Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this entire Republican majority has been one gigantic, complete, total failure, a complete mess from day one with the majority in charge. It is an embarrassment.

We have 8 weeks left in the 118th Congress to do our legislative work, and instead of doing something to make life better for anyone or, hell, even the bare minimum, by stopping a government shutdown, we are considering a no-good stopgap resolution that extends funding into 2025.

My colleagues have to love this: The gentleman from New York is on the floor today trying to convince everyone to vote for the bill when Republicans cannot even convince their own Members to vote for it. Seriously, every minute I look at my phone, I see another Republican defecting.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican manager is wasting his time debating me. He needs to be debating his Republican friends who are coming out against the bill in droves. Clearly, the majority doesn't have the votes for this awful plan, so why are we wasting time here in this House on a bill that has no chance whatsoever of ever becoming law?

Mr. Speaker, this is embarrassing for the Republican side of the aisle. It is mid-September. Republicans said the majority would get all 12 separate appropriation bills done before we left for the August break. That is yet another broken promise, among a long list from Speaker Johnson, to add onto all the broken promises from Speaker McCarthy before him.

House Republicans are once again showing their deep disrespect for the veteran community by proposing a 6-month CR that shortchanges the VA Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund by $12 billion. That is morally reprehensible and just plain cruel. These are our veterans who we are talking about. How the hell can Republicans turn their backs on our veterans?

To be clear, this is the Republican playbook: a big promise, and it gets broken. Republicans promised we will have a robust, effective appropriations process, and it gets broken. Republicans promised to continue supporting our veterans, and it gets broken.

Now we are headed into another potential shutdown, all because Members on the other side of the aisle want to play political games. To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, Republicans have jammed the SAVE Act onto the CR because why not mix up government funding with more ridiculous conspiracy theories about voter fraud?

I know why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to bring this bill to the floor. Republicans are worried the majority won't win in November without pushing conspiracy theories.

Mr. Speaker, let's set something straight: Noncitizens cannot vote in Federal elections. Let me repeat that: Noncitizens cannot vote in Federal elections. If they vote, it is illegal. It is a crime.

Guess what? They have done studies. Even conservative institutes say there is no evidence that noncitizens voted illegally in large enough numbers to shift the outcome of any election.

We all know what this is about. It is not about voter fraud. This is part of their Project 2025 plan to undermine the vote count and take total control of the government.

Mr. Speaker, the majority wants power whether Republicans win or lose at the ballot box, and so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will claim voter fraud, whatever happens, the facts be damned.

Do Republicans really want to talk about the threat of voter fraud?

Let me remind the American people: The only ones committing voter fraud in an attempt to overthrow an election are Republicans. We have seen this movie before. Following Trump's loss in the 2020 election, he and his cronies allegedly conspired to overturn the will of the American people by submitting fake electors to falsely certify that Trump won the election. He didn't win the election. He lost the election.

What did those efforts get them: Dozens of people across four States have been indicted over this election fraud scheme.

Republicans want to talk about the threat of voter fraud. Give me a break. Republicans are the threat.

This horrible CR will never become law the way it is structured. We are really just here wasting more time after House Republicans failed to do what they should have done months ago.

This rule before us today would also bring to the floor five bills that Republicans claim will target China, five bills that are actually weak on China, five ineffective bills that don't get the job done and don't represent a real attempt to actually address some of the very serious concerns we have about the PRC.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a critic of China's human rights record for decades, longer than some of my colleagues have been in Congress. Hell, I was sanctioned by the Chinese Government in July. I can't travel to China. My wife can't travel to China. My son can't travel to China. My daughter can't travel to China. I can't even converse with any Chinese officials.

I have written strong, effective bills that would hold the PRC accountable, and so they don't like me. They sanction me, and I wear that sanction as a badge of honor.

Let me be clear: These bills that the gentleman referred to are not about taking a strong stance against China. They are poorly written, weak bills that don't get the job done. It is like they are written for a press release. I am sorry. That is because they are meant for a press release and not about serious legislating.

Believe it or not, we can strengthen our national security. We can stand up to China on human rights, and we can support our veterans and make sure they get the care that they need.

We can fund the government. We can do all of that and more if we work together. That is what people want. They want us to behave like adults. Sadly, Republican leadership is more interested in sound bites and FOX News headlines heading into November than they are about governing.

