat the District of Columbia's anti-law enforcement, pro-criminal policies: H.R. 7530, the D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act.

D.C. law enforcement remains understaffed and overwhelmed by soaring rates of violent crime. In 2023 alone, homicides increased 29 percent from 2022, violent crime increased 37 percent, and robberies increased 65 percent.

What has the D.C. Council done?

Well, in 2022, it passed the Revised Criminal Code Act, which reduced penalties for violent offenders, and in that same year the Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, which targeted D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers and their ability to combat rising crime.

If the D.C. Council will not heed the concerns of the District's residents, police officers, and visitors from this country and around the world, then it is Congress' job to step in. This mess only encourages lawlessness and puts lives at risk. We have had one of our own colleagues, a Member of Congress, carjacked and a staffer stabbed, among many other horrifying and violent crimes. If we can't get a handle on crime in our Nation's beautiful Capital, how does that fare for the rest of the country?

H.R. 7530 changes the maximum age limit for youth offender status from 24 years old to 18 years old. It requires the District's attorney general to establish and update a public website containing juvenile crime statistics in the District and prohibits the D.C. Council from enacting any changes to criminal sentences.

Youth criminal activity has skyrocketed along with every other manner of violent crime in our Nation's Capital. A soft-on-crime approach is simply just not working, putting the lives of innocent residents and visitors in danger, and hamstringing the ability of our cops to do their jobs.

Residents of D.C. have the same rights as other Americans to be secure in their homes and to be protected against crimes committed against their lives and their property. It is heartbreaking to see the crimes committed by children and young people in D.C., and we need real solutions to address them. Children in our Nation's Capital deserve better than antipolice policies that lead them to a life of crime.

It is our duty as Members of Congress, as laid out in the D.C. Home Rule Act, to step in when the District's own policies so clearly threaten the safety of the residents of our Nation's Capital as they do today.

Finally, the rule before us provides for consideration of H.R. 8369, the Israel Security Assistance Support Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is frankly shocking and disgusting to hear that President Biden is purposely withholding our Nation's arms shipments to Israel as they are fighting to defend their right to exist.

At a time when Israel is under assault, facing attacks from Hamas and Iran, the decision to withhold these critical munitions is not just a failure; it is a betrayal of our greatest ally in the Middle East, and it goes directly against the will of this Congress and the will of the people.

We cannot let political games endanger lives. H.R. 8369 would ensure that America stands with Israel in its darkest hour, despite this administration's disgraceful actions to block such vital support. The legislation will ensure that any defense articles and defense services for Israel are delivered expeditiously, without obstruction from an administration that is willing to play games, unfortunately, with such necessary shipments, and we will prevent them subverting the will of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, America must stand with Israel and send a message to the world that we will not falter. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle likes to talk about the fact that these bills today that we are going to consider this week, these pro-police measures, don't have a future in the Senate or getting to the desk of the President. Yes, that is because his party controls those two branches. The Senate leadership will do nothing with this because they don't support the underlying legislation. They don't support law enforcement.

I would like to point out that it was Democrats who have for years pushed the defund the police rhetoric in cities, States, and right here in Washington, not House Republicans. In fact, it was Democrats who took the defund the police rhetoric and made it viral. They turned it into concrete policy that demonizes our men and women in blue while letting violent criminals back out on the street.

Madam Speaker, do you think the American people are really going to buy that Democrats weren't the ones who wanted to defund the police?

Madam Speaker, we could rewind the tape back to 2020 if you want to. We can show you the footage of our cities burning while they were chanting to defund the police and watching weak mayors of cities down on one knee begging for forgiveness for standing for law and order. We could go back and rewind the tape and get a little instant replay if you like. The footage is there. It is in black and white. It is a matter of historical fact that my friend's party supported the defund the police movement.

What I just heard from the other side of the aisle couldn't be any more laughable. Democrats in New York City, certainly not Republicans, cut the NYPD's budget by $1 billion with more cuts to come. We have some of those brave NYPD officers here with us this week for Police Week.

Democrats in Los Angeles, not Republicans, cut the LAPD's budget by hundreds of millions of dollars with more cuts to come.

Democrats in Chicago, not Republicans, cut the Chicago PD's budget by $1 billion only to embarrassingly and quietly reverse further plans for cuts in recent years after crime spiraled out of control.

Right here in our Nation's Capital it was Democrats, not Republicans, who passed legislation to make it more difficult than ever for cops to do their jobs and keep D.C.'s communities and residents safe. Let's not forget that at the height of the defund the police movement, it was House Democrats, not House Republicans, who attempted to completely defund the Department of Justice's Project Safe Neighborhoods program, a nationwide initiative that empowers law enforcement to work with community leaders and stakeholders to directly identify the most pressing violent crime problems in a community. I am talking rapes, armed robberies, gang violence, and much, much more.

Nonetheless, that didn't stop House Democrats from defunding this program to appease a radical base. The radical left has bought hook, line, and sinker into the defund the police movement, and Americans in New York, in Washington, in Chicago, in L.A., and everywhere else where Democrat leaders hold sway are reaping the consequences of these dangerous policies.

