H.Res. 730

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 730 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 very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, 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 on House Resolution 730.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 730, providing for the consideration of H.R. 5692, the Ukraine Security Assistance and Oversight Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024, under a closed rule.

It provides 30 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and it provides for one motion to recommit.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in order to support that rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, although I know my friends in the minority will express some consternation about today's rule, it sets up a discussion that I think is important to have.

The rule takes $300 million in funds intended to support Ukraine out of the current Defense appropriations process. It then makes in order a separate vote on those funds through H.R. 5692.

The bill also creates a special inspector general for Ukraine assistance, ensuring that American dollars going to Ukraine receive appropriate oversight and supervision.

Now, as my friends across the aisle are well aware, there is no mystery about how I will vote on this question. Ukraine has been and remains the victim of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked, unjust, and illegal invasion of his neighbor to the West. I firmly support continuing to provide funding to Ukraine so that they can continue to resist that invasion. It is not only in America's national interests to do so, but it is also the right thing to do.

For other Members of the House and for their constituents, a vote on funding for Ukraine is a matter of conscience. Shifting these funds out of the Defense appropriations process and into a separate bill allows those Members for whom there is a question of conscience to vote to support our troops through an otherwise robust Defense appropriations bill while also allowing all Members to vote separately on providing funding to Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, it is never a bad thing to have all Members of the House take a vote on a question. It is especially helpful in this instance to give all Members the chance to be heard.

Some of my Republican colleagues are supportive of the overall Defense appropriations bill but want to vote separately on Ukraine. Conversely, the vast majority of my friends across the aisle support funding for Ukraine but are opposed to the Defense appropriations bill. Voting on this issue separately through H.R. 5692 gives everyone a chance to be recorded on this important topic.

This resolution does something else that I think is very important. It sets up a debate about American policy toward Ukraine. This is a very valuable discussion to have, Mr. Speaker, and one that the American people would assuredly benefit from.

A debate on American policy toward Ukraine is important. It would help answer certain key questions that Americans are asking, such as: What is America's overall strategy? How are funds being used in Ukraine? What oversight policies are in place?

President Biden has never given a formal address to the American people outlining America's overall strategy with respect to Ukraine, but that does not mean the House cannot have such a discussion. In fact, the opposite is true. The Biden administration's failure to adequately explain to the American people what our overall strategy is means that it is imperative for the House to discuss the topic on the House floor.

Today's rule will give the House and, more importantly, the American people just that opportunity. We can have an open and honest discussion about American policy toward Ukraine and about American dollars supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. When the debate is over, all Members of the House will have the opportunity to vote on this important question.

I am confident that, at the end of the day, the House will pass this measure to appropriate these funds to support Ukraine. The only difference will be that we had a full, open, and honest debate about it on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support both the rule and the underlying measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reminding my friend that, again, we agree on this issue. We both feel strongly in support of Ukraine. I know my friend will vote accordingly. So will I.

The reality is, this measure actually makes it more likely that Ukraine will get support, not less likely. As a part of the Defense bill, that bill may or may not pass. My friends are united in their opposition against that bill for a variety of reasons. That is certainly their right, but they actually do support this particular measure almost unanimously. Why not take it out of a bill that may or may not pass the floor and have a separate vote?

My friends will actually be able to vote to move forward something they agree with and, quite frankly, something the majority of my Conference agrees with. I don't see how this imperils Ukrainian funding. It makes it almost certain.

Moreover, I do believe discussion on this floor has considerable merit on this issue. The reality is that we haven't had that discussion, and it is time we did. I wished the President, who I happen to support in this instance--I don't support every nuance of his policy. I think he was too slow to commit here, too slow to get aid there. He has been unclear about what the final objectives of this exercise are, an exercise I remind everyone is extraordinarily expensive. It is over $100 billion invested and a request for more. I wish the President would do that. The House is going to endeavor to do that, at least to some degree, through this discussion.

Again, I think it is important to note that if you support Ukraine, you should support this measure because my friends, who I know sincerely do support that effort, are going to almost and probably unanimously oppose the Defense bill in which it is contained.

Why in the world would they be upset because we take it out, put it on its own, make it more likely to pass, and, frankly, do what we are supposed to do around here, which is actually let every American see how his or her Member of Congress votes on this issue and how they choose to defend it. I just simply think it is the appropriate way to go.

