Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.

Sadly, though, this is called the CHIPS and Science Act, it left out the calculation of math for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

America is applauding. For once they will not be stopped and stymied by a supply chain that says: no technology, no cars, stay forever without wheels when you have a driving business.

This bill is expected to create 100,000 jobs. I am excited, in particular, about the addition of NASA's reauthorization and to specifically note that NASA's Johnson Space Center will be doing the Orion program funded, Gateway program funded, Extravehicular Activity in Human Surface Mobility funded. Orion, Gateway and EHP funded. These are individual programs that we funded for one of the most prominent centers there.

In addition, we are going to move to manufacturing chips in this Nation, including Houston.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has precious metals. Where do they want to send them?

To the United States of America.

They want us to produce. They want us to be able to transport.

Out of this bill with the amazing amount of research coming forward in science it is going to be a testimony.

I want to pay tribute to Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, the chairwoman who guided this with the kind of calm and expertise that has brought us to this point.

Texas is proud, the Nation is proud, and 100,000 jobs and over $3 billion that will be provided in energy alone, $10.9 billion for the Office of Science, $7.5 billion for FY22, a 6 percent annual increase.

This is a jobs bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4346, the CHIPS and Science Act, which comes as a result of bipartisan bicameral work following the passage of the Competes Act and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.

CHIPS' authorization was part of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Which authorized the Department of Commerce (DOC), Department of Defense (DoD), and Department of State (DOS) to engage in activities to develop onshore domestic manufacturing of semiconductors critical to U.S. competitiveness and national security.

This bill is expected to create nearly 100,000 new American jobs.

And provisions in the Bill are reflecting my legislation.

I am proud to say that many of those jobs would be housed in Texas.

Currently, more than 30,000 Texans work in the manufacturing of semiconductor chips. In fact, for the last 11 years, my state has been the country's number one top exporter of this product.

There are opportunities in addressing the necessity of finding and refining of rare earth-critical mineral elements that are needed to manufacture technology in every aspect of the economy.

I will be hosting a major energy discussion and a series of meetings in September and October to focus on closing the gap between U.S. demand for these materials and the supply available to us in the global marketplace.

I believe that our nation's independence and competitiveness is on the line if we do not solve this problem.

On September 12, 1962, President Kennedy gave a speech at Rice University that outlined the task he was given to the nation's best and brightest scientists by saying:

``We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills because that challenge is one that we're willing to accept. One we are unwilling to postpone.''

Our nation has never measured itself by the progress of other nations, but by the boundlessness of our imagination that we work to make real.

Before the race to the moon, the United States had conquered other science, engineering, and technological challenges like the building of the Panama Canal and human flight.

We know the fruit of this labor is greater knowledge, innovations, the unlocking of new knowledge, and the dispelling or confirmation of scientific proofs.

As a member of the Bipartisan Space and Aeronautics Caucus, I am in support of the NASA Authorization that is included in this bill.

I am a sponsor H.R. 5260, the Advancing Human Spaceflight Act of 2021, a bill establishing programs and policies pertaining to human presence in space.

This bill would establish a program to develop next-generation space suits and associated technologies, establish an outpost in orbit around the Moon as described in this bill, and submit a plan for achieving a power supply on the Moon.

The bill declares that it is U.S. policy to continuously maintain the capability for a continuous human presence in low-Earth orbit through and beyond the useful life of the International Space Station (ISS) and that such capability shall maintain U.S. global leadership and relations with partners and allies, contribute to the general welfare of the United States, and leverage commercial capabilities to promote affordability so as not to preclude a robust portfolio of other human space exploration activities.

I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 869, the Research Investment to Spark the Economy Act of 2021 or the RISE Act of 2021, a bill that authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, the Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation, and Environmental Protection Agency to provide support for research regarding COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) or research disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill provides supplemental funding to extend the duration of a grant to a research institution, national laboratory, or individual that was awarded prior to the enactment of this bill, or to expand the purposes of such a grant as specified; issue awards to research the effects of the current pandemic and potential future pandemics; and provide flexibility on awards to account for facility closures or other limitations during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

H.R. 4346, the CHIPS and Science Act bill before us today, includes National Aeronautics and Space Administration authorization for the:

Artemis Moon Program;

Moon-to-Mars Exploration Campaign, including the Artemis program to return America to the Moon;

Maintenance of the International Space Station.

Extension of authorization for the International Space Station through 2030 and establishes priorities for research, as required to bring Americans to Mars;

Extend NASA Enhanced Use Lease Authority. Enables NASA to lease underutilized;

Prioritization through 2032, and to use lease revenues to address facility maintenance while reducing taxpayer costs;

goal of including Earth science observations and the search for life beyond Earth;

Advancement of U.S. Aeronautics Leadership

Enhancement of NASA Technology, Infrastructure, and Workforce; and

Focused attention that ensures Planetary Defense against meteors and large asteroids.

I have long held an intense interest in the Nation's premier space exploration agency, first as a member of the House Science Committee and now as a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

From space exploration to climate change the work of Congress is needed now more than ever before.

I have for several Congresses offered an amendment to the NDAA to provide Congress with a report on the issue of space debris, which jeopardizes human space exploration.

These objects are a product of earlier space exploration when there were only a few nations capable of low earth orbit space flight.

Today, public-private partnerships and collaboration is bringing the commercial sector into space exploration.

The space debris amendment brings valuable insight into the challenges, dangers, and opportunities present by addressing space debris moving over 17,000 miles an hour and the real changes of debris disabling or damaging manmade space exploration or development efforts.

President Kennedy knew what was on the line if our nation did not dominate the space race.

Because he understood what was at stake he set the nation's sights on people walking on the surface of the moon, and to safely return home required technology, materials, metals, food preservation, clothing, and instruments that had not been invented at the time of his speech this was a monumental challenge that captivated and motivated Americans--All Americans to find within themselves the talent, courage, and fortitude needed to make his words our nation's greatest scientific accomplishment.

He said his challenge was an act of faith and vision because no one know what would come from the effort of accomplishing the challenge of conquering space.

The speech at Rice University is located in the city of Houston because of the concentration of engineering, researchers, and academic institutions doing cutting-edge work in the energy sector of the economy.

First established as the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in 1961, it was later named the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in honor of the late President.

The JSC is responsible for the design, development, and operation of human space flight.

For more than four decades, JSC has been the world leader in human space flight operations for NASA.

The critical thing to understand about what JSC means to human space flight is to understand the importance of a critical mass of experts that are working collaboratively from the training of astronauts to all aspects of the support during missions.

The Center's famed Mission Control Center, or MCC, has been the operational hub of every American human space mission for over 40 years since Gemini IV.

The MCC manages all activity onboard the space station and directs all space shuttle missions, including station assembly flights and Hubble Space Telescope servicing. Construction of the control center began in late 1962.

In addition to conducting mission simulations and operations with flight controllers, space was allocated for key NASA engineering and scientific personnel along with representatives of the major contractors to support each mission.

This increased presence strengthened the problem-solving capabilities of the MCC team.

Today, JCS is comprised of a complex of 100 buildings constructed on 1,620 acres that is known as Space City.

Houston is where the Johnson Space Center was born and remains to this day--a place of boundless imagination in the pursuit of new horizons in space exploration.

There are approximately 3,200 civil servants, including 110 astronauts, employed at Johnson Space Center, and a contract workforce of over 15,000 are the people who prepare people for space missions.

This bill is a matter of national pride, national economic innovation, and most importantly, national security.

I want to note for Congress and the nation that the JSC with continuing to serve a vital role in the next chapter of space exploration for our nation.

Several essential NASA programs are authorized and fully funded separately under this authorization bill.