I say they would rather put politics ahead of progress but, Mr. Speaker, Project 2025 isn't just politics. It is weird. It is shameful. It is deeply dystopian. It is dangerous stuff.

Americans are tired of this garbage, and I think they are about to make some very different choices starting November.

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

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

It is unbelievable. All we heard last night and all we are hearing now on the House floor from the other side is that it is the Senate's fault. That is the reason why House Republicans aren't doing their job and that is why they are pushing this misguided CR is because of Senate Democrats. We heard that again today.

Guess what: Even Republican Senators hate this CR plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include a link to an article in the Record from NewsNation titled, ``House GOP government funding plan gets chilly reception from Senate Republicans.''

The link is: https://www.newsnationnow.com/the-hill/ house-gop-government-funding-plan-gets-chilly-reception-from-senate- republicans/ Mr. Speaker, their own Republican colleagues are worried that this ``measure requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote could complicate the stopgap funding bill's path,'' and that this ``comes dangerously close to risking a shutdown.''

Here is an idea: If Republicans are so serious about the CR, maybe they should have done some work to shore up support within their own party.

However, let me just talk about how Republicans feel about this CR.

Tom Massie on the Rules Committee tweeted: ``I am voting Hell No on the `continuing resolution and the other matter act' this week. I don't care which bright shiny object is attached to it, or which fake fight we start and won't finish.''

The gentleman from New York decided to talk about national security. Here is another news flash for the gentleman: The top Republican national security expert in the House, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mike Rogers, says he is a ``no'' on the CR. He says it is bad for the Pentagon. He hopes other HASC members will vote ``no'' too.

That is your top guy on national security. He is voting ``no.''

It is reported from Melanie Zanona that ``Representative Cory Mills says he has informed the whip team that he is a no on the 6-month CR plus SAVE Act. Also says there are `quite a few' other Republicans who are against it who haven't said so publicly yet.''

Matt Rosendale tweets: ``1 year later, the same old theatrics by the D.C. cartel. I have never voted for a CR, and I never intend to.''

John Bresnahan reports that Representative Jim Banks is a ``no'' on the CR.

Jordain Carney reports that Representative Burchett says he is currently a ``no'' on the CR plus SAVE plan. He says there are many, many others that want to vote no.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a no on everything, so she is no on this, as well.

I have to be honest with the gentleman, your problem isn't House Democrats or Senate Democrats; your problem is House Republicans. You can't even get consensus amongst your own Members of your own party.

This is ridiculous that we are here debating this rule to bring up a CR that is going nowhere fast.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Representative Massie said: ``This SAVE Act isn't going to save anything.''

Representative Massie, as everybody knows, is a prominent leader in the Republican caucus. He says, and particularly because ``it ain't never going to become law. It's a false promise to get all the Republicans half pregnant. Then you're going to get fully pregnant by the end of September when you vote for this CR. . . . '' That is not going to have--``I hate to break it to you, and I'm not telling you anything special. I hate to break it to the Republicans, you ain't getting the SAVE Act.''

Then he concludes by saying: But ``This is political theater,'' folks. I have to tell you, it is bad political theater, and it is pathetic.

Here we are at this late day approaching a government shutdown and we get this garbage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

My God, the Republicans must be really afraid of losing the November election if the conspiracy theories are already starting up this early.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Cato Institute titled: ``Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.''

Mr. Speaker, at a press conference on the SAVE Act, the Speaker of the House said: ``We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in Federal elections, but it has not been something that is easily provable. We don't have that number.''

Mr. Speaker, this body legislates based on facts, not on intuition or conspiracy theories. Maybe it is time for House Republicans to get serious about their jobs and stop making laws based off their absurd conspiracy theories.

Again, I say to the gentleman after that little rant that maybe he needs to be talking to his Republican Members, who all have basically said that the inclusion of the SAVE Act on this horrific CR is basically a gimmick. It is a gimmick to get people to look someplace else and not look at the fact that Republicans are not doing their job.

If we want to talk about an insult to our men and women in uniform, then I hope that they will join with me in defeating the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include $12 billion that our Nation's veterans need for their healthcare, $12 billion that the House Republicans decided, intentionally, to leave out of their partisan continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, with this unserious and unacceptable continuing resolution, Republicans are not only risking disaster assistance and domestic investments, but they are also shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing their care.