Now, I will be candid with my friend, as I always try to be. It also helps us pass the Defense bill. We have some people, because they feel very strongly about this particular issue, who might

not vote for the Defense bill that otherwise will. I am not going to apologize because we strengthen our ability to actually move an important piece of legislation through. The one thing we do, and it is really not disputable, is we increase the chances that Ukraine will get at least this $300 million of additional training aid that I think they ought to get and that my friends agree with.

Having one more vote on the House floor, particularly at a time when we are having so many, does not seem to me to be a high price to pay.

Mr. Speaker, let me quickly address one other point that my friend made. He talked about an imminent shutdown. We are coming close, and my friend is absolutely correct in that. I do remind him that the Rules Committee passed a measure roughly a week ago, I believe, that actually is an amendment that would continue funding the government while we work out our motions. That amendment can come out of the Rules Committee. It can be placed on the floor at whatever time the Speaker and the leadership of the majority choose to do that. There are vehicles in place to act.

I also remind my friend that the United States Senate is doing the same thing. I would prefer that we not get as close to the deadline as we are, but we are here. It is not as if nothing is being done and time in other areas is being wasted.

I suspect we will have a vote relatively soon on continuing to support the government. It may or may not pass. I suspect the United States Senate will have a similar vote. I suspect that one probably will pass and move to this Chamber.

The idea that nothing is being done while trivialities are being debated, I dismiss that out of hand. I don't think that is the truth.

Those issues are coming to a head right now, but again, I end once more with the obvious point: If you care about Ukraine, you ought to be voting for this measure. I will. I know my friends almost unanimously will, and that will ensure that that important funding moves forward. We have a fuller debate on the House floor about American objectives, goals, the price tag associated with that.

I think these are all good things, all things where the House is actually doing the right thing and, frankly, where I think the majority is giving the minority an opportunity to move forward, something I know they feel passionate about. I share that passion, and many on our side do, too.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, which makes this possible, and the underlying resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address two points, one that my friend from Massachusetts made about the potential of a government shutdown.

As my friend knows, because we have spent a lot of time together, particularly recently, I am very much opposed to a government shutdown. I am pleased we have a vehicle out of the Rules Committee to address that. It is not up to me to decide when it comes to the floor, but there is one prepared, and hopefully, we will have an opportunity to vote on this.

I remind my friends that during the debt ceiling crisis, they said, oh, my gosh, we will never get out of this without defaulting on the debt. My gosh, it is the end of the world.

What did the House do?

It actually passed its bill and had a negotiating position and sat down with the Senate and the administration and negotiated a settlement. Some like it. Some don't like it. It is like anything around here in divided government, it is a compromise. The reality is that we moved and acted before the deadline. We have that ability, and I suspect we will do that before the deadline.

I also remind my friends--and again, I think they would agree with this--the United States Senate is moving and will present a vehicle. We may be in a negotiating position. They, by the way, never passed anything on the debt ceiling on their own. They waited to have a negotiating position from the House and then finally woke up and sat down with us. They never moved their own vehicle.

This is normal legislative process. That is an important question, but I agree with my friends about the virtue of a shutdown. I think that is actually the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of the House on both sides of the aisle.

We have got something working on that. The Senate has something, and we will see how that plays out over the next few days.

In terms of this measure, I am mystified by my friend's position. They are overwhelmingly in favor of support for Ukraine. I share that position, as does the majority of my side of the aisle.

Right now, $300 million of that support is embedded in a defense bill that they themselves will oppose unanimously, and we may or may not get everybody on our side. The reality is, it is a very narrow majority. People can have a different opinion, and we might or might not be able to pass it, but they support that particular measure almost uniformly.

Now when we take it out and say, here is something you support and the majority of us support, why don't we not risk this in a bill that could go either way?

Why don't we just advance this portion of it? That somehow is a problem?

I actually see it as something that ensures this particular issue will almost certainly move through the House. Moreover, I think it ensures a more robust discussion and an education on this important measure.

The reality is, it is hard for the average American to follow this. We have not had a Presidential address laying out the goals, the reasons, and the strategy for this. I think more discussion about Ukraine on the House floor would be helpful, not unhelpful, particularly when I think the majority in the Chamber would very strongly come out in support.

I don't see this in any way as somehow damaging our ability. Rather, it sort of clarifies our opinion on this issue in a very narrowly divided House. I think that is a good thing. I am not going to apologize, quite frankly, if this helps us get another couple of votes on a defense bill that I think is a good defense bill and a move toward a conference with the Senate on the appropriations front--that is all to the good. I don't have any problem with that.