Madam Speaker, the family of slain NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller told New York Governor Kathy Hochul that she had blood on her hands. They see, as Americans across the country see, that it is the Democrats and not the Republicans who have abandoned law enforcement. They have vilified them, and they have made it harder than ever for them to do their job and keep their people safe.

The legislation under this rule today is a step in the direction of supporting our law enforcement officers and empowering them with the tools to keep our communities safe in spite of the defund the police movement and in spite of the Biden border crisis.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to see that my colleague, the ranking member, has looked into Jamestown, New York, and read some of our headlines. Yes, we have Republican leadership right now, a brand-new elected Republican mayor. There was a Democratic mayor up until this last election, but I don't blame the outgoing Democratic mayor.

I do blame the State of New York's leadership for destroying the criminal justice system in the State of New York, eliminating cash bail, and creating discovery reform. Creating a revolving-door criminal justice system in the State of New York is the reason that the police officers, many of which are at our Capitol this very week to celebrate Police Week, can't do their jobs.

They have been put in handcuffs while the criminals walk free with an appearance ticket for many of the same crimes that the gentleman just rattled off from the Jamestown Post-Journal. That is fact. That is fact in the State of New York because Democrat-run policies, a Democratic Governor, a supermajority in the State senate, and a supermajority in the State assembly have destroyed my State's criminal justice system. They have blood on their hands and have destroyed towns, villages, and cities across the once-great Empire State.

The gentleman has found a few headlines, and we hope to get some restoration of common sense back to the Empire State once again, but it has to start right here in our Nation's Capital. It starts with the legislation under this rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), my friend.

Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle are making some wild claims that somehow crime has gone down. It is like President Biden taking a bow for gas prices going from five bucks a gallon to four bucks a gallon when they were far less than that just before he was sworn in.

My colleague's claims rest on cherry-picked data that does not present a full picture of the crime problem in our major cities, so let's revisit some of the facts.

Violent crime has skyrocketed with year over year increases in violent crime in the millions. Carjackings have spiked by as much as 93 percent in many major cities and 18 percent more homicides were committed in 2023 than in 2019.

It is no coincidence that many of these major cities that have been the epicenter of the wave in violent crime also happen to be run by Democratic politicians with leftwing DAs that have made it their mission not to prosecute perpetrators but to put dangerous criminals back on the streets and to facilitate a revolving door criminal justice system.

My colleagues need only to venture beyond Capitol Hill to see what these policies have done to our Nation's Capital. To recap here, according to the Metro Police Department's own data, crime in D.C. increased 30 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year.

In 2023 alone, homicides increased 29 percent compared to 2022. In fact, since 2012, the rate of homicides in D.C. has doubled. Violent crime has increased 37 percent and robberies increased 65 percent from 2022 to 2023. Motor vehicle thefts increased 107 percent between 2022 and 2023.

This surge of criminal activity is a direct result of the D.C. Council's soft-on-crime sentencing policy and refusal to back up its law enforcement officers with real support, resulting in resignations of police officers. We have heard it directly in the Oversight Committee from the union officials.

Madam Speaker, despite my colleague's refusal to wake up to the reality, the fact remains that we are at this point today with crime soaring in many of our major cities and Americans are feeling less safe because of the disastrous policies the Democratic leaders, at the behest of the radical left that governs their party have imposed on residents of our communities.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think it is important that we don't forget all the other legislation in this bill, as we have had a spirited debate today about law enforcement.

It is really important to remind my colleagues today about the situation in Israel and the Israel legislation that is being considered this week. We need to talk about how this conflict began. On October 7, it was Hamas and not Israel that launched a horrifying terror attack that took thousands of lives and innocent people hostage.

It was Hamas terrorists who murdered approximately 1,200 people, including Holocaust survivors, the elderly, babies, and beautiful young people attending a music festival. It is Hamas who, to this day, has over 100 innocent people held hostage, including American citizens who we cannot forget are being held hostage. Americans are currently being held hostage in Gaza.

Hamas is responsible for this war. Hamas, a terrorist organization, has for decades now used civilian structures and innocent people to shield their terrorist operations. However, Madam Speaker, none of that stopped anti-Israel protesters from taking to the streets just a day after the horrific attacks and the butchery of Israeli civilians to chant ``from the river to the sea.''

There are some people that serve in this building that take their time and like to chant ``from the river to the sea,'' and they need to be held accountable for that, which we know is synonymous language for the extermination of the Jewish people in Israel.

Madam Speaker, by holding these arms shipments, President Biden is just not flouting the will of Congress and the American people, but he is also kowtowing to the radical left that, frankly, has embraced the anti-Israel movement wholeheartedly. It has become practically a platform plank over there.

We are learning more and more about the leftwing groups and donors that are bankrolling the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic protests that have erupted across the country. We noted that it is the far left, including Members of the House, that have fully endorsed this message to turn against our ally Israel in their hour of need and to isolate them and to ultimately support their destruction.

