Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6276) to direct the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to identify the utilization rate of certain public buildings and federally-leased space, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1065) denouncing the Biden administration's immigration policies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, another week, another round of trivial messaging bills. That is all this Republican majority can do. It has been one pointless messaging bill after another that will never, ever become law. In fact, we haven't passed a single bill out of the Rules Committee that has become law in 9 months--9 months.

First, let's talk about H.R. 6276, a bill that is supposed to help measure and evaluate Federal building utilization. This bill seems to do with the Republican belief that working from home is always bad no matter what.

Don't get me wrong. I hate Teams meetings, and I hate Zoom calls as much as everyone else, but can Republicans please acknowledge that it is 2024, and people can work from home?

Basically, this bill says that if a Federal employee works from home 1 day a week, they are no longer counted as being in the office. Ignore the 4 days a week that they are in the office. If they work from home once, then they are not in the office. Oh, and by the way, we are going to get rid of their desks because they worked from home once. Come on. It is just a silly solution.

This bill fails to capture even the fundamental nature of some of our most vital jobs in the Federal workforce. For example, Mr. Speaker, if you are a food inspector who spends 4 days a week ensuring that our food supply is safe and secure, this bill would not count them for occupancy, which could eventually lead to eliminating their office space. Or if you are a Federal firefighter protecting the lives and property of countless Americans week after week after week but not sitting at a desk for 40 hours, then this bill would say: No, you won't be counted, and you won't need to have a desk.

Now, if we want our Federal workforce to be the best in the world, then we need to compete. We need to give people the flexibility to work from home, just like other employers do in the private sector, which is something that this bill discourages. For those reasons, I believe it is a bad bill, and I will be voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, next we have H. Res. 1065. The actual resolution calls on the President to detain and remove specific individuals from the United States.

I have news for you, Mr. Speaker. Republicans are in charge of this body. They are barely in charge, but they are in charge, nonetheless. They don't have to call on the President to do anything. This isn't a debate club for God's sake. Pass a bill and change the damn policy if you don't like it, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, wait. Republicans don't want to do anything about immigration or the border. They just want to complain and talk about their feelings.

Let me talk to my friends as if I am talking to one of the sixth- grade classes from my district that comes down and tours Washington every year:

If you want a bill to become a law, then you have to pass a bill. There is a difference between a bill, which starts with the abbreviation H.R., and a resolution, which starts with the abbreviation H. Res. I will spell it out for you. That is H, period; R-E-S, period.

Now, some people think H.R. stands for House resolution. It actually stands for House of Representatives, and H. Res. stands for House resolution. Be that as it may, let's move on because I only have 30 minutes.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate, and we do that by passing bills. Bills can change policy. Bills can change taxes, fund programs, and regulate interstate commerce. Hell, bills can even force the President of the United States to do something. They go to the Senate, and then the Senate can pass it and send it to the President. The President can either veto it and send it back to us or sign it into law.

That is how a bill becomes a law.

My Republican friends might have forgotten this, so it is helpful to remind them.

This resolution on the border cannot become law because it is not a bill. It is a resolution, H. Res. 1065. See, it is right here, Mr. Speaker.

If this resolution passes the House, then it will go nowhere. It will just be put on a website and sent out as a press release. This resolution just tells people how you feel about the border.

Mr. Speaker, it is a way for Republicans to talk about their feelings, and I know Republicans have a lot of big feelings on the border.

Now, Democrats care about the border too, but the difference is we actually want to do something about it.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is a time and place for nonbinding resolutions, but this isn't it. We are not going to reform our broken immigration system with a nonbinding resolution. We are just not.

We had a bipartisan deal on border security that Republicans initially supported until Donald Trump called, and then they changed their minds. They killed it. Republicans killed a bipartisan border security deal, a bill that was negotiated by the second most conservative Republican in the United States Senate. They killed it.

So what do they bring up instead?

Not a bill, but a resolution, a meaningless resolution, this resolution, H. Res. 1065 which changes no law, which will not go to the Senate, and which is literally a press release talking about their feelings.

Now, here is the kicker: This resolution, H. Res. 1065, is almost identical to a similar resolution that we dealt with only 3 months ago. So not only does it do nothing, but it is a repeat. They are so bad at legislating that they are even bad at not legislating.

This is all they have to offer Mr. Speaker, half-baked, empty resolutions that don't address any of the fundamental concerns at our southern border.

