Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5893) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5961) to freeze certain Iranian funds involved in the 2023 hostage deal between the United States and Iran, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, you heard the gentleman from Kentucky purport to describe what is in the bills that we are considering today. I think his description of these bills is somewhat inaccurate. The so-called No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act--and I say so-called because this bill does not actually do what the title suggests. It is really just about Republicans going after President Biden because they are mad he secured the release of American hostages.

It is as simple as that. Some Members of Congress would rather let these American hostages stay imprisoned in Iran than give credit to President Biden for bringing them home.

This is a bad bill. It undermines America's credibility in future negotiations. The money the United States unfroze--Iranian money, not American money--can only be used for humanitarian needs. That is the truth.

The money doesn't even go to the Iranian Government; it goes to a restricted account in Qatar where it can only be used for approved purchases. Those are the facts, and I won't waste any more time on this foolish political messaging bill.

The other bill contained in this rule is H.R. 5893, another extreme MAGA Republican spending bill. It is no shock that this radical Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriation bill couldn't even get a markup and a vote out of the full Appropriations Committee because it is nuts.

It defunds the police, which is ironic, but let's not even go there. It guts programs that help small businesses, slashes services that help missing and exploited children. I mean, really? It also makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns.

Madam Speaker, the truth is that the Republican Party is completely and totally broken. They are unable to govern themselves, let alone a country. The two extreme MAGA messaging bills that we are considering today are just the latest examples, just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, our job on the Rules Committee is to help run this place like professionals, to advance legislation in a thoughtful, orderly, deliberate manner, and to do it in a way that reflects well on the Congress and the country. Since Republicans took over, we have seen nothing but dysfunction and disaster in this Chamber. There has been chaos, confusion, and crisis at the hands of MAGA extremists who have turned this place into a circus. Republican incompetence over the last 11 months takes my breath away.

As this chart shows, Madam Speaker, we have a timeline up here that speaks for itself. There was a week wasted on 14 failed votes for Speaker while Kevin McCarthy agreed to shady backroom deals with MAGA extremists so he could win the gavel.

There was a month wasted on MAGA extremists threatening to default on America's debt unless Democrats agreed to draconian spending cuts.

We had an entire summer wasted after Democrats came to the table and negotiated a budget deal, but then Republicans didn't bring a single spending bill to the floor.

Finally, days before a government shutdown, Republicans brought to the floor appropriations bills they couldn't even pass. They had to call on Democrats to get a continuing resolution over the finish line, and then they kicked out their own Speaker for the terrible crime of keeping the government open. All because the MAGA extremists had a temper tantrum.

There were 20 days wasted while Republicans argued amongst themselves until they finally settled on someone who evidently everybody in their Conference disliked the least.

Here they are today, Mr. Speaker, right back where they started, with nothing to show the American people except dysfunction and disarray. We heard promise after promise from Republican leaders that this Congress would be different: more open and more accommodating, we kept on hearing.

Those promises have been broken. There have been over 40 closed rules on the floor, blocking 68 percent of bipartisan amendments. By the way, they even blocked over half of all Republican amendments. Twenty percent of Mr. Massie's own amendments have been blocked, never even considered on the floor.

I have a radical idea that in the world's greatest deliberative body we should, I don't know, deliberate? Yet time after time, despite their promises, Republicans are blocking amendment after amendment. Again, two-thirds of bipartisan amendments and over half of their own amendments have been blocked. Don't worry, though, they found a way to make in order every

single MAGA culture war amendment to ban abortion and go after women's reproductive rights. They tucked those into nearly every appropriations bill. You would think that after all of that, at least they would have something to show for it, right? You would be wrong.

At this point in the 116th Congress, when Democrats were in charge, during divided government, we had already enacted 68 laws; not just passed the House, but enacted into law, signed by the President. So far this Congress, Republicans have enacted 19 laws. That is it. Let that sink in. Democrats enacted over three times the number of laws at this point in our majority. Here is an idea: Maybe they would have had more bills signed into law if they didn't waste all their time fighting with one another.

Instead, they wasted an entire month, 26 days so far, fighting with themselves, holding midnight seances trying to revive the dead bills that divided their Conference and fighting a MAGA civil war about who should be in charge. Fourteen percent of all legislative days this Congress have been focused not on the American people, but on which one of them gets to be in charge. That is a national embarrassment.

