Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Chief Warrant Officer James A. Rogers was born and raised in western Minnesota, graduating from St. Cloud State University earlier in 2019. He joined the Minnesota Army National Guard in June 2009 and deployed twice to Kuwait in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. While there, he conducted medical evacuations. He was a true patriot and was a valued member of his team. Those who served with him said he was the jokester of the group and a top-notch soldier. He is greatly missed by his fellow servicemembers, friends, and family in Winsted.

H.R. 6221 would memorialize Chief Warrant Officer Rogers' name by naming the post office in Winsted, Minnesota, after him, a small token of appreciation for his sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill in honor of this young man. We can never honor our fallen the way they truly deserve, but every step we can take is a meaningful one.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to discuss H.R. 3648, the Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment, or the EAGLE Act, and H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act.

The EAGLE Act would do away with country caps for certain employment- based green cards. Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today changes a carefully negotiated and agreed-upon bill from last Congress, favoring a Democrat go-it-alone approach that, unfortunately, we have seen all too often in this body over the last 2 years.

One of the most shocking changes is the exclusion of critical language to prevent those associated with the Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese armed forces from admission to these immigration programs.

When this came through the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Bishop offered an amendment to add language that once again clarified that CCP members are ineligible to participate in these programs. That amendment failed on a party-line vote. We all know the CCP is not a good-faith actor, and I am appalled that the majority would risk our national security by rejecting that amendment.

H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act, aims to establish a program within the DHS for noncitizens to receive citizenship through service in the military. Based on the title, it sounds like a good bill.

Of course, those who served honorably in the Armed Forces should be honored for their valor and sacrifice. But despite the title, this bill did not even go through the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Why? Because it is just one more example of the Democrats exploiting a sympathetic population to push their open border policies. They should be ashamed.

I will also point out that there are already procedures in place by which noncitizen servicemembers can be rewarded for their sacrifices for this country. The Immigration and Nationality Act established special avenues to naturalize members or veterans in the U.S. military. These procedures have been in place since 2002.

Under the current INA, it rightfully does not offer this opportunity to those who are dishonorably discharged or those who have committed a serious crime. But the bill we are discussing today, either through poor drafting or purposeful vagueness, does offer a citizenship path to those people.

In the Judiciary Committee, several amendments were offered to ensure dangerous criminals did not receive an adjustment of immigration status, amendments that included crimes like illicit trafficking in firearms and human trafficking, and each amendment failed.

Why are my colleagues across the aisle so eager to have criminals on the streets of our communities?

This bill doesn't even apply to just veterans. It would expand protections for noncitizen family members of veterans, who would otherwise be deported for committing crimes. Drug smugglers, human traffickers, and domestic abusers who never even served in our Armed Forces would be allowed to avoid deportation because of this bill.

I am also concerned that this bill relies heavily on the interpretation of the Secretary of Homeland Security. As it is written, DHS does not have to deport nearly anyone, leaving it to the DHS Secretary to exercise discretion in almost all cases.

Secretary Mayorkas has done nothing to ease the immigration crisis in this country.

Do we really want to give someone like that more responsibility?

I am skeptical that an individual who can't even admit that the border is not secure will treat this increased discretion in a manner that is required to keep our communities safe.

Before I reserve, I will note that the rule before us provides no Republican amendments in order, continuing a trend by this majority of stifling debate and suppressing the minority party's opportunity to offer changes or ideas to improve the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same.

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

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

I want to comment on the so-called gimmicky amendments. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop criminals from staying in our country. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop human traffickers. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop those who have trafficked firearms. I don't see that as gimmicky. I see that as trying to protect the people of the country and making sure that we do not allow criminals to continue to stay in our country.

As for the issue of current law, if it is the case that those associated with the CCP are already not allowed under current law, then there is no issue to just put this in the bill just in case and make sure that we have satisfied the concerns of people who are concerned about allowing those CCP members into the country.

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

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

This majority all too often uses flowery titles to mask the bill's true meaning. The Veteran Service Recognition Act is another one of these examples. It leads the public to believe we are looking at a bill that would recognize the service of our veterans. But once again, when you take a closer look, it becomes painfully clear that this is another push for open borders. This bill intends to pave a far broader pathway to citizenship not just for veterans. A path already exists for veterans since 2002, but this bill opens a path to criminals, something Democrats rejected every opportunity they had to keep criminals out of the program.

In just 2 short years, the American people have watched as the situation at the southern border has deteriorated into nothing short of a crisis. I would have hoped that my colleagues would treat this situation a little more seriously, but unfortunately, I have come to expect nothing less.

This bill is just one more example of how deeply unserious my colleagues in the majority are of addressing the disaster at our southern border. I oppose this rule, and I ask Members to do the same.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a staple in Minnesota's farm community, Frank Schiefelbein. Frank passed away earlier this week on his beloved farm.

Frank, better known as ``Big Frank,'' led a life centered around faith, family,

farming, friends, and food. He started his Angus herd, now the largest in the State, in the late 1950s with the mission of making the perfect steak.

He met his wife, Frosty, when he was only 16 years old. Through their 69 years of marriage, they raised 9 sons and have 32 grandchildren and 31 great-grandchildren to carry on his legacy.

He truly left an impression on everyone he met, and he will be greatly missed by everyone.

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

Today, we are here to consider House Resolution 1464, providing for the consideration of the Speak Out Act, among other provisions.

Let me be clear: House Republicans agree that victims of sexual harassment and assault deserve justice. Unfortunately, due to the fact that this bill is poorly drafted and questionable findings from the Senate bill remain that were specifically stripped out of the House version during Judiciary markup, there are still several legitimate concerns surrounding the unintended consequences of H.R. 8227, the Speak Out Act.

We must maintain respect for the victims and their privacy. Making settlements less valuable to defendants by making confidentiality provisions unenforceable could leave victims worse off.

This bill may force victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment to take their claims to court in a public process, but some victims may be reluctant to speak out in any form if they know that their stories will be public.

Furthermore, removing the benefit of confidentiality may remove the incentives that defendants have to settle and give them more reason to fight harder in court, which may not be in the plaintiff's best interest.

The bill is also worded in a way that may also apply to certain post- dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses, broadly making both predispute and post-dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses unenforceable and may affect existing settlements.

This begs the question: What is the point of drawing up a contract if Congress will eventually step in after the fact and invalidate it? What is more, this bill would effectively impose a new regulatory floor that comes from the top down, overtaking the role of the State. Republicans do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach, especially in this case, where it may do more harm than good for these victims.

This legislation should remind us all to think carefully about federalism and when Congress should enact Federal regulatory floors.