The bill provides funding for each of the essential tasks that NASA has for the JSC:

the Orion Gateway Program is funded separately,

Extravehicular Activity is funded separately, and

Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program is funded separately.

The authorization language in this bill makes clear that the Orion Gateway Program, Extravehicular Activity, and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program are assigned to the Johnson Space Center.

Language in this bill also provides clarity that all new lunar and Mars samples are under the purview of the JSC.

This is a wise decision given that the JSC maintains over 5 decades of experience and expertise in the stewardship and curation of all current collections of NASA-held Astro-materials.

All U.S. government or U.S. government contracted services involving extraterrestrial material or Astro-materials such as, but not limited to rocks, dust, minerals, meteorites, regolith, ices, organic matter, gasses, and atoms, and including samples collected in space, on other solar system bodies, and on earth will be curated and managed by Johnson Space Center.

NASA's Johnson Space Center shall curate and manage all NASA-held Astro-material sample collections, including providing loans of Astro- material specimens, review of the proposed use, approval of research investigations, education, and public display.

These are NASA Johnson Space Center Human Exploration Programs that are a part of Moon to Mars or Artemis, all funded separately in this bill. They are:

Orion Program;

Gateway Program--Referred to in the bill as ``an outpost in orbit around the moon'';

Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program--in the bill ``Spacesuits'' are called out and state any other elements needed to meet the requirement of the Moon to Mars Program; and

Orion, Gateway, and EHP (suits and Mobile systems, rovers), all are critical Programs.

Just as the moon project was a massive endeavor that would touch nearly every aspect of our nation's scientific community and efforts so will the work outlined by this legislation.

The CHIPS Act would invest $52 billion in domestic semiconductor chip manufacturing, and various vital science initiatives to return the United States to its role as the preeminent leader in science and modernization.

These initiatives include efforts to expand diversity and equity in STEM fields by combatting sexual harassment in science workplaces, investing in minority-serving institutions, and expanding fellowship and scholarship opportunities for women in STEM.

It would also focus on scientific initiatives for biological and environmental research that would accelerate the growth of clean energy commercialization and development across the country.

Everything from helium conservation to nuclear physics, to biological threat preparedness, is included in this bill.

Additionally, the CHIPS and Science Act are authorizations for incredibly important innovations happening at NASA.

It would authorize the Artemis Moon Program to work towards the goal of returning American astronauts to the moon, including sending the first woman and person of color.

In addition to resuming goals of lunar landings, the CHIPS and Science Act would prioritize the research necessary to continue the Orion program and bring Americans to Mars.

Several essential NASA programs are authorized and fully funded separately under this authorization bill.

The Orion Program gateway program is funded separately; Extravehicular Activity is funded separately and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program is funded separately. The authorization language in this bill makes clear that the Orion Gateway Program, Extravehicular Activity, and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program are assigned to the Johnson Space Center.

Language in this bill also provides clarification that all new lunar and Mars samples are the responsibility of the Johnson Space Center.

The other priority I believe should have been included in this bill is a clarification that NASA's Johnson Space Center with over 5 decades of experience and expertise in the stewardship and curation of all current collections of NASA-held Astro-materials should continue in this role for the materials that will be brought back from the moon and Mars to earth for study.

Further, it would have served the mission to make sure that all U.S. government or U.S. government contracted services involving extraterrestrial material or Astro-materials such as but not limited to rocks, dust, minerals, meteorites, regolith, ices, organic matter, gasses, and atoms and including samples collected in space, on other solar systems bodies and earth should be curated and managed by Johnson Space Center.

NASA's Johnson Space Center should be charged with the management of all NASA-held Astro-material sample collections, including providing loans of Astro-material specimens, review of the proposed use, approval of research investigations, education, and public display.

I will support the bill, and pledge to continue to work with my colleagues in the House and Members of the Senate to make sure that the JSC's role in the next chapter of our nation's space exploration includes management of materials returned to earth for study.

In addition to its many improvements to STEM workforce growth and scientific research and development, this bill has a particular focus on America's need for a robust push in semiconductor chip manufacturing.

Much of the funding in H.R. 4346 would be dedicated to building the capacity of the American semiconductor chip industry.

This bill would set aside resources designed to incentivize the construction of potentially 7 to 10 domestic semiconductor fabrication plants.

These plants would be responsible for manufacturing the core of all our modern electronics.

Cars, cell phones, air conditioning units, microwave ovens, medical tools, and laptops all rely on semiconductor chips to transport, connect, feed, and support the American public.

The CHIPS Act would ensure that American consumers retain access to these products during times of international instability.

The United States' ability to manufacture semiconductor chips has been on a steady decline for decades.

In 1990, the U.S. met roughly 40 percent of the world's semiconductor chip capacity.

In 2020, that fell to just 12 percent.

East Asian countries like China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan are now home to nearly 80 percent of global chip fabrication.

Some of America's largest tech firms, including Google, Apple, and Amazon, rely on a single Taiwanese manufacturer, TSMC, for nearly 90 percent of their chip production.

I have long advanced that chip manufacturing should be domestic because of the critical importance to telecommunication, medical, transportation, national defense, industrial control systems, and financial systems.

The COVID-19 pandemic made evident the limitations of domestic manufacturing capacity in the United States and vulnerabilities in global supply chains.

During the pandemic, our healthcare centers, schools, and other vital industries struggled to import the technological goods they needed to battle the virus, educate our children, and keep our economy running.

Thousands of American people died in hospital beds while hospitals struggled to obtain additional ventilators, oxygen monitors and other necessary medical equipment--medical equipment that rely on semiconductor chips to work.

Delays in supply chains and manufacturing capabilities undoubtedly wasted time and cost countless lives.

This cannot happen again.

The 21st-century world is only able to stay upright through a careful scaffolding of electronic and computer products.

There are some products that we must maintain the ability to produce upon demand to meet domestic need.

With Russia at war with Ukraine and an uncertain future for Chinese and Taiwanese relations, it is more imperative than ever that the manufacturing of semiconductor chips returns to American soil, American businesses, and American control.

With the passage of the CHIPS Act, the United States would rise again to its status as a world leader in the manufacturing of semiconductor chips.

Doing so is an economic and national security necessity.

For years, the United States has neglected to invest in semiconductor manufacturing. Meanwhile, China has invested $150 billion to build its domestic capacity.

If we do not invest in the future of American innovation and excellence now, we are sure to fall behind our East Asian competitors in the future--at the expense of the American people.

In addition to the provision of funding for manufacturing facilities, the CHIPS Act includes about $100 billion for the research and development of secure semiconductors and secure microelectronic supply chains.

This would include the creation of a Subcommittee on Microelectronics Leadership which would be tasked with developing a national strategy for the creation of a robust microelectronics industry in the United States and setting priorities for the maintenance of American leadership in advanced chip design and production.

This is our opportunity to secure the economic and national security of our nation.

It is our opportunity to provide much-needed jobs and industry.

It is our opportunity to return the United States of America to its position of prominence and example as a world leader in innovation and manufacturing.

Made in America is good for business, it's good for security, and it's good for our people.

That is why I wholeheartedly support the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.

I include in the Record a list of NASA bills I have sponsored and cosponsored.

1. H.R. 5250--117th Congress (2021-2022) Advancing Human

Spaceflight Act of 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-

TX-29] (Introduced 09/14/2021) Cosponsors: (2) Committees:

House--Science, Space, and Technology Latest Action: House--

09/14/2021 Referred to the Subcommittee on Space and

Aeronautics.