Do you know how many days it took Democrats to pick a Speaker when we were in charge, Mr. Speaker? One. One. Americans expected us to govern, not fight with each other. That reminds me, it's not like we don't have a recent example of what it looks like when Congress gets stuff done in a productive and bipartisan way.

Now, let's compare their record this Congress with our record last Congress. Republicans have made fewer bipartisan amendments in order. They have even made fewer majority amendments in order, and only 19 bills signed into law. Again, we have a recent example of what this place looks like when it works.

Democrats enacted 58 laws last Congress, signed by the President at this point. I said a moment ago that it was 68 under divided government. It was 58 in the last Congress. We get things done, no matter who is in the White House. We take our job seriously. The facts speak for themselves, and the contrasts could not be more clear.

This right here, this is what Democratic leadership looks like in Congress. It looks like results for American families.

Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, ending the COVID crisis and reopening our economy.

Democrats passed the CHIPS and Science Act, bringing jobs back from China and supply chains back from overseas.

Democrats passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a historic investment that will rebuild our infrastructure for generations and generations to come.

What did almost every single Republican do on every single one of those bills? They voted ``no.''

Guess what, though? They are in charge now, and instead of rising to the occasion, they have totally, totally, totally failed at governing. They are running this place like babies. Actually, I think that is an insult to babies, Mr. Speaker. Their incompetence is staggering. Their infighting is so immature that it is stunning.

All the American people want, Mr. Speaker, is for Republicans to work with Democrats to get things done. It is that simple. It is that simple. Republicans barely control one-half of one branch of government. Democrats control the Senate and the White House. To get anything done, anything at all, we all have to work together. We have to compromise. We have to do things in a bipartisan way. That is, quite frankly, what the American people want. They want us to put people over politics to get stuff done, and that is what Democrats are focused on.

I can tell you, people are fed up with this Republican dysfunction and disarray. They are fed up with Republicans fighting with each other instead of for the people. They are fed up with Republican leadership caving to the MAGA extremists time after time after time. I am telling you right now, this majority will not be in the majority for long if things keep going like they have been.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the viewing public who is watching this may take note that the gentleman didn't respond to anything that I said in my opening remarks.

I will point out for the record so people understand that over half of the amendments that were offered to this bill were rejected. Actually, they were blocked. They were blocked by the Republican majority on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, 170 amendments, many of them Republican amendments, I should point out, were blocked. It was not because they added to spending. They were just blocked.

The point I was trying to make, and I will make it again, is that my friends on the other side of the aisle, my complaint with them is they have accomplished absolutely nothing. They have wasted their time in the majority.

The gentleman talks about all these deep cuts. Some of these appropriations bills, I will be honest with you, I object to them because they are going to hurt people, people I represent.

He talks about all these cuts. None of these are ever going to become law. We spent all of last week debating two appropriations bills, the Transportation bill and the Financial Services bill. We worked overtime, late into the night, debating all these amendments, and guess what? They pulled them.

They are in the majority. They can't even pass the crummy bills that are being sent from the Appropriations Committee to the Rules Committee.

It is mind-boggling. The bill we are talking about today, I am not even sure this is going to pass. I wouldn't be surprised if they pull this and the Labor-HHS bill, as well.

This is not how you run Congress. We are supposed to bring things to completion. The bill before us today was so bad that the full Appropriations Committee didn't even mark it up. Why? Because they probably couldn't get votes to get it out.

My friends have accomplished absolutely nothing in their majority. That is a tragedy. They barely struggle to do the basics, like keeping the lights on, but they need Democratic help to do that.

They have blocked the majority of their own Members' amendments. You can't make this stuff up. The gentleman, who is on the Rules Committee, had a big chunk of his amendments blocked, as well.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we are going to urge our side to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a measure that unequivocally states that the people's House will keep its promise to American workers and seniors and that we will protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and fight against any Republican cuts to these essential programs that so many of our constituents rely on.

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 distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me again point out that my friends on the other side of the aisle blocked most of the amendments that were brought before the Rules Committee. In fact, they have a habit of even blocking a majority of their own Members' amendments.

