Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1371) strongly condemning the Biden Administration and its Border Czar, Kamala Harris's, failure to secure the United States border.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this unserious and politically motivated resolution.

It is sad that today we are wasting time on this pointless resolution, which is nothing more than a campaign press release, rather than addressing real problems facing the American people, but a do- anything resolution is right in line with this do-nothing Congress.

The House is about to go on vacation for 6 weeks, having delivered only political resolutions, not solutions, for the American people.

In fact, my Republican colleagues are so eager to campaign, they are starting the August recess a week early and rushing to the floor with this press release disguised as a resolution before they head for the exits.

Let's make no mistake: This resolution is only before this body because Vice President Harris will be the Democratic nominee for President.

Testing new campaign messaging, though, is not a good use of the House's time, yet that is all this resolution offers. It changes absolutely nothing. It does not even pretend to change anything.

I am sure the American people would rather us use our time to fund the government, but my Republican colleagues can't seem to agree among themselves about that.

Instead, here we are, debating H. Res. 1371, a second-rate attempt at election interference. Perhaps it is also an ethics violation since my Republican colleagues are blatantly using House resources for campaign purposes, and like so much other campaign literature, this political resolution is premised on falsehoods and supported by cherry-picked statistics.

The resolution would have you believe President Biden and Vice President Harris inherited an impenetrable southern border from the former administration. This is just not true. The cruel and inhumane policies of the

Trump administration did not deter irregular migration.

It took a worldwide shutdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to temporarily reduce the ever-increasing numbers of desperate people seeking freedom, safety, and opportunity in the United States. When global pandemic-era restrictions eased, worldwide migration increased. The United States is far from alone in facing this challenge.

When President Biden and Vice President Harris took office, they reversed terrible Trump-era policies that separated children from their parents and put children in cages.

The Biden-Harris administration has also increased enforcement, deployed more border surveillance equipment, and sped up immigration processing. The administration is removing and returning more people and implementing tough new policies that have cut the number of border crossers by more than half over the last 7 weeks alone.

Vice President Harris, in particular, has worked to address the root causes of migration, especially from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Improving conditions in Northern Triangle countries means fewer people feel compelled to make the journey to the U.S.

We have seen results. Since Vice President Harris was given this task, Customs and Border Protection's encounters with Central American migrants have declined by more than 70 percent.

Furthermore, under Vice President Harris' leadership, the administration has also reinforced partnerships with countries in the region, and even around the world, to increase enforcement and share information.

Mexico, for the first time ever, has agreed to accept the return of Venezuelans and Cubans. Under the former President, we struggled to remove migrants from these countries from the United States.

There are also more visa requirements to enter the Western Hemisphere now, making the journey that much more difficult. This administration has recognized that migration is no longer regional but global and has taken action.

Mr. Speaker, you will notice that nowhere in my remarks have I referred to the Vice President as a so-called border czar like this flawed resolution does. That is because such a position does not exist.

The authors of this resolution cannot point to a single administration document that names the Vice President the ``border czar.'' That is because such documents do not exist.

Even news organizations, like Axios, that referred to Vice President Harris as a so-called border czar have posted corrections and clarifications. That is because border czar is simply not her role.

I would like to read from President Biden's March 2021 remarks describing Vice President Harris' duties. ``The Vice President has agreed, among the multiple other things that I have her leading--and I appreciate it--agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept the returnees and enhanced migration enforcement at their borders.''

The Vice President's role is diplomatic. It is about leading partnerships with foreign countries. It is not about overseeing the Border Patrol or ICE. That is Secretary Mayorkas' job, and he said as much in testimony before the Homeland Security Committee.

The border czar title is a work of fiction created by overactive Republican imaginations and the media, and this resolution is premised on that fiction.

Furthermore, this resolution is incredibly petty because Republicans struggle to quick squeeze anything of substance into it. It criticizes the Vice President, who was directed to focus on diplomatic engagements, for waiting 3 months to visit the southern border. Republicans then take issue with where she chose to go along the southern border. Vice President Harris went to Texas, just not the part of Texas Republicans thought she should go.

The resolution also criticizes the Vice President for failing to make direct outreach to U.S. Border Patrol chiefs. Again, she was not tasked with overseeing the Border Patrol. Secretary Mayorkas, their actual boss, speaks to the U.S. Border Patrol regularly.

Furthermore, H. Res. 1371 only includes border encounter statistics through May of this year, conveniently failing to include a nearly 30 percent decrease in encounters between ports of entry in June.

The resolution also conveniently fails to mention that since early last month, DHS has removed or returned more than 65,000 border crossers to more than 125 countries. In the past year, DHS has removed or returned the most people since 2010. That includes more removals to countries other than Mexico than in any other prior year ever.

Mr. Speaker, the House has better things to do than adopt pointless, false, and politically driven, nonbinding resolutions. Perhaps, for example, it could legislate on border security in a bipartisan fashion as the Senate tried to do; that is, before former President Trump told his MAGA allies to run away from the negotiating table so he could run on border security on the campaign trail.

As much as my Republican colleagues talk about the threats from our border, they don't want to seem to do anything about it. Taking action is bad politics for them, so we get political resolutions rather than solutions.

In fact, under Republican control, the 118th Congress has little to show for itself. Indeed, it is among the least productive in history. Maybe House Republicans are simply biding their time because they think they can implement their Project 2025 agenda next year.

This do-nothing resolution is out to test-drive political talking points rather than change the sorry trajectory of this do-nothing Congress.

Before I reserve, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that this is the first time the Homeland Security Committee has come to the floor since the passing of my dear friend, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who was a senior member of the committee. Congresswoman Jackson Lee cared passionately about border security and a humane immigration system that reflected American values. We will miss her bold, distinctive voice during today's debate, which we all know that she would have participated in with trademark tenacity.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this thinly veiled attempt as a political attack, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

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

Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues are worried about migrant children, I encourage them to look at policy solutions and to engage on a bipartisan bill, such as the Senate bipartisan border bill, where we can make real change. I encourage the majority to support this administration's effort to crack down on the employers who take advantage of these children.

I encourage Republicans to take real action. This partisan resolution achieves nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a last-ditch, unserious effort by extreme MAGA Republicans to scapegoat Vice President Harris for longstanding challenges at the border.

H. Res. 1371 is premised on the false claim that the Vice President was made a ``border czar,'' a fake title made up by Republicans and the media. This is a political stunt on the American taxpayers' dime. I wish they would put the same effort into immigration reform or passing budget bills.