2. H.R. 869--117th Congress (2021-2022) RISE Act of 2021

Sponsor: Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] (Introduced 02/05/2021)

Cosponsors: (178) Committees: House--Science, Space, and

Technology; Agriculture; Armed Services; Education and Labor;

Energy and Commerce; Natural Resources; Transportation and

Infrastructure Latest Action: House--03/03/2021 Referred to

the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States.

3. H.R. 7308--116th Congress (2019-2020) RISE Act Sponsor:

Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] (Introduced 06/24/2020)

Cosponsors: (147) Committees: House--Science, Space, and

Technology; Agriculture; Armed Services; Education and Labor;

Energy and Commerce; Natural Resources Latest Action: House--

08/13/2020 Referred to the Subcommittee on Biotechnology,

Horticulture, and Research.

4. H.R. 4304--116th Congress (2019-2020) NASA Enhanced Use

Lease Authority Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Palazzo, Steven M.

[R-MS-4] (Introduced 09/12/2019) Cosponsors: (40) Committees:

House--Science, Space, and Technology Latest Action: House--

09/12/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology.

5. H.R. 1865--116th Congress (2019-2020) Further

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 Sponsor: Rep. Pascrell,

Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-9] (Introduced 03/25/2019) Cosponsors: (304)

Committees: House--Financial Services Committee Print: H.Prt.

116-44 Latest Action: 12/20/2019 Became Public Law No: 116-

94.

6. H.R. 1396--116th Congress (2019-2020) Hidden Figures

Congressional Gold Medal Act Sponsor: Rep. Johnson, Eddie

Bernice [D-TX-30] (Introduced 02/27/2019) Cosponsors: (314)

Committees: House--Financial Services; House Administration

Latest Action: 11/08/2019 Became Public Law No: 116-68.

7. H.R. 255--111th Congress (2009-2010) NASA 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee,

Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 01/07/2009) Cosponsors: (2)

Committees: House--Financial Services Latest Action: House--

01/07/2009 Referred to the House Committee on Financial

Services.

8. H.R. 6455--110th Congress (2007-2008) NASA 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee,

Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 07/10/2008) Cosponsors: (1)

Committees: House--Financial Services Latest Action: Senate--

07/16/2008 Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on

Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar

No. 885.

9. H. Res. 1315--110th Congress (2007-2008) Commemorating

the 50th Anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. Sponsor: Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]

(Introduced 06/26/2008) Cosponsors: (44) Committees: House--

Science and Technology Latest Action: House--07/10/2008

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without

objection.

10. H. Amdt. 1096--110th Congress (2007-2008) Description:

Amendment to clarify that the NASA Outreach and Technology

Assistance Program will include small, minority-owned, and

women-owned businesses. It would also give preference, in

selection for the program, to socially and economically

disadvantaged small business concerns, small business

concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans,

and HUBZone small business concerns. Amends Bill: H.R. 6063

Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Offered 06/12/

2008) Latest Action: 06/12/08 On agreeing to the Jackson-Lee

(TX) amendment (Ao12) Agreed to by voice vote.

11. H. Amdt. 691--110th Congress (2007-2008) Description:

Amendment to prohibit the funds made available in this Act

may be used in violation of Subtitle A of Title VIII

(International Space Station Independent Safety Taskforce) of

the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Amends Bill: H.R. 3093

Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Offered 07/26/

2007) Latest Action: 07/26/07 On agreeing to the Jackson Lee

(TX) amendment (A049) Agreed to by voice vote.

12. H.R. 2750--110th Congress (2007-2008) NASA 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee,

Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 06/15/2007) Cosponsors: (296)

Committees: House--Financial Services, Senate--Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs Latest

Action: Senate--08/03/2007 Read twice and referred to the

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

13. H.R. 2500--110th Congress (2007-2008) NASA and JPL 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee,

Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 05/24/2007) Cosponsors: (1)

Committees: House--Financial Services Latest Action: House--

05/24/2007 Referred to the House Committee on Financial

Services.

14. H. Res. 446--110th Congress (2007-2008) Honoring the

life and accomplishments of Astronaut Walter Marty Schirra

and expressing condolences on his passing. Sponsor: Rep.

Bilbray, Brian P. [R-CA-50] (Introduced 05/24/2007)

Cosponsors: (7) Committees: House--Science and Technology

Latest Action: House--06/06/2007 Motion to reconsider laid on

the table Agreed to without objection.

15. H. Res. 316--110th Congress (2007-2008) Recognizing the

accomplishments of Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig

Mello, John C. Mather, and George F. Smoot for being awarded

Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry, physiology or

medicine, and physics.

Sponsor: Rep. McNerney, Jerry [D-CA-11] (Introduced 04/18/

2007) Cosponsors: (9) Committees: House--Science and

Technology Latest Action: House--05/01/2007 Motion to

reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

16. H.R. 363--110th Congress (2007-2008) Sowing the Seeds

Through Science and Engineering Research Act Sponsor: Rep.

Gordon, Bart [D-TN-6] (Introduced 01/10/2007) Cosponsors:

(18) Committees: House--Science and Technology, Senate--

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Report: H.

Rept. 110-39 Latest Action: Senate--04/25/2007 Received in

the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

17. H. Con. Res. 448--109th Congress (2005-2006) Commending

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the

completion of the Space Shuttle's second Return-to-Flight

mission. Sponsor: Rep. Paul, Ron [R-TX-14] (Introduced 07/13/

2006) Cosponsors: (34) Committees: House--Science Latest

Action: Senate--07/21/2006 Message on Senate action sent to

the House.

18. H.R. 5356--109th Congress (2005-2006) Research for

Competitiveness Act Sponsor: Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-

10] (Introduced 05/11/2006) Cosponsors: (31) Committees:

House--Science Committee Report: H. Rept. 109-525 Latest

Action: House--06/22/2006 Placed on the Union Calendar,

Calendar No. 294.

19. H. Con. Res. 366--109th Congress (2005-2006) To

congratulate the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration on the 25th anniversary of the first flight of

the Space Transportation System, to honor Commander John

Young and the Pilot Robert Crippen, who flew Space Shuttle

Columbia on April 12-14, 1981, on its first orbital test

flight, and to commend the men and women of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration and all those supporting

America's space program for their accomplishments and their

role in inspiring the American people. Sponsor: Rep. Calvert,

Ken [RCA-44] (Introduced 03/29/2006) Cosponsors: (52)

Committees: House--Science Latest Action: Senate--04/07/2006

Message on Senate action sent to the House.

20. H. Amdt. 512--109th Congress (2005-2006) Description:

Amendment requires the NASA Administrator to transmit to

Congress a plan describing steps to be taken by NASA to

protect the employment status of NASA employees who raise or

have raised concerns about a potentially catastrophic risk to

health or safety. Amends Bill: H.R. 3070 Sponsor: Rep.

Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Offered 07/22/2005) Latest

Action: 07/22/05 On agreeing to the Jackson Lee (TX)

amendment (A005) Agreed to by voice vote.

21. H. Amdt. 510--109th Congress (2005-2006) Amends Bill:

H.R. 3070 Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]

(Offered 07/22/2005) Latest Action: 07/22/05 By unanimous

consent, the Jackson Lee (TX) amendment was withdrawn.

22. H.R. 3250--109th Congress (2005-2006) National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of

2005 Sponsor: Rep. Gordon, Bart [D-TN-6] (Introduced 07/12/

2005) Cosponsors: (19) Committees: House--Science Latest

Action: House--07/27/2005 Referred to the Subcommittee on

Space and Aeronautics. Notes: For further action, see S.

1281, which became Public Law 109-155 on 12/30/2005.

23. H. Amdt. 284--109th Congress (2005-2006) Amends Bill:

H.R. 2862 Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]

(Offered 06/15/2005) Latest Action: 06/15/05 On agreeing to

the Jackson Lee (TX) amendment (A037) Agreed to by voice

vote.

