[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4486-H4495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8281, SAFEGUARD AMERICAN VOTER
ELIGIBILITY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION H.J. RES. 165, PROVIDING
FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ``NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN
EDUCATION PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8772, LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
7700, STOP UNAFFORDABLE DISHWASHER STANDARDS ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7637, REFRIGERATOR FREEDOM ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1341 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1341
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8281) to
amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require
proof of United States citizenship to register an individual
to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on House Administration now
printed in the bill 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
[[Page H4487]]
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on House Administration or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 165) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Department of Education relating to
``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance''. All
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution
are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the joint
resolution are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
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
Education and the Workforce or their respective designees;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
8772) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
Sec. 4. (a) No amendment to H.R. 8772 shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution and pro forma amendments
described in section 5 of this resolution.
(b) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules 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, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
(c) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules are waived.
Sec. 5. During consideration of H.R. 8772 for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8772
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7700) to
prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing or
enforcing energy conservation standards for dishwashers that
are not cost-effective or technologically feasible, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any 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 Energy and Commerce or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 8. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7637) to
prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing or
enforcing energy conservation standards for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that are not cost-
effective or technologically feasible, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any 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 Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
{time} 1215
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House
Resolution 1341, providing for the consideration of five measures: H.R.
8281, Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.J. Res. 165,
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5,
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of
Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in
Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial
Assistance''; H.R. 7700, Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act;
H.R. 7637, Refrigerator Freedom Act; and H.R. 8772, the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, 2025.
House Resolution 1341 provides a closed rule for consideration of
H.R. 8281, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.J. Res. 165,
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5,
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of
Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in
Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial
Assistance''; H.R. 7700, Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act;
and H.R. 7637, Refrigerator Freedom Act.
House Resolution 1341 also provides for a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 8772, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
2025.
The rule provides one motion to recommit for each measure.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to bring forward this rule and look
forward to supporting the underlying measures on the House floor later
this week. H.R. 8772 supports the House of Representatives and its
operations, recommending approximately $5.5 billion for activities
under the legislative branch's jurisdiction. This includes the support
of certain agencies, such as the Library of Congress and the Government
Accountability Office.
Each agency listed in this appropriations package provides research
and analysis to Congress. The Government Accountability Office, in
particular, provides fact-based information and investigates Federal
spending and performance. The reports and recommendations of this
office are often used by Members of Congress and their staff as the
basis for legislative recommendations and the basis for amendments.
My Democratic colleagues admit themselves in the Committee Report
that there is no contention with the funding in this package. I hope
then, Madam Speaker, that we may be able to pass this bill on a
bipartisan basis to support Congress and a continuation of its ability
to work on behalf of the American people.
H.R. 7637 and H.R. 7700 prohibit the Department of Energy from
issuing, updating, or enforcing energy conservation standards for
refrigerators and dishwashers unless the standards are determined by
the Department to be technologically feasible, economically justified,
unlikely to increase net costs for consumers, and result in a net
savings of energy.
Madam Speaker, inflation has taken a toll on every American.
Appliance bills may not seem to be ostentatious, but they prioritize
the taxpayer's right to choose how to furnish their homes based on
their lifestyle and not this administration's Green New Deal laundry
list.
H.J. Res. 165, introduced by Congresswoman Mary Miller, prevents a
Department of Education rule proposed and finalized under President
Biden from taking effect. This rule, if not reversed, would place
unfair burdens on schools, colleges, and universities, as well as
potentially undermining protections in Federal law for biological
women.
We must uphold Title IX for females to have equal access in academic
and
[[Page H4488]]
athletic settings. For nearly half a century, it has been successful in
ensuring that female athletes and scholars have opportunities
historically only afforded to their male counterparts. This final rule
from the Biden administration counters these efforts and seeks to
fundamentally change what might be protected under Title IX. I urge my
colleagues to support Congresswoman Miller's resolution and oppose the
Department of Education's rule on this matter.
H.R. 8281 introduced by my fellow Rules Committee member
Representative Chip Roy requires proof of citizenship to vote in
Federal elections. This is a commonsense bill, and I hope Members
across the aisle can agree to it. The right to vote in our Nation is a
privilege, and it is a responsibility given only to American citizens.
Since taking office, the Biden administration has released well over
8 million illegal aliens into the country and over 1.5 million of these
have been what are called got-aways. In some places in our country, the
District of Columbia included, they allowed noncitizens to vote in
local elections. This legislation corrects this trend for elections on
the Federal level, requiring States to obtain proof of United States
citizenship and identity before votes are cast.
Additionally, this legislation both allows a State to remove
noncitizens from existing voter rolls and permits citizens to sue
election officials who fail to do so.
Americans' faith in our national elections has declined precipitously
over the last two election cycles. To restore that faith, we must work
to protect American voters and the integrity of those very elections.
Strengthening existing voter ID laws is a certain way to achieve both
of these efforts. We owe it to our constituents to restore confidence
in their electoral process.
I appreciate the bills brought before us today by my colleagues and
all of the effort that has gone into crafting them. We did have a
robust debate with witness testimony last night in the Rules Committee.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing those discussions here
today, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Republican Party released their new
platform, and I heard Republican pundits saying that this platform was
going to be more moderate. I saw reporters even claiming that
Republicans were softening their radical, extreme views on abortion and
on same-sex marriage. I even saw one Republican Senator on TV yesterday
defending the platform and trying to spin it to make Trump sound like a
normal, rational, moderate person, which is an impossibility, by the
way.
Then I actually read the platform, and it is more of the same old
same old. It is more of the same fear-mongering and divisive politics
that they have been pushing for years now. They are not kicking MAGA
extremism aside; they are doubling down on it.
Talk is cheap around here. Look at their legislation. Look at the
bills before us this week. If someone looks at these bills and thinks
the Republican Party is normal or rational or moderate, I think they
need to get checked out because they are living in a fantasy world.
These bills are getting crazier and crazier the longer they are in
charge.
Here is the Republican agenda for this week: more attacks on the
LGBTQ community; more attacks on immigrants; more attacks on voting
rights because they know they can only win if fewer people vote; more
attacks on working families; and more giveaways to special interests
and billionaire companies.
