Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1435) to amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the elimination of the sale of internal combustion engines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Burgess so much for the customary 30 minutes to discuss this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose today's rule. There are 8 legislative days left to fund the government, and under Republican leadership, what have we done? We passed 1, just 1, of the 12 appropriations bills necessary--1 of 12.

We were supposed to take up the rule for the Defense appropriations bill yesterday, but last evening, in a rushed meeting, we changed the rule to limit it to this single bill.

The only thing we have to show for an entire week in session is a bill that attacks States' rights and California's ability to decide for its own what regulations it wants under the Clean Air Act, as it is allowed to do under existing law and has been allowed to do for decades.

Do you know what? When Democrats were in the majority in the previous Congress, we didn't hear what we are hearing from Republicans. We did not hear Democrats saying we are going to shut it down. No. Democrats have always looked for solutions. We have not been calling to shut it down. We have always worked to work it out.

Over and over again, not just this week but over the summer, we have heard extreme MAGA Republicans voice their goal of a forced government shutdown. We need to remember that the times that we have faced a shutdown and suffered through a shutdown have been when Republican Speakers were in charge.

Remember 1995-1996, 2013, 2018? We needed to have Speaker Pelosi take charge so we could open our government back up. In the Rules Committee, we heard Republicans say: Let's shut it down.

Let's make clear that the ``it'' that is sometimes referred to is something that is not beneficial. That ``it'' are the people who make sure our food is safe. The ``it'' they want to shut down is the program that makes sure that our women, infants and children, seniors, and veterans have enough food on their table. The ``it'' are the people who serve and protect our country and our services. The ``it'' are the people who maintain our beautiful national parks and allow us to see America's wonders.

Americans don't want us to head to a goal of: We are shutting it down.

Why don't we work it out? As Ranking Member McGovern noted yesterday, the last time our government shut down, it was the longest in history due to inaction by then-President Trump and Republican majorities in the House and Senate. It cost Americans $11 billion, $3 billion permanently, and caused sizable suffering for our constituents.

We are talking about people having to take out loans all through our country. I have been visited over and over again. The auto dealers came to my chambers yesterday and talked about the repercussions that a shutdown has on their business.

People are going to have a hard time paying their mortgage, putting food on the table. But it doesn't have to be this way. The White House Democrats and Republicans negotiated a bipartisan agreement in the Fiscal Responsibility Act in June that set up the pathway to how we were going to fund the government with cuts, making sure that we kept the government funding level.

Now, a mere 3 months later they are backing out on their commitment. Extreme Republicans are blowing up our commitment to the American people. My rural district will suffer. It will suffer tremendously, as will all rural districts across this country. We need to remember rural America is the backbone of this country, and they are sacrificing it.

A shutdown could delay veterans and Social Security payments. With 8 legislative days to avoid a government shutdown, we have a bill totally unrelated to funding the government.

H.R. 1435, Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, is an attack on efforts to reduce pollution and climate change.

I have noticed that the Republicans have a habit of naming their bills to do the opposite of what the bill actually does. This legislation will remove the choice that Californians have exercised as they elect their own government and as they choose to look to how do they want to make sure they exercise their right to adopt clean air standards.

For decades, the Clean Air Act has reduced harmful air pollutants leading to fewer instances of respiratory diseases, cardiovascular problems, and other health issues. That is in part due to the law's flexibility. It allows flexibility to allow choice for California and other States to adopt strict standards.

H.R. 1435 threatens our efforts to lessen air pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. It also disrupts the U.S. vehicle market and could harm our global competitiveness and the electric vehicle market.

I will say it again, however: At a time when we have a duty to fund the government, the Republican majority is instead picking on States' rights, picking on States that want to clean up their air and fight climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I noted, the existing rule allows choice in each State. What works for California may or may not work for New Mexico or other States like New York, but that is why the Clean Air Act built in flexibility. We should allow California and those States that choose to follow their lead to continue to adopt stricter vehicle standards that work for them.

I also want to make a point that car makers make business plans several years in the future. For Congress to come in and change the setting of what is happening--because right now 75 percent of vehicles sold with low emissions are being manufactured here in America--is creating culture wars that also hurt our industry workers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record the September 13, 2023, letter from the United Auto Workers titled: ``UAW Urges to Vote NO on the So-Called Preserving Choice in the Vehicle Purchases Act.''