Let me reiterate: This resolution does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life for Americans. If Republicans truly saw the challenges at the border as a crisis, they would have worked with Democrats on the bipartisan Senate border legislation, but

they abandoned the bipartisan bill to please their Presidential candidate who wanted a campaign issue instead.

We get political resolutions rather than solutions. The American people deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 23 article from CBS News stating that the ``border czar'' title is incorrect and the Vice President's work is often mischaracterized.

Notably, the article includes the following quote: ``Harris was not asked to be the administration's `border czar' or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border.''

[From CBS News, July 23, 2024]

The Facts About Kamala Harris' Role on Immigration in the Biden

Administration

(By Camilo Montoya-Galvez)

Following President Biden's decision to abandon his

reelection campaign and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris

to be the Democratic nominee for president, Harris' role on

immigration has come under scrutiny.

Soon after Mr. Biden's announcement, Republicans sought to

blame Harris for the Biden administration's woes at the U.S.-

Mexico border, where American officials have reported record

levels of illegal crossings in the past three years. In a

phone conversation with CBS News on Saturday, former

President Donald Trump said Harris presided over the ``worst

border ever'' as ``border czar,'' a title her Republican

detractors often give her.

Harris is all but certain to face even more criticism over

the Biden administration's record on immigration, one of

American voters' top concerns ahead of the election. And

Harris does have an immigration-related role in the Biden

White House, but her responsibilities on the issue are often

mischaracterized.

What exactly is Harris' immigration role?

In March 2021, when the Biden administration faced the

early stages of an influx in illega1 crossings at the U.S.

southern border, Mr. Biden tasked Harris with leading the

administration's diplomatic campaign to address the ``root

causes'' of migration from Guatemala, Honduras and El

Salvador, including poverty, corruption and violence.

The region, known as Central America's Northern Triangle,

has been one of the main sources of migration to the U.S.-

Mexico border over the past decade.

Harris was not asked to be the administration's ``border

czar'' or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at

the U.S.-Mexico border. That has mainly been the

responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro

Mayorkas and his department, which oversees the country's

main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border

Protection.

In reality, the only role close to that of a ``border

czar'' under the Biden administration was held for only a few

months by Roberta Jacobson, a longtime diplomat who served as

coordinator for the Southwest border until April 2021.

In her immigration role, Harris' main line of work has

focused on convincing companies to invest in Central America

and promoting democracy and development there through

diplomacy. In March of this year, the White House announced

Harris had secured a commitment from the private sector to

invest over $5 billion to promote economic opportunities and

reduce violence in the region.

Efforts to reduce migration by improving conditions in

migrants' home countries have always been viewed as a long-

term strategy by U.S. officials. In its ``root causes''

framework, the Biden administration conceded the ``systemic

change'' it envisions for Central America ``will take time to

achieve.''

Questions about her work on immigration

There are some legitimate questions about Harris' work on

immigration.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, most non-Mexican migration to

the U.S. southern border originated from the Northern

Triangle. In 2021, it made sense for the administration to

focus on the root cases of migration in those countries. But

migration flows have changed dramatically in recent years.

Record numbers of migrants have been coming from places

outside of Central America, including from countries like

Cuba, Colombia, China, Ecuador and Venezuela.

In fiscal year 2023, for example, Border Patrol

apprehensions of migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El

Salvador made up 22 percent of all crossings during that time

period, down from 41 percent in fiscal year 2021, government

statistics show. On the flip side, however, the

administration could point to the fact that illegal crossings

along the U.S. southern border by migrants from Guatemala,

Honduras and El Salvador have decreased significantly every

year since 2021.

While most of her critics have been Republicans, Harris'

work on immigration has also garnered some criticism from the

left. During a visit to Guatemala in June 2021, Harris told

those intending to migrate, ``Do not come,'' a statement that

drew ire from some progressives and advocates for migrants.

As the second-highest ranking member of the Biden

administration, Harris will also likely face questions over

the all-time levels of unlawful border crossings reported in

2021, 2022 and 2023. Those crossings, however, have plunged

this year, reaching a three-year low in June, after Mr. Biden

issued an executive order banning most migrants from asylum.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 19 article from CBS News stating that the number of migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border has continued to drop dramatically in July, thanks to Biden-Harris administration policies.

Notably, the article includes the following quote: ``July is on track to see the fifth consecutive monthly drop in migrant apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border and the lowest level in illegal immigration there since the fall of 2020, during the Trump administration. . .''.

[From CBS News, July 19, 2024]

Migrant Crossings Continue to Plunge, Nearing the Level That Would Lift

Biden's Border Crackdown

(By Camilo Montoya-Galvez)

The number of migrants unlawfully crossing the U.S.

southern border has continued to drop markedly in July,

nearing a threshold that would require officials to lift a

partial ban on asylum claims enacted by President Biden,

according to internal government data obtained by CBS News.

July is on track to see the fifth consecutive monthly drop

in migrant apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border and the

lowest level in illegal immigration there since the fall of

2020, during the Trump administration, the internal

Department of Homeland Security figures show.

In early June, President Biden invoked a far-reaching

presidential authority to suspend the entry of most migrants

entering the U.S. illegally, effectively shutting off access

to the American asylum system outside of official ports of

entry.

Illegal border crossings--which were already falling before

Mr. Biden's action--plunged further after the order took

effect, reaching a three-year low in June.

Illegal crossings along U.S. southern border over the past year

The numbers denote Border Patrol apprehensions of migrants

who entered the U.S. between official ports of entry along

the southern border.

But the DHS regulation implementing Mr. Biden's

proclamation stipulated that the asylum crackdown would be

lifted if the 7-day average of daily migrant apprehensions

between ports of entry fell to 1,500.

In the past week, the average of daily illegal crossings

counted in the regulation's calculations reached roughly

1,650, according to the internal DHS figures. Those

calculations, as dictated by the regulation, exclude

crossings by unaccompanied children who are not

from Mexico. Those children are typically housed in

government-run shelters until they turn 18 or are placed with

a U.S.-based sponsor, as mandated by a 2008 antitrafficking

law.

If the 7-day average of daily illegal crossings dips to

1,500, the regulation says, Mr. Biden's asylum proclamation

would be ``discontinued 14 days after'' Homeland Security

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas makes a ``factual

determination'' about the threshold being reached.

``The Departments have determined that the 1,500-encounter

threshold is a reasonable proxy for when the border security

and immigration system is no longer over capacity and the

measures adopted in this rule are not necessary to deal with

such circumstances,'' the regulation says.

