H.Res. 1125

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 Texas (Mr. Roy) for the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we just returned from 2 marvelous weeks in our beautiful districts. I was invited to visit a food bank to highlight food insecurity and the need to provide families with nutritious and available meals. I talked with Tribal leaders and law enforcement about how we must work together to solve the many issues facing Native American communities from the missing and murdered indigenous women crisis to the need for greater economic development to the need for protection of sacred sites from desecration. We gathered healthcare providers from across New Mexico for a Congressional Hispanic Caucus on the road event to talk about Latino access to rural healthcare.

That event was standing room only because our constituents want us to address healthcare access and continue Democrats' work to bring down the cost of prescription drugs and healthcare costs, the work we began last year with the Inflation Reduction Act.

These are really important things. Our constituents want us to work on

really important things that make a difference in their lives every day.

So what are we doing today? Three of these bills don't really address anything. We have more resolutions that just express things but don't have any solutions. We are spending another valuable week on nonbinding resolutions and bills that Republicans have already failed to pass.

This is the third time we will vote on a resolution complaining about an immigration system that has been broken for years, and it is Congress' fault that we have not fixed it.

Republicans want to just talk about blame, but do they offer any solutions? That is not how governing works. It is not about coming down here and passing press releases on the floor of the House. If you want to engage in a problem and offer solutions, you engage in bipartisan negotiations to pass a law that fixes the problem. Instead, Republicans do the opposite. They block bipartisan immigration deals and complain that nothing is happening.

Well, something is happening. Republicans are making the problem worse. Six months ago, the President sent Congress a supplemental border security request. That request would have bolstered border security and slowed the flow of refugees by addressing the root cause of migration.

For 6 months, Republicans, who control this House, have refused to take up the President's supplemental border security funding request.

In the Senate, a bipartisan group led by a Republican Senator and Democrats worked for 4 months. They worked hard on a bipartisan border security deal. Before we could even discuss the merits of it in this House to say what we liked or didn't like, Trump told them to kill the bill.

Following Trump's orders, as always, House Republican leadership declared it dead on arrival in the House. Why? They want to preserve immigration as a political weapon, not something that Americans are asking us to fix.

Americans would like to see comprehensive immigration reform. How about if we do something like taking up the bipartisan Dream and Promise Act or the bipartisan Farm Work Modernization Act, which passed with bipartisan support out of this Congress because we need more agrarian workers to help pick the food we need to place on our tables.

What is especially shameful is that instead of offering solutions, Republicans are creating a dangerous environment in America. Rhetoric from the twice impeached and four times-indicted former President Trump that suggest immigrants are poisoning the blood of America is dangerous and disgraceful.

Trump's language echoes, almost verbatim, the propaganda and hate used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders. America is not Nazi Germany. We will push back against such a scary road to tyranny and bigotry.

Trump forgets but America remembers that immigrants are vitally important to the economic vibrancy and future of our Nation. While securing the border is an important policy objective, there is no reason to demonize our parents, grandparents, coworkers, friends, and neighbors in the process.

This rule also makes in order H. Res. 1117, yet another nonbinding resolution, a press release. It has been just 1 week since seven World Central Kitchen volunteers were killed in Gaza, killed while trying to bring food to starving Gazans, who are on the brink of famine. More than 200 aid workers have been killed in Gaza over the last 6 months.

Over 13,000 children and 9,000 women have died in the war. So far, 27 kids have died of malnutrition. Do you know how horrible it is to die of starvation? Twenty-seven children. Famine is imminent for 1.1 million Gazans.

There are still over 130 Israeli hostages who, without a cease-fire, cannot go home to their grieving families, their worried families. Tens of thousands of Israelis are marching in the streets to bring the hostages home.

This resolution that we are hearing today fails to acknowledge the sad reality I have just discussed. It also fails to support President Biden's efforts to bring lasting peace to this region, which should be our goal. President Biden is right: A cease-fire is needed to bring over 130 Israeli hostages home and to prevent the deaths of innocent Gazans. Too many people have died already.