24. H. Amdt. 254--109th Congress (2005-2006) Amends Bill:

H.R. 2862 Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]

(Offered 06/14/2005) Latest Action: 06/14/05 By unanimous

consent, the Jackson Lee (TX) amendment was withdrawn.

25. H.R. 68--109th Congress (2005-2006) NASA and JPL 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Culberson,

John Abney [R-TX-7] (Introduced 01/04/2005) Cosponsors:

(290) Committees: House--Financial Services; Ways and

Means, Senate--Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Committee Report: H. Rept. 109-133 Latest Action: Senate--

07/13/2005 Received in the Senate and Read twice and

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban

Affairs.

26. H.R. 4881--108th Congress (2003-2004) NASA and JPL 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Culberson,

John Abney [R-TX-7] (Introduced 07/21/2004) Cosponsors: (347)

Committees: House--Financial Services Latest Action: House--

08/03/2004 Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and

International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology.

27. H. Res. 723--108th Congress (2003-2004) Recognizing the

35th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, and for

other purposes. Sponsor: Rep. Hall, Ralph M. [R-TX-4]

(Introduced 07/19/2004) Cosponsors: (27) Committees: House--

Science Latest Action: House--07/21/2004 Motion to reconsider

laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

28. H.R. 4522--108th Congress (2003-2004) International

Space Station Independent Safety Commission Act of 2004

Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 06/

08/2004) Cosponsors: (0) Committees: House--Science Latest

Action: House--06/14/2004 Referred to the Subcommittee on

Space and Aeronautics.

29. H. Res. 550--108th Congress (2003-2004) Expressing the

sense of the House of Representatives relating to the

extraordinary contributions resulting from the Hubble Space

Telescope to scientific research and education, and to the

need to reconsider future service missions to the Hubble

Space Telescope. Sponsor: Rep. Udall, Mark [D-CO-2]

(Introduced 03/03/2004) Cosponsors: (77) Committees: House--

Science Latest Action: House--03/03/2004 Referred to the

House Committee on Science.

30. H. Res. 490--108th Congress (2003-2004) Recognizing and

commending the achievements of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and

Cornell University in conducting the Mars Exploration Rover

mission, and recognizing the importance of space exploration.

Sponsor: Rep. Dreier, David [R-CA-26] (Introduced 01/20/2004)

Cosponsors: (31) Committees: House--Science Latest Action:

House--01/21/2004 Motion to reconsider laid on the table

Agreed to without objection.)

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 330, providing for three measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1333, the NO BAN Act, and H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel Act of 2021, both under closed rules. The rule provides an hour of debate on each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit on each bill.

The rule deems as passed H.R. 316, providing for the expenses of certain committees, and H. Con. Res. 30, providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a message from the President of the United States. The rule also restricts former Members' access to the House floor during the joint session.

Additionally, the rule provides authority through April 22 for the majority leader or his designee to move to en bloc postponed votes on any suspension bill considered on April 19 or 20 on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

Finally, the rule provides for recess instructions, same day, and suspension authority through May 20.

Madam Speaker, Tocqueville wrote in ``Democracy in America'' that in our country voting rights and democracy are always either contracting and retreating and shriveling away or voting rights and democracy are growing and expanding.

What a proud day for the United States Congress when we get to keep the trajectory of American democracy moving forward by voting to admit a new State to our beloved Union.

America began with 13 original States, and we in Congress have exercised our powers under Article IV, Section 3 37 different times to admit 37 new States to the Union, which means that nearly 75 percent of the States in America today were admitted after the original 13.

Today, we can keep the dynamics of democratic political growth and inclusion going in America by beginning the process of admitting Washington, Douglass Commonwealth to the Union by passing H.R. 51.

We have the opportunity to do something that hasn't happened here since 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in January and in August of that year.

We can vote to admit a new State to the Union, and what a State it will be: A community of 712,000 taxable, draftable, law-abiding American citizens who actually pay more Federal taxes per capita now than do the people of any State, more in hard dollars than the people of 22 States combined. It is a community of people who have fought in every war that the Union has ever fought, going all the way back to the American Revolution.

And it was a community, significantly, that came to the aid of democracy, that came to the aid of the Union, that came to the aid of this Congress when we called on January 6, 2021.

More than 850 officers in the Metropolitan Police Department came and fought shoulder to shoulder with our Capitol officers in what has been described as waves of medieval violence by insurrectionists and Fascists attacking them with bats and sticks and American flagpoles and Confederate flagpoles and Trump flagpoles. They sent more than 150 National Guardsmen from Washington, D.C., 154 D.C. National Guard, 850 Metropolitan Police Department to come and defend a democracy that they are not yet a part of.

Now think about that. We had people who came and stormed the Capitol, laid siege to the Congress of the United States with fictionalized claims about a denial of their right to vote, and right in this city there are 712,000 American citizens who we know have their voting rights denied every single day, their rights to representation denied every single day, and they came to defend us against those who would have torn down the very citadel of democracy.

Think about that when we are deciding how to vote on H.R. 51.

The current status of the people in Washington, D.C., subjects them to two different forms of political domination and exclusion.

On the one hand, all of their locally adopted laws ultimately can be overturned by a Congress which they are excluded from, and it has happened many times throughout the history of the District of Columbia, as Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the nonvoting Delegate, will tell you. Congress has tampered with the laws of adoption, laws of marriage, criminal justice laws, and voting laws in the District of Columbia.

But it is not just that. It is not just that the rights of democratic self-government are subject to the will of other people. It is also that this community of taxpaying, draftable American citizens is excluded from participating in Federal legislation because they don't have voting representatives in the House and in the Senate.

That means on matters relating to war and peace, the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justices and other Federal judges, the development of Federal budgets, the regulation of commerce domestically and internationally, Federal criminal law, and Federal civil law, the people of Washington, D.C., are dealt out. They are excluded. And they want in. They want to enter the Union.

Most of us in Congress represent communities that were not part of the original 13 but then came in later. Now, I come from Maryland, which was one of the original 13, but most of the people in Congress represent States that came in later.

So, this is an act of fundamental democratic and civic self-respect on their part to be asking for equality and inclusion, and it is a matter of basic constitutional patriotism and democratic respect that we vote to admit them today.

I am very happy that we are kicking this process off by bringing this rule to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me address a couple of the specious constitutional objections that have been raised by our colleagues on the other side.

To begin with, it would be unconstitutional to turn the District of Columbia into a State. It would almost certainly be that, but that is not what the proposal is. The proposal is to redraw the boundaries of the District of Columbia to cede the residential lands to the new State to admit it. For that, there is both sound constitutional and historical precedent.

For one thing, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 says that Congress shall ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the district that is to become the seat of government, meaning that Congress has the authority to modify the boundaries of the District of Columbia, which it has done.

It did that, actually, in 1791. Not long after the original boundaries were set, James Madison and 13 other Founders themselves voted to alter the boundaries. But our colleagues seem to believe that the boundaries of the District can't be altered by Congress.

In 1846, most significantly, Congress gave one-third of the District of Columbia to the Commonwealth of Virginia at the behest of slave masters, who correctly anticipated that the slave traffic would be abolished within the District of Columbia. It was given back, demonstrating that the authority of Congress to change the boundaries of the District exists.

If Congress can alter the boundaries of the District of Columbia in 1846 in order to serve the slave masters and to protect their institution, surely the Congress in 2021 can modify the boundaries of the District of Columbia in order to admit a new State and empower hundreds of thousands of people to live in political equality in the country.

My distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania invites us to believe that the 23rd Amendment is a constitutional impediment to adopting statehood for Washington, D.C. He doesn't explain why it is unconstitutional. He just asserts it would be unconstitutional.