If I can remove somebody's moral objection or concern and give them an opportunity to express their opinion, whether I agree with it or not, and recruit additional support, I think that is just smart politics and good procedure.

More importantly, I want to reemphasize that if you care about Ukraine, you should like this. You should say: Gosh, let's at least make sure that training money is going to get there. I won't have to vote against a bill that contains a measure I support. That measure has got to be taken out. I can support that measure and still oppose the bill if I want to. At least this thing that I care about deeply is actually going to be passed.

I think that is a prudent way to proceed. I think it is the right thing to do for Ukraine. I look forward at that time and that vote to actually voting with my friends on that measure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I didn't particularly come down here to discuss the border, but I am delighted to discuss the border. I am glad my friends are finally interested in the border.

We have watched for 2 years as this administration has turned a green light on the border and has dramatically escalated the crossings. The border has been the biggest single disaster of an administration that, frankly, has been a failure in many different areas. The border, incontestably, is a problem that is created by the administration, owned by the administration, and my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle that actually have presided over this mess.

As a matter of fact, when we bring something onto the floor to keep the government open, I suspect there will be a border measure attached to it. My friends could then eagerly embrace that and actually do something to help on the border, a place where they fought us on, H.R. 2, our border security bill, where they have done nothing but support the administration that has engineered this incredible crisis.

I remind my friends that former Democratic Secretary of Homeland Security, who I admire a lot, Jeh Johnson, was once asked: What constitutes a crisis at the border?

A thousand illegal entries a day.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday that number was 10,000-11,000. Have my friends done anything about it? No.

We will probably put something on this floor pretty quickly, we already have with H.R. 2. You didn't vote for that. We will now give you an opportunity to both keep the government open and vote for border security. You should be happy about that. If you want to talk about the border, we will do it all day long on our side of the aisle.

Finally, with all due respect to my friends, you are not going to support the defense bill. I don't have any problem with that. That is your right. You have some concerns. You have some criticisms.

You are going to support--you do support aid for Ukraine, so we take it out and we put it out there. This is something you can support. The majority of our Members support it, too, but we have some that certainly do not and are vocal in that opposition. Why don't we make sure this gets through?

I am just mystified that this is somehow a problem. We guarantee you something you want is going to pass the House and you are upset about it.

You can express your displeasure in whatever way you want. I suspect when the deal is here, the measure is on the floor, you will actually vote for it. I will be happy and proud to vote with my friends on that because on this issue I share their point of view.

As somebody who supports Ukraine, I think it is a good thing to make sure this portion is going to pass for sure, this portion is going to be visible to the world. There is strong bipartisan support and we can move on.

Finally, I will just go back to the shutdown discussion. If we are going to have that discussion, I suspect it will be in the next day or two. They are having it in the United States Senate. Let's see how that plays out.

I do remember my friends telling me the sky was falling on the debt ceiling, but it didn't exactly happen that way. Once the House actually passed something, it triggered a serious discussion, and it actually got the Senate--which had done nothing--to actually act and sit down. We bargained the position, and we got it through. Not everybody on my side of the aisle agreed with that. Not everybody on my friends' side agreed with it, but it got done.

I see the same process, I hope, working out now. On this one, at least, why don't we make sure we take care of this particular piece of Ukraine funding. I am sure at some point in the not too distant future we will have a discussion about a larger supplemental, and I look forward to that particular debate and discussion.

Please don't be upset because we are giving you what you want in this area and ensuring that it actually passes and are trying to work with you on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, we have talked a little bit about the border, which we are always delighted to talk about. We are happy to see our friends interested in it because they have been so uninterested.

I appreciate what Leader McConnell in the Senate had to say about it. Frankly, it would help anything that he sends over here in terms of keeping the government open to actually put some border security measures in that particular piece of legislation. I understand there is some consideration about that in the Senate. I would encourage the Senate to do that. I think that would be a good thing.

Again, the reality is my friends haven't cared about the border. We are going to try to give them a couple opportunities here in the coming days to show us that they do because the policies they have pursued and supported and this administration have advanced have been a disaster. You know it, I know it, we know it.

There are 70,000 dead Americans thanks to the fentanyl flow. There are tens of thousands of children that have been illegally trafficked across the border. Many border agents will tell you we don't have operational control on the border.

The other side doesn't want to do anything about that. If we are going to put it in a measure to keep the government open, you know, then maybe they will vote for that. We are going to hopefully give them that opportunity. Again, we would encourage our friends in the Senate, a Democratically-controlled Senate, to be fair, that have not done anything about the border, they have not taken up any legislation, maybe they will finally do something. That is part of the frustration over here.

