Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as the mother of two college students, I am all too familiar with the concerns voiced by the nearly 18 million students and their families who attempted to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid this year and who are dreading a failed rollout again this year.

I am here today to speak on their behalf.

I am especially frustrated considering the Department of Education has had 3 years to simplify the FAFSA as Congress has dictated.

This clear misplacement of priorities led the 2024 FAFSA to be delayed by 3 months with continuous technical issues. A scathing report from the Government Accountability Office found not only did the Biden- Harris Department of Education repeatedly fail to release FAFSA, when they finally released it, it didn't work. Then they left millions of calls from American families unanswered. Three-quarters of calls to the Department of Education about the broken FAFSA were not answered, and when they did answer the phone, they told parents to just keep trying.

It is as if we need to take the Department of Education, unplug it, plug it back in, and hope that it might work, but it is not going to. They are still unprepared.

The Department of Education has already failed students again this year with the expectation that the form will now again be 2 months late.

My bill, the FAFSA Deadline Act, sets a firm October 1 deadline to publish FAFSA consistent with what has been expected for years.

Thankfully, this wasn't an issue under President Trump. We can look forward to prioritizing FAFSA once again in this next administration.

It is imperative that we do not allow this to become precedent and that we work together to make sure that American families are taken care of when applying for the FAFSA.

We want this program to work. We want to make sure that families that want to send their kids to college have the availability to do that and that the FAFSA is available and workable.

For parents and students across the country, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of a critical piece of legislation, the Think Differently about Education Act, as a proud cosponsor.

This bill is about empowering families, ensuring transparency, and providing the necessary support to students with disabilities as they navigate their educational journey.

Each year, in thousands of schools across the Nation, individualized education program meetings, or IEP meetings, are taking place. Parents and school staff come together to develop a personalized plan that addresses the unique needs of every child.

However, many parents face these meetings feeling overwhelmed and unsure. Some may not realize they have a right to bring an advocate, therapist, or lawyer to help them through the process. Unfortunately, most parents sit in these meetings without the support they deserve.

This is where the Think Differently about Education Act steps in, a simple, commonsense solution, but one that can make a world of difference. It would require K-12 schools to inform parents of their right to bring a third-party advocate to IEP meetings.

By empowering parents with this knowledge, we can ensure they are fully supported as they advocate for their child's education.

This isn't just about informing parents. It is about creating a culture where families feel supported and engaged in their child's educational journey.

Every child deserves a quality education that meets their unique needs, and every family deserves to be empowered to advocate for their child.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Think Differently about Education Act so that we can support more families on this journey.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to offer my congratulations to the Indiana Association of Rehabilitation Facilities on receiving an extraordinary milestone: 50 years of service. Over the past five decades, INARF has proudly represented its members who serve more than 50,000 citizens annually and employ nearly 15,000 dedicated professionals.

INARF plays an indispensable role in our southern Indiana community, shaping the landscape of disability services to provide the highest quality of care and support for nearly 900,000 people with disabilities.

Last month, I had the privilege of visiting one of INARF's member organizations where I witnessed the vital work that they do. Their unwavering commitment ensures that everyone has the opportunity to thrive and to reach their full potential.

As we celebrate 50 years of impact with our local disability service providers, I extend my sincere gratitude. I thank them for their tireless dedication to ensuring Indiana residents have access to the resources and services they need.

Recognizing Lischkge Motors

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable milestone, Lischkge Motors' 100 years of

business in Aurora, Indiana. If you have ever driven along U.S. Route 50, you have likely seen the iconic 100-foot-tall round barn, the largest of its kind in the State. This impressive structure, built in 1901, took Clayton Lischkge 2 years to convert into a thriving business space, an achievement that amazed professional engineers and silenced the critics.

Mr. Lischkge's journey reflects the spirit of that very barn, defying the odds and exceeding all expectations. Starting out as an apprentice mechanic, earning little to no pay in exchange for learning the trade, he opened his own shop in June of 1924. His sheer determination kept the doors of Lischkge Motors open through the Great Depression, and his resilience carried the business through four devastating floods, including the infamous 1937 flood that reached the second floor of the shop.

In 1964, Lischkge Motors found its new home at the round barn, a symbol of the family's resilience and adaptability. Today, they hold the title of the oldest Mack Truck distributor in the world, and their impact on the Aurora community is immeasurable.

As we celebrate a century of Lischkge Motors, I stand here today to congratulate the Lischkge family on this tremendous achievement and to thank them for being an invaluable part of our community.

Congratulating Decatur County Memorial Hospital

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Decatur County Memorial Hospital for over 100 years of dedicated service to the people of our district and southern Indiana. Originally established as a memorial to honor Decatur County residents who bravely fought and lost their lives in World War I, this hospital embodies the care and spirit that rivals any institution in the Nation. With a commitment to integrity, compassion, quality, and a deep sense of community, Decatur County Memorial Hospital continues to be a cornerstone of healthcare in our region.

From its beginnings in a 16,000-square-foot facility, the hospital has grown to include surgery, women's care, and rehabilitation centers across multiple locations, all while staying true to its mission of providing top-tier care to southern Indiana. Thanks to their dedication, the need for residents to seek care outside of our community has been greatly reduced.

