Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1147) to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow schools that participate in the school lunch program under such Act to serve whole milk; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 357) to require the head of an agency to issue and sign any rule issued by that agency, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1147, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.

School meals are critical to reducing child hunger and providing children with the healthy food they need. Milk, offered as part of these meals, can help deliver essential nutrients that are vital to a child's development. That is why it is so important that we provide students with the most nutritious milk options.

Child nutrition standards for school meals, including milk options, are guided by the science-based Dietary Guidelines for Americans, or the DGAs, which are periodically updated based on recommendations from child nutrition experts and input from the public.

The latest DGAs, along with the American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and over a dozen other public

health advocates, agree that fat-free and low-fat milk are the healthiest options for children.

Regrettably, H.R. 1147 attempts to legislate nutrition standards and disregard the evidence-based recommendations made by the DGAs. Furthermore, the bill would undermine the Biden administration's ongoing rulemaking to better align school nutrition standards with the latest science.

This bill would allow schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to offer whole milk and reduced-fat milk, violating the current science-based standards that protect children's health.

Whole milk contains far more saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than fat-free and low-fat milk. Conversely, fat-free and low-fat milk options offer the same vital nutrients, including calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, protein, and potassium, as whole milk.

Nutrition standards must be guided by scientists, not politicians. If someone wants to offer one study or another to be considered, use the DGA process, not the political process. This bill needlessly inserts politics into a science-based process.

Lastly, I am disappointed by the majority's decision to depart from precedent by moving a child nutrition bill outside of a comprehensive child nutrition reauthorization. Rather than improve our Nation's child nutrition programs holistically, the majority has decided to prioritize interfering with evidence-based nutrition standards for our children's school meals.

For that reason, Mr. Chair, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

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

Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, which says in part that the passing of H.R. 1147 ``would be a departure from the longstanding tradition of establishing food and nutrition standards for Federal child nutrition programs based upon the findings of independent reviewers and the scientific community. There are evidenced-based strategies to increase school meal consumption--and, by extension, potentially school milk consumption--that do not involve weakening nutrition standards. Changes to school nutrition standards should be guided by the Dietary Guidelines, not special interests, and as such, we strongly urge you to put children's interests first and uphold the science-based process and oppose the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. Our children deserve no less.''

It is signed by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Advocates for Better Children's Diets, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Balanced, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Chef Ann Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Healthy Food America, Healthy Schools Campaign, Life Time Foundation, National WIC Association, and Public Health Institute.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity.

National Alliance for

Nutrition & Activity,

December 11, 2023.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chair, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, House

of Representatives.

Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' Scott,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Education and the

Workforce, House of Representatives.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: The

undersigned members of the National Alliance for Nutrition

and Activity, the nation's largest nutrition advocacy

coalition, strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1147/S. 1957, the

Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. H.R. 1147/S. 1957

would allow school meals to offer full-fat (whole) and

reduced-fat flavored and unflavored milk, and arbitrarily

exempt full-fat and reduced-fat milk from current saturated

fat limits in school meals, both of which are inconsistent

with the recommendations of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines

for Americans (DGAs).

School meal standards, by law, must be aligned with the

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are reviewed and

revised every five years. The DGAs recommend full-fat (whole)

milk only for children under the age of two, and fat-free and

low-fat milk after that. In addition, the DGAs recommend

saturated fat should account for less than 10 percent of

calories per day. As such, both the National School Lunch

Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) meal

patterns allow only fat-free and low-fat milk and require

that less than 10 percent of calories in the meal come from

saturated fat over the week. Earlier this year, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed

updates to the school nutrition standards to more closely

align with the 2020-2025 DGAs, which did not change the

saturated fat limit nor increase the milkfat allowed to be

served in school meals. Singling out milk--in this case,

whole and reduced-fat milk--to be exempt from the

recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines is a slippery slope

for allowing--special interests to carve out exemptions in

school meal program rules. Allowing the change in the service

of whole and reduced-fat milk will negate the progress that

has been made in the planning and service of healthier foods

to children in schools.

Milk is an important part of a well-balanced diet. Milk

contains nutrients of concern, such as vitamin D and calcium.

However, unlike fat-free and low-fat milk, full-fat milk

contains too much saturated fat to be part of a healthy food

pattern. According to USDA data, one cup of whole milk

contains around 4.5 grams of saturated fat. Full fat milk is

so high in saturated fat that the government prohibits its

labels from claiming that calcium can reduce the risk of

osteoporosis; fat-free and low-fat milk, however, can make

these claims. By allowing full-fat milk in lunch and

adjusting saturated fat allowances accordingly, H.R. 1147/S.

1957 would allow an additional 4.5 grams of saturated fat

daily in school meals beyond the science-based limit that is

currently in place.

School meal nutrition standards were strengthened

significantly in 2012. These updates were an overwhelming

success, particularly for children in who are part of

households with fewer financial resources. A 2021 study found

that school meals are the single most healthy source of

nutrition for children--more nutritious than grocery stores,

restaurants, worksites, and others. Yet even with the current

nutrition standards that limit saturated fat in school meals,

most children, on average, still consume more saturated fat

than is recommended. According to the DGA, more than 80

percent of children ages 5-8 years, more than 85 percent of

youth ages 9-13, and over 75 percent of youth ages 14-18

consume too much saturated fat. Allowing full-fat milk in

schools would only worsen this problem.