There is nothing new here. There is just more division, more
destruction, and more disarray.
There has been a lot of talk about Project 2025 lately, the
Republican plan to dismantle the government, get revenge on their
political adversaries, weaponize the White House, and install Trump as
a dictator.
The former President recently made a laughable attempt to try to
distance himself from its extremism, and what do you know, now Project
2025 is right here on the House floor because it is what Republicans
actually believe.
That is what this SAVE Act is about. It is a voter suppression bill
that lays the groundwork for them to undermine the next election so
they can justify another January 6-style attempt to seize power even if
they lose.
They will use this gotcha bill to say Democrats want to give
noncitizens the ability to vote in Federal elections. Let me say now:
That is a lie. It is a total lie. It is a lie that Democrats are
against preventing noncitizens from voting in Federal elections. That
is already illegal. What we are against is making it harder for
American citizens to vote, and that is what this bill does.
Republicans in this bill want to require all this new documentation
for an individual just to register to vote. They say: Well, you can use
your passport.
What about someone who can't afford a $130 passport? What about
someone who doesn't have the time to take a day off from work to get
their birth certificate? What about someone who recently got married
and changed their name so their birth certificate doesn't match their
ID?
The Republican answer here is: Too bad. You can't vote.
They are going to disenfranchise millions and millions of people in
response to what we know, that there have maybe been a couple dozen
cases of voter fraud over the last two decades.
This isn't about voter fraud. Let's be clear. This is not about voter
fraud. It is about them trying to cheat in the next election. It is
paving the way again for another violent insurrection if their
candidate does not succeed.
I should say, Madam Speaker, the key witness in the House
Administration Committee on behalf of this bill is one of the
architects of Project 2025.
{time} 1230
I mean, they are all linked. Let me throw one other thing out there
for Members to digest. The chairman of the House Administration
Committee, the Republican chairman of the House Administration
Committee, I asked him pointblank whether Trump lost the election. He
couldn't give me a direct answer. What the hell is wrong with these
people?
They are so detached from reality. They are so oblivious to the
truth. This is dangerous stuff.
Then, another Project 2025 priority is more giveaways for polluters
and attempts to dismantle the entire Federal Government's effort to
protect the environment. It is shocking, actually.
They want to take freedom away from women. They want to take freedom
away from the LGBTQ+ community. They want to take freedom away from
families who want to use IVF, but freedom for fridges? Sign them up.
They want freedom for refrigerators and dignity for dishwashers while
taking away the rights of actual people. It is sick.
For the record, if somebody wants to keep their 50-year-old
refrigerator, go for it. This bill has nothing--nothing--to do with
that.
This bill gives billion-dollar companies the ability to cut corners
when they make appliances. I guess nothing says freedom to Republicans
quite like forcing their constituents to pay more on their electric
bills.
Republicans don't want to talk about how extreme they are. The bottom
line is, we should want companies to make appliances more efficient.
Why? Because it saves consumers more money. The only reason to be
against that is to help the big energy companies so they can charge
consumers even more.
My Republican friends don't want to talk about how they want to ban
abortion nationwide and take away the right to choose in every State.
They don't want to talk about how their own members want to ban IVF.
They don't want to talk about their obsession with attacking the
LGBTQI+ community. They want to turn the clock back on voting rights.
The legislation that we are seeing on the floor today is just more of
the same.
While Republicans desert the American people in service to Donald
Trump, Democrats will remain committed to doing our job: lowering the
cost of living, standing up to the special interests of big
corporations, protecting the right to vote, and defending the freedom
of our constituents. We are
[[Page H4489]]
proud to stand on the side of democracy, on the side of the American
people, and on the right side of history.
Madam Speaker, this is just an awful rule. I will say more about that
later. I urge a strong ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to remind Members to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for
the Office of the President.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House, and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am going to yield to Mr. Alford here in
just a moment, but let me yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of a
response.
It is difficult for me to sit here and be lectured about the cost of
living by the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, 2 years ago in the Rules Committee, when Republicans
were in the minority and Democrats were in the majority, we pleaded
with the then-majority to not do the American Rescue Plan, to not do
the Inflation Reduction Act, and to not engage in all of this vast
Federal spending that they had teed up.
The problem was, after the coronavirus infection in December 2020,
the economy was basically getting back on its feet. All we had to do
was stay out of the way. Instead, $2 trillion went to the American
Rescue Plan and $4 trillion to the Inflation Reduction Act, with an
extremely bloated infrastructure bill.
What happened? The cost of living blew through the roof for the poor
and middle class because inflation became so severe.
The people who are supposed to be watching this, like the Chairman of
the Fed and the Treasury Secretary, said that inflation is transitory,
that we will get a handle on that. We are sitting here now, 18 months
later, and they don't have a handle on it.
My colleague talked about the cost of living and talking to his
constituents about that. They are still suffering from what Democrats
did at the beginning of this administration.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Alford).
Mr. ALFORD. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Burgess for leading this
rule debate.
Madam Speaker, as I travel the Fourth Congressional District of the
great State of Missouri, I get one question repeated often, over and
over: What are we going to do to secure our elections? We can pass a
lot of laws in Congress, but if we don't secure our elections, we don't
have a democracy. We don't have a Republic.
Voters in the Fourth Congressional District of the great State of
Missouri want to make sure that only those who should be voting are
voting--one vote, one person, one citizen of the United States of
America.
Madam Speaker, that is why I rise today in support of the Safeguard
American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, H.R. 8281.
For years, progressive Democrats have falsely claimed that 2016 was
stolen because of foreign election interference. Yet, today, they are
ignoring the real threat of foreign interference: noncitizens
registering and voting in U.S. elections.
The SAVE Act will address this threat head-on by requiring proof of
citizenship in order to register to vote. It is pretty simple. It
allows State officials to accept a wide variety of documents that will
actually make it easier for citizens to register to vote. The bill also
ensures that States can access the databases they need to clean up our
voter registration rolls and remove noncitizens.