This past August, Decatur County Memorial honored its proud history and built upon its legacy by lowering a time capsule on campus, connecting the past, present, and future of this institution. As we reflect on its rich heritage and the sacrifices of those who have served, we are reminded of the enduring values that define this hospital. I look forward to the next 100 years of building upon these values.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate National Emergency Medical Services Week and honor the EMS professionals and paramedics who provide lifesaving care across the Nation every day.

EMS professionals like Nick Oleck, chief of Scott County EMS in my home State of Indiana. Ever since he started serving in Scott County more than a decade ago, Nick and his team have turned around the Emergency Medical Services department, and it is now self-funded, saving taxpayer money while also saving lives.

This can be a heart-wrenching line of work. Last year, Nick suddenly lost a friend and colleague, and yet still he perseveres. While suffering through his

own grief, he continues to respond to calls for service. Nick has also started a community paramedic program to train future EMS personnel. He is an outstanding medic and an exemplar of the EMS profession.

This week we celebrate every EMS professional across the country as they contend for our communities whenever emergencies happen.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1243 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1243, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti- Surveillance State Act. H.R. 5403 would be considered under a structured rule, and it also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 192, a bill which would prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections in the District of Columbia, to be considered under a closed rule. It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation beginning with H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the rule provides for consideration of this legislation. As a member of the Financial Service Committee, we have spent countless hours trying to develop a responsible regulatory structure for blockchain technology and digital assets.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary as regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission have failed. Instead of developing a targeted and purposeful framework that would promote innovation and protect consumers, they have led with regulation by enforcement action.

This approach threatens the United States' leadership in the future of digital assets, a future that could better protect privacy, reduce business costs, and empower more Americans.

This flawed approach by the SEC has required congressional action, and FIT21 is the joint response of the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. FIT21 establishes a framework consistent with existing law but also appropriate for the digital assets in question and their unique characteristics.

First, there is no current clear market structure for the regulation of digital assets in the United States. The SEC has merely been regulating by enforcement action.

This leaves digital asset innovators and consumers to play a guessing game. This not only stifles innovation but lends itself to the SEC picking winners and losers.

Meanwhile, there is currently no way for digital asset commodities to be registered or regulated by the CFTC. Chair Gensler has repeatedly said most digital assets are securities. However, by his own admission, we know that not all digital are securities. In fact, it is estimated that 70 percent or more are commodities.

This is among the most important reasons for the passage of FIT21. The SEC does not regulate commodities. It regulates securities. The CFTC does not regulate securities. It regulates commodities. The advent of digital assets, which can be either securities or commodities, has created a regulatory black hole that FIT21 seeks to remedy.

By defining digital asset commodities and securities and creating a clear regulatory market structure, FIT21 protects consumers and provides the regulatory clarity for digital asset developers to innovate.

The framework offered by FIT21 will give clear guidance to regulators and thus allow consumers to better judge digital assets for themselves, avoid scams, reduce instances of data theft, and lessen the potential for market manipulation.

FIT21 is good for our constituents and good for the country. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of us to support this important legislation.

Moving on to H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, I am proud of H.R. 5403 because I share the concerns of many of my colleagues about the consequences of a Federal Reserve Bank digital currency and what that could mean for our constituents and their privacy.

If issued, a government-controlled CBDC, central bank digital currency, would give Federal bureaucrats the ability to track every transaction Americans make, as well as the ability to block any transaction they so choose. This would be an unprecedented level of surveillance on the daily lives of everyday Americans, and we should all be concerned about the potential threats to individual rights and privacy.

A CBDC would give the government the power to shut off access to payments and freeze the bank accounts of law-abiding citizens and institutions for political reasons, just like we saw with the Canadian trucker protest or with Operation Choke Point.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in standing against the creation of a central bank digital currency by supporting this bill.

Finally, this rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 192, a bill which would prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections in the District of Columbia.

Americans are rightly concerned with election integrity. Free and fair elections are essential to any democracy. We all agree on that.

What we should also agree on is that noncitizens voting in elections undermines confidence in elections.

That is why the District of Columbia's Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act is so objectionable. It allows noncitizens to vote in D.C. elections, including illegal immigrants and foreign agents.

It goes without saying that these individuals, in particular, have interests that are at odds with our own. They literally represent the interests of other countries, including countries hostile to the United States. Why would we want to allow Russia or China or any foreign agent to vote on policies that impact the U.S. Capital? It defies logic, but that is exactly what D.C. has aspired to do.

My colleagues might ask why we even have an interest in the affairs of local laws in this respect. The answer is quite simple: D.C. has a unique and constitutional relationship with the United States Congress.

A lack of confidence in American elections anywhere threatens the confidence in American elections everywhere. It is incumbent upon us to protect the integrity of D.C. elections when the District's elected officials fail to do so and when they allow noncitizens and people with loyalty to other countries to vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that the bury- the-head-in-the-sand approach is the very approach that Chairman Gensler has been taking with regard to the regulation of digital assets.