Madam Speaker, I am done hearing the false equivalencies of a morally bankrupt movement. Anyone who remembers the true reason why Israel is defending itself today should support the legislation under this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I wish my colleague from Massachusetts well with his Trump derangement syndrome.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today is about standing up for the safety and well-being of our neighborhoods, our families, and our way of life. It is about standing up for what is right and defending those who risk their lives every single day to keep our communities safe.

In my own district in the southern tier of New York, a Chemung County Sheriff's investigator, Michael Theetge, was critically injured when he was hit by a shoplifter's getaway car and has since been fighting to recover. Our prayers and wishes for a speedy recovery are with him and our whole community.

Sadly, Investigator Theetge's case is not an isolated incident. It is emblematic of the dangers to law enforcement officers and what they face every time they put on their uniforms.

In my own State of New York, we have lost some of our very finest recently. We have recently laid to rest Lieutenant Michael Hoosock of the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department, Syracuse Police Officer Michael Jensen, and NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller.

We don't want other families to have to go through what their families are facing right now and to be able to expect that their loved ones will come home at the end of their shifts safe and sound.

What is happening in America's major cities in too many States and right here in our Nation's Capital is simply unacceptable, and it needs to be addressed now and is with this legislation before us.

This rule, Madam Speaker, is also about standing up for our closest friends and allies. Since October 7, Israel has been in a struggle for self-defense against a terrorist organization that seeks nothing but violence, destruction, and extermination of the Jewish people.

Israel needs the tools to defend itself and defeat Hamas. We need to send a message to the world that America will not falter in our commitment to our allies. We need to send these munitions to Israel now. Our future and their future depend on it.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have us here today considering eight measures that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Six of the eight measures that are being brought before this House are being brought forth under completely closed rules, which means nobody, not Democrats and not Republicans, can offer any amendments to change or improve those bills.

So much for Republican promises of a more deliberative process or more openness or more fairness. That just went out the window.

I don't think I have ever seen a group of people do so much and yet accomplish so little.

Seven of these measures are supposedly about law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, do you know how many of them will actually do something to help keep people safe?

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Just a piece of free advice to my Republican friends: It is probably not the best idea to take direction on law and order from a guy who, as we speak, is a defendant for covering up hush money payments to a porn star for political gain. That is not even to mention the other three criminal felony prosecutions that he faces.

Look at the cover of today's New York Times, Madam Speaker. This is unbelievable. Here is a picture of the Speaker of this House of Representatives, second in line to the Presidency, standing in front of a courthouse acting as a prop for Donald Trump trying to interfere with a criminal trial because, apparently, Republicans like law and order unless it applies to them.

It is unbelievable. Madam Speaker, you can't make this stuff up.

I will say to my colleagues that this stunt of the Speaker and Republican Members of Congress going to this courthouse diminishes this House of Representatives. Their candidate for President has been indicted more times than he has been elected.

I didn't think I was.

Somehow, Madam Speaker, they have the nerve to tell us about the criminal justice system?

Give me a break.

Their credibility on this issue has evaporated. It is pathetic. I could go through these bills one by one, but I think the American people would rather watch paint dry because none of these bills do anything. None of these bills will be passed by the Senate. None of them will do a damn thing to help the police. None of them will keep our communities safe. We have a ton of BS bills going out to immigrants. Let me just remind everyone: It was Republicans who killed their own bipartisan border security bill in the Senate, and it is Republicans in the House who refused to even bring it up for a vote.

Why?

It is because they are afraid it might pass. They are afraid they might lose a talking point.

We have a nonbinding resolution about defund the police.

Isn't it ironic that they all talk so much about defunding the police, but despite their rhetoric, Republicans are the ones who want to defund the police.

Republicans support cutting the COPS program, which hires police officers in every State in America.

Get this, Madam Speaker: Republicans voted against awarding police officers who protected all of us on January 6 the Congressional Gold Medal. Let that sink in.

Republicans voted to fire 2,000 Customs and Border Protection police officers. Republicans voted to cut Federal support for local law enforcement agencies in September of 2022.

Republicans have called to abolish the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the ATF.

At every single juncture, when Republicans have had a chance to put their money where their mouth is, they have shown that all their pro- police rhetoric is just that: rhetoric.

They will say whatever they need to win political support from police and then hope the cops don't notice when they vote to cut their budgets.

The eighth bill this rule would bring to the floor is the so-called Israel Security Assistance Support Act. This bill is a disaster. It basically gets rid of human rights checks and balances already in place on arms transfers, and it would interfere with any administration's ability to comply with U.S. obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law.

I think it is absurd that my Republican friends don't understand the difference between supporting Israel and writing Prime Minister Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants with U.S. weapons with no regard for civilian lives or for human rights.

That is not even just the Democratic position, by the way. Three U.S. Presidents have threatened to pause military aid to Israel under similar circumstances.

Who were they?

They were Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. They were all Republicans, Madam Speaker. They were all Republicans.

Please don't give me this partisan BS. Please. Please, spare us that.

