[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 23, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4735-H4740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8997, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
   AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025; AND PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8998, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1370 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1370

       Resolved, That 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. 8997) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies 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. An 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-42 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8997, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 4 
     of this resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part A of 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 4 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 further amendments printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     provided by section 4 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.
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 8997 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. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8997 
     for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, 
     as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  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. 
     8998) making appropriations for the Department of the 
     Interior, environment, and related agencies 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. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-41 shall 
     be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived.
       Sec. 7. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8998, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 8 of this 
     resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 9 
     of this resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part B of 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 9 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 further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 8 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 8.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     provided by section 9 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.
       Sec. 9.  During consideration of H.R. 8998 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. 10.  At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8998 
     for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, 
     as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong). The gentlewoman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. 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

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 8997 and H.R. 8998. The rule provides for both 
bills to be considered under structured rules, each with 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, and 
provides for one motion to recommit for each.

[[Page H4736]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and am in support of the 
underlying legislation.
  I hear time and time again that Congress needs to get serious about 
addressing our debt. This rule provides for consideration of two 
measures that cut wasteful and unnecessary spending. They responsibly 
fund the Federal Government, and they support American production, 
pushing back on the ridiculous Green New Deal agenda under the Biden-
Harris administration.
  H.R. 8997 refocuses spending on things that matter. It eliminates 
wasteful spending on unnecessary and redundant climate change programs, 
reins in the out-of-control regulation being implemented by the 
executive branch, and prohibits funding from being used to promote DEI 
and CRT initiatives. I don't think I need to go into all the ways 
misguided DEI efforts are failing.
  It removes the Department of Energy's role in the LNG export 
application review process, something that has bipartisan support, and 
this legislation counters the very real Chinese and Russian threat by 
investing in national security and American energy production.
  It should come as no shock to anyone that the Biden-Harris 
administration has been attacking American energy production at every 
opportunity, giving up power to adversaries like China and Russia in 
the process.
  H.R. 8997 counters these national threats, investing in U.S. energy 
security and strengthening our economic competitiveness. It funds key 
nuclear programs to regain America's leadership in the global market, 
and it safeguards our energy and technology assets from foreign 
threats.
  H.R. 8998 right-sizes Federal Government spending, limiting 
burdensome and unnecessary regulations, respecting taxpayer dollars, 
and eliminating government waste. It strengthens our national security 
by encouraging domestic energy production, requiring the government to 
resume oil and gas leasing and expanding critical mineral access on 
public lands like those in northern Minnesota.
  It respects the taxpayer by cutting government waste, including a 20 
percent reduction in the EPA, reducing the Council of Environmental 
Equality to its authorized levels. It removes the gray wolf from the 
Endangered Species List, an issue that hits home with so many people 
across this country dealing with the menace of wolves, including in my 
home State of Minnesota.
  Mr. Speaker, the Biden-Harris agenda does not achieve their stated 
goals. What it does do is it hurts our domestic producers and gives 
Russia and China a competitive edge. This legislation takes a serious 
step to address our debt, strengthen national security, and focus 
funding where the American people need it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we heard last week that the Republican Party is newly 
focused on unity, toning down the rhetoric, and bringing people closer 
together. Wow, that is rich. I mean, I guess they mean only to unite 
people under their extreme agenda because the four funding bills we met 
on last night are part of the same unpopular, divisive, controversial, 
extreme MAGA agenda that they have been pushing since they came into 
the majority.
  None of this is serious. None of these bills are ever going to become 
law. All of the bills are aligned with the GOP's Project 2025, their 
dystopian plan to consolidate power in the Presidency and take total 
control over our country and our lives.
  If Trump and the Republicans win in November, they promise to gut the 
checks and balances that protect our freedoms. They promise to advance 
abortion bans in every State. They promise to give big corporations 
billions of dollars while increasing taxes for middle-class families.
  That is their plan for America. It is not about unity. It is about 
division. It is scary, quite frankly.
  These policies are centered around driving people further apart, not 
bringing them together. They even had to pull the Agriculture and 
Financial Services appropriations bills because they were too extreme. 
They didn't even know whether they had the votes within the Republican 
Conference to vote for these crummy bills.
  Just to reiterate, this rule only brings half of the bills we heard 
testimony on last night to the House floor because the other half were 
so controversial, so divisive, so partisan, again, that the Republican 
leadership wasn't even sure they had the votes within their own 
Conference.
  What is the point of wasting time at the Rules Committee if these 
bills aren't ready for the floor? I have never seen lawmakers work so 
hard and force institutional staff to spend so much time putting in 
such extensive effort to do absolutely nothing--nothing. This 
majority's superpower is wasting people's time.