Our colleagues seem to be less concerned about getting a regulatory framework for consumer protection and are hurrying to put in a central bank digital currency for digital surveillance.

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

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

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

Mr. Speaker, Americans have always been a leader in innovation and technology, particularly in financial services. In order for this to remain the case, we must support regulatory structures that continue to foster that same innovative spirit without sacrificing privacy while providing necessary consumer protections and preserving market integrity.

Before us is the opportunity to move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans.

H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century or FIT21, is a bill that delivers on all of these fronts for the future of digital assets here in the United States.

Speaking of protecting Americans, H.R. 5403, the Central Bank Digital Currency Anti-Surveillance State Act ensures that the government is never in a position to weaponize the financial system against the American people.

Innovation cannot come at the cost of sacrificing individual liberties. The issuance of a CBDC would only work to compromise Americans' rights and privacy.

Finally, H.R. 192 protects the integrity of American elections here in the District of Columbia, and we must prevent it. Congress must step in when local officials in the District fail to protect election integrity in this most basic sense. Noncitizens, including illegal immigrants and agents of foreign governments, must not have the ability to vote in American elections at any level anywhere. This is a basic issue of responsible governance.

To ensure government is responsive to and protective of the people it serves, elections must not include noncitizens or foreign actors.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my good friend from Iowa's amendment and the underlying bill by Mr. D'Esposito, H.R. 8146.

The Nunn amendments will provide policymakers with the information we need to better support our local and State law enforcement officers. This is especially important given the strain the crisis at our southern border has placed on our local communities like the ones we are privileged to represent in Iowa, Indiana, and New York.

Biden's border crisis has made all districts across the country battlegrounds where police are fighting the scourge of fentanyl every day. It is an epidemic, funded by China, driven by the drug cartels, and assisted by Biden's disastrous border policies.

During National Police Week and every week, we should be doing everything in our power to support the men and women in blue. That is why I am grateful to the gentleman from Iowa for his leadership and the gentleman from New York and encourage all of our colleagues to support the Nunn

amendments and Mr. D'Esposito's bill, the Police Our Border Act, H.R. 8146.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1194 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1194, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, to be considered under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and provides for one motion to recommitment.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.J. Res. 109, a joint resolution associated with a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121.''

H.J. Res. 109 would be considered under a closed rule, and it provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 to be considered under a closed rule.

It also provides 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation.

Beginning with H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, Madam Speaker, I am glad this rule provides for consideration of this legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor.

The core premise of this legislation is simple. The Census should be an accurate reflection of this country's citizenry.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, noncitizens comprise approximately 6.7 percent of the Nation's 333 million people.

Including noncitizens in the apportionment of congressional districts will directly impact representation in Congress.

This, to me and most Americans, seems to be a way to take Representatives away from red States and add them to blue States; to literally change the makeup of this body by diluting the influence and number of red districts and adding blue districts in their place.

Under President Biden's watch, nearly 4.7 million illegal aliens have been released into the country, and more than 1.8 million known illegal alien got-aways have escaped into the United States. When added up, these numbers are larger than the population of 32 States.

This isn't simply a constitutional argument. This is a deliberate effort by Joe Biden and the Democrat machine in Washington.

On day one of taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 13986 requiring noncitizens to be counted in the Census both for the purposes of enumeration and determining congressional apportionment.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Having an accurate count of U.S. citizens for the purpose of congressional representation should not be a partisan issue. Yet, here we are with two sides debating the question of who should be counted.

This is a question firmly in Congress' purview. In Department of Commerce v. New York, following the Trump administration's attempt to reinstate a citizenship question on the decennial Census, the Supreme Court made clear this decision is up to the Congress.

I appreciate the leadership of the authors of this bill to ensure Congress is carrying out that responsibility. I hope this measure will have the full support of my colleagues.

Moving on to the financial sector, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I am glad to see floor consideration of H.J. Res. 109.

This legislation addresses an SEC action that bypassed proper rulemaking procedures. Rather than following the processes laid out by the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedures Act, the SEC relied erroneously on a staff accounting bulletin.

You don't have to take our word for it. SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce is on record having said the staff accounting bulletin may not be the appropriate vehicle through which to make this accounting change.

Beyond that, however, this rule brings more uncertainty into the crypto industry by going beyond clarifying how to account for digital assets.

Indeed, this rule effectively requires banks and financial institutions to place digital assets on their balance sheets.

This makes it unclear if customers' assets will be lost if the custodian becomes insolvent. It also increases capital, liquidity, and other requirements for financial institutions in order to manage the risk associated with these assets that should never really be on their books.

The digital assets ecosystem needs more clarity, not less. My colleagues and I on the Financial Services Committee have worked hard this Congress to provide clear rules of the road for digital assets innovation. This rule clearly does the opposite.

The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.

One thing we all have come to expect from this administration is the persistent attacks on American energy and consumer choice. This legislation is another attempt by the Republican majority to defend against the latest attack as the focus of congressional Democrats has now turned inside every American's home.

The Biden administration is now willing to reduce the affordability and reliability of everyday household appliances in pursuit of an out- of-touch, unrealistic, and unaffordable green agenda.