It is very simple, Madam Speaker. If you are not a citizen of the
United States of America, you should not be voting in elections in the
United States of America, but just like our progressive Democrat
friends have defended on this very House floor Marxism, socialism, and
open borders, they are opposing this very measure at this time in our
Nation's history.
The dirty little secret is that progressive Democrats want to turn
the some 12 million illegal aliens that have come into our precious
sovereign Nation--because of this failed administration and their lack
of ability to stop the illegal immigrants--they want to turn them into
voters to secure more power, to make them dependent upon the U.S.
Government.
Madam Speaker, we cannot let that happen. We will not let that
happen. It is time to secure our border. It is time to secure our
elections. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the
rule for the SAVE Act and the act itself. The time is now. We may not
have time again.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I don't even know where to begin after all that.
Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to include in the Record
an article from the CATO Institute titled: ``Noncitizens Don't
Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Cato Institute, Nov. 25, 2020]
Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers
(By Alex Nowrasteh)
One of the most frequent and less serious criticisms that
comes across my desk is that immigration is bad because non-
citizens vote illegally in such large numbers that sway
elections. A new report by James D. Agresti, pushed by some
news outlets, argues that the number of noncitizens who
illegally voted in 2020 substantially increased Biden's vote
share but did not affect the outcome of the election. It has
been illegal for non-citizens to vote for federal elected
officials since 1996, so these noncitizen voters would all be
breaking federal law. Is the Agresti paper reliable? Are
large numbers of noncitizens voting in federal elections to
such an extent that several states voted for Biden as a
result?
No, but to understand why you have to follow how the
Agresti paper arrived at its conclusion. The Agresti report
relies on a peer-reviewed academic paper by political
scientists Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C.
Earnest that was published in 2014 that estimates the rate at
which noncitizens voted for president in 2008. Their paper
relies upon responses to the Cooperative Congressional
Election Study (CCES) for the 2008 election that found a
substantial proportion of noncitizens voted in that year. The
Agresti paper combined two figures from the Richman, Chattha,
and Earnest paper to get their primary estimate that 15.8
percent of noncitizens voted in 2008. Agresti then apples
that 15.8 percent rate to the non-citizen population in swing
states in 2020 to reach their conclusion.
The big problem, as explained in two succinct pieces, is
that non-citizens voting illegally is a small subset of a
small population of Americans measured in the CCES survey. In
the CCES survey, as in any survey, a certain number of
respondents click the wrong box. Thus, some respondents will
incorrectly click that they are non-citizens by accident and
that they voted. Or they will make any number of other
errors. This general problem is called measurement error and
it afflicts every survey. These errors are common in surveys,
but if it surveys enough people and there isn't a tragic flaw
in design that causes large numbers of people to make the
same error, then it doesn't matter much for the final result.
“The problem is that the authors focused on a small
number of non-citizens in a very large survey that likely
accidentally said they were noncitizens who voted when they
were really citizens who voted. The CCES survey asked about
20,000 people how they voted and about 19,500 of them said
that they were U.S. citizens. Since the CCES is about federal
elections, it oversamples citizens who can vote and under
sample non-citizens who can't vote. In fact, the number of
reported non-citizens in the CCES survey who said they voted
in a federal election is just about exactly the number who
should have misidentified themselves as non-citizens in such
a large survey:”
``This problem arises because the survey was not designed
to sample non-citizens, and the non-citizen category in the
citizenship question is included for completeness and to
identify those respondents who might be non-citizens. We
expect that most of that group are in fact non-citizens (85
of 105), but the very low level of misclassification of
citizens, who comprise 97.4 percent of the sample, means that
we expect that 19 `non-citizen' respondents (16.5 percent of
all reported non-citizens) are citizens who are
misclassified. And, those misclassified people can readily
account for the observed vote among those who reported that
they are non-citizens [emphasis added].''
Survey misuse, misdesign, and misinterpretation is a
serious problem that we all witnessed right after the 2020
election. This strain of research appears to be another
instance of that. There are likely many problems with
America's voting system and there is no doubt that a non-zero
number of non-citizens illegally voted, but there is no good
evidence that noncitizens voted illegally in large enough
numbers to actually shift the
[[Page H4490]]
outcome of elections or even change the number of electoral
votes
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at a press conference on the SAVE Act,
the Speaker of the House said: ``We all know intuitively that a lot of
illegals are voting in Federal elections, but it has not been something
that is easily provable. We don't have that number.''
Madam Speaker, this body legislates based on facts--at least, it is
supposed to--not on intuition. Maybe it is time for House Republicans
to get serious about their jobs and stop making laws based off of
absurd conspiracy theories.
If my Republican friends want to talk about protecting elections,
maybe they ought to start telling the truth about the last election.
Let me remind my colleagues that the leader of their party tried to
submit fraudulent slates of electors to steal the last election.
That is voter fraud, Madam Speaker. That is what voter fraud looks
like.
My friends on the other side of the aisle said not a thing after
court after court upheld the fact that we had a free and fair election,
but the former President actually submitted fraudulent slates of
electors to try to change the results of the last election.
The gentleman from Texas went on about the cost of living and blamed
the American Rescue Plan Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Those
bills were passed in the aftermath of a pandemic to save our economy
and to save American families from going bankrupt.
Madam Speaker, I remind the gentleman that inflation is coming down
faster in the United States than in any other country in the world, but
if he is blaming the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue
Plan Act for increased high inflation in countries like China and other
countries in the world, that is absurd.
Let me just say one other thing because this is the rule that we are
talking about here today. Republicans are emboldening our adversaries
and abandoning our allies. They held up aid to Ukraine for 9 months,
doing irreparable damage to the fight against authoritarianism.
By the way, I should also point out to those who dragged their feet
on Ukraine that Russia bombed a children's hospital in Ukraine. Deal
with that. Another war crime, yet we had Republicans holding up the
Ukraine aid package. The Ukrainians are fighting against
authoritarianism.
Speaking of authoritarianism, we have here four more closed rules,
four more completely closed rules. Putin would be proud of some of the
most authoritarian rules I have ever seen. They must have learned that
from their patron saint, Donald Trump.