U.S. military assistance doesn't come with no conditions. If our taxpayers are paying for it, then they ought to have some level of assurance that it is not being used to indiscriminately bomb civilians or block the delivery of humanitarian aid to starving people.

The bombs that the President is withholding, these 2-ton bombs, have a blast radius of one-quarter of a mile. That means, I would say to my friends, if you were standing in front of this Capitol and the bomb were dropped on the Republican congressional campaign headquarters or the Democratic congressional campaign headquarters, then we all would be dead if we were standing in front of the U.S. Capitol.

The President is concerned that 2-ton bombs are being dropped on Rafah, a heavily populated area with over 1 million people. He believes that the civilian casualties are unacceptable. We all should care about the civilian casualties, especially if we claim to be a friend of Israel, because the more civilian casualties that are incurred, then the more difficulty Israel has in getting to a lasting peace.

It is a real shame that this is what Republicans have decided we should spend our week doing, Madam Speaker. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that after the Democrats bailed out Speaker Mike Johnson last week that maybe, just maybe, we would see a change in the tone of this place. Maybe there would be more of an acknowledgment that we need to put people over politics and that we need to get stuff done, because that is what the American people want.

I am disappointed to see that this week it is just more of the same old same old from this incompetent Republican leadership that has wasted away their time and power and accomplished nothing, not a single damn thing, during their time in their slim majority. The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than they are getting from my friends on the Republican side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is rich to be lectured by the chairman of the Rules Committee about the need to support our police officers and to help do more to recruit and train them.

I will say to my friend, the distinguished Member from Texas (Mr. Burgess), and to all of my Republican friends: Stop cutting COPS grants. Continue to adequately fund the COPS program so that we can actually have our local law enforcement recruit and hire more police officers.

My Republican friends don't like to admit a desire to cut the COPS grants. I would say to everybody who is watching to look it up for themselves.

The Republican Study Committee, which is the largest caucus in the Republican Conference, actually put out a report titled: ``Fiscal Sanity to Save America.'' If my colleagues go to page 148, and I urge people to look it up for themselves, it says: ``Reduce funding for Community Oriented Policing Services,'' or basically what we call the COPS grants.

Republicans want to cut money for our local police. It is in their budget document. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to cut the money and then come here and make believe somehow that Republicans support our local police officers. Come on. Enough.

Additionally, sometimes I wonder whether the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) really believes the stuff that he says. The gentleman keeps talking about crime in Democrat-run cities. By the way, it is Democratic-run cities. The last time I checked, we don't have Democratic cities or Republican cities in this country. We have American cities.

I took the liberty of looking up some of the headlines from New York's 23rd Congressional District, which Mr. Langworthy represents, and, in particular, Jamestown, New York, the largest city in the area and the location of his district office. Jamestown has a Republican mayor, a Republican city council, a Republican supermajority on the county legislature, a Republican State representative, a Republican State senator, and a Republican Congressman.

Let's look at some of the recent headlines from the Republican stronghold of Jamestown, New York: April 22, 2024, ``Jamestown man accused of killing 16-month-old child charged with manslaughter''; March 2024, ``1 dead, 2 injured in Jamestown homicide''; January 2024, ``Investigation Underway in Jamestown Homicide Case''; May 2023, ``Three Accused Of Stealing A Vehicle In Jamestown''; June 2021, ``Two teenage girls charged with arson in connection with Jamestown furniture manufacturer fire''; and February 2024, ``Six arrested after robbery, assault leads to standoff in Jamestown NY.''

I could go on and on. Madam Speaker, none of this is to disparage the wonderful people who Mr. Langworthy represents, but if the gentleman wants to come down here and read off RNC talking points about crime, I think the gentleman should at least try to be intellectually honest.

I know the other side wants to play the blame game. I know Republicans are all about stunts and not solutions, but maybe, just maybe, the majority ought to look in the mirror first instead of playing to the cheap seats.

Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record a Salon article titled: ``Republicans like to talk tough on crime--but they're the ones with a real crime problem.''

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

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), but let me say to the gentleman that, rather than just denounce the slogan of defunding the police, maybe the gentleman should go to the Republican Study Committee and tell them to not defund the police because, again, if one goes to the Republican Study Group document, page 148, it is clear that the Republicans want to defund the COPS program.

Please, enough with the rhetoric. If my colleagues are serious about supporting the police, then don't cut the COPS program, period. How hard is this?

I remind the gentleman that the hometown of the former Republican Speaker of this House, before the Republicans threw him out, Kevin McCarthy, which is Bakersfield, California, has a higher crime rate than San Francisco. I don't even know where my friends are coming from.

I have to say that I have never heard anybody denounce their home State as much as I have heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) denounce New York. I think New York is a great State. It is not as good as Massachusetts, but I think it is a great State.

I get it. The gentleman just explained it all to me. If it is a Democratic-controlled area, all the crime is blamed on the Democrat. If it is a Republican-controlled area, then the majority finds the nearest Democrat, and Republicans blame it on the Democrat. That is their rationale.

I mean, come on. This place has to get more serious in terms of supporting initiatives to actually not only support law enforcement but protect our communities instead of one sound bite after another that does absolutely nothing and the blame game that we hear constantly.