Under the guise of increased efficiency, the administration has offered new rules on home appliances that will raise costs, thus making these household necessities less available, especially to people of modest means. This is at a time when homeowners are already spending 34 percent more on home appliances than they did less than two decades ago.

When Americans are struggling to pay for food under the crushing reality of Bidenflation, they now must also worry about affording the appliances they use to prepare it. Instead of relief, the administration offers more obstacles. That is why we need to pass H.R. 6192.

Finally, the rule provides for H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024. Simply put, our country is blessed with a diverse array of abundant natural resources. We must be responsible stewards of these resources, but responsible stewardship does not mean abandoning the resources that we have. It does not mean making ourselves more reliant on other countries in the name of unrealistic agendas that are divorced from national needs and our own national security.

This bipartisan bill provides certainty where certainty is lacking and allows necessary projects to responsibly move forward.

I look forward to consideration of all of these pieces of legislation and urge the passage of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I agree it is ridiculous that we must consider legislation like the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, but that is the level of ridiculousness that the Democratic Party has forced us into with their out-of-touch, woke agenda. The priorities of the American people are protecting their right to consumer choice, not to be policed in their own homes. Democrats are fighting for woke corporations. Republicans are fighting for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, this is just one piece of the Democrats' green agenda that is fast-tracking a path to all electric vehicles and appliances at a time when our grid can least afford it without any consideration for grid stability.

This move to all EVs and electric appliances in our homes is not something that consumers are ready for, and it is not something that consumers want. The American people want to have choice and affordability, and the actions of the Democrats on this issue are the opposite of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just unpack some of those arguments made against this bill, that H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, will discourage immigrants from participating in the Census.

Revealing that someone is not a citizen does not reveal if someone is here illegally. The individual could have lawful permanent residence, they could be a nonimmigrant residing in the U.S. during an authorized period of stay. Moreover, the Census Bureau must follow strict rules of confidentiality and cannot disclose data tied to an individual respondent in the decennial Census. It can only share aggregate information not attributed to a particular person.

Furthermore, even if respondents were reluctant to complete the Census questionnaire, they would still likely be enumerated by the Census Bureau using other methods, such as review of official records to determine the inhabitants of a particular address or by using proxy information such as reliable information from a neighbor.

Also, there was an argument that H.R. 7109 would skew the distribution of Federal assistance away from States and localities.

This argument is a red herring. H.R. 7109 makes absolutely no changes whatsoever to any laws implicating Federal assistance. Noncitizens would still be counted in the decennial Census. They would only be excluded from the congressional apportionment base.

One other argument that has just been made is that H.R. 7109 fundamentally misunderstands how apportionment was designed by the Framers of the Constitution.

While Democrats may claim that the Evenwel v. Abbott Supreme Court decision requires the phrase ``whole number of persons'' in section 2 of the 14th Amendment to be interpreted as any resident, regardless of citizenship status, section 5 of the 14th Amendment permits the use of implementing statutes for the 14th Amendment. It is this implementing statute which H.R. 7109 amends to explicitly exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base.

Beyond that, the historical context surrounding the phrase ``whole number of persons'' was specifically chosen to make clear that the drafters rejected counting individuals as partial persons. It does not in any way signify that any person taking up residence in a State should be counted for the purpose of apportionment, and certainly not that noncitizens must be included in the apportionment base.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just make note of a few things with regard to the Equal Representation Act. We have heard some comments from our Democrat colleagues that this is somehow unconstitutional.

The court case referenced in Department of Commerce v. New York, the lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claims under the Enumeration Clause, permitted claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and Due Process Clause.

However, the Supreme Court upheld requiring the citizenship question only on the claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and not on constitutional grounds, saying that it is Congress' responsibility to determine whether and how this should take place. That is what we are doing here today in the Equal Representation Act by saying precisely that noncitizens should not count in congressional apportionment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the Equal Representation Act. This bill would restore the one-person, one-vote principle in apportionment. Only citizens are eligible to vote for candidates for Federal offices, including Members of Congress and electors for President of the United States.

However, under the current practice, noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, nonimmigrants, and even illegal aliens are wrongly included in a State's population for purposes of the apportionment calculation. Thus, States with higher proportions of noncitizens residing in that State are advantaged over States with a lower concentration of noncitizens.

In the case of illegal aliens, the status quo is particularly concerning as some States or major metropolitan areas within those States have declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions, shielding illegal aliens from Federal immigration law enforcement, with some even providing special services to the illegal alien population residing in those jurisdictions.

Illegal aliens incentivized to move to those jurisdictions, who reside in that State on Census day, and who are enumerated in the Census, would add to the State's population for the purposes of apportionment.

It is appropriate for Congress to direct the Census Bureau to collect one of the most fundamental data points regarding individuals residing in the United States: Whether or not they are a citizen.

