Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, after a long fight, and as a senior member of the Budget Committee, we have gotten to a point where we can say to the American people: We care about you, and we care about your families and most of all your children.

The first step yesterday of taking a leap to be able to establish for this Nation permanent child tax credit relief is unbelievable in terms of the lives of America's children. Please be reminded that this is for our children.

I cannot forget the emotions that I felt when I opened up the registration for the child tax relief during the pandemic, when the Biden administration gave that opportunity, and to see the mothers coming in with two and three children, one in a stroller, seeking to be able to get the relief that was needed.

This permanent tax relief must be passed and, again, I will continue this fight into the Senate to ensure that in the middle of filing season this legislation could deepen relief for 16 million children and lift as many as 400,000 children above the poverty line in the first year alone. Increase the maximum refundability of the credit, giving eligible families the option to use their earned income from the prior year. That is crucial to be able to ensure that the child tax credit lifts our children up and helps our families. Let's get permanent child tax relief done.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2754, which designates a U.S. Postal Facility in Laredo, Texas as the `Lance Corporal David Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. Post Office Building.'

This bill honors the lives of three Texas men who selflessly gave their lives in support of our Nation's freedom and in defense of our nation's people.

These three brave soldiers, Lance Corporal Espinoza, born in 2001, Lance Corporal Rodriguez, born in 1981, and Sergeant Roberto Arizola, Jr., born in 1973, all called the great city of Laredo, Texas their home.

Lance Corporal Espinoza joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 2019.

As a U.S. Marine, Espinoza never once complained about his assignment, taking to heart the late President Kennedy's words in his inaugural address: ``Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.''

He gave his life in action on August 26, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan, protecting and defending the community and the Nation we treasured so dearly.

Espinoza leaves behind his parents, three siblings, his grandmother, and numerous other aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and other relatives.

Lance Corporal Rodriguez joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 2003.

Rodriguez was dedicated to taking care of his family his whole life.

Before joining the Marine Corps, he worked at a pawn shop to provide for his parents, who were too ill to work.

During his deployment, he continued to call his parents regularly, last speaking to them only two days before his death on January 13, 2005, in Al Anbar Province, Iraq.

He leaves behind his cherished sister and two parents.

Sergeant Roberto Arizola, Jr. joined the U.S. Army in 1996.

Arizola was, first and foremost, a family man.

He loved to play video games and sports with his 7-year-old son, and his family often delayed the boy's birthday party so Arizola could be there.

As a soldier, his comrades knew him to be a loyal friend, an older brother, and a faithful man.

He gave his life on June 8, 2005, in Baghdad, Iraq, serving the country and protecting the family that he loved so much.

He leaves behind his wife, his son, and his brother.

These three brave young men each made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the freedom that we enjoy today.

I am always proud to stand in solidarity with our nation's veterans and to fight to protect the legacy they have built in service for our nation.

Now, we must ensure that their legacies are not forgotten.

As such, I rise in support of this bill, which honors their memories by designating the Post Office facility in Laredo, Texas as the `Lance Corporal David Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. Post Office Building.'

Mr. Speaker, during my tenure here in the United States Congress, sadly, I have had the opportunity or the responsibility of expressing sympathy to fallen soldiers.

I served in this body during the Iraq War, during the Afghan War, and as well Bosnian, Albanian, and many other times when our soldiers were wearing the uniform could fall in battle.

Today I rise to honor Sergeant William Rivers, Specialist Breonna Moffet, and Specialist Kennedy Sanders who have given their last full measure of devotion.

It saddens me when we lose our brave soldiers who are willing to put on the uniform unselfishly. We give our deepest sympathy to their families. We demand that honor be placed upon them and, as well, to acknowledge that they stood for us and their Nation. We now stand for them in their passing, their family, and certainly all of those who love them in their community.

Mr. Speaker, I join in a moment of silence, again, for this great body of men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 5585, the ``Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act'' would establish criminal and immigration penalties for flight in a motor vehicle from a pursuing U.S. Border Patrol agent or any federal, state, or local law enforcement assisting in such pursuit.

We grieve the loss of Agent Gonzalez and honor his service and dedication to the safety and security of our country. We owe a great debt to Agent Gonzalez for his sacrifice and offer our deepest condolences to his family.

I am deeply concerned about the safety of those law enforcement officers working to secure our borders, particularly with regard to the dangers presented by vehicular pursuits. We must be certain that we are creating a framework that will truly ensure their safety. In doing so, we not only honor Agent Gonzalez but we make certain that we have no further loss of life in this way.

It goes without saying that I cannot support this bill if the mandatory minimum penalties remain, especially since they would be triggered without a finding of intent to kill or inflict serious bodily injury.

And still there are larger issues lurking in the definition of the offense--namely, the elements that must be proven to establish a violation.

As the bill is currently written, it fails to require conduct that would indicate some knowledge of wrongdoing, such as the refusal to obey a verbal or audible signal by law enforcement to stop operation of the vehicle.

But even if we forgive the vague definition of the offense, prosecutors would be required to prove not that the Border Patrol agent was acting within their duties as an employee but that the agent had the legal authority to engage in a pursuit--which is a considerably more involved question of law.

This language would make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue cases involving flight and pursuits. We should work together to ensure the language of this bill gives prosecutors the authority to truly protect our officers at the border and keep them safe.

To address several faults in this bill, I offered an amendment that would have eliminated the mandatory minimum penalties; required that the government prove that the Border Patrol agent in question acted within their official duties; and added an additional data point to the annual report to determine whether high speed chases near the border are commonly committed by citizens of the United States or non- citizens.

However, my amendment was not ruled in order, allowing these problematic features to remain.

Vehicle pursuits have long plagued law enforcement agencies in every corner of the United States, particularly in determining the appropriate response to suspects that fail to stop or take flight from a lawful stop. And while law enforcement agencies across the country have increasingly restricted when vehicle pursuits can be undertaken, high speed chases along the border have continued to rise.