The fat content of school milk is neither the cause nor the

solution to the decades-long decline in fluid milk

consumption in the United States and the struggles of the

dairy industry. According to a 2013 Economic Research Service

(ERS) report, younger generations consume less milk than

preceding generations, but this trend is not exclusive to

schoolchildren. According to the ERS economists,

``individuals born in the 1970s, for example, drank less milk

in their teens, 20s, and 30s than individuals born in the

1960s did at the same age points. Those born in the 1980s and

1990s, in turn, appear likely to consume even less fluid milk

in their adulthood than those born in the 1970s.'' Rather

than acknowledging the fact that 36 percent of Americans

experience lactose malabsorption, (with African Americans,

American Indians, Asian Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos

experiencing at higher rates than non-Hispanic White

Americans), H.R. 1147 perpetuates the cumbersome requirement

that students must obtain a doctor's note documenting a

disability to receive a substitute for fluid milk, while

arbitrarily increasing access to the less-healthy full-fat

milk.

We thank you for your attention to this matter. Passing

H.R. 1147/S. 1957 would be a departure from the long-standing

tradition of establishing food and nutrition standards for

federal child nutrition programs based upon the findings of

independent reviewers and the scientific community. There are

evidence-based strategies to increase school meal

consumption--and by extension, potentially school milk

consumption--that do not involve weakening nutrition

standards. Changes to school nutrition standards should be

guided by the Dietary Guidelines, not special interests, and

as such, we strongly urge you to put children's interests

first and uphold the science-based process and oppose the

Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. Our children deserve

no less.

Signed,

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Advocates for Better

Children's Diets, American Academy of Pediatrics,

American Heart Association, American Public Health

Association, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital

of Chicago, Balanced, Center for Biological Diversity,

Center for Science in the Public Interest, Chef Ann

Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Healthy Food America,

Healthy Schools Campaign, Life Time Foundation,

National WIC Association, Public Health Institute.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and I have enjoyed working together on many different bills, but on this bill, we happen to disagree. He has presented evidence on the floor that, instead of being considered by Members of Congress, really ought to be considered by the experts in the normal scientific process.

If the schoolchildren get the benefit of his studies, then tell it to the experts and not the politicians. I would hope that we would stick with the scientific process, as we are doing. Let's stick with the DGAs and not the political process in changing the process by trying to convince Members of Congress who are subject to political pressures on one side or another. So I would hope that we would stick to that process and not the political process.

If we have studies, then show it to the experts and not the politicians.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues are attempting to make school meals less healthy by ignoring the latest science and undermining President Biden's work to strengthen school meal nutrition.

The latest DGAs have already made clear that fat-free milk and low- fat milk are the healthiest options for children. If anybody has studies or research to the contrary, they should submit it to the experts in the normal process rather than politicians.

This bill goes against the dairy industry's recent commitment to ensuring students have access to the healthiest dairy options consistent with the DGAs.

Mr. Chairman, we should be committed to ensuring that students have access to the healthiest dairy options in accordance with science-based guidelines, but H.R. 1147 contradicts this commitment by interfering with the independent process that aligns child nutrition standards with the latest science.

I am also disappointed that we are considering a bill that does nothing to meaningfully address child nutrition or hunger. This is in stark contrast to the comprehensive science-based reauthorization of the Federal child nutrition programs that committee Democrats advanced last Congress to, among other things, strengthen evidence-based nutrition standards for school meals beyond just milk.

The bottom line is that Congress should not inject politics into child nutrition standards at the expense of nutritious meals that our children need to grow healthy.

Mr. Chair, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1147, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, nothing in this bill prevents schools from offering organic milk under current law. As the main barrier for schools offering organic milk is cost, nothing in this amendment provides additional funding or support to help schools offer organic milk, if they prefer.

Fundamentally, this amendment does not fix the flaws of the underlying bill. It invites Congress to legislate on specific foods served in school meals at the expense of evidence-based recommendations from experts.

According to those experts, milk is the top source of saturated fat in American diets. Whole and 2 percent milk can raise bad cholesterol, the cause of heart disease, and contains more fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than 1 percent and fat-free milk.

This has led to organizations such as the CDC to recommend nutrient- rich 1 percent or fat-free milk instead of 2 percent or whole milk.

For children aged 2 and up, the inclusion of whole milk in the bill disregards the healthy dietary patterns backed by the dietary guidelines for Americans, the scientific, evidence-based comprehensive set of nutrition recommendations.

Over 60 organizations have expressed concerns over attempts to bring whole milk back into school meal programs. Regardless of whether milk is organic, inclusion of whole milk in this bill is detrimental to American youths' health and well-being, and the amendment fails to alter that fact.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the underlying bill and oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, nobody disputes that the dairy industry is a crucial part of domestic supply chains and provides an important economic benefit to the tune of over $753 billion to the U.S. economy.

In 2022, just five States--California, Wisconsin, Idaho, Texas, and New York--collectively produced more than 50 percent of the U.S. annual milk supply.

School breakfast and school lunch programs are already required to purchase domestic agricultural commodities and food products. Although exemptions exist, milk is produced in sufficient quantities in the U.S. and at competitive prices to severely restrict the ability of any school to purchase foreign-produced milk.

To this end, the amendment does not fix the flaws in the underlying bill and makes no meaningful improvements to buy-American policies.

We can make sure that Chinese milk is not breaching our supply chain with continued monitoring and enforcement of present law. A recent report found that Chinese seafood has been served in schools, highlighting the need for additional diligence in enforcing present law.

I do not support the underlying legislation, and I oppose the amendment as being unnecessary.

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

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

I just reiterate that present law requires domestic purchase, and so this is unnecessary. If Chinese milk has gotten into the supply, we need to monitor that. It violates present law. To suggest that we are ignoring science, the underlying bill ignores science. That is the purpose of the underlying bill.

I hope that we reject this amendment and reject the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, current law requires that school meals and beverages offered under the school meal programs be consistent with the dietary guidelines for Americans, the DGAs, which are drafted by an advisory committee of experts. These are evidence-based recommendations set to provide nutritional guidance to ensure children receive the most nutritious meals possible.