Article I of the Constitution requires the Census of the population to be taken every 10 years. This is directed by law. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress is permitted by the Constitution to inquire about citizenship on this questionnaire, on the Census. Adding a citizenship question to the decennial Census is an appropriate exercise of Article I authority over the Census and is the responsibility of Congress

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Founders never would have intended a U.S. President allowing 6.7 million illegal immigrants into the country, including terrorists and the drug cartels. I think that is probably not something that was envisioned by the Founders.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we, once again, have before us today the opportunity to move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans, whether that is pushing back on the overreach and the administrative uncertainty of this bureaucratic state, or protecting the core functions of government agencies and protecting our very system of government.

The choice we have before us in this rule is clear, and we must take action.

H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, ensures that the Census count only U.S. citizens for congressional apportionment and Presidential electors. This should not be a novel concept. It should just be a minimum standard.

H.J. Res. 109 provides clarity in the digital assets sector, an area where the United States should be leading. Congress must provide clear rules of the road for digital asset innovators. However, the rule proposed by the SEC does just the opposite.

With respect to home appliances, I think we should all agree that less intrusion by the government is the answer here. This administration's reckless pursuit of its green agenda surely could stop in our kitchens, can it not?

At a minimum, we shouldn't be making living in this country more unaffordable than it already is by this administration. H.R. 6192 is a step in the right direction.

Regarding our natural resources, our country is blessed with a diverse array of abundant natural resources. We ought to use those resources responsibly. H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is responsible and worthy of our support.

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 move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the Scottsburg Warriors boys' basketball team for their remarkable achievement in winning their first-ever Class 2A State championship this year in Indiana.

I am so proud of my hometown team. Having watched the Warriorettes achieve the State championship trophy growing up in Scottsburg in 1989, this victory was extra special.

Their hard work has paid off. Through every practice and game, these young athletes demonstrated the true spirit of teamwork and excellence. Their victory not only brings pride to the Scottsburg community, but the academic achievement and leadership

of these talented young men serves as an inspiration to aspiring athletes across the State.

I commend the coaches, staff, and supporters who have cheered on the players throughout their journey to success. Congratulations, again, to my hometown team.

Congratulating Lanesville High SchoolGirls' Basketball Team on Second

Consecutive Championship

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the Lanesville High School girls' basketball team on their incredible achievement of winning the State championship for a second consecutive year.

Their dedication, teamwork, and determination have propelled them to the pinnacle of success, making their community and school both very proud. This team's journey is a testament to the power of hard work and perseverance.

As they celebrate this historic victory, let us recognize the countless hours of practice, the sacrifices made, and the resilience shown by each member of the team. Their win not only brings honor to Lanesville High School, but their hometown.

On behalf of the entire Ninth District, I congratulate the Lanesville girls' basketball team for their outstanding achievement and wish them continued success in all their future endeavors.

Congratulating Brownstown Braves Boys' Basketball Team on Winning State

3A Championship

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Brownstown Braves boys' basketball team for their outstanding victory in winning the Class 3A State championship this year.

Their successful season is a testament to their hard work and exceptional talents. The Brownstown community is undoubtedly beaming with pride for this achievement. What an exciting time to be part of Indiana basketball, especially southern Indiana basketball.

I commend the coaches, staff, and supporters who provided guidance and unwavering support to these young men. I congratulate the Braves basketball team once more. This is a victory they will never forget. May they continue to strive for greatness in all their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National PEO Week, which starts May 19 and ends May 25, 2024.

National PEO Week will celebrate the important contributions of the professional employer organization (PEO) industry, which provides payroll, employee benefits, compliance assistance, and HR services to hundreds of thousands of small and mid-sized businesses that employ more than 4.5 million people.

PEOs play a critical role in helping businesses grow and thrive, during good times and bad. PEOs help their small business clients grow 7-9 percent faster, have employee turnover that is 10-14 percent lower, and are 50 percent less likely to go out of business than businesses that do not use a PEO.

PEOs help small businesses improve productivity and profitability and focus on their core mission. Through a PEO, the employees of small businesses gain access to important employee benefits such as: 401(k) plans; health, dental, life, and other insurance; dependent care; and other benefits they might not typically receive as employees of a small company.

I know the value that PEOs provide. Before coming to Congress, I worked for a PEO and witnessed the positive impact they had on small businesses in my home state of Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the PEO industry for all they do to help our Nation's small businesses and their employees prosper.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the A Stronger Workforce for America Act, a critical piece of legislation that addresses the pressing needs of our workforce development system.

I thank Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott for their work on this bipartisan legislation and for their responsiveness to the input from Members of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

I am especially proud that this reauthorization includes my language that addresses a concerning gap in our current workforce funding mechanisms. As included in A Stronger Workforce for America Act, my provision specifically amends the distribution of Federal dollars, allowing States to reallocate funds as performance incentives to workforce boards that have either met or exceeded their performance targets.

Additionally, recaptured funds that are awarded as performance incentives are not subject to the 50 percent training requirement that applies to the adult and dislocated worker programs.

This will help entities who are meeting their targets reinvest in programs that work.

It also ensures that our taxpayer dollars are effectively allocated to entities that are best serving our communities and helping individuals access the skills and education they need for meaningful employment.

I am proud to have been involved in the drafting of this version of the Stronger Workforce for America Act as it enhances accountability, quality, and efficiency within our workforce system, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to address the tragic murder of NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller, whose life was senselessly taken while serving his community.

