H.Res. 601

Madam Speaker, recently, another friend of ours and our colleague, Congressman Burgess Owens, who grew up in the Jim Crow South, testified before my committee, and I want to highlight two very important points he made: Not only is our country not facing a new era of Jim Crow voting laws, as many of my Democrat colleagues have falsely claimed, but it is incredibly offensive to lie to the American people to further a political agenda.

Our country has come a long way since the Jim Crow era, and it is in part because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

More Americans voted in the last two elections than in any midterm or Presidential election in our Nation's history. This includes historic turnouts among African Americans and other minority voters.

We should celebrate this progress, not ignore it.

Using Georgia as an example, since my friends on the other side of the aisle were so quick to condemn new election integrity laws in this State; in Georgia, which was once covered under the VRA's preclearance formula, African-American turnout in the last election was 64 percent, compared to 27 percent in 1965. And an amazing 95 percent of the total eligible voting-age population in Georgia is registered to vote.

That is incredible. It is easier to vote in Georgia than it is in Democrat-run States like New York and Delaware and even others.

Democrats on the Committee on House Administration held hearing after hearing on election issues where they produced zero evidence of voter suppression, likely due to the fact that voter discrimination and suppression remain against the law in this country.

Yet, the bill before us goes far beyond the original VRA and would subject every State to preclearance, an extraordinary measure established in 1965 to prevent Democratic-led Southern States, with a history of discrimination, from intimidating and preventing African Americans from voting.

If you vote for this legislation, you are voting for a Federal takeover of elections; you are removing the people elected at the State and local level to run elections from making decisions about how elections are run, including voter ID laws, and putting an unaccountable, unelected election czar at the DOJ, the Attorney General, in charge of all election decisions in this country.

Members of this body and the American people should be asking the simple question: If it is easier to vote today than at any time in our history and more Americans are voting than ever before, then why are Democrats going to such extreme measures to ensure a Federal takeover of elections?

I hope my colleagues and the American people will see this bill for what it is, a partisan power grab which circumvents the people to ensure a one-party rule.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report I released as ranking member of the House Administration Committee earlier this month titled ``The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority Over Elections.''

[From Representative Rodney Davis (IL-13), Ranking Member, House of

Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Aug. 12, 2021]

Report--The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional Authority

Over Elections

Executive Summary

Republicans believe that every eligible voter who wants to

vote must be able to do so, and all lawful votes must be

counted according to state law. Through an examination of

history, precedent, the Framers' words, debates concerning

ratification, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself,

this document explains the constitutional division of power

envisioned by the Framers between the States and the federal

government with respect to election administration. Article

1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States

have the primary authority over election administration, the

``times, places, and manner of holding elections''.

Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely

secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the

extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate

refusal to pass election laws. As do other aspects of our

federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to

serve to protect one of Americans' most precious freedoms,

the right to vote.

The Constitution reserves to the States the primary

authority to set election legislation and administer

elections--the ``times, places, and manner of holding of

elections''--and Congress' power in this space is purely

secondary to the States' power. Congress' power is to be

employed only in the direst of circumstances. Despite

Democrats' insistence that Congress' power over elections is

unfettered and permits Congress to enact sweeping legislation

like H.R. 1, it is simply not true. History, precedent, the

Framers' words, debates concerning ratification, the Supreme

Court, and the Constitution itself make this exceedingly

clear.

The Framing Generation grappled with the failure of the

Articles of Confederation, which provided for only a weak

national government incapable of preserving the Union. Under

the Articles, the States had exclusive authority over federal

elections held within their territory; but, given the

difficulties the national government had experienced with

State cooperation (e.g., the failure of Rhode Island to send

delegates to the Confederation Congress), the Federalists,

including Alexander Hamilton, were concerned with the

possibility that the States, in an effort to destroy the

federal government, simply might not hold elections or that

an emergency, such as an invasion or insurrection, might

prevent the operation of a State's government, leaving the

Congress without Members and the federal government unable to

respond. Indeed, as counsel for the Democrat Members of our

Committee so keenly observed:

For the Founders, particularly during the Federal

Constitutional Convention, the primary concern was informing

the discussions of federal elections in Article I was the

risk of uncooperative states. For example, Alexander Hamilton

noted that by providing states the authority to run

congressional elections, under Article I, Section 4,

``risk[ed] `leaving the existence of the Union entirely at

their mercy.' '' Following the failings of the Articles of

Confederation, the Founders looked for processes that would

insulate Congress from recalcitrant states. Indeed, ``[t]he

dominant purpose of the Elections Clause, the historical

record bears out, was to empower Congress to override state

election rules, not to restrict the way States enact

legislation[,]'' and that ``the Clause `was the Framers'

insurance against the possibility that a State would refuse

to provide for the election of representatives to the Federal

Congress.' ''

Quite plainly, Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist and

proponent of our Constitution, understood the Elections

Clause as serving only as a sort of emergency fail-safe, not

as a cudgel used to nationalize our elections process.

Writing as Publius to the people of New York, Hamilton

further expounds on the correct understanding of the

Elections Clause: ``T[he] natural order of the subject leads

us to consider, in this place, that provision of the

Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to

regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own

members.''

When questioned at the States' constitutional ratifying

conventions with respect to this provision, the Federalists

confirmed this understanding of a constitutionally limited,

secondary congressional power under Article 1, Section 4:

Maryland: ``[C]onvention delegate James McHenry added that

the risk to the federal government [without a fail-safe

provision] might not arise from state malice: An insurrection

or rebellion might prevent a state legislature from

administering an election.''

N. Carolina: ``An occasion may arise when the exercise of

this ultimate power of Congress may be necessary . . . if a

state should be involved in war, and its legislature could

not assemble, (as was the case of South Carolina and

occasionally of some other states, during the [Revolutionary]

war).''