This amendment would effectively undermine the unbiased evidence- based guidelines of DGAs by prohibiting USDA from doing its work and replacing that process with a process where evidence will be presented to politicians and we get to decide the science. It is critical that actual scientists and experts make the recommendations and guide the process in determining options in schools and that regulations are updated to align with current DGAs.

Experts, not Members of Congress, should be the ones determining the nutrition standards to ensure that our children get the healthiest meals possible.

This amendment, like the underlying bill, reinforces the precedent for Congress to legislate on specific foods, at the behest of one industry or another, that would be served in schools.

There is a reason that the school lunch program does not contain specific nutrition standards for foods and beverages, and that is to ensure that nutrition standards can adapt to the latest science and expert recommendations. Both this amendment and the underlying bill upset this policy and open the program to politicization in favor of district interests and single-food lobbies over the health and well- being of our children.

Dozens of organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, and a lot of others have urged Congress not to interfere with that process and to respect the science-based process.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I include in the Record a letter signed by dozens of organizations opposing this changing the science and the process.

March 20, 2023.

Hon. Patty Murray,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Martin Heinrich,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Susan Collins,

Ranking, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Hoeven,

Ranking, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Kay Granger,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Andy Harris,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Rosa DeLauro,

Ranking, Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Sanford Bishop Jr.,

Ranking, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairs Murray, Heinrich, Granger, and Harris, and

Ranking Members Collins, Hoeven, DeLauro, and Bishop: As you

craft the fiscal year (FY) 2024 Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related

Agencies spending bill, the undersigned organizations urge

you to oppose any policy riders blocking implementation of

stronger nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and

School Breakfast Programs.

We strongly support the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)'s proposed rule to strengthen nutrition standards

consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

(``Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns

Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans'').

We must preserve and build on the progress schools and the

food industry have made over the past decade to meet science-

based nutrition standards. These improvements are an amazing

success story and one of the most important public health

achievements in a generation. For children in poverty, the

risk of obesity declined substantially each year after

implementation of stronger nutrition standards in 2012 such

that obesity prevalence would have been 47 percent higher in

2018 if the nutrition standards had not been updated.

Additionally, a 2021 study found that school meals are the

single most healthy source of nutrition for children--more

nutritious than grocery stores, restaurants, worksites, and

others. Research shows that children like the healthier

school meals and while food waste remains a problem in this

country, the amount of food wasted in schools has not changed

since the standards were updated in 2012, according to the

USDA's largest and nationally representative study of school

meals. For many children participating in the program, school

breakfast and lunch are the only meals they receive that day.

Despite the overwhelming success of the nutrition

standards, improvements are still needed to align school

meals with the Dietary Guidelines, which the current proposed

rule aims to do. The USDA issued a proposal that is

pragmatic, flexible, gradual, and most important--achievable.

The rule proposes, for the first time, to reduce added

sugars, with product-based limits for the top sources of

added sugars beginning School Year 2025-2026, and to phase

into a limit of added sugars averaged over the week beginning

School Year 2027-2028. These standards are critical: among

children, excessive intake of added sugars has been

associated with poor diet quality, cavities, and increased

risk of cardiovascular disease, yet more than 92 percent of

schools exceed the Dietary Guidelines limit for added sugars

for breakfast and 69 percent exceed it for lunch.

Further, sodium reduction is paramount to protect

children's health: nine out of ten children consume too much

sodium, putting them at risk of hypertension and

cardiovascular disease into adulthood. The USDA proposes new,

gradual 10-percent sodium reduction levels every two school

years for breakfast (through School Year 2027-2028) and lunch

(through School Year 2029-2030). The USDA also maintains at

least 80 percent of the weekly grains offered are whole

grain-rich.

The rule aims to align dietary patterns for sodium and

whole grains with the recommendations of the Dietary

Guidelines, but the USDA recognized that a gradual,

incremental approach to meeting those recommendations is more

feasible for schools and the food industry to implement. For

instance, children up to age 8 would still consume close to

their day's worth of sodium (83 percent) from just breakfast

and lunch combined. Sodium and whole grain-rich standards

have been the subject of many riders over the past decade,

causing confusion and stymying industry innovation and

improvements to children's health. The USDA has listened to

Congress; the proposals in this rule on sodium and whole

grains are within the spirit of those previous riders.

This gradual, incremental approach was crafted by the USDA

to be feasible for schools and the food industry. And these

standards are feasible. The largest food companies have many

K-12 products that meet

the USDA's proposed added sugars, sodium, and whole grain-

rich standards. Further, schools have been able to meet, and

in some cases, exceed the current nutrition standards during

the pandemic. In the first-of-its-kind study, a nationally

representative study of elementary schools found that meals

were meeting existing nutrition standards in 2022, and for

sodium, average sodium decreased and the vast majority of

schools were close to or already meeting future sodium-

reduction levels on par with this rule. There are plenty of

examples where schools have reduced sodium beyond the USDA's

requirements or provided more whole grains and still been

able to serve healthy, delicious, and culturally-relevant

foods to their students.

Opponents of the rule claim that the meal nutrition

standards cannot be strengthened due to labor shortages,

supply chain disruptions, and other issues facing school food

service programs. These are real challenges but require

different solutions than stalling progress for healthier

school meals. Over the past decade, the USDA and Congress

have learned that schools need the additional assistance to

meet stronger standards and they have also recognized current

pandemic-related constraints, and therefore have committed

millions of dollars to helping schools provide healthier

meals while weathering these challenges. In September 2022,

the USDA launched its $100 million Healthy Meals Incentive

Initiative with the stated goal of improving the nutritional

quality of school meals. Of that, $30 million is available

for small and rural schools and $50 million will go toward

working with food manufacturers on innovative solutions to

increase the availability of nutritious school foods.