Even with this rigged process that we have been operating under that the Republicans have put in place, even under this rigged process--and they have yet to rebut this--they have accomplished nothing. They have accomplished nothing. They have normalized dysfunction.

A win for this majority is having Democrats keep the lights on for them so that we don't shut the government down.

I brought this chart out before, but this is a contrast of what we accomplished when we were in charge. I can go right down the list: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Honoring our PACT Act and helping our veterans to get additional healthcare, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the Chips and Science Act, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the Paycheck Protection Program and Healthcare Enhancement Act.

These are things that passed the House and the Senate and were signed by the President. These are real things.

Here we are today doing what we did last week, bringing up all these rightwing MAGA amendments with appropriations bills that are so bad that even Republican members on the Appropriations Committee do not want to vote for them in full committee, so we bypass that.

They come to the floor, and we are going to debate the amendments they made in order all day and all night, only to have them pull the stuff at the end of the day.

That is what they did last week. Two bills, after all the time on the floor debating, were just pulled.

I get it. We signed up for this, but I will be honest with you that I think it is a disservice to the staff who work up here and who take this job seriously to go through all of these kinds of gyrations for no reason at all. It is just ridiculous.

This majority, as we come to the close of this week--hopefully, we will break for Thanksgiving--has accomplished nothing. This has been a waste of time.

Do you want to talk about a waste of taxpayer money? It is the Republican majority in this House.

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

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

I don't even know where to begin. What we are witnessing here is called smoke and mirrors. The gentleman says we are not going to sneak things into a bill at the last minute. A whole bunch of stuff was snuck into this bill at the last minute. In fact, I repeat, this bill did not go before the full Appropriations Committee. It was not reported out by the full Appropriations Committee. Why? Because it is so extreme and so awful that they didn't have the votes.

The same thing last week, two appropriations bills, we wasted all of this time on the floor talking about those bills and then they pulled them because they didn't have the votes. Here we are again voting on another extreme bill that will probably, in all likelihood, be pulled.

When the gentleman is making the case that somehow amendments are blocked because they are not rule compliant, okay, all right, that is an argument to be made, but that is not the case with the overwhelming majority of the amendments that were blocked. I say to my Republican friends who are watching, a majority of your amendments were blocked, and you guys are in charge.

I get it. They blocked 72 percent of the amendments I offered, which by the way are rule compliant, but they blocked the majority of Republican amendments. The gentleman says: We were just blocking amendments that were not rule compliant. Last night in the Rules Committee, we offered amendments to strike out language that is in the bill. It is totally rule compliant.

We offered an amendment to strike the anti-abortion riders. We had a vote, and the gentleman voted with the majority of Republicans to block us even being able to offer an amendment to strike the anti-abortion riders. I guess they are afraid they would lose or afraid of the debate or afraid to put vulnerable Members in a tough position, whatever.

We had an amendment striking anti-LGBTQ riders. Again, all the Republicans, the gentleman included, voted to block it. It was totally rule compliant.

We had an amendment striking the anti-gun safety riders that were added into this bill. They were totally rule compliant. Every Republican, including the gentleman, voted to not make our amendment in order.

This is what you call smoke and mirrors. We had an amendment striking their anti-climate riders. Again, it is in the bill. We are not putting something new in the bill. This is their bill, totally rule compliant. Every Republican, including the gentleman, voted to block that.

Let's not have this kind of fantasy debate where we are saying, oh, all we did was we kept out amendments that were not rule compliant.

The bottom line is: You are afraid of the debates. My friends are afraid that they may lose on some of these issues. They also know that the majority of the American people do not like their position on women's reproductive rights where they want a national abortion ban. They also know that a majority of people in this country are sick and tired of bigotry against the LGBTQ+ community. They know that a majority of Americans are sick and tired of the rising level of gun violence in this country. They also know that a majority of Americans believe climate change is for real, and they want us to do stuff to try to reverse the current trends.

They blocked all of these amendments. I have the report from the Rules Committee last night with all the votes and the amendments. They are all rule compliant.

Let's get real here. We are here today to, again, talk about an appropriations bill that is not only extreme, that probably at the end of the day, they are not going to be able to pass it with Republican votes. It will certainly never become law. It is a joke of a bill. They wouldn't even bring it before the full Republican-controlled Appropriations Committee and then--or they are going to pull it. That is it.