Oh, sure, they like to pretend that they care about border security on rightwing TV so that Trump and Republican candidates can use it as a campaign slogan in November. They are really good at that. They go on FOX News and say, secure the border, secure the border, but then they kill bills that try to do anything about the border.

They killed the bipartisan border security bill that came out of the United States Senate. It was a bill that would have provided more funding so we could have more people at the border patrolling our border. It was a bill that would provide more money for judges to accelerate consideration of asylum claims. It was a bill, by the way, that was supported by the Border Patrol union that is at the border.

Now, the only thing that they say they will agree to is their grossly partisan H.R. 2, seemingly ignoring the fact that H.R. 2 has lost in the Senate already. It failed bigly. It only got 32 votes.

In fact, the gentleman across the aisle from Kentucky even voted against H.R. 2, but even if it were to pass the Senate, President Biden would never sign it into law because it is a crappy bill.

Furthermore, I got a little whiplash, Mr. Speaker, because on one hand, I hear from my Republican friends, H.R. 2 or nothing, H.R. 2 or nothing. Then we had a gentleman on the Republican side come and do a 1-minute speech and say, we don't need any legislation at all to do anything. We don't have to pass anything. They need to pick one or the other.

Any way you square it, Republicans now own the border crisis. Democrats have given them every opportunity to work together, and we have been turned down by a Republican Party that does not want to solve problems or govern.

So guess what? They own the border. They own the fentanyl crisis. They own all of it. This is their issue. They continue to pass meaningless resolutions like this which do nothing. They continue to scream and yell in committees and on the House floor. They continue to use victims of crimes as props, but when push comes to shove, they don't do a damn thing.

They vote against more funding for border security. They reject serious proposals for border security. They don't want to solve this problem; they want a crisis because they think it helps them in November. What a rotten, cynical, awful way to treat the people of this country. What a terrible way to govern.

This isn't serious legislation. It is a press release. It is embarrassing. House Republicans have no new ideas, so they are just going to keep passing the same meaningless resolution every week until they lose in November.

Maybe then they will realize that this is a bad strategy; that it is a bad idea to treat the American people like they are idiots because the American people are smart, Mr. Speaker. They see what Republicans are doing--obstructing, obstructing, obstructing, and then blaming Democrats for the obstruction they created, passing silly, nonbinding resolutions that do nothing instead of actually working with us to get stuff done.

Democrats actually want to get something done on the border. We want to stop the fentanyl from coming into our country. We want to fix the broken immigration system. And Republicans own this issue now because they rejected a bipartisan deal, and they refuse to work together. They refuse to put people over politics and work with us to address our problems at the border.

Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by, again, reminding my friends on the other side of the aisle--and I would say this to a sixth-grade class if they came to visit Washington--that we now have divided government.

We have, again, a House of Representatives barely controlled by Republicans, a United States Senate barely controlled by Democrats, and a Democrat in the White House.

This notion of ``my way or the highway'' for either side is a nonstarter. If you want to get something done, you have got to work together. For heaven's sake, I would think that you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. We ought to be able to agree on something, like more support for border security along both our southern and our northern border.

We ought to be able to agree that we need to have more judges to evaluate asylum claims so people aren't here for months and months and months or years; that we can resolve these claims efficiently and effectively in a matter of weeks.

We ought to also, rather than doing nonbinding resolutions, be addressing the situation in Ukraine. Ukraine is out of equipment. I don't know why my friends on the other side of the aisle seem so dedicated to giving Putin a victory; Ukraine is running out of time.

Why haven't you scheduled a vote on a bill to provide Ukraine the military assistance that they need so that they can repel the Russians and stop Putin? They are out of time. And if Ukraine falls, my friends own that, too.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Kentucky, we have acknowledged the problem. Maybe the gentleman wasn't listening to my eloquent oratory here, but I acknowledged and identified the problem at least 13 times in my speech.

I think what I and people on my side of the aisle have a problem with is that you have been acknowledging the problem like we did 3 months ago with a nonbinding resolution a lot of times, and we don't think nonbinding resolutions and acknowledging the problem or expressing our feelings is enough. We have to actually do something.