The 23rd Amendment was adopted in order to give people living within the seat of government the possibility of voting for President and to have electoral college votes in a manner decided by Congress and then, in Section 2, requiring Congress to act in order to organize the electoral college in the manner of a State legislature organizing the electoral college for the State.

As I understand H.R. 51, introduced by Congresswoman Norton, this problem is taken care of at the moment of statehood admission because it repeals the statute which organizes the electoral college for the District of Columbia.

In other words, the moment the new State comes into being, the current statute that organizes the Presidential electors is repealed, so there is nothing to worry about. I agree that there is a certain kind of messiness in still having the 23rd Amendment on the books, but Congresswoman Norton has said she will be the first to introduce a formal constitutional amendment to repeal the 23rd, and who would oppose it?

Our colleagues have not been able to find a single person who would oppose it. Everybody would agree it would be simply nonsensical to keep it within the Constitution once the 712,000 people have negotiated an exodus from the Federal seat of government in order to become their own State.

So, I think that that is a red herring. It is an irrelevant distraction to this journey toward statehood and political equality that we are on.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlewoman very much for her comments, and I want to reemphasize the point that she made at the end, which is that Congress has the exclusive authority to admit new States.

Congress has admitted 37 new States. None of them have ever been struck down by a court, despite serious constitutional objections being raised against almost every State.

Everyone knew that Hawaii and Alaska could not be admitted because they were not contiguous. Everyone knew that Texas couldn't be admitted because it was a separate republic, and there was no authority to admit a republic to the Union. It was said Utah couldn't be admitted because they were practicing polygamy there. And so on.

There have always been constitutional objections made, but the courts have always deemed this to be a political question, which means that, in the juridical context, it is up to Congress to decide. And Congress has always been guided, in the final analysis, by the overriding dynamic of American political history, which is democracy has to govern for people who live here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to say a word in response to my colleague about the national political logic of statehood.

There is both powerful constitutional principle and national political logic that infuses every statehood admission going back to the very beginning of the Republic.

The constitutional principle is simply that of no taxation without representation and the consent of the governed. People who are part of the American Nation should be able to participate equally as complete citizens.

That is why Thomas Jefferson set out in the Northwest Ordinance that once a community got to be of a certain size--60,000, which, of course, is less than 10 percent of the size of Washington, D.C., today--that it would be eligible to come into statehood, to petition for statehood. The only real constitutional prerequisite is a republican form of government, that is the Republican Guarantee Clause.

That is the high-minded political ideal of constitutional principle, but it is also the case, as I have tried to argue with my colleagues across the aisle, that there is a hardcore political logic that is operated, and we see it in their arguments that they don't want to admit two Democratic Senators to the Republic, which is what former President Trump said in objection to D.C. statehood. He said there is no way we would accept two new Democrat Senators.

Actually, although I consider it a degradation of the process and a sort of tawdry form of argument, nonetheless, it has been very much part of American political history, which is why States have tended to enter the Union in pairs, like animals boarding Noah's Ark together.

That was the situation with Kansas and Nebraska, in the Kansas- Nebraska Act; that was the situation of Missouri and Maine in the Missouri Compromise; that was Vermont and Kentucky; that was Alaska and Hawaii back in 1959.

So, I say to my friends, okay, they don't see the problem of taxation without representation in Washington. They don't see the problem of governance without representation. They don't see the irony or the paradox or the contradiction of people putting their lives on the line to defend this Congress, this Union, on January 6 who don't get to vote for voting representatives in Congress.

They don't want to see that, fine. But they can at least see this: It has been in the Republican platform since 1940 that Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State. Every 4 years, they have said that the millions of people, American citizens, who live in Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State. It was in the platform in 2016. It would have been in 2020 if they had had a platform. They decided not to have a platform for the American people in 2020. But in any event, they have taken a very strong position--Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, you name it.

In fact, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico is a Republican who has introduced statehood legislation in this Congress, who is fighting for statehood.

So, fine, there is the basis for common ground. Let's get together. The Democrats have been arguing for statehood for Washington, D.C., for a long time. The Republicans have been arguing for statehood for Puerto Rico for a long time. I assume everybody means it. Let's get together and do it the way this has happened periodically, systematically, throughout American history. That is the national political logic of allowing both of these states to come in together.

Not everybody gets everything that they want, and I do think that it is antithetical to the democratic form of government to say you don't want people to be represented because you don't like the way they are going to vote because they disagree with you on issues. I think that is fundamentally undemocratic and un-American.

Madam Speaker, in any event, we have the grounds for a compromise, and I am still looking for some colleagues across the aisle to stand up and say they will stand for the position

that they have embraced for decades, to say these two states should come in together.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman invites us to return the District of Columbia to Maryland, which, of course, debunks the argument that Congress cannot modify the boundaries of the District of Columbia.

But, in any event, that is not what the people of Washington, D.C. have asked for. They have used their rights as American citizens under the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution to organize a new State and to petition Congress for admission to the Union. Neither has the Maryland General Assembly asked for a return of the land to Maryland. So that certainly answers a set of political conditions that don't exist in the real world.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that the majority leader hardly needs me to defend him, but I know that he was a strong supporter of the D.C. voting rights constitutional amendment where there was actually bipartisan support.

In those days, Republicans understood the grievous injustice being perpetrated against the people of Washington, D.C., and they supported granting people in D.C. two Senators, or what my colleague would call two ultraliberal Senators, as well as the Representatives in the House to which they were due.

There were certainly people who were saying there were other ways of accomplishing it. Now, unfortunately, that bipartisan consensus collapsed even though it passed the Senate and the House back in the day. I don't hear any of my colleagues saying they are for it now.

Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, is supporting the only viable vehicle for getting equal rights for people in Washington, D.C., that exists today, which is statehood, which is how 37 new States entered the Union with Congress' exercise of its powers under Article IV of the Constitution.

The gentleman waxed eloquent about the vision of a great Capital City, but being a strict textualist, I assume that he wants to pay some attention to the text of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the District Clause, sets a maximum, a ceiling that the District may be no more than 10 miles square, but there is no minimum there. It didn't say it must be at least 6 miles square or 2 miles square or 3 miles. No, that is up to Congress. In other words, it is a political question within congressional power, our plenary power, over the District of Columbia.

Finally, the gentleman, I suppose, gets to the heart of the matter when he says that, for him, it is all about two ultraliberal Senators. I would ask every Member of this body to think about that for a second, reflect on that. In America, I don't think we deny people voting rights based on how they are going to vote. I don't think we deny entire States and political communities representation based on predictions of who they might elect.

In fact, there is a Supreme Court case about that called Carrington v. Rash. When armed services members in Texas were disenfranchised because it was suggested they would vote in a way more identified with the national government than with local cultural values in Texas, the Supreme Court struck it down and said that, in American democracy, we do not allow government to disenfranchise people based on predictions of how they are going to vote or who they are going to elect.

That is precisely what the gentleman invites us to do here, to deny 712,000 taxpaying, draftable U.S. citizens, who came to our aid on January 6, to deny them their equal rights under the Union, under the flag, because he predicts that they are going to elect people whose policy views are contrary to his own.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that is totally antithetical to the meaning of American constitutional democracy. Everyone should take a walk around Washington. You will see flags in the yards of all the people here, yards that we pass by every day when we come to Washington, and they say, ``D.C. 51.'' They want their statehood. Let's listen to the people of Washington.

If you can't quite stomach that, then read the Republican Party platform itself, which calls for Puerto Rican statehood, and let's see if we can do it together. Let's bring in millions of disenfranchised people in America.