This heinous act of violence not only took the life of a dedicated officer, but it also serves as a stark reminder of the dangers our law enforcement officers face every day.

Guy Rivera and Lindy Jones, the perpetrators of this despicable crime, are no strangers to the criminal justice system. With extensive criminal histories, including prior arrests for violent offenses, Rivera and Jones epitomize the threat posed by repeat offenders who continue to roam our streets despite arrest after arrest.

Officer Diller's death clearly exposes the threat that soft-on-crime policies in Democrat-led cities have brought to communities across the country. These atrocities have enabled individuals, like Rivera and Jones, to evade accountability and continue to live freely while law- abiding citizens and our brave men and women in law enforcement pay the price.

As we mourn the loss of Officer Diller, we must also demand action and policies to restore accountability in our criminal justice system to support crime victims and prioritize the safety of our communities and our law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for meaningful change to prevent tragedies like this from ever happening again.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1052 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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

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

Madam Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1052, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 2799, the Expanding Access to Capital Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rules provide for H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act. H.R. 7511 would be considered under a closed rule, and it also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation.

I begin with H.R. 2799, the Expanding Access to Capital Act. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I am glad to see this important legislation before us today. I am also glad this rule makes in order a number of amendments, including all of the bipartisan amendments that were submitted.

In the last few years, we have seen fewer and fewer companies take advantage of opportunities to raise capital, largely due to burdensome compliance costs and regulatory obstacles.

It is crucial that American entrepreneurs have the tools they need to grow their businesses and that we create opportunities for individuals to invest and save for the future.

This bill aims to strengthen our public markets, expand options for companies to raise capital, and empower Americans, giving them more choices to invest and grow their wealth.

By cutting the red tape and creating new avenues for economic growth, we can create jobs and opportunities for American workers, businessowners, and investors. We can put America back on a path to prosperity and safeguard our future.

I am proud to have one of my own bills, the Regulation A+ Improvement

Act, included as part of this bill package. The bill would raise the cap for Regulation A and allow for more small- to mid-size companies to raise money from everyday investors.

At a time when many Americans are feeling the effects of inflation, this legislation could not be timelier. It can help create jobs and grow the economy. Our capital markets in these United States are the cornerstone of our economy and among our greatest strengths.

This bill ensures that entrepreneurs and investors can take full advantage of what our markets have to offer. Through this, we can give small businesses and investors alike all the tools necessary to achieve the American Dream.

Madam Speaker, unlike the previous bill I discussed, I am deeply saddened to be on the floor discussing the situation at hand and angry that we find ourselves here. It is unfortunate we must have this necessary conversation, driven by the tragic events such as the senseless murder of Laken Riley.

This legislation and the underlying rule are in response to the brutal murder of Laken Riley, a college student in Georgia, whose life was cut short by a suspect who was an illegal immigrant with prior arrests in both New York and Georgia before allegedly committing this crime.

This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue a detainer to any alien inadmissible to the United States who has been charged with, arrested for, or convicted of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.

As ICE describes it themselves, detainers are ``an effective tool in keeping criminals out of local communities by allowing ICE officers to take custody of criminal noncitizens within the confines of a jail.''

If the alien is not in custody at the time of the detainer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is required to promptly take custody.

Additionally, H.R. 7511 allows States to bring civil action against the Federal Government for failing to enforce immigration laws, including parole, detention and removal, and visa sanctions that we know this administration is not enforcing. Simply put, this gives States standing in court and recourse for their constituents who are victims of the enforcement decisions, or lack thereof, by this administration; decisions that have consequences like the very ones we are talking about today.

The Biden administration's failure to secure our southern border has emboldened the criminal cartels, leading to increased drug trafficking and overdose deaths, human smuggling, and the influx of dangerous individuals into the country.

These threats extend far beyond border States, affecting every corner of our Nation. Every State is now a border State.

Unfortunately, Laken's story is not unique. Speaker Johnson recently documented over 100 similar situations where American citizens have been victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens, underscoring the urgency of addressing our border security crisis.

The border is no longer a matter for debate. It is a pressing issue, and it demands immediate action. We cannot simply hold hearings and discussions in Washington. We need real solutions to protect the American people. The President must take decisive action to secure our border, starting with signing this critical bill into law.

I look forward to the House completing its consideration of both pieces of legislation, and I urge the passage of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know what is a joke? The joke is that the bill that Democrats proposed in the Senate, with some Republican support, was the strongest border bill in history. That is the joke. That bill would do nothing more than codify Joe Biden's broken border policies.

Republicans in the House won't codify asylum seekers crossing multiple countries to get to the United States. Republicans in the House won't codify letting illegal aliens into our country in record numbers. We will not normalize the broken border policies that have led us here to this point today.

My colleague claims that this is just a political ploy and that we are doing whatever Donald Trump wants us to do. We are doing what the American people want us to do. Donald Trump didn't make this a top issue for American voters. Joe Biden did. By failing to secure the border and failing to protect Americans, he has failed on every measure on this front.

Given the Biden administration's reluctance to issue any detainer requests, this bill, H.R. 7511, mandates that ICE issue a detainer and take custody of aliens who commit crimes.