On the one structured rule here, they made only Republican amendments
in order, no bipartisan amendments nor Democratic amendments, even
though many of them were rule compliant. Republicans just want to shut
this place down. They said ``no'' to everything.
If this is what my Republican friends consider a fair process, wow. I
mean, we have a bill that we think will disenfranchise millions of
American citizens in terms of voting.
The ranking Democrat, Mr. Morelle, had an amendment that he offered
that was totally rule compliant. We ought to at least have that debate.
The majority can vote to suppress the vote all they want, but we ought
to have that debate and get people on the record. The Republicans of
the Rules Committee said no.
What is the majority afraid of? Are Republicans afraid of a little
debate on some of these important issues?
We have a different definition of ``fair'' because this process, once
again, makes a mockery of this institution and once again shows the
majority's disdain for democracy. The Rules Committee continues to be a
place where democracy goes to die.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition not only to
this rule but the bills that it advances.
I have to say that I am amazed daily by the debates that I hear in
this Chamber and in our committees and outraged that the GOP is using
the floor to advance a hateful agenda to take away voting rights and to
advance insane legislation.
One week after we celebrated this great Nation's independence, we are
here today as they are putting forward legislation to protect our
kitchen appliances. That is right, folks. They are running bills on the
floor titled the freedom for refrigerators and dignity for dishwashers.
I am not making this up. These are the real names of the bills they are
running this week.
Apparently, they are more concerned about the freedom of our
refrigerators than the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies.
They are more concerned about our dishwashers than they are about
democracy. They are more concerned about appliances than an autocrat
who is seeking reelection and says he wants to be a dictator on day
one.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues, honestly, how do they do this
with a straight face? Y'all, this ain't normal. This is insane.
Is this the freedom and democracy that our country fought for,
arguing for kitchen appliances? Is this what constituents are telling
my colleagues? Mine are telling me they are terrified about the future
of this country, their families, and their rights. They are asking us
to fight to protect LGBTQ+ rights and abortion, address climate change,
lower costs, and protect voting rights.
{time} 1245
You are over here asking us to vote on a bill to protect the rights
of dishwashers and refrigerators. It is insane. I am just at a loss. It
is time to wake up. It is time to get to work. It is time to serve the
American people because, literally, our democracy depends on it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would, once again, like to remind
Members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive
nominees for the Office of the President and also to direct their
comments to the Chair.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Langworthy), who is a fellow member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, first, I thank the chairman of the
Rules Committee and the gentleman from Texas for yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule today which
includes consideration of my bill, the Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher
Standards Act.
The Biden Department of Energy, pandering to radical
environmentalists, is actively working to make life harder for the
American people. Under the administration's latest proposed dishwasher
efficiency standards rule, the average American family would be stuck
with fewer, more expensive appliance options, with no real cost savings
over the appliance's lifespan.
By limiting consumer choice and imposing draconian new standards and
regulations that make absolutely no sense from either an affordability
or energy standpoint, this administration is making life harder for the
American people.
I urge my colleagues to support my bill, H.R. 7700, and push back on
these unaffordable policies that jeopardize access to affordable,
reliable consumer products that we all once took for granted.
I am also proud to cosponsor another measure to be considered under
this rule, the SAVE Act, which will require proof of U.S. citizenship
to register to vote in Federal elections. This legislation will ensure
that only American citizens decide America's future.
The Democrats' open-border policies have brought nothing but chaos
and destruction to our communities as millions and millions of illegal
aliens have flooded into this country. The left's refusal to secure our
borders is deliberate, and it is a direct threat to our democratic
institutions as a growing number of noncitizens are registered to vote
and have been found to vote in our local, State, and Federal elections.
By allowing noncitizens to vote, they dilute the voice of every
American citizen, undermining what should be a free and fair election.
Enough is enough. We cannot stand by while our borders are overrun
and our communities are destroyed. The SAVE Act must be passed to
protect the integrity of our elections.
Madam Speaker, our country was built on the principles of freedom,
fairness, and justice. This administration's policies are a slap in the
face to every immigrant who followed the legal path to citizenship and
who respected the rule of law and earned their right to participate in
our democracy.
[[Page H4491]]
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support
the SAVE Act so that we can safeguard our elections, secure our
borders, and ensure a brighter future for all Americans.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, sadly, this place is becoming a forum for trivial
issues to get debated passionately and important ones not at all. I
would say to the gentleman who just spoke that--and he should know
this--that it is illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections.
It is already the law, but I feel like we have to point that out to my
Republican friends.
In listening to the way he spoke with such passion about dishwashers
and refrigerators, I feel I need to remind the viewing audience that
this is not Home Depot. This is supposed to be the United States
Congress where we are supposed to be tackling serious issues that are
confronting the American people, and, unfortunately, under this
Republican leadership, we never do that.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would restore
the nationwide right for providers to provide abortion care and for
patients to receive care.
With bill after bill, House Republicans are letting the American
people know who they are. Every opportunity they get they try to inject
poison pill riders to ban IVF, to restrict access to abortion care, and
to make life harder for the American people. As I have said before,
they want to turn back the clock on our rights.
Just look at Project 2025, a dystopian plan for the future of our
country crafted by former Trump administration officials. They want to
cut your earned benefits. They want to cut school meals, and, yes, end
access to abortion care. They even want to take mifepristone off the
market completely.
Madam Speaker, we must bring H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection
Act, to the floor to let them know that we will not let them turn back
the clock on the American people.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), to discuss our proposal.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding the
time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in strong
support of something my constituents are calling about. It is not
dishwashers, and it is not refrigerators. It is support for the Women's
Health Protection Act which will provide in law the right for Americans
to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions.
The rightwing extremists on the Supreme Court who authored the Dobbs
decision overturning abortion rights have shown that they will do
anything to further their regressive, extreme, and dangerous ideology
regardless of the long history of Court precedent.
For almost 50 years, the intensely personal decision about whether or
when to bear a child or have an abortion was right where it belongs,
with the one who is pregnant.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to be pro-life,
but the policies they support are anything but.