Congress has also increased technical assistance funding each

year for the past three fiscal years (FY) ($1 million in FY

2021; $2 million in FY 2022 and 2023), with $1 million of

that funding being directed to assist with sodium

reduction efforts in FY 2022-2023. These investments will

be transformational, but the impact of inflation on school

nutrition programs means schools still struggle to make

ends meet. Therefore, increased meal reimbursement rates

will be critical to the future success of school meals

programs.

Beyond riders blocking implementation of the new proposed

standards, there are other ongoing attempts to undermine

evidence-based nutrition standards. For instance, the

proposed rule allows for potatoes to be served in breakfast

up to four out of the five school days, if a school chose to

serve vegetables in place of fruit in breakfast. Therefore

the existing breakfast potato rider--which allows schools to

serve potatoes before other vegetables at breakfast--does not

need to be included in the spending bill. Further, we are

similarly concerned about attempts to bring whole milk into

the school meals program. The Dietary Guidelines is explicit

in its recommendation that everyone 2 years and older should

limit their intake of saturated fat and choose fat-free or 1-

percent low-fat milk instead of 2-percent reduced-fat or

whole milk. The proposed rule reiterates this, while

providing flexibilities for flavored 1-percent milk. Yet

continued industry attempts to circumvent the science

persist.

Finally, there are evidence-based strategies to increase

school meal consumption that do not involve weakening

nutrition standards, for instance, enabling students to have

sufficient time to eat (at least 20 minutes of seat time)

with longer lunch periods, having recess before lunch,

serving lunch at an appropriate time of day, presenting food

in an appetizing and easily eaten way, making the cafeteria

inviting, and limiting competitive foods (snacks and

beverages sold in vending machines and a la carte) during the

school day. While some of these strategies cannot be

addressed at the federal level, we encourage you to support

these efforts.

In conclusion we urge you to oppose any riders that block

or weaken stronger nutrition standards for children.

Sincerely,

Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics; Advocates for Better

Children's Diets; Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc.;

American Academy of Pediatrics; American Cancer Society

Cancer Action Network; American Heart Association; American

Institute for Cancer Research; American Public Health

Association; Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of

Chicago; Association of State Public Health Nutritionists;

Balanced; California Association of Food Banks; Center for

Digital Democracy; Center for Science in the Public Interest;

Chef Ann Foundation; Chilis on Wheels; Coalition for Healthy

School Food; Colorado Children's Campaign; Community Food

Advocates; Council on Black Health, Inc.; Cultiva la Salud;

DC Greens.

Dolores Huerta Foundation; Environmental Working Group;

FARE (Food Allergy Research and Education); Farm to Table-New

Mexico; Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); FoodCorps;

Friends of the Earth; From Now On Fund; Healthy Food America;

Healthy School Food Maryland; Healthy Schools Campaign; Hope

Community Services Youngstown; Illinois Public Health

Institute; Independent Restaurant Coalition; Interfaith

Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR); Johns Hopkins

Center for a Livable Future; Latino Farmers of the Southeast;

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners;

National Association of School Nurses; National Education

Association; National Farm to School Network; National League

for Nursing; National PTA; National WIC Association.

Nebraska Appleseed; North American Society for Pediatric

Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition; Northeast Ohio

Black Health Coalition; Northwest Coalition for Responsible

Investment; Office of Kat Taylor; Oklahoma Black Historical

Research Project, Inc.; Public Health Advocates; Public

Health Institute; Redstone Global Center for Prevention and

Wellness; Roots of Change; Rural Advancement Fund of the

National Sharecroppers Fund, Inc; Rural Coalition; Seventh

Generation Interfaith Coalition; Sisters of Charity of Saint

Elizabeth; Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia; Society

for Nutrition Education and Behavior; Society of Behavioral

Medicine; Springfield Food Policy Council; Stanford Medicine

Children's Health; The Laurie M. TIsch Center for Food,

Education and Policy, Teachers College, Columbia University;

The Praxis Project; Trust for America's Health; UnidosUS;

Union of Concerned Scientists; Urban School Food Alliance.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would make it impossible to update the science based on new evidence. We should be basing our decisions on science, not what somebody tells us at the gas station. I hope that we defeat the amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1147.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1147. It is Christmastime across America. For many, the season brings with it the annual return of cherished Christmas traditions, such as leaving milk and cookies out for Santa Claus and his reindeer to enjoy.

As for my family, our traditional choice of dairy has always been whole milk. We want only the most nutritious option for Santa.

The nutrients in whole milk, like protein, calcium, and vitamin D, provide the fuel Santa needs to travel the whole globe in one night. Whole milk is the unsung hero of his Christmas journey.

Protein helps build and repair Santa's muscles. Hoisting heavy sacks of gifts up and down the chimney is no easy task.

Calcium is vital for strong bones. It is calcium that keeps Santa strong and sturdy as he dashes from rooftop to rooftop.

Vitamin D is essential to a strong immune system. Santa absolutely needs one as he braves the cold, wintry night. You see, it is not just the magic of the season that helps Santa deliver presents worldwide, it is also the fortifying nutrients in whole milk.

Reflecting on Christmas traditions this year begs the question: If whole milk is a good option to fuel Santa's extraordinary Christmas Eve journey, then why isn't it an option for American schoolchildren in their lunchrooms?

That is why I support Representative G.T. Thompson's Whole Milk For Healthy Kids Act, a bill allowing unflavored and flavored whole milk to be offered in school cafeterias.

Since 2012, the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program has allowed only low-fat and fat-free milk options for American schoolchildren. This means 2 percent and whole milk have been excluded from the daily diets of an entire generation of kids.

The USDA intends to finalize another rule which will further limit milk options. Anti-milk advocates advance one main argument against whole milk: that whole milk is bad for kids.