You want to talk about wasting money, all of the money we wasted last week debating bills that are going nowhere. What about the money that we wasted while for 26 days we had no Speaker of the House but had to keep everybody here while they tried to fight amongst themselves on which member of the Republican Conference they disliked the least so they could move that person forward as Speaker. Give me a break.

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

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

I think I am beginning to understand the logic of the gentleman from Kentucky. He thinks that we have an open process as long as amendments that he agrees with are made in order, but any amendments that he doesn't agree with it is okay to block them.

I don't have any problem with some of the crummy amendments that the gentleman and the Republicans have made in order that, in my opinion, are really bad for this country. We will have those debates, and we will vote on them. I have no problem with that.

I don't know why my friends are afraid to have a debate on women's reproductive rights, whether or not we should protect a woman's right to choose, whether we should protect a woman's right to abortion in this country. They blocked it. They added language in that curtails women's rights, but they won't allow an amendment so we can have those 10 minutes of debate.

I don't know why the gentleman is afraid to have a debate on whether or not we should end bigotry against the LGBTQ+ community. If they believe that it is okay to continue prejudice and discrimination against that community, they can vote ``no'' on our amendment. Let's have the debate.

On climate change or even on--we have a different position on assault weapons. The gentleman can offer his amendment. We have a different amendment. Why is it that the amendment that we offered is blocked?

It is just a strange view of the world when you come up here and say we have a very fair and open process here. We block all your amendments, but we are making all the amendments that we agree with basically in order. I don't really think that is a fair process.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are a minority party that is masquerading as a majority party. I say that because I think my friends on the other side don't want to actually be in charge anymore. It is easier to be in the minority when you are a Republican. They think all you have to do is vote ``no'' on everything.

It is harder to be in the majority. It is especially hard because the Republican Party no longer represents a coherent political ideology that seeks to solve problems or govern. They just want to scream and yell about how this place is broken--when they are the ones that broke it.

They want to use crisis and scandal to mask their own selfishness and sedition, and to cover up their own incompetence and ineffectiveness. The American people see through it. They know this Republican majority is a disaster--a national embarrassment. They have normalized dysfunction.

We have Republican Members of Congress literally assaulting each other in the hallways. They are threatening to punch people in committee hearings. They are getting into fights on the House floor and having their supporters threaten each other's families with violence. That is the truth.

They have wasted away their majority fighting among themselves and acting like babies. They focus on retaliation and revenge. They are pursuing ridiculous impeachment inquiry sideshows. They are conditioning aid to our allies on tax cuts for billionaires here at home. They scream about the deficit when they keep passing bills that blow up the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the people watching this at home, you might not agree with Democrats on everything, but we are team normal. The Republicans are team totally off-the-deep-end nuts. I cleaned that up for the floor, Mr. Speaker, for civility.

Democrats ran this place like professionals. Republicans are running it into the ground. Democrats fight for the people. Republicans only care about fighting with each other. Democrats behave like adults. I hope rational, reasonable, moderate Republicans, if any are left, will join us and reject the MAGA extremists who behave like spoiled rotten children.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``hell no'' on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 869 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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

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

House Resolution 869 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5893, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and a closed rule, H.R. 5961, the No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act.

We have a structured rule for H.R. 5893, which makes in order 119 amendments for consideration on the floor. This rule provides the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations limited en bloc authority and provides one motion to recommit.

We have a closed rule for H.R. 5961. Debate for this bill will be evenly divided over 1 hour between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the rule provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support House Resolution 869 in the spirit in which it was created, one that allows for robust debate and gives Members the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration on this floor, as many amendments were included in this rule as possible.

We are encouraging debate on the floor and for Members to fight for their priorities. There is absolutely no reason not to support this rule. Let's not forget what we have been committed to fighting for these last several months, bringing all 12 appropriations bills to the floor.

The days of Christmas omnibus bills are over. We still have more work to do to fight against inflated budgets and the growing national debt, but the step we are taking this week that prevents a Christmas giveaway on the House floor in an omnibus is a major step in the right direction.

This is what the American people expected of us. This is what we were elected to do, discuss and debate appropriation of taxpayer dollars.

Speaking of appropriations, this is our 12th appropriations bill, 12 of 12. Finally, here we are.