States have traditionally decided how to regulate contract clauses, and some have already passed laws to regulate these specific clauses relating to sexual harassment and assault.

The bill even uses State and Tribal laws to define terms within it, but this bill should supersede those State decisions in some cases.

Though I believe this bill is well-intentioned, it would be a mistake to rush to pass it as is, where significant concerns need to be addressed.

Madam Speaker, it is for those reasons I oppose this rule and ask Members to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, the bill under consideration by this rule is well-intentioned but flawed. It deserves additional time to thoughtfully consider legitimate concerns. House Republicans are committed to ensuring victims of sexual violence receive the justice they are entitled to, but that does not mean the flaws outlined should be ignored.

Madam Speaker, again, I oppose the rule, and I encourage Members to do the same.

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

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

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

We are here to debate the rule providing for consideration of three bills: H.R. 7780, Mental Health Matters Act; H.R. 3843, Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act; and S. 3969, Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access, or PAVA, Program Inclusion Act.

H.R. 3843 would increase funding to the Federal Trade Commission without justification or restrictions on that funding. This is the same agency that, through its strategic plan for the next 4 years, removed a longstanding clause that states the agency will not unduly burden legitimate business activity.

In the coming term, the Supreme Court will hear a case as to whether the FTC is mission creeping beyond the bounds of its constitutional authority. The FTC, through its initiatives in antitrust enforcement, has taken an increasing liberal view of its traditional focus on protecting consumers from fraud and ensuring businesses have clear rules to follow and is instead moving toward an interpretation of reshaping the American economy through enforcement action.

In the Committee on the Judiciary, my colleagues offered amendments to put limitations on this funding.

Mr. Roy offered an amendment to prohibit appropriated funds from being used to promote critical race theory and one to require funds to be used to enforce antitrust laws as defined in the Clayton Act.

Mr. Fitzgerald offered one to prohibit funds from being used for non- enforcement activities.

Mr. Bishop offered one to limit the scope of the bill to only apply to mergers involving large technology companies.

All of these failed on party lines, and I can't understand why, unless my colleagues on the left want to encourage the FTC to get involved in issues outside of its purview. The FTC is out of control under this administration and cannot be trusted with these additional resources.

H.R. 7780 misses the mark. Republicans are committed to addressing the mental health crisis facing young people in the country. Unfortunately, this bill is another one-size-fits-all proposal that fails to provide local leaders with the flexibility they need to address the unique problems they face. Republicans support mental health parity, but this bill will actually do the opposite. It opens insurers and employers to lawsuits when they voluntarily offer to provide mental health care benefits.

As with so many bills promoted by the majority this Congress, provisions of this bill ban arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and representation waivers, discouraging other means of settling disputes and pushing creating even more bottlenecks in our judicial system.

During markup, Republicans offered an alternative bill that streamlined existing programs, helped the needs on the ground, helped all students in need regardless of where their school is, and included important accountability metrics. I wish we were discussing that bill here today. Unfortunately, this and every other Republican amendment is effectively blocked from discussion under this rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that I oppose the rule and ask Members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the immediate consideration of H.R. 6184, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, over 100,000 people died from fentanyl overdoses in a 1-year span, according to the CDC. That is a 30 percent increase from the year before.

Fentanyl is now the number one cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 45. I think we can all agree that something must be done to put a stop to this heartbreaking epidemic.

Fentanyl has been temporarily classified as a schedule I substance. This classification strengthens law enforcement's ability to prosecute fentanyl traffickers, and DEA reports that it has acted as an effective deterrent.

The HALT Fentanyl Act would make the schedule I classification permanent and would also promote research by removing regulations and streamlining the research process. We should do everything we possibly can to put an end to the devastation caused by fentanyl in this country, and the HALT Fentanyl Act is one piece of the puzzle that could make a real difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) to speak further on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

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

Madam Speaker, while I want to be in favor of these bills, Republicans are in agreement that the underlying problems these bills seek to solve are valid and warrant our attention. There are serious flaws with these bills as written that must be considered first. H.R. 7780 is a one-size-fits-all strategy that will not help the people on the ground. What a school in Minneapolis needs is not likely what a school in my rural district needs. Furthermore, it pushes people in the courts to settle disputes and discourages other methods of resolution.

H.R. 3843 trusts the FTC with no-strings-attached funding, even though the FTC is becoming increasingly partisan and cannot be trusted with more resources.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I encourage other Members to do the same.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative and my colleague on the Rules Committee from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this morning we are here to debate a rule providing for a series of bills that have been noticed multiple times going back as far as July. But we in the Rules Committee were given 1 hour to consider the changes that have been negotiated--negotiated internally-- within the majority conference with no minority input. Presumably, the changes were made at the behest of the leftwing defund-the-police activists who, unfortunately, have become the loudest voice in their party.

It seems to me that these bills are a very transparent response to the negative reaction Democrats have experienced as a result of these continued calls while crime is understandably skyrocketing.

The VICTIM Act creates a new Federal grant program to help local governments cut down on homicide and nonfatal shooting backlogs. The funds can be used for hiring and training detectives and processing personnel, upgrading or replacing investigative or evidence-processing technology, and improving resources for victims and their families.

First of all, these programs largely replicate existing programs managed by the Department of Justice. This, again, reminds us of why we have been called to this debate. It is not to solve a problem. It is so that my Democrat colleagues can look like they are solving problems. Furthermore, programs like this would not be needed if the left had not prioritized defunding the police over keeping our country's citizens safe.

This bill effectively bails out governments like Austin, Philadelphia, and Rochester, New York, that decreased police budgets over the years.

The Invest to Protect Act expands COPS grant programs to include police departments with fewer than 125 law enforcement officers. Funds may be used for training, body cameras, signing and retention bonuses, and providing access to mental health services.

Just to point out, there is a clause in this bill that explicitly says that the Attorney General can give preference to activities that have nothing to do with recruitment or retention.

Madam Speaker, the left has been actively fighting against law enforcement, and, as a result, the American people are angry. They are angry about the increases in violent crimes across the country, and they are angry about repeat offenders being released to commit even more serious crimes.

They are angry that even after making these concerns clear, Democrats have been ignoring them in favor of an extreme anti-police agenda. This is a last-ditch effort for them to act like they are not deeply out of touch with the country, coming just in time to see the results from election polling.

This is an effort to sweep under the rug that my colleagues in the majority will seek private security while simultaneously seeking cuts to police budgets. My colleagues in the majority want to distract from the statements of their Members that apparently defunding the police is only one step toward fully dismantling police departments.