Pennsylvania: ``Sir, let it be remembered that this power

can only operate in a case of necessity, after the factious

or listless disposition of a particular state has rendered an

interference essential to the salvation of the general

government.''

John Jay made similar claims in New York. And, as

constitutional scholar Robert Natelson, notes in his

invaluable article, The Original Scope of the Congressional

Power to

Regulate Elections, Alexander Contee Hanson, a member of

Congress whose pamphlet supporting the Constitution proved

popular, stated flatly that Congress would exercise its

times, places, and manner authority only in cases of

invasion, legislative neglect or obstinate refusal to pass

election laws [providing for the election of Members of

Congress], or if a state crafted its election laws with a

`sinister purpose' or to injure the general government.''

Cementing his point, Hanson goes further to decree, ``The

exercise of this power must at all times be so very

invidious, that congress will not venture upon it without

some very cogent and substantial reason.'' In Floor debate

during the 117th Congress concerning H.R. 1, the Democrats'

intended nationalization of elections, Ranking Member Davis

argued, as he has many other times, that:

According to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution,

States have the primary role in establishing ``[t]he Times,

Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and

Representatives.'' Under the Constitution, Congress has a

purely secondary role in this space and must restrain itself

from acting improperly and unconstitutionally. Federal

election legislation should never be the first step and must

never impose burdensome, unfunded federal mandates on state

and local elections officials. When Congress does speak, it

must devote its efforts only to resolving highly significant

and substantial deficiencies. State legislatures are the

primary venues to correct most issues.

In fact, had the Democrats' view of the Elections Clause

been accepted at the time of the Constitution's drafting--

that is, that it offers Congress unfettered power over

federal elections--it is likely that the Constitution would

not have been ratified or that an amendment to this language

would have been required. Indeed, at least seven of the

original 13 states--over half and enough to prevent the

Constitution from being ratified--expressed specific concerns

with the language of the Elections Clause. However,

``[l]eading Federalists . . .'' assured them, ``. . . that,

even without amendment, the [Elections] Clause should be

construed as limited to emergencies.''

Three states, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island,

specifically made their ratification contingent on this

understanding being made express:

New York: ``Under these impressions and declaring that the

rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and the

Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said

Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which

have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive

early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the

Name and in [sic] the behalf of the People of the State of

New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said

Constitution. In full Confidence . . . that the Congress will

not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the

times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or

Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall

neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the

purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the

same, and that in those cases such power will only be

exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make

provision in the Premises[.]''

N. Carolina: ``That Congress shall not alter, modify, or

interfere in the times, places, or manner of holding

elections for senators and representatives, or either of

them, except when the legislature of any state shall neglect,

refuse or be disabled by invasion or rebellion, to prescribe

the same.''

Rhode Island: ``Under these impressions, and declaring,

that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and

that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said

constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter

mentioned, will receive an early and mature consideration,

and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution,

speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the

name, and in [sic] the behalf of the People, of the State of

Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these

Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution. In

full confidence . . . That the Congress will not make or

alter any regulation in this State, respecting the times,

places and manner of holding elections for senators and

representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall

neglect, or refuse to make laws or regulations for the

purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the

same; and that [i]n those cases, such power will only be

exercised, until the legislature of this State shall make

provision in the Premises[.]

This clearly demonstrates that the Framers designed and the

ratifying States understood the Elections Clause to serve

solely as a protective backstop to ensure the preservation of

the Federal Government, not as a font of limitless power for

Congress to wrest control of federal elections from the

States.

This understanding was also reinforced by debate during the

first Congress that convened under the Constitution. ``During

the first session of the First Congress . . . Representative

Aedanus Burke unsuccessfully proposed a constitutional

amendment to limit the Times, Places and Manner Clause to

emergencies.'' But those on both sides of the Burke amendment

debate already understood the Elections Clause to limit

Federal elections power to emergencies.

For example, the recorded description of opponent

Representative Goodhue's comments notes that he believed the

Elections Clause as written was intended to prevent ``. . .

the State Governments [from] oppos[ing] and thwart[ing] the

general one to such a degree as finally to overturn it. Now,

to guard against this evil, he wished the Federal Government

to possess every power necessary to its existence.'' With any

change to the original text therefore unnecessary to achieve

Burke's desired goal, Mr. Goodhue voted against the proposed

amendment.

Similarly, proponent Representative Smith of South Carolina

also believed the original text of the Elections Clause

already limited the Federal Government's power over federal

elections to emergencies and so thought there would be no

harm in supporting an amendment to make that language

express. So, even the records of the First Congress reflect a

recognition of the emergency nature of congressional power

over federal elections.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has supported this

understanding. In Smiley v. Holm, the Court held that Article

1, Section 4 of the Constitution reserved to the States the

primary

``. . . authority to provide a complete code for

congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but

in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting,

protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt

practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and

canvassers, and making and publication of election returns;

in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure

and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order

to enforce the fundamental right involved. And these

requirements would be nugatory if they did not have

appropriate sanctions in the definition of offenses and

punishments. All this is comprised in the subject of ``times,

places and manner of holding elections,'' and involves

lawmaking in its essential features and most important

aspect.''

This holding, of course, is consistent with the

understanding of the Elections Clause since the framing of

the Constitution. The Smiley Court also held that while

Congress maintains the authority to ``. . . supplement these

state regulations or [to] substitute its own[ ]'', such

authority remains merely ``a general supervisory power over

the whole subject.'' More recently, the Court noted in

Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. that ``[t]his

grant of congressional power [that is, the fail-safe

provision in the Elections Clause] was the Framers' insurance

against the possibility that a State would refuse to provide

for the election of representatives to the Federal

Congress.'' The Court explained that the Elections Clause ``.