Asylum limits could remain in place

While illegal border crossings are nearing the 1,500

deactivation threshold, it's possible that they may remain

above that number, keeping the partial asylum ban in place.

And even if the 1,500 trigger is reached, Mr. Biden's

proclamation would be reinstated if the 7-day average of

daily illegal crossings were to rebound to 2,500.

A senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official

said the agency does not expect the partial ban on asylum

requests to be deactivated imminently, noting that illegal

crossings appear to be plateauing.

``We're not in a place yet where we're a day . . . or days

away from being below 1,500,'' the official told CBS News.

But the official acknowledged that reaching the 1,500

trigger is possible and confirmed there's been internal

planning and preparations for that eventuality.

If Mr. Biden's proclamation is suspended, the official

said, CBP would still strive to place migrants in expedited

deportation proceedings, instead of releasing them with

notices to appear in immigration court. Another Biden

administration asylum restriction that applies to those who

don't seek refuge in third countries before crossing into the

U.S. would also remain in place.

``Noncitizens who enter the United States between ports of

entry and do not have a legal basis to remain in the United

States continue to be swiftly removed,'' DHS spokesperson

Erin Heeter said in a statement.

A dramatic change at the border

With an overall average of roughly 1,800 daily migrant

apprehensions so far in July, Border Patrol is on pace to

record fewer than 60,000 migrant apprehensions this month,

the lowest level since September 2020, according to

unpublished DHS data. That average, unlike the one used in

the asylum regulation's calculations, includes all

unaccompanied children.

The current situation at the southern border represents a

dramatic change from just late last year, when illegal

crossings rose to a quarter of a million in December, an all-

time monthly high. After that record-breaking influx, the

Mexican government, at the request of U.S. officials, ramped

up operations to stop migrants from reaching American soil.

Immigration experts credited the Mexican government's

migration crackdown with playing a key role in the sustained

drop in migrant crossings recorded by American officials this

year. Temperatures in the southern U.S. have also soared in

the summer, making the migration journey even more perilous.

But U.S. officials said Mr. Biden's move to partially shut

down asylum processing has led to a more acute drop in

unlawful crossings. Because it makes it easier for U.S.

officials to deport more migrants, the proclamation has

sharply reduced the releases that authorities view as a

factor that encourages migration.

Still, not everyone is being deported quickly. Some groups,

such as unaccompanied children, medically vulnerable migrants

and those who secure appointments to be processed at legal

entry points, are exempt from the partial asylum ban. Some

migrants who are disqualified from asylum under the policy

are also still allowed to stay because the U.S. does not

carry out regular deportations to their home countries due to

diplomatic and logistical constraints.

Progressive advocacy groups have strongly decried Mr.

Biden's asylum crackdown, and the American Civil Liberties

Union is arguing in federal court that the policy violates

U.S. and international refugee law.

Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser at the Bipartisan

Policy Center and a former government immigration official

under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said the

legality of Mr. Biden's actions are ``still an outstanding

question.'' But she said the drop in releases under the

policy is affecting migrants' decisions, at least in the

short-term.

``When a sufficient number, it doesn't necessarily have to

be everybody, but a sufficient number of people are not

allowed to come in, to wait and succeed in coming in, that

does send a signal back,'' she said.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a fact sheet released by the Department of Homeland Security this morning that shows President Biden's Presidential Proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of certain noncitizens across the southern border has helped reduce the number of encounters at out our Southwest Border by 55 percent.

[From the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, July 24, 2024]

FACT SHEET: President Biden's Presidential Proclamation and Joint DHS- DOJ Interim Final Rule Cut Encounters at Southwest Border by 55 Percent

The Presidential Proclamation issued by President Biden to

temporarily suspend the entry of certain noncitizens across

the southern border--including the southwest land and

southern coastal borders--and the complementary joint interim

final rule (IFR) issued by DHS DOJ have now been in effect

for seven weeks, helping reduce the number of encounters at

our Southwest Border by 55 percent. The Border Patrol's 7-day

average has decreased to below 1,800 encounters per day. In

June, the Border Patrol recorded 83,536 encounters between

ports of entry, the lowest number since January 2021, and

below the number of encounters between ports of entry in June

2019, the last comparable year prior to the pandemic.

While the President's action has led to significant

results, our nation's immigration system requires

Congressional action to provide needed resources and

additional authorities. Twice now, Congress has failed to

pass the bipartisan border security agreement negotiated in

the U.S. Senate, which would provide the critical personnel

and funding needed to further secure our Southern border. The

agreement would have added 1,500 U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) Agents and Officers, added 1,200 U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel, 4,300

asylum officers, invested in technology to catch illegal

fentanyl, and delivered sweeping reforms to the asylum

system. Congress must still act.

While the Proclamation and IFR have been in effect:

DHS has removed and returned more than 65,000 individuals

to more than 125 countries, including by operating more than

200 international repatriation flights.

DHS has doubled the percentage of noncitizens processed

through Expedited Removal while in CBP or ICE custody.

Expedited Removal processing was already at record levels

prior to the Proclamation.

DHS has decreased the number of people released pending

their removal proceedings by 70

We continue to implement recently announced measures

(https://www.ice.gov/news/release/ice-announces-ongoing-work- optimize-enforcement-resources) to increase the overall

capacity of enforcement resources--including repatriation

flights and detention capacity. ICE is optimizing air charter

contracts to maximize the number of repatriation flights

operated each week.

Over the last year, the agency has removed individuals to a

range of South American and Eastern Hemisphere countries,

including Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Egypt, Mauritania,

Senegal, Uzbekistan, and India, and in the last few weeks,

DHS conducted a removal flight to the People's Republic of

China (PRC). Efforts to expand the number of removal flights

continue with the expectation of additional flights added to

the schedule in the coming weeks.