My colleagues want to distract from the fact that even some of the most senior officials of the Biden administration are echoing or applauding efforts to reduce budgets of law enforcement. Despite this hollow effort, I am confident the American people see

right through this charade and view this for what it is, a political exercise.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, I ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe it is two bills that are different, but we can check on that just to make sure that we understand what is going on.

To further illustrate the political charade, my colleagues in the majority have blocked any effort to include thoughtful policy solutions proposed by House Republicans.

In the Rules Committee, I even offered a motion to consider a bill I proposed earlier this year to support our law enforcement's efforts to train our next generation of peace officers. H.R. 7421, the Law Enforcement Education Grant Program Act of 2022, was a product of discussions with Minnesota State patrol officers and other members of the local community regarding the difficulty of not only hiring new officers but even finding potential recruits.

Police departments across the country are experiencing a serious shortage of officers. This lack of qualified officers has led to a drastic increase in crime. We need to invest in recruiting a number of well-trained and highly educated police officers to help keep our communities safe.

This bill provides education grants of up to $4,000 per year, not exceeding $16,000 total, to a student who is pursuing their first degree in a law enforcement or criminal justice-related field. As a requirement of receiving the grant, the applicant must commit to serving as a full-time law enforcement officer for 4 years within an 8- year period of completing their studies.

In order to instill integrity of the program and prevent abuse, if an applicant fails to complete their service requirements, the grants will be converted back into a loan and the applicant will be required to pay it back.

In order to ensure flexibility over what education program best fits the student, the grants are distributed directly to candidates, not educational institutions. In addition, the curriculum at an institution must have been approved by the State's Police Officer Standard and Training Board, or the related State agency.

Finally, there are exemptions from the clawback bill for officers who are injured in the line of duty and cannot serve out their 4-year requirement. These are the types of solutions that the majority refuses to even debate or bring forward under this rule. It further supports my argument that this is

simply political theatre, covering up for years of dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric that has put law enforcement in harm's way time and time again.

I would just like to add that there are many, many good and positive Republican proposals out there that the majority refuses to even consider in committee, and this is just one example of those.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Massachusetts says, oh, these were available; these were available for over a month.

Then my question would be: Then why the emergency meeting yesterday? Why, with an hour's notice, the Rules Committee is called together to push these bills through, other than some kind of political charade to get these bills to the floor today at 9 o'clock in the morning with very little notice?

It seems to me that as much as he says there are no changes, and that they have been available, still, an emergency meeting with an hour's notice at 3:25 in the afternoon yesterday, it seems like they are pushing things through without the notice that the American people and the Members of Congress deserve.

Our Nation's law enforcement officers put on a badge every day and bravely put themselves in harm's way to keep our communities safe. The past few years have been especially dangerous for America's police as a direct result of the Democrat-led defund the police movement, and their soft-on-crime policies.

Cities across the country have suffered a dramatic increase in crime. Carjacking and smash-and-grab robberies are now common. Last year, major cities broke their annual homicide records. The national rise in crime has devastating costs for the communities and, also, for local police.

In California, Kern County Deputy Sheriff Phillip Campas was killed in the line of duty after his SWAT team responded to a domestic violence call. He was a marine veteran and a dedicated father whose legacy of heroism will never be forgotten.

In New York, New York City Police Officer Vogel was seen running through Times Square toward an ambulance after saving a 4-year-old girl who had been struck by a stray bullet. The officer's bravery and quick thinking made all the difference in getting the girl to safety.

In Alabama, Wilcox County Constable Madison Nicholson, who had protected his community for over 40 years, was shot and killed in the line of duty when he and a sheriff's deputy were responding to a domestic disturbance.

Our police are under attack like never before. According to the FBI, more police officers were murdered in the line of duty during President Biden's first year in office than in any year since 1995. Many of them were killed in ambush-style or unprovoked attacks.

Not only have calls to defund, dismantle, or abolish the police that come from the activists, or even within the Halls of Congress, have created a more treacherous climate for officers, but it has also negatively impacted morale among the police.

Nationwide, law enforcement agencies are short 7 percent of filling budgeted positions, and retirements are up 45 percent. Law enforcement is our essential line of defense in maintaining law and order. They deserve America's and Congress' full support.

House Republicans are grateful to our law enforcement officers for their service to our communities and understand the incredible commitment they make in choosing to wear the uniform. We will always stand with our men and women in blue and their families.

House Democrats would like to use these bills to convince the American people of the same, but Americans know and understand.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, for years now, progressives in the media have disparaged law enforcement at every opportunity, from the defund the police movement to agenda-driven liberal district attorneys in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and New York. There is a clear strategic effort on the part of Democrats to demean police officers nationwide at the expense of law and order.

In 2021, according to the Fraternal Order of Police, 346 officers were shot, 63 fatally. Additionally, there were 103 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement, a 115 percent increase from 2020.

Even as members of the Democratic Party are victims of increasing crimes, they are unwavering in their aggression on those in uniform who stand on the front lines and every day protect and serve our communities. Rather than acknowledging and thanking these brave men and women, Democrats have repeatedly gone out of their way to put the blame on those in uniform.

They may claim otherwise, but here are the words straight from their mouths. If we need to make sure that we are quoting people today, I am more than willing to do that.

`` . . . Police in our country are more concerned with protecting white supremacy than serving the communities that pay their salaries.''--Representative Bowman.

``Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real.''--Representative Cori Bush.

``The truth is that abolishing ICE isn't that radical. We reorganize government all the time, creating some agencies and eliminating others. Nevertheless, it is a bold proposal. It is time to be bold. It is time to abolish ICE.''--Representative Mark Pocan.

``The defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services.''--Representative Ilhan Omar.

``Defunding police means defunding police.''--Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

``We are spending too much money on the police. There should be substantial cuts to the police budget and a reallocation of those funds.''--Representative Jerry Nadler.

Now, they expect us to believe they support our law enforcement. They think that putting these bills forward will make the American people believe they care about law enforcement. It seems that it has taken them until now to see how out of touch they are with the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, potentially, my colleague from Massachusetts didn't hear some of the quotes that I read earlier, many of them talking about ``defunding police means defunding police,'' Representative Ocasio-Cortez.

I can go back through them, or I certainly am more than happy to provide them in writing to my colleague, but I just wanted to remind him that, yes, there were many quotes that I read regarding Democrats and defunding the police.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles, one titled ``Even Democrats are now admitting `Defund the Police' was a massive mistake,'' and another titled ``'Defund the Police' still haunts Democrats.''

[From CNN Politics, Nov. 5, 2021]

Even Democrats Are Now Admitting `Defund the Police' Was a Massive

Mistake

(By Chris Cillizza)

(CNN).--On Tuesday, a proposal to fundamentally restructure

the Minneapolis police department in the wake of George

Floyd's death in 2020 was soundly defeated, a setback that

even many Democrats acknowledged could be laid at the feet of

the ``defund the police'' movement that some within the party

embraced last summer.