In Riley's case, the suspect was arrested in Georgia for theft and fingerprinted at a time when ICE was made aware of his crime through NICS. Had this bill been in effect, ICE would have been required to issue a detainer for the suspect and assumed custody. Or if the alien had already been released by State or local law enforcement, they could have apprehended him. The suspect in the Riley case was not detained and was paroled, violating provisions in the existing Immigration and Nationality Act.

H.R. 7511 would give States standing to sue the Biden administration on behalf of its citizens for the harm caused by their failure to enforce existing immigration law.

This is not a political ploy. This is a response to a tragedy and an attempt to prevent further tragedies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: What will it take? What will it take to get Democrats to care about actual border security? How many Americans have to die of fentanyl overdoses or become victims of violent crime? What will it take?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on my colleague's comments about this not going through a regular process. That is just not really correct.

The House Judiciary Committee has held seven hearings on the state of our southern border. They also held a hearing specifically on criminal aliens and the Biden administration's lax immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. In addition, section 4 of H.R. 7511 was marked up in February.

We heard a lot from my colleague on the other side of the aisle.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle says that this is on us, on Republicans, because of our inaction, but we passed H.R. 2, the actual strongest border bill that we have ever seen. We passed H.R. 2 8 months ago, maybe more, and 211 House Democrats voted ``no'' on that bill. That bill has been sitting in the Senate unmoved ever since.

Senate Republicans even rejected the disastrous border bill ultimately that originated over there that codified all of Joe Biden's terrible border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why would this bill go nowhere? Why would we not want to hold illegal aliens accountable? Why would we not want to detain illegal aliens who commit crimes such as theft, larceny, and violent crimes? Why would we not want to move this bill forward in the Senate?

I hope that my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle would support this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article dated October 28, 2022, in Fortune magazine by the Associated Press entitled, ``Fentanyl and related drugs are killing more people than guns and cars combined. Many victims don't realize they're even taking it.''

Mr. Speaker, even in 2021, there were double the amount of overdose deaths than firearm deaths in the United States, and the dramatic increase in overdose deaths, particularly due to fentanyl, are a direct result of Joe Biden's broken border policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have two words to say. H.R. 2, we passed that 8 months ago. That was the Secure the Border Act. The Democrats own that. Mr. Speaker, 211 Democrats voted against that legislation.

I would also note that, since Joe Biden took office, we have had record numbers of crossings. There has been 7.5 million people who have crossed into the United States illegally and been paroled into the United States under Joe Biden's watch, and that has been going on for 3 years under the Biden administration. Therefore, it is not Republicans that own this issue, but it is Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have before us the opportunity to move legislation that could unleash growth and increase prosperity for Americans across the country in the Expanding Access to Capital Act. This bill empowers Americans with the tools they need to grow their small businesses and secure their financial futures.

We need to focus on initiatives that strengthen our economy and combat inflation. However, time and time again, this administration's policies seem to hinder rather than facilitate business in America and it defies logic.

In contrast, this legislation streamlines regulations, expands opportunities for economic growth, and enables more Americans to invest in their future.

Turning to H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act, it aims to strengthen our immigration laws.

In H.R. 7511, we mourn the death and honor the life and memory of Laken Riley and other victims of the Biden administration's open-border policies, and we denounce President Biden's open-border policies.

We are not politicizing. This is a response to a tragedy in the hope that we would prevent a similar tragedy moving forward. No family should have to endure what Laken's family has experienced. We owe it to Laken's parents and parents nationwide to ensure something like this never happens again.

This border crisis is real. It has devastating consequences. Laken's story is sadly not unique. As the Speaker has documented, there are over 100 stories across the country just like Laken's.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the House can speak with one voice on this bill and together do what the American people have been asking us to do, which is secure the border and institute policies that will protect Americans and American families.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 947 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, House Resolution 947, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.J. Res. 98, a joint resolution related to a rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to the ``Standard for Determining

Joint Employer Status.'' H.J. Res. 98 would be considered under a closed rule, and it also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 38, a joint resolution nullifying the final rule of the Federal Highway Administration relating to ``Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers.'' It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, or their designees, and provides for one motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation.

Beginning with H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, Mr. Speaker, we have picked up right where we left off in the first session of the 118th Congress, stopping this administration from overstepping.

During the Trump administration, the Department of Justice went about ending the practice of allowing these third-party settlement agreements. Because the focus of the Justice Department should be delivering justice and doing so under equal application of the law, the Justice Department should not be picking winners and losers. The DOJ should not be in the business of choosing parties far removed from the taxpayer and not directly related to the case at hand to be benefiting from a settlement.

Sadly, from the very onset of the Biden Presidency, this administration has been laser focused on undoing the progress of the previous administration. This administration has consistently and simultaneously overstepped their authority in rulemaking and underdelivered for the American people. That is why we are here.

Following the President's day-one directive to review reinstating Obama-era policies, the Biden administration began rescinding Trump-era policies.

I think most Americans would agree that the Federal Government should not be requiring settling parties to make donations to unrelated third parties.