I remember the days before Roe v. Wade when abortions done without
medical care could and often did have tragic outcomes, including death.
Even before the Dobbs decision, maternal death rates in 2020 were 62
percent higher in States that ban or restrict abortion than in States
where it was acceptable.
Restrictive abortion laws also cause infant mortality rates to rise,
including in Texas where both infant death rates and the number of
babies who died of birth defects have increased since their restrictive
law banning abortion as early as 6 weeks went into effect.
A study from Johns Hopkins University found that between 2021 and
2022, the infant mortality rate increased by 8.3 percent in Texas, and
that is compared with a 2.2 percent increase nationally. While the
death rate of babies 28 days old or younger fell in other States
overall, it increased by 5.8 percent in Texas.
Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, these laws are not about protecting
life. They are about control: controlling the bodies of others and
removing their personal freedom to make the decision about whether or
when to bear a child.
This will not stop at the State level. At the first opportunity,
congressional Republicans will try to enact a nationwide abortion ban
to prevent anyone in this country from getting the care they need.
For these reasons and more, we must defeat the previous question so
we can pass the very important Women's Health Protection Act to protect
the right to abortion and restore the freedoms that the Supreme Court,
with support from Republicans, brazenly stripped away.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to point out, and
to bring us back to the discussion at hand, that we are talking about
only having American citizens voting in American elections.
We are talking about checking a Department of Energy that has just
run roughshod over the rights of working Americans. Let's remember what
we are doing here today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me remind people what we are here about, as well,
a voter suppression bill, we are here to talk about freedom for
household appliances, and we are here to attack the LGBTQ+ community.
That is what these bills are all about before us today.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article from the BBC titled ``Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump
Presidency, explained.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From BBC News]
Project 2025: A Wish List for a Trump Presidency, Explained
(By Mike Wendling)
President Joe Biden's Democrats are mobilising against a
possible governing agenda for Donald Trump if he is elected
this November.
The blueprint, called Project 2025 and produced by the
conservative Heritage Foundation, is one of several think-
tank proposals for Trump's platform.
Over more than 900 pages, it calls for sacking thousands of
civil servants, expanding the power of the president,
dismantling the Department of Education and other federal
agencies, and sweeping tax cuts.
The Heritage Foundation unveiled its agenda in April 2023,
and liberal opposition ramped up as former President Trump
has taken a lead in polls after President Biden's poor debate
performance.
Early this July, Heritage president Kevin Roberts raised
the prospect of political violence during a podcast
interview.
``We are in the process of the second American revolution,
which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,'' Mr
Roberts told the War Room podcast, founded by Trump adviser
Steve Bannon.
The remarks prompted the Biden campaign to accuse Trump and
his allies of ``dreaming of a violent revolution to destroy
the very idea of America''.
The comments have refocused attention on Project 2025.
It is common for Washington think-tanks to propose policy
wishlists for potential governments-in-waiting. The liberal
Center for American Progress, for example, was dubbed Barack
Obama's ``ideas factory'' during his presidency.
What has Trump said about Project 2025?
In early July, Trump said on his social media platform that
he knows ``nothing about Project 2025''.
``I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of
the things they're saying and some of the things they're
saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,'' he wrote.
``Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to
do with them.''
However, several people linked to the project worked in
Trump's administration or as allies in his re-election
campaign.
Project 2025 director Paul Dans was chief of staff at the
Office of Personnel Management under Trump
Associate director Spencer Chretien was a former special
assistant to Trump and associate director of Presidential
Personnel
Adviser Russell Vought worked in Trump's Office of
Management and Budget.
[[Page H4492]]
What is Project 2025?
The Project 2025 document outlines four main aims: restore
the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the
administrative state; defend the nation's sovereignty and
borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live
freely.
It is one of several policy papers for a platform broadly
known as Agenda 47--so-called because Trump would be
America's 47th president if he won.
Heritage says Project 2025 was written by several former
Trump appointees and reflects input from more than 100
conservative organisations.
Here's an outline of several key proposals:
Government:
Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy,
including independent agencies such as the Department of
Justice, be placed under direct presidential control--a
controversial idea known as ``unitary executive theory''.
In practice, that would streamline decision-making,
allowing the president to directly implement policies in a
number of areas.
The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for
thousands of government-employees, who could then be replaced
by political appointees.
The document labels the FBI a ``bloated, arrogant,
increasingly lawless organization'' and calls for drastic
overhauls of this and other federal agencies, including
eliminating the Department of Education.
Immigration:
Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border--one
of Trump's signature proposals in 2016--is proposed in the
document.
However, more prominent are the consolidation of various US
immigration agencies and a large expansion in their powers.
Other proposals include increasing fees on immigrants and
allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a
premium.
EPA--Climate and Economy:
The document proposes slashing federal money for research
and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next
president to ``stop the war on oil and natural gas''.
Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to
increase energy production and security.
The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is
divided on whether the next president should try to boost
free trade or raise barriers to exports.
But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump
administration should slash corporate and income taxes,
abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to
gold-backed currency.
Abortion:
Project 2025 does not call for a nationwide abortion ban.
However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill
mifepristone from the market.
Tech and education:
Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech
and telecoms companies that facilitate access to such content
would be shut down.
The document calls for school choice and parental control
over schools, and takes aim at what it calls ``woke
propaganda''.
It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws
and federal regulations, including ``sexual orientation'',
``diversity, equity, and inclusion'', ``gender equality'',
``abortion'' and ``reproductive rights''.
Jared Huffman, a Democrat congressman from California, has
launched a Stop Project 2025 Task Force.
He described Project 2025 as ``a dystopian plot that's
already in motion to dismantle our democratic institutions''.
Mr. Huffman said the project would ``abolish checks and
balances, chip away at church-state separation, and impose a
far-right agenda that infringes on basic liberties and
violates public will.
``We need a coordinated strategy to save America and stop
this coup before it's too late.''
Heritage has previously said Mr Biden's party was
scaremongering with ``an unserious, mistake-riddled press
release''.