``I think allowing this moniker, `Defund the police,' to

ever get out there, was not a good thing,'' Minnesota

Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) told The Washington Post's

Dave Weigel on Thursday.

That's a remarkable turnaround from how politicians--in and

out of Minnesota--acted in the immediate aftermath of Floyd's

death and the summer of nationwide protests that followed.

Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council appeared at an

event in June 2020 in which they pledged that they would work

to dismantle the police force in the city. They did so on a

stage that featured large cutout letters spelling out

``Defund Police.''

``We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the

city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new

model of public safety that actually keeps our community

safe,'' City, Council President Lisa Bender told CNN at the

time.

That message was picked up by some of the most liberal

members of Congress--from Minnesota's Ilhan Omar to

Michigan's Rashida Tlaib.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps the best

known progressive in Congress, warned that dismissing calls

to defund the police--or, at the very least, to reconsider

the way police interact with a community--was a mistake. ``It

is not crazy for Black and brown communities to want what

White people have already given themselves and that is

funding your schools more than you fund criminalizing your

own kids,' she said.

Even as liberal members (and the activist community) were

pushing for the party to embrace the ``defund the police''

movement, others within the party were warning of the

political dangers inherent in the slogan.

``This movement today, some people tried to hijack it,''

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina), the

highest ranking African American in Congress, warned his

party, according to reporting in Politico. ``Don't let

yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police

forces.''

Clyburn's warning proved prophetic. Then-President Donald

Trump seized on the issue during the 2020 campaign, casting

it as evidence that Democrats were out of touch with the

average person. ``LAW & ORDER, NOT DEFUND AND ABOLISH THE

POLICE.,'' Trump tweeted in June 2020. ``The Radical Left

Democrats have gone Crazy!'' And then this the following

month: ``Corrupt Joe Biden wants to defund our police. He may

use different words, but when you look at his pact with Crazy

Bernie, and other things, that's what he wants to do. It

would destroy America!''

Even as Trump and Republicans were working to make ``defund

the police'' a national issue (Joe Biden had made clear he

did not favor defunding), the Minnesota politicians who were

at the forefront of the ``defund'' movement were beginning to

back off in the face of rising crime in the city. As

Minnesota Public Radio reported in September 2020:

``Just months after leading an effort that would have

defunded the police department, City Council members at

Tuesday's work session pushed chief Medaria Arradondo to tell

them how the department is responding to the violence.

``The number of reported violent crimes, like assaults,

robberies and homicides are up compared to 2019, according to

MPD crime data. More people have been killed in the city in

the first nine months of 2020 than were slain in all of last

year. Property crimes, like burglaries and auto thefts, are

also up. Incidents of arson have increased 55 percent over

the total at this point in 2019.''

(The City Council had, months before, moved $1.1 million

from the police department to the health department.)

After several fits and starts, Question 2 was added to the

2021 ballot. Among its Provisions was replacing the Minnesota

police

department with a department of public safety, getting rid of

language that requires a minimum number of police officers to

be employed by the city and forcing the mayor to win the city

council's support for someone to run the new department.

While the vote was expected to be quite close, it was, in

fact, not. As CNN wrote of the results:

``The status quo-affirming result is a setback to both

citywide and national efforts to fundamentally reduce or

eliminate the role of police in America. Opponents of calls

to ``defund the police'' will point to the vote as fresh

evidence that the backlash to police abuse that fueled last

year's protests, which followed the killing of Floyd by then

Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Talk of curbing

police departments by cutting or limiting their resources has

run into a countervailing wall of concern over public safety

and waning support from early allies--including leading

Democrats who largely view it as political poison.''

The question now for Democrats is whether they totally

abandon efforts to remake policing in this country. (A

bipartisan police reform attempt failed in Congress earlier

this year.) Or if they continue on while doing their best to

leave the ``defund the police'' slogan behind them.

[From Roll Call, Apr. 27, 2022]

`Defund the Police' Still Haunts Democrats

(By David Winston)

It's becoming increasingly clear that after the economy,

crime is a hot-button issue driving voter sentiment in the

lead-up to the November elections. But despite voter-concern,

Democrats continue to be divided over the controversial

``defund the police'' mantra that has grabbed headlines for

the past two years, and it's beginning to hurt their

prospects for the fall elections.

The mixed messaging of party leaders versus the call to

defund by progressives, especially extreme comments by

members of the Squad, has become a costly roadblock to

retaining the House as voters lose confidence in Democrats'

ability to address rising violence across the country.

Even a cursory look at statements by Democratic leaders and

radical backbenchers opposed to increased funding of police

explains the party's dilemma.

On Feb. 13, George Stephanopoulos raised the issue of Rep.

Cori Bush's statements calling for defunding the police

during an interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. ``With all due

respect in the world to Cori Bush,'' she replied, ``that is

not the position of the Democratic Party.''

Pelosi then declared, ``Defund the police is dead.''

Two weeks later, in his State of the Union address,

President Biden called for increased funding for police: ``We

should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The

answer is to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them.''

Apparently, Squad member Bush didn't get the message. In a

tweet after the speech, she said, ``With all due respect, Mr.

President, you didn't mention saving Black lives once in this

speech. All our country has done is given more funding to

police. The result? 2021 set a record for fatal police

shootings. Defund the police. Invest in our communities.''

A month later, a gunman shot up a New York subway train,

and an inconvenient 2019 letter from Alexandria Ocasio-

Cortez, Jerrold Nadler and other liberal New York House

members resurfaced. The letter to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo

opposed a plan to put 500 new Metropolitan Transportation

Authority officers in the subways to reduce crime.

But AOC was having none of it. She and her fellow members

wrote that the MTA funding for increased police presence in

the subways would be better spent on ``desperately needed

resources'' like ``subway, bus, maintenance, and service

improvements,'' telling Cuomo, ``The subway system is now

safer than before.''

Last week, Rep. Abigail Spanberger called defunding the

police ``a terrible idea,'' while a Politico story said, ``As

the midterm elections pick up, Democrats are calling for more

police funding and attempting to co-opt traditionally

Republican talking points on crime.''

``Defund the police'' may no longer be the position of the

Democratic Party, but when Cori Bush, AOC or any member of

the Squad weighs in on any issue, the Twittersphere lights up

like a cop car in hot pursuit. It seems the media can't get

enough of the Squad, and polling shows that this intraparty

fight over the issue of policing and crime has not only

become a major headache for Pelosi but is also taking a toll

on the Democrats' credibility.