Still, I get radio silence from my colleagues on that. Not a single one will opine about whether or not the people of Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 330

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

2321) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to

establish a plan to respond to irregular migration surges at

the border, to establish an irregular migration surge border

response fund, 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 Homeland Security. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. When the committee rises and reports the

bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do

pass, 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. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 2321.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation.

The first bill, H.R. 1333, limits the President's existing authority to restrict entry of foreigners into the United States.

Border Patrol is encountering more than 5,500 individuals per day at our southern border. Let me say that again. They are encountering 5,500 individuals per day at the southern border.

Over the weekend, President Biden finally acknowledged the situation for what it is--not a challenge but a crisis. Yet, House Democrats are moving forward with a bill that does nothing to stop the surge of migrants at the southern border and, instead, actually weakens our national security.

Along the same lines, House Resolution 330 provides for consideration of H.R. 1573, which requires access to counsel for all travelers referred to a secondary inspection at airports and other ports of entry.

Again, this bill does nothing to address the Biden border crisis. It would

actually complicate the job of Border Patrol agents while costing taxpayers $825 million over the next 5 years.

With a 233 percent increase in fentanyl seizures at our southern border, it is a shame that my liberal colleagues across the aisle are actually creating more work for Border Patrol. Instead, we should provide these brave men and women with much-needed resources to address the national security and public health consequences of the Biden border crisis.

Lastly, this resolution makes in order H.R. 51, legislation admitting the present District of Columbia as the 51st State and authorizing special elections for two Senators and one Representative.

This is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats to gain two ultraprogressive D.C. Senate seats and force radical, far- left policies on the American people.

Our Founding Fathers never intended for D.C. to become a State. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that if the Capital City were situated within a State, the Federal Government would be subject to undue influence by the host State. As such, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution establishes a neutral district for our Nation's representatives to meet and vote on equal ground.

Further, the 23rd Amendment grants three Presidential electors specifically for the District. The original meaning of the ``district'' in the Constitution, and the necessary repeal of the 23rd Amendment, requires an amendment to the Constitution in order for D.C. to even become a State.

Just don't take my word for it, though. Since 1963, every Justice Department, Republican and Democrat, that has addressed the issue of D.C. statehood has concluded that Congress does not have the authority to alter the status of the city legislatively.

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy thought it was inconceivable that D.C. would be granted statehood without repealing the 23rd Amendment and that the result would ``produce an absurdity.'' Again, those are the words of RFK.

Finally, the legislation before us today does nothing to address the financial implications of D.C. statehood. According to a 2020 study, D.C. ranked 150th out of 150 of the largest cities for its lack of operating efficiency--150 out of 150.

The Federal Government provides billions of dollars to D.C. each year for everything from the judicial system to the pension system. Yet, House Democrats are so desperate to jam this measure through that, under H.R. 51, the Federal Government will remain responsible for funding many of the new State's functions.

There is absolutely no incentive for the new State to work toward financial self-sufficiency, meaning Americans in other States would be forced to fund D.C. Democrats' priorities.

Again, House Democrats are pushing ahead to admit a new State to the Union purely for partisan gain while ignoring the constitutional, practical, and legal challenges in doing so. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, my colleague may have said that these are merely my assertions. They are certainly my arguments, but they are also supported by others, particularly well-known members of the liberal party.

The former Mayor of D.C. himself, Mayor Walter Washington, said: ``I would have problems with statehood in terms of exacting from it some enclaves, or little enclaves all around the city. Ultimately, it seems to me that would erode the very fabric of the city itself and the viability of the city.''

Again, that was the former Mayor of Washington, D.C., who was talking about the enclaves that are being called for in this bill.

Additionally, the former D.C. Delegate Walter Fauntroy himself said that a bill like this would be in direct defiance of the prescription of the Founding Fathers.

As far as the constitutional argument, it is not just me making the assertion that this would be unconstitutional because there is an issue, and that is the 23rd Amendment. Don't take it from me. Look at the Carter administration DOJ. They said that to provide statehood for the District would have to be by constitutional amendment. Otherwise, it would ignore the Framer's intent.

John Harmon, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Carter administration, said that this would have to be accomplished through constitutional amendment.

Further, RFK, Robert Kennedy, said that Congress likely did not have the authority under Article I, Section 8, clause 17 to shrink the Federal district to essentially the same size that is being discussed.

The argument that the Federal district constituting the seat of government is a permanent part of our constitutional system is substantially strengthened by the adoption of the 23rd Amendment. Thinking that we can merely repeal an amendment through legislative action, that is not how the Constitution works; otherwise, you wouldn't have had the 21st Amendment, which was needed to repeal the 18th Amendment. We could have just merely repealed it.

Additionally, there are talks about this not being a political exercise. My colleague has been quoted, actually, in The Washington Post saying that ``there is a national political logic for it''--``it'' being D.C. statehood. Because the Senate has become the principal obstacle to social progress on a whole range of issues--not my words; my colleague's words--this issue is all about a power grab.

We are talking about another issue that is on this rule, immigration.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 2321, the Border Surge Response and Resilience Act. For far too long, Democrats denied the crisis caused by Biden's open-border rhetoric. This bipartisan bill will ensure that DHS develops a plan and has the resources it needs to address migrant surges and secure our border. Something is clearly missing from the current administration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the lead Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security, my good friend and colleague, here to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot about no taxation without representation. But there is representation. We forget that D.C. has three electoral votes. That is the 23rd Amendment. They have a Delegate in Congress. They also have local government and a mayor. They have the Home Rule Act.

But taxation does bring up a serious issue because D.C. would need to raise taxes if it were to become a State. It simply is not self- sufficient economically. In fact, D.C. takes more from the Federal Government than any other area in the United States; $73,000 per capita, to be exact. That is astronomical when you think about it. The second highest State is Virginia at $16,000 per capita, followed by Maryland at $15,000 per capita. Again, D.C. takes $73,000 per capita.

If this were to go through, D.C. would need to raise revenue. Because of the massive amount of Federal land in the District, you would then have to have more taxation, presumably through two ways: One, a commuter tax, taxing people that come into the District from other areas; or, two, you would have to have tolling of roads leading into the District. Both of these are incredibly problematic.

The first one, a commuter tax, would actually create the problem my liberal colleagues are saying exists in the first place, no taxation without representation, because you would have the District of Columbia taxing people from, presumably, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, where have you, for commuting into the District. They wouldn't have representation here. That is actually taxation without representation.

Further, if you were to toll roads leading into the District, you would infringe upon people's constitutional rights to petition the government. Imagine how much a tour bus would have to pay if they wanted to come here in the District.

But I was talking about the Home Rule Act and I was talking about the 23rd Amendment, and it reminded me that there was an allegation that Republicans somehow don't care about this issue. It is actually the opposite. Republicans are the ones who have advanced more rights for the District of Columbia. Think about it.

It was actually the Kennedy and the Carter administrations, both their Departments of Justice concluded that, for D.C. to be a State, it would require a constitutional amendment. They were on our side of this argument. Historically, it was President Eisenhower who pushed through the 23rd Amendment to get D.C. three electoral votes. And just a side note, it was Republican, Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush, who was instrumental in passing the 23rd Amendment. They were both Republicans. And it was President Nixon who signed the Home Rule Act into law. This has been Republican-led since the very beginning.

There was also an argument about D.C. residents, that this is somehow a civil rights issue. Civil rights, that is an actual term of art. Civil rights is a violation when the rights are denied because a person is who the person is. D.C. residents don't have a lack of representation in Congress because of who they are, but, instead, of where they choose to live.