Under the terms of the IFR, the limitation on asylum

eligibility will be discontinued when encounters fall below

certain levels but will come back into effect if encounters

rise again. The Proclamation and IFR enable DHS to quickly

remove those without a legal basis to remain, strengthening

enforcement consequences for those who fail to use lawful

pathways to come to the United States. For more information

on how the Proclamation and IFR work, visit the following

links:

Fact Sheet: President Biden's Presidential Proclamation and

Joint DHS-DOJ Interim Final Rule Cut Encounters at Southwest

Border by Over 40 Percent in First Three Weeks (https:/-

www.dhs.gov/news/2024/06/25/fact-sheet-president-bidens- presidential-proclamation-and-joint-dhs-doj-interim)

Fact Sheet: Presidential Proclamation to Suspend and Limit

Entry and Joint DHS-DOJ Interim Final Rule to Restrict Asylum

During High Encounters at the Southern Border (https:// www.dhs.gov/news/2024/06/04/fact-sheet-presidential- proclamation-suspend-and-limit-entry-and-joint-dhs-doi)

Individuals continue to be eligible for asylum, including

individuals who use the CBP OneTM mobile app's

appointment scheduling function. CBP makes 1,450 appointments

available per day at eight land ports of entry via this

functionality. Use of the app requires those seeking an

appointment to submit vital information in advance, improving

DHS's ability to conduct screening and vetting. CBP One is

just one example of how this Administration has carried out

the largest expansion of lawful pathways and orderly

processes in decades.

The majority of all Southwest border encounters during the

past three fiscal years resulted in a removal, return, or

expulsion. DHS removed or returned over 740,000 individuals

in the 12 months after the end of the Title 42 public health

Order, more than any year since 2010. That included more

removals to countries other than Mexico than in any prior

year ever.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 22 ``analysis'' article from the right-wing Wall Street Journal stating that the Vice President's role was narrow--and also successful.

Notably, the article includes the following quote: ``Harris's job was meant to be narrow, and over the years Harris has fulfilled it by announcing tranches of private investments.''

[From WSJ, July 22, 2024]

Analysis: Was Kamala Harris Actually Biden's `Border Czar'?

(By Michelle Hackman)

Even before Kamala Harris became the Democrats' likely

challenger to Donald Trump, Republicans have used her

immigration portfolio as a line of attack against her--

calling her President Biden's ``border czar.'' But Harris's

task, assigned to her in 2021 by Biden, was actually much

narrower.

At the start of his presidency, Biden tasked his VP with

what the administration called the ``root causes'' of

migration from Central America--the extreme poverty, famine

and gang violence that have driven so many people over the

last decade to uproot their lives and head north to the U.S.

Former President Barack Obama had asked Biden to take on

the same task when he was vice president. Biden successfully

pushed Congress to allot several billion in aid money for

Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

Harris's job was meant to be narrow, and over the years

Harris has fulfilled it by announcing tranches of private

investments by companies like Pepsi, Cargill and Nestle in

Central America.

But the assignment gave Republicans a convenient scapegoat

as illegal crossings at the southern border climbed. Days

after the announcement of her assignment, House Republicans

appeared at a press conference brandishing a sign reading,

``missing at the border: Vice President Kamala Harris.''

On Monday, the RNC tweeted a video purporting to show the

moment Biden anointed Harris ``border czar.'' In the video,

Biden says he is asking Harris ``to lead our efforts with

Mexico and the Northern Triangle, the countries that need

help in stemming a movement of so many folks, of stemming the

migration to our southern border.''

Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an April 5 ``fact check'' article from the Washington Post giving four Pinocchios to the favorite Republican claim that the Biden administration ``flew at least 400,000 illegal immigrants into the country.''

Notably, the article states that Republicans are Quote: ``peddling a blatant falsehood her'' Unquote.

[From the Washington Post, April 5, 2024]

Taxpayer Dollars Being Used to Fly `Illegal Aliens' Into U.S.? Nope.

(By Glenn Kessler)

``Do you support American taxpayer dollars being used to

fly illegal immigrants from countries like Venezuela and

Haiti into America to be settled in cities and towns near

you? If so, then vote against me. Vote no to preserve this

practice of using taxpayer dollars to charter planes that

move and import thousands of illegal aliens into your

states.?

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), in a speech on the Senate

floor, March 23:

``Have you had to cancel or rethink any upcoming summer

trips because of high prices? Don't worry--your taxpayer

dollars will be used to pay for illegal immigrants to fly

into a town near you.''

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), chair of the House Homeland

Security Committee, in a post on X, April 2:

Two lawmakers from Tennessee have issued misleading

statements about a Biden administration program that

permitted an increased use of a process known as humanitarian

parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and

Venezuela. Hagerty offered an amendment to a spending bill--

defeated in a party-line vote--that he said would prevent

taxpayer dollars from being used to fly in migrants. Green,

on X, posted a Fox News article--headlined ``All Senate Dems

vote against barring taxpayer funds to fly illegal migrants

to U.S. towns''--and made a similar claim.

Under the Biden program, people from these countries who

try to cross the border without the proper paperwork are

ineligible for parole and subject to expulsion. Instead,

before arriving, they must receive authorization to travel to

the United States and a statement of financial support from a

sponsor.

As of the end of February, the Department of Homeland

Security says, more than 386,000 people from those countries

had arrived lawfully in the United States and another 19,000

were vetted and authorized to travel. In other words, they

are not in the country illegally, despite the rhetoric in the

statements.

And beyond the question of whether these immigrants are

``illegal,'' if You listen to Hagerty and Green, U.S.

taxpayers are footing the bill for their travel. That's

wrong.

the Facts

The website for the program makes clear that people

applying for humanitarian parole must pay for their tickets.

Under a list of requirements, one is: ``Provide for their own

commercial travel to an air U.S. port of entry and final U.S.

destination.''

When we asked spokespeople for Hagerty and Green, we

received different answers about why they said taxpayers'

dollars were involved. Neither is convincing.

Hagerty's staff said he was referring not to plane tickets,

but to the fact that the program was created and administered

with taxpayer dollars. His amendment said ``no funds

appropriated by this Act may be used to facilitate, provide,

or purchase air transportation from a foreign country to the

United States''--so ``facilitate'' is the operative word

here.

But the arm of the DHS that administers the program--U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)--is 96 percent

funded by fees paid by people seeking to come to the United

States. For instance, people in the parole program must pay

as much as $520 to file an application for work

authorization.

Moreover, parole applications (now totaling about 400,000)

make up an even smaller part of the nearly 10 million

applications handled by USCIS each year, so the number of

people handling the applications would be an infinitesimal

part of the USCIS workforce. On top of that, the salaries of

these workers are funded by fees, not congressional

appropriations (``taxpayer dollars'').

In any case, as we noted, people approved for the program

must book and pay for their own flights to come to the United

States. There aren't any charter flights, despite what

Hagerty said.

Green's staff offered a different explanation--that he was

referring to nongovernmental organizations being reimbursed

for transportation costs through the Shelter and Services

Program (SSP), run by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, another arm of the DHS. But this is also off base.

