[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.

                          ____________________