``House Democrats are dedicating taxpayer dollars to launch
a smear campaign against the united effort to restore self-
governance to everyday Americans,'' said Mr. Roberts in early
June.
``Under the Biden administration, the federal government
has been weaponized against American citizens, our border
invaded, and our institutions captured by woke ideology.''
The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential of a
number of think tanks that has produced policy papers
designed to guide a possible second Trump presidency.
Since the 1980s, Heritage has produced similar policy
documents as part of its Mandate for Leadership series.
Project 2025, backed by a $22m (17m) budget,
also sets out strategies for implementing policies beginning
immediately after the presidential inauguration in January
2025.
In his speeches and on his website, Trump has endorsed a
number of ideas included in Project 2025, although his
campaign has said the candidate has the final say on policy.
Many of the proposals would face immediate legal challenges
if implemented.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this article describes Project 2025, a
policy wish list for a second Trump term cooked up by some of Trump's
closest allies at the far-right Heritage Foundation. It is chilling. It
is a chilling window into what may await us come January should Mr.
Trump win.
The items on Project 2025's agenda are straight-up dystopian. They
want to take complete control of the Department of Justice and end the
independence of all Federal agencies. They want to take mifepristone
off the market which would amount to a virtual nationwide ban. They
want to slash efforts to combat climate change, implement inhumane
border policies and fire thousands of government employees.
I am just scratching the surface here. You can read it for yourself,
Madam Speaker. I urge people to download it and to read all the
information on it.
If that wasn't horrifying enough, the architects of this atrocious
Project 2025 are also threatening political violence to all who oppose
them.
Just last week, Kevin Roberts, the president of The Heritage
Foundation, said that the second American Revolution will remain
bloodless if the left allows it to be.
Madam Speaker, Donald Trump literally incited an insurrection to stay
in power. He claimed he would be a dictator on day one of his second
term, and the Supreme Court just granted him full immunity for acts
committed while in office.
Is anyone here stupid enough to believe he won't act on these
threats?
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of the Rules
Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from New Mexico, the Chair would, once again and, hopefully, for the
last time, remind Members to refrain from engaging in personalities
towards presumptive nominees for the Office of the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. I didn't think I was.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, the House Republicans' bills
would give freedom to refrigerators but restrict freedom for American
citizens to vote.
Last week we marched in parades and celebrated our Nation's 248th
birthday. Democracy and elections are at the core of that celebration.
However, this week, Republicans welcomed us back to Washington with a
bill that chips away at Americans' most sacred right, the right to
vote.
This bill is consistent with Project 2025, the extreme Republicans'
blueprint they want to implement in a second Trump Presidency. Project
2025 is their proposal to restrict democracy, restrict women's
freedoms, and favor the wealthy. Remember that, Madam Speaker. These
bills favor the wealthy and corporations over consumers.
Project 2025 would do away with the Department of Education and
destroy Social Security.
The architects of Project 2025 are the same people who served as
experts for the bill we are hearing this week. We don't need to wonder
if these extreme proposals could become a reality because the
Republicans are showing us that when they are in charge they will go
after our freedoms, our voting, and our planet.
Rather than celebrate the record-high turnout of our last
Presidential election in 2020, the Republicans' SAVE Act, which is
actually a voter restriction act, would decrease voting access for
Americans citizens.
Republicans don't like mail-in and absentee voting, so they go after
that.
If this bill becomes law, a recently married woman who changed her
last name couldn't use her birth certificate to register to vote
because her name would no longer match. If this bill becomes law, a
military ID--imagine that--a military ID would not be enough for that
servicemember to vote. Our men and women sacrifice so much. They risk
their lives. Why would Republicans make it harder for them to vote?
Perhaps it is because military servicemembers voted in bigger numbers
for President Biden than Trump than they had expected.
If that wasn't enough, their voter suppression bill would also make
it more difficult for Native Americans to vote. They would not accept
Tribal IDs. Imagine, the first Americans being restricted from their
ability to vote.
I believe that they are going after the very communities that voted
[[Page H4493]]
against Trump last November with these bills.
But, wait, Madam Speaker, that is not enough. Once again, Republican
bills favor big corporations over consumers. Republicans want to roll
back popular energy efficiency standards because they favor the richest
corporations. While the Nation swelters and the heat kills, Republicans
ignore the climate change only to protect their biggest benefactors.
They don't care about saving folks money on their energy bills.
Sadly, it doesn't end there.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. At a time when women demand that we have
reproductive freedoms, Republicans instead brought us a bill to give
refrigerators freedom. Republicans say that it is overreach to regulate
home appliances, but they will regulate women's bodies. We say no, we
are against these bills. We are against Project 2025. We urge Americans
to see what they are doing and what they intend to do.
{time} 1300
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes for the purposes
of a response.
First off, on Project 2025, this is the work of a think tank. Here is
a news flash for everyone: There are think tanks in Washington, D.C.
There are a lot of them. There are right-leaning think tanks. There are
left-leaning think tanks.
In fact, one of the more frightening left-leaning think tanks is
Center for American Progress. The head of the Center for American
Progress is now ensconced in the White House as the Domestic Policy
Advisor to the Biden administration. Members shouldn't pretend that
there aren't think tanks on the left just as think tanks exist on the
right. Their purpose is to provide information to legislators, House
Members and Senators, and sometimes to inform legislation.
The issue keeps coming up about freedom. Let's talk about freedom for
just a moment.
What about the freedom for the parents who were targeted by the Biden
Department of Justice for voicing their concern about their children at
a school board meeting?
What about the freedom of the Jewish students who are being violently
targeted on college campuses and whose mere existence is so offensive
to the radical, pro-Hamas left?
What about the freedom for homeowners in my State on the southern
border who cannot safely leave their homes because, in May alone, there
were over 170,000 illegal immigrant encounters, including 350 members
on the terrorist watch list, at least 350 that were apprehended. There
is no telling how many more came across undetected and undeterred.
Let's talk about freedom of the American families who are working to
put food on their tables, create opportunities for their families, but
the economy of the Biden administration is crushing them.
Let's talk about freedom of citizens of our country who want to have
a vote in secure elections and want to have confidence in our systems.