The SSP is focused on helping pay the costs for people who

cross the border between ports of entry, such as with the

help of smugglers, and find themselves abandoned in the

middle of a desert. The recipients are mainly border cities

and charities that assist these undocumented immigrants with

food, shelter and transportation. But people in the parole

program arrive with authorization and a confirmed financial

sponsor. In fact, the Biden administration created the parole

program to reduce unauthorized border crossings that have

burdened border facilities.

So the only way SSP dollars would be used by someone in the

parole program is if a disaster happened and this person

found themselves in a shelter that received some funding from

the SSP--a highly unlikely prospect.

the Pinocchio Test

Hagerty and Green are peddling a blatant falsehood here--

that the Biden administration is paying for the flights of

migrants from four countries in the parole program. In

reality, the migrants must pay their own way. When

challenged, their offices resorted to alternative

explanations about the use of taxpayer dollars that strain

credulity.

Four Pinocchios

The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the

International Fact-Checking Network code of principles.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1376 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 1371, a resolution strongly condemning the Biden administration and its border czar, Harris, for their failure to secure the U.S. border under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, since Biden-Harris took office, American leadership both at home and abroad has become weak and feckless, and that is just putting it mildly. On the global stage, we have seen the Houthis creating chaos in the Red Sea after the administration delisted them as a foreign terrorist organization. Then, just last week, they successfully launched a deadly suicide drone attack in Tel Aviv.

Iran has grown stronger and more dangerous than ever. Their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are launching a two-front war against Israel and have attacked our servicemembers over 100 times since October 7. Now their nuclear program is 1 or 2 weeks away from the time needed to produce enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear weapon. Even Secretary Blinken stated: Where we are now is not a good place.

I can continue talking about the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, about Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine following the administration's decision to green-light Nord Stream 2 or I could talk about record-high inflation reaching over 20 percent under Biden-Harris, but the biggest failure is the crisis at the southern border.

Just 64 days into this administration, Biden named Harris his border czar. Now my friends from across the aisle are trying to cover up her failures as border czar and trying to argue that she was never even in charge, but to their chagrin, I brought receipts with me.

Let me read you a few headlines and quotes. Here is Axios on April 14, 2021: ``The number of unoccupied minors crossing the border has reached crisis levels. Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar, said she would be looking at the `root causes' that drive migration.'' That was Axios in 2021.

Here is another headline from the Associated Press on March 24, 2021: ``Biden taps VP Harris to lead response to border challenges.''

Here is another one from Axios, March 24, 2021: ``Biden puts Harris in charge of border crisis.''

Just wait for it, here is President Biden on that same day, March 24, 2021: `` . . . she is the most qualified person to do it--to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help--are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.'' That was Joe Biden.

The President went on further: `` . . . it is not her full responsibility and job, but she is leading the effort because I think the best thing to do is put someone who, when he or she speaks, they don't have to wonder about is that where the President is. When she speaks, she speaks for me. Doesn't have to check with me.''

Now the debate has been settled. President Biden clearly put Vice President Harris in charge of the border. What did the border czar Harris do? The Biden-Harris administration issued 94 executive actions related to the border. They halted the construction of the border wall and ended remain in Mexico, and they established the catch and release program.

What were the results? In February 2021, the country witnessed a 174 percent increase in southwest border encounters compared to February of 2020. On her watch, there have been over 9.6 million illegal immigrant encounters nationwide. Experts estimate that the number of known got- aways--those are illegal immigrants who have evaded capture--exceed 2 million.

In May of 2021, CBP encountered over 180,000 individuals attempting to enter the country illegally along the southwest border. That was a staggering 675 percent increase from May of 2020. Since fiscal year 2021, 378 illegal aliens on the terrorist watch list have been apprehended at our southern border.

In June, NBC reported that over 400 illegal immigrants with ties to ISIS entered the U.S. under border czar Harris, and the whereabouts of 50 of these individuals are still unknown. In fiscal year 2024, there have been a record-breaking 31,000 Chinese nationals encountered at the southwest border.

Perhaps the worst stat of them all: We have lived through 39 months where the total encounters have been higher than even the highest month seen under President Trump. This is a really simple vote. If you are okay with those results, go ahead and vote ``no.'' If you think border czar Harris has failed the American people, vote ``yes.'' It is really that simple.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about being ashamed, let's talk about who should be ashamed. It is Biden and Harris. They have been a complete disaster, especially with the southern border.

Excuse me for being so audacious as to bring facts and figures to a debate, but I guess I have to apologize for bringing more facts and figures to a debate. Let's go through a few of them.

The Biden-Harris administration has failed to remove 99.7 percent of illegal immigrants released in the United States. Here is another stat: In June, there were 130,419 illegal immigrant encounters at our southern border. This is roughly 4,300 daily encounters, which is--wait for this--four times more than the definition of a crisis that was set by Obama's own DHS Secretary Johnson, who said in 2019 that more than 1,000 encounters a day would overwhelm the system. That was President Obama's DHS Secretary.

Do you want to talk about more facts and figures? In May 2024, Committee on Homeland Security Republicans released documents showing the Biden administration--wait for this--secretly flew over 400,000 illegal immigrants into our country.

Harris still has visited our southern border only once since she became border czar. It took her a total of 93 days to make a token trip to El Paso, which is 800 miles from the sector experiencing the worst numbers.

Then, in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt, Harris was asked: Do you have any plans to visit the border?

She replied: At some point, we are going to the border. Then, she said: We have been to the border.

Lester Holt replied: You haven't been to the border.

Harris replied: And I haven't been to Europe.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Then, former Border Patrol Chief Ortiz stated: ``I have never had one conversation with the President or the Vice President, for that matter. I was the chief of the Border Patrol. I commanded 21,000 people. That is a problem.''

Current Border Chief Owens felt her absence, as well, reporting that the VP has not spoken with him since she was appointed in July 2023.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have seen gaslighting, but I have never seen gaslighting to

this extent. This is quite amazing. Before we get into gaslighting, let's talk about a quick history lesson.

The President that I recall throwing around the term ``czar'' was President Obama. He had a car czar with the cash for clunkers program. It is kind of funny when you think about it. This is the same President who allowed Russia to invade Crimea. This is the same President who went up to the then-President of Russia, I believe, Dmitry Medvedev, and said: I just need a little flexibility. Tell Vlad I just have to get through this election cycle, and then we can talk.

That President named a czar, and that became part of our lexicon, and now we are being attacked because we are calling Harris the border czar.