                              {time}  0930

  For the two bills that are included in this rule, they are just as 
unserious. Again, they will never, ever become law.
  This is an energy and water bill that raises energy costs and is full 
of more giveaways for big polluters and an interior and environment 
bill that is potentially even worse, gutting funding for national 
parks. Our national parks are like the only thing in this country that 
has a 100 percent approval rating, and they are attacking national 
parks. Give me a break.
  What they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is they are going after national 
parks while padding the pockets of big polluters. Follow the money. 
There are more culture war riders and more attacks on LGBTQ people.
  One of these bills has language to protect Confederate names of 
things. I mean, that is unifying, commemorating the traitors of the 
Civil War? Enough is enough.
  This is just an awful, awful rule. I urge my Republican colleagues to 
stop wasting people's time and vote ``no'' with us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the ranking member, I 
think we got way, way off topic. In some cases, people just tuning in 
may actually think it is a campaign rally.
  Here to refocus us on what is actually in this bill and what we are 
talking about is our colleague from Texas--excuse me--our colleague 
from Missouri.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Alford).
  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was born in Texas but proudly represent 
Missouri.
  I thank my friend from Minnesota for allowing me to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important appropriations 
bills package before us.
  As China continues to build up its military and reportedly has more 
ICBM launchers than we do, H.R. 8997, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, will invest in America's nuclear deterrence to 
ensure that we can keep pace with the threat from Communist China.
  This legislation will also strengthen our Nation's energy security by 
rejecting the Biden-Harris administration's damaging pause on new LNG 
exports and supporting energy production right here at home.
  A key issue for our district, Mr. Speaker, this bill pushes back 
against the ridiculous Biden-Harris waters of the United States rule. 
It will mandate transparency. It will help ensure the progressive 
Democrats in the White House comply with the Supreme Court's decision 
of Sackett v. EPA.
  H.R. 8998, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, will rein 
in the administration's job-killing climate and environmental 
regulations, the green new scam, and it will slash the EPA's funding by 
20 percent. The EPA needs to be operating on real science, not a flawed 
political ideology.
  As the Biden-Harris administration continues to shove its EV pipe 
dream down the throats of America, this bill will promote critical 
mineral production right here at home and help ensure China does not 
continue to dominate the global market.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are vital for maintaining America's national 
security, protecting our agriculture producers, and keeping pace with 
the growing threat from Communist China.

