The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5314, PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY ACT;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1605, NATIONAL PULSE MEMORIAL; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 610, DR. LORNA BREEN HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER PROTECTION ACT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 838 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 838
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5314) to protect our democracy by preventing abuses of presidential power, restoring checks and balances and accountability and transparency in government, and defending elections against foreign interference, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-20, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or their respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time after debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or her designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 4. All points of order against the further amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1605) to designate the National Pulse Memorial located at 1912 South Orange Avenue in Orlando, Florida, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-21 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 6. The chair of the Committee on Armed Services may insert in the Congressional Record not later than December 10, 2021, such material as he may deem explanatory of S. 1605.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 610) to address behavioral health and well-being among health care professionals. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-22 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 8. (a) At any time through the legislative day of Thursday, December 9, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without debate or intervening motion.
(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules on the legislative day of November 30, 2021, December 1, 2021, or December 8, 2021, in the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection
(a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such motions are considered as withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 838, providing for consideration of H.R. 5314, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Maloney and makes in order 34 amendments. It also provides en bloc authority to Chairwoman Maloney and one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of S. 1605, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It provides authority for the chair of the Armed Services Committee to insert into the Record explanatory materials through December 10 and provides for one motion to commit.
The rule also provides for consideration of S. 610, the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and provides for one motion to commit.
Finally, the rule provides the majority leader the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills through December 9, 2021.
Mr. Speaker, ever since the founding of our great Nation, we have debated how to appropriately check and balance the various branches of our government with a primary concern, dating back to the 1700s, being how to prevent abuses of executive power and how to address such abuses when they occur.
In the 1970s, Congress passed a variety of reforms in response to abuses of the Nixon administration to address the imbalance between Congress and the President--laws like the War Powers Act, the Inspector General Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Impoundment Control Act.
Now, just like then, Congress must pass additional reforms to protect against Presidential impunity and reset the dysfunctional relationship between the branches of government.
Many Americans did not realize that we didn't already have laws to prevent the kinds of abuses we saw during the Trump administration. They thought that our laws required the disclosure of tax returns by Presidential candidates and the avoidance of financial conflicts, particularly from foreign nations, and that our laws prevented the use of pardons to protect political allies from criminal liability.
In a country founded by men for whom public service to promote the common good was the highest calling, we have long expected our elected leaders to adhere to ethical standards that far exceed minimal legality, and for the most part, they have. People didn't realize that a wayward President might have a dangerously wide berth to avoid legal and ethical guardrails, subvert the other branches of government, and escape accountability for doing so.
They were surprised that the former President and his administration would offer pardons in return for political favors, illegally repurpose taxpayer dollars, violate the Hatch Act, or remove inspectors general when they investigated executive misconduct.
They were surprised that the former President would politically interfere in Federal law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, order Federal agents to violently disperse peaceful protesters, or use his office to direct business to properties that he owned and profited from.
This is no way for a democracy to function. When a President, any President, abuses the power of their office, we all suffer, and our democracy is weakened. We often hear that the United States is a nation of laws, not men, but so long as those laws are enforced by men, we need a functional system of oversight and accountability to prevent lawlessness, graft, nepotism, crony dealings, and abuses of Presidential power.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act focuses on three major areas of reform: limiting abuses of Presidential power; improving accountability, transparency, and the system of checks and balances; and protecting against foreign interference in our Nation's elections.
Former President Trump and his administration made it abundantly clear that the functioning of our democratic institutions had become too dependent on the good behavior of good people and that our government was vulnerable to the dangers posed by people in positions of power who might value their own political or financial interests more than public service or the common good.
These are not esoteric concerns. Just last week at a townhall, several of my constituents asked sharp questions about the failure to hold anyone accountable--so far--for inciting the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the misuse of government funds intended for COVID relief, and the measures necessary to hold people in contempt when they defy congressional subpoenas.
While the Trump administration may have ended, our democratic institutions are still vulnerable to future Presidents who try to commit the same crimes, abuses of power, and other improper actions.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act is the culmination of years of work by dozens of bipartisan Members and nine congressional committees to institute reforms to protect our democracy and rebalance the relationship between Congress and the President.
For decades, Congress has ceded many administrative and oversight responsibilities to the executive branch. Congress is granted broad powers in Article I of the Constitution, but over time, many of these powers have been weakened or absorbed by the Presidency.
This has been a long and slow process with Presidents of both parties over the past 50 years taking advantage of the broken system of checks and balances to expand Presidential power. But it has become increasingly clear, particularly so over the last administration, that this problem has dangerous consequences.