Axios, as I said before, April 14, 2021, ran an article referring to Harris as border czar. Again: ``The number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border has reached crisis levels. Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar''--it says that right here in the article--``said she would be looking at the `root causes' that drive migration.''

Now, you can say Axios retracted that. They retracted that 3 years after, when that became politically inconvenient.

The Democrats are now trying to say that Harris had nothing to do with the border. Unfortunately for the Democrats, we have a slew of other statements and articles that say that Biden put Harris in charge of the border.

Here is Axios again, March 24, 2021. The title of the article is: ``Biden puts Harris in charge of border crisis.'' It doesn't get more clear than that.

Here are remarks by the President when he was at the State Dining Room on March 24, 2021. This is Biden talking about Harris: ``She is the most qualified person to do it--to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help--are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.''

Again, that is President Biden telling people at a state dinner that he is putting Harris in charge of the border.

Here is another AP article, titled: ``Biden taps VP Harris to lead response to border challenges.''

You can quibble about names, if she was called the border czar, which is popular in our lexicon, or if she was called whatever. The fact remains the President put the Vice President in charge of managing the border crisis, and it has been an abysmal failure.

The stats speak for themselves. I will get to more stats later on in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

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

To be clear about one thing: I am not afraid of Vice President Harris and neither are any of my colleagues. The people who should be most afraid of the Vice President are the American people.

In going back to talk about the southern border, every single day in this country, roughly 300 Americans die of fentanyl overdoses. That would be the equivalent of a commercial jetliner going down every single day, once a day, for the last 4 years. That should scare the American people.

Talking about more things, let's talk about crime under this administration. Americans continue to be the victims of violent crime under the Biden-Harris administration.

According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association's 2022 crime report for urban areas across the country, homicides were up 13 percent since 2020, rapes were up 23.56 percent since 2020, and aggravated assaults were up 33.89 percent since 2020.

In 2022, at least nine cities, seven of which are Democrat run, saw record homicides. 2021 was the deadliest year in two decades for our law enforcement officers.

Just listen to their party leaders, like Vice President Harris. She supports defunding the police. She believes it is ``wrongheaded'' and ``outdated'' to think police officers make our communities safe.

She wants to give voting rights to murderers, terrorists, rapists, and even inmates that are sitting on death row.

Harris wants to abolish ICE which protects our communities from illegal aliens and the crimes they commit. She believes cash bail should be eliminated.

The only time Vice President Harris has called for law enforcement to get involved was when Jussie Smollett said men with red MAGA hats were after him. Harris called it a modern-day lynching, and of course, this was an absolute hoax that was fabricated by the radical left with the help of no other than Vice President Harris.

Americans should be afraid of the policies of the Vice President.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just get this straight. By the minority's logic, because Republicans are talking about Vice President Harris, we are somehow afraid of Vice President Harris. That is quite amazing because, for the last 8 years, they have been talking about President Trump. Let the American people decide who is afraid of who.

To the attack that we have done nothing about the southern border, I can give the Democrats some ideas of what to do. How about they can start requesting that the administration go back and repeal the 94 executive orders they issued when they took office which repealed President Trump's executive orders to secure the southern border. That would be a great start. You don't even need congressional action to undo those executive orders.

I have not heard one of my Democratic colleagues call for any of those executive orders to be reversed.

Here is another good idea: H.R. 2. This Chamber passed H.R. 2. It was the first border security bill that was passed in this Chamber, I believe, since the mid-nineties. That was a great bill. It ended catch and release. It reinstated remain in Mexico. It required that this administration finish the border wall. That would definitely halt illegal immigration.

That is sitting over in the Senate. Maybe my friends from across the aisle here could ask the other Chamber to run that bill. Just a few ideas.

I love it when I hear my colleagues talking about so-called bans. There are

a few bans that the Vice President is in favor of. Let's go through some of those.

Under President Biden and Vice President Harris, the administration has supported bans on the following: gas-powered vehicles, gas stoves, firearms, and LNG exports.

That is not enough for the Vice President. Harris wants to go even further than Biden. She supports bans on--this is a great list. It is like it is written by the Babylon Bee or something. She supports bans on red meat, plastic straws, private health insurance, fracking, and gas-powered schoolbuses.

Before you know it, the average American is going to have to show their grocery list to Czar Harris before they go to the grocery store.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about division, I have got a whole list of divisive quotes from my friends across the aisle.

It starts at the very top. Just days before what happened in Pennsylvania, President Biden said that we need to put a bull's-eye on President Trump. That was President Biden.

Former Speaker Pelosi said: ``You have to be ready to take a punch. And therefore you have to be ready to throw a punch--for the children.''

Senator Jon Tester: ``I don't think, even States where Donald Trump won big, that it does you any good running away from Donald Trump. I think you need to go back and punch him in the face.''

That was a quote from Jon Tester.

Here is Joe Biden again: ``I said if I were in high school, I would take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.''

Congresswoman Maxine Waters said this: ``And with this kind of inspiration, I will go and take out Trump tonight.''

For the Vice President, she too is engaged in some divisive rhetoric. When asked in April 2018: If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions, who would it be?

Do you know how the Vice President responded?

She said: Does one of us have to come out alive?

Save me the rhetoric on divisiveness. I think the American people know where the divisive language is coming from.

Let's go back to the Vice President and her role as border czar, at least that is what the media was calling her up until about 3 days ago.

When Harris was tasked to be border czar, she promised to ``undo'' President Trump's border policies. Unfortunately for the American people, she made good on that promise.

The Biden-Harris administration has referred to the influx of illegals as newcomers. That was their word, ``newcomers,'' not illegal immigrants.

She has called for the decriminalization of illegal border crossings. Border czar Harris has even supported free healthcare and mass amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The question is: Who pays the price for this incompetence?

That answer is simple. That is the American people.

The border crisis has cost the United States approximately $150.7 billion every single year. That is over $1,100 per year per every American taxpayer.

In southwestern Pennsylvania, my congressional district, we are one of the epicenters of the opioid crisis. Since the passage of H.R. 2, over 17,000 pounds of fentanyl had been seized at the southern border. To get your head around how much that actually is, Mr. Speaker, that is enough fentanyl to kill over 3.8 billion people.

Nearly 15 Pennsylvanians die from drug overdoses every single day. As I said earlier in the debate, in the United States, roughly 300 Americans every single day die of a fentanyl overdose.

We have also heard horror stories like the murder of Laken Riley. Laken was a 22-year-old from Georgia who was killed by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela.

Another American, Rachel Morin of Maryland, was a mother of five. She was raped and brutally murdered by an illegal from El Salvador.