When the electorate was asked in the Winning the Issues

(WTI) February survey if they believed that we need to defund

the police, only 21 percent believed the statement, while 64

percent did not. Independents were even more adamant that

defunding the police was a bad idea, coming in at an

overwhelming 12 percent for and 70 percent against.

Despite Biden and Pelosi's efforts to stem the bleeding by

offering up more funding to stop gun violence and invest in

community policing, the WTI research shows that Democrats are

losing the issue, with more voters believing that the

Democratic Party supports defunding the police than not by a

margin of 48 percent to 34 percent.

There are three main reasons for the Democrats' troubles on

this issue. First, there is widespread recognition of just

how serious rising crime is becoming, with 7 out of 10 voters

believing that across America, violent crime is escalating.

Six out of 10 voters agree with the statement that

``families, communities and small business are being

endangered and experiencing the devastating effects of

rhetoric about defunding the police and police department

budget cuts at the hands of politicians.''

These views extend across party, ideology, age and region,

making a concept like defunding the police totally out of

tune with most voters who oppose it by a 3-to-1 margin.

There's a second reason for the Democrats' weakness on the

crime issue. The president and other Democrats have tried to

have it both ways--trying to pose as supporters of the police

while only reluctantly, if at all, acknowledging that crime

is a major problem.

On the White House website list of priorities, crime

doesn't even make the list. The White House's lack of

acknowledgment and often dismissive rhetoric about crime,

particularly in cities with progressive mayors and

prosecutors, has led directly to its weak standing on the

issue.

As a result, when voters were asked in the March survey

whether they believed Democrats would focus on law

enforcement efforts to deal with violent offenders, they were

split, with 44 percent believing they would and 43 percent

believing they wouldn't. Independents were even more

skeptical, with 36 percent believing and 46 percent not

believing.

In contrast, voters by a 61 percent to 27 percent margin

believed that Republicans would stand with law enforcement in

their efforts to ensure the safety of our communities and the

protection of America's families and children.

Not surprisingly, Democrats trail on the handling of the

crime and safety issue by 12 points (48 percent favoring

Republicans, 36 percent favoring Democrats) and among

independents by 13 points (42 percent-29 percent, with 29

percent undecided). The Democratic Party's silence about

threats to safety has left Democrats supporting a policy

position that voters find alienating.

Finally, with police officers, Democrats have chosen the

wrong group to vilify. The police have a very favorable brand

image (72 percent favorable, 20 percent unfavorable in the

March WTI survey). Congressional Democrats have a negative

brand at 44 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable. By

affiliating themselves with the defund the police movement,

they are seen by voters as opposing a very positive group of

public servants who are well liked and supported by the

electorate.

By trying to straddle the fence on crime and safety, Biden,

Pelosi and Democratic members fearing primaries have been

unwilling to take on their anti-police progressives. If the

trend continues, this issue will haunt Democrats this

November and for a long time to come.

Madam Speaker, Democrats have long respected and supported our law enforcement. As Representatives Guest and Letlow so eloquently stated in their resolution to express support for recognizing National Police Week, they serve with valor, dignity, and integrity.

They are charged with pursuing justice for all individuals and performing the duties of a law enforcement officer with fidelity to the constitutional rights and civil rights of the public that the officers serve.

They swear an oath to uphold the public trust, even though through the performance of their duties of law enforcement officers, the officers may become targets of senseless acts of violence.

They have bravely continued to meet the call of duty to ensure the security of their neighborhoods and communities at the risk of their own personal safety in the time of a viral pandemic.

There were 619 officers killed in the line of duty in 2021. Republicans honor all of them and prioritize protecting and supporting today's officers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I point out that my good friend and colleague from Minnesota, Congressman Stauber, who is former law enforcement, has twice now released the JUSTICE Act, a commonsense police reform bill, that would rebuild trust between law enforcement and communities they serve.

Why is it that that has not come to the floor yet? And why is that not part of the package that we are looking at?

Congressman Stauber was a police officer for 20 years. He knows law enforcement exists to serve America's communities, and he knows what is needed to rebuild the damaged relationship between officers and civilians.

The Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere, or the JUSTICE Act, would fund better training for police officers, increase the number of body cameras, and provide important grants to police departments to help implement community policing best practices. Sound familiar?

He introduced this bill this Congress and last Congress and, yet, despite its past bipartisan support, Democrats continuously blocked efforts to bring this to the floor.

Why would Democrats block such a commonsense bill for years and now decide it is necessary to pass these bills?

Let's just take a look at what they spent time promoting instead. For example, the Democrats so-called George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a divisive bill being pushed through by the majority without any Republican input. Disguised as accountability, the bill would make communities less safe, hinder law enforcement's ability to do their job, limit the readiness of law enforcement, and demonizes an entire profession for the actions of a few.

It eliminates qualified immunity protections for Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers which protect officers who have to operate in high-pressure, quick-decision environments.

It lowers the mental standard for Federal civil rights lawsuits. It allows officer convictions, even if the officer has no specific intent to deprive a person of a Federal right.

I have given a couple of examples of good, strong Republican legislation that was not considered as even part of the Democrats' so- called police or law

enforcement support grouping of bills that they have put together today in an emergency meeting yesterday.

If there was truly support for law enforcement, they would have come together in a bipartisan manner, discussed it with law enforcement, discussed it with the minority, and really come together and created legislation that would truly do what we need it to do, and that is support and help our law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, today's debate is nothing more than a political stunt, as I have mentioned. The Democrats have put forward these bills at the last minute so they can go home this weekend and pretend they have done something to help police in this country.

I mentioned it before. If the majority was sincere about supporting law enforcement, they would have involved the minority. They would have had discussion about the bills, good solid bills that the minority has put forward, and they would have had discussions with law enforcement across the country to find real solutions.

Our police do need our help. There is a war on police in this country, thanks to the efforts of those on the far left. They know it; I know it; and the American people know it.

But these bills are just one more insincere attempt. One mostly recreates programs that already exist within the DOJ. The other includes a section that still gives preference to efforts that do not include recruitment and retainment.

Honestly, Madam Speaker, my colleagues should be embarrassed and ashamed of this political stunt, especially when it comes to something that affects everyone's safety and the American people's safety.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I encourage Members to do the same.

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

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

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

S. 1098 is intended to ensure borrowers who need to separate their loans urgently because they are victims of domestic or economic abuse are not put in further harmful financial situations due to having a joint consolidation loan that cannot be separated.

Republicans fully support the intention of the bill, and it is something we should be able to address in a fully bipartisan manner. However, they are concerned that this bill misses the mark.