And this isn't just me making this argument. The late Democrat, Representative John Dingell, made a similar argument, and I will quote the late Representative Dingell: ``I have supported every single civil rights measure that has passed this Congress since 1955, but we have to look at the facts before us. No citizen in Washington, D.C., is chained to the pillars of the U.S. Capitol. They can leave any time they want. To say this is somehow a civil rights violation is insulting to actual civil rights violations.''

Then let's go back to the three electoral votes issue. If we do follow this course of action and not repeal the 23rd Amendment before enacting D.C. statehood, you are going to have, as my colleague from Maryland just admitted, a sloppy and messy situation where the new State gets three electoral votes, and then the Federal enclave gets three electoral votes.

Well, who lives in the Federal enclave?

It would be the First Family.

So you would, presumably, give the incumbent three electoral votes in the election, and then D.C. itself three electoral votes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Madam Speaker, there was talk about retrocession. There can be arguments that the former retrocession was actually unconstitutional. In fact, the House of Representatives tried to pass a bill to say just that. It passed, and it, unfortunately, sat in the Senate Judiciary Committee without passing and challenges to the Supreme Court were dismissed on procedural grounds.

Additionally, we have to remember the many reasons why the District is just that, a district. It is because the Founding Fathers did not want to create an imperial State that would have too much influence and control over the Capitol.

My colleague from Maryland actually wrote about this in 1990 in a law review article published in the Catholic University Law Review. ``The Representatives from the new State, likely living minutes from their offices, will theoretically devote more time to institutional and committee politics and less to constant travel back and forth across the country, increasing their importance and influence on Capitol Hill.''

That was my colleague from Maryland. That is not my assertion.

If D.C. does become a State, Madam Speaker, you will create almost by definition a super Congressman in this body and two super Senators that yield much more influence than others who have to travel back and forth to their district.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague from Maryland's newfound positions because, in the 1990s, I believe the majority leader actually had the opposite viewpoint and took the opposite vote. But then again, things can change, and so can opinions.

It is also interesting to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use D.C.'s population as some justification for D.C. statehood. We know that the Founding Fathers knew that D.C. would grow into a large metropolis.

George Washington, when he was laying out the land use of the city, he actually used Paris as the example for the city, which was at the time 800,000 residents. They used one of the biggest cities in Europe as an example of the city because they knew the District of Columbia would grow into a thriving metropolis. Yet, they still wanted to carve out D.C. as an independent district, not as a State. The argument that there are now some 700,000 residents of D.C. is a nonstarter if you are going back to the historical intent of the Founding Fathers.

But let's talk about the border crisis. There has been a 400 percent increase in illegal border crossings compared to March 2020. Yet, today, we are considering a rule bringing up two immigration bills that do absolutely nothing to address this crisis.

Again, we are calling up a rule on H.R. 51 that is the Democrat's unconstitutional attempt to ram through D.C. statehood for their own political gain. What is that gain? It is very simple. It is bringing in two ultraliberal Senators. D.C. is the most liberal city, second only to San Francisco, and this bill bringing two ultraliberal Senators into the Senate with the idea of abolishing the filibuster is to what end? To pack the Supreme Court to ram through a far-left, radical agenda.

For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just 24 hours ago, I expected my remarks on the CHIPS and Science Act to be very different.

I have worked on this bill for more than 3 years. When I first took leadership of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee as ranking member in 2019, developing legislation to strengthen American science and technology was my highest priority.

After extensive work, in January of 2020, I introduced a comprehensive bill that created a long-term strategy for investment in basic research and infrastructure to protect the economic and national security of the United States.

Our committee's chairwoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, shared my desire to refocus, revitalize, and reinvest in American science, and so we worked together for 2 years, gathering extensive stakeholder feedback and technical advice, while holding multiple hearings with expert witnesses to chart a path forward.

This has been an exemplary bipartisan process. Chairwoman Johnson and her staff have put in countless hours of work with my staff to find strong, consensus policies to support Federal R&D. I thank the chairwoman for her partnership and leadership and her staff for their diligence.

I also thank my committee staff members, who have put in long hours and hard work to craft what I believe could be a transformational science policy. I particularly thank Jennifer Wickre, who led this process for us from the very beginning.

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee's efforts over the past few years and the bipartisan legislation we produced is truly an incredible example of what we can achieve when we work together as responsible legislators in regular order. Unfortunately, not everyone shares our commitment to that process.

Mr. Speaker, I was frustrated last year when Democratic leadership put off conferencing our competitiveness legislation with our colleagues across the Hill in favor of focusing on the doomed Build Back Better Act.

I was frustrated when the proposed funding for semiconductor manufacturing jumped from $24 billion to $52 billion with no explanation.

I was frustrated when, after finally starting on conference negotiations, the other body tied our research policy to reconciliation.

I was frustrated when negotiations were shut down, and I was even more frustrated when the House was shut out of discussions once they picked back up.

So maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but I am frankly, in all fairness, disgusted by the developments over the last 24 hours.

House Republicans have been working in good faith this entire time to come to consensus legislation that could be passed by both Chambers. But time and time again, we have been thwarted by Democratic leadership that has moved the goalposts, shut down the process, chosen their divisive partisan policies over a smart bipartisan bill that would benefit our country for generations.

I understand why people on my side of the room are furious. I share those concerns, and I have been around here long enough to know that this is not the way to do things. For better or for worse--and it is very clearly for the worse, I would note--the CHIPS and Science Act has been irrevocably tied to a massive tax hike and spending spree in reconciliation.

The decisions on how to pursue scientific policy are out of the hands of this committee, and at this point practically out of the hands of this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I remain incredibly proud of the good work we have done to strategically strengthen American research and development. And yet I cannot ignore the fact that the immense tax hikes and irresponsible spending in the expanded reconciliation package change the calculus when it comes to supporting spending bills, particularly a bill that has come to be tied to reconciliation.

This is one of those occasions that, as a statesman and responsible Member of Congress, I have to put aside my own pride in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's work and cast a vote that represents the best interests of Americans, and particularly the good people of the Third District of Oklahoma.

So, regrettably--and it is more regrettably than you can possibly imagine--I will not be casting my vote for the CHIPS and Science Act today.

I emphasize that this is in no way a reflection of my feeling about the transformational research policies in this bill. I am grateful to Chairwoman Johnson for working with me every step of the way to create a strategic, bipartisan, forward-thinking policy.

I just wish other legislators in both Chambers would follow our example instead of forcing indefensible votes like we have today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever it is appropriate, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and I, too, am prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, I am deeply disappointed by the process that led us here, especially over the last 24 hours. Had Democratic leadership acted in good faith, we would be having a very different discussion today.

I would prefer that our bipartisan strategic competitiveness policy had not been tied to the partisan and divisive reconciliation legislation. But it would be dishonest to pretend that that hasn't been the case.

And after long and careful thought for what reconciliation will mean to the economy, the expanded government, and the American people, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the $52

billion in mandatory spending; while knowing that hundreds of billions in taxes and partisan spending are about to bulldoze us.

We know the numbers, but it is worth repeating them because they are more than numbers. As someone who studied economics, I am very cognizant that these are, in fact, a representation of the daily life for families across America.

Inflation has skyrocketed to 9.1 percent. Every dollar in your wallets, in your paycheck, in your retirement account, every dollar is now worth less.

The next set of numbers is 1.6 and 0.9. Those are the most recent declines in our Gross Domestic Product, GDP.

While my friends on the other side of the aisle want to debate the definition of recession, let's put that nitpicking aside and step back for a moment and consider the big picture, what this means for Americans.

Our economic growth is slowing. Our inflation is rising. Our job growth is tapering off. Americans are unquestionably worse off now than they were a year ago; and that is what I have to consider when casting today's vote.

What we need right now is policy to make our economy stronger and more competitive; not backroom deals that increase taxes on businesses and raise government spending.