Her brother, Michael, stated after her death: ``Joe Biden and his designated border czar Kamala Harris opened our borders to him and others like him empowering them to victimize the innocent.'' Yet to this day, we have not heard from Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. They never apologized.

These brutal deaths are a direct result of border czar Harris' inaction and failed policies. That is why this week House Republicans will rightfully condemn the Biden-Harris administration for their epic failure at the southern border. House Democrats, well, they will stand over there and continue to support and stand by the border czar, Vice President Harris, since they are complicit partners in this manmade disaster at our southern border. This disaster has impacted every community in our Nation.

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

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

Before I even get into my speech, the gentleman referred to Axios as this mainstream publication that referred to the Vice President as the border czar. I think he might have missed the correction that Axios issued. An editor's note here said: This article has been updated and clarified to note that Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a border czar in 2021.

I am happy to pass on the correction. Again, for the record, I think my Republican friend should stick to the facts.

Honestly, Mr. Speaker, I have to say I don't think we should even be spending a single second on this debate because this resolution is a total and complete insult to this institution.

This all started with an emergency meeting, an emergency meeting in the Rules Committee last night. An emergency. Drop everything and come to the Rules Committee. What did the Republicans bring up? Not legislation to help working Americans, not a bill to ensure the safety of our communities, not something to actually secure the southern border or fix our broken immigration system. No, no, no, none of that. They called an emergency meeting to attack Vice President Harris. That is the emergency.

They want to hold a Trump rally here in the Capitol Building. They are weaponizing Congress and using our time to produce a political attack ad. Let's set the record straight. This resolution originally called Vice President Harris Biden's border czar. Not because that was her title, but because of a lie that MAGA media outlets just made up.

The Vice President was never put in charge of the border. She was given a diplomatic role to focus on resolving some of the long-term, big-picture root causes of immigration crisis. Her job was to help give migrants options in their home countries so that fewer of them would make the journey north. Guess what? She delivered. There were

$5.2 billion in private sector commitments that will give people jobs, opportunity, and hope in their home countries. That is what leadership looks like. That is what action looks like.

Do you know what happened? Illegal border crossings just hit a 3-year low in June, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat that. Illegal border crossings currently are way down, but that is not what you will hear from the other side today. They are going to twist themselves into knots blaming everything on Kamala Harris.

However, their blame game just highlights what is going on here. Republicans don't care about fixing our immigration system. They had a chance to do something, and they blocked bipartisan progress for their own political gain. On day one in office, President Biden and Vice President Harris put forth a plan to create a fair and just immigration system. Republicans refused to act.

President Biden and Vice President Harris then worked across the aisle to put together a historic bipartisan immigration bill. Trump told Republicans to kill it, and they did. They want a crisis at the border because it helps them with their political messaging.

What do they bring to the floor instead? They bring a pointless, useless, nonbinding resolution. It has all the legislative authority of a FOX News sound bite or a Trump Truth Social rant.

We know how this is going to go. The other side is going to rant and rave about numbers. They will tell very sad stories about families that have been impacted by our broken immigration system, stories that, honestly, do break my heart. However, what Republicans will not do is actually do anything about it.

This meaningless, feckless, slanderous resolution won't help a single grieving family. It won't do a single thing to make Americans safer. Nothing. It won't strengthen our border. It won't create a better immigration system. It is just a chance for House Republicans to bash someone that they are afraid of.

They are melting down over Kamala Harris. I mean, they have completely lost their minds since she became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. They are scared. They are scared, Mr. Speaker, because she offers America something that Donald Trump could never. She offers decency, unity, and hope. I get it. I get it. Republicans are scared of the excitement surrounding her candidacy. Maybe they are afraid their nominee is too boring or won't be able to keep up. After all, he is the oldest Presidential nominee in our Nation's history. Maybe they are afraid they are going to lose.

You would think they would focus on actually passing something meaningful. They have canceled Congress next week because they are too incompetent to even pass their own appropriations bills. Three of the four funding bills were pulled this week because Republicans didn't have the votes. It really is sad because the United States Congress should be a place where we advance legislation that actually helps people, but because House Republicans are incapable of doing that, they are rallying behind this do-nothing, pathetic, purely political resolution.

Mr. Speaker, they should be embarrassed. This resolution is beneath the dignity of this institution, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up. First of all, let me set the record straight.

The original version of this resolution said that President Biden asked Vice President Kamala Harris to serve as the administration's border czar, which he did not do. Someone made it up, I think. I don't know.

After my colleagues and I pointed out that fact, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Republican side of the committee scrambled to try to find a shred of proof that, in fact, Biden actually appointed her as a border czar, and they couldn't find anything.

So, they made a frantic last-minute change to now say that Vice President Harris ``came to be known colloquially as the Biden administration's border czar.''

I mean, we caught you, but come on. This would be comical if it weren't such a monumental waste of time and taxpayer dollars, and all for a resolution that does absolutely nothing.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania went on a big rant, throwing around all kinds of numbers and identifying all kinds of problems we are faced with, and I am trying to figure out where in this four-page resolution there is anything that would do anything to solve any of the issues that he raised. There is nothing.

This is a nonbinding resolution. This will never become law. This doesn't even go to the Senate. This is like voting on a press release. I mean, what a colossal waste of time.

My Republican friends love to complain, but they don't like to do anything to fix anything, and this is the latest example. What a waste of time for this institution to have to concern itself with a glorified press release.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Scripps News titled: ``No, VP Kamala Harris was never named `border czar.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to include in the Record a Time magazine article titled: ``Kamala Harris Was Never Biden's `Border Czar.' Here's What She Really Did.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a July 17, 2024, article from The New York Times titled: ``Why Republicans Keep Calling Kamala Harris the `Border Czar.' ''

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the gentleman keeps saying, the idea that Kamala Harris is the border czar was invented by rightwing media.

Let me read to you from the article I just inserted: ``Ms. Harris was not, in fact, appointed border czar, nor was she tasked with addressing the broader problems plaguing the border itself.''

It goes on to say: ``Rather, she was deputized by President Biden with the diplomatic mission of solving the `root causes' of migration from countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, tackling the issues that spur people to flee in the first place, like drug violence and lack of economic opportunity.''