According to the Department of Education, this bill could not be implemented for at least a year or longer. If we want to truly solve this problem, victims need help immediately.

This bill also broadens the Secretary of Education's authority. It gives the Secretary the authority to allow for new consolidation loans if it is in the fiscal interest of the Federal Government but does not define the term.

In addition, this bill did not receive a hearing in the House Education and Labor Committee, no discussion, no input, simply accepting the Senate's version, which was introduced before the President's announcement of student loan forgiveness.

My Republican colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee have an alternative bill that will protect victims of abuse, allowing borrowers to separate their loans immediately rather than waiting up to 18 months.

It also protects taxpayers from potential abuse of authority by the Secretary of Education by narrowly tailoring the authority to help those in need. Congress should always be concerned about relinquishing authority to the executive branch.

This bill also closes all the gaps that exist in the bill that has been brought up on the floor today. Yet, my colleagues were ignored, and now we are left discussing an incomplete policy.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this alternative that would solve the problems without ceding more authority to the Secretary.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask the Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I point out that the vote that my colleague does point out regarding this bill in the Senate was before the President made his announcement regarding student loan forgiveness.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the immediate consideration of H.R. 8749 to repeal the methane emissions and waste reduction incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems.

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

Madam Speaker, just last week, a constituent called my office with concerns about the President's energy policy. Joshua hauls gas for a living and said it is the best job he has ever had, but he worries that President Biden wants to take that away. He asked for my support and expressed his appreciation for anything that I can do to protect the industry.

H.R. 8749 is a key piece of that puzzle. It supports American energy independence and all those who rely on it by protecting the Permian Basin and the largest secure supply of crude oil in the world.

If the Biden administration gets their way on this issue, production will be slowed in that region, jobs will be lost, and gas prices will continue to rise.

Madam Speaker, this Presidential administration is actively working against the oil and gas industry. They have increased natural gas production taxes, prevented energy development in Alaska, and made permitting more difficult.

They are prioritizing supplemental energy technologies like wind and solar, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration's annual energy outlook projected that petroleum and natural gas will be the most used fuels in the U.S. through 2050. We cannot abandon these reliable and essential sources of energy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the author of the bill, to further explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, we did address some of the issues that we have and the concerns we have regarding the bill that is in front of us. But we also offered a previous question because we should be talking about energy.

The American public is concerned about energy independence and what is happening with energy; how they are going to cool and, in my case, in Minnesota, how we are going to heat our homes. It gets cold in Minnesota, and people are concerned about how they are going to heat their homes this winter and what they will have to cut out of their family budget if prices continue to rise on heating their homes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong) to discuss it even further. And it is cold in North Dakota, too.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Just before I get into my formal remarks, I just want to mention, we did a quick Google search, because I know that my colleague from Colorado just mentioned the dropping gas prices earlier in his comments. We did a quick Google search, and in 2019, the gas prices in Colorado were $2.14, and they are currently in 2022, $3.70. So those gas prices, while you may say they are going down a bit, that is a significant increase from 2019.

Madam Speaker, S. 1098 is well intentioned, but there are other ways to accomplish this goal effectively. The current bill will not help victims of abuse for a year or more. The Republican bill would help them now.

The bill we are debating today includes vague language that creates loopholes that would allow the administration to spend billions of tax dollars on broader loan forgiveness without justification and oversight. The Republican bill closes this loophole to ensure that those who really need the help are the ones receiving it.

We owe it to the victims of abuse to have a straightforward and efficient process to help them, and we owe the taxpayers to protect their tax dollars.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and encourage Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.

Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 5952, a bill that honors the life of Jon Glawe, of Vergas, Minnesota. He was a mail carrier for 36 years, who left a remarkable impact on his community.

Born in 1949, Jon grew up in the Vergas area. He was a wrestling champion, which took him to college in California. After being drafted into the Army in 1970 and faithfully serving his country, he returned home and married his high school sweetheart, Darla Olson.

As a boy, Jon would join his father on the mail route, shoveling the car out of the snow, and many Minnesotans know that feeling. After his father passed away, Jon took up the reins, taking on a second full-time job as a mail carrier while also running the family dairy farm.

Over the years, he became a beloved staple of the community, regularly going above and beyond to help his neighbors.

This bill appropriately names the post office after Jon to honor his service to his neighbors and to the local area. In a letter, his family noted that since the bill's introduction, the outpouring of support from those who live in the Vergas area has been overwhelming. I agree with their words that there is no better way to honor his decades of service than this.

Jon passed away in 2016 and left behind a loving family and many, many friends. I urge my colleagues to hear the voices of those Jon impacted every day and support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment that I do talk to farmers, and what farmers are talking to me about is the incredible costs of their inputs this year. That is what they are talking about.

They are not coming to me about climate change. They are coming to me about the cost it is for them to do business and the inflation they are facing.

Last year, my Democrat colleagues sling-shotted us into record inflation with trillions in reckless spending. Now, they have the audacity to use that very crisis to justify doing it again.

They call this bill the Inflation Reduction Act. In reality, this is just another installation of their tax-and-spend agenda that got us here in the first place.

This time, they are spending $80 billion in funding to send 87,000 new IRS agents to shake loose change from Americans to pay for their spending spree. With this new staff, the IRS will be bigger than the Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and Border Patrol.

This new IRS army will increase audits on individuals by more than 1.2 million, nearly half of which will be on Americans making $75,000 per year or less. You don't have to take my word for it. This is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

What do Americans get in return? $3 billion in grants to promote climate justice; $7.5 billion for wealthy families to purchase their next Tesla; $1.3 billion for those same families to boost the sale value of their old Tesla; and $1 billion for electric garbage trucks.

This bill is riddled with provisions that carry the Green New Deal stamp of approval.

This bill is not designed to help the country recover. It is not going to help American families pay for groceries. It is not designed to help American families. It is designed to send an army of IRS agents after low- and middle-income Americans so Democrats can pay for their Green New Deal.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Committee on Rules for providing the time to speak.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues are proving, yet again, that they want to strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights. The latest so-called assault weapons ban is unconstitutional and will impact other aspects of American life.

This bill would end the sale of some of the most popular rifles sold in America today, impacting the sporting industry and all of those who rely on it for their livelihoods.

This bill will have an impact in ways even the supporters of the bill do not understand. For example, under this law, stabilizing braces for pistols would be outlawed.

Despite what some of my colleagues have said, stabilizing braces are not bump stocks and will not turn a pistol into an assault rifle. Stabilizing braces are used by hunters with disabilities, including many of our disabled veterans, to help them safely hunt with pistols.