I have, frankly, great admiration and respect for the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith). I think he is one of the best legislators in this Chamber. I just disagree. The reality is, none of the Members on the other side are going to vote for the Defense bill that this money is in. What kind of message will that send overseas?

If they bring down the bill with Ukrainian support--and they are going to vote against it unanimously--that is a great message: We are for Ukraine, but we are not for the vehicle that has Ukrainian support and the defense of the United States? That is their choice. They disagree with the bill, I get it. That is fair. Now they are concerned because we actually put it in a format that they can vote for and that it will pass with an overwhelming majority? That mystifies me. That is just bizarre to me.

If they are worried about Russian propaganda, the reality is when and if--and I hope they do not, but if they manage to bring down the Defense bill with Ukrainian money in it, do they think Russian propaganda will say, oh, well, gosh, that is okay, we won't say anything about that--of course they will--and Democratic Members will have voted to do it. We are offering an opportunity here to actually make sure the money moves through the legislative process. I think it is an incredibly fair thing to do.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have had a robust debate on the border

and on keeping the government open. The reality here is, we ought to do this for Ukraine, we ought to make sure the money is going to be set aside and move forward with a bipartisan majority. I look forward to voting for that. I suspect my friends will certainly oppose the rule. However, when that legislation comes down here, I bet they all vote for it. I hope they do, and I am going to encourage them to do that.

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

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

I certainly want to begin by returning my respect to my good friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

We argue, fight, disagree, but I know we have great respect for one another. I certainly do for my friend. I have great personal affection for him.

When we disagree, the tone might go up a little bit, but we remain good friends. The reality is that we have a good working relationship, one which I treasure.

I will say, on this one, I didn't come here particularly to talk about the shutdown, but let's wait and see what happens.

This has nothing to do with the shutdown, absolutely nothing. There is nothing saying: Beat this rule to say where you stand on the shutdown.

They don't connect. This rule is about something else. It is about Ukrainian aid, and frankly, it is also about enhancing the prospect that the Defense appropriations bill will actually pass this body.

I think that if you look at what this does, it enhances the chance that Ukraine aid will survive, no matter what.

My friends care about that. They are going to vote against a Defense bill where the current money is. They are going to vote against it, every one of them. It is their right to do that.

They have disagreements with other parts of the bill, so we took a part of the bill they like and put it out on its own.

We are going to get a bipartisan vote on it. I think that is a good thing. I think that is something that should be celebrated.

I think Congress will have a chance to make a strong statement about Ukraine. I will actually be voting with my friends on the substance of the bill.

That will probably be lost in the debate over the rule, but the reality is that we will be on the same side. That is because we have the same view of the issue. I think that is a very good thing.

I think more discussion about Ukraine in the Congress of the United States is a very good thing because I think we have some profound differences on our side of the aisle about the merits of this.

I actually agree more with my friends, but I want to have the American people more involved in the debate. Sadly, the administration has really not done that very effectively. They have been afraid for the President to address the issue, for whatever reason. He ought to lay out our goals, lay out our timelines, lay out the resources he thinks we need to be committed.

I give him the benefit of the doubt. I think a war is pretty hard to plan and lay out. It is not like you are building a bridge and you know where you start, where you end, what you need. War is a contest of wills.

To the President, my free advice would be that it is time for you to talk to the American people and get them more deeply engaged in a project that you and I happen to agree on. We need you to use the bully pulpit more effectively than you have.

In the meantime, let's do what we can in the House of Representatives to educate people on this particular issue.

Again, I remind my friends, on the government shutdown issue, we are probably going to put something on the floor and give you a chance to help on the border because you seem so anxious to do it.

We certainly hope that Senator McConnell--and I know he is working in good faith; I have great respect for Senator McConnell--adds some border security to whatever the Senate does.

I hope we do what we did on the debt ceiling: Sit down, negotiate, find some common elements.

I thank my friend for reading all the Republicans that think a government shutdown is a bad idea. He probably didn't know that the Speaker thinks that, too. Most of us on our side do.

How you avoid that, how you fund the government, what other things you do, is another matter entirely. We are working on that, and we will see how the weekend goes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I once again thank my friend for a robust debate. I look forward to working with him on the Ukrainian issue on a variety of fronts going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my friends who care about Ukraine to look at the Defense bill, as well. It needs to pass. If you are worried about $300 million, it is a lot more important to pass an $880 billion bill that defends our country and puts us in a position to defend liberty. Do that and you will help Ukraine, and we can help them separately with these funds.