Mr. Speaker, to the other gentleman who just spoke, we are horrified by the crimes that have been committed by undocumented immigrants who have come to this country who have criminal records. We pray for their families. We want to do everything we can to make sure that these things never happen again. I have a hard time when we gather and we hear this from my colleagues when we have shootings that are happening in this country almost on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert an AP article dated June 3, 2023, listing the names of the 19 children and two teachers killed in Uvalde.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the names of all 58 Las Vegas shooting victims that were released by the coroner.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on. We can do something about that, but the NRA provides lots of money so my friends don't want to deal with it. I mean, come on.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, 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 bipartisan American Dream and Promise Act provides a pathway to citizenship for people who only know America as their home. They contribute to society as taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and more. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no-fault of their own. It is past time to open the doors and empower these talented individuals by granting them access to citizenship that they rightfully 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 to secure our border. H.R. 16 won't solve every issue, but it will address a long, outstanding one in our failing immigration system. It is the right thing to do, and we should start doing the right thing around here.

It has the added benefit of being a bill that actually does something. It is not an expression of our feelings. It does something.

Instead of considering the do-nothing Republican nonbinding resolution before us today which just restates the Republican position from a nonbinding resolution we already passed 2 months ago, let's consider actual legislation to start fixing these issues. Let's bring up H.R. 16.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez) to discuss our proposal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I kind of feel like I am in an episode of ``The Twilight Zone.'' I can't figure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle out.

The bottom line is, I hear they want to be tough on the border, and every time we try to pass a tough border security bill, they say no.

What we have here is a nonbinding resolution that does nothing. It does nothing. It doesn't even go to the Senate. It can never become law. It is nothing. It is just a press release.

What they turned down was $440 million for more judges to accelerate the asylum claims so we are not waiting years and can do this in weeks and months. $23 million to destruct Mexican cartels, they said no to that. $6.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection, they said no to that. Fifty thousand ICE detention beds, they said no to that. $4 billion for USCIS, they said no to that.

Why? Because the former President of the United States called up and said: I want the issue.

This is the former President of the United States, by the way, who says that immigrants poison the blood of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include this article in the Record. This is from Salon. The title is: `` `He said, Hitler did some good things': Ex-chief of staff says Trump praised Hitler in White House.''

Mr. Speaker, let that sink in.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Axios titled: ``Trump, House Republicans plot to kill border deal.''

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman who was

just yelling that the proposal that we are talking about, the bipartisan border security deal, is not something that we wrote over here: It was written in a bipartisan way in the Senate, led by the second most conservative Republican in the United States Senate.

He said it doesn't have a chance of passing. I will bet him anything that if he brought the bill to the floor, actually let it be brought before the full House, it would pass.

That is why Trump intervened to make sure that it never got a chance to go to the floor, because he knows it would pass.

Also, to the gentleman from Kentucky, I certainly didn't call the victims of--

Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the victims of violence and who were killed by undocumented immigrants as props. I said that my Republican friends are using them as props, and I included in the Record the names of people who were killed by gun violence because I am tired of the selective outrage.

The bottom line is that countless people in this country are killed every week from gun violence, and my Republican friends do not want to do anything about it because the NRA owns the Republican Party in this country, and they are afraid to lose the money. That is what this is about.

Our complaint here is that we are talking about border security issues, and our frustration is that what we are dealing with, this tough bill--my Republican colleagues are so tough on the border. The tough bill that they are bringing before the House of Representatives is a nonbinding resolution that can never become law, that won't even be sent to the Senate, that is just a press release.

That is just a colossal waste of time. Surely, there has to be common ground where Democrats and Republicans can come together and actually pass things to better secure our border and to protect people like Laken Riley and others in the future.

However, I guess that is too much to ask.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to the gentleman who just spoke, not all jobs are the same. I mean, food inspectors, Federal food inspectors, for example, don't sit at a desk 5 days a week. Sometimes they have to go out and do inspections to make sure that the food that we provide people is safe.

Federal firefighters are not behind a desk 5 days a week. It doesn't mean they aren't working.

Our Border Patrol agents are patrolling the border. That doesn't mean they don't need a desk at some point.

Heck, Members of Congress, I mean, we are not in Washington behind our desks 5 days a week. Sometimes we are in our districts, sometimes we are in other places, but because we don't show up physically to work a day or 2 or 5 days in a particular month, somehow we should have our desks taken away?

This is the problem: With some better bipartisan cooperation, with more thoughtful consideration of these matters, we could have had a bill that would have sailed out of here unanimously; but, again, my friends can't help themselves, it is either their way or the highway. In any event, the way the bill is currently written ignores the realities of the workers that I just mentioned.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the gentleman from New York repeatedly brag about this Homeland Security appropriations bill that the Republicans passed last year as a demonstration of their commitment to securing our border, but here is what he left out: My Republican friends still-- still, still--have not sent it over to the Senate. They have not sent it over to the Senate. I don't know why.