. . imposes [upon the States] the duty . . . to prescribe the

time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and

Senators[.]'' And, while, as the Court noted, ``[t]he power

of Congress over the `Times, Places and Manner' of

congressional elections `is paramount, and may be exercised

at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and

so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations

effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent

therewith[ ]'', the Inter-Tribal Court explained, quoting

extensively from The Federalist no. 59, that it was clear

that the congressional fail-safe included in the Elections

Clause was intended for the sorts of governmental self-

preservation discussed in this Report: ``[E]very government

ought to contain in itself the means of its own

preservation[.]''; ``[A]n exclusive power of regulating

elections for the national government, in the hands of the

State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union

entirely at their mercy. They could at any moment annihilate

it by neglecting to provide for the choice of persons to

administer its affairs.''

Conclusion

It is clear in every respect that the congressional fail-

safe described in the Elections Clause vests purely secondary

authority over federal elections in the federal legislative

branch and that the primary authority rests with the States.

Congressional authority is intended to be, and as a matter of

constitutional fact is, limited to addressing the worst

imaginable issues, such as invasion or other matters that

might lead to a State not electing representatives to

constitute the two Houses of Congress.'' Our authority has

never extended to the day-to-day authority over the ``Times,

Places and Manner of Election'' that the Constitution clearly

reserves to the States. Unfortunately for Democrats, this

clear restriction on congressional authority means that we do

not have the power to implement the overwhelming majority--if

not the entirety--of their biggest legislative priority, H.R.

1 and related legislation, which would purport to nationalize

our elections and centralize their administration in

Washington, D.C. Thankfully, the Framers had the foresight to

write our Constitution so as to prevent those bad policies

from going into effect and preserve the health of our

republic.

Madam Speaker, I have a joint report from the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary Republicans titled ``An Unprecedented and Unconstitutional Power Grab: How Democrats are Abusing the Constitution to Nationalize Elections.''

Madam Speaker, I have the Census Bureau report detailing record turnout in 2020; the Election Integrity Network H.R. 4 fact sheet; the Honest Election Project analysis titled ``H.R. 4 Legal and Constitutional Challenges''; the Independent Women's Forum analysis titled ``D.C. Bureaucrats and Judges Will Steal the Pen in Drawing Voting Districts''; and also the Foundation for Government Accountability analysis titled ``H.R. 4 Isn't Voting Progress. It is a Power Grab.''

Madam Speaker, I have the following reports: an analysis of H.R. 4 titled ``How H.R. 4 Would Let Leftist Extremists Control the Entire Nation's Elections''; the Lawyers Democracy Fund H.R. 4 analysis; a RealClear Politics article titled ``'Jim Crow 2.0' Is Imaginary''; a letter opposing H.R. 4 from the Independent Women's Forum and others; a Heritage analysis titled ``Another Bill in Congress to Give Partisan Bureaucrats Control Over State Election Laws''; and lastly, the Honest Elections Project Action analysis titled ``H.R. 4: The Nancy Pelosi Power Grab.''

Madam Speaker, a foundational dependency of any democracy sustaining is its citizens having confidence in the outcome of its elections. Simply put, if people don't have faith in elections, democracy doesn't work.

According to a recent Gallup poll, America's confidence in our elections has decreased by 20 percent since 2009. Ensuring that our elections are run in a way that makes it easy to vote and hard to cheat increases confidence. A common best practice to ensure election integrity are voter IDs, a way for people to prove they are who they say they are.

For Democrats to equate this with the poll taxes of the early 20th century is a ludicrous, false equivalency. According to the Honest Elections Project, 77 percent of all Americans support voter ID requirements, including 75 percent of independents, 64 percent of African Americans, and 76 percent of low-income voters.

Knowing that, what does the majority do? They include language in H.R. 4 that would restrict commonsense voter ID requirements and require the judicial branch to consider voter ID laws as evidence of voter suppression, and by extension, racism. That doesn't restore faith in elections.

H.R. 4, as introduced, would require preapproval by an unaccountable election czar in the Biden DOJ before any State or locality under preclearance could enact popular, commonsense voter ID laws. H.R. 4 goes even further, requiring almost a dozen States to have their existing voter ID laws examined by the Biden DOJ before they can continue to be enforced.

These are the same election integrity laws that have been in place for years. This is a partisan power grab of maintaining control.

Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 4 to strike from the bill the provisions that penalize State and local governments who implement commonsense voter ID requirements.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article with breaking news: The Texas Speaker of the House signs arrest warrants for absent Democrats in bid to end chamber's weekslong stalemate to fight against suppression and oppression in S.B. 7.

[From the Texas Tribune, Aug. 10, 2021]

Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan Signs Arrest Warrants for Absent

Democrats in Bid To End Chamber's Weekslong Stalemate

(By Cassandra Pollock and Patrick Svitek)

House Speaker Dade Phelan signed arrest warrants Tuesday

evening for Democrats who broke quorum to block a

controversial GOP elections bill. The warrants will be

delivered to the House Sergeant-at-Arms Wednesday. Credit:

Jordan Vonderhaar for The Texas Tribune. Sign up for The

Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on

the most essential Texas news.

Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan on Tuesday evening signed

civil arrest warrants for 52 House Democrats still missing

from the state Capitol as he aimed to regain the quorum

needed for the chamber to begin moving legislation during the

second special session.

The move was confirmed by Phelan spokesperson Enrique

Marquez, who said the warrants ``will be delivered to the

House Sergeant-at-Arms tomorrow morning for service.''

The warrants were first reported by The Dallas Morning

News. Democrats who may be arrested would not face criminal

charges or fines and could only be brought to the House

chamber. Dozens of minority party members fled to Washington,

D.C., during the first special session to block a GOP voting

restrictions bill.

The 52 warrants represent all but 15 Democrats in the lower

chamber. There were at least 11 present Tuesday. There were

no additional new Democrats on the floor Tuesday after four

returned a day earlier--and drew the wrath of some Democratic

colleagues still in Washington, and prompted a renewed push

inside the party to hold the line.