While U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was slow to revise its own pursuit policy, the agency issued the newly revised CBP Emergency Driving and Vehicular Pursuits Directive in January of last year. The updated directive acknowledges the risks associated with vehicular pursuits--and shifts the agency's overall approach to a risk-based model when pursuits occur.

The agency moved from a rather vague policy to a standard that seeks to minimize the impact on citizens and innocent bystanders, while maintaining the ability to pursue those individuals that present a danger to public safety.

We must be certain that we do not undermine the work that CBP has done to move away from a policy that resulted in a record number of deaths of migrants and innocent bystanders.

While I want to believe that this legislation is a legitimate effort by my Republican colleagues to protect not only law enforcement officers at the border but the safety of migrants and citizens, the true nature of this bill is revealed in the immigration provisions that would levy consequences as severe as inadmissibility and deportability without requiring a conviction.

I am certainly willing to work with my colleagues to make this bill a useful tool for prosecutors. In its current form, this is a flawed, unworkable bill for more than a few reasons. That is why I must oppose H.R. 5585, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I give much respect to this book called the Constitution, which, if we read some of the opening comments made, it is said that the Declaration of Independence was the promise and the Constitution was the fulfillment.

It is a good roadmap and a good truth, so it disturbs me that the Governor of the State of Texas is standing up against the supremacy of the United States and the Constitution. Amendment 10 says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively.

It is the responsibility of the United States Government to deal with immigration issues and, therefore, the Texas National Guard should not be militarized to stand up against the Border Patrol agents. Federal agents in the service of their Nation should be allowed to do their job and that is to secure the border, and they have been doing that.

Pass legislation is what this Congress must do to give further authority to the President of the United States, and those Border Patrol agents will follow the law. We need to ensure that the law is followed by the States and the Governors, and the law that the President upholds is a law that is supreme.

Mr. Speaker, follow the United States of America and that law.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak in opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 69l4, Pregnant Student's Rights Act.

This bill requires higher education institutions that participate in federal education programs to disseminate information on the rights and resources afforded to prospective, full- and part-time students who are pregnant or may become pregnant to encourage them to carry their pregnancy to term.

These institutions would be required to share this information by email at the start of each academic year, in student handbooks, at each orientation for enrolled students, at student health and counseling centers, and on the school's website.

A list of anti-abortion ``findings'' in the bill insinuate that women who have an abortion are at risk of developing mental health issues, abusing drugs and alcohol, and becoming suicidal.

Amendments in committee offered to make it clear that schools are still allowed to disseminate information on access to sexual and reproductive health services and the rights, protections, and accommodation afforded to students under Title IX, were voted down by Republicans on the Committee.

Additionally, it must be noted that this harmful bill is a futile attempt that will be vetoed by this Administration.

As we know, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 69l4.

As highlighted in the White House Statement of Administrative Policy (SAP), the Administration clearly stated its opposition to H.R. 69l4 in its current form.

Existing federal civil rights laws have long prohibited discrimination against students on the basis of pregnancy and related conditions, and institutions of higher education are already required to provide reasonable modifications to pregnant students--from modified class schedules to medical leave.

The Administration stated that it will continue taking action to ensure that students know their rights under federal law and have access to the comprehensive, evidence-based information and resources they need to make informed decisions about their health care.

I stand with the Administration in stating that we remain committed to supporting the security, health, and well-being of women and families across the country, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make this commitment as well.

I have long supported pregnant people, especially those who are facing the challenges of being pregnant while being a student.

Many students enrolled at an institution of higher learning face unplanned pregnancies and face pressures of either getting an abortion or face academic failure.

According to national statistics, 1 in 5 college students have children, one of the many identified barriers that can make it difficult for students to complete a certificate or credential.

Most student parents are women and more than 2 in 5 are single mothers.

While teenage birth rates have declined significantly across the country in recent decades, Texas remains above the national average, consistently ranking in the top 10 states.

Out of all births in Texas, around 6 percent were teen births in 2019 and 2020.

And a startling proportion of teenagers who gave birth in Texas in 2020--more than 1 in 6--already had at least one other child.

Texas does not require high schools to teach sex education, and the vast majority that do focus on sexual abstinence.

The state has a complicated maze of requirements for teenagers seeking birth control and is currently operating under the strictest abortion laws in the country.

During this Congress, I have co-sponsored many pieces of legislation that are in support of pregnant people's rights.

Bills that endorse full-term pregnancies, such as the Mommies ACT (H.R. 6004) which seeks improve Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program for low-income mothers, as well as the Perinatal Workforce Act (H.R. 3523) which strives to grow and diversify the perinatal workforce, and for other purposes.

Students currently have insufficient tools to proactively manage their own maternal health and decisions.

For these reasons, namely, to encourage, protect, and support pregnant students across the nation, I am committed to speaking up for the rights of students and pregnant people and confronting the issues that affect them.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 69l4 because this bill contradicts our nations long standing fight and advancements in protecting all students and reproductive rights for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, when Congress fails to do its job, the consequences are real.

Families suffer, the economy takes a hit, and government costs rise-- all unnecessarily.

The Senate Amendment to H.R. 2872--Further Additional Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024 proves one thing, this dysfunctional Republican majority is unable to govern without help from the Democratic Caucus.

Instead of working to finish the FY 2024 funding process between now and when the first CR was enacted, House Republicans wasted time by ousting their own leader, further propelling the House into chaos and bringing partisan bills to the floor that not only have zero chance of becoming law but include massive cuts and poison pill riders that move us further apart, not closer to resolution.

H.R. 2872 would avoid a government shutdown today, but kicks the can down the road and adds unnecessary complexities that will increase the likelihood of future shutdowns by creating two separate CR dates.

This Continuing Resolution (CR) provides for continued funding at FY23 levels with two end dates:

March 1, 2024: Agriculture, Energy and Water, MilConVA, and THUD Appropriations

March 8, 2024: CJS, Defense, FSGG, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor HHS, Education, Legislative Branch, and SFOps

The bill also includes a number of anomalies for public health extenders, Medicaid, Medicare, Human Services, Compacts, and Counter- UAS Authorities.