To protect against abuses of Presidential power, the Protect Our Democracy Act prevents Presidents from pardoning themselves and updates Federal bribery laws to prevent quid pro quo pardons. The Protect Our Democracy Act suspends the statute of limitations so that Presidents cannot escape accountability for crimes committed before or during their terms in office. And this act would allow Congress to enforce the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, preventing future Presidents from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments or others who seek to influence Presidential actions.
To improve transparency and accountability, this act makes a series of necessary reforms to bolster the enforcement of congressional subpoenas. Presidents have increasingly used a variety of legal methods to stall or obstruct congressional investigations, and these issues came to a head during the Trump administration where the executive branch refused to turn over information to Congress for so long that the administration ended before Congress could obtain that information. Congress needs to be able to promptly and effectively conduct oversight in order to fulfill its constitutional role as a check and balance to a rogue administration.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act's reforms will give Congress important legal remedies to ensure that the recipients of congressional subpoenas actually comply with them in a timely manner. It will place important limits on presidentially declared emergencies so that Presidents cannot indefinitely maintain emergency powers.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act will additionally prevent the President from illegally diverting or spending taxpayer dollars. It will prevent Presidents from dismissing inspectors general when they conduct investigations that disclose misconduct by an administration.
{time} 1730
Importantly, the Protecting Our Democracy Act will reinforce measures to prevent the White House from trying to interfere in Federal law enforcement for political reasons.
Lastly, the Protecting Our Democracy Act includes policies to protect our Federal elections from foreign interference. Since 2016, numerous foreign governments have gone to great lengths to interfere in our elections and manipulate American public opinion.
Building on the reforms passed by the House as part of H.R. 1, the For the People Act, the Protecting Our Democracy Act would require campaigns to affirmatively report any contact with a foreign government or its agents, expressly prohibit those contacts, and strengthen criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of the prohibitions.
All in all, the reforms in the Protecting Our Democracy Act will establish essential guardrails to protect our democratic institutions from illegal and unethical behavior by a President or his or her administration. These reforms are long overdue, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill when it is considered on the floor.
However, I do want to note to my colleagues that while the Protecting Our Democracy Act can address many of the abuses of the recent administration, and prevent them in the future, ultimately, the responsibility for holding the executive accountable falls to Congress.
Under our Constitution, Congress plays an equal role in the functioning of our government. Through our powers to authorize and appropriate funds, conduct oversight, pass laws, structure government agencies, and grant executive authority, under Article I, the first article of the Constitution, Congress has the ability to limit Presidential power and punish Presidents who break the law, violate norms, or act in ways to undermine our constitutional order. And we all must have the courage to exercise that power.
So while it is true that Congress has ceded many of its Article I powers, the responsibility to get them back falls entirely on us. We cannot count on an executive, of any party, to relinquish powers that we have given away. Whether it is war powers, emergency powers, or the enforcement of subpoenas, ethical norms, and criminal penalties, it falls on Congress to pass legislation to resolve these issues.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule also provides for consideration of the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. I applaud the work of my House colleagues to consider and pass the NDAA in a timely fashion, and I regret that the Senate has once again held up congressional business.
This year's NDAA makes important and necessary improvements to our national security policies, ensuring that the United States is able to appropriately respond to ongoing and emerging threats.
The NDAA will provide the resources to combat aggression and malign activity by Russia and China; it will strengthen our security relations with important allies in Europe and Asia; and it will continue vital modernization and acquisition programs.
The NDAA includes important policies for my district, including funding for five Block II Chinook helicopters and nine more V-22 Ospreys, all of which are manufactured in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania. The 4,500 men and women who build these incredible aircraft are immensely proud that their hard work directly supports our national security and disaster relief efforts around the world, and the fiscal year 2022 NDAA is an investment in these amazing workers.
The NDAA also includes funding for the fifth of five National Security Multi-Mission Vessels which are being built at the Philadelphia shipyard, the birthplace of the United States Navy. These are training ships for our nation's maritime academies which are needed to train the next generation of mariners as we experience growing shortages to that workforce. This program has already created hundreds of jobs in my district and throughout our region, and it will create hundreds more as work continues.
These training vessels are critical to our national commerce, our national defense, and our regional economy. This Friday, I am looking forward to attending the keel laying ceremony for the first of these vessels at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
I want to highlight, as well, the important reforms that the NDAA finally makes to the way the military handles cases of sexual assault. Thanks to years of work by advocates and members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the NDAA will remove special victims crimes from the chain of command and create an Office of the Special Victim Prosecutor within each service that is independent from the military justice system.