Earlier Tuesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to

authorize law enforcement to track down lawmakers absent from

the chamber.

That 80-12 vote came hours after the Texas Supreme Court

ordered that those missing Democrats could soon be detained

by state authorities. The order by the all-GOP court came at

the request of Gov. Greg Abbott and Phelan, both of whom had

asked the court Monday to overturn a ruling from a state

district judge that blocked those leaders from ordering the

arrest of the quorum-breaking Democrats.

In a statement after the warrants were signed Tuesday

evening, state Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie, who chairs

the House Democratic Caucus, said it is ``fully within our

rights as legislators to break quorum to protect our

constituents'' and reiterated Democrats' commitment ``to

fighting with everything we have against Republicans' attacks

on our freedom to vote.''

Since the Legislature gaveled in Saturday for its second

special session ordered by Abbott, the House has been unable

to make a quorum as dozens of Democrats have remained absent

from the chamber.

When the House was unable to meet its 100-member threshold

to conduct business Monday, members adopted a procedural move

known as a ``call of the House'' in an effort to secure a

quorum. That move locks doors to the chamber and prevents

members on the floor from leaving unless they have permission

in writing from the speaker.

That vote earlier Tuesday marks the second time in recent

weeks that the chamber has voted to send law enforcement

after Democrats still missing from the House.

During the first special session in July, and after more

than 50 House Democrats flew to D.C., members present

authorized state authorities to track down their colleagues--

but the move carried little weight since Texas law

enforcement lacks jurisdiction outside the state.

By the time that first 30-day stretch ended last week,

Phelan had signed only one civil arrest warrant, for Rep.

Philip Cortez, a San Antonio Democrat. But that move came too

late since Cortez, who had briefly returned to Austin, had

already gone back to the nation's capital.

Intraparty pressure has been mounting on House Democrats

since the second special session started. After at least four

of them returned to the floor Monday, bringing the chamber

within five members of a quorum, some of their Democratic

colleagues who were still in Washington unleashed on them.

Rep. Ana-Maria Ramos of Richardson tweeted at the returning

Democrats that they ``all threw us under the bus today.''

Pressure ramped up Tuesday morning, when a coalition of

Democratic-aligned groups released a statement urging House

Democrats to hold firm and continue breaking quorum. The 21

groups included Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, the state's

Sierra Club chapter, the Texas Organizing Project, Progress

Texas, the Communications Workers of America and several

groups that advocate for Latino Texans.

``To every pro-democracy Texas lawmaker: the only way to

preserve our right to vote and the best way to fight is to

stay off the House floor,'' the coalition's statement said.

The group also released a four-page memo arguing that far

more was at stake in the second special session than just the

elections bill, citing a ``host of radical conservative

priorities'' throughout the agenda. The memo was particularly

emphatic about a new proposal for the second special

session--dropping the quorum threshold to a simple majority--

calling it an ``ominous allusion to reducing or eliminating

minority rights in the Legislature, breaking centuries of

Texas bipartisanship.''

Meanwhile, a number of House Democrats have returned to

Texas but have not come to the House floor to help provide

quorum.

One of them is state Rep. Evelina ``Lina'' Ortega, who says

she is home in El Paso but not showing up on the House floor

until there is already a quorum or a majority of the

Democratic caucus decides to be there.

``I pretty much feel that it's a shame that the governor

and Republicans . . . are really using the dirtiest tactic

available to them,'' Ortega told the Tribune on Tuesday

evening after the House's vote to send law enforcement after

the absentee Democrats. ``To me it's all about a power grab.

I'm glad to stay away and continue to fight them.''

As for whether she is concerned about arrest, Ortega said

she believes it would be a ``big mistake'' by Republicans.

``We'll see what happens,'' she said.

This is John Lewis, and he says: ``We will stand up for what is right, for what is fair, and what is just,'' and we will ensure that we have courage, the kind of courage that is ``raw courage.''

Today, I ask my Republican colleagues to reject the big lie, to reject the insurrection, and to reject the idea that there is not voter suppression.

I stand with H.R. 4, a bill that is the continuation of the reauthorization that I have done over the years as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I thank Chairman Nadler, Chairman Cohen, Terri Sewell, all those who are part of this great effort, and our whip.

But the real important point is that we give the vote back to the American people, to the disabled, to young people, to senior citizens, and we reject that unfortunate statement. The State of Texas attorney general, the secretary of state, never found any fraud in the election, in particular in 2020.

I am very glad that this will particularly have the look-back. It will protect us against such dilution and diminution.

This is a bill that has to pass, and the Senate has to pass it. Give the vote back to the American people. Have raw courage.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an original cosponsor, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which corrects the damage done in recent years to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and commits the national government to protecting the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and without injustices that previously prevented them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship.

I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama for introducing this

legislation, to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and the Democratic leadership, and to the many colleagues and countless number of ordinary Americans who never stopped agitating and working to protect the precious right to vote.

Madam Speaker, in response to the Supreme Court's invitation in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), H.R. 4 provides a new coverage formula based on ``current conditions'' and creates a new coverage formula that hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years.

It is significant that this 25-year period is measured on a rolling basis to keep up with ``current conditions,'' so only states and political subdivisions that have a recent record of racial discrimination in voting are covered.

States and political subdivisions that qualify for preclearance will be covered for a period of 10 years, but if they have a clean record during that time period, they can be extracted from coverage.

H.R. 4 also establishes ``practice-based preclearance,'' which would focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect practices that are most likely to be tainted by discriminatory intent or to have discriminatory effects, as demonstrated by a broad historical record.

Under the bill, this process of reviewing changes in voting is limited to a set of specific practices, including such things as:

1. Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse.

2. Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse.

3. Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse; and

4. Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or to register.

Madam Speaker, while I am proud to strongly support this bill, I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment at the decision to not include my amendments to this bill.

Jackson Lee Amendments #6, #7, and #8 are easy to understand and vitally important--they simply protect state legislators who, in keeping with their sacred oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, refuse to perform unconstitutional acts under the guise of legislative process.

Specifically:

Jackson Lee Amendment #6 allows for federal judicial review of any warrants issued for the arrest of a state legislator where said state legislator refuses to engage in the state legislative process due to a reasonably held belief that doing so would infringe on the right to vote.

Jackson Lee Amendment #7 inserts a Sense of the Congress stating that a state's power to arrest a duly elected representative of a constituency for refusal to engage in a state's legislative process should be subject to federal judicial review where such elected representative's refusal is premised upon a reasonable belief that participation would result in the suppression of voting rights or other violations of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Jackson Lee Amendment #8 privileges against arrest any member of a state legislature for any reason except treason or murder while the legislature of that state is debating or voting on legislation relating to redistricting or election practices or legislation relating to the right to vote in federal, state, or municipal elections.

These amendments would have critically strengthened H.R. 4 because state legislatures across the country are utilizing every weapon in their arsenal to curtail voting rights; and no one should fear arrest due to fighting for the Constitutional rights of their constituents.

This includes my home state of Texas, where earlier this month officers of the Texas House of Representatives delivered civil arrest warrants, signed by the Texas state Speaker of the House, for more than 50 absent Democrats in an attempt force a vote on the naked attempt at voter suppression known as Texas S.B. 7.

This is the latest Republican attack on these brave state legislators, which began on May 30, where after a night of impassioned debate and procedural objections, these Democratic lawmakers in Texas took action to block passage of this massive overhaul of the state's election laws.

With little more than an hour before the voting deadline, these Democrats staged a walkout, depriving their Republican colleagues of the 100-member quorum needed to pass the measure.

And when Governor Abbot called a special session in Texas for the purpose of passing horrific voter suppression legislation, those brave Texas Democrats rose to the challenge again and broke quorum.

Under the threat of arrest, those heroes fighting for voting rights have escaped to Washington, D.C.

Since the arrest warrants were issued, it is my understanding that mass intimidation of the Texas House Democrats has occurred.

State officials came to their homes with the purpose of dragging them back to eviscerate the voting rights of thousands of Texas.

These elected Texas Representatives have had to hide away from their friends, their families, and their loved ones, all to ensure that Texans retain their most sacred of rights.

They are risking their freedom to ensure every Texan has full access to their constitutional right to vote.

Although the Republicans have tried to spin this in many different ways, let's be clear--Texas Democrats are taking a righteous stand for our democracy.

Breaking quorum isn't an easy choice--legislators must leave family, friends, constituents, and their important work for days or weeks.

But by making this choice, these Texas Democrats are fighting for all of us, because voting is not a partisan issue.

Access to the ballot is a sacred cornerstone of our democracy, and we must protect it at all costs.

Last month marked one year since we lost a champion for voting rights, and the namesake of H.R. 4, Congressman John Lewis.

In his final words, he reminded us that, ``the vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent [we] have in a democratic society,'' and that ``Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe.''

We may no longer have John Lewis with us, but in his absence, the Texas Democrats are following his example, and stirring up good trouble, necessary trouble, for our right to vote.

They have followed the truth in his words and have sacrificed much to follow the highest calling of their hearts.

Texas Republicans seek to pass voting regulation laws focused on diverse, urban areas, by setting rules for the distribution of polling places in only the handful of counties with a population of at least 1 million--most of which are either under Democratic control or won by Democrats in recent national and statewide elections.

These bills would limit extended early voting hours, prohibits drive- thru voting and makes it illegal for local election officials to proactively send applications to vote by mail to voters, even if they qualify.

These bills are at the forefront of Texas Republicans' crusade to further restrict voting in Texas, which saw the highest turnout in decades in 2020, with Democrats continuing to drive up their vote counts in the state's urban centers and diversifying suburban communities.

Standing between all of this and the voting rights of thousands of Texans are those brave state legislators who currently have a warrant out for their arrest.

No elected representative in this great nation should fear that he or she will be locked away for simply standing up for justice and ensuring that America's citizens have the right to vote.

For this reason, I believe that H.R. 4 would have been greatly strengthened by the inclusion of my amendments in the Rule.

Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage all Members of Congress to support this bill, because it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

It is useful, Madam Speaker, to recount how we arrived at this day. Madam Speaker, fifty-six years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery.

Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals.

The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote.

On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia for whom this important legislation is named, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote.

``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.

No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will never forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and experience.

On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act:

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by

man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible

walls which imprison men because they are different from

other men.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised.

In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results.

After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote.

In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress.

Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South.

Because of the Voting Rights Act, in 2007 there were more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever.

Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress.

Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.

The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which requires that states and localities with a chronic record of discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before making any changes to voting processes.

The preclearance requirement of Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst.

Between 1982 and 2006, Section 5 stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas.

Passed in 1965 with the extraordinary leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, the greatest legislative genius of our lifetime, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was bringing dramatic change in many states across the South.

But in 1972, change was not coming fast enough or in many places in Texas.

In fact, Texas, which had never elected a woman to Congress or an African American to the Texas State Senate, was not covered by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the language minorities living in South Texas were not protected at all.

But thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Barbara Jordan was elected to Congress, giving meaning to the promise of the Voting Rights Act that all citizens would at long last have the right to cast a vote for person of their community, from their community, for their community.

Madam Speaker, it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities.

We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the need to pass this legislation is urgent because the right to vote--that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''-- faces grave threats.

The threats stem from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.