[[Page H4737]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and support 
these rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman said that I was off topic in my opening speech. I 
have never been more on topic. I actually talked about the crummy bills 
that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor today. The 
gentlewoman in her opening speech talked about ag producers. They 
pulled the ag bill. It is so important that they pulled it because they 
don't have the votes to pass it.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends are demonstrating to 
the country what the definition of incompetence is. They don't know how 
to run this place, and they can't pass appropriations bills.
  I am looking at FY 2024. They had the agriculture appropriations bill 
fail on the floor. They pulled three appropriations bills before final 
passage because they didn't have the votes to pass them. There were 
failed rules on appropriations measures. The defense rule last year 
failed twice. Two of the bills that we had testimony on at the Rules 
Committee, where Members actually filed amendments, were pulled because 
they can't even get support within their own Conference. That is the 
definition of incompetence.
  You talk about a campaign rally? The campaign rally is going to be 
later today in the Rules Committee when Republicans are going to call 
an emergency meeting to pass a resolution bashing Vice President Kamala 
Harris. Don't give me any lectures about campaign rallies because I 
have never seen a more politically motivated majority in my life.
  This is not the way this place is supposed to be run. None of these 
bills, including the two that my friends are bringing to the floor 
today, are serious. They are going nowhere. They will never become law. 
This is ridiculous, and it is a waste of time. It is pathetic.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rushed to the floor this morning to oppose the rule 
and the underlying legislation because these Republican bills will 
raise electric bills on the families I represent back home in Florida 
and likely raise costs on all American families.
  The bills will stunt the incredible growth in clean energy 
manufacturing, providing a gift to China especially. These bills will 
pad the profits of big oil companies at the expense of hardworking 
American families and small business owners.
  I agree with the ranking member, Mr. Speaker. I am alarmed that the 
Republicans are already pressing their radical Project 2025 agenda, as 
it is apparent in these appropriations bills. Let's talk about a few of 
the policies in here.
  First, it is very important that we help our neighbors weatherize 
their homes. It helps save them on their electric bills. It creates 
jobs. We estimate that this Republican bill will now slam the door shut 
for about 54,000 working-class Americans who need those weatherization 
dollars.
  The Republican bills propose to gut energy efficiency and renewable 
energy initiatives at a time when we are seeing a manufacturing 
renaissance across America. In less than 2 years since the Democrats in 
Congress passed the infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, 
private-sector companies in the United States have announced a more 
than $360 billion investment in 600 clean energy projects that have 
created about 300,000 new jobs in America. This is where the economy is 
going: the clean, sustainable energies. That is why it is so smart to 
invest in our people, not to cede these industries to China and our 
adversaries.
  This bill would have us look backward, to say: China, you take the 
lead.
  I am not willing to do that. We are the United States of America. We 
should lead. We should lead in building the batteries, the electric 
vehicles, the solar panels, and all of the new technologies we need to 
lower costs and to help solve the climate crisis that is also heaping 
costs on my neighbors back home in Florida.
  These Republican bills also make it easier to ship gas overseas, 
including to our adversaries. What that does is it hikes prices on 
people and businesses in our country.
  This is a backward-looking bill. There is a better way. That way is 
investing in cleaner, cheaper energy, creating jobs in America, 
building the middle class, solving the climate crisis, putting people 
over politics, putting people over polluters, putting people over this 
radical 2025 agenda.
  Please vote ``no'' on these bills. Vote for the USA. Vote for our 
future and the future of our kids.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are doing what the American people sent us to do. We are doing the 
work. We are introducing appropriations bills, hearing them in 
committee, sending them through the process in transparency. We are 
doing that.
  We have actually passed four appropriations bills off the floor, and 
that represents the majority of spending. We are moving forward. We are 
doing the work.
  If we want to look at who is not doing their work, that may be the 
Senate Democrats. We have sent bills over, and they just refuse to do 
anything. What have they been doing with appropriations bills? We have 
been passing these and sending them there. They have chosen to do 
nothing.
  We can just take a look at the tax bill, a negotiated tax bill that 
had bipartisan support out of the Ways and Means Committee. We passed 
it off the floor, and they have done nothing, even though that was 
negotiated. They didn't even live up to the negotiations, the 
agreements. If we need to look at who is not doing their work, let's 
look at the Senate Democrats because we absolutely are passing bills, 
and we are doing our work in transparent ways through the committee 
process and on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to advocate for funding 
in this bill and the rule that underlies it.
  It is interesting to hear the ranking member from Massachusetts talk 
about how this is all about corporations. We are going to talk about 
energy. You heard the gentlewoman from Florida talk about energy bills 
and it is going to cost jobs. My district, the Texas Gulf Coast, has 
seven ports in it, more than any other Member of Congress. We produce 
65 percent of the Nation's jet fuel and 80 percent of the Nation's 
military grade fuel.
  This is about working families. This bill will bolster our economic 
strength. It will create jobs. It will ensure that our infrastructure 
can support growth and withstand challenges.
  The Texas Gulf Coast is the energy producing capital. We have got 7 
of America's largest petroleum refineries, 3 LNG plants, and 60 percent 
of the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  We are not talking about shipping gas to our enemies. Was that the 
comment from the gentlewoman from Florida? We are talking about 
shipping it to our allies, so they don't have to buy from enemies.
  As the energy capital of the world in Texas, we understand the 
critical importance of this bill. Our hardworking families--again, it 
is about working families--depend on a robust energy sector. This 
legislation will help us continue to lead in producing the cleanest and 
most affordable oil and gas. Let's keep our Nation strong. Help me to 
keep Texas strong. Let's secure this for generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bills.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You hear lots of things on the House floor, but the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota just said something I am having a tough time following. She 
is blaming Senate Democrats for the failure of House Republicans in 
bringing their appropriations bills to the floor.
  Was it Senate Democrats' fault that the House agriculture 
appropriations bill was pulled, that Republicans pulled it? We had a 
hearing in the Rules Committee. People testified on amendments, and it 
is not here. Where is it? I don't know where it went. They pulled it.
  I gave the gentlewoman an opportunity yesterday to vote to bring the 
House ag appropriations bill to the floor as well as the financial 
services