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues this week claim to want to focus on public safety but have chosen to put misguided measures and messaging bills on the floor. Here is their chance to actually do something of substance that will make police officers safer, make our streets safer, and make our children safer.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 715, a bipartisan bill to require a background check for every firearm sale.

There were over 42,000 firearm deaths last year, with the annual total of mass shootings increasing from 414 in 2019 to over 650 in 2023. Eighty-six percent of homicides in this country involve a firearm, and of the States that saw their gun homicide rate decrease between 2022 and 2023, States with the strongest gun laws decreased their homicides by a rate nearly triple their lax gun law counterparts.

This is common sense. It is not a partisan issue. In fact, H.R. 715, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, was introduced--hold on to your seats here--by a Republican.

I know that, like me, many of my colleagues have children and all of them have elementary schools and middle schools in their districts. I know Members see the toll this is taking on our Nation's children, our most vulnerable. Nearly 60 percent of teachers are worried about a shooting happening in their school, and one in four had a gun-related lockdown during the last school year. According to the Pew Research Center, one in five parents was extremely concerned about their child getting shot, and Republican leadership wants to do nothing.

This is barbaric. It is past time, Madam Speaker, and we are ready to work in a bipartisan way to end the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey) to discuss our proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman keeps on talking about crime in D.C., crime in D.C., crime on the rise. I can tell you one thing; the crime is definitely down in the White House right now and I can understand why the gentleman is confused.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Washington Post, entitled: ``Crime is down, though FOX News viewers might not be aware.''

The article notes: ``The reality is that crime surged in 2020--when Trump was President. That surge continued into the Biden administration but has since waned.''

Madam Speaker, in the lead up to the 2022 midterms, FOX News invested immense resources in promoting stories about surging crime, despite lacking evidence. While crime is down, it appears the conservative ecosystem is trying to fearmonger the issue of crime, once again, because, you know, that is all they have.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Guardian, entitled: ``Crime coverage on FOX News halved once U.S. midterms were over.''

Madam Speaker, so after a frenzy of coverage about violent crime in September and October 2022, the conservative media giant FOX News actually decreased coverage of violent crime stories by 50 percent in the weeks following the 2022 elections.

Crime stories have long been used by Republicans to fearmonger for cheap, electoral victories, and it seems like this old tactic is being utilized, once again, in 2024, all while 80 percent of Republicans support cutting the COPS grant program.

Madam Speaker, I urge my friends who don't believe me to go to the Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget proposal--this is the most recent one--and go to page 148. You will see under the heading, Reduce Funding for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), it is my Republican friends--for all the talk about defunding the police--that are leading the way because there in their Republican Study Committee, which is the largest caucus in the Republican Conference, they have put out a report highlighting their budget priorities, which talks about eliminating the COPS program. You can't make this stuff up.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am unable to rebut all the nonsense I just heard, and I am exhausted by this debate. Let me touch on two things. First, we haven't heard a single word from our colleagues across the aisle acknowledging the very real challenges civilians in Gaza are experiencing every day under this war. We have not heard a single word.

If we send massive 2,000-pound bombs to Netanyahu without any assurances on how they will be used, it could mean unprecedented, catastrophic civilian casualties. I mean, these are people that we are talking about, innocent people--boys and girls, brothers and sisters, moms and dads, grandparents, babies.

Where is our humanity? Where is our humanity? These are people who are already struggling with shortages of food, water, shelter, medical supplies, the basic things that humans need to survive. They fled to Rafah because that is where Netanyahu told them to go to escape the bombing of Hamas. Now, Netanyahu is saying he is going to bomb them anyway, and there is no plan to safely evacuate them to any other place.

I don't care whether there is another country that does it. Killing civilians is wrong. It is always wrong. You can be a friend of Israel, a strong ally of Israel, and also be a critic when it comes to the Netanyahu government.

You can be a strong friend of Israel and say that more massive civilian casualties will undercut Israel's security. This is not the way to go.

You can feel as I do that what happened on October 7, the horrific attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. It was unconscionable. There aren't enough adjectives to describe how horrific that was.

The taking of hostages is a war crime. We want them released. You can feel that way, but also understand that we have an obligation to protect civilian lives in Gaza.

I am grateful to President Biden for taking the step that he did, and I wish he would do more, quite frankly. It is disappointing for me to see that so many of my friends across the aisle seem indifferent to it.

Madam Speaker, coming down here to get lectured about crime from the party whose leader is a criminal is really something else.

My friend from New York not once rebutted our contention that Republicans have advocated cutting the COPS grant because it is here in print. Anybody can see it.

For those who want to know why this program is good, it is because it provides money to help local law enforcement be able to hire and recruit police officers, especially in areas where budgets are tight.

It is a lifeline for so many communities, rural and urban, all throughout this country, and they are advocating eliminating it. Give me a break.

None of the measures the House of Representatives are putting forth this week do a single thing to protect Americans, secure our communities, or improve law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, the real shame here is that if Republicans were willing to set their partisanship aside and work across the aisle, maybe we could get something substantive done because the reality is that Democrats want to keep people safe, and we know how to do it.