This legislation also lacks emergency supplemental funding for Ukraine, Israel, humanitarian assistance, childcare, disaster victims, broadband, Indo-Pacific allies, and a number of other pressing priorities.

Although this legislation is flawed in many significant ways, a government shutdown would be devastating for Americans across the country.

A government shutdown would hurt hard working families in Texas:

172,877 active duty and reserve personnel serving our nation's armed forces in Texas would be forced to go without the pay they earn during a shutdown.

The Small Business Administration would stop processing small business loans, halting a program that provides $2,742,702,800 in funding to small businesses in Texas every year.

176,276 people flying through Texas airports every day would face potential delays and safety concerns due to staffing impacts on TSA agents and air traffic controllers.

786,686 people in Texas would soon lose access to Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits.

168,413 federal workers in Texas would be furloughed or forced to work without pay, in addition to the many employees of businesses with government contracts who could be laid off, furloughed, or see their hours cut.

Workers at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be sidelined, risking interruptions and delays to the 892 food safety, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and other inspections conducted in Texas last year.

The Department of Agriculture would be forced to stop processing housing loans, which provide $456,125,359 in funding to help 2,742 families in rural Texas communities buy homes every year.

The Department of Agriculture would be forced to stop processing farm loans which provide $209,391,000 in funding for farmers in Texas every year.

3,291,584 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries in Texas would lose access to benefits in a prolonged shutdown.

5,413,161 people who visit national parks in Texas every year would be turned away or unable to fully access parks, monuments, and museums.

State governments would be forced to pay for federal services like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, potentially risking benefits for the 20,846 TANF beneficiaries in Texas.

A government shutdown would hurt working families, damage our economy, interrupt vital services, endanger our national security, and force millions of our troops and government employees to work without pay.

It is time to get serious, it is time to do the work we are required to do as Members of Congress regardless of our political stripes.

Congress has a responsibility to keep our government open, and I hope we can work with House Republicans and the Senate to facilitate the timely completion of full-year spending bills and a supplemental package.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank President Joseph Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for working with those of us who have a deep abiding concern for our children.

I chair the Congressional Children's Caucus, and I was delighted that we were able to provide for the summer feeding youth program that will provide breakfast, lunch, and dinner for our children in the summer when they are not on a program that is held during the school year.

This is a vital program. It is a program that simply has the opportunity for our State to match and the Federal Government then matches and provides hungry children a lifeline.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking publicly for the State of Texas to accept the summer feeding program and to be one of the 35 States that have already accepted this program to participate in, so that the 3 million children in the State of Texas, and the nearly 100,000 in my congressional district, and possibly 1 million in the region that I represent would have the ability to eat.

Don't you want our children of Texas to eat? Let us participate in the summer feeding program. Let's do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 969--the rule providing for consideration of the following:

H.R. 6914--to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the

rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and for other purposes;

H.R. 6918--to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from restricting funding for pregnancy centers; and

H. Res. 957--denouncing the Biden administration's open-borders policies, condemning the national security and public safety crisis along the southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his administration's open-borders policies.

This resolution, providing for debate on these highly politicized and dangerous bills, is yet another shameful effort to erode and dismantle the rights and protections of Americans across the country, and to distract the American people with unviable solutions for immigration and border control--all in the face of inaction to prevent our government from shutting down once again.

H. Res. 969 is a measure that must be opposed for the reasons stated below.

As it pertains to H.R. 6914, this bill requires higher education institutions that participate in federal education programs to disseminate information on the rights and resources afforded to prospective, full- and part-time students who are pregnant or may become pregnant to encourage them to carry their pregnancy to term.

These institutions would be required to share this information by email at the start of each academic year, in student handbooks. at each orientation for enrolled students, at student health and counseling centers, and on the school's website.

A list of anti-abortion ``findings'' in the bill insinuate that women who have an abortion are at risk of developing mental health issues, abusing drugs and alcohol, and becoming suicidal.

Amendments in committee offered to make it clear that schools are still allowed to disseminate information on access to sexual and reproductive health services and the rights, protections, and accommodation afforded to students under Title IX were voted down by Republicans on the Committee.

As it pertains to H.R. 6918, this bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from restricting funding to pregnancy centers, which are defined as any organization that ``supports protecting the life of the mother and unborn child'' and ``offers resources and services to mothers, fathers, and families.''

This legislation redirects critical funding to antiabortion facilities, which includes so-called ``crisis pregnancy centers,'' that operate under the guise of legitimate health care providers.

At a time when women and girls' reproductive health care is already under attack from Republicans across the country, my colleagues across the aisle want to go even further by taking money from legitimate providers and redistributing it to these centers whose staff are not required to have any medical credentials.

Additionally, it must be noted that these harmful bills are futile attempts that will be vetoed by this Administration.

As we know, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6914 and H.R. 6918.

As highlighted in the White House Statement of Administrative Policy (SAP), the Administration clearly stated its opposition to H.R. 6914 in its current form.

Existing federal civil rights laws have long prohibited discrimination against students on the basis of pregnancy and related conditions, and institutions of higher education are already required to provide reasonable modifications to pregnant students--from modified class schedules to medical leave.

The Administration stated that it will continue taking action to ensure that students know their rights under federal law and have access to the comprehensive, evidence-based information and resources they need to make informed decisions about their health care.

And as highlighted by the White House in its SAP to H.R. 6918, contrary to the purported purpose of this bill, it would divert federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from effective supports for pregnant and parenting women and families.

Indeed, the bill seeks to prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from even considering commonsense program integrity measures that ensure that the use of federal TANF funds is consistent with federal law and the long-standing purposes set by Congress.

Members of Congress from both parties have recognized the importance of ensuring that federal TANF funds serve their intended purposes, and the Department's proposal would merely ensure that federal TANF funds are used consistent with the statutory requirements.

I stand with the Administration in stating that we remain committed to supporting the economic security, health, and well-being of women and families across the country, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make this commitment as well.

As it pertains to H. Res. 957, this resolution does nothing to address legitimate issues at the southern border--instead, it repeats an old list of hyperbolic Republican talking points on immigration.