By the way, H.R. 2 is dead. It only got 32 votes in the Senate. That is a pretty strong message that it is going nowhere.

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

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

To the gentleman who just spoke, let me just say, you talk about facts. What is an undeniable fact is that the bill before us does absolutely nothing. Nothing. It doesn't add one more Border Patrol agent along our southern or northern border. It doesn't add any more

judges. It doesn't do anything to stop the Mexican cartels. It does nothing. It is just a press release.

The other fact is, H.R. 2 is going nowhere and fast, with 32 votes in the Senate. He also said they would like to work together. Every time we try to work together--that is what we tried to do in the Senate--my Republican friends here in the House, at the request of Donald Trump, say: No, we don't want to work with you. That is a problem because we have to work together in order to get real, meaningful solutions over the finish line.

The gentleman also keeps on screaming, the border is open, the border is open. That is the Republican rallying cry. It isn't, but if you say it enough times, then people might believe you and try to come here because you keep on saying that.

However, Mr. Speaker, the American people are smart. They know the difference between empty promises and real action. They know that the only way to get things done in divided government, for problems to be solved, like the border, Members of both parties have to work together. They know that come November the future of this country is in their hands.

They have seen the complete and utter disaster that this Republican majority has created in this Congress. They have witnessed the absolute chaos House Republicans have thrown the country into.

We are on the Rules Committee. All bills of consequence go to the Rules Committee before they come to the House floor. The last bill that we reported on the Rules Committee to the House floor that became law was 9 months ago. How can that happen? How can that happen without incredible dysfunction on the Republican side?

These guys have brought the Nation to the brink of default, shying away from fully funding the government, destabilizing this body by throwing fits and unseating Speakers, and taking the House floor hostage.

The American people also know that House Democrats have rescued this failing House Republican majority at nearly every turn. House Democrats carried the vote to ensure that the United States didn't default on its debt. House Democrats have kept the government running despite GOP leadership wasting time pursuing unrealistic, draconian spending cuts, and House Democrats have used every opportunity to stand against conservative legislation that would hurt average Americans.

This majority has been nothing but dysfunctional, Mr. Speaker. They have no new ideas, no tangible solutions, no drive to address pressing domestic and global challenges. The American people know that, which is why Republicans are going to lose in November.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6276.

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

Madam Chair, H.R. 6276, the USE IT Act of 2023, implements commonsense and reasonable space occupancy standards to get Federal employees back into the office or the agency will have to lose that unnecessary, unneeded, unused space.

A recent Government Accountability Office review of how agencies were actually using their headquarters space here in Washington, D.C., found that 17 of the 24 agencies GAO reviewed used 25 percent or less of their space--17 of the 24, 25 percent or less of their space.

One agency even admitted that if 100 percent of their employees showed up, they would still only use 67 percent of their own building.

Even more troubling is some agencies were using only 9 percent. They can't even make double digits of their space. To be clear, we are not just paying for space to sit empty. Throughout the whole time, we are paying for utilities and services such as heating, cooling, lighting, regular power, maintenance, security for the entire space that no one is in.

Empty Federal buildings are not only a drain to the Federal taxpayer, they also don't produce investments needed for local economies because nobody is in the building. There is nobody there to go out to lunch.

The bottom line is agencies should bring Federal workers back to the office. The reality is underutilized space has been a chronic problem in Federal real estate and is one reason Federal property has been on the GAO's high-risk list since 2003. This problem was identified 20 years ago, and it is still in existence today.

In order to address the issue, H.R. 6276 would use similar metrics to those used by the GAO and require Federal agencies to report on their actual utilization rates, set a target utilization of not less than 60 percent, and require the General Services Administration to report to Congress if any agency fails to meet that standard.

Agencies will be given time to meet the 60 percent utilization standard, but if they fail to do so, they would have to lose or give up their excess space.

Ultimately, the results of H.R. 6276 will benefit not just the Federal taxpayer, but also allow unused Federal buildings to be put to better use for the local communities.

Madam Chair, I urge support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, the current administration doesn't even count every single employee in the Federal system. This bill, as he knows, does not affect flex schedules or telework schedules. It has nothing to do with that. We can, in this case, have our cake and eat it, too.

We can have this bill. We can get our occupancy rate up to 60 percent. We can pass the bipartisan amendment that myself and Representative Auchincloss had worked together on and is in order. We can try and right-size the people that actually show up to work while acknowledging in the Federal system that not everybody has to be in the office.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my good friend.