We need to invest in programs that get at the root causes of crime, and we need to address gun violence in our schools and make sure police aren't put in situations that they aren't trained to handle. We know the key to improving safety in our neighborhoods is not to use our law enforcement officers like political pawns.

At the end of the day, the Republican commitment to chaos, extremism, and politicking over legislating is hurting our ability to improve people's lives. I have to be honest: I think it is going to backfire on them.

Even one of our Republican colleagues took to the floor and said as much last year: ``Nothing but empty promises.'' He went to say: ``We haven't done anything,'' meaning Republicans. ``One thing. I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing--one--that I can go campaign on and say we did--one--anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done.''

That is a Republican saying that. They know they are getting nowhere in this Congress.

All I can say, Madam Speaker, is the American people deserve better, and they certainly deserve better than the Speaker of the House spending his time trying to influence our justice system at a courthouse in New York City. How pathetic. When we have real problems that we need to deal with here in this country, he is in New York trying to explain away, like a staffer, all of Donald Trump's problems, quite frankly.

I am trying to think of a way to stay within order here with the new rules. It is pathetic. It is pathetic. That is where the Speaker of the House is spending his time, trying to rationalize all of the former President's crimes. Give me a break.

Madam Speaker, the American people, as I said, deserve better. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. This is just a waste of time. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I start by humbly suggesting that the majority needs someone new working on legislative acronyms for these messaging bills. This is the DC CRIMES Act, which stands for the D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act of 2024.

``Immediately make everyone safe.'' That doesn't sound like legislation. It sounds like a Penn & Teller magic trick to me.

If the gentleman from Florida can actually immediately make everyone safe, the gentleman should not only be Donald Trump's running mate, as I keep hearing about, but the gentleman should be the Mayor of the District of Columbia.

The D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act is the fourth bill that the majority has brought to the floor to vilify, heckle, and micromanage the elected Mayor and Council of the District of Columbia on the appalling conceit that the distinguished Members of the Republican Conference from Florida or Kentucky or Arizona care more about public safety and public welfare in Washington, D.C., than do the 700,000 people who

live there and their elected officials on the D.C. Council and the Mayor.

This one is even more sweeping and radical than their prior bills. It doesn't simply overturn one specific current D.C. law. It permanently strips D.C. of authority over any of its criminal laws, making this legislation, perhaps inadvertently, I concede, the largest proposed rollback of D.C.'s authority to govern itself in nearly 30 years.

Our colleagues may be shocked to learn during this debate what exactly it is they are being asked to vote for today. At the Rules Committee meeting yesterday, I asked the Republican Members whether they understood what this bill actually does if you take the time to read the language. None of them seemed to know.

Let me explain. The bill amends the D.C. Home Rule Act to say that the D.C. Council may not ``enact any act, resolution, or rule to change any criminal . . . sentence in effect on the date of the enactment of the DC CRIMES Act of 2024.''

In other words, if this bill becomes law, the D.C. Council could never increase criminal penalties again without Congress acting first, nor could it create any new criminal offenses at all.

This is their big tough-on-crime package the majority offers the Congress: No increases in criminal sentences indefinitely in the District of Columbia, and no new offenses can be passed at all.

Say the D.C. Council wanted to create a new criminal offense for directing an organized retail theft ring. Mr. Donalds' bill would prevent them from doing it.

Say D.C. wanted to make it a crime to possess a firearm with a removed or altered or mutilated serial number. Under Mr. Donalds' bill, they would be barred from doing so.

In fact, that is precisely what D.C. just did a few months ago. My Republican colleagues seem blissfully oblivious to the fact that, earlier this year, responding to the spike in crime occurring across America--not just in Washington, D.C., of course--the D.C. Council passed a 63-page law called the Secure DC Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act of 2024, which dramatically increased criminal penalties for nine different crimes and created six new criminal offenses.

The D.C. bill, which was passed unanimously by the council and signed into law by the Mayor, does what Republicans have so eloquently been orating about on the floor. It increased criminal penalties, including for gun crimes, violence in parks, violence committed against vulnerable people, and violence committed against rideshare drivers, Metro drivers, and transit workers.

The Secure DC Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act also created a host of new offenses, including directing a retail theft ring, strangulation, firing bullets in public, possessing a firearm with a removed or altered serial number, and unlawful discarding of firearms or ammunition.

They addressed the actual problems that they are experiencing in their city, something our colleagues seriously know nothing about and don't care about. If Mr. Donalds' bill had actually been law at the time, the D.C. Council would have been barred from enacting all of these tough-on-crime penalties altogether, and they will be barred in the future from responding to the kinds of spikes in crime that they experience.

Amazingly, the gentleman proposes this naked power grab against Washington, denying them the crime-fighting tools they need, despite the fact that they have done a good job and total crime in D.C. is down 16 percent in 2024 compared to the same period last year, which was conceded by the Republicans in the Rules Committee yesterday.