An additional $12 billion is needed before the new year to maintain medical care for veterans. That is just a fact.

The House Republican bill does not include a single dollar of the $12 billion needed, shortchanging veterans and jeopardizing the medical services they need and have earned.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve our support. It is our responsibility to provide the care that they have earned. This inadequate continuing resolution does not meet the moment, which is why I am giving my Republican colleagues the chance now to do the right thing and include the funding for our veterans in this continuing resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were lots of things that were left out of this CR, and the Republicans came up with a manager's amendment to try to address that, but they left out the $12 billion for our veterans.

They left out $12 billion for our veterans. I don't understand that. There is no explanation for that. It is so wrong.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

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

Oh, my God. I don't even know where to begin, to be honest with you. There is just so much there.

First of all, let me read from a letter that the Secretary of Defense sent to all of us here in Congress. He said: ``A 6-month CR would set us significantly behind in meeting our pacing challenge highlighted in our National Defense Strategy, the People's Republic of China. The PRC is the only global competitor with both the intent and capability to change the international order. The PRC does not operate under CRs. Our ability to execute our strategy is contingent upon our ability to innovate and modernize to meet this challenge, which cannot happen under a CR. Asking the Department to compete with the PRC, let alone manage conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, while under a lengthy CR, ties our hands behind our back while expecting us to be agile and to accelerate progress.'' That is what the Secretary of Defense sent to Congress.

Republicans are here with a bunch of fake anti-China bills that will never become law, but what they are actually doing is hurting our national security.

This approach, their CR, is hurting our national security. It is not just the Secretary of Defense saying that. As I said earlier, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has said it, and that is why he is opposing the Republican CR, so let's get that straight.

The other thing is, on the SAVE Act, it is true that a military ID alone is not sufficient to meet the criteria of the SAVE Act. Is that how we thank the men and women who serve our country?

In fact, many Americans don't have the kind of identification required to be able to comply with the SAVE Act, but that is even beside the point because, as Republican after Republican has said, this is a gimmick. This is going nowhere. This is just a sound bite during an election. This is not real. This is all theater. That is not me saying it. It is Republican after Republican saying that.

In terms of helping our veterans, let me tell you, Republicans keep talking about the $112 billion in the bill for VA care, but guess what? These dollars were already provided in last year's bill.

Both VA and OMB say that these dollars are insufficient and that they need an additional $12 billion or our veterans' care will be affected. That is what has been said to Republicans and Democrats over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides zero additional dedicated funding for vets with toxic exposures. Zero. I don't understand why, when you are trying to fix some of the omissions in the manager's amendment that was put in in the Rules Committee, this could not have been added. These are our veterans. These are people who have served our country. These are people who have been exposed to toxic chemicals who are battling with all kinds of illnesses and diseases.

The least we can do is make sure the funding is there so they can get adequate healthcare. This bill provides none of that $12 billion. I don't understand what my Republican friends are thinking.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have 3 weeks left to ensure that our government doesn't shut down. Instead of working with Democrats to keep the government open, what we have here is an awful, cynical, partisan continuing resolution that has exactly zero chance of becoming law. Hell, as I said earlier, it may not even pass the Republican-controlled Congress.

It is like Republicans won't even try to get the job done. They have passed 4 appropriations bills out of 12. That is it, and they want a trophy for that. I mean, it is pathetic how little work has been done in this House.

Again, they have sent a grand total of four appropriations bills to the Senate, although listening to them last night at the Rules Committee, you would think they had completed all their work and everything is wonderful. Imagine thinking 30 percent was a passing grade. It is pathetic.

At the end of the day, the Republican majority has failed the American people, and the Republican majority has failed the American people miserably. They want to condition keeping our government open on a Project 2025 pipe dream to disenfranchise millions of Americans at the ballot box. Let me be clear, the SAVE Act is not about targeting undocumented immigrants. It is about suppressing the vote of millions of American citizens.

Again, I point out what happened in the last election. The person who shall not be named by name lost but didn't want to accept the loss and instructed people to go out there and to submit fraudulent electors to try to stoke all these conspiracy theories.