Mr. Speaker, in fact, my Republican colleagues had to change their resolution, as I mentioned, at the last minute in the Rules Committee last night because we caught them. They actually acknowledged, by changing their resolution, that President Biden never, in fact, named Vice President Harris the border czar. They changed their resolution to acknowledge the fact that ``border czar'' is a term that basically they made up.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here? Why are we doing this? We are doing this because they are afraid of the Vice President. She is drawing huge crowds. There is incredible excitement, and they are in a panic. They don't know what to do.

God forbid they bring any legislation to the floor to actually help the American people or help solve any crisis that we are faced with. Instead, a glorified press release comes to the floor so that they can rant and rave, point fingers, yell and scream, and get everybody all up in arms.

The bottom line is that this is like one of the biggest wastes of time that I can recall ever coming to this floor, and we have done a lot of things here under their leadership that I think is a waste of time.

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

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

I have an opiate problem in my district as well. This is a serious issue.

The gentleman just got on the floor and ranted and raved about the fentanyl problem. While he was going on, I was reading this bill. The word ``fentanyl'' isn't even mentioned once in this, in this press release that is useless, that does nothing. It doesn't even mention the word ``fentanyl.'' What is going on over here?

Again, the gentleman from Pennsylvania didn't answer my question. Of all the issues he raised here, where in this bill is there funding or solutions to deal with the fentanyl problem or to deal with securing the border or to provide more assistance for our border security?

There is nothing in this. This is useless. It is a press release. This is what we are spending our time on. We could probably come together and maybe figure out some concrete things we can do to save lives, so people don't die from fentanyl. We could probably come together and find some commonality to figure out ways to strengthen our border.

Let me just tell the gentleman one of the reasons why the border is the way it is and the immigration system is so messed up is because Congress has refused to act. Every time we try to get something to the floor, Republicans find a way to derail it.

Give me a break. What a waste of time. This is pathetic.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell they are afraid of the Vice President because that is all they want to talk about. They are obsessed.

Real time fact check, Mr. Speaker: This resolution does nothing to help any of the immigration problems that anyone on the other side of the aisle is talking about. There is no money, nothing, no laws, nothing. This is a press release.

I want to correct the record on Vice President Harris because what is being repeated on this floor this afternoon is totally divorced from reality.

Kamala Harris has won election after election by inspiring and uniting people. She earned her spot as Vice President the old-fashioned way, through hard work, political courage, and fighting for a better country.

That is why Republicans are afraid of her. I get why they are afraid. I get the contrast isn't great for them right now.

As a prosecutor, Kamala Harris took on perpetrators and put sexual abusers in jail, going after fraudsters who ripped off consumers and cheaters who broke the rules for their own personal gain.

As Attorney General, Kamala Harris won a $20 billion settlement for people whose homes had been foreclosed on, putting $20,000 back into the pockets of victims of unethical foreclosures.

Kamala Harris went after for-profit college scammers and forced them to return money to students and veterans that they stole from.

Kamala Harris is fighting nonstop to protect the freedom of women to make their own choice about their own bodies while Republicans want to institute Project 2025 to ban abortion nationwide.

Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act that is lowering drug costs for seniors and people with diabetes.

That is exactly why my Republicans friends are terrified. They are attacking her in the most vicious, personal, and insulting fashion.

Here are some of the quotes from some of our colleagues in Congress. These aren't rightwing media pundits. These are Members of Congress.

``One hundred percent she was a DEI hire.''

``I think she was a DEI hire. And I think that that's what we're seeing.''

Another quote: ``Democrats . . . have to stick with her because of her ethnic background.''

What is this, 1951? I knew they were trying to take us backward, but this is a new low. It is beyond offensive. We all know what this is. We all know what motivates these kinds of comments. I would say it on the floor, but I would probably have my words taken down again. Maybe they think it is easier to silence me than debate me. Maybe they are afraid of the truth.

The truth is that this resolution reeks of desperation. The truth is they want to distract from the Vice President's incredible track record of success, including the fact that she secured $5.2 billion in private-sector commitments that will go toward addressing the underlying causes of migration that push people to our southern border in the first place.

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

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

I guess the talking points from the NRCC went out, because I think the gentleman just read them to us.

The gentleman talks about H.R. 2. It got 32 votes in the Senate. They killed it. It is dead.

Then he talks about Homeland Security appropriation bills. It wasn't killed in the Senate. My Republican friends in the House killed their own bill in the House. It is dead. It didn't go anywhere. They didn't send it over to the Senate. Give me a break. Oh, my goodness.

What are we left with?

A nonbinding resolution, a nonbinding resolution that does nothing. That is the big plan, a press release. Oh--well, I am not going to say that because I will get my words taken down.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want 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 secure our border. H.R. 16 won't solve every issue, but it will address a longstanding one in our failing immigration system. It is the right thing to do, and it has the added benefit of being a bill that actually does something as compared to the resolution that we are dealing with right now.

Instead of considering the do-nothing Republican nonbinding resolution before us, which is nothing but an RNC press release, and a bad one at that, 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 into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth time House Republicans want us to vote on nearly the exact same do-nothing border resolution. The only difference is that this time they have slapped Vice President Harris' name on it because she is running against Donald Trump.

Republicans are using official government resources to settle their political scores.

Isn't it wrong to use taxpayer money for a campaign rally?

Has anyone checked with the Federal Election Commission to see if this is even allowed?

Mr. Speaker, they are using your taxpayer money to turn this place into a testing ground for RNC attack ads.

My Republican colleagues should be embarrassed by this. All they talk about is their precious H.R. 2 and Homeland Security bills.

News flash: H.R. 2 is hot garbage. It is a horrible bill that only earned 32 votes in the Senate. Even Republicans in the Senate knew it was a bad bill.

They keep saying H.R. 2 is the solution, but they don't even have the votes on their side to get it to the President.

Moreover, let's not get started on their Homeland Security funding bills. Those bills never even made it to the Senate because they didn't send them over.

The solution is to pass a bipartisan bill, but they are worried if they pass one, it actually might work. It might secure the border, and then they won't have anything to campaign on.

At the end of the day, this is all about the fact that they have no vision, only division; no ideas, only attack ads; no plans, only meaningless

resolutions that do nothing and are not worth the paper that they are printed on.

Contrast that with Kamala Harris and Democrats in terms of what we are offering, and what we are offering are real solutions, real action, and a future that guarantees every American has an opportunity to succeed.

We aren't afraid to work across the aisle to get things done for this country. Republicans offer nothing but anger, fear, and petty name- calling.

What a joke. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, if anyone thinks this resolution is a good idea, I think they might be in a cult. Get out of here with this nonsense. Go back to worshiping a convicted felon, and let us run this place like adults.

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

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

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.