I remind us all that we should be funding the government this week, not attacking individual States or workers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our inspiring Speaker Emerita.

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

I truly appreciated the Speaker Emerita is leading us to think about the why and to think about the children, to think about the children and their health. We must remember that Democrats are not against consumer choices, but what we are for is consumer safety.

Should we allow consumers to choose leaded gas once again? No. Because we know what it does to our children's lungs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a July 25, 2023, letter from the American Lung Association opposing H.R. 1435.

Mr. Speaker, 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy air pollution. Our children, our elders, low- income communities, and communities of color are most at risk. The good news is, we are addressing it. The good news is, with the Chips and Science Act, we are starting to do research that will lead to even bigger and better advances in how we bring down those emissions.

With the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, we are building out the electric charging stations that we need so you can get across Minnesota, New Mexico, and everywhere in between if you choose to have an electric vehicle. That is going to be your choice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury), an amazing sister who believes in fighting for the clean air of our beautiful State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to constantly talk about what we are not doing here today. We are not talking about the appropriations bills that we need to fund our government. Maybe it is because the other side doesn't really want us to know, does not want the American public to know all of the awful things that are in those appropriations bills.

The 2024 funding bills that the Republicans wrote are so extreme, their own conference is having a hard time swallowing the devastation the drastic cuts will do in America. These bills are a direct attack on rural America, on families, our servicemembers, on our climate goals, and the list goes on.

What are some of the terrible provisions that we have reviewed in the Rules Committee that we are not talking about on the floor today?

One, inching toward a national abortion ban. In the Defense appropriations bill, they included a ban for servicemembers, women, and their families from taking paid leave or traveling to obtain an abortion or related healthcare services related to a woman's reproductive health.

If a woman is raped and wants an abortion and lives in a State where there are no exceptions, that servicewoman, who joined to serve our country, has no choice, if she lives in 1 of 14 States in this country.

They told our servicewomen that if they choose to serve our country, they will be deprived of the care they need. In the same bill, they cut $714 million for the Department of Defense climate change programs.

I need to tell you, we read into the Record the fact that it has been told that the Nation who has the advantage of addressing climate change and building resilience will have a military strategic advantage. Once again, they are taking away our military strategic advantage not just with that but refusing, the Republicans, to go ahead and allow our nomination for flag officers to serve. Over and over again in this bill, they are weakening our ability to serve and defend our country.

In the Agriculture appropriations bill, they returned funding to 2007 levels. Imagine what that kind of cut does to our rural communities, from slashing cuts for rural electric co-ops, like I have throughout my district, to making sure that our children go hungry. A mother cannot feed herself or her baby if she is cut back to 2007 levels, but that is what Republicans are prioritizing.

We are not really talking about these bills because we are not talking about funding the government, are we?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, who I am sure will address some of these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which clearly states that it is the people's House's duty to keep our promise to American workers and seniors to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and fight against any cuts to these vital programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Mr. Speaker, following up on the gentlewoman from California's comments and on the importance of looking at this industry and how it is growing, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a January 12, 2023, article.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that there are health benefits from the Clean Air Act, but there are also benefits to our manufacturing sector, as well.

H.R. 1435 completely ignores the benefits of EV production. They are completely going to be undermining the importance of manufacturing in the United States, what we need in the United States. Why would we want the industry to move to other countries when we can make it here in America?

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the reason why so many of us have stood up today in opposition to this rule and have stood up in opposition to this rule for what it does not do. It does not address the looming crisis that the extreme Republicans and, apparently, the entire Republican Conference--because they are all moving toward that. My colleagues on the other side could meet and work with us, but no. Once again, they want to shut it down.

It is our duty to govern. Under Republican leadership, we have not seen any governing happening. We have not passed the appropriations bills that America needs to keep our government open.

Would that be acceptable in any other arena? It would not be acceptable in my State of New Mexico to allow a party to actually just shut down our government. That would be reprehensible. It should be reprehensible here, as well.

The Republicans cannot escape that this is their playbook. They do it over and over again. When they hold the gavel in this House, they shut down the government.

For what? For extreme demands that we have already discussed, demands that attack women and their ability to make choices about their own reproductive healthcare in consultation with their own faith, with their own family and those they love, and not with their Congressperson but with their doctors.

For what? Because they don't want to, and they are protecting their millionaire friends and the big corporations. They do not want to make sure that they pay their fair share of taxes, so they prefer to shut down the government, a government that serves the American people in so many different ways.