I will work with my friends on the supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in 57 hours, this government will shut down. Federal workers will be sent home. Members of the Armed Forces will defend our country without pay. Programs that feed hungry moms and newborns will stop. Travelers will face airport delays. Critical research on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's will grind to a halt.

You would think that last night, when the Rules Committee held an emergency meeting, that it would be on stopping the shutdown. That is the actual emergency, Mr. Speaker, that is facing our country. You would be wrong. Instead of a bipartisan CR that can pass, we are back at the eleventh hour to amend a rule, the first rule this majority passed in weeks, because, once again, Speaker McCarthy is letting extreme MAGA Republicans blackmail him.

What we are doing here is absurd. This assistance for Ukraine has been in the Defense bill for years, well before the latest invasion by Russia. This isn't even the Ukraine funding that President Zelenskyy asked for or the funding the administration requested. This shouldn't be controversial.

First, it was in the bill, then it wasn't, then it was. Then, yesterday, we had a standalone vote on Ukraine funding, and the House voted overwhelmingly, 339-93, a majority of the majority, an overwhelming vote against stripping the Ukraine assistance in this bill.

Instead of accepting that loss, extreme MAGA Republicans are blackmailing Kevin McCarthy. Here we are, rigging the rules to undo that vote.

They want to overturn the will of this House. They refuse to accept the fact that they lost. What is it with Republicans refusing to accept when they lose? Why can't you accept a loss? Why can't you respect the vote?

I guess there is a pattern here. We saw it when they didn't want to accept the Presidential election. Here on the House floor, we see when extreme MAGA, rightwing Republicans don't get their way, when they lose overwhelmingly, they can't accept a loss. They go to the Rules Committee and say: Rig the process.

Did Trump call them and tell them to do this? I mean, this is so unbelievably wrong.

The gentleman from Oklahoma has said some Members have very strong moral objections to assisting Ukraine. Okay. I have strong moral objections to the billions and billions of dollars of blank checks that were given to the Pentagon.

I have strong moral objections to the fact that we refuse to ban the transfer of cluster munitions to other countries around the world, but guess what? It is our job as Members of Congress to weigh the pros and cons and vote yes or no. If people do not want to make those tough decisions, don't run for Congress.

I appreciate that the gentleman from Oklahoma voted for and supports giving Ukraine the tools they need to defend themselves, but what the gentleman is doing here is making it exponentially more likely that this Ukraine funding will not become law.

Because if this doesn't make a difference, if these bills are moving together and this is all just about giving people yet another chance to vote on something they already voted on, what is the point?

The rule provides 30 minutes of debate on this sidecar Ukraine funding bill, 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side. What a debate that is going to be.

I will tell you what the point of all of this is. Let me read you the words of our colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene when she left the Republican Conference meeting this morning. She told the reporter: ``We are not funding Ukraine. That is what I heard in there.''

Let me inform the gentlewoman: We all had a chance to vote our conscience, up or down. Those who voted to strike Ukraine aid can go home and tell their constituents that they voted to strike Ukraine aid. It is not that complicated.

What concerns many of us is the signal these extreme MAGA Republicans are sending to Putin. Putin is an authoritarian thug. What he is doing in Ukraine is sick. His troops are shelling nuclear power plants, killing civilians, bombing hospitals, abducting women, massacring people. My MAGA colleagues want to send him a message, and that message is: Just hold on a little longer. Wait a little longer and you can do whatever you want.

This House had a vote, and we are here to overturn it, all because Speaker McCarthy is letting extreme MAGA Republicans blackmail him because he cares more about keeping his job than doing his job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my good friend from Oklahoma, and he knows I have great affection for him, but I am dizzy from all the spin, quite frankly.

First, about the CR, what we know is that what may or may not pass in the House, based on the fact that the Freedom Caucus seems to be calling the shots, will never pass the Senate. We know whatever will come out of the Rules Committee in the next 24 hours or 48 hours or whatever, if anything, if ever, will not be able to get the votes not just amongst Democrats but amongst Republicans in the Senate.

Secondly, we do know that the Senate is working in a bipartisan way. They already have clotured and moved forward with the process to bring up a CR, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, but we know what they pass would pass this House if put on the floor. The reason why this government will, in all likelihood, shut down is because the Speaker of the House is so beholden to a small group of the most extreme Members that he won't put that on the floor. He will rig it so that we do not have a chance to be able to vote on it. That is how this government will shut down.