Not to be content with the monument to disgrace that is the Shelby County decision, the activist right-wing conservative majority on the Roberts Court, on July 1, 2021, issued its evil twin, the decision in

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 601, I call up the bill (H.R. 3684) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the measure under consideration,

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Americans are tired of potholes damaging their cars, failing bridges, decrepit transit, trains that derail, water mains that explode, sewer systems that back up into their basements and pollute our rivers.

More than 70 percent of Americans strongly support a major Federal investment in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. The last major increase in Federal support for infrastructure was during the Clinton administration's first term--the first term of the Clinton administration.

Then, President Bush did nothing on the issue.

President Obama came in talking about infrastructure investment. He passed the American Recovery Act that invested 4 percent of all that money in infrastructure. I worked with Chairman Jim Oberstar; I chaired the subcommittee. We wrote a very ambitious surface transportation reauthorization, which he had been promised by the Obama administration would be next. But it wasn't. They pulled the plug.

Then came President Trump, the builder. He invited a large group of us down to the White House. We had a long discussion, and we agreed, and finally, at the end, he turned to the Speaker and says: Nancy, Nancy, how much do you need?

And she says: $1.5 trillion, Mr. President.

He says: No, no, no, no; $1.8 trillion. No, no, no; two sounds better, $2 trillion.

Okay. We agreed to come back in 3 weeks and hammer out the details.

We came back in 3 weeks. He walked into the room, and he had a hissy fit, slammed the door, walked out, and that was the end of it, except for the seven fake infrastructure weeks during the Trump administration.

Now, the House, on the 1st of July, passed the INVEST Act, a bill that went through a real legislative process, hours in committee, amendments, hours on the floor, amendments. That was the bill the country most needed for the 21st century infrastructure. I had hoped to go to conference with the Senate, actually go through the legislative process--pretty darn rare around here these days, the way things should work, the way they are supposed to work under the Constitution. Unfortunately, because of the Senate filibuster, that wasn't to happen.

So, this President rolled up his sleeves and waded in because he promised to get infrastructure done. He negotiated first with one group of Republicans. That didn't work. He then found another group, mostly Republicans, two Democrats, and spent endless hours between the White House and that group, negotiating a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

In the end, when this bill came to the floor of the Senate, 19 Republican Senators voted for it--19 Republican Senators voted for it.

Here are a few things from the White House fact sheet on that bill. It makes the largest Federal investment in public transit ever; makes the largest Federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak; makes the single largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the Interstate Highway System; makes the largest investment in clean drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in American history, delivering clean water to millions of Americans; ensures every American has access to reliable high-speed internet; tackles climate change with the largest investment in clean energy and EV infrastructure, electrifying thousands of school and transit buses; reconnecting communities; safe streets; $17 billion for ports; $25 billion for airports.

This is what the President managed to negotiate with the recalcitrant Senate and get around the filibuster and get 19 Republican votes.

This bill is not perfect. It is not the bill that I would have written. I oppose their decision not to correct the decade-long cuts to the bus program; the provision creating a dedicated set-aside for polluting buses within the Low or No Emission Vehicle Program. That is kind of laughable. I oppose the failure to tighten the Buy American Act requirements for transit rolling stock or to further crack down on predatory Chinese state-owned enterprises, which was in our bill, as well as the omission of the investments in fix it first and mandatory greenhouse gas reductions.

I will continue to work on addressing these issues. But the reality today before us is that this is the only option with an evenly divided Senate and the stupid rules of the Senate, including

the filibuster. So it is this or nothing on the long overdue investment in America's infrastructure.

I hope the Republicans on the other side will support it. If they don't, I would like them to tell us exactly what they would do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a summary of the bill written by the White House.

Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal

Today, the President and the bipartisan group announced

agreement on the details of a once-in-a-generation investment

in our infrastructure, which will be taken up in the Senate

for consideration. In total, the deal includes $550 billion

in new federal investment in America's infrastructure. The

bipartisan infrastructure deal will grow the economy, enhance

our competitiveness, create good- jobs, and make our economy

more sustainable, resilient, and just.

The deal will create good-paying, union jobs. With the

President's Build Back Better Agenda, these investments will

add, on average, around 2 million jobs per year over the

course of the decade, while accelerating America's path to

full employment and increasing labor force participation.

President Biden believes that we must invest in our country

and in our people, by creating good-paying union jobs,

tackling the climate crisis, and growing the economy

sustainably and equitably for decades to come. The Bipartisan

Infrastructure deal will deliver progress towards those

objectives for working families across the country. The

Bipartisan Infrastructure deal:

Makes the largest federal investment in public transit ever

Makes the largest federal investment in passenger rail

since the creation of Amtrak

Makes the single largest dedicated bridge investment since

the construction of the interstate highway system

Makes the largest investment in clean drinking water and

waste water infrastructure in American history, delivering

clean water to millions of families

Ensures every American has access to reliable high-speed

internet

Helps us tackle the climate crisis by making the largest

investment in clean energy transmission and EV infrastructure

in history; electrifying thousands of school and transit

buses across the country; and creating a new Grid Development

Authority to build a clean, 21st century electric grid.

The President promised to work across the aisle to deliver

results for working families. He believes demonstrating that

democracies can deliver is a critical challenge for his

presidency. Today's agreement shows that we can come together

to position American workers, farmers, and businesses to

compete and win in the 21st century.

Roads, Bridges, and Major Projects

One in five miles, or 173,000 total miles, of our highways

and major roads and 45,000 bridges are in poor condition.