President Biden's calls to Netanyahu for a cease-fire, to bring the hostages home, and to reverse the humanitarian crisis should be welcomed by everyone with a caring heart. If you care for the hostages and their worried families, a cease-fire is needed. If you care for the women and children who are dying and starving, a cease-fire is needed. If you care for a future where peace can come to this region, a cease- fire is needed.

Next, the House will consider H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. The bill reauthorizes FISA for 5 years and implements minor changes to the program. The Republicans have waited until the last minute to bring this reauthorization to the floor.

I will say, they tried once before back in February. We had a hearing in the Rules Committee on Valentine's Day. It was great. We saw amazing bipartisan agreement from the Judiciary Committee, but we never did get to hear from the Intelligence Committee.

Instead, Republicans waited until the last minute. It expires in 9 days. That is not a way to govern. This is an important bill that needs conversation and debate. Members need to hear from the two committees with jurisdiction over FISA to determine how they will vote and the important balance between protecting constitutional rights of citizens and protecting our national security.

Next, this rule makes in order H.R. 529, the Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act. While this bill is a bipartisan bill, which I will point out received unanimous support in committee and will probably receive almost near-unanimous support on this floor, this is the kind of bill that usually doesn't go through Rules. It is the type of bill that would normally pass under suspension.

Why wasn't it put under suspension? Is it because House Republicans needed something that could finally pass the Rules Committee, come to the floor, and maybe make it into law? The last bill to pass the Rules Committee and become law was almost a year ago. It is almost a year ago since we did the people's business on this floor where we actually got a bill, sent it out of Rules, sent it to the Senate, and it made it onto the President's desk.

Republicans have presided over the most ineffective sessions of Congress in history. Despite the pressing challenges facing our Nation, they have repeatedly chosen to prioritize silly censures, sham impeachments, and do-nothing messaging bills.

That is no way to run the House. That is no way to run the people's House and address the people's business.

Meanwhile, Democrats have kept our focus on delivering for the American people and implementing the incredible laws we passed last Congress when Democrats controlled this House, which was, by the way, the most successful and most productive in recent memory. We have carried the vote to make sure the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year. Democrats carried bills to fund the government, keep it running, and protect against draconian spending cuts.

Democrats always stand ready to work across the aisle to tackle important issues. This includes coming together to work on a bipartisan solution, a comprehensive solution to fix the border, to secure the border, to lower costs. We hope that our colleagues will work with us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules and a mentor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his words. I think they are very inspiring as to the wonderful leadership that we have had with Chairman Cole, and also, we are going to miss Eric.

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

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

I appreciate that the rule makes in order several amendments for the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. These are amendments that we heard about that both the members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees have proposed, but we also heard last night in the Rules Committee that there are many important amendments the Committee blocked and that the full House won't get to consider.

The process on this could indeed have been better.

What I wonder now is do we even have the votes to pass this rule? We need to be able to get to a point where we are taking up on the floor of the House rules that are going to get the votes.

As we know, they have already defeated six of their own rules. These are important matters, and I think it is important that we get to do the work.

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). The gentlewoman has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, there is strong consideration on some of the issues with regard to FISA, but we have also seen that we are so close to its expiration, and I really wonder whether the rule will pass.

I haven't heard them talk about whether they think this rule will pass. As I noted, six rules have been killed on the Republican side. There was also a tweet that was recently issued by the presumptive Presidential nominee in all caps. It says--and I am quoting this; I am not making any observations. It says in all caps--and I can't yell that loud--but it says: ``Kill FISA, it was illegally used against me, and many others. They spied on my campaign.''