Our Democratic voices that are coming to this Chamber, that are coming to the people's House from districts as diverse and beautiful as mine, know that we must bring their voices to this table, to this House, and say to keep it open and keep offering the services that protect us, that keep us safe, that make sure that our education is broad and has help where it is needed, that our Native American communities that we serve continue to receive the healthcare and law enforcement that we need, that we make sure that our Department of Justice is doing its job--because it is--and that we do all that work so our railroads are safe and our food is safe.

We must do all that work to make sure our government is kept open.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule, and 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1435.

Tens of millions of Americans battled extreme heat, flooding, and storms this summer, threatening their health, homes, and livelihoods. Last month, Hurricane Idalia became our Nation's 23rd billion-dollar weather disaster this year. That is a record, and it is only September.

The damage caused by climate change and dangerous pollution cannot be ignored, yet that is exactly what House Republicans are doing with this bill. They are, once again, doing the bidding of their corporate polluter friends at the expense of Americans' health and security and our Nation's economy.

The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous air

pollution, but, once again, Republicans want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality, even while more than 100 million Americans are right now living in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution.

Thanks to decades of innovation in the American auto industry, spurred forward by technology-driven standards, we have a large and growing fleet of cleaner, more affordable cars that benefit all Americans. These standards have helped cement the United States as a global leader in the transportation sector.

Congress carefully crafted the Clean Air Act to recognize the diverse air pollution challenges facing each State. Due to a history of severe air quality problems, the EPA can grant California waivers to set vehicle emission standards that are more protective than those at the Federal level, and other States can voluntarily adopt California's standards if they choose to do so. EPA has granted dozens of these waivers, and 17 States and the District of Columbia have followed California's lead, including my home State of New Jersey.

The law ensures that any State has the freedom to choose to adopt these stronger vehicle emission standards if it works for them. H.R. 1435 would gut that freedom of choice.

The bill directs the EPA to revoke all existing waivers and future waivers under the Clean Air Act for any California vehicle emission standards related to internal combustion engines.

This bill would turn back the clock over 50 years of both Congress and the EPA recognizing California's statutory authority to set more protective vehicle emission standards. It infringes on the rights of States like my home State of New Jersey to voluntarily adopt those standards to protect people from dangerous air pollution. This bill would also cause chaos and uncertainty for the American automotive industry by forcing the EPA to revoke waivers going all the way back to 2013.

Now, Republicans' portrayal of this bill as protecting consumer choice is completely detached from reality. This bill will discourage any manufacturing of hybrid or electric vehicles. There would be no incentives for automakers to invest in the production of hybrids and EVs, and they would simply not be available as a cleaner and cheaper choice. The bill blocks any State's ability to break free from the grip of Big Oil.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: Nobody is taking away your gas-powered vehicle. Republicans are fear-mongering in a deliberate effort to mislead the American people. The truth is, Republicans are trying to legislate away years of American innovation in cleaner transportation in yet another attempt to do the bidding of their Big Oil friends. They are once again putting polluters over people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin).

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

I hear the Republicans constantly talk about choice, a choice of vehicles. Let me just stress again that nobody is taking away your gas- powered vehicle.

We are actually providing you the choice, and the States that are adopting the California standards are providing you a choice of vehicles because if you pass this bill, then you are basically insisting that people have to have gas-powered vehicles because nobody's going to develop EVs.

The fact of the matter is, contrary to my colleague from Indiana's remarks, people are buying EVs, more people than ever. Even Republicans are buying electric vehicles.

This bill will discourage any manufacturing of hybrid or electric vehicles because there will be no incentives for the automakers to invest in the production of hybrids or EVs, and they would simply not be available.

People won't have a choice of a cleaner car either because of better emission standards if it is gas powered or because they might want to buy a hybrid or an EV.

The other argument that is being made here is about China, and I have to dispute that, as well. Republicans are making the claim that this bill protects America from playing into China's hands. I totally disagree.

Basically, Republicans think that China is leading in the EV space. Rather than relying on American industry and American ingenuity to compete with China, Republicans think we should step aside. They basically say we will just stand down.

While the global demand and the American demand for EVs is rising, if we don't compete, China benefits. If we step back, China ends up controlling all the supply chains.