Not only is this bill an assault on our constitutional rights, but the loss of the revenue from the sales of these firearms will also have a devastating impact on the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund, which helps States pay for environmental conservation efforts. The bill provides no alternative

for how to make up for the severe decrease in conservation funding.

Democrats are no longer disguising their radical agenda to ban guns and do away with the Constitution's Second Amendment. My colleagues from the other side have said that they will do everything they can to ban guns in this country, even to the point of packing the Supreme Court to make it happen. Anyone who thinks this bill is not a step in that direction is kidding themselves. This is yet another attempt from the left to strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights, and I oppose this bill and the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from California and my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to discuss the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4040, the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act, and H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act.

First, H.R. 4040 will extend several Medicare telehealth flexibilities that were initially utilized during the pandemic.

Telehealth has allowed many Americans to receive needed healthcare across the Nation. While my Republican colleagues and I appreciate the extension of these important programs, we believe that permanently authorizing them is the better option.

Once again, the Democrats have decided to skip the committee process and refuse Republican input or look at any possible improvements to the bill. I know that many Members will be supporting this bill, but I still must mention this missed opportunity to strengthen healthcare and telehealth, especially for rural Minnesota and rural America.

Second, H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, would make it illegal for any person to trade, breed, or possess any prohibited wildlife species, specifically exotic big cat species like lions, tigers, snow leopards, et cetera. The bill would impose civil and criminal penalties for violators and grant the Federal Government the authority to order forfeiture of big cats held in private captivity. Many of the provisions of this legislation already exist under the USDA regulatory scheme.

More than anything, Mr. Speaker, I am wholeheartedly disappointed in how my colleagues are managing the remaining time left in this Congress. The absence of any sense of urgency to fix the real problems facing this country is incredibly frustrating.

This country is at the doorstep of a recession, but instead of addressing it, the U.S. House of Representatives is spending time on the regulation of big cats. My constituents are calling my office because their families are struggling to pay for basic needs like food and gas. They are calling because they want us to secure national borders and address the fentanyl epidemic. They are calling because they want to know what Congress is doing about rampant crime in cities across the country. These are the issues facing our constituents. These are the issues they are calling about because they are the issues affecting their everyday lives and the ones we should be focusing on.

It is because of the irresponsible policies by Democrats that we have such a big hole to dig ourselves out of, and now they want to ignore these problems altogether and take up our precious time left in Congress to consider legislation built off reality TV.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, I ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 8488, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from sending petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, is an important national security tool and safety net for this country. The United States has already been improperly depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under this administration since it is refusing to increase domestic production during an energy crisis.

We most certainly should not be selling our emergency supply to an adversary like China.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) to speak further on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from the Rules Committee that, as I mentioned before, many of the Republicans plan on supporting the telehealth bill, although I think we missed the opportunity to have Republican input and have an improved bill. But we are able to do more than one thing.

My colleague mentioned that this is very partisan. Gas and oil prices are a serious, serious issue for our constituents. As I mentioned before, it is about their getting to work, it is about their getting to school, and it is about their getting to church. They need us to address the cost of oil and gas.

The Democrats have really just simply tried to distract from this issue and tried to distract us with all kinds of other things and not really talk about the issues facing our constituents.

And like I said earlier, we certainly do have Republican support for the telehealth bill. As a matter of fact, I believe that there are Republican sponsors of that bill.

But I think that what is happening now is the Democrats are truly trying to distract from the issues that are really facing our constituents.

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

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

I just have to say that the calls for working together ring hollow to me because working together should be happening in markup. Working together should be happening in committee meetings. But the Democrats have repeatedly and consistently chosen to skip the committee process and bring things directly to the Rules Committee and directly to the floor. And so when they call for working together, I think that that starts at the committee process.

And as for bringing solutions to the floor, the Westerman-McMorris Rodgers bill that would address the energy costs has been brought repeatedly as a PQ to the floor. The Democrats had the opportunity to take a look at that and to vote on it.

With a more exact answer, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that finding middle ground actually starts with allowing the minority input into bills, whether that be in committee or offering amendments on the floor. But that is where finding middle ground and that is where finding bipartisan solutions starts.

I would also like to remind my colleague from the Rules Committee that this PQ would not stop consideration of the bills in the rule. It would simply allow consideration of the amendment that was proposed.

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

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

I have to just mention again, because I am confused, and I want it stated very clearly what I have said repeatedly. There are many Republicans who will be supporting the telehealth bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are many Republicans that will be supporting the telehealth bill. That is not where I am concerned that we are not addressing constituents' issues with.

Where I am concerned about our constituents is the price of gas and the inflation that they are facing, and that we need to be addressing those issues; and that is why we offered the PQ that we did. And that is why we have offered repeated solutions to the cost of gas and the inflation facing our constituents.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do continue to be disappointed in my colleagues. It is possible that they are really this out of touch.

The typical family is now spending almost $500 per month. Across the country, people are making changes like skipping meals, changing driving patterns, and even delaying retirement to adjust their lives to cope with the accelerating inflation; inflation caused by out-of- control government spending and regulation.

Cities across the country are experiencing record crime waves. We have a serious immigration crisis leading to the deaths of countless people at our southern border and in our hometowns because of the fentanyl drug crisis crossing along with them.

I know that, like mine, your offices are getting daily calls about all of these. Why are we spending time on anything that does not work directly to solve those devastating problems in our country?

Maybe it is because Democrats want to distract us from the fact that their policies got us here, rather than fix them. We could be discussing genuine efforts to stop crime or increase domestic energy production or alleviate pressure points to the supply chain.

But, for the sake of the Green New Deal and rampant government spending, Americans are going to have to suffer through inaction on real issues facing Americans by this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, a great defender of life, for yielding me this time, and I stand for life today.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 8296, the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, is proof that the left wants to ensure limitless, taxpayer-funded abortion. This is truly outrageous, and the vast majority of Americans do not support abortion without limits.

It is stunning that Congress is wasting its time on legislation that is so out of touch with the people it represents. What we should be focusing on is helping women and protecting the innocent lives of babies.

For that reason, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit to instead consider H.R. 619, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Across the country, abortion providers are denying care to infants born alive after attempted abortions. We are talking about children who have already been born. We are talking about infanticide.

Congress must act to protect innocent, defenseless babies who cannot protect themselves. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is compassionate legislation that does just that. This bill simply ensures that babies who survive attempted abortions receive the same standard of care that any newborn should receive.

It would require healthcare providers to exercise skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of these children and then immediately transport and admit them to the hospital.

It would impose penalties on providers who purposefully fail to give medical care to these babies.

It would bar criminal prosecution of the mother.

But most importantly, it would save lives.