Do I wish this were done in a timelier manner? Of course.

Do I wish the government functioned more efficiently for the sake of the constituents we each represent? Absolutely.

We find ourselves now completing this process in the manner in which it was intended--draft, amend, debate, and vote. No Member can say today that they did not have the opportunity to participate in this process, and no Member can argue that these appropriations were not brought forward in an open and transparent manner.

I applaud the relative committees and everyone in the GOP Conference who has worked so hard to bring this bill and all of the appropriations bills forward to get this work done.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to say that the Democrats spend like drunken sailors is an insult to sailors.

This bill cuts wasteful spending. If there is any scorecard to be kept between Democrat Speakers and Republican Speakers, it should be on spending. I would like to note that 40 percent of all of the national debt--which, by the way, is approaching $34 trillion--40 percent of all of the national debt that exists today, from the beginning of our country until this moment, was incurred under one Speaker. That was Speaker Pelosi.

If we are keeping score here, it should be about wasteful spending, deficit spending, and debts. We can blame Presidents for it, but the reality is, Congress--in fact, the House of Representatives--has the power of the purse. We need to look at ourselves when we look at that debt, and this bill is a good step toward reducing deficits.

The Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies appropriations bill provides net new spending of $58.383 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, which is $23.765 billion below FY23 enacted levels. That is a large cut. Maybe it is not large enough, but it is what has upset the other side of the aisle, that is for sure.

You can disguise it as anything you want, but they are really upset about this bill because it cuts spending. Not the kind of cuts to spending where we pretend to cut spending, where we have some baseline that is actually increasing spending, and then we reduce the baseline. No, I am talking about actual cuts in real dollars. That is what this bill does, and that is why they are so excited, that is why they are so angry about this rule and this bill.

By the way, this rule allows for 119 amendments. When they say those are extreme amendments, what do those amendments do? They cut more. That is what the amendments do. None of those amendments increase spending. I think that is what they are upset about on the other side of the aisle is that not only have we brought forth a bill that cuts $23 billion of Federal spending, we are allowing 119 amendments to cut even more spending.

Let me talk about the priorities in this bill. By the way, Congress has the power of the purse, and we complain about a lot of things the executive branch does, but then we, too, will frequently turn around and fund the things that we complain about. This bill actually defunds some of the things that we have been complaining about.

I and several Members of Congress had the great fortune to share breakfast with Justice Antonin Scalia before he passed away. One of my colleagues asked Justice Scalia: When are you going to help us restore constitutional balance of government? Scalia scoffed at him. He said: What are you talking about? You are the most powerful branch. In fact, every tool you need is right there in the Constitution to restore constitutional balance of government.

Another of my colleagues said, but impeachment is so unwieldy, and we can never get that through the Senate. Scalia said: I am not talking about impeachment. I am talking about the power of the purse. It is right there in the Constitution. You have it. You are the most powerful branch, and quit complaining about the things you are funding or quit funding the things you are complaining about. That is what this bill does.

It eliminates more than 70 unnecessary and wasteful programs and initiatives, including 14 polarizing diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and programs. I don't find diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Constitution. It is just not in Article I, Section 8. It is not there for us to do, and so we are eliminating those programs.

It defunds at least 15 executive orders. What are executive orders? Are they laws? No, they are not laws. The lawmaking authority is here. We should probably defund every executive order, but this defunds 15 of them--rules, memoranda, and other Biden administration policies that usurp our congressional authority to make law.

This bill reduces wasteful spending on climate change initiatives.

It prevents the FBI from using its construction balances to build a new headquarters. Why is that important? It is important because they have become weaponized against the American

public, showing up at school board meetings and targeting parents and saying they are terrorists. They don't need a new headquarters.

It rejects the administration's plans to replace the Department of Commerce and Department of Justice vehicle fleets with electric vehicles, saving taxpayers nearly $54 million.

This is what we are doing in this bill. We are using the power of the purse. There are 119 amendments. None of those amendments increase spending. I can tell you, we went through all of them. Maybe that is why they are upset that some of their amendments didn't make it in there because maybe they were trying to spend more money. I am sorry, we are not going to do that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me point out that my colleague from Kentucky is right that Social Security is a legal and moral obligation to seniors. Let me also point out that every time we engage in deficit spending and spend too much money, we cause inflation.