Madam Chair, historically, for 20 years anyhow, while this problem has been identified, these issues have historically been bipartisan. In fact, it was former President Obama who advocated agencies to freeze and then reduce their space footprint, recognizing that agencies had far more space than they needed.

To the gentleman who just spoke, GSA actually wants to do it. They want to reduce the space, but the agencies won't allow it. Why would they? They get so much space, and they don't have to deal with managing it or not. They just get the space, and they can continue on their other work with as much space as they need, sometimes 3,000 square feet per employee.

A lot of people in America would like to have a house that is 3,000 square feet for their whole family. If they were watching today and found out that the Federal Government was paying for that, that their taxes were paying for that when they couldn't afford it themselves, they would be furious.

The Obama administration set a standard that agencies had to account for things like teleworking, actual space usage, and planning for the space. For example, in an agency that may have 1,000 people assigned to a building, only a portion of those people would be counted when it came to desks and space. It puts into consideration things like teleworking. The Obama administration even proposed selling the Department of Labor building based on this type of space utilization and counting.

More recently, I know that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has previously proposed legislation to move and sell the Department of Energy, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that Republicans just want to kick Federal employees out of their buildings. We don't. We would actually prefer that they come back to work.

Additionally, if they come back to work, I think it is very reasonable for us to say that we want the building to be 60 percent occupied. Sixty percent is, to me, a pretty good compromise with my friends on the other side of the aisle who are saying we just want to sell buildings and kick Federal employees out of their buildings.

We don't. We want them to come to work, but we want them to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money and to use the space efficiently. When they don't need it, like everybody else would do, give up that space to be utilized either by other agencies in the Federal Government or by the political subdivision. Some town or city where that building is located should have the advantage to use that space so that they can increase their tax rolls, so that they can help their vendors out on the streets, and so that they can help their community.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I do want to respond to my good friend from Washington.

I didn't mean to mischaracterize his assessment or his comments. However, the speaker before the gentleman from Washington did essentially make those claims, and so I was answering that.

While I am here, I want to characterize what the public is seeing if they are reading The Washington Times. Here is an article from Wednesday, December 6, 2023, ``Idea to fill empty Federal buildings with illegal immigrants,'' where DHS headquarters is 69 percent unused and Social Security offices are 93 percent vacant.

No wonder offices like mine deal with so many constituent calls when they can't get answers from the Social Security Administration.

We would like those folks to come back to work, but if they are not going to come back to work, could we stop having everybody, including Social Security recipients, pay for the empty building?

Here is another one from The Washington Times, dated Thursday, September 21, 2023: ``Telework's empty buildings opens the door for Legionnaires' disease.''

Well, isn't that wonderful? Won't that be great when the source of a new outbreak of Legionnaires' disease comes from a vacant Federal building that we are paying for?

Here is another one, ``IG to investigate Federal offices left vacant by telework policies,'' from The Washington Times, and the date of this is Wednesday, October 18, 2023.

Finally, ``Ghost towns: Federal office buildings are 80 percent vacant, government audit finds.'' This article is from The Washington Times, dated Thursday, October 26, 2023.

We have an opportunity here that shouldn't be partisan and should be pretty simple. All we are saying is: Federal agencies, can you come back to work at least 60 percent? Is that too much? It is 10 percent above 50 percent, which would be half empty. We find that very objectionable, but at least 60 percent should be something we agree on.

Mr. Chair, I include all the articles that I discussed previously in the Record.

[From the Washington Times, Dec. 6, 2023]

Idea To Fill Empty Federal Buildings With Illegal Immigrants Solves Two

Problems for Biden Admin

DHS HQ is 69 percent unused, Social Security offices 93 percent vacant

(By Stephen Dinan)

The Biden administration is desperate to find shelter for

all the illegal immigrants caught and released into the U.S.

Perhaps they could stay in federal office buildings.

The Department of Homeland Security's palatial headquarters

in Washington's southeast quadrant sits nearly 70 percent

vacant, according to data released this week by Sen. Joni

Ernst, Iowa Republican.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose

mission is to put Americans into homes, is even worse. Its

headquarters is 93 percent vacant. So is the Social Security

Administration's main building outside Baltimore.

The Office of Personnel Management, the government's human

resources agency, is a ghost town with 88 percent of its

space unoccupied. The General Services Administration, the

government's chief landlord agency, can't fill its own

headquarters, with an 89 percent vacancy rate.

Across two dozen departments and agencies, not a single one

was at 50 percent capacity in the first three months of this

year, according to Ms. Ernst's figures.