These reforms will ensure that allegations of sexual assault get an independent investigation with experienced criminal justice attorneys, allowing our servicemembers to seek justice without the pressures and obfuscation that keep these crimes in the shadows. While I believe that a lot more can and should be done to address sexual assault in the Armed Forces, the FY 2022 NDAA makes much-needed progress.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, today's rule will provide a process for expedited consideration in the Senate of legislation to raise the Nation's debt limit. Congressional Republicans have held the country hostage for nearly 4 months, threatening to derail our economy, and the world's economy, as part of a fiscally irresponsible political stunt.
Again, it is incredibly irresponsible for Members of Congress to support fiscal policies that require the Treasury to borrow and then to prevent the Treasury from doing so. We must raise the debt limit, and we must be responsible stewards of the full faith and credit of the United States.
It has been said multiple times but bears repeating: Raising the debt limit is necessary to allow the Treasury to pay the bills our country has already incurred. It has nothing to do with the national debt. The United States cannot default on its bills without creating a global financial crisis and inflicting serious financial harm on our country and its inhabitants.
It is grossly irresponsible for any Member of this Congress to deliberately court financial disaster by nonpayment of our debts, and particularly to do so for partisan political purposes.
I look forward to legislative action in the future to permanently lift the debt limit and to permanently remove this political football from the Halls of Congress. I am glad that both Chambers of Congress have come to an agreement on the path forward to raising the debt limit for the present so that we can end the economic anxiety caused by this arbitrary and functionally useless budget provision.
In addition to the debt limit provision, the rule includes important budgetary provisions to protect funding from Medicare and other important Federal programs as our Nation continues our robust recovery from last year's recession, and to fight the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, covers three items. I will begin my remarks on a bipartisan note with the House amendment to S. 1605, the vehicle for the agreement between the House and the Senate for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.
It has been a long road to get us to this point, Mr. Speaker, but with this week's action, the House and Senate are poised to enact the NDAA for the 61st consecutive year. This is quite an accomplishment, and one that could not have been possible but for the bipartisan cooperation in the House and the Senate.
It didn't always look promising. At the beginning of the process, President Biden proposed a defense budget that would deeply underfund our national defense. Chronic underfunding of defense was the hallmark of the Obama-Biden administration, a trend that was thankfully reversed by President Trump and a Republican Congress.
With his first budget, President Biden appeared poised to return to the previous sorry state of affairs. Fortunately, a bipartisan group of legislators on the Armed Services Committee rejected this approach, ensuring an increase in defense funding that would be sufficient to meet the country's needs. This increase garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in the committee, allowing the NDAA to be reported out on a 57-2 vote, and extending to final passage out of the House, with a bipartisan 316-113 vote.
At a glance, it is easy to see why. The United States and our allies face significant threats around the globe. We see this every day in trouble spots around the world, ranging from the Middle East, to Afghanistan, to the Taiwan Strait. Between Russian adventurism in Eastern Europe, Chinese development of new hypersonic missiles and saber rattling against Taiwan, and the ongoing threat posed by extremist terror organizations like al-Qaida and the Islamic State, this is not the time to underfund our national defense.
Fortunately, the 2022 NDAA will adequately fund our defense needs and set clear priorities for our Armed Forces. The bill before us funds continued acquisition of ships to ensure the United States Navy can meet its mission. It funds the procurement and development of new weapons systems, which ensures that our military will be prepared to meet new and emerging challenges in the coming years. It provides our servicemembers with a 2.7 percent pay raise.
And perhaps most important of all, it includes many provisions designed to provide much-needed oversight of President Biden's bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan. America deserves answers about decisions that were made and the resulting failures of leadership that occurred at all levels. Thanks to this bill, they can be assured that they will get them.
Our second item is the House amendment to S. 610, which addresses Medicare sequestration. While most of the Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that a resolution of this problem is necessary, I fear today's bill is a missed opportunity for bipartisanship.
Rather than pursuing a clean, bipartisan deal, we have a bill which includes provisions addressing the debt ceiling and delaying the paygo cuts from the majority's partisan reconciliation bill earlier this year.
Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago Democrats passed a measure to increase the debt ceiling, leading us to the deadline we face today. At that time, Republicans told Democrats two things which I think bear repeating. First, Democrats needed to step back from their massive partisan spending priorities. And second, they needed to work with the Republicans on solutions to our ever-increasing, structurally imbalanced debt.
Instead, Democrats have doubled down on their spending habits without using reconciliation to address the debt ceiling. Earlier this year, the majority passed a $1.9 trillion reconciliation bill with only Democratic votes. Last month, the House passed another partisan reconciliation bill, with only Democratic votes, which may ultimately cost us as much as $4.5 trillion.