I think most Americans would be shocked that these settlement payments don't go to the U.S. Treasury but to liberal wish-list recipients.

Justice is not best served by this practice and it is why the Trump administration ended the process.

Just as important, ending this practice ensures accountability from the government by preventing those in power from rewarding political allies, as well as protecting this body's constitutional responsibilities.

We have seen this practice used to push funds to far-left organizations that use the money to support out-of-touch or woke ideologies. We should put an end to this egregious practice by the Biden administration.

Moving on to the workforce. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I am glad to see consideration of H.J. Res. 98, of which I am an original cosponsor.

This legislation is meant to protect small businesses, particularly franchisees from the Biden administration's assault.

This resolution is meant to preserve the job opportunities these leaders create and to protect their freedom to run their businesses as they see fit. It also preserves choice and flexibility for prospective employees. This joint resolution will ensure a predictable and rational legal standard for what qualifies as a joint employer.

For an administration that can't seem to put far-left ideology aside long enough to get our economy on track, I suppose this rule fits in with a larger pattern of stifling economic growth and driving the cost of doing business even higher.

We should be taking up policies that empower employers, not finding ways to make it more difficult to do business in America.

Finally, on to S.J. Res. 38. Similarly, and it seems there is a pattern here, Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution fights back against the Biden administration's policies that hurt American manufacturers in favor of the Communist Party of China.

S.J. Res. 38 will ensure Buy America requirements are applied and that this misguided Biden rule does not strengthen China over American companies.

We understand the administration wants to force electric vehicles on the American people, and that in order to make these chargers less expensive and to meet their unrealistic green goals, they want to rely on Chinese manufacturers, but we cannot let those political objectives hurt our own American manufacturing while strengthening China at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, as we all have said and highlighted before on the floor, we know the Biden administration's priority is to pour billions into green energy and clean cars. By rushing to reach arbitrary green and climate agendas, the United States is more likely to solidify China's control of our energy future rather than save the planet.

Mr. Speaker, we must be strengthening our American manufacturers. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting S.J. Res. 38 as the Senate, including Senate Democrats, have already done.

If the President really wants to veto this bill, despite his administration's flawed approach, then we should give him that opportunity.

I look forward to consideration of all of these three pieces of legislation, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, these arguments merely are misdirection. The executive branch has the power under the Constitution to enforce the laws.

When wrongdoers violate Federal law, any settlement with the government should be focused on three things: compensating victims, redressing harm, and punishing or deterring unlawful conduct.

Settlement agreements that require donations to outside parties do not accomplish those goals. Required donations do not compensate victims, as the funds go to outside third parties not involved in the litigation, and they do not punish and deter unlawful conduct, particularly as settling parties can reduce their fines from $2 to $1 for each dollar donated.

Moving on to criticisms against H.J. Res. 98 about franchisees. It is a hysterical argument that broadly misses the mark.

Employees of franchisees are still entitled to protection under the National Labor Relations Act. They are still able to organize labor unions if they so choose. Franchisees are subject to collective bargaining laws, worker safety laws, fair wage laws, and franchisors, just as other large companies are.

One of the concerns that we have is that there will be disastrous consequences under this rule. I just find that is not the case. We are promoting small business owners and franchisees above these woke policies that harm the American employer and the American worker.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I had one word to describe what I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the administration, it would be gaslighting.

My colleagues claim that we don't want to help everyday Americans. My colleagues claim that we are offshoring American jobs when the very bills we are considering here today are trying to fight against doing precisely that.

They claim that we are trying to hurt businessowners.

We are trying to help businessowners by giving them more flexibility to engage in employee relationships as they see fit. We are trying to bring American jobs back by supporting our American manufacturers over Chinese manufacturers. We are trying to compensate victims over woke ideological groups.

It is more gaslighting from our colleagues on the left. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that and will join us in support of this legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that with Republicans being in the majority, one major accomplishment is that we have stopped a lot of bad things potentially from happening that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle might wish to push forward.

We have before us the opportunity to move legislation here that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans, whether that is pushing back on overreach of the bureaucratic state or protecting job creators. The choice before us in this rule is clear, and we must take action.

We must be taking actions that improve this economy and fight inflation, but, again and again, we see this administration making it harder and not easier to do business in America. It defies logic.

Apparently, there is no cost too high for this administration or my Democratic colleagues when it comes to this pursuit, not even the fact that China stands to benefit from one of these rules and the American manufacturer stands to lose. The American people know better.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today, on the very day Hunter Biden ignored a subpoena from this body, we will vote to take the next critical step in formalizing the House's impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

For months, the White House and Hunter Biden have been stonewalling our investigation trying to hide the truth, and this stonewalling is what has caused us to be here today. Like Chairman Cole said yesterday, it is deeply sad and not something any of us want to be doing on this House floor, but it has become necessary.

Following today's floor vote on H. Res. 918, the committees on Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, and Judiciary will have greater legal position and subpoena power to fully investigate allegations of influence peddling and wrongdoing by President Biden, his family, and his associates.

The American people deserve transparency and accountability. They deserve the truth, and that is exactly what they are going to get from this Republican House.