[[Page H4738]]

bill, the ones they wrote. They are lousy bills, but I figure let's 
bring them to the floor, we will amend it and have a debate. She voted 
no. All Republicans voted no.

  Then the gentlewoman comes to the floor and says, oh, it is the 
Senate Democrats. What? People are paying attention. We have got to be 
serious here. Getting our appropriations work done is one of the 
essential jobs that we have in the House of Representatives, and 
Republicans can't get it done.
  These bills are so polarizing, so awful, that they can't even get a 
majority of Republicans to vote for it. So she is blaming the Senate 
Democrats? Give me a break. I have heard everything. I have heard 
everything as an excuse why they can't get their work done.
  This is incompetence. This is pathetic. We need a majority in this 
House that puts the people first, that actually gets its work done, not 
someone who comes up here and points fingers at everybody as an excuse 
to not bring bills to the floor.
  We had two appropriations bills that we heard testimony on in the 
Rules Committee that were pulled, including the House ag appropriations 
bill that they wrote. They are in charge. I can't believe this.
  In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the 
previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has 
full access to essential reproductive healthcare.

                              {time}  0945

  Republicans continue to double down on ending access to abortion 
care, even going so far as to try to end access to IVF and assistive 
reproductive services. However, because it is so deeply unpopular and 
plain wrong, now they are trying to hide it. They don't like to mention 
it anymore. However, we still see their attacks every single day. We 
see the toxic riders that they attach to their bills banning abortion 
and contraception.
  We saw it last night in the Rules Committee with Mr. Rosendale 
putting forward his amendment to ban IVF. We saw it in the 
Appropriations Committee markup when Ranking Member DeLauro offered an 
amendment to protect IVF coverage in our Federal employee health 
benefits plan, and the Republicans on the committee voted ``no.'' They 
voted ``no.'' Thankfully, they pulled that bill from the floor because 
they don't even have the votes among their own Conference for this 
extreme, radical agenda.
  House Democrats are focused on protecting women, protecting patients, 
and protecting Americans' rights. H.R. 12 will keep fundamental 
healthcare services available across the country, and we must get this 
passed.
  Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I proudly yield 4 
minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and 
in strong support of the Women's Health Protection Act.
  The Women's Health Protection Act would protect the right to abortion 
nationwide. It would restore the intensely personal freedom for 
pregnant people to make decisions about their own bodies.
  That is the complete opposite of Trump's Project 2025, the extremist 
Republicans' agenda for their policies that they want to advance.
  Trump's Project 2025 outlines a whole-of-government approach to 
eliminate the right to abortion. It restricts access to contraception. 
It calls for the Federal Government to stop enforcing laws that require 
hospitals to provide emergency care to pregnant people in need of an 
abortion.
  Let me just be clear, Mr. Speaker. This fight is about our 
fundamental freedoms, the freedom to make choices about our own bodies, 
our own health, and our own economic future.
  I am standing here as one of the one-in-four women in America who has 
had an abortion myself. I can tell you that these decisions are 
intensely personal. We do not need an extreme Republican Party trying 
to control our freedoms.
  In my case, I had already experienced a very difficult pregnancy, and 
my daughter was born prematurely at 26\1/2\ weeks. She was actually 
just 1 pound, 14 ounces. She was about the size of my hand. She weighed 
about the same as a small squash, and she literally almost did not 
survive. My doctors told me that if I were to have another pregnancy it 
would be extremely high risk both for me and for the child. Hence, I 
took my daily contraceptive pill that Republicans are trying to get rid 
of for Americans across this country so that I could protect my health 
and the health of any future pregnancies.
  In fact, what happened was I got pregnant anyway, and my doctor said: 
You really should have an abortion.
  I made that decision with my doctor and with my family.
  Why should anyone else be a part of that decision?
  It was a hard decision for me, but for every person it should be 
their choice.
  Donald Trump has bragged that he did a ``great job'' getting rid of 
Roe v. Wade. Well, thanks Donald Trump. Thanks to Donald Trump, one in 
three women in this country of childbearing age now live in a State 
with an abortion ban. Thanks to Republicans, a woman who was 20 weeks 
pregnant when her water broke was told by doctors that the pregnancy 
was not viable, but still she was not provided the fundamental freedom 
to do what she needed to do for her health. She was forced to go 
through the pain of delivering a stillborn child.
  Trump's Project 2025 and the Republican policy agenda tells millions 
of families across this country who want to plan their families that 
they can't even use contraception or IVF.
  This is not theoretical. This is very real.
  Just last week J.D. Vance became Donald Trump's running mate; J.D. 
Vance who thinks abortion is ``comparable'' to slavery, J.D. Vance who 
has criticized exceptions for even rape and incest, and wants to help 
Trump and Republicans enact a nationwide abortion ban.
  Democrats have a completely different vision. It is in the Women's 
Health Protection Act, and that is to defend and protect your 
fundamental freedoms.
  Vote ``no'' on this motion.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. 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