Rather than working constructively to address these issues, House Republicans continue to make the evidence-free argument that President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Secretary Mayorkas have intentionally created a ``national security and public safety crisis'' at the southern border.

This bill peddles the false narrative that President Biden has an open-borders policy and villainizes immigrants fleeing dangerous situations.

And it does nothing to advance common sense solutions to improve our immigration system like creating better legal pathways, increasing processing capacity at ports of entry, or funding more immigration judges to reduce the asylum backlog.

It is truly shameful that just days until a government shutdown, my Republican colleagues continue to waste time with a resolution that repeats the same, tired, inaccurate talking points on immigration and the border.

Once again, Republicans talk a big game when it comes to immigration and border security--but instead of trying to pass thoughtful and bipartisan legislation that might fix the problems in our immigration system, their resolution accomplishes nothing.

Let's look at the facts.

Today, there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration detention, which is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for and roughly what the Trump administration averaged in Fiscal Year 2018.

The Biden administration has also significantly increased removals (in ways that many in our caucus worry violates due process).

Since the end of Title 42 last year, the Biden administration has removed or returned to Mexico over 470,000 individuals, including over 78,000 individual members of family units, including children.

The total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in all of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.

This is hardly an open border.

Time and again, my colleagues across the aisle have refused to support additional resources and personnel for the border.

In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, which provided additional funding to ports of entry to combat smuggling of people and drugs, and for modernization.

All but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and border security operations in the Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.

That bill provided more than $17 billion to CBP, including funding for an additional 300 U.S. Border Patrol agents--the first increase since 2011.

The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry.

In October of 2023, the Biden administration sent Congress a supplemental funding request, which included an additional $13.6 billion for border security.

Yet House Republicans refuse to schedule a vote on this funding request, which would provide the Biden administration the resources it needs to secure the border and provide additional support for communities receiving migrants.

More specifically, this supplemental funding would pay for the following:

an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents;

375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims;

1,000 CBP officers with a focus on countering fentanyl;

new detection technology for ports of entry;

additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking; and

$1.4 billion more in grants to help communities receiving migrants, among other investments.

Democrats have put forward good faith bipartisan solutions to actually secure the border by expanding lawful pathways to relieve pressure on the border and adequately fund government agencies.

By forcing a vote on a meaningless resolution filled with empty rhetoric, Republicans are showing they have no real solutions to address the border. Members should not take the bait.

In sum, H. Res. 969, the resolution providing for debate on these above stated bills (H.R. 69l4, H.R. 69l8, and H. Res. 957), is a pitiful attempt to continue the politicization of our government's ability to function and to dismantle rights and protections currently in place for the Americans across the country.

All a vote would do is put every Republican who supports it on record pushing this extreme agenda.

This is not what Congress should be focused on. Democrats and President Biden will stay focused on putting people over politics and keeping our government funded and functioning for the American people.

As such, I ask my colleagues to vote no on this shameful resolution providing for debate on these highly politicized and dangerous bills.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I am very glad that my colleagues, and some from Texas, want to have the real truth discussed on this floor.

The real truth is that President Biden has not fostered nor encouraged open borders. In fact, the United States does not have open borders.

It would be truly an act of real leadership if Republicans would work with Democrats and the present administration to do as was done during the Reagan administration when, yes, whether you agreed or disagreed, immigration laws were passed. If this Republican contingent of Members, House and Senate, would work, we would find a resolution to some of the concerns that we have.

It is very clear that the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas is not a solution. The present resolution that we have is not a solution.

Today, there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration detention, which is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for. People without facts don't realize, somewhat similar to Trump, many of us are concerned about due process rights, but when accusations are made about one party is better than another, that is not true. Of course, there were those removed under title 42, and the Biden administration did that when that law was in place. The total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in all of fiscal 2019 in the past administration.

However, this administration wants to put forward reasonable and effective legislation so that we will get an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents, 375 immigration judges, 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims, 1,000 CBP officers, new detection technology for ports of entry, additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking, and $1.4 billion more to help communities receiving migrants.

Mr. Speaker, quickly, fentanyl is not an immigration issue. It is a criminal issue, a crime issue. It is where we have to come together with our law enforcement across America.

What I will say, the utilization of State laws that effectively are not governed by the Constitution, States do not have immigration authority, and blocking the Border Patrol is not an effective immigration tool. Causing a mother and two of her children to die is not an immigration tool. I don't want to be a part of it.

I want to be a part of the work that the President is doing. I thank the President and Vice President. I want this House to be helping in this work so that we can, in fact, have border solutions that work, where visas are able to be given to the appropriate people.

Limiting or removing parole does not work.

Additionally, 8.3 million relatives of U.S. citizens and legal residents are awaiting a green card. That does not work.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article written by David J. Bier titled: ``8.3 Million Relatives of U.S. Citizens & Legal Residents Awaited Green Cards in 2022.''

[May 17, 2023]

8.3 Million Relatives of U.S. Citizens & Legal Residents Awaited Green

Cards in 2022

(By David J. Bier)

The United States hit a new record of about 8.3 million

immigrants at various stages in its family-sponsored

permanent residence process in 2022--an increase of nearly 1

million since 2019. The staggering number of pending cases is

primarily the result of outdated caps on green cards, but

processing delays are also affecting a substantial number of

applicants.

The U.S. immigration system's current caps came into effect

in fiscal year 1992. Figure 1 breaks down the family-based

backlog into its two main categories: immediate relatives

(``uncapped'') and family preference immigrants (``capped'')

from 1992 to 2022. Immediate relatives--spouses, minor

children, and parents of adult U.S. citizens--have no direct

cap (though their admissions reduce the cap for the family

preference (or capped) immigrants from 480,000 to 226,000).

The immediate relative backlog has increased from about

73,000 in 1992 to over 1 million in 2022.

Family preference immigrants are spouses and children of

legal permanent residents, adult children of U.S. citizens,

and siblings of adult U.S. citizens, as well as any spouses

and minor children of those relatives. Immigrants who need a

cap number available to apply for a green card made up about

86 percent of the family-based backlog in 2022. From 1992 to

2022, the number of capped family-sponsored immigrants stuck

in the backlog increased from about 3.3 million to about 7.1

million. The cap is set at 226,000 annually.