Bridges in poor condition pose heightened challenges in rural

communities, which often may rely on a single bridge for the

passage of emergency service vehicles. The Bipartisan

Infrastructure deal will invest $110 billion of new funds for

roads, bridges, and major projects, and reauthorize the

surface transportation program for the next five years

building on bipartisan surface transportation reauthorization

bills passed out of committee earlier this year. This

investment will repair and rebuild our roads and bridges with

a focus on climate change mitigation, resilience, equity, and

safety for all users, including cyclists and pedestrians. The

bill includes a total of $40 billion of new funding for

bridge repair, replacement, and rehabilitation, which is the

single largest dedicated bridge investment since the

construction of the interstate highway system. The bill also

includes a total of $17.5 billion for major projects that are

too large or complex for traditional funding programs but

will deliver significant economic benefits to communities.

Safety

America has one of the highest road fatality rates in the

industrialized world. The

deal invests $11 billion in transportation safety programs,

including a new Safe Streets for All program to help states

and localities reduce crashes and fatalities in their

communities, especially for cyclists and pedestrians. It will

more than double funding directed to programs that improve

the safety of people and vehicles in our transportation

system, including highway safety, truck safety, and pipeline

and hazardous materials safety.

Public Transit

America's transit infrastructure is inadequate--with a

multibillion-dollar repair backlog, representing more than

24,000 buses, 5,000 rail cars, 200 stations, and thousands of

miles of track, signals, and power systems in need of

replacement. The deal invests $39 billion of new investment

to modernize transit, and improve accessibility for the

elderly and people with disabilities, in addition to

continuing the existing transit programs for five years as

part of surface transportation reauthorization. This is the

largest Federal investment in public transit in history, and

devotes a larger share of funds from surface transportation

reauthorization to transit in the history of the programs. It

will repair and upgrade aging infrastructure, modernize bus

and rail fleets, make stations accessible to all users, and

bring transit service to new communities. It will replace

thousands of transit vehicles, including buses, with clean,

zero emission vehicles. And, it will benefit communities of

color since these households are twice as likely to take

public transportation and many of these communities lack

sufficient public transit options.

Passenger and Freight Rail

Unlike highways and transit, rail lacks a multi-year

funding stream to address deferred maintenance, enhance

existing corridors, and build new lines in high-potential

locations. The deal positions Amtrak and rail to play a

central role in our transportation and economic future. This

the largest investment in passenger rail since the creation

of Amtrak 50 years ago. The deal invests $66 billion in rail

to eliminate the Amtrak maintenance backlog, modernize the

Northeast Corridor, and bring world-class rail service to

areas outside the northeast and midAtlantic. Within these

totals, $22 million would be provided as grants to Amtrak,

$24 billion as federal-state partnership grants for Northeast

Corridor modernization, $12 billion for partnership grants

for intercity rail service, including high-speed rail, $5

billion for rail improvement and safety grants, and $3

billion for grade crossing safety improvements.

EV Infrastructure

U.S. market share of plug-in electric vehicle (EV) sales is

only one-third the size of the Chinese EV market. The

President believes that must change. The bill invests $7.5

billion to build out a national network of EV chargers. This

is the first-ever national investment in EV charging

infrastructure in the United States and is a critical element

in the Biden-Harris Administration's plan to accelerate the

adoption of EVs to address the climate crisis and support

domestic manufacturing jobs. The bill will provide funding

for deployment of EV chargers along highway corridors to

facilitate long-distance travel and within communities to

provide convenient charging where people live, work, and

shop. Federal funding will have a particular focus on rural,

disadvantaged, and hard-to-reach communities.

Electric Buses

American school buses play a critical role in expanding

access to education, but they are also a significant source

of pollution. The deal will deliver thousands of electric

school buses nationwide, including in rural communities,

helping school districts across the country buy clean,

American-made, zero emission buses, and replace the yellow

school bus fleet for America's children. The deal invests

$2.5 billion in zero emission buses, $2.5 billion in low

emission buses, and $2.5 billion for ferries. These

investments will drive demand for American-made batteries and

vehicles, creating jobs and supporting domestic

manufacturing, while also removing diesel buses from some of

our most vulnerable communities. In addition, they will help

the more than 25 million children and thousands of bus

drivers who breathe polluted air on their rides to and from

school. Diesel air pollution is linked to asthma and other

health problems that hurt our communities and cause students

to miss school, particularly in communities of color and

Tribal communities.

Reconnecting Communities

Too often, past transportation investments divided

communities--like the Claiborne Expressway in New Orleans or

1-81 in Syracuse--or it left out the people most in need of

affordable transportation options. In particular, significant

portions of the interstate highway system were built through

Black neighborhoods. The deal creates a first-ever program to

reconnect communities divided by transportation

infrastructure. The program will fund planning, design,

demolition, and reconstruction of street grids, parks, or

other infrastructure through $1 billion of dedicated funding.

Airports, Ports, and Waterways

The United States built modem aviation, but our airports

lag far behind our competitors. According to some rankings,

no U.S. airports rank in the top 25 of airports worldwide.

Our ports and waterways need repair and reimagination too.

The bill invests $17 billion in port infrastructure and $25

billion in airports to address repair and maintenance

backlogs, reduce congestion and emissions near ports and

airports, and drive electrification and other low-carbon

technologies. Modem, resilient, and sustainable p011,

airport, and freight infrastructure will support U.S.

competitiveness by removing bottlenecks and expediting

commerce and reduce the environmental impact on neighboring

communities.

Resilience and Western Water Infrastructure

Millions of Americans feel the effects of climate change

each year when their roads wash out, airport power goes down,

or schools get flooded. Last year alone, the United States

faced 22 extreme weather and climate-related disaster events

with losses exceeding $1 billion each--a cumulative price tag

of nearly $100 billion. People of color are more likely to

live in areas most vulnerable to flooding and other climate

change-related weather events. The deal makes our communities

safer and our infrastructure more resilient to the impacts of

climate change and cyber attacks, with an investment of over

$50 billion. This includes funds to protect against droughts

and floods. in addition to a major investment in

weatherization. The bill is the largest investment in the

resilience of physical and natural systems in American

history.