When we have the Fed create dollars out of thin air so we can launder them through banks and then borrow them back from ourselves, we are really causing inflation.

What does inflation do to those Social Security checks? It reduces the value of those Social Security checks.

This bill is actually a step in reducing inflation by reducing Federal spending, and that will be to the benefit of those seniors who are going to be living on a fixed income.

We all know there is a cost-of-living adjustment applied to Social Security, but the reality is it is not keeping up with inflation.

Inflation is so rampant now due to the spending that we have engaged in in Congress. There is a moral imperative for us to reduce spending because it trickles down. Inflation is very detrimental to our seniors. That is why we have to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee.

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

If I had a nickel for every time the other side of the aisle uses the word ``extreme,'' I would buy you lunch today. It must be poll tested. ``Extreme'' must be good for them in the polls.

Let me tell you what is extreme and what every American thinks is extreme: $33.7 trillion is extreme. The fact that we are now paying, this year, a trillion dollars in interest on that debt, on that national debt, that is extreme.

Spending money we don't have is extreme. Funding an FBI that targets its own citizens who have done nothing wrong, funding the censorship of speech of Americans, that is extreme. The American people know that is extreme.

The inflation that is caused by this is extreme, and it is affecting everybody. The cost of transportation, the cost of food, and the cost of housing are skyrocketing. That is extreme.

Now, my colleague mentioned that we didn't allow every amendment in this rule. Well, as the ranking member of the committee, surely he knows not every amendment is in order. We have certain rules in the Rules Committee, and a lot of these amendments, unfortunately--and I have to tell some of my friends this--failed our own test.

For instance, they weren't germane to the underlying bill. Americans don't want amendments tacked onto bills that have nothing to do with the underlying bill, so the amendments have

to be germane. We are protecting the American people when we keep this process for allowing amendments that are only germane.

The amendments to spending bills, as a rule--it has been a rule since I came here 11 years ago--they can't increase spending, yet unfortunately some of my colleagues introduced amendments that do sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally, but especially the Democrats like to increase spending. We can't allow those amendments.

Finally, we don't allow the amendments that try to legislate on an appropriations bill. We don't allow you to change laws on a bill that has to do with spending. That is the primary reason most of those amendments that the other side is always complaining about are not in this bill. There are 119 good amendments that were allowed that we will debate later today and that we will vote on in transparency and full light of day, not snuck in at the last moment. The American people will get to see how they are being represented through these 119 amendments.

This appropriations bill, I would like to point out, satisfies some of our constitutional obligations. Adam Smith said there are three primary roles of government: to provide for the national defense, to fund public infrastructure, and to institute a system of justice. It is that third obligation that we are fulfilling here today with this bill.

Then we have some constitutional obligations beyond that that are fulfilled in this bill. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, intellectual property, which is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution. That is an obligation of Congress, to provide for the protection of intellectual property. That is in this bill.

The Bureau of the Census is funded in this bill. We are directed by the Constitution to have a census every 10 years, so that is another function in this bill.

This bill funds the National Institute of Standards and Technology, sometimes called NIST. This used to be called the Bureau of Weights and Measures. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, directs Congress to establish the weights and measures so that we are not all using in this country a different set of weights and measures.

There are many constitutional obligations provided in this bill, many necessary roles of government, some things that aren't technically in the Constitution, but we agree publicly that these are in the benefit of our country. For instance, NASA is funded in this bill.

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

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

I look forward to the passage of this rule because there are 119 amendments that are going to expose 430-plus Members of this body to their voters.

How is that? Well, each of these amendments gets 10 minutes of debate. If so ordered, there will be recorded votes on these amendments. They address issues fundamental to our rights.

There will be amendments in this debate after this rule passes on protecting the First Amendment to the Constitution, the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, will we allow our government to censure us on social media. They have been doing it through NGOs and private organizations and research grants. I don't think we should allow it. I don't think it is constitutional. You can't launder a violation of the First Amendment. There will be a debate on that after this rule passes because of this rule.

There will be a debate on whether you support the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. There is an amendment that we will debate when this rule passes that prohibits the ATF from using funds to maintain a database. They are prohibited already, but they keep trying to do it, so we have to defund them from that.