This bill today will provide that confidence.
My colleagues support freedom, but it seems that their idea of
freedom is reserved for those whose expression of it aligns with their
values and their agenda. Nevertheless, the question that is before us
today is not do we all share the same views on what constitutes good
policy; but, rather, did we provide for consideration of these measures
in a manner that is consistent with the rules and precedents of the
House?
I believe we did our duty and responsibility at the Rules Committee
to advance these measures to the House floor, where our colleagues can
decide whether or not to support them on their merits.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying: When
Democrats speak of freedom, we are talking about freedom for people,
not for dishwashers.
The gentleman raised the issue of Project 2025 as somehow it is the
product of some distant think tank.
Madam Speaker, I would include in the Record a list of all the former
Trump administration officials who are architects of this atrocious
document.
I also point out for the record that the key witness in the House
Administration Committee on this horrific voter suppression bill is one
of the coarchitects of Project 2025.
The gentleman tried to take a swipe at the Center for American
Progress. I think they actually have good ideas, but the Center for
American Progress doesn't want to install Joe Biden as a dictator,
unlike what Project 2025 wants to do with regard to Trump.
Madam Speaker, we know that there is a lot that we can do when you
have competent leadership in control. Look at the last Congress when
the Democrats were in charge. We invested to rebuild our neglected
infrastructure of airports, roads, bridges, and ports in our
communities.
Many of my Republican friends voted against it, but my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle take bows and issue press releases when the
majority gets the money and a project is happening in their district.
We brought manufacturing back to the United States, passing the Chips
and Science Act to drive innovation and create good-paying jobs. We
made the largest investment in climate, protecting our water and our
air. We strengthened our supply chains and set up new programs to
support minority businesses. We ensured that our veterans got
healthcare that they earned during their service.
I would say to my friends: It is possible for us to deliver for the
American people, though I haven't seen much of it yet this year. All we
have done is vote on bills that destroy and dismantle progress, that
further polarize this country. Now the far-right fringe are forcing us
in a way that we are plummeting toward a costly government shutdown in
an effort to get their extreme agenda through.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article from The Hill titled: ``Democrats deliver as Republicans
dither.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Hill, Jan. 13, 2023]
Democrats Deliver as Republicans Dither
(By Debbie Cox Bultan, Opinion Contributor)
For the first time in a century, the House of
Representatives failed to elect a Speaker on the first
ballot, or even on the tenth, as Republicans were held
hostage by a small group of extremists within their own
party. Republicans ultimately found the votes needed in the
15th round, after tempers flared and concerns grew about the
power that extreme members potentially would have in the new
Congress. This kind of spectacle is the opposite of what
Americans want to see.
In November's election, voters clearly rejected extremist
candidates, opting instead for leaders such as Gov.-elect
Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania and Secretary of State Jocelyn
Benson in Michigan, who ran on platforms promising to solve
problems and better meet the needs of constituents. ``Chaos
agents'' and 2020-election deniers lost in major statewide
races across the country. Now, in return for voters' trust,
Democrats must continue to deliver on issues that matter to
ordinary Americans and show that we are the party that can
deliver for our constituents.
Washington, it appears, is headed for two years of
gridlock. This heightens the importance of state and local
leaders, who must play a critical role through their work by
putting forth innovative policies and by making the most of
federal investments, including in infrastructure, housing and
a clean-energy economy. Here's how:
First and foremost, state and local leaders must stay
focused on issues that matter to voters. They have a
tremendous opportunity to do so and to show the value of
Democrats' approach to government, by making wise use of
investments approved by Congress and signed into law by
President Biden over the past two years.
The American Rescue Plan, for example, did more than just
save scores of small businesses that were struggling to
recover from the COVID pandemic. State and local leaders are
using the funding to bolster child care initiatives in
Columbus, Ohio, and expand broadband access in Brownsville,
Texas. In Kansas City, Mo., local leaders are using that
funding to address the issues of homelessness and affordable
housing.
Similarly, school districts across the Nation will be
transitioning from diesel-fueled school buses to electric
ones through funding from the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act. The demand for electric buses was so overwhelming
that the Environmental Protection Agency doubled the amount
of funding available at the end of last year, to nearly $1
billion. Cleaner buses mean cleaner air
[[Page H4494]]
for the children and neighborhoods, as well as long-term
financial savings for school districts.
There is the potential for thousands more projects across
the nation to repair aging roads and bridges, and huge
opportunities to grow a clean-energy economy that is
sustainable and pays well. Plus, thousands of high-paying
jobs will be created through the CHIPS and Science Act, an
initiative to bring high-tech manufacturing back to American
cities and towns.
Though the federal laws were largely pushed by Democrats,
folks in red, purple, and blue states also reap the benefits.
Increasing broadband access is not an issue of the political
left or right but an American issue. The same can be said of
safe bridges, access to affordable child care, quality
education, and protecting our planet for future generations.
In addition, elected leaders must maintain focus on
preserving and strengthening democracy. This means building
upon safeguards to ensure that American elections continue to
be safe from interference and malfeasance; expanding access
to voting, both in-person and by mail; and fighting against
anti-democratic and anti-voting legislation.
While Jim Crow-type voter discrimination tactics may appear
to be in the rearview mirror, the North Carolina Supreme
Court ruled in December 2022 that a GOP-backed voting law
``was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose,''
adding that the law was ``formulated with an impermissible
intent to discriminate against African American voters.''
Voting rights underpin all other rights in a functioning
democracy. While some may seek to suppress the voices of
Black and brown Americans, Democrats must continue to listen
and heed the voices of all voters.
Finally, Democrats cannot be distracted by fights that
don't matter to their constituents. Rather than comment on
the chaos in the House, state and local leaders should use
every opportunity to show constituents what a functioning
governing body can deliver in terms of good-paying jobs,
affordable child care, and access to fast, reliable internet
connections. After all, this is what voters have demanded.
Much success over the past two years came from local
elected officials working with state officials, who together
work with federal officials to bring positive change to
communities. This is what happens when those who believe in
government--who believe in democracy--work together for the
betterment of us all.