Even if you take the Democrats at their word and accept their claim that these measures are fully paid for, all the new revenues this legislation claims to raise do nothing to address the existing $29 trillion national debt. They just go to new programs overwhelmingly designed to benefit the wealthy and liberal special interests.
Both of these measures are larded up with more spending, more taxation, and more Big Government control over the lives of everyday Americans. And these measures come on top of normal Federal spending and on top of the trillions of dollars appropriated last year and earlier this year to address the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic crisis.
After continuing to spend money in such a reckless and partisan manner, it is deeply disappointing that the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate waited until now to address the debt ceiling. Waiting until this point has placed the House in an awkward position, resulting in today's unfortunate bill.
Additionally, the paygo cuts due to be implemented next month, due mostly to the Democrats' first reconciliation bill, are not addressed. Instead, they are delayed until the end of 2022, setting up an even bigger crisis at that time.
Finally, the House is also considering H.R. 5314, which the majority is calling the Protecting Our Democracy Act. This is a package of purported reforms relating to Presidential power and foreign interference in elections. But the reality is that this package is an attempt by the majority to write into law supposed solutions to every complaint they ever had about the previous President.
The best thing I can say about this package is that it is duplicative. Many of the provisions included in this package have already passed the House as part of the majority's previous purported reform packages, notably including H.R. 1.
But not content with having passed these partisan provisions previously, the majority is pushing ahead with today's package. This is such a waste of time for this institution. At a time when the American people are deeply concerned about inflation and the weak economy, and when we are seeing the consequences of President Biden's weak leadership, both domestically and abroad, the majority is once again wasting time by talking about the last administration. I can think of countless other ways we could and should be spending our time that would be more productive and would deliver better results for our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry state of affairs. I continue to hope that the majority will shift its focus back to where it should be. Governing in a deeply partisan manner may be satisfying to their base, but it is hardly productive for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules.
{time} 1745
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding and for her leadership on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, there are lots of good things in this rule, such as the Protect Our Democracy Act, and everybody should vote for it. There are lots of amendments to that bill that are included in this rule. We move forward with the doc fix, and we put in this rule a procedure that will allow the Senate to consider the debt ceiling issue.
I should clarify this, because during the Rules Committee meeting today, I think some of my Republican friends who testified started to believe the Republican talking points that somehow this was automatically increasing the debt ceiling. It isn't. It puts in place a process that was negotiated by Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell, a Democrat and a Republican, that would allow the Senate to deal with the issue. When they deal with it and pass it, we will then have to deal with it and pass it here in the House. So I want to be clear on that.
The bill also includes the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, which was negotiated between the House and Senate. It is a bill, in my opinion, that spends far too much on military matters, and I have some problems with that. But I will say this: Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers did an incredible job of trying to piece together a bill that would get a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate.
I want to speak about one provision in particular that is missing. The House version of the NDAA that passed with broad bipartisan support last September in the House had some good things in it, including section 6470, which included my provision that reauthorizes Global Magnitsky sanctions and makes them more effective by adding a provision from Executive Order No. 13818, which was actually issued by former President Trump.
Briefly, the NDAA provision codifies the Global Magnitsky sanctions as they have been applied over the last 5 years. We need to reauthorize the Global Magnitsky sanctions because when they became law in 2016, a sunset was added.
Since 2016, Global Magnitsky sanctions have had strong bipartisan support and have proven to be one of our most powerful foreign policy tools. They have been imposed on more than 300 human rights abusers and corrupt actors in nearly 40 countries around the world.
Human rights groups, civil society organizations, and victims' organizations overwhelmingly support them.
The number one request we hear from threatened human rights defenders is that the U.S. impose Global Magnitsky sanctions on government perpetrators, on the individuals, and on the institutions responsible for heinous human rights atrocities.
In 2020, Global Magnitsky sanctions were imposed on Chinese officials for abusing Uighurs in China. Who opposes that? Well, apparently there are a handful of Republicans here in House that oppose it because they are the ones who are responsible for blocking the Global Magnitsky provisions from the final NDAA agreement.
These are the same people who are happy to talk about human rights and how important human rights are, and then they issue press releases and call for sanctions when there is a human rights atrocity that they want to be involved in. But when it comes to making sure that the U.S. Government can maintain the tools it needs to advance human rights, they just said no.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, shame on those who derailed this in the negotiations between the House and Senate.
It is not enough to issue press releases. We need to take action.