[[Page H4739]]

     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.
       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. Mr. Speaker, this article describes Project 2025 as 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 a chilling window into what may await us come January should 
Donald Trump be elected President.
  The items on Project 2025's agenda are straight-up dystopian. They 
want to take complete control of the Department of Justice. They want 
to end the independence of all Federal agencies, and they want to take 
mifepristone off the market which would amount to a virtual nationwide 
abortion ban. They want to slash efforts to combat climate change, 
implement inhumane border policies, and fire thousands and thousands of 
government employees.
  I am just scratching the surface here, Mr. Speaker. You can read it 
for yourself. I hope people will Google it and read the documents for 
themselves.
  If that weren't horrifying enough, the architects of this atrocious 
Project 2025 are also threatening political violence to all those who 
oppose them. Just last week, Kevin Roberts, the president of the 
Heritage Foundation, said: ``The second American Revolution will remain 
bloodless if the left allows it to be.''
  Let that sink in.
  Mr. 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.
  If anyone here is stupid enough to believe that he won't act on these 
threats, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that 
anybody could be that gullible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I will close on our side.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it is not just about the 
legislation here. It is about two competing visions for America.
  Democrats' record speaks for itself. We passed the largest 
infrastructure bill in a generation, and my Republican friends are 
falling over each other trying to take credit for infrastructure 
projects in their district that most of them voted against.
  We passed the largest climate change bill in world history. We 
brought jobs back from overseas. Inflation is coming down, job growth 
is solid, and we are working to guarantee that all Americans have an 
opportunity to succeed. We are fighting for workers. We want 
opportunity for kids, success for families, and dignity for our 
seniors. We support our veterans. We want democracy to be secure at 
home and around the world. We have a vision for a better future and an 
idea on how to get there.
  These Republican bills, once again, show the Republicans are more 
interested in division and taking us backwards. They have no ideas to 
make life better for Americans. They only have Donald Trump and Project 
2025. That is it. That is it.
  Here we are debating appropriations bills. We were supposed to be 
having four on the floor today. Two of them were pulled after we had a 
hearing in the Rules Committee, after Members testified on amendments, 
after legislative staff spent hours and hours and hours drafting 
amendments for Democrats and Republicans, and after the 
Parliamentarians reviewed all these amendments to see whether they were 
germane or not. CBO did scores on all of them.
  All this work, and they pulled it. What a colossal waste of time, and 
the