These estimates differ significantly from the most commonly

referenced source for information on the family-sponsored

green card backlog: the State Department's annual immigrant

visa waiting list report. The numbers from that report are

shown in orange (Petition Approved-Wait Listed (Abroad)), but

that report does not include several groups of applicants. It

excludes the ``immediate relative'' or uncapped categories,

anyone waiting to apply inside the United States, and--most

importantly--anyone whose petition is yet to be adjudicated.

As Figure 2 shows, 3.6 million had a sponsor's petition

pending. This massive backlog in pending petitions is largely

because of the government's correct view that it shouldn't

waste resources adjudicating applications that will not

result in a green card being issued thanks to the cap.

The overall cap is set at 226,000, but it is divided into 5

categories based on the immigrant's marital status and

relationship to the U.S. sponsor:

1. F-1--Married adult children of U.S. citizens: 23,400

2. F-2A--Spouses and minor children of legal permanent

residents: 687,900

3. F-2B--Unmarried adult children of legal permanent

residents: 626,300

4. F-3--Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens: 23,400

5. F-4--Siblings of U.S. citizens: 65,000

In addition, immigrants from each country have a separate

limit. No single birthplace can receive more than 7 percent

of the green cards, though 75 percent of the F-2A category

aren't counted against the cap.

As a result of the country caps and category caps,

applicants face wildly different potential wait times:

anywhere from 6 years to 233 years (effectively infinite). As

seen in Table 1, the odds of a new family-sponsor surviving

to be able to act as a sponsor when

a green card is available under the cap is low in many

category-country combinations. Virtually all new sponsors

from Mexico in 2022--outside the F-2A category--will die

before their family member receives a green card. In fact,

nearly 40 percent of all new sponsors in 2022 and 58 percent

of sponsors in non-F-2A categories will die before their

relatives get to immigrate. Even if the sponsor survives for

eternity, about 1.6 million immigrants currently in the

backlog will die before receiving a green card.

Even the shortest wait for F-2A category--for spouses and

minor children of green card holders--is unconscionable. 6 to

10 years to wait to be with your nuclear family? This would

be unimaginable in nearly all developed democracies. The

United States stands apart in having some of the most

restrictive immigration laws among wealthy countries.

Restricting immigration and parole is a lose-lose situation, as is rejecting DACA young people who are, in fact, ready to be paramedics, lawyers, doctors, teachers.

The White House calls on Congress to advance critical national security.

All of this is what President Biden is doing, and I would make the argument that this is what we should be doing in order to have real immigration reform. I ask that we do not support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 957-- denouncing the Biden administration's open-borders policies, condemning the national security and public safety crisis along the southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his administration's open- borders policies.

This resolution is yet another shameful effort to distract the American people with unviable solutions for immigration and border control--all in the face of inaction to prevent our government from shutting down once again.

This resolution does nothing to address legitimate issues at the southern border--instead, it repeats an old list of hyperbolic Republican talking points on immigration.

Rather than working constructively to address these issues, House Republicans continue to make the evidence-free argument that President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Secretary Mayorkas have intentionally created a ``national security and public safety crisis'' at the southern border.

This bill peddles the false narrative that President Biden has an open-borders policy and vi11ainizes immigrants fleeing dangerous situations.

And it does nothing to advance common sense solutions to improve our immigration system like creating better legal pathways, increasing processing capacity at ports of entry, or funding more immigration judges to reduce the asylum backlog.

It is truly shameful that just days until a government shutdown, my Republican colleagues continue to waste time with a resolution that repeats the same, tired, inaccurate talking points on immigration and the border.

Once again, Republicans talk a big game when it comes to immigration and border security--but instead of trying to pass thoughtful and bipartisan legislation that might fix the problems in our immigration system, their resolution accomplishes nothing.

Let's look at the facts.

Today, there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration detention, which is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for and roughly what the Trump administration averaged in Fiscal Year 2018.

The Biden administration has also significantly increased removals (in ways that many in our caucus worry violates due process).

Since the end of Title 42 last year, the Biden administration has removed or returned to Mexico over 470,000 individuals, including over 78,000 individual members of family units, including children.

The total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in ALL of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.

This is hardly an open border.

Time and again, my colleagues across the aisle have refused to support additional resources and personnel for the border.

In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, which provided additional funding to ports of entry to combat smuggling of people and drugs, and for modernization.

All but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and border security operations in the Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.

That bill provided more than $17 billion to CBP, including funding for an additional 300 U.S. Border Patrol agents--the first increase since 2011.

The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry.

In October of 2023, the Biden administration sent Congress a supplemental funding request, which included an additional $13.6 billion for border security.

Yet House Republicans refuse to schedule a vote on this funding request, which would provide the Biden administration the resources it needs to secure the border and provide additional support for communities receiving migrants.

More specifically, this supplemental funding would pay for the following:

an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents;

375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims;

1,000 CBP officers with a focus on countering fentanyl;

new detection technology for ports of entry;

additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking; and

$1.4 billion more in grants to help communities receiving migrants, among other investments.

Democrats have put forward good faith bipartisan solutions to actually secure the border by expanding lawful pathways to relieve pressure on the border and adequately fund government agencies.

By forcing a vote on a meaningless resolution filled with empty rhetoric, Republicans are showing they have no real solutions to address the border. Members should not take the bait.

In sum, this resolution is a pitiful attempt to continue the politicization of our government's ability to function.

All a vote would do is put every Republican who supports it on record pushing this extreme agenda.

This is not what Congress should be focused on. Democrats and President Biden will stay focused on putting people over politics and keeping our government funded and functioning for the American people.

As such, I ask my colleagues to vote NO on this shameful resolution providing for debate on these highly politicized and dangerous bills.

Madam Speaker, I want to answer the question: Can't we all get along?

There is no doubt of Democrats' promotion and support of small businesses. They are in my district. We work every day to make sure they have access to credit and that they are able to pay their workers and benefit from programs like the PPP during COVID.