Democrats aren't denying that China is very active in this space and controls a lot of the existing supply chains for electric vehicles, but rather than ceding more ground, we are investing in America's ability to compete. We are investing in domestic battery manufacturing, creating jobs here and reducing our dependence on foreign supply chains.

Republicans are operating under the assumption that by stepping away from electric vehicles, China's dominance in the space disappears. That is nonsense. In reality, it means that the growing global demand for electric vehicles will be met by China, and American progress and competitiveness just recedes.

One of my colleagues--I think it was Mr. Peters--said that the Republicans are stuck in the past. That is exactly the problem here. They don't understand that the auto industry is innovating. The auto industry has been creating gas-powered cars with less emissions.

The auto industry is creating EVs here. Let them flower. Let them do what they can so, ultimately, we are in charge of manufacturing these vehicles so that Americans buy and the rest of the world buys our electric vehicles.

Don't let China continue to dominate the market. That is what this bill will do.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. I don't have much time left.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time because I have very little time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on both sides again?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear again. Nobody is taking away your gas-powered vehicles. If this bill were to become law, there would be no choice because the United States would not build electric vehicles and we would fall further and further behind China.

The Republicans are trying to legislate away years of American innovation and cleaner transportation in yet another attempt to do the bidding of their Big Oil friends. They are once again putting polluters over people.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 681 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 681, providing for consideration of

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

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

On the subject of paying taxes, I do hope the special prosecutor is successful in ensuring that the President's family pays their fair share in taxes. I know that is an ongoing issue before the courts now.

Mr. Speaker, according to a Stanford University study, California will need to triple its electricity supply just to fuel all the additional electric vehicles on the road as a result of the ban on gas and diesel vehicle sales. The grid expansion alone is going to cost Californians at least $75 billion in higher electric rates.

I want to reference a document prepared by the Committee on Energy and Commerce because, obviously, that committee was responsible for our underlying bill, and their discussion on electric vehicle mandates, on how they are unaffordable and impractical.

The majority of vehicles, 95 percent on the road today, run on internal combustion engines. Electric vehicles are still too expensive for many Americans. I would reference that, basically, these are subsidized toys for rich people.

The average transaction price of an electric vehicle was $17,000 more than a gas-powered vehicle in 2022. Gas-powered vehicles continue to outperform EVs with significantly higher ranges and greater towing capacity, and they are less susceptible to issues caused by severe weather conditions.

Electric vehicles lose 40 percent of their range in cold weather. We are going to put all of our kids on electric schoolbuses in northern States in wintertime and hope they get to their destination okay. If they don't, the bus is not going to have enough power to keep the children warm until they get a rescue vehicle out there.

The lack of vehicle charging infrastructure in many parts of the country, especially rural areas, makes electric vehicles impractical. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of Energy for so eloquently demonstrating that fact last week.

Rampant EV expansion could overwhelm the electric grid and compromise grid reliability, which would result in blackouts and other issues.

We had a really hot summer in Texas. It made the newspapers in several locations. Good news--solar energy did supply the grid with a lot of solar power.

Here is a news flash for you, and you can't make this stuff up. The Sun goes down every night. Just when everyone is getting home and plugging in their electric vehicles, or maybe their electric schoolbuses, and they come in the back door and: Oh, my gosh, this house is hotter than Hades. Crank up the AC, and guess what? The Sun set. Solar power is offline. The grid can't handle it. That is a dangerous situation.

Finally, as the gentleman from Minnesota pointed out to us so eloquently, China controls the vast majority of the mining, processing, and manufacturing of critical minerals for electric vehicles, including 75 percent of lithium-ion batteries, as well as the processing and refining capacity for over half of the world's lithium, cobalt, and graphite. The administration unwisely prohibited mining in the northern range of Minnesota, so the administration was all too eager to go to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and employ child slave labor in order to get those critical elements.

I thank my fellow members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for bringing us this important piece of legislation to begin to roll back some of the damage that President Biden has placed on the middle class.

I don't know why this administration has declared war on the middle class, but they have, and it has been, unfortunately, readily apparent every day since Inauguration Day 2021.

Republicans remain united in pursuing a legislative agenda that puts the welfare of the American people above the special interests of a few.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and support the underlying legislation.

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

An Amendment to H. Res. 681 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of

Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social

Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening

motion or demand for division of the question except one

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and

Means or their respective designees.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Res. 178.

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