[[Page H4740]]

gentlewoman said: Well, it is the Senate Democrats.
  I just have trouble following that logic. I have trouble following 
that logic. It makes no sense.
  The bottom line is that these bad bills can't even get over the 
finish line. None of them are going to become law. We are wasting our 
time. The way this is supposed to work is we are supposed to work 
together, especially since it is a Democratic-controlled Senate and a 
Democrat in the White House, and you have a very slim margin here in 
the House for Republicans. We should be working together to construct 
bills that can actually pass and that will actually help people.
  Again, I had an amendment in the Rules Committee last night to bring 
two bills, the Financial Services appropriations bill and the 
Agriculture appropriations bill that we had testimony on, bring it to 
the floor. I think they are garbage bills the way they are written, but 
I had an amendment that made in order all of the amendments that were 
offered by Democrats and Republicans. We didn't protect any amendments 
from any points of order, and we could have had a debate and hopefully 
made these bills better.
  However, they were so bad that Republicans didn't even believe they 
could twist enough Republican arms to pass them. We wasted time, and 
they pulled them.
  I will say this about the bills that are being brought to the floor 
today. I want to give my friends who are watching a little insight into 
the way they think about fairness. Mr. Speaker, 123 Republican 
amendments are made in order, and 23 Democratic amendments. That is it.
  Perfectly good, germane amendments that should be in order were not 
made in order. That is their idea of fairness. It is a coming 
attraction of what will happen if their candidate wins the Presidency 
and they win the Senate. It is their way or the highway.
  Right now, their way can't even get enough votes within the majority 
party right now. They can't pass two of these bills, so they pulled 
them.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, we have to do better. This is not a 
serious Congress. This is not serious legislating. These appropriations 
bills are important because our farmers rely on them. That is why the 
Agriculture appropriations bill is important and the Financial Services 
bill is important. All these bills are important. We need to not just 
have ideological debates, we need to have bills come to the floor that 
can actually pass and work its way through the process and get signed 
into law.

  This is the failing of this majority. My friend from Minnesota can 
point the finger at the Senate, she can point the finger at Biden, and 
she can point the finger at Vice President Harris. I mean, they can 
point fingers all over the place. At the end of the day, unfortunately 
for America, they are in control of the House of Representatives, and 
they are doing a lousy job. They are doing a lousy job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the left have accused 
Republicans of wasting time, and I take serious issue with that. 
Republicans are going through the proper and transparent process to 
pass these appropriations bills. We are doing serious work.
  I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the work 
they have done and for listening to the needs of the American people. 
The Biden-Harris administration is hell-bent on imposing the radical 
far-left Green New Deal agenda, and they do not care how much damage 
they do to the country or to the economy or to the American people in 
the process.
  The legislation under the rule today reins in reckless government 
spending, cuts harmful regulation, and restores independence putting us 
back in competition on the world stage.
  As an example, the EPA spends too much of its time and resources 
creating new regulations to stifle the U.S. economy. When I go home to 
Minnesota--and I know many of the other Members hear this when they go 
home--I constantly hear about concerns with regulations largely due to 
EPA rulemaking. This includes regulations on light-, medium-, and 
heavy-duty vehicles, electric power plants, and the abuse of the 
Endangered Species Act. All of these burden businesses and consumers.
  H.R. 8998 will make significant cuts to these regulations and take 
meaningful strides toward rightsizing our government.

                              {time}  1000

  I encourage my Democratic colleagues, particularly those in the 
Senate, to recognize that this legislation is the will of the people. 
My colleagues should take it seriously to responsibly fund our 
government, defend American producers, and address our Nation's debt.
  My colleagues like to make it sound like Republicans are blindly 
hacking away at government programs. I, for one, applaud the 
Appropriations Committee for taking such a thoughtful look at where we 
can responsibly cut spending.
  The fact is that we are trillions of dollars in debt, and Americans 
are facing the highest inflation rates in over 40 years. Families 
across this country are being forced to tighten their belts. For their 
sake, it is time for the Federal Government to do the same.
  We must put a stop to reckless government spending. My Democratic 
colleagues are not willing to do it and were not willing to do it when 
the minority was in control, but we are. I call upon the other side to 
help us get the debt under control.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

 An Amendment to H. Res. 1370 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 11. 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. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 12.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kustoff). 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. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________