I don't know how many small businesses stop me to say we were a lifeline, the Democrats who passed the American Rescue Act and many other ways of helping.

Today, we rise to oppose what is not bringing people together; it is dividing people.

H.J. Res. 98 is another extreme attack on workers, and it undercuts the NLRB's ability to address workplace conditions in a fair and equitable manner. As we know, on October 27, 2023, the NLRB published a final rule addressing the standard for determining joint employer status. It is important to highlight the following facts in support of this rule.

The rule is not to be against businesses, small businesses, or workers. It is, in fact, to be able to ensure good quality of work. Employees need to be able to collectively bargain with both joint employers to ensure the parties calling the shots are at the table.

This requirement is particularly important for employees of subcontractors and staffing agencies, such as janitors, housekeepers, cooks, and many others. They work on behalf of a company that directs their work but does not sign their paycheck.

I can assure you this can be a win-win situation, a good quality of life for our employees, great income for our small businesses, and a reasonable response to people's hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 98 because I stand for small businesses and for the workers. That is what Democrats do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 98, a joint resolution to disapprove the National Labor Relations Board's rule relating to a ``Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status''.

H.J. Res. 98 is yet another extreme attack on workers and undercuts the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) ability to address workplace conditions in a fair and equitable manner.

As we know, on October 27, 2023, the NLRB published a final rule addressing the Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status.

It is important to highlight the following facts in support of this final 2023 rule:

The 2023 rule establishes that, under the National Labor Relations Act, two or more entities may be considered joint employers of a group of employees if each entity has an employment relationship with the employees, and if the entities share or codetermine one or more of the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment.

This 2023 rule rescinds and replaces the 2020 final rule that was promulgated by the prior Board and which took effect on April 27, 2020.

The 2023 rule more faithfully grounds the joint-employer standard in established common law agency principles.

In particular, the 2023 rule considers the alleged joint employers' authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment, whether or not such control is exercised, and without regard to whether any such exercise of control is direct or indirect.

The common law clearly recognizes that reserved control and indirect control are relevant to the analysis.

And including reserved control is important to account for situations in which an alleged joint employer maintains authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment but has not yet exercised such control.

The reality is that an entity holding such control may step in at any moment to affect essential terms.

Indeed, even when the entity remains on the sidelines, it may cast a shadow over the other employer's decision-making with respect to such terms.

By contrast, the 2020 rule made it easier for actual joint employers to avoid a finding of joint-employer status because it set a higher threshold of ``substantial direct and immediate control'' over essential terms of conditions of employment, which has no foundation in common law.

In the 2023 rule, the joint-employer standard is only implicated if an entity employs the workers at issue and has authority to control at least one of these terms or conditions. Authority over other matters is not sufficient.

With passage of H.J. Res. 98, my colleagues across the aisle are now seeking to invalidate this 2023 rule that replaces the Trump-era regulation in the 2020 rule that was purposefully crafted to restrict workers' rights and undermine their legitimate organizing efforts.

Thus, this resolution seeks to invalidate the 2023 rule and quite simply weaken essential labor protections for working people across the economy.

We cannot roll back necessary protections for our American workers.

We must acknowledge the following harms that would result from the passage of H.J. Res. 98, because it would do the following:

Undermine workers and their collective bargaining. This disapproval resolution would prevent workers from comprehensive collective bargaining with all entities that have control over their employment;

Prohibit employer accountability. Employers should not be able to hide behind subcontractors, staffing agencies or temporary placement services when failing to provide fair wages and safe working conditions; and

Backtrack to Trump's regressive joint employer standard. The new 2023 Joint Employer standard is based on common-law agency principles. However, a disapproval resolution will restore the previous version of this standard issued by the Trump Administration.

Yes, H.J. Res. 98 undermines workers and their collective bargaining.

The National Labor Relations Board finalized a new Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status that established that two or more entities may be considered joint employers if each has an employment relationship with the employees and has influence over the essential terms and conditions of employment.

Once deemed a joint employer, workers would be able to negotiate with all parties that hold influence over their employment.

With this CRA, House Republicans are undermining workers as they collectively bargain for higher wages, better benefits and safer working conditions.

This Republican-led CRA prohibits employer accountability.

Many employers have shielded themselves from accountability by using subcontractors, staffing agencies or temporary agencies. This new Joint Employer standard will ensure that any company with control over employees is responsible for those employees.

Temporary employment increased by almost 63 percent between April 2020

and July 2022, rapidly outpacing the growth of overall employment.

This has serious implications for workers potentially subject to subpar wages, training and work conditions found in staffing agencies when compared to direct-hire counterparts.

If H.J. Res. 98 were to become law, it would revoke the new standard and return to the previous version issued under the Trump Administration which enabled companies to more easily evade a joint- employer status and had no foundation in common law.

We must not allow extreme agendas to sabotage the tireless work of the National Labor Relations Board to safeguard workers' rights and address unfair labor conditions.

Workers have the right to bargain for fair wages and working conditions with every company that directly or indirectly controls their terms and conditions of employment.

Too often, companies deny workers this right by hiding behind subcontractors, staffing agencies, and temporary agencies.

Reversing this rulemaking will prevent workers from exercising their right to bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions.

Simply put, this legislation would mean lower wages for working families. This is beyond unacceptable and must be rejected.

I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 98, a joint resolution to disapprove the National Labor Relations Board's rule relating to a ``Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status''.

Mr. Speaker, with sadness but yet with the joy of her life, I rise today to salute Carolyn Middleton Hall, who passed away in December 2023.

Carolyn Middleton Hall was married to our beloved Anthony Hall, a pilot, a great civic leader, a former member of the Houston City Council, and a champion of opportunity and equality for our community. She is the mother of Anthony and Ursula, two successful young people who are also contributing to this community.

I rise to salute the late Carol Middleton Hall for all she has done to make Houston a better place for all of us to live. She was a great educator and a lover of improving the lives of young people. She came from a political family. She spent her life with her father and uncle fighting for workers' rights and making sure that unions were strong in our community.