My good friend talks about how this is really no big deal. It is just another vote, and everybody should be happy, but let me ask, if this were good for Ukraine and Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia's illegal war, then why would members of the pro-Putin caucus even agree to this? If everyone genuinely thought there was no difference between keeping the funding in the Defense bill and moving it separately, why insist on all of this?

The answer is really simple: Republicans who seem to be enamored with Putin want this funding sent separately to the Senate because they know that is their best shot to prevent this money from going to Ukraine at all.

In fact, when Marjorie Taylor Greene left the Republican Conference meeting this morning--I quoted her already, but I will quote it again. She said: ``We are not funding Ukraine. That is what I heard in there.''

Plus, we all know that there are Senators like Rand Paul and Tommy Tuberville who will block a separate Ukraine funding bill from moving forward. They are actively preventing the Senate from completing its work as we speak. This is not a flaw in the sidecar plan. It is a main feature and a goal.

Let's be clear. This funding that we are talking about here is longstanding security assistance. It has been in the Defense bill for years, even before Putin invaded Ukraine. This is not the supplemental funding that President Zelenskyy requested when he met with Speaker McCarthy last week. This is not the supplemental funding the administration requested in their emergency funding request. It is not the supplemental funding that the Senate is trying to put in their bipartisan CR.

Spare me the argument that somehow this is a good thing and gives everybody a chance for their voice to be heard on this topic. If everybody wanted their voice to be heard on this topic, you would have speaker after speaker right now speaking on this bill and speaking about their concerns about our Ukraine policy. There is no one over there.

Let's all be real about what is happening. The House already had its voice heard, and it overwhelmingly voted to support funding in the Defense bill, a three-fourths majority. You can't get that many people to agree on lunch in this place, and it is a majority of your majority. The pro-Putin extremists didn't like the outcome, so they talked the Speaker into rigging the vote. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to offer the House the opportunity to demonstrate for a third time that we stand by Ukraine in their time of need, and I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment that would strike the provision of the rule eliminating security assistance funding for Ukraine.

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 Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) to discuss this proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but great affection for the gentleman from Oklahoma, but we have to deal with the reality that we are now living in.

This quote from Minority Leader McConnell was just tweeted out today with a message to the House Republicans on how a shutdown would impact the border. Mr. McConnell says: ``Shutting down the government is a choice, and it is a choice that would make the crisis at the southern border even worse.''

He says it is a choice because he sees what is happening here. He sees that the Republicans in this Chamber have made a choice to shut the government down. We didn't hear anything today about the border, but yesterday or the day before we did hear a lot about the border. Senator McConnell says that it would make the crisis at our southern border even worse.

He is concerned. He is the Republican leader in the Senate. He is concerned by the action of the Republicans in this House. He sees that a small group of Republicans are calling the shots. They don't even represent the majority of the majority here. It is really quite extraordinary that we are at this moment.

Rather than moving in a direction where we can get a bipartisan CR passed in both the House and the Senate and one that will be signed by the President, my Republican friends in the House are going in the wrong direction. We are running out of time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Democrats were sounding the alarm bells over the debt ceiling issue because our credit was actually downgraded. That is not a good thing. After we got a deal, which thank God we did, the extreme MAGA Republicans blackmailed the Speaker of the House into not respecting that deal. We have a problem right now.

I should also point out that we had a long discussion on the border, and I am still puzzled why you are bringing a Homeland Security appropriations bill to the floor that actually cuts funding for border security. I don't quite get that.

You added a provision that says that if you pass an appropriations bill on Homeland Security, it is kept at the desk, and it can't go to the Senate for a vote unless this crazy bill, H.R. 2, is passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President, without even changing a comma. I don't know what brilliant legislative mind thought that up. The bottom line is, this is not serious.

Let me again read a quote from Senator McConnell. He said: A vote against a standard short-term funding measure is a vote against paying over $1 billion in salary for CBP and ICE agents.

I don't know how my Republican friends are going to defend the border. Maybe with volunteers. Come on; I mean, at some point we have to get serious.

Let me also just say--and, again, you can't make this stuff up-- Republicans are holding their first impeachment hearing today with just hours to go until a shutdown.

What is wrong with them?

Breaking news indicates it was a failure. The hearing was a total failure. Republican staffers are telling reporters that it was, ``an unmitigated disaster.''