``While it's not the night before Christmas yet, there's

not a creature stirring, not even a mouse, in the halls

across this city,'' Ms. Ernst said in releasing the occupancy

figures.

She said the Biden administration gave the numbers to her

but didn't want them released publicly. She defied that

demand, saying the public needs to know how bad things have

become in the federal workforce.

``COVID's been over for years. Where are the workers?'' she

said.

The Washington Times reached out to the worst-performing

agencies to ask about the vacancies and their plans to

rectify matters.

None of the agencies provided a comment, though in response

to federal officials, HUD and the Small Business

Administration said their spaces were undergoing renovations

during the test period, which contributed to a decrease in

attendance.

The GSA controls more than 90 million square feet of office

space in the Washington region alone, and the government

holds about 511 million square feet nationally. GSA figures

on 150 to 180 square feet of usable space per employee.

The 24 headquarters buildings for which Ms. Ernst released

data were operating at about 20 percent of full use.

Occupancy is based on a building's capacity and the amount

of use of its space. The data was based on average attendance

during sample days in a three-month period from January

through March and was derived from sign-ins, logins and badge

swipes.

While offices sit empty, many American communities are

overwhelmed by the surge of illegal immigrants whom the Biden

administration has caught and released.

Ms. Ernst suggested a meeting of the minds.

``So-called sanctuary cities have run out of space to

shelter the influx of immigrants that the Biden

administration is allowing to enter the country illegally.

With two-thirds of the Department of Homeland Security

headquarters going unused, maybe the agency causing the

problem can solve it by opening their doors,'' she told The

Times.

Homeland Security, which has a use rate of 31 percent, did

not respond to a request for comment on the idea.

Exact numbers are a closely held secret, but outside

estimates say Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

has paroled 2 million illegal immigrants into the U.S., in

addition to others caught and released or who sneaked in

altogether.

The administration has moved to stick thousands of them at

a National Park Service property in New York. It signed a

lease with the city for the Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn.

That location lacks many amenities, and the tent city

erected to house the migrants sits in a flood plain, critics

charged.

House Republicans, joined by a smattering of Democrats,

voted last week to cancel the lease and to prevent migrants

from being placed on other property held by federal land

management agencies. That legislation, which is unlikely to

make it through the Democratic-controlled Senate, does not

appear to block migrants from being placed in buildings run

by non-land-management agencies.

Meanwhile, vacancy at federal buildings is an increasingly

touchy issue for the Biden administration, which has declared

the pandemic emergency over and ordered employees back to

work in person but has been met with resistance by those

workers.

The comptroller general, in a report earlier this year,

prodded agencies about the matter.

They offered a host of excuses for why they weren't filling

space, including preparing for a possible surge of returning

employees.

Some excuses seemed more territorial.

The audit said some agencies seemed to worry that giving up

their buildings or sharing space with others would make them

seem less powerful than other agencies.

Even within departments and agencies, divisions were

reluctant to share space such as conference rooms, the

Government Accountability Office said.

Mr. Chair, Federal real property has remained on the GAO's high-risk list for more than 20 years. The Government Accountability Office has said this is a high risk for the last 20 years, and we are on the precipice. We are standing on the edge of providing a solution to the excess space that exists that we keep paying for.

At the same time, our debt has gone to $34 trillion. By May, it will be $35 trillion. We are not going to save trillions here, but we can save billions here. If you start adding up billions, maybe you will finally get to trillions. However, we are not saving anything right now, and we are not going to save any of this if we don't pass this bill.

This is our opportunity, Mr. Chair, to finally fix this problem, a problem that I will note has historically found bipartisan support to address the issue. Even on this occasion, when the bill was lacking, we had a hearing. We had a markup on it.

Friends on the other side of the aisle said: Would you listen to a way where potentially we could improve it?

Of course, we did, and we worked together. You are going to have an opportunity to vote on that amendment shortly.

The USE IT Act of 2023 is reasonable. It is commonsense legislation that simply says that if the Federal employees don't come back into the office, the taxpayer is not going to have to pay for the empty space.

We don't have any extra money in this town, Mr. Chair. Nobody has any extra money. Right here, we have identified it. This is where some of it is going unnecessarily. We can consolidate. We can sell things off.

Some of these agencies will probably get a new building, just at the right size, where their workers would still have flex time, would still telework where appropriate, and where constituents--our bosses, the American people--could access the services that they pay for and deserve to get because they do pay for them.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this soon-to-be bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer this bipartisan amendment to H.R. 6276 with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss). This amendment makes two clarifying changes to the bill, ensuring that the legislation collects occupancy data in a way that better encompasses all Federal workers, wherever they are working, and protects the privacy of those workers.