As her husband ascended to public life, being one of the pioneers as an African American serving in Houston, Carolyn was right there. You can always say that she was his best advocate for getting votes, with her smiling face, her willingness for service, and her unselfishness. Carolyn was right there helping to generate votes for her daughter, who is now serving as a judge.

She was also generating friends. You could not help but be a friend to Carolyn Middleton Hall.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to remember her and be reminded by our moment of silence that we will take as I conclude in order to honor an American whose name you may not know at every dinner table, but you should know of her kindness, her love, her belief in America, and her championing of the civic system of government, voting, and equality.

I champion and honor the late Carolyn Middleton Hall. May she rest in peace, and may she rest in power. I thank my dear sister, a Link and an

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the full committee and the manager of this presentation on the floor for dealing with H.R. 788.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to save lives. This baffles me when good work is being done and has been done over the years. No one has complained about misconduct of the recipients of the settlement funds helping people who have been impacted negatively, sometimes with irreparable harm. They are assisted by a number of organizations making a difference.

Rather, we want to go forward with the corporate unaccountability act, making this an unreasonable attempt and unconstitutional attempt by Members on the other side to stop protecting victims and protect wrongdoers, which is a continuation of the dangerous behavior that has brought about this settlement.

What do Americans look to their Federal Government for? They look to the government to be their rock, their anchor in times of natural disasters, man-made and otherwise. They look to their government in times of war and peace for us to defend this Nation. They certainly look to make sure that in the normal comings and goings of their work with their families, their communities, that someone is looking out for them. That is what the settlement opportunities give to our various agencies.

This would allow the continued work, rather than the taking away of these dollars from legitimate groups that are helping to make life better. This weakens the Federal Government's ability to settle these issues. It takes away the idea of legal aid and legal aid organizations being able to help individuals without access to legal assistance. It helps develop community banking, financial institutions. It gives housing opportunities to those who have been taken advantage of.

We know that we are in a condition of toxic air and toxic contamination in our neighborhoods, and what does the ability to settle the disaster that has been created do? It tells those offenders this is how they make the community whole. This is how they save lives.

I know it well in Fifth Ward, Texas, and the surrounding areas. For a long time, a corporate offender contaminated the soil. They were growing plants and flowers, so whole neighborhoods had an epidemic of cancer. There were whole generations that lived around this particular toxic site, but it was only the Federal Government--the EPA, in particular--under the Biden administration that came in and got a handle on this and insisted that the health needs of these individuals, the cleanup needs of these individuals, was going to be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the ranking member, for yielding additional time.

This is not that s-word. I don't even want to say it because it means that it is something wrong. This is a good settlement opportunity that will help the public in fighting against bad actors. It will work on improving the criminal justice system, bankruptcies, the environment, civil rights laws, the Fair Housing Act, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

This is a pathway to disaster. That is what H.R. 788 is. Don't be fooled, Mr. Speaker. What we want to do is help the American people and eliminate H.R. 788, which is going to take away the tools to be able to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I started out by saying we want to save lives, and that is what we want to continue to do in these dastardly conditions that have happened all over the Nation. We want the Federal Government to be standing next to Americans and to be able to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from several organizations that oppose H.R. 788.

January 8, 2024.

Re Oppose H.R. 788--The Prevention of Community Restoration

Act.

Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose H.R. 788, the

so-called ``Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023''. The

bill prohibits settlement agreements where the United States

is a party from including certain ``donations'' to non-

federal actors, primarily non-profits, educational, and

community-based organizations.

Under existing laws, settlements from federal enforcement

actions can include payments to third parties to advance

programs that assist with recovery, benefits, and relief for

communities harmed by lawbreakers, to the extent such

payments further the objectives of the enforcement action.

H.R. 788 would cut off any payments to third parties other

than individualized restitution and other forms of direct

payment for ``actual harm.'' That restriction would handcuff

federal enforcement officials by limiting the ability of

federal enforcement officials to negotiate real relief for

harms caused to the public by illegal conduct that is the

subject of federal enforcement actions.

This bill would be a gift to lawbreakers at the expense of

families and communities suffering from injuries that cannot

be addressed by direct restitution because the bill would

prevent federal agencies from negotiating forms of relief

that would address injuries to the public that may be either

non-quantifiable or indeterminate. These forms of relief are

crucial when harm is difficult to monetize, such as damage to

the environment, the collateral consequences to communities

resulting from predatory lending by financial institutions,

or unknown health outcomes to individuals resulting from

chemical exposures in the workplace.

Under current law, the legitimacy and utility of federal

enforcement settlements that include payments to third

parties is clear, as long as such payments bear a nexus to

the prosecutorial objectives of the agency. This bill would

supplant the wisdom of officials at DOJ and federal agencies

to craft appropriate remedies.

This bill is also just another example of Congressional

overreach into executive branch decision-making. Not only

does it disregard the needs of future Administrations, but

the bill is sloppily crafted, failing to provide even a basic

definition of the ``donations'' or payments in question.

Further, the bill assumes that the government is always

going to be the party seeking to enforce the law, but this is

a fallacy. Laws are often enforced against the government,

and the government sometimes pays restitution to litigants.

There is a role for third parties to ensure that settlements

involving the government are followed and enforced.

Third parties that receive third-party payments include

nonprofits, community organizations, or trusts or foundations

that provide vital services in their communities. Members of

Congress should applaud the good work of these organizations

that serve the public good rather than vilify them.

We urge you to oppose H.R. 788.

Sincerely,

Yosef Robele & Brielle Green, Earthjustice, American

Association of Justice, American Federation of State, County

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of

Teachers, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Justice

& Democracy, Center for Progressive Reform, Clean Water

Action, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund,

Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Working

Group, Government Information Watch, Impact Fund, League of

Conservation Voters, National Association of Consumer

Advocates, National Consumers League, NRDC, Nuclear

Information and Resource Service, Public Justice, Union of

Concerned Scientists, Waterkeeper Alliance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 788. Don't take that tool away. Help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023.

This bill would undermine our ability to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for unlawful conduct.