Rather, milk has 13 essential nutrients that are needed for children to live healthy lives and succeed in school. It is an essential ingredient to growth and development. Research shows that whole milk is associated with a neutral or lower risk of heart disease and obesity.

Moreover, the USDA contradicts itself by limiting milk options for young children. On one hand, it recognizes that children are at risk of underconsuming dairy, yet on the other, it creates policies that will only exacerbate the problem.

If Americans have learned anything from these past 3 years, it is that scientific authorities tend to contradict themselves. The truth is that whole milk is a significant source of vital nutrients for children's growth and development. The Federal bureaucracy should never stand between your children and a nutritious lunch.

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act isn't about advocating for one type of milk over another. It is about providing parents, schools, and food service providers with the option to choose what is best for our children's nutrition.

This act does not aim to diminish the importance of other milk varieties. Rather, it seeks to restore the availability of a wholesome, natural option that has been a staple for generations. This bill is about choice. It is a chance to empower parents and schools to make informed choices about what goes into our children's diets.

Whether it is a nutritional foundation for Santa's journey or your child's math homework, let's not discount the benefits of whole milk.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just like to tell my colleague something that I think will be easy to remember about why we are doing this. Scientists/experts built the Titanic, and amateurs built the ark.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned about waste. One of the reasons there is so much waste is because whole milk is not allowed, and children don't like the taste of skim milk.

We are putting children first. We are not excluding soy drink. It is not milk. It is a plant-based food. It isn't milk, so you can't call it soy milk. You can call it soy drink.

It was under our first African-American President in this country that this was designed this way. The First Lady pushed through these rules and regulations to exclude whole milk, which, by the way, my colleague says has an enormous amount more fat.

The fat content of whole milk is about 3\1/2\ percent. We are foisting on children 1\1/2\ percent milk, which doesn't have a very good taste to many of them. We are excluding them from 3\1/2\ percent. We do not exclude soy drink. This is about inclusion and equity. We want people to be able to drink the kind of milk they want to drink.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), who is the vice chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two scientific articles.

[From the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy]

Dairy Foods, Obesity, and Metabolic Health: The Role of the Food Matrix

Compared with Single Nutrients

(By Dariush Mozaffarian)

Introduction

Conventional dietary guidelines from around the globe have

focused on individual nutrients to maintain and improve

health and prevent disease. This is due to the historical

focus, developed in the last century, on single nutrients in

relation to clinical nutrient deficiency diseases. However,

this reductionist approach is inappropriate for translation

to chronic diseases.

A look back at the history of modern nutrition science

provides important perspectives on the origins of the

reductionist approach to nutrition. In 1747, the British

sailor and physician James Lind tested whether citrus fruits

prevented scurvy, but it was not until 1932 that vitamin C

was actually isolated, synthesized, and proven to be the

relevant ingredient. The period of the 1930s to 1950s was a

golden era of vitamin discovery, when all the major vitamins

were identified, isolated, and synthesized, and shown to be

the active constituents of foods relevant for nutrient

deficiency diseases such as pellagra (niacin), beriberi

(thiamine), rickets (vitamin D), and night blindness (vitamin

A). This scientific focus on nutrient deficiencies coincided

with global geopolitics, in particular the Great Depression

and World War II, which accentuated concerns about

insufficient food and nutrients. For example, the birth of

RDAs was at the National Nutrition Conference on Defense in

1941, which focused on identifying the individual nutrients

needed to prevent nutrient deficiencies in order to have a

population ready for war. Together, these scientific and

historical events led to the concept of food as a delivery

system for calories and specific isolated nutrients.

It was not until the 1980s that modern nutrition science

began to meaningfully consider nutrition in association with

chronic diseases, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes,

cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer. Intuitively, the

reductionist paradigm that had been so successful in reducing

the prevalence of nutrient deficiency diseases was extended

to chronic diseases. Thus, saturated fat became ``the'' cause

of heart disease, whereas now, excess calories and fat are

``the'' causes of obesity.

What recent advances in nutrition science have

demonstrated, however, is that although a single-nutrient

focus works well for prevention of deficiency diseases, such

as scurvy or beriberi, this approach generally fails for

chronic diseases such as coronary artery disease (CAD),

stroke, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. For such complex

conditions, the focus should be on foods.

Calories in/Calories out

The US obesity epidemic is a recent phenomenon, starting in

the mid-1980s, and the rise of obesity globally is even more

recent. The strategies to address this epidemic have not yet

caught up with advances in nutrition science. Most current

dietary recommendations and policies across the globe remain

calorie and fat focused, recommending foods based on these

reductionist metrics rather than their complex, empirically

determined effects on health. For example, nearly all

guidelines recommend low-fat or nonfat dairy foods to reduce

calories, total fat, and saturated fat in the diet, based on

the theory that this will help maintain a healthy weight and

reduce the risk of CVD. This is seen, for example, in the

2015-2020 US Dietary Guidelines; National School Lunch

Program, NIH Dietary Guidelines for Kids; and CDC Diabetes

Prevention Program.

However, foods are not simply a collection of individual

components, such as fat and calories, but complex matrices

that have correspondingly complex effects on health and

disease. Recommendations based on calorie or fat contents

fail to consider the complex effects of different foods,

independent of their calories, on the body's multiple,

redundant mechanisms for weight control, from the brain to

the liver, the microbiome, and hormonal and metabolic

responses. This growing evidence indicates that different

foods, calorie-for-calorie, have different effects on the

risk of long-term weight gain and success of weight

maintenance.

Dairy Foods and Weight

Although dairy products contribute cents10

percent of all calories in the US diet, until recently,

little direct research had evaluated the health effects of

different dairy foods. The complex ingredients and matrices

of different dairy foods, from milk to yogurt to cheese,

appear to have varying effects on weight.