I wonder whether this House will continue to move forward on the business that must be done or whether tweets will indeed lead to what action we are taking here today. Hopefully, we will take action that leads us to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, like many more, take sacred the oath that we have taken to preserve the Constitution. I hope that as elections come up and as we think about how we make sure that we preserve our democracy, that those words continue to ring throughout all of my colleagues' memories of what has happened on the floor of this House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that the American people know that we are debating a rule today, and that rule has the FISA bill, which we have heard much, but it also has other bills.

Mr. Speaker, half the bills, half the legislation that are on the floor today do nothing. They do absolutely nothing. In fact, it is not surprising that Republicans, my colleagues, worry about the do-nothing Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I request ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from NBC NEWS titled: `` `It is embarrassing': Republicans worry they have no achievements to run on in 2024.''

Mr. Speaker, I would say that some of the quotes--and I am saying quotes--say: ``I hope there is enough adults in the room that are willing to focus on progress rather than purity.''

Mr. Speaker, that means when you don't have bipartisan legislation to work on some of the issues my constituents have talked about, the resolutions that nobody on the other side wants to talk about, because they do nothing.

I would also point to another quote: `` `I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing--one--that I can go campaign on and say we did. One.' '' Roy yelled. ``Anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done besides: Well, I guess it is not as bad as Democrats.''

I think that is a really important thing that Americans need to know.

Mr. Speaker, when we were in charge of this House, we looked on making sure that we brought down the cost of prescription drugs. We made sure that we addressed the needs of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, which I hope we will, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would protect access to reproductive and abortion healthcare for the millions of Americans who need it.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the far-right and MAGA Republicans will stop at nothing short of a full abortion ban. As of this month, over a dozen States have restricted access to that critical healthcare with some extreme States eliminating access entirely.

Just yesterday, an Arizona Supreme Court upheld a 160-year-old law, making it a felony to perform or induce an abortion at almost any time. This is inhumane.

Mr. Speaker, do you think Republicans will stop at 15 States, 20 States? On the contrary, they won't stop until every single woman in this country is deprived of her right to make her own healthcare decisions in conversation with her faith, her family, and her doctors without government interference.

Mr. Speaker, that is why House Democrats are fighting to protect women, protect doctors, and protect patients who simply want access to needed care.

H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, will prevent States from trampling on Americans' constitutional rights and keep fundamental healthcare services available across the country.

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, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).

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

I want to give everyone at home a behind-the-scenes look at what we just did here today. Republicans needed filler this week because they have no real agenda to work on. Of the four bills, three of them are do-nothing bills that attack the President, a customs bill that has broad support and didn't need a rule, and a FISA reauthorization which we don't even know will pass.

I think Americans want to know what we are not doing here. They want to know that we are not taking up the important legislation that Americans are worried about, like security assistance for Ukraine, which the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass. The crucial aid to Ukraine would be critical to fight for democracy, but we are not even taking it up.

We are not taking up the need to pass a farm bill. Everywhere I go in my district, my rural area, I am asked: What is happening with the farm bill?

We are not taking it up. We are not taking up legislation to protect a woman's access to healthcare, so that if she has a miscarriage she is welcomed with assistance from her doctors and not handcuffs.

We have pointed out that the last bill to pass the Rules Committee and become law was almost a year ago, because Republicans in this Congress have been trying but failing over and over to govern. Democrats, in contrast, are willing to work across the aisle on bipartisan issues, to attack the important issues our constituents know we need to get done. We cannot continue to have the kind of infighting that stops legislative action for us to get the work done we need to get done.

Mr. Speaker, because of all the important issues that were raised and we need to take up, for women and people who love the women, who want to make sure they have the healthcare they deserve, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's take up the Women's Health Protection Act. Let's move on things that in every State, election after election, we know we need to get done.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee reported out a rule for four pieces of legislation: H.R. 7888, Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. This legislation reauthorizes title VII, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for 5 years from the date of enactment.

This bill is far from perfect, but we are going to have a lot of debate on that bill in just a moment in the rule and in 2 hours later. I will come back to that in a moment.