Democrats can--and must--continue that work for the next
two years. By being beholden to extreme members of their
party, it seems that Republicans in Washington may continue
to deliver nothing but turmoil.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?
Mr. BURGESS. Yes, I am. Are you prepared to take notes?
Mr. McGOVERN. Okay. I will give you copies of what I am saying so you
can have them.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, it is not just about the
legislation here. It is about two competing visions for America.
Democrats want an economy that lifts all people up. We are fighting
for workers. We want opportunities for kids, success for families, and
dignity for seniors. We want democracy to be secure at home and around
the world. We have a vision of a better future and an idea of how to
get there.
The bills today show, once again, that Republicans are more
interested in division and taking us backward and turning back the
clock on reproductive freedom, on voting rights, on lowering prices, on
holding big corporations accountable. On all these things and more, the
majority wants to drag us back. That is what their party now stands
for. That is why we are wasting time with more misguided MAGA junk
instead of working together to get things done for the American people.
I know those who are watching this debate maybe think this is a
little bit strange, the topics that we are talking about here today. I
think my Republican friends are confused what House they are in.
Again, they are not in Home Depot. They are in the House of
Representatives. We ought to be debating big issues. We ought to be
moving this country forward. Instead, we are dealing with this garbage.
This is a waste of time. It is a waste of time.
I get it. Republicans are beholden to the most extreme elements of
their Conference, but we could actually find common ground and get
stuff done. We don't have to agree on everything to agree on something.
Surely there are some things we can agree on that we have in common
that we can move forward to help move this country in the right
direction.
Instead, it is all the same old same old. Every bill that comes to
the floor has all these anti-abortion riders, anti-LGBTQ riders, anti-
anything-that-is-good riders. This has to stop. This has to stop. We
can do better.
Again, I respectfully suggest to the chairman of the Rules Committee
that one of the ways we could do better is that the gentleman can open
up the debates a little bit more. We have four completely closed rules
and no opportunity for any amendments. There is one structured rule,
and only Republican amendments are made in order. All of the bipartisan
and Democratic amendments, totally rule compliant, were shut out.
That is not the way to find common ground. That is not the way to
move legislation forward in the way where it will eventually become
law. We can do better. We have to do better. If not, I will say the
American people in November, I think, will make a different choice, and
we will be able to get back on the right track.
Madam Speaker, again, I wish we were doing something more substantive
here today other than talking about refrigerators and dishwashers. I
wish we were doing something more positive other than trying to repress
the vote in this country, but it is what it is.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote down this rule, to open up this House, and to reject these awful,
awful garbage bills.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Madam Speaker, I agree with the ranking member. We don't have to
agree on everything to agree on something. In fact, 81 percent of the
Rules Committee measures passed in this Congress have garnered
bipartisan votes on the underlying measures for final passage.
We do keep hearing the points made on the other side that the
legislation on the SAVE Act is not necessary and that noncitizen voting
is already illegal. It is also illegal to simply walk across the border
into this country without the proper authorization, and yet it happens
every single day.
Noncitizens registering to vote is not a hypothetical. In 2019,
Pennsylvania admitted that it had inadvertently allowed over 10,000
noncitizens to register to vote. Texas found nearly 100,000 noncitizen
registrations. I think 100,000 would cause a significant impact on a
Federal election.
In 2020, when Illinois implemented automatic voter registration, more
than 500 noncitizens were accidentally registered to vote.
As of May 2023, the Virginia Department of Election Officials have
removed over 1,400 registrants from its official voter registration
rolls with a reported reason for removal due to noncitizen status. Of
those noncitizens who were removed, 335 individuals had cast a ballot
in Virginia elections over the previous 4 years. In total, these
noncitizens cast over 800 ballots.
To the question as to whether or not these offenses were prosecuted,
in response to inquiries, the Virginia Attorney General's Office said
that it had no prosecution records related to this illegal voting even
though voting illegally is a class C felony in Virginia. The SAVE Act
is really essential to close those loopholes.
I do find it sometimes perplexing when I hear the arguments on the
other side that purportedly Democrats are here in defense of democracy
and somehow Republicans are opposed to democracy. I will remind my
friends on the other side of the House that it is not us who are
attempting to undo the
[[Page H4495]]
votes of millions of Democrats nationwide to remove the nominee of
their party from their ballot.
Madam Speaker, America is in a state of crisis. The southern border
is wide open. Americans are paying for it with their lives. The Biden
administration has turned its efforts to change protections under Title
IX. I reiterate that, with the number of illegal aliens who have
entered our country since President Biden took office, we should almost
wish for a border czar in a situation like this.
There have been over 7 million encounters with illegal aliens at our
southern border, and the number of got-aways has increased by 390
percent. Americans are losing their lives. This is not just
theoretical. Americans are losing their lives due to this
administration's failure to protect our sovereignty.
I have said it here on the House floor before. Let me repeat it now:
Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, Alex Wise, Lizbeth Medina,
Melissa Powell, Riordan Powell, and Travis Wolfe are just a few of
those names who were taken from their families by this crisis at the
southern border. How many more Americans will have to be named before
the Biden administration acts?
House Republicans do have a solution. We passed it last May. H.R. 2
would be instrumental in securing the southern border and dissuading
the abuse of our immigration system, providing funding to hire and
train more Border Patrol agents, and hold Secretary Mayorkas and
President Biden accountable for their inability to protect the American
people.
Certainly, my colleagues would not oppose Mr. Roy's good-faith
measure to ensure that those who come to this country illegally are not
able to vote illegally. The right to vote in America is fundamental to
what it means to be American. By ensuring that only American citizens
are taking part in this tradition, we can safeguard the integrity of
our electoral system and guarantee that the right to vote does not lose
its importance.
Your vote matters. My vote matters. It is an extension of our voice.
It is our participation in this country, our right to speak for what
policies we want to see enacted and what leaders we want to see in
office. It is important to protect this right as it is important to
secure our southern border.
Madam Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to support this rule and
support the underlying measures. I yield back the balance of my time
and move the previous question on the resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 1341 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a
health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any 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 Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 12.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________