Although considerable research has focused on optimal diets

for weight loss among obese individuals (secondary

prevention), fewer studies have evaluated determinants of

gradual weight gain (primary prevention). Among nonobese US

adults, the average weight gain is centslb (0.45

kg) per year. This represents a very slow, modest increment,

but when sustained over many years, this small annual weight

gain drives the obesity epidemic. This gradual pace also

makes it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to

identify specific causes or remedies.

To identify specific dietary factors associated with long-

term weight gain, we performed prospective investigations

among 3 separate cohorts that included 120,877 US men and

women who were free of chronic disease and not obese at

baseline. We examined weight gain every 4 y, for up to 24 y

of follow-up, and its association with the increased intake

of individual foods. Within each 4-y period, participants

gained an average of 3.35 lb. On the basis of increased daily

servings of different foods, those strongly linked to weight

gain were generally carbohydrate-rich, including potato chips

(per daily serving, 1.69 lb greater weight gain every 4 y),

other potatoes/fries (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages

(1.00 lb), sweets (0.65 lb), and refined grains (0.56 lb).

Other foods were not linked to weight gain, even when then

intake was increased, including cheese, low-fat milk, and

whole milk. Other foods were actually related to less weight

gain: the more they were consumed, the less weight was

gained. This included vegetables (-0.22 lb), whole grains

(-0.37 lb), fruits (-0.49 lb), nuts (-0.57 lb), and yogurt

(-0.82 lb) When sweetened vs. plain yogurt were evaluated,

each was associated with relative weight loss, although when

sweetened, about half the benefit was lost.

What could explain these findings? We hypothesize that

different foods have varying effects on multiple redundant

mechanisms for weight gain, including effects on hunger and

fullness, glucose, insulin and other hormonal responses, de

novo fat synthesis by the liver, gut microbiome responses;

and the body's metabolic rate.

Based on these findings, certain foods, when consumed over

the long term can have relatively neutral effects on weight,

others promote weight gain, whereas still others promote

weight loss.

Interestingly, although we found that cheese, low-fat milk,

and whole-fat milk were each unassociated with weight change,

there is evidence that dairy foods may promote healthier body

composition. Consistent with our findings, a systematic

review and meta-analysts of 37 randomized clinical trials

with 184,802 participants, which assessed the effect of dairy

consumption on weight and body composition, found that

overall, dairy consumption had little effect on BMI. Body

composition, however, changed significantly. Dairy

consumption led to a reduction in fat mass (0.23 kg) and an

increase in lean body mass (0.37 kg). Overall, high-dairy

intervention increased body weight (0.01, 95 percent CI:

-0.25, 0.26), and lean mass (0.37, 95 percent CI: 0.11,

0.62); decreased body fat (-0.23, 95 percent CI: -0.48, 0.02)

and waist circumference (-1.37 95 percent CI: -2.28, -0.46).

In subgroup analyses, such effects appeared larger in

trials also having energy restriction, but such subgroup

findings should be interpreted cautiously The types and

frequency of dairy products consumed varied among these

trials, making it difficult to make distinctions in this

meta-analysis about the effects of different types of dairy

products such as low-fat or whole fat, or milk, yogurt, or

cheese. When viewed in combination with our long-term

observational findings, the joint results suggest that dairy

foods do not promote weight gain, that dairy consumption may

reduce body fat and augment muscle mass, and that the type of

dairy product (milk compared with cheese compared with

yogurt) may be more important for preventing long-term weight

gain than the dairy fat content.

Dairy Foods, Probiotics, and the Microbiome

Many pathways appear relevant to the concept that foods

cannot be judged on calorie content alone for risk of

obesity. Among these, the gut microbiome is particularly

interesting. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the

quality of the diet strongly influences the gut microbiome.

Among different factors, probiotics have been studied for

their effect on the microbiome; as well as potential benefits

of fermented foods, which may be greater than the sum of

their individual microbial, nutritive, or bioactive

components.

For example, in an experimental model, mice genetically

predisposed to obesity were provided control diets or a

``fast-food'' chow with and without probiotic-containing

yogurt or a single probiotic (Lactobacillus reuteri) in

water. Without probiotics, mice on the fast-food chow gained

significant weight. However, the addition of either

probiotic-containing yogurt or water prevented this weight

gain. Crucially, the probiotics did not appear to reduce the

amount of calories consumed; rather, the benefits appeared

related to changes in microbiome function and inflammatory

pathways. The results support weight benefits of probiotics

and, more importantly, provide empiric evidence that

challenges the widely accepted conventional wisdom that

the effects of different foods on obesity depend largely

on their calories.

Consistent with this animal experiment, a recent systematic

review and meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials

examined the effects of probiotics, either in foods or as

supplements, on body weight and composition in overweight and

obese subjects. Administration of probiotics significantly

reduced body weight percent (-0.60 kg), BMI (-0.27 kg/m\2\),

and fat percentage (0.60 percent), compared with placebo. A

separate meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

demonstrated that consumption of probiotics in foods or

supplements significantly improves blood glucose, insulin,

and insulin resistance. The trials in these two meta-analyses

were neither long-term nor large--in all, a total of about

1,000 subjects were included in each meta-analysis, with

trial durations ranging from 3 to 24 wk and with varying

designs in terms of controls, disease conditions, and

composition of probiotic preparations evaluated. Nonetheless,

together with observational and experimental evidence, these

studies provide compelling evidence to support weight and

metabolic benefits of foods rich in probiotics.