Mr. Speaker, mark my words, we will reauthorize and we will strengthen Global Magnitsky in this Congress. We will do so hand-in-
hand with allies on both sides of the aisle in the House and in the Senate, because at the end of the day, it is important that we just don't talk the talk, that we walk the walk. I can't believe that this important provision was derailed by a small group in this House.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 1995, the Protecting Our Communities From Gang Violence Act of 2021. This bill would make alien gang members inadmissible to the United States and deportable. It would also authorize revoking the citizenship of certain naturalized individuals who are members of a criminal gang, and it would ensure that individuals associated with criminal gangs are ineligible for asylum or temporary protected status.
Mr. Speaker, gang violence continues to be a scourge on American communities, threatening the lives and livelihoods of ordinary, hardworking Americans. Certain gangs, like MS-13, operate internationally, bringing violence from overseas to the United States. If enacted, H.R. 1995 would ensure the Federal Government has an appropriate response to gang members and wrongdoers who seek to enter the United States or who have taken advantage of our broken immigration system to cause chaos in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a fellow appropriator and former sheriff, to further explain the previous question.
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oklahoma for this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that we can immediately consider H.R. 1995, a bill to keep alien gang members from entering the United States.
The crisis at the southern border continues to rage, with over 160,000 illegal aliens pouring into the country every single month.
In fiscal year 2021, a record-breaking 1.7 million illegal aliens crossed our southern border, and that is only those who were caught. How many others avoided authorities and successfully entered into our country illegally?
Mr. Speaker, we know cartels are sending gang members across our border and into our communities. I can tell you--and as a former sheriff, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker--these gang members, these alien gang members, are bringing violence and drugs, and they are straining police resources in cities all across America. In fact, violent crime skyrocketed in many cities last year, and much of that was tied to gang violence.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can agree that alien gang members should not be allowed into the United States. A
``no'' vote on the previous question sends a message to those looking to bring crime and violence into our country that they are not welcome here.
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of my children, for the sake of your children, for the sake of our children, I would ask all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to vote ``no'' on the previous question and stop these illegal alien gang members.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her outstanding work on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 5314, the Protecting Our Democracy Act.
This sweeping package of reforms, many of which have been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past, will protect our government from future abuses, restore the government's system of checks and balances, and strengthen our accountability and transparency.
The Committee on Oversight and Reform has jurisdiction over several titles in this landmark legislation, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act includes the Inspector General Independence Act, which I introduced last year with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and several other members of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
The bill would strengthen protections for inspectors general by only allowing an IG to be removed for specific, documented causes and not for political retaliation, for doing their jobs and conducting oversight.
The bill also includes my Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act, a bipartisan bill the Committee on Oversight and Reform approved earlier this year. These provisions would strengthen protections for whistleblowers by protecting their anonymity and prohibiting retaliation when they come forward with abuses in government.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act would strengthen the Hatch Act, which is intended to protect the government from political interference with our workforce.
Last month, the independent Office of Special Counsel found that senior officials in the last administration repeatedly broke the law by using their government positions to campaign for the former President.
The bill also includes Representative Katie Porter's bill, the Accountability for Acting Officials Act, which would limit who can be named an acting official and for how long. These reforms would close loopholes that are ripe for abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for this important bill.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, a former police officer, and a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus, to provide further information about the previous question.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so that we can immediately consider H.R. 1995, the Protecting Our Communities from Gang Violence Act.
Crime is running rampant in our cities. Smash and grab is the new normal for malls and small business owners. Carjackings are happening with such frequency that it is now recommended that you drive in the center lane of roads and highways. What once were beloved destinations in our States and our communities have become overrun with street gangs and violent criminals across this great Nation.
Now, President Biden is helping bring that crime to every suburban and rural community in America. As we speak, the Biden administration is using taxpayer dollars to fly and transport illegal immigrants across this country. This is without knowledge of who these people are or their criminal background.
Now, violent gang members have been illegally entering our country and circumventing our laws well before the Biden administration implemented their weak border policies. But it is gravely naive to think these gang members are not taking full advantage of this crisis, crossing the border with ease, hopping on these taxpayer-funded flights, and making their way into every small town across this great Nation. The Biden administration is, without a doubt, providing gang members new playgrounds for their criminal behavior. This is unacceptable in our great Nation.
As Members of Congress, we cannot sit idly by and allow our communities to be infiltrated by gang members and exposed to violence.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1995 is simple. It will make gang members inadmissible to and deportable from the United States of America. This legislation should be noncontroversial. Violent and dangerous criminals have no right to live in our communities and benefit from our country.
We must finally send a signal that we will not allow this cycle of crime and violence to continue.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
____________________
SOURCE: PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1605, NATIONAL PULSE MEMORIAL(1), PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1605, NATIONAL PULSE MEMORIAL(2)
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up