As I said at the start of this debate, I am incredibly proud of the work the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has done to create thoughtful, strategic, sustainable science and technology policy. I am grateful to Chairwoman Johnson, to the Republican and Democrat members of the Science Committee, and to all the staffers who worked to advance this legislation.

While others may try to take credit, the truth is division B was primarily developed and written by our committee, which has been working on this issue for longer than anyone on the Hill.

I would like very much to cast my vote in support of our research and development policies, but I cannot ignore the consequences of doing so, alongside a deeply flawed reconciliation package. I owe it to my constituents to vote in their best interests. And today, that means voting against the legislation I have long supported.

I will conclude with this: I believe the bipartisan leadership of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee represents the best that Congress can be when we work together in a transparent fashion to come to agreements that serve the American people.

I believe that actions taken by Democratic leadership yesterday are a sad example of the dysfunction that plagues Congress when we ignore these details. I am deeply disappointed in this process.

Even with all my admiration for my chairwoman, and all the respect for our mutual members and our staffs, even with all that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that we find ourselves in this position of being divided on this bill. This, like every piece of legislation we pass, is not perfect. And very frankly, if we made a judgment on every piece of legislation that we considered that I don't like some other bill, we would be in real trouble. And maybe we are in real trouble.

There was a manifesto put out by Xi and Putin when they met some months ago. Essentially what that manifesto said is the dictatorships, the authoritarian regimes are going to win because democracies cannot make decisions, they are too divided, they are too slow. This is what they were thinking about.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is not the piece of legislation that I would have written, but it is a good piece of legislation that does good things for America, and more importantly, good things for our competitive status in the world.

Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has taught us many lessons. One of those lessons, reinforced by Vladimir Putin's criminal war against Ukraine, is that we cannot and must not rely on the unreliable. Let me repeat that. America must not rely on the unreliable. We saw from the pandemic how reliable we were for so many things we needed to meet the crisis of the pandemic.

The minority leader, who told us all that he was going to urge all of his colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, talked about inflation. One of the reasons we have inflation is because we have shortages. That is what drives prices up when demand is high and supply is low. You don't have to be an economist to get that lesson.

This bill seeks to address that issue because as we all know, chips are ubiquitous in almost everything that we have that has anything to do with electronics.

Every day, Americans see examples of why we must take steps to make our

supply chains more secure and more reliable. This deals with that. Yet my Republican friends urge a ``no'' vote, not because they think this bill is bad--they may--but because they don't like another bill. That is what Xi and Putin are counting on. That is what the autocrats and authoritarians around the world are counting on, that democracies come to a halt. Because as democracies they debate and they differ, and they can't make decisions even when a significant number of the minority party is for this bill. One-third of the United States Senate Republicans voted for this bill because they thought it was good for competition between us and China and between us and everybody else.

That is why it is so sad for me to come here seeing this division on a partisan basis because of another bill. And so America, if we don't prevail on this bill, will see our competitive edge squandered because as the Secretary of Commerce says, there are a lot of countries that are going to put money on the table and say come to me. I am ready. You build your factory here. You build your chips here. And if America needs chips, if our manufacturers need chips, well, they can come to us. Not good. Good for Putin. Good for Xi. Not for us.

We must not rely on hostile foreign competitors to supply critical components that sustain America's manufacturing base. Chips are at the heart of that. That is what this bill is about. That is why we bellied up to the bar. That is why we are putting a lot of money on the table.

This is not the reconciliation bill. This is about America. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is about America, American workers, American competitiveness, American manufacturers, American technology.

I thank the chair for the extraordinary investment she has led in making our research and development compete with China in a way that we will win. And if we win, our workers and our people will win.

Microchips. In 2022, microchips are in nearly every product, as I said, from phones to cars to children's toys. At the same time, advanced semiconductors are becoming more and more integral to high- tech, advanced manufacturing processes, making them critical to our economy.

Yes, we can wait, maybe until tomorrow, maybe until January when the minority party takes over--so they think. Maybe we will wait until then. Or maybe that won't happen, and we will wait 24 months and Xi and Putin will be saying, hey, yeah, you go to it. They are lobbying against this bill. They are lobbying, paying to defeat this bill. Do not be their handmaiden.

America needs a unified Congress if it is going to compete. Indivisible, one Nation.

One of the best ways for us to ease inflation and bring costs down for American workers and consumers is to remove these supply pressures by making more of these critical components here in our country instead of relying on importing them from abroad. That is what we heard over and over and over again from the United States Senate.

We are making materials here at home, creating jobs, and streamlining our supply chains with this bill. This bipartisan legislation--17 Republicans, one-third of the United States Senate Republicans voted for this bill.

This bipartisan legislation, the CHIPS and Science Act, which will always be for me the Make It in America Act, represents the most significant investment in easing inflation and promoting American manufacturing and innovation that we have seen in a generation. This is a Make It in America bill. Every time I say that to an audience, no matter how red or conservative or how blue or how liberal, they all shake their head, yes, we need to make it in America. That is what this bill is about.

While it is not as broad as I and others in the House had hoped for, the bill, nevertheless, achieves so many of our goals. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and say no. It makes good on promises that our majority made to the American people to govern responsibly and build a post-pandemic economy that works better for more Americans. But this was a bill that was fashioned in a bipartisan way.

Nobody said at the time, well, it will be for this bill if we like every one of the bills you are supporting--what a negative way to perceive legislation to approach how you vote.

This legislation contains substantial new investment in science, research, and innovation--again, thank you, Eddie Bernice Johnson-- which will help us maintain our competitive edge, commercialize new discoveries, and train our workforce to succeed in the global economy.

The investments we are making in this legislation are not only a major victory for American businesses and workers; they achieve a big part of the Make It In America plan, which I have talked about since 2010. That is, making supply chains more resilient.

When we make microchips and semiconductors in America, more of our workers and entrepreneurs will surely ``make it'' in America.

Across America, we are now observing Made in America Week. Isn't that ironic? This is Made in America Week, yet we have a bill on the floor which invests in making it in America. The minority leader said on this floor: I am urging all of my Republican colleagues to vote ``no.'' Surely not because they are against making it in America but because they don't like some other bill, and they are going to stamp their feet and have a tantrum about the other bill.

This legislation now truly looks forward in ensuring that our workers and businesses will continue having opportunities to make it in America long into the future. This is not about today. It is not about tomorrow. It is about the next year, the next 10 years, the next generation. That is what this bill is about.

I plead with my colleagues, don't reject this bill based on a political perception of it.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson for her leadership on the House's similar legislation, as well as all the Members who had policies that were incorporated into this bill.

Today, we have a chance to deliver our promise to enact a major priority from President Biden's economic agenda, and I would suggest a major economic agenda of Republicans in the United States Senate, as articulated by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I hope some across the aisle will still vote for this bill as their Republican colleagues in the Senate did and as they had signaled they would do for a long time.

The politics changed, but the challenge we have has not, and the reality has not. Let us not lose this opportunity. It is disappointing that some in this House have decided to whip against this bill because of its leadership's opposition to the agreement announced yesterday in the Senate to move forward with the Inflation Reduction Act. Whether you like that bill or not, do not pay the price of this bill. Do not pay the price of setting our competition with others aside.

One would hope that all of us would be both for investment in American competitiveness and for reducing inflation and the deficit. Sadly, that seems not to be the case. Nevertheless, I hope we will have a bipartisan vote today on this bill.

Let's come together to make our supply chain stronger, protect our national security, invest in our innovation-driven economy, and advantage American workers so they can make it in America.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues: We talk about the loyal opposition. The loyal opposition need not be loyal to the other party. It does need to be loyal to the country.