Dairy Foods, CVD, and Diabetes

Although an important risk factor for type 2 diabetes and

CVD, growing research suggests that specific foods may also

directly alter disease risk. In a meta-analysis of 29

prospective cohort studies including 938,465 participants who

experienced 93,158 deaths, 28,419 incident CAD events, and

25,416 incident CVD events, neither total dairy nor milk

consumption was significantly associated with total

mortality, CAD, or CVD. Notably, findings were similar when

total whole-fat dairy, or low-fat dairy were separately

evaluated. In contrast, the intake of fermented dairy

products (predominantly cheese, plus yogurt and fermented

milk) was associated with modestly lower risk of total

mortality and CVD, with about 5 percent lower risk of each

per 50 g daily serving. In addition, the consumption of

cheese alone, the dairy product with the highest amount of

dairy fat, was associated with a significantly lower risk of

both CAD and stroke.

In the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis cohort,

including 5209US adults with Caucasian, Asian, black, and

Hispanic backgrounds, different food sources of saturated fat

were analyzed for their relation with subsequent CVD risk,

adjusted for sociodemographics, medical history, and other

dietary and lifestyle factors. A higher intake of saturated

fat from dairy sources was associated with significantly

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), who is my classmate.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, we are waiting for one more speaker to come, so I will yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate some points that were made before. We are not being driven by any special interest group lobby. We are being driven by the special interest group of children. We want children in school to have access to whole milk, which, as my colleagues have pointed out, is 96.75 percent fat-free, but it provides one of the most nutritious meals that children can have.

We are seeing tremendous waste in the schools. We are not excluding soy drink. The policy that we are trying to overcome here by providing whole milk to children was a policy passed under the Obama administration. We are not trying to harm minorities in any way whatsoever. We want everybody to have the choice to drink a soy drink, whole milk, skim milk, 1 percent milk, whatever.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to myself.

Mr. Chairman, this bill has been terribly mischaracterized by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is about healthy choices for children.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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

Mr. Chair, I have seen a lot of bills mischaracterized on this floor in my time here, but I think this is one of the worst.

Passing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act would be a critical step toward empowering parents and securing our children's well-being. Whole milk isn't just a beverage; it is a vital source of nutrients essential for children's growth. Denying access to its calcium, vitamin D, and protein threatens to inhibit their development.

To the anti-milk advocates, I have one thing to ask of you: What do you have against milk?

If you scrutinize them closely, you might be convinced that Democrats are waging a war on dairy. The Democrat administration has presided over a 15 percent milk price increase in the grocery store.

A Democrat proposal, the Green New Deal, calls for the elimination of cows for their so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

A Democrat policy is slashing the milk available to newborns through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for women, infants, and children by four quarts.

A Democrat interest group, PETA, has called milk a so-called white supremacist symbol. How patently absurd.

Let's end the war on milk and pass the bill.

Together, we can ensure that our children have access to the nutritional foundation they need to thrive and become the healthy, vibrant leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and 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 Minnesota for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is here in the Capitol today. The President of Ukraine left his war-torn country to come to the United States to plead for our help in repelling Putin's murderous and unlawful invasion, in protecting his people, and in preserving their democracy.

As he did so, Putin unleashed a devastating missile attack on Kyiv and was captured on video drinking champagne and toasting the downfall of Ukraine if its Western allies falter.

President Zelenskyy came here to ask the United States to stand tall and honor its commitment to an ally, its commitment to democracy, and its commitment to upholding international law. In response, the United States House of Representatives is debating the merits of chocolate milk.

We will not long remember the MAGA majority's great gas stove war of 2023 or their attempts to make it easier to kill the endangered lesser prairie-chicken, but the sad fact is, these bills have consumed weeks of precious floor time this year as the House majority struggles to pass any legislation of note.

The world will, however, remember if the United States fails to support Ukraine in its hour of need.

President Zelenskyy, our NATO allies, and the American people should expect better from this Congress. Under this extremist majority, they are doomed to disappointment, which again brings us here today to debate chocolate milk.

When I was home this past weekend, I had the chance to talk with many of

my constituents. I met with women small business owners to discuss their challenges. I talked to college students about their concerns regarding attacks on reproductive freedom here in the United States. I gathered with people in our community who have lost loved ones, neighbors, and friends to gun violence, and I listened to their calls for action on commonsense gun safety legislation.

Overwhelmingly, people came to talk to me about making our country a place where all Americans, all children, can thrive. That means bringing down the cost of healthcare, childcare, household energy, and high-speed internet so families can care for their kids, heat their homes, and stay connected. This means investing in infrastructure, good-paying jobs, and public education so we can strengthen our economy, lower costs, build safer communities, and create opportunities so everyone has a shot at a brighter future.

These are the things I came to Congress to do.

In these last legislative days of the year, these aren't the things that House Republicans are doing. I would call it unbelievable except we have seen the same story play out over and over again in this Chamber all year.

For months on end, MAGA extremists have dragged our country to the brink of default, nearly shut down the government twice, and even ousted their own Speaker. Pushed by the most extreme members of their Conference, they have brought chaos to the House floor. They have put up bills only for them to tank and have to be withdrawn as they fight among themselves. They spent 25 days just arguing over which one of them should be Speaker. This is all on the American people's dime.

Now, with pressing challenges at home and around the world, they are pushing a completely discredited impeachment inquiry and other naked political stunts, all to distract from their own inability to govern. They have done nothing to deliver for the American people, and Americans deserve better than this.

House Republicans refuse to get their act together. Today, they have brought to the floor two misguided and marginal bills that fail to address any of the major threats or concerns our country or our constituents face. Both bills open the door to the influence of more special interests in our government's functions.

I should note that, today, we were supposed to consider two additional bills impacting our national security and individual rights. Due to infighting among Republicans and their own committee chairs, these measures were pulled last night from the schedule, leaving us with another wasted day of chaos and incompetence.

The first bill we have today is H.R. 1147, which makes changes to school nutrition standards in a way that would undermine science and undo important progress made over the past 13 years.

Schools play an essential role in our kids' health. For so many children, the meals they get at school represent the majority of calories and the most nutritious meals they consume all day.