There has been a 26-percent reduction in violent crime in 2024, which they conceded in the Rules Committee yesterday, and a 22-percent reduction in homicides.

In other words, local democracy works. Let the local governments respond to the problems they are having, but our colleagues insist that crime is still spiking in D.C., despite the evidence to the contrary.

What is their big tough-on-crime solution? The bold solution Republicans offer us to combat crime in the Nation's Capital is to prohibit the D.C. Council from ever increasing any criminal penalties and blocking the D.C. Council from ever creating any new crimes.

If that is not what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle intend to do, then I think my colleagues need to go back and try again with some new legislation.

In any event, for my Republican colleagues who love to castigate the people of D.C., who I concede voted more than 90 percent against Donald Trump in the last election, I would respectfully suggest that the majority considers the following fact: D.C. has higher maximum criminal penalties than many Republican States do. Let's compare.

The maximum penalty for armed robbery in D.C. is 30 years. In Kentucky, represented by the chairman of the Oversight Committee, the maximum is 20 years, 50 percent less. In North Dakota, it is 10 years, or 66 percent less.

In D.C., criminals can receive a 40-year sentence for armed carjacking. In Kentucky, represented by the chairman of the Oversight Committee, carjacking is not a separate independent offense. You have to charge somebody with armed robbery, but even then, you can only get half the sentence you can get in D.C. for carjacking.

Despite all of the fine election-year rhetoric we have heard, there is something profoundly antithetical to our system of government in what the gentleman is proposing. If you read the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set forth a bill of particulars against King George and the Parliament, and one of the central allegations of it was that they were denying the colonists the right to define criminal offenses for themselves. People over in England were dictating to people in our country what the criminal offenses should be, and that is like, with all due respect, the gentleman from Florida dictating to the people in Washington, D.C., how they should order their affairs when it comes to the criminal law.

Jefferson would have understood very well the situation that we are in, and our friends in Washington, 713,000 taxpaying, draftable U.S. citizens, have petitioned for statehood because they no longer want to be kicked around by other people's Representatives. They want to have an equal say in this body and an equal say in the U.S. Senate. They don't want other people's Representatives telling them that they can't pass the criminal offenses or the increased criminal sentences that they want for their crimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona invites us to believe that the people of Washington, D.C., don't want to respond to spikes in crime in their own city. It is only in response to hearings called by Republican Members of Congress. I think that is an affront to our fellow citizens who obviously care deeply about what is going on in their own city, and I daresay a lot more than those of us who represent other jurisdictions, because we care principally about the places that we represent.

Mr. Speaker, I will say before yielding to my friend from the District of Columbia that you don't have to look like a monarch or a tyrant to act like a monarch or a tyrant.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the distinguished, nonvoting delegate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

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

Let's see, no one on the other side has contradicted the plain, commonsense interpretation of this bill, which is that the District of Columbia Council will now be disabled from ever increasing a criminal penalty again, a criminal sentence again, and the District of Columbia Council will never be able to create a new criminal offense like the one they just created for running a retail theft ring, which has become a problem across the country in a lot of places. A lot of States have legislated on that. I know Maryland has legislated on that.

I am just wondering whether anyone on that side would yield for a question whether this is the deliberate intention of this legislation or it is just a mistake or whether they don't accept that plain, commonsense reading of the language of the bill because we are voting on something far more drastic and sweeping than what was represented by the sponsor's original statement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), momentarily, so that he can answer my question.

Are we interpreting it properly?

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

Before the gentleman leaves the Chamber, I thought I might note, I am going to give him some examples, some anecdotes and data since he appears to be legislating by vignette: In Summerville, South Carolina, last week there was a severe armed carjacking by three teenage suspects. In April, a man wanted for murder in Rock Hill was captured following another carjacking at a Huntersville QuikTrip.

I could give you a dozen of those. I don't think that the answer to any of that would be to disenfranchise the people of South Carolina or to have Congress usurp the State legislative authority or the local authority there.

My friend from Florida describes the District of Columbia as a Federal enclave, which of course it is not. A Federal enclave is a Federal property or land, like in Rockville, Maryland, which is my district, where we have the NIH. That is a Federal enclave.

This is the District constituting the seat of government set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.

Now, both of my friends over there say, well, we are going to take just a small step in the right direction.

How is it the right direction to deprive the people of the District of Columbia the power to have control over their own criminal sentencing, including the power to increase criminal sentences? If they had passed this legislation at the beginning of the year, they would have foreclosed the ability of the District of Columbia to increase criminal penalties across the board on a whole range of offenses and perhaps even to create new criminal offenses in the District.

The gentleman from South Carolina lectured the people of Washington, D.C., about criminal incidents taking place here, and of course there are criminal incidents taking place also in South Carolina in the exact same way.

However, how about something that took place even closer to home? How about the violent mob insurrection where a mob incited by the ex- President violently assaulted Capitol Police officers and Metropolitan Police Department officers who were forced to deploy to the Capitol, and nearly 150 of them ended up brutalized, wounded, and hospitalized after being hit over the head or in the chest or stabbed or speared by steel pipes, Confederate battle flags, Trump flags, and American flags, shamefully?