There are three other pieces of legislation. First, H.R. 529, Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act. This bipartisan legislation enhances Customs and Border Protections' air and marine operations mission by extending Custom's law enforcement authority from 12 to 24 nautical miles of the United States coast. This will help CBP combat unlawful activity in coastal waters at a time when we have significant problems with respect to our borders.

H. Res. 1112, denouncing the Biden administration's immigration policies. This resolution denounces President Biden's open-border policies. It calls on the administration to immediately put in place policies that will end the crisis at our southern border. This is an important message. It is an important statement, but I hope this Congress will speak with one voice against an administration that refuses to enforce the law. This resolution is one statement along those lines.

H. Res. 1117, opposing efforts to place one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza. This resolution affirms that Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, has the right to defend itself against Hamas and makes clear that the House of Representatives opposes efforts to place one-sided pressures on Israel to implement an immediate cease- fire.

This resolution is necessary because regrettably, embarrassingly, this administration took a seat, sat down, abstained, abstained in the face of the horrors that we saw unfold on October 7 to our friend, Israel; by sitting down when the United Nations Security Council called for a cease-fire, and pushing on Israel to walk away from its efforts to combat what Hamas has been doing to the people of Israel.

We should speak with clarity as the Congress of the United States that we stand in solidarity with the people of Israel, and this resolution is one way in which we can do that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have a resolution on the floor to stand and say that we believe that the Biden administration is failing to carry out its duty to secure the border of the United States is because it is true. The American people need to know and see that, and see us speaking with one voice.

The reason that we have a resolution on the floor saying we should stand with Israel is because the administration walked away from Israel, abandoned them in a vote in the Security Council vote by abstaining.

That is the truth. That is why these resolutions matter. That is why they are here on the floor.

We are going to have a lot of debate here about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. On this, I think there is a lot of bipartisan agreement. There are a lot of bipartisan concerns about the size and scope of government. I think it is important to remember James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson on May 13, 1798: ``Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged . . . against danger real or pretended from abroad.''

The Founders knew what they were doing. The Founders intentionally built into the United States Constitution protections for us, protections for the people.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us doesn't do what is necessary to answer the question, to secure the people's rights. There are amendments that are in order that might get the legislation there.

Remember, section 702 allows the NSA to surveil non-U.S. individuals and organizations abroad if a significant purpose is to acquire foreign intelligence information, which it defines as information related to the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs.

Remember, there are some 230,000 targets that the government has, the blob, the intelligence community, that they are targeting over there, overseas, targeting externally. However, here is the problem: They are collecting information here in the United States on those individuals. We don't know who they are.

I asked the Judiciary Committee chairman and staff: Do you all know who they are? Have you gone into a SCIF and seen who they are targeting? The answer is no, we don't know who they are targeting.

Then, information is collected in communication to those individuals, which necessarily brings American citizens into the mix. The question is, what do we do about it? Remember this: The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, in a report released last year, stated: ``Ordinary Americans may be in contact with section 702 targets for business or personal reasons even if the Americans have no connection to, or reason to suspect, any wrongdoing by their foreign contacts.'' That is an important issue. That is at the heart of the debate.

What we have right now before us is a rule to bring forward reauthorization of legislation passed so that we can go try to protect our country, supposedly looking outward, but it has ensnared American citizens in their information. That is why we are here. The question is whether we are going to have the ability to amend it to ensure that American citizens can be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kind words for our colleague, Mr. Cole. Those of us on the committee will miss working with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole). Obviously, as the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, he is not going very far. He will be down the hall in the Appropriations Committee. I guess we won't get ahead of things. It has not been formalized yet, but it seems like that is the direction it is going. It has been an honor to work on the Committee with Tom Cole.

Again, without getting ahead of things, I think there are able folks on the Rules Committee, and Dr. Burgess from Texas very likely might move into that role, and I will look forward to working with him in the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

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

I would point out that on this issue one of the concerns that we have is ensuring an adequate and fair hearing on the issue of the warrant amendment.