We saw this reality clearly during the first days of the pandemic when, as schools closed down, the prospect of missed school breakfasts and lunches threatened the health of children across America.

The meals served in schools are based on the most recent set of dietary guidelines as determined by child nutrition experts. These guidelines stay current and are updated at least every 5 years. In fact, in February of this year, the Biden-Harris administration began the latest update.

When I served on my local school board, and before as a Home and School president, I was involved in efforts to improve and implement what was at the time new Federal improved nutrition standards for our district's meals.

Through that experience, I know just how important nutritious meals are to helping students succeed and form lifelong healthy habits. We have seen immense benefits since Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act in 2010.

The research shows that the millions of children who participate in school meal programs have better overall diet quality than those who do not. Studies prove, despite arguments to the contrary, that students eat and enjoy these meals. When presented with healthy choices, they take them.

Allowing whole milk, particularly flavored whole milk, to be served in schools is against current dietary recommendations and against the recommendation of experts, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

We know that too much saturated fat can raise bad cholesterol levels, a known cause of heart disease. Most troubling, many varieties of flavored milk that are pushed by this bill contain unhealthy chemicals, such as artificial colors and flavors, and nearly twice the amount of sugar as plain milk.

At a time when one in five school-age children already has adverse cholesterol levels, we should not be making it easier to serve unhealthier meals in schools.

This bill blatantly ignores the science.

Even if you deny these facts, everyone should be able to admit we are long overdue for a comprehensive child nutrition reauthorization. We owe it to students and their families to consistently improve the meals that schools are serving. The last comprehensive reauthorization of the laws governing school meal programs was done 13 years ago.

I wish the Republican majority would spend more time helping to pass comprehensive policies to support our schools as they work to provide healthier and more satisfying meals to our students within current nutritional standards. We should not waste time on this one-off change to serve special interests that circumvent the normal process for updating meal standards.

I think we owe it to our children, their health, and their futures to let the experts guide what we are providing them to eat in schools. We should not allow politicians to make the decisions in what should be a science-based process.

Today, we are also considering H.R. 357, another attempt by the Republican majority to derail the Federal rulemaking process. This is an unnecessary and vague bill designed to undermine the critical work of Federal agencies.

It is part of a MAGA narrative that unfairly and untruthfully paints hardworking Federal employees, nonpartisan experts in their fields, as faceless bureaucrats who are somehow hostile to everyday Americans.

The fact is that the regulatory process that our Republican colleagues seek to frame as a battle against some vast bureaucratic conspiracy is actually an essential part of ensuring that we all have clean air and water to breathe and drink, healthy food to eat, and safe planes, trains, and automobiles to travel in.

The truth is that Congress already has a wide range of ways to exercise oversight and control over rulemaking.

If the majority is so concerned about improving the process, they would join Democratic efforts to ensure corporate interests can't game that process. They would advocate for incorporating more public feedback in those agencies' decisions.

They don't really want to make the process better. Instead, bills like this would create a bottleneck in our government's operations that will prevent rules that the Republican majority doesn't like.

This bill would politicize the process of confirming nominees to administrative agencies even more than it is already. Individual Senators would have even more incentive to block an administration's nomination for partisan and corporate goals. More corporate influence would be allowed to infiltrate the Senate confirmation process. Ultimately, our agencies would be obstructed from doing important work to protect the American people's health and safety and making government function better.

It is clear my Republican colleagues don't want to make our government work better. These aren't traditional conservatives. They are nihilists dedicated to grinding government to a halt.

With this bill and their previous efforts to decimate Federal rulemaking, they prefer to upend the regulatory process, even if it improves the lives of Americans every single day.

The Federal Government has long played an important role in promoting

the health, safety, and welfare of the American people. We should ensure that it is able to continue doing so.

Again and again, we have seen this Republican majority prioritize the wrong things this year, and today is no different. They are using valuable floor time and committee time to pass marginal bills, enable their own infighting, and launch an act of petty political vengeance against the current President. Then, they are going to call it a year and go home for the holidays. This is an unacceptable way to govern. It is not governance at all.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The epidemic of gun violence has touched every corner of America, tragically devastating families, tearing apart communities, and scarring schoolchildren.

In 2022, nearly 50,000 people died by guns, an average of one person every 11 minutes. This includes almost 20,000 homicides. Mass shootings skyrocketed from 272 in 2014 to 645 last year. In 2020, firearms became the leading cause of death for American children and adolescents. From 2013 to 2022, there was a staggering 87 percent increase in the child and teen firearm death rate.

In 2023, the heartbreak has only continued. As of today, there have been over 40,000 lives lost and over 630 mass shootings. Over 800 schoolchildren 11 years old or under have been killed or injured with guns. Over 4,000 school-age teens have been touched by gun violence.

The American people are crying out for Congress to act. Yet, the House of Representatives is using its precious time to debate chocolate milk. The American people deserve better.

House Democrats are ready to work with Republicans to tackle this epidemic. If we defeat the previous question today, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 715, a bipartisan bill to require a background check for every firearm sale.

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

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

With the rule we consider today, the Republican majority ends a failed year in the choke hold of its most extreme members. They are finishing out 2023 as they started: unproductive, ineffective, and unconcerned for the American people. They have ignored the real problems facing our Nation today, issues like the gun violence crisis, ongoing threats to Americans' fundamental freedoms, access to economic opportunity and good-paying jobs, and threats to our national security.

They have filled this Chamber with culture wars and conspiracies and pushed policies that would hurt our children, families, students, seniors, members of the Armed Forces, and workers. They have turned their backs on our allies: democracies standing in the breach against forces that pose serious threats to our own national security. They have wasted days, weeks, and months with cheap political stunts all to the detriment and on the dime of our constituents.

Congress is supposed to work for the people, and this is not what the people sent us here to do.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 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.