This amendment updates the definition of ``occupancy'' in the bill from the total number of employees performing duties in person over a 5-day workweek to the number of employees doing so over a 40-hour workweek, ensuring that occupancy calculations can more comprehensively account for all employees.

Now, the issue came up during discussion in regular order in the committee. Mr. Auchincloss had some issues with the bill, and rightly so. He came to me, and he said: Can we work on this? I said: Sure, I think we can because we are all interested in making things better, no matter where the ideas come from.

Additionally, this amendment requires that the sensors used to collect occupancy data within this bill are designed to protect the personally identifiable information of the building's occupants, ensuring that these new requirements will not impinge and impose on Federal employee privacy.

It has been great to work with the gentleman. We all want to improve things. We all think we have the best ideas, but sometimes we don't, and when somebody else does, you have just got to say, well, look, can we get it done together? If that brings us together, that is a win for the American people and, quite honestly, a win for this Congress if we can work on the amendment, get it passed and also the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, again, trying to alleviate the fact that a vast majority of the buildings are vastly understaffed, yet 100 percent of them are paid for, that is what we are trying to do here. It has been a 20-year-long problem--20 years long. The Obama administration recognized it and tried to do something about it. Of course, GSA wants to do something about it. Again, the tenants, the occupants of the buildings, the agencies have no incentive to reduce their space. They would be happy to have all the space and have nobody in it except when they feel like showing up as long as the taxpayer is willing to pay for an empty building, well heated, well cared for, well maintained, just in case they might use it.

Now, we have told the Rules Committee that we want to see all the amendments that are worthy to be listened to be debated and come to the floor for a vote because we think that improving ideas, no matter where they come from, is the greatest thing for this institution and for this effort.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment that I worked on with my good friend, and 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. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I do think it is incumbent on me to characterize my position and recharacterize my friend's characterization of my position, which, as I recall, was to close buildings and kick out Federal employees.

That is not my position. In fact, in many ways, I share the goals of the chair of the subcommittee, that it is clear we have much more federally owned and leased space than is currently being used given the work schedules and changes that have taken place since COVID. It is necessary for us to look at how best to consolidate that space, to rightsize that space, given its usage.

The problem I have is the hammer approach that this particular bill takes by setting a hard and fast 60 percent rule rather than looking at the flexibility necessary when you are considering agency by agency, division by division within those agencies, and how that space can be used properly and most efficiently.

We have worked on a bipartisan basis on the committee on a wide range of policies, including rightsizing the Federal real estate footprint. Just yesterday, we passed, on suspension, the FASTA Reform Act, a bill that the chairman himself sponsored that will expedite the disposal of excess Federal property.

When we work together, we can make some really good progress on this and other issues, but today's bill does fall short by failing to take into account the complexity of the Federal leasing process and using an incomplete and flawed metric for measuring the occupancy rate of Federal buildings.

I do welcome the opportunity to work with any Member in good faith, and we have done that, again, on many issues in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We all want to make genuine improvements on the Federal real estate program.

Mr. Chair, I do oppose this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy that the administration strongly opposes H.R. 6276; a letter dated March 12 from the AFL-CIO in opposition to H.R. 6276; a letter dated March 11 from the Federal Workers Alliance opposing H.R. 6276; and a letter dated March 8 from the American Federation of Government Employees opposing H.R. 6276.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 6276--Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies (USE

IT) Act of 2023--Rep. Perry, R-PA

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6276, the USE IT

Act, which would direct the Director of the Office of

Management Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of the General

Services Administration (GSA) to ensure that Federal

agencies' building utilization meets an arbitrary level of

not less than a 60 percent average each year and, if an

agency does not reach the target, GSA and OMB would have to

forcibly reduce the agency's space. While the Administration

believes that the Federal real estate portfolio needs to be

evaluated and optimized, the Administration believes that

agencies' unique missions require individualized approaches

to improving space utilization. H.R. 6276 does not consider

the varying mission and technical requirements of individual

agencies or the age and original design of affected

facilities when directing the OMB Director and GSA

Administrator to develop and implement a plan to consolidate

multiple agency headquarters functions into fewer buildings

within the National Capital Region. These buildings, many of

which are historic, would require major modernization and

reconfiguration, prior to supporting dramatically increased

occupancy levels. Instead, the Administration recommends

strengthening the

collection of utilization data by Federal agencies and

providing sufficient funding to GSA and affected agencies to

execute necessary consolidations. The Administration is

committed to working with agencies to improve their

utilization of Federal space and to identify opportunities to

reduce space.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment requires GSA to include in its occupancy agreements with Federal tenants a requirement that tenant agencies submit a report on utilization and usage to GSA. It also requires the return of office space by the tenant to GSA if occupancy falls below 60 percent for 6 months within any 1-year period.