H.R. 788, which otherwise could be called the ``Corporate Unaccountability Act,'' is another unconscionable attempt by some extreme members on the other side of the aisle to protect corporate wrongdoers at the expense of their victims and a continuation of this majority's dangerous quest to prevent federal agencies from enforcing key protections.

H.R. 788 is yet another in a series of harmful bills that pose a direct threat to a broad range of critical protections Americans rely on in their daily lives by making it harder for federal agencies to implement, execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress.

These bills are part of the extreme MAGA Republican agenda, which seeks to render the federal government ineffective by any means necessary.

First, they proposed defunding and abolishing agencies that do not suit their radical views.

Then, they broadened their scope and put forward their Default on America Act, and later their extreme CR, which would have massively underfunded the federal government, hurting its ability to address our nation's most important priorities.

This week, the sabotage continues with legislation that puts corporate interests over communities by making it harder for agencies to hold corporations accountable for unlawful conduct and depriving victims of meaningful relief.

H.R. 788 would prohibit federal agencies from entering or enforcing legal settlement agreements that include payments to third parties in cases of corporate misconduct.

These third-party payments are important when the conduct at issue results in generalized harm, such as violations of public health, environmental or consumer protections.

Recipients are often nonprofit, educational and community-based organizations.

For example, the Department of Justice has reached settlement agreements in connection with the mortgage lending practices of major banks that required payments to legal aid organizations, community development financial institutions and housing counseling groups.

Eliminating this practice, as H.R. 788 threatens to do, would materially weaken the federal government's ability to hold bad actors accountable for their unlawful conduct in a way that effectively addresses the societal injuries they have caused.

This extreme and misguided legislation has earned opposition from both the Biden Administration and a broad coalition of groups, has zero Democratic cosponsors and only advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee by a party-line vote.

According to President Biden's Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 788 is unnecessary and ``would have adverse effects on the Federal government's ability to enforce key laws protecting the public, including criminal, bankruptcy, environmental and civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act.''

It should also be noted that the following groups who have come out in opposition of this irresponsible and dangerous bill:

American Association for Justice; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Justice & Democracy; Center for Progressive Reform; Clean Water Action; Coalition for Sensible Safeguards; Earthjustice; Environmental Defense Fund; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Working Group; Government Information Watch; Impact Fund; League of Conservation Voters; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Consumers League; NRDC; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Public Justice; Union of Concerned Scientists; and Waterkeeper Alliance.

Let me also highlight the fact that the Administration strongly opposes the House passage of H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023, because the legislation is unnecessary and would harm the public interest.

H.R. 788 would prohibit the Federal government from entering into settlement agreements that include payments directed to appropriate parties.

This legislation seeks to address a problem that does not exist--the Federal government does not create or use ``slush funds.''

When the Federal government settles a case with those who violate the law, it seeks to hold bad actors accountable, to appropriately remedy the harm they have caused, and to prevent the recurrence of those harms.

H.R. 788 would have adverse effects on the Federal government's ability to enforce key laws protecting the public, including criminal, bankruptcy, environmental, and civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act.

This bill would needlessly prohibit a widely respected and effective enforcement tool.

Specifically, it would block many agencies from including certain terms providing for payment to third parties in settlement agreements to which the United States is a party.

In the past, agencies have sometimes opted to work with entities that have violated regulatory requirements to agree to alternative forms of remediation.

These efforts have resulted in settlement agreements that include payments by those entities to third parties to advance programs that assist with recovery, benefits, or relief for communities harmed by the wrongdoing addressed in the enforcement action.

In this way, H.R. 788 would thwart federal enforcement officials' ability to negotiate appropriate relief for harm caused to the public by parties that are the subject of the enforcement action.

The criticisms of third-party settlements are misplaced: they do not unduly undermine congressional appropriation power, and they must satisfy basic requirements to be used.

The Congressional Research Service has found settlement payments to non-federal actors are permissible remedies to the extent they bear a nexus to the prosecutorial objectives of the agency.

Moreover, developing guidelines on appropriate scope, purpose, and use of third-party payments appropriately lie with the executing agency, which has the benefit of expertise and experience.

In sum, this bill is counterproductive and would undermine law enforcement goals by reducing the availability of effective remedies to address injuries to individuals and communities caused by illegal conduct. We therefore urge you to oppose H.R. 788, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member, for his leadership.

There is more work to be done, and I am glad our previous speaker, my colleague and friend from California, made it clear that this is for 5 months.

This is about getting more jobs and getting them done now. This is to emphasize that this new emphasis on EV infrastructure is going to help each and every one of my colleagues.

I am rising because I am so proud of the State of Texas. It is one of the few States that has announced American-made EV charger investments as of September 2023. We are already out front in the State of Texas, which is not often known for moving fast on these kinds of environmentally focused efforts. I thank Texas.

It is because of the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department, United Steelworkers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, United Auto Workers, Siemens, and Alliance for American Manufacturing working together for these EV chargers to make sure that we will have the waiver for only 5 months. Then, all the chargers will be required to contain 55 percent domestic content on the cost of components.

The infrastructure in which EV chargers are housed is predominantly steel and iron, which are excluded from this waiver now.

The explanation is that this is to do better, to help America do better, and to get us ready for July 2024, to help more States have EV investments that create jobs, move us into a new level of technology, and provide the opportunity for more science-based mobility, transportation that is safe, that is clean, and that is job-creating.

What more can we want?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation because I want more jobs and a safer environment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay acknowledgment and have my colleagues recognize a medaled combat veteran in the name of our Secretary of Defense, and that is General Lloyd Austin.

Over the last couple of weeks, there have been enormous criticism of the nature of his health condition and the alleged communication or noncommunication in the chain of command.

I rise today only to be able to acknowledge the work of a soldier and one who has, through his years of service, continued to act excellently and with excellence.

With that in mind, I hope that all Members of this body will allow the process to proceed, will allow a person to achieve the health services that they need, and will allow respect to be given to a medaled combat officer who now serves this Nation as the Secretary of Defense. Let us do that for his family, for the Secretary, for the men and women of the military, and for this Nation.