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) raised the issue as did the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), the importance of warrant protections for American citizens.

It cannot be overstated the extent to which, at our founding and throughout our history, it has been critical to place that constitutional barrier between the authority of government being used in the name of defense and in the name of security in a way that tramples on the rights and the security of the American people.

That is what is at issue.

That is the conundrum we face.

For all of us that wish to protect our country, we know first and foremost we must protect our civil liberties or there is no country to protect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the concerns that we are looking at here, I think boil down to questions that people assert when they say, ``lawfully collected information.''

Therefore, you don't need a warrant to search the 702 data for United States citizens' information.

I think that is really at the crux of the debate going on. The rule that we have before us, which takes a product to respond to and make reforms and changes in response to some of the concerns raised, but then takes the critical and core component of warrant requirement and puts it off as an amendment subject to debate when there has been now some public pressure put on opposing the amendment.

That is the conundrum that you are seeing unfold, for the American people to understand why there is some hesitation here to proceed, when we are proceeding with reforms that don't get to the engine of the reform, reforms that might make some improvements but those improvements are in the periphery. They ignore the core problem, that fundamental issue as to whether or not you must have a warrant to look at the information of American citizens. That is it. That is at the core of it.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about things that are significant. Just the tip of the iceberg: Searches by the intel community and the FBI included 141 Black Lives Matter protesters; two Members of Congress; journalists; political commentators; victims who contacted the FBI, people who came to the FBI offices to perform repairs; individuals on online dating services.

Now we have in this bill a carve-out for Members of Congress. We get a heads-up: Hey guys, you have been queried.

Why do we get something that 330 million Americans don't get?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize what we have in front of us, particularly with respect to the foreign intelligence surveillance issue. That is where we have, I think, the most debate.

The fact of the matter is, for the average American watching this, they are going to be confused as to what exactly we are doing because it is a complex issue.

I started this rule debate by quoting James Madison, who in 1798, I will repeat, wrote to Thomas Jefferson and said: ``Perhaps it is a universal truth

that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.''

I think that is the question that is before us right now. It is the balance that a nation struggles with, if you are a republic like ours, a republic built on the back of liberty and our constitutional protections, that is trying to balance the need to stop evil abroad from attacking our people with protecting civil liberties at home.

What we have, for the average American to understand, is a big pot of collected information that is, in the words of the intel community, directed outward. That large pot of information is directed toward some 230,000 people, individuals and entities abroad. As I said earlier, we don't know who they are. We are not briefed on who they are. When we try to go into that kind of level of briefing, it is often cloaked in the intel world. They just say this is dangerous and important stuff. The Judiciary Committee chairman, for example, doesn't know who is on that list of 230,000 people.

From that list of 230,000, who we don't know, and which can expand or shrink at the whim of the intel community, we then take that information and communications with any of those individuals, if you are an American citizen, you can get swept up and viewed by the intel community. That is where the abuses took place.

I have heard some of my colleagues saying: You are asking for a secondary warrant when we say that the warrant amendment here is critically important. That misses the point that you have got an intelligence-driven apparatus to collect information abroad that then will sweep in communications by Americans citizens, or U.S. persons, into that database. Those communications can now be seen and can be viewed.

As I noted, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report released last year said: ``Ordinary Americans may be in contact with section 702 targets for business or personal reasons even if the Americans have no connection to, or reason to suspect, any wrongdoing by their foreign contacts. . . .''

That is the problem. That is why the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee with primary jurisdiction, put in place additional protections in the form of a required warrant if you are going to look at the information of those American citizens. That was the wisdom of the very broad, bipartisan 35-2 vote in the Judiciary Committee. That was removed.

The bill now put on the floor, the bill before us, now we are forced to proceed to a bill by virtue of a rule whereby we are not sure whether the issue at play, the warrant requirement, will be supported.