GSA previously allowed tenant agencies to return unneeded space back to GSA with 120-days' notice, but in May of 2023, GSA changed its policy and now all new occupancy agreements between GSA and Federal tenants must include a noncancellation clause to prevent agencies from returning space to GSA.

Requiring agencies to return space if occupancy falls below 60 percent for 6 months does not account for the fact that space costs incurred by the government still remain under the lease contract.

While I have concerns about the mechanics and the cost of an agency returning space to GSA with this amendment, I will not oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, again, I do not oppose the amendment on this side of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Mr. Chair, my biggest concern with the underlying bill is that it defines occupancy as the total number of employees physically working from the offices at least 5 days a week. Many Federal employees do not actually sit at their desks at all because they are out in the field working.

As the bill is currently written, these employees--as well as Federal employees who have approved alternative work schedules--would not be included

in occupancy counts. This amendment makes a slight improvement to that definition, as was explained by the Representative from Massachusetts.

The effort to count occupants in buildings is worthwhile, but only if we ensure that all occupants, including those who have been sanctioned and approved with their alternative work schedules, are included.

This amendment will improve the bill, and I thank the Representative from Pennsylvania and the Representative from Massachusetts for their efforts.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, section 4 of H.R. 6276 requires the heads of Federal agencies to submit to the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration and Congress a report on the usage of real property.

The amendment that the Representative from Wyoming offers expands the reporting requirement by including the telework and remote work practices of the agency and the impact those policies have on utilization rates and buildings occupied by the respective agency.

It certainly would be helpful for Congress to have a clearer picture of these policies and practices across the government.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, section 3 of H.R. 6276 requires the heads of Federal agencies to work with the Administrator of General Services to identify, deploy, and use sensors and other technologies to measure the occupancies of Federal buildings.

The amendment from the Representative from Wyoming will require that Personal Identity Verification badge swipe data should also be used but only capture the first credentialed use of the day for each cardholder.

Ensuring that each person is counted one time--not every time they may leave and return--would provide accurate representation of building utilization and meet the goals of Congress to better assess the use of Federal office space.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the amendment offered by the Representative from Georgia requires some significant reporting on occupancy, utilization rates, and costs by the heads of Federal agencies to the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration, and Congress.

Information gathering and transparency is vital to efficient and effective governing, so I will not oppose the amendment.

I do want to point out, however, that agency heads are already required to report occupancy and utilization data, and that data can be found on GSA's annual performance overview reports on GSA's website that the public can access now.

Mr. Chair, I will not oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, section 4 of H.R. 6276 requires the heads of Federal agencies to submit to the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration, and Congress a report on the usage of real property.

The amendment offered by the Representative from Georgia for the Representative from Florida requires the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress on the costs to Federal agencies associated with complying with section 4 of the underlying bill.

The GAO's report must include the cost of Federal agencies of surveying, monitoring, and deploying sensors and technologies to measure the occupancy and actual utilization rates of space in public buildings and space leased by the Federal Government.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, the amendment offered by the Representative from Tennessee requires the heads of Federal agencies to

submit a report to the inspector general of each respective agency on buildings under the agency's jurisdiction that has capacity for 500 or more employees that has a 20 percent utilization rate or less.

Upon receipt of the report, the relevant inspector general is to investigate evidence of fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.

Now, I will say this, I don't know why this amendment is necessary. I understand the Federal real estate has been on the General Accounting Office's High-Risk list for years, but nowhere in GAO's reporting were there claims of fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. Even though this is only a reporting requirement, requiring the inspector general of every Federal agency to investigate could be a waste of time and resources.

This amendment seems to be a solution chasing a problem, but I will not oppose it.

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

Mr. Chair, I will close on this amendment by briefly speaking to the broader bill. The goal that we share in Congress is to ensure that Congress, the General Services Administration, the agencies all adjust to the post-COVID life that we have in Federal real estate, that we are rightsizing Federal real estate, and that we get rid of the office space we don't need and use the office space that we do need.

This amendment is an attempt to do that. I certainly will not oppose it, but I do ask folks to consider it.

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