Multiple people are now under indictment for trying to overturn the legitimate results of the last election. The threat to our democracy, the threat to our election integrity, is the Republicans.

My friends are willing to rip $12 billion away from our sick veterans all to play political games. What is wrong with them, Mr. Speaker? They are pursuing poorly written, bad bills that are soft on China when we could be doing the real work, teaming up across the aisle to strengthen our national security. It is a joke. It is a joke. It is embarrassing. All they bring to the table is destruction, disruption, dysfunction, and the dystopian Project 2025. Every measure before us today is a bad deal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can help our veterans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do better. If the government shuts down because of their dysfunction, real people in this country get hurt. We need to come together and get our work done. Enough of this partisan garbage.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge

the 23rd anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Today will serve as a reminder that we should work hard to guard against terrorism and always stand against hate.

Mr. Speaker, moving to the debate on H.R. 9456, I would like to start by noting that Democrats, especially those serving on the Financial Services Committee, have a strong record of working with Republicans to counter threats from the People's Republic of China. In fact, just yesterday, the House passed two bills from our committee.

Unfortunately, H.R. 9456 is not an example of that kind of bipartisanship. In fact, this bill undermines a bipartisan law that we passed just 6 months ago. Yes, it was 6 months ago that the House and Senate worked across the aisle and with the Biden-Harris administration to pass legislation that would protect our national security from adversarial countries like China acquiring critical agricultural land in the United States.

To help review foreign investments involving U.S. agriculture, this bipartisan law added the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which is the interagency committee that determines whether a foreign investment in a United States company or asset could pose a threat to our national security. That law further codified reporting and coordination between the Secretary of Agriculture and CFIUS.

I mention this law, Mr. Speaker, because I think my Republican colleagues have forgotten what we did only 6 months ago. In their rush to pull together bills for the so-called China week, they appear to have brought up a poorly drafted copy of legislation we already passed.

However, in the frenzy to bring this bill to the floor, H.R. 9456 doesn't duplicate the law. Rather, it results in the Secretary of Agriculture having to report countless transactions to the committee that have nothing to do with our national security.

Currently, the law provides to the Secretary of Agriculture the support of the United States intelligence community to identify those transactions that may pose a threat to our national security. Inexplicably, H.R. 9456 removes that intelligence community assistance, leaving the Secretary to guess which transactions might pose a threat to our national security.

Further, unlike the law that was passed just 6 months ago, the bill broadens the scope from ``foreign governments and entities of concern'' to now include ``foreign persons,'' which means all individuals and entities of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. This means anyone with citizenship in those countries, including refugees or people who are here in the United States with green cards or other visas.

The bill's broad-brush approach of targeting individuals from China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran amounts to racial profiling. This bill's focus is similar to the restrictive, xenophobic real estate laws passed in a number of States, like Florida, where citizens of the same countries are banned from buying property and which has resulted in numerous instances of discrimination.

It is for this reason that this bill is opposed by the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the National Iranian American Council, Stop AAPI Hate, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, the Asian American Scholar Forum, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Biden-Harris administration has also put out a Statement of Administration Policy, saying that is it inconsistent with CFIUS process and would not be implementable as drafted.

Mr. Speaker, these deficiencies, taken together, will divert precious resources from CFIUS' targeted national security reviews. This is a bad bill that harms the bipartisan work we already passed this year and would sow divisions among neighbors across America.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I will vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to highlight just how rushed the process for this bill has been. I remind my colleagues that this bill was only introduced 5 days ago, on Friday of last week.

The notice of the Rules Committee hearing for this bill went out the same day that the bill was introduced, and the hearing happened the very next Monday.

That timing didn't give Members and staff so much as a single business day to prepare, let alone for the Treasury Department and outside groups to conduct their own analyses. Needless to say, there hasn't been a single hearing on this bill, nor has it ever been marked up. To top it all off, the rule providing for consideration of the bill gives Members no opportunity for amendment.

Considering we just passed legislation to address the very concerns that this bill purports to tackle, I can see no policy reason as to why we are moving ahead with this bill so hastily. Given the serious defects with this bill, I don't understand why Republican leadership is denying Members the opportunity to properly assess these issues.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have insisted on following regular order again and again, so I would urge them to heed their own calls on this bill and allow this body to properly consider this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right that the Financial Services Committee passed language that is similar in some respects to Representative Newhouse's bill just 6 months ago in the Consolidated Appropriations Act.