Now, that might be fine. You say we have an open process, but it wasn't really an open process. It was a structured rule. There were provisions that were sort of cooked up to achieve the result. That is what we are looking at.

In truth, there are amendments that have been part of the rule that are intel amendments which will expand FISA, which will expand the reach, and by all accounts, more likely than not, will pass.

Then there are the provisions that some support that would constrain the power, for example, the warrant requirement or the ``abouts'' language which would limit the use of the more generic ``abouts,'' so you have to target the specific individuals. Then there is the enhanced reporting, which happens to be my amendment. Those provisions are meant to constrain government.

The conundrum that you see, that you are going to see play out on the floor is: Do you support the rule to proceed, to move forward, under the hope that the warrant amendment will be passed? Because the sword of Damocles that is hanging over our heads is that this will expire and thus there will be pressure to pass a simple reauthorization for 5 years. That is the truth.

We will see what transpires. It is my considered judgment that we ought to try, as a body, to stand behind a warrant requirement to make sure we protect the American people.

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

An Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine

whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a

health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.

All points of order against consideration of the bill are

waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of

order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective

designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 12.

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

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, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 57) expressing the sense of Congress supporting the State of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the President of Israel will address this body in a joint session. It will be a great day in American history as Representatives of one of the greatest democracies are addressed by the head of state of another. Democracy and its shared values are at the very core of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

The beauty of our friendship is that we stand together, shoulder to shoulder, as we defend our freedom and our way of life from threats like Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other forms of terrorism.

Let me be clear. Israel is not a racist country. It is deeply disturbing and concerning to me that some in this body have such a profound misunderstanding of Israel and Israeli society.

The previous government in Israel had Arab parties and Arab ministers serving in the coalition government. What a fantastic achievement for democracy. It is no secret that Israel is a country in a tough neighborhood that is clear-eyed in seeing many threats in its own backyard.

The United States will always support Israel's right to self-defense. We see Israeli citizens being murdered in senseless terrorist attacks. At times, the fallen have been American citizens.

Israel is responsible for protecting the well-being of its citizens. Protecting one's citizens from terrorist attacks is not racism. It is national security. To think otherwise is small-minded, and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is just plain and simply wrong.

A key component of friendship is looking out for one another and standing up for each other. Racism has no place in this body or in public discord, period. I support this resolution rejecting false accusations and repulsive anti-Israel statements. I stand--and I know almost everyone in this Chamber stands--with our friends in Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Pfluger) for bringing this resolution forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing progressive about racism. Racism is ugly. I know my colleague, my dear friend, Mr. Meeks, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, knows what racism is.

He is also the strongest supporter of Israel.

I know our colleague, John Lewis, knew what racism really is, and racism is ugly.

Israel is not a racist state. My father was a bombardier in a B-17. He bombed the Nazis.

Why were we at war with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis?

For many reasons, but, fundamentally, because of their values. They were anti-Semitic. During the Holocaust, racism, in its ugliest form, took place in the concentration camps in Europe and, indeed, in Auschwitz, where I attended to see the horrors of what mankind can do against mankind.

Why was the State of Israel formed?

Israel was formed out of a racist society to say to the world: No longer, never forget, and we will not tolerate racism.

Mr. Speaker, 75 years later we stand here in this body celebrating this democratic state in the Middle East that was formed because of persecution and because of racism. We do not stand for racism. No one in this Chamber should stand for racism.

To call Israel, which was formed as a result of racism, anti- Semitism, and hatred, to call that very country a racist state is repugnant to all of our values.

I think everyone in this Chamber should vote ``yes,'' because as my dear friend across the aisle knows, racism and anti-Semitism have no place--no place--not only in this Chamber, but not in America and not anywhere in the world. Where we see it, we denounce it in its most ugliest form.

So this is a call to action to defend her and to defend the nation that was created by primarily the United States and our allies as a result of the hatred that we saw come out of Nazi Germany.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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