There is even an amendment--I am particularly fond of this debate that is

coming up--to prevent Federal funds from being used to prosecute a Presidential candidate. We look like a banana republic when our justice system indicts candidates for President to try to bring down their poll numbers. This is something that you do in Third World countries.

In any event, there are 119 amendments. I think the other side is against this rule because they don't want to have these debates. They surely don't want to have to vote because that record will be for all time. Every 2 years, each of us faces our voters with those records that will be created today as a result of this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the word of the day is ``extreme'' because the other side uses it in every sentence.

Let me tell you what is extreme: Violating the First Amendment, the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That is extreme, and that is going to be addressed in this bill and this rule, utilizing the power of the purse. Violating the Second Amendment rights of Americans, their God-given rights to defend themselves; that is extreme. This bill addresses that. This rule provides for robust debate on that issue.

Extreme is violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the rights there enshrined. Violating the 10th Amendment and Federalizing our police forces. That is extreme. These are the things that Americans find extreme. These are the things that are addressed in this rule and in the underlying bill using the power of the purse.

The most extreme thing--and I do have to say that the Democrats are really good at this form of extremism--the most extreme thing is to continually spend money we don't have, to borrow until they won't lend us any money, and then to print money so we can spend more of it. Extreme is putting ourselves $33.7 trillion in debt. When I say ourselves, I mean, the American taxpayers. They are on the hook for this.

Even if you don't pay taxes, if you have worked a hard life, you have saved and you have got money in the bank and you are relying on your Social Security, what is extreme is the inflation that we have created through out-of-control spending in this Chamber over many, many years. Both parties are guilty of it. It is extreme because it hurts every American when we devalue the dollar through extreme spending.

What does this bill do?

It cuts spending.

This fight is really simple. The disagreements between both sides of the aisle--we can argue about the minor issues--but the major issue is: Do you want to expand government? Do you want it to be more prevalent in your life? Do you want to pay more taxes? Do you want to put your grandkids in hock?

If you do, vote for that side of the aisle.

If you want to put us on a path to fiscal responsibility, if you want to have open debates, if you want to have 72 hours to see what is in the bill, if you don't want to have to vote for a bill to find out what is in it, then you are with this side of the aisle. You should support this rule. I urge adoption of this rule.

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

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

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

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

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

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here is because the average family of four is paying over $17,000 more per year thanks to the policies of the Biden-Harris administration and their allies in Congress. In 3\1/2\ years, their policies and regulations have been unleashed into every aspect of our lives.

For example, on top of that $17,000 more that American families are having to pay each year, now the Biden-Harris administration's EPA expects that family to cough up another $10,000 for an electric vehicle. The House Republicans today will repeal this ridiculous regulation with the passage of a joint resolution under this rule.

It is not just consumer goods that are more expensive. Retirement is increasingly out of reach because of the Biden-Harris administration and their policies and what they have injected into our capital markets and retirement plans. The American family will not care how much their retirement fund

promoted ESG or DEI when they need to push off their retirement for years under this economy.

House Republicans will refocus the financial markets and retirement funds away from politics and toward maximizing investment returns. Maximizing shareholder value seems like a concept that everyone should be for.

Finally, I will touch on two important pieces of legislation under this rule that are affecting Texans, the first of which is the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act. This bill makes it crystal clear in U.S. law that illegal aliens who commit domestic violence are both deportable and inadmissible in this country.

We have a border czar. You wouldn't know it because of what has been happening, but we have a border czar. We have a Secretary of Homeland Security who has refused to take the actions necessary to protect American citizens. Why they have neglected American citizens, I cannot tell you. Perhaps the Democrats can tell you.

Mr. Speaker, even individuals who commit domestic crimes should be deportable and inadmissible to the country.

Another bill ensures that lax enforcement of immigration law, which has become the hallmark of the Biden-Harris administration, does not extend to criminal domestic conduct.

Speaking of lax enforcement, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act makes it crystal clear that no State or local government that made a conscious choice to disregard Federal immigration law will receive Federal funds to do so.

Sanctuary cities perpetuate the crisis at our border, a crisis that my State knows all too well. The No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act ensures that taxpayers won't be on the hook for the conscious choices of sanctuary cities.