Coming to Congress, I knew there would be a lot of difficult conversations about the life of the unborn, but I am truly shocked and heartbroken that I have to stand here and defend lifesaving care for babies who have already been born.

Madam Speaker, we can, and we should make every effort to protect the lives of newborn babies.

To my colleagues, this is the simplest vote you will ever have to take. Either you support babies being denied lifesaving healthcare after they are born, or you do not.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

I thank the Representative from Massachusetts and the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, S. 2938, as amended in the Senate, is at its core an effort to chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It has received no hearings, no committee process, and has only recently been released in bill form for the public to review. It came to us very early this morning after the Senate passed it late last night, and my colleagues expect us to vote on this bill later today, despite the egregious procedural violations. Unfortunately for the American people, that is not a unique development here in Congress. I am disappointed that this is the way the majority has chosen to proceed with legislation, with no hearing and no public input.

The bill provides $750 million over 5 years in Federal Byrne JAG grant funding to States for crisis intervention proceedings, including State-level red flag programs. However, this bill fails to provide explicit due process requirements. We have seen in places where red flag laws have been adopted that these types of laws always infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. This ambiguous language contains insufficient guardrails to ensure that the money is actually going toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or preventing mass violence.

Vague red flag laws are ripe for abuse and can become extremely dangerous. For example, a person could have just gotten out of an abusive relationship and has a firearm to defend themselves against their ex-partner. Their abusive partner could report this individual and have their firearm taken away, putting the victim at even greater risk.

This bill also includes provisions that will lead to enhanced scrutiny of certain adults based on their age before they can exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights. There are no other constitutional rights in which we require enhanced screenings of certain adults based solely on their age.

There is also surprisingly little in this bill that actually focuses on making our schools safer. The bill does nothing to help provide for additional school resource officers. I suspect this is due to the fact that some of my Democrat colleagues are still incapable of supporting funding for additional law enforcement officers, even in our children's schools.

Lastly, we know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. President Biden and my Democrat colleagues have made it abundantly clear that this is just a ``small step'' toward their larger gun-grabbing agenda. The actions of this administration's Department of Justice, FBI, and ATF have completely whittled away the confidence of gun-owning Americans that the provisions in these bills will not be abused beyond their stated scope.

House Republicans are committed to identifying and solving the root causes of violent crimes and bolstering school security, but doing so must not infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. For example, just earlier this week, we voted on the bipartisan Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act. This bill contains the bulk of the mental health care provisions included in the Senate bill, without infringing on Second Amendment rights.

In this case, the bill we are considering under this rule is not only a blatant infringement on lawful gun owners' Second Amendment rights, but an unnecessary duplication of the bipartisan work we have already done.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the rule, ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just like to mention that my distinguished colleague repeatedly talks about how this is not controversial. If it is not controversial, then committee hearings held by the majority should not be a problem. So I would ask again that we follow the procedures of the House.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congressman Hudson's STOP II Act, critical legislation that addresses two issues that both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on, hardening for schools and active-shooter training, law enforcement, and mental health funding.

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

Madam Speaker, House Republicans are committed to addressing the tragedy of these school shootings, but we cannot and should not impede the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. This is not a matter of Democrat or Republican; it is a matter of what is in the Constitution.

Congressman Hudson's legislation is something we can pass right now, today, that will have immediate positive effects, keeping students safe while getting Americans the mental health resources they need.

Many of these solutions are included in the bill we are considering under the rule, but Congressman Hudson's solution achieves the same outcome without infringing on our Second Amendment rights.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), to speak further on the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out to the gentleman from the Massachusetts that the majority solely holds the power to give the bill a hearing. And I am sure I can speak on behalf of the gentleman from North Carolina that he would be happy to be granted a hearing on his bill and would love to have that done given that you are in control of those hearings.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Madam Speaker, we join the chairman in wishing Rose the best in her future endeavors. Thank you for that.

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

Madam Speaker, House Republicans want to ensure that our schools and communities are safe, but today the lack of hearings, the lack of public input, and the lack of procedure offends our duty to our constituents and our oath to defend the Constitution.

We are not willing to subvert constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, like this bill would do. There are solutions to prevent tragedies like we have seen without affecting law-abiding gun owners. We can pass those today, and that, both sides can agree on.

Unfortunately, the legislation provided under the rule attaches these solutions to unconstitutional and misguided policies that are a ``small step'' in the Democrats' broader gun control agenda.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I am going to specifically talk about H.R. 7606. Many of the bills included in that bill, in H.R. 7606, I supported and helped introduce. The Butcher Block Act, year-round E-15, and the PRECISE Act are all pieces of legislation I have long supported and are included in this package.

I find it stunning that my colleagues in the majority after many months of sitting on these thoughtful, bipartisan bills are finally bringing them forward attached to a poison pill that is duplicative and unnecessary.

Perhaps most disappointing is that this bill is being advertised as an immediate solution to skyrocketing food and fuel prices. But many of these bills are simply codifications of existing programs or duplicative of other efforts all packaged with a feel-good title.

Let me be clear. These will not address the underlying drivers of inflation or increasing input costs. If the majority were serious about bringing down the cost of our food and fuel, they would check their incessant spending habits far beyond the Federal Government's means. They would roll back the Biden administration's regulatory war on agriculture.

But that is not what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, the Packers and Stockyards Division already has enforcement tools at their disposal to address uncompetitive behavior in the meatpacking sector. However, by the Packers and Stockyards Division's own estimates, the agency is chronically understaffed and underfunded. If my colleagues were serious about combating uncompetitive behavior in the meatpacking industry, they would have included robust resources to enhance enforcement under the Packers and Stockyard Act.

This legislation is unfunded and creates an unnecessary and duplicative special investigator appointed by an administration that blames rising costs of goods and services on everyone but themselves and is empowered with nearly unlimited authority to harass market participants when convenient for the politics of this administration.

Further, the Department of Justice has already been in the process of investigating meatpackers with respect to this exact issue.

I would ask my colleague if they have yet to receive any update regarding this effort? And if so, what can we expect from it? I know many of my Republican colleagues and I have been seeking an update for months to no avail. Absent such investigation, it is inappropriate for this bill to move forward.

Much of this package does have bipartisan support, but when I asked why the majority didn't focus on the bills with strong bipartisan consensus, I was essentially told that this is the package, this is what the majority wants. The message to me was, Take it or leave it. This shows, once again, the majority's unwillingness to work in a bipartisan manner and really, really address the issues facing Americans.

That is unfortunate, and I urge my colleagues in the majority to work with Republicans in addressing these issues in a thoughtful and bipartisan manner and to stop playing politics while our country suffers.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.