That language reflected bipartisan work done by the Financial Services Committee on two Republican bills that had been marked up by our committee with unanimous votes. We continue to work in a bipartisan manner as well as with the Senate and the Treasury Department to get language that reflected these two bipartisan bills into the appropriations bill, which ultimately got passed into law.

It is simply false to claim that the bill we are considering today is somehow a harmless duplication of what we have already enacted, as I have laid out in detail already.

This bill undermines the bipartisan work that we have done on this issue and raises serious concerns about both national security and racial profiling. We already did the work to strike a reasonable bipartisan compromise on this front, but Republicans are choosing to undermine that bipartisanship with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

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

Several groups have come out in opposition to this bill over concerns of racial discrimination and profiling, including the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the National Iranian American Council, the Stop AAPI Hate, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, the Asian American Scholar Forum, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

For example, according to the American Civil Liberties Union:

This legislation discriminates and targets individuals

solely because of their citizenship and tends to conflate

individuals from covered countries with their governments. It

does this despite the lack of any showing that it is

necessary or that passing this bill would do anything to

protect U.S. national security interests.

According to the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus:

H.R. 9456 is not an effective way to address national

security. It is a continuation of our Nation's shameful

history in enacting racist alien land laws from the 19th and

20th century that barred Chinese and Japanese immigrants from

purchasing land and which eventually laid the groundwork for

mass incarceration of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World

War II.

We cannot go back to those shameful parts of our history where we denied equal protections and due process for entire ethnic groups simply because of their ethnic heritage.

The bipartisan language that we already passed into law appropriately tailors reporting from the Secretary of Agriculture to include only those transactions that have a national security nexus, including transactions that involve foreign governments or entities of concern, which is defined to include foreign terrorist organizations or sanctioned entities on the Treasury Department's economic and trade sanctions lists.

The law also provides support to the Secretary of Agriculture from the United States intelligence community to determine which transactions may pose a national security concern.

This bill overturns that bipartisan compromise and would treat refugees and legal immigrants from any of these countries in the same manner as known terrorist groups.

This is outrageous. I hope that both sides of the aisle will do what is right, do what is fair, and recognize the history that we are not proud of as it relates to racial profiling.

I hope that we would do the right thing on this bill. This bill should not be passed. We have already done what was needed in a bipartisan way. I don't know why they would take time to undermine the work that we did, and I certainly want a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My colleague across the aisle has pointed out that the language that we passed into law as part of the Appropriations Act just 6 months ago may expire along with the appropriations.

While that may be the case, it is simply false to claim that all this bill would do is ensure that the language survives past that expiration. If that were all this bill were doing, I would support it, the same way I supported that language before.

In fact, I would urge Republicans to bring a bill to the floor that would exclusively eliminate any expiration on the bipartisan language that we have already passed so that we can continue to work in a bipartisan manner on this issue, instead of moving this harmful bill that we are considering here today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As I laid out in my opening remarks, this bill confusingly duplicates and conflicts with existing law.

To be clear, this bill would add new language rather than amending the existing language that is already in law. Having two conflicting laws creates significant legal ambiguity as to how to interpret these competing texts.

It would undoubtedly result in litigation as agencies struggle to determine what their legal obligations are, tying up limited resources at both CFIUS and the Department of Agriculture.

This hastily written text does not appear to have appropriately taken into account the resulting legal ambiguities, and I would urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, at the very least, take the time to address these legal ambiguities and provide a clear mandate.

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

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

H.R. 9456 undercuts not only a bipartisan accomplishment from 6 months ago, but also our government's ability to stop adversarial countries like China and Russia from acquiring companies, technology, and land that are critical to our national security.

This bill will also cause financial harm to lawful, permanent residents and other immigrants based solely on an investor's citizenship.

Members of this body considered this issue just 6 months ago, passing bipartisan legislation to add the expertise of the Secretary of the USDA to CFIUS and improving the process by which agricultural land transactions are shared with and reviewed by the government.

That bill was drafted in coordination with the Biden-Harris administration as well as Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. It was passed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024. There is no need to rewrite this law.