Another GOP staffer says, ``Comer has lost control.''

Another GOP person said, ``Comer botched this bad.''

This was supposed to be their big bombshell, and it was a total dud. Not a single one of their witnesses could come up with a shred of evidence against the President.

Let's see what they said. Their lead witness, Jonathan Turley, who they roll out every chance they can, was on FOX News constantly, said: I do not believe that the current evidence would support Articles of Impeachment. That is their star witness.

Their other lead witness, Bruce Dubinsky, said: I am not here today to even suggest that there was corruption, fraud, or any wrongdoing.

The list of Members on the other side saying this impeachment inquiry is a sham is getting longer and longer by the hour, and the clock keeps ticking toward a shutdown. Instead of a bipartisan CR that can pass, here we are wasting time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from The Daily Beast, ``Star GOP Witness Immediately Pours Cold Water on Biden Impeachment.''

Again, the gentleman mentioned what is wrong with sending this separate bill to the Senate. I thought I explained that. Let me explain it in two words: Paul and Tuberville. I mean, these Senators are unhinged. Tuberville is holding up military promotions and Paul delays everything. We see that he is trying to delay Senate consideration on the CR.

Sending this over and expecting that there is quick action? I mean, we all know what is going to happen, and we all know that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who insisted on this, did so because they think they have a better chance of derailing everything.

I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that nobody put their name on this amendment. I don't know whose idea this was. I don't know who the author of this particular provision is to strip out Ukraine money, but anyway, that is a mystery that we will have to try to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker.

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

First of all, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. I think he did the best job he could defending this. He is very skillful in utilizing the English language. I always appreciate listening to him on these matters, but we all know what this is really about.

We all had a chance to vote our conscience up or down. Those who voted to strike Ukraine aid can go home and tell their constituents they voted to strike Ukraine's aid. It is not that complicated.

The fact of the matter is, Republicans have not done a single productive thing this week. They passed only one appropriations bill all year, and they are sitting here wasting time while the clock runs out.

It is not just me saying that. Listen to our Republican colleagues. Listen to Mike Lawler. He said, ``This is not conservative Republicanism. This is stupidity, the idea we are going to shut the government down when we don't control the Senate, we don't control the White House. If the clown show of colleagues that refuse to actually govern does not want to pass a CR, I will do everything we need to do to make sure a CR passes.''

Congressman Marc Molinaro says, ``The goal here is to avert a shutdown.'' Guess what? This procedural vote is his chance to stand up and show the extremists. Instead of wasting our time in the clown show, vote against this rule.

Congressman Anthony D'Esposito says he is ready to explore each and every option possible to make sure that we don't shut the government down. If Mr. D'Esposito is watching, vote against this rule.

Congressman Dusty Johnson says, ``The government should not shut down. That would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do.'' Well, I agree. He should vote down this rule so we can get to work on preventing a shutdown.

I am going to say directly to all of my colleagues, this vote is their chance to end the clown show. The only thing that matters around here is their votes. Everything else is BS. Maybe they should focus less on getting quotes and more on how they vote. Vote against this clown show. Vote against this rule.

By the way, it works. It works for the Freedom Caucus and for the most extreme elements of this Chamber. They vote down rules, and they get these crazy things put into rules. They get everything they want. It is enough of the talk. If there are moderate Republicans out there who do not want this government to shut down, now is the time to put their vote where their rhetoric is. Enough of the talk. We need action.

Finally, let me say to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the chairman said 5 days ago, ``We will see how this week unfolds.'' Well, this week has unfolded, and the Republican Party is still at war with itself. We are still no closer to avoiding a shutdown.

What is happening here is so painfully transparent to anyone that is watching. It is because all Kevin McCarthy seems to care about is keeping his job. He should care about what a shutdown would do to his constituents, but he doesn't. He appears to care more about keeping his job than doing his job.

As I said last night, and I will say again, calling Republican leadership a clown show is doing a disservice to actual working clowns. This process is one of the most rotten, corrupt, rigged things I have seen in all my time here. Shame on the Speaker. I have never seen anything like this: Using the rules to overturn a democratic vote on the House floor. Again, the vote was 339-93. 339-93. I mean, we don't get votes like that around here. Yet, one Member--we don't even know who is responsible for the language that we are dealing with here today. No one put their name on it, but this is awful, and I strongly reject this whole process.