Yet, we have the ex-President and a number of people who are his sycophants over on that side of the aisle describing people who are in jail for that, a majority of them having pled guilty

for those offenses, the others convicted after due process of law, calling those people hostages.

A hostage is someone who has been illegally abducted by a terrorist or criminal entity, like Hamas, and held for a financial or political ransom. Yet, shamefully, there are people on that side of the aisle who call the prisoners who have been convicted after having been given every aspect of American due process and right to counsel, they are calling them hostages or political prisoners, like Alexei Navalny or Nelson Mandela. That is what they have come to.

They want to denounce a criminal event that happened six blocks away. What about the massive criminal event, the most massive criminal event in the history of the Nation's Capital that came right into this Chamber, forcing the Senators and Representatives to flee, and they won't say a word about it. Yet, they get up and they denounce lawlessness, and they won't even denounce lawlessness that comes right into the Congress and the Capitol of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for pointing out that I accurately cited the statistics for all of the declines in crime and violent crime and homicides in the District of Columbia in 2024.

Alas, I do have to correct my friend in his history because there might be some students watching this. Thomas Jefferson never signed the Constitution. He was, of course, on a diplomatic mission when the Constitution was being signed in Philadelphia, but he did write the Declaration of Independence.

The other side says, bizarrely, that the District of Columbia Council and the Mayor should be denied the authority to increase criminal sentences forthwith because they have shown no inclination to increase criminal sentences.

Leaving aside the absolute illogic of the argument, it is also false because the District of Columbia in the secure D.C. act, passed just 2 months ago, increased criminal sentences across the board, which I am afraid my friends were completely oblivious to when they started this legislation. They weren't aware of it.

The people who claim to be speaking for the populous of Washington, D.C., didn't know that the Council had just acted to dramatically increase criminal penalties in the city. They denied them the right to further increase criminal penalties in the city because they say they haven't shown any inclination to do so which, of course, makes no sense and is also completely false.

All of this is pure political theater. It is bad political theater. Somebody decided a long time ago that it works for people who would never try to kick around their own State legislatures, their own county councils, or their own city councils to kick around the people of Washington, D.C.

My friends think that they have scored some kind of huge rhetorical coup, pointing out Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, which indeed says that Congress shall exercise exclusive legislation over the District, constituting the seat of government from land that is ceded by various States.

Nobody on this side of the aisle, including the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, has denied that for a second.

What we have said is this is a massive assault on home rule, and it is also an embarrassing one because it cuts completely against all of the rhetoric that we are hearing from our colleagues across the aisle.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we have made some progress in this conversation because a plain reading of the distinguished gentleman from Florida's legislation indicates that what he is telling the District of Columbia is you may never increase criminal penalties again. The only time there can be an increase in criminal penalties in the District of Columbia is if Congress does it.

Unfortunately, this Congress has a hard time even keeping a Speaker in place without them trying to vacate the chair and topple the Speaker.

This Congress, as the whole country knows, has been absolute chaos and dysfunction and disorganization from the beginning.

I don't blame the people from Washington, D.C., who sent us these letters; the Mayor, the Council, and the Attorney General of D.C. saying thanks, but no thanks. We will take it from here.

The people in D.C. are perfectly able to decide what criminal offenses they need in the District of Columbia and how the sentences should be set and fixed.

They have courts in the District of Columbia, they have a legislature, the Council for the District of Columbia, which is elected from their eight wards and four at-large members and the chairman of the Council, and they have a Mayor. They have advisory neighborhood commissions.

I wonder if any of my colleagues over there are active in any of the wards or advisory neighborhood commissions where they live. I tend to doubt it.

The people of D.C., I understand from Congresswoman Norton, are actually involved in the governance of their city and the management of their local affairs.

Yet, in this totally ham-handed and almost comically dysfunctional attempt to score points against D.C., they come up with legislation which says D.C. can never increase criminal penalties, again, when they are accusing D.C. of being too soft on crime, despite the fact that we are able to show that D.C. has tougher criminal sentences than many of the States represented by the Members who have been speaking about this over the last several days.

All of it feels a lot, to me, like a silly election-year stunt. I don't think anyone thinks that this is serious legislation, but I am glad at least that the other side has conceded that the bill means what it says.

They want to strip the District of Columbia of any power to increase criminal sentences in their city. I simply think that that is a terrible form of public policy and is a major inroad against home rule over the last several decades when, in fact, what we should be doing is giving the people of D.C. greater political self-government and giving them the rights to equal representation which, of course, was the aforementioned Jefferson's ideal for the country.

If you go back and read the Northwest Ordinance, he thought that every part of the country would eventually attain a level of political equality by admission to Statehood through Article IV of the Constitution.

That is the spirit of the Constitution, not kicking around people, our fellow citizens, because we think we have more power than them, and we can score some political points off them.

Why don't we have a hearing about Statehood for the District of Columbia, and let's keep the engines of democracy, freedom, and political equality in the country moving.

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

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.