H.R. 9456 is a rush job by the House Republican leadership, and it shows how harmful this bill is to both our national security and the people who we serve.

I would just say to my colleagues that if you are really concerned about security, if you really want to support ag and the farmers, why did you just pull the continuing resolution that we were supposed to take up to continue government functioning?

Now, I guess you don't have the votes, and you are doing nothing to protect the very people who you purport to want to protect. Wow.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1430 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1430 provides for consideration of six measures: H.R. 1398, H.R. 1425, H.R. 1516, H.R. 7980, H.R. 9456, and

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

In case my colleague on the other side of the aisle has a case of amnesia, earlier this year, 195 Democrats proudly voted ``no'' on the passage of H.R. 8580, the fiscal year 2025 Military Construction- Veterans Affairs appropriations bill.

This legislation includes $337.4 billion for the VA, $75.5 million above President Biden's own budget requests and $30.2 billion more than the fiscal year 2024 levels. It allocates $112.6 billion for medical care for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, 195 House Democrats, including my colleague from Massachusetts, voted ``no'' on this bill, with Senate Democrats refusing to even bring up the bill on the floor.

Every day they delay is a day that veterans across America are left wondering if their healthcare, their benefits, and their essential services will be there next year. This is simply unacceptable.

Senator Chuck Schumer could bring this bill forward tomorrow. We could get this done for our veterans tomorrow, but, instead, Senate Democrats have decided to play politics with the lives of our Nation's heroes, labeling this vital funding as dead on arrival and offering no alternative while the clock ticks down.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that my Democratic colleagues across the aisle stop playing politics in this Chamber and in the upper Chamber prioritize what really matters. Veterans across this Nation depend on the services provided by the VA. Let's stop the hysteria and the political games.

Let's pass this continuing resolution, avoid a shutdown, and continue our work to fully fund the VA. Our veterans have given everything for us, and I am asking my colleagues to give them the support that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of fiction there. We have heard false and frankly ridiculous claims that the SAVE Act makes it harder for certain Americans, including our servicemembers, to vote.

If my Democratic colleagues took the time to actually read the bill, they would see that under the SAVE Act, servicemembers can show their passport, birth certificate, military ID, record of service, or any combination of these other options as proof of citizenship.

There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that restricts or complicates voting for our servicemen and -women. To suggest otherwise is just patently false, but it is also insulting. It implies that those who serve our country, those who risk their lives to defend our freedoms, are somehow less capable of meeting these simple and straightforward requirements.

Mr. Speaker, our servicemen and -women deserve better. They sacrifice for our Nation, and we owe it to them and to all Americans to uphold the integrity of our elections by enforcing the laws of our land. Instead, Democrats across the country are unwilling to do so.

Take my own State, New York. A noncitizen can register to vote without a Social Security number, without an ID. Before coming to Congress, I fought against New York City's outrageous attempts to allow noncitizens, including illegal aliens, to vote in local elections.

In the face of what States like New York are doing, what the District of Columbia has tried to do, and with millions of illegal aliens flooding into our country under the Biden-Harris administration, we need these safeguards in place today.

Just last month, the State of Texas announced it had removed 6,500 noncitizens from their voter rolls, with nearly 2,000 of those noncitizens recorded to have a voter history. Virginia also removed 6,000 noncitizens from their voter rolls.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot take the issue of voter fraud lightly. We cannot rely on the honor system, as much as the other side of the aisle thinks it is A-OK to not require a photo ID in this country to vote.

We can't take the honor system for our Federal elections, especially when we have millions and millions of illegal immigrants residing in this country and thousands of noncitizens registered to vote across this country.

Make no mistake, the flood at our southern border, the 10 million encounters at our southern border, isn't by accident. It was at the stroke of 94 separate executive actions with Joe Biden's pen, with Kamala Harris cackling in the background, that this has happened.

Bet your bottom dollar that if somehow, by some miraculous effort, they have the White House, the Senate, and the House next year, they are going to get to work lickety-split on the biggest amnesty plan this country has ever had. They will all be voters, mark my words.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reiterate the fact. It is very simple. House Republicans have passed their Veterans appropriations bill. We passed it above the request of President Biden or whoever is drafting the President's requests at this hour.