I again make an appeal to the moderate Republicans, if there are any out there, you know, stand with us, show us with their vote that they want things to change now, that they do not want a shutdown. Vote down this sham rule and force the leadership to go back up to the Rules Committee and do what they should have done a long time ago, work on a CR that can get a bipartisan vote in the House, a bipartisan vote in the Senate, and we can avoid a shutdown, and we can prevent a lot of misery for millions and millions of people in this country.

Shutdowns, contrary to what you hear by many on the other side of the aisle, are a bad thing. It represents a failure of this institution to do its most basic job, and that is keep the lights on. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

The Speaker and this House have catered to the extreme right again because they refuse to write a Defense bill that can get bipartisan support. So, here we are again, debating Ukraine security assistance.

As I said during the rules debate, we debated this funding twice yesterday. The Biggs amendment was rejected by the House by a vote of 104-330, and the Gaetz amendment was rejected by this House 93-339.

We debated this. This House considered similar amendments in the National Defense Authorization Act earlier this summer. At that time, the Greene amendment was rejected by a vote of 89-341, and the Gaetz amendment was rejected by 70-385.

These amendments were rejected because a majority of this House stands for preserving democracy. We stand for working with our democratic allies in preventing Vladimir Putin from seizing land through force, and these amendments were rejected because of the strong, bipartisan support for including consistent funding for Ukraine in the base Defense bill.

The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative has been part of the base bill since fiscal year 2015. The support has included training for Ukrainian troops, munitions, spare parts for vehicles, weapon systems, and medical supplies, and the Department of Defense has mechanisms in place to monitor our assistance.

That is the work of the DOD Security Assistance Group-Ukraine. I also have traveled, and I traveled with subcommittee Republicans and Democrats to review how the training and equipping the Ukrainians were moving forward because, I agree, congressional oversight is important.

The funding has been critical to ensure that Ukrainians could withstand Vladimir Putin's invasion last year. Congress began this support after Russia's unprovoked, illegal seizure of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. Five different chairs of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee across both parties have consistently included this funding in the base Defense appropriation bill, and that includes Chairman Calvert, myself last Congress, and Chairwoman Granger when she chaired the subcommittee.

We included this funding because Vladimir Putin is a bully. He threatens just not Ukraine but global stability. Putin uses paramilitary groups like the brutal Wagner organization to destabilize African nations using murder, rape, and torture to achieve his foreign policy goals.

In February 2022, Putin wanted to take all of Ukraine and overthrow this democratically elected government. Russia deliberately fired cruise missiles into apartment buildings, shopping malls, schools, daycare centers, and even hospitals.

It is clear: Putin is a war criminal, and he must be confronted. That is why this Congress has consistently included funding as a priority in this base bill--to help Ukraine fight back against this illegal, unjust invasion of their territory. It is important that we, along with our allies, continue to support their fight for freedom.

The rest of the world is watching, including other authoritarian nations, as to how the United States, NATO, and other allies continue to support Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and others bipartisanly to support this bill one more time again and vote for supporting Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a leader in the Ukrainian Caucus here in the U.S. Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times this week, this Congress has consistently provided this funding for the last 9 fiscal years. I hope we will work hard to make sure that this funding returns in conference back to the base bill in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Providing training and equipment to Ukraine has helped them withstand Russia's full scale invasion, and continuing this support in the base bill on a bipartisan basis is important to maintaining that effort.

I had the privilege of meeting women from Ukraine who are in the Ukrainian ambulance corps. They drive around in subcompacts. They drive around without bulletproof vests and whatever first aid equipment they can find firsthand to save lives.

I have had the honor and privilege of meeting people who are going through our training courses that we do with NATO in Germany, as the chair was referring to. I had the privilege before the invasion happened in February 2022 of meeting the mayor of Kyiv where he was just asking if he could make sure that the United States had the right caliber bullets for the hunting rifles and some of the guns that the Ukrainian citizens in Kyiv and the surrounding areas had so they could support their military should the invasion occur. We did that. It was an honor to work with those who made sure that that happened.

Mr. Speaker, recently I had a friend in Nisswa, Minnesota, who was returning home from Kyiv where she had not only time to spend with her mother and go mushroom hunting and watch firsthand the post-traumatic stress that her family is dealing with, but saying goodbye to a cousin who is returning to the front lines after healing from a wound.

Ukrainians are fighting. They are fighting for their very existence, and they are fighting for their strongly held democratic values that we share and, as I said, for their very existence. They are standing up to an authoritarian bully, and we should continue to stand up with them and support them in the ways we have been doing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.