The people who have had a lot to say in this Chamber today, they all decided to vote ``no.'' They voted ``no'' for our veterans' healthcare. They voted ``no'' for opportunities to expand veteran benefits.

They did it for politics. They did it because it wasn't their idea. This House Republican majority has funded the VA above and beyond President Biden's request for the last 2 fiscal years, and we are very proud of that fact, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have expressed outrage over the inclusion of the SAVE Act in today's continuing resolution, but let's be clear: The American people overwhelmingly disagree with their position.

According to a 2022 YouGov poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections, and even more telling, 48 percent of Democrats--yes, Democrats--agree that proof of U.S. citizenship should be required.

In 2022, a Gallup poll further underscored that 79 percent of Americans favor photo identification requirements to vote, and that includes 53 percent of Democratic voters.

Just this year, the Pew Research Center found that 81 percent of Americans want all voters to show government-issued photo identification to cast a vote, and 69 percent of Democrats back this commonsense safeguard. Why won't they? That is the question. What are they afraid of to require someone to prove who they say that they are?

These aren't poison pills. This isn't partisanship. They are overwhelmingly bipartisan views shared by a vast majority of commonsense Americans.

Yet, my colleagues would rather cater to a fringe element in this country within their party than listen to the clear will of the American people. Instead of supporting reasonable safeguards to protect our elections and prevent foreign interference, they continue to block widely supported measures. They claim to be defenders against foreign interference in our election, yet today, they turn their back on protecting the sanctity of the vote.

The numbers don't lie, though. Under the Biden-Harris administration, at least 4.6 million illegal aliens have been released into our country, with 1.8 million got-aways. We don't know where they are. We don't know who they are. We don't know why they are here. Those are just the ones that we are aware of.

With millions of illegal immigrants, including violent criminals, now residing in the United States, we cannot afford to ignore the critical need to ensure that only American citizens decide the future of our Nation.

This isn't just about policy. It is a moral imperative to protect the foundational rights of American citizens.

It is time for our Democratic colleagues to put aside their partisanship and listen to 81 percent of the American people who support this and stop

threatening a shutdown over commonsense election safeguards.

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

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

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

These accusations, Mr. Speaker, are not just dishonest, they are a pathetic act of desperation. In their scramble to smear Republicans, they have dug up some obscure policy document that was never endorsed by President Trump, or any House Republican for that matter.

Now they have thrown everything they can against the wall, hoping to scare the American people with their usual tactics of lies, deception, and paranoia. This, Mr. Speaker, is the Democratic playbook for 2024. When you are failing, manufacture some more fear.

The reality is stark. Democrats are in complete disarray. They are heading into November on a runaway train. Mr. Speaker, it would be laughable if their policies didn't have such dire impact on the American people.

Now, in a desperate, flailing attempt to distract from their catastrophic record of the last 3\1/2\ years, they are trying to shift the focus away from the wreckage they have left in their wake. Their policies have bankrupted this country, emboldened our enemies, thrown our borders wide open, and crushed the American people under the weight of skyrocketing costs and economic insecurity.

Here is the thing, Mr. Speaker: Americans are just smarter than that. No matter how much they try to spread their undiagnosed cases of Trump derangement syndrome, no matter how many obscure documents they try to pin on House Republicans, they can't run from their abject record of failure. The American people see it. They feel it every day at the gas pump, at the grocery store, when they are

paying their insurance bill, when they are trying to buy a new car, when a young family is trying to get into their first home. In their wallets, in their communities, in the safety of their communities, they feel it. Democrats can't hide from the disaster they have created, and no amount of finger-pointing is going to change that.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear that they would rather play political games as we work to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. They would rather hoot and holler about spending levels in one department than vote for a commonsense appropriations bill or to create a stopgap so that we can continue our work and make sure that we don't have a shutdown. They would rather stand in full-blown opposition to straightforward provisions that would deter voter fraud and ensure our elections are fair, free, and protected as a fundamental right of real American citizens.

My colleagues would also like to stand before us today and oppose commonsense legislation that ensures that we put America first in our dealings with our greatest adversary, China, and any entity or international organization that is connected or subservient to the Chinese Communist Party.

We must do what the Biden-Harris administration has time and time again refused to do in its policies toward China--put the interests and the needs and the security of the American people absolutely first.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today.