Clean Drinking Water

Currently, up to 10 million American households and 400,000

schools and child care centers lack safe drinking water. The

deal's $55 billion investment represents the largest

investment in clean drinking water in American history,

including dedicated funding to replace lead service lines and

the dangerous chemical PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl). It

will replace all of the nation's lead pipes and service

lines. From rural towns to struggling cities, the deal

invests in water infrastructure across America, including in

Tribal Nations and disadvantaged communities that need it

most.

High Speed Internet

Broadband internet is necessary for Americans to do their

jobs, to participate equally in school learning, health care,

and to stay connected. Yet, by one definition, more than 30

million Americans live in areas where there is no broadband

infrastructure that provides minimally acceptable speeds--a

particular problem in rural communities throughout the

country. The deal's $65 billion investment ensures every

American has access to reliable high-speed internet with an

historic investment in broadband infrastructure deployment,

just as the federal government made a historic effort to

provide electricity to every American nearly one hundred

years ago.

The bill will also help lower prices for internet service

by requiring funding recipients to offer a low-cost

affordable plan, by creating price transparency and helping

families comparison shop, and by boosting competition in

areas where existing providers aren't providing adequate

service. It will also help close the digital divide by

passing the Digital Equity Act, ending digital redlining,

creating a permanent program to help more low-income

households access the internet, and establishing a new

program to help low-income households obtain the devices

required to access the internet.

Environmental Remediation

In thousands of rural and urban communities around the

country, hundreds of thousands of former industrial and

energy sites are now idle--sources of blight and pollution.

26 percent of Black Americans and 29 percent of Hispanic

Americans live within 3 miles of a Superfund site, a higher

percentage than for Americans overall. Proximity to a

Superfund site can lead to elevated levels of lead in

children's blood. The deal invests $21 billion in

environmental remediation, making the largest investment in

addressing the legacy pollution that harms the public health

of communities and neighborhoods in American history,

creating good-paying union jobs in hard-hit energy

communities and advancing economic and environmental justice.

The bill includes funds to clean up superfund and brownfield

sites, reclaim abandoned mine land and cap orphaned gas

wells.

Power Infrastructure

As the recent Texas power outages demonstrated, our aging

electric grid needs urgent modernization. A Department of

Energy study found that power outages cost the U.S. economy

up to $70 billion annually. The deal's $73 billion investment

is the single largest investment in clean energy transmission

in American history. It upgrades our power infrastructure,

including by building thousands of miles of new, resilient

transmission lines to facilitate the expansion of renewable

energy. It creates a new Grid Deployment Authority, invests

in research and development for advanced transmission and

electricity distribution technologies, and promotes smart

grid technologies that deliver flexibility and resilience. It

invests in demonstration projects and research hubs for next

generation technologies like advanced nuclear reactors,

carbon capture, and clean hydrogen.

Offsets

In the years ahead, the deal, which will generate

significant economic benefits, and it is financed through a

combination of redirecting unspent emergency relief funds,

targeted corporate user fees, strengthening tax enforcement

when it comes to crypto

currencies, and other bipartisan measures, in addition to the

revenue generated from higher economic growth as a result of

the investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be able to stand here today remembering the Constitution and saying to my good friends that this floor belongs to the American people. This floor is a floor, as John

Lewis has often challenged us, that calls upon us to be courageous.

I am also here to say to you that I have no doubt that the United States military, with the will of the American people, will ensure that all Americans come out of Afghanistan and our allies. But at the same time, I am grateful for the idea of a build back America act that will have Texas get universal pre-K childcare, tuition-free community college. And then, of course, the invest act that will see us get $537 million for bridges, $100 million for broadband, $3.3 billion for public transit so that our climate can improve.

I know that the Texas delegation, State representatives who sacrificed and came to this Nation's Capital to cry out for justice, Texas Democratic representatives who are here in this place now, that H.R. 4 is going to save the day, not partisan, but it is going to make us a democratic Republic. And we need to pass H.R. 4 because John Lewis said: Do you have any courage?

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an original cosponsor, I rise today in strong support of the Rule governing debate of Senate Amendment to H.R. 3684, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; S. Con. Res. 14, Budget Resolution For Build Back Better Plan; and H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in strong support of the Rule governing debate of Senate Amendment to H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which represents the most significant long-term investment in the United States' infrastructure and competitiveness in nearly a century.

This legislation will make life better for Americans across the country, create a generation of good-paying union jobs, grow our economy, invest in communities that have too often been left behind, and better position the United States to compete globally and win in the 21st century.

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, yet after decades of underinvestment, the country's roads, bridges, and water systems are crumbling, and our electric grid is vulnerable to catastrophic outages.

Too many families lack access to affordable, high-speed internet, clean drinking water, and public transportation, and too often, past infrastructure investments have disproportionately and negatively impacted low-income neighborhoods and communities of color.

Investing in our infrastructure--and investing in communities across the country--can create millions of good-paying jobs in underserved areas and lay the groundwork for not only a full economic recovery from the pandemic, but also usher in a new era of American innovation and prosperity.

The historic Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act invests $550 billion in new federal investment to make an array of transformational investments in our country's infrastructure including:

$121 billion to repair and rebuild our roads and bridges with a focus on climate change mitigation, resilience, equity, and safety for all users, including cyclists and pedestrians.

$89.9 billion to modernize America's public transit, by increasing routes, reducing the transit maintenance backlog, and providing more frequent service, resulting in better options for riders, improved environmental outcomes, and increased access to jobs and essential destinations.

$66 billion to modernize and expand passenger and freight rail networks across the country, to position our railways to play a central role in our transportation and economic future.

$15 billion in zero emission and clean buses and ferries and to build the first-ever national network of electric vehicle chargers in the United States, in order to address the adoption of electric vehicles and support domestic manufacturing jobs.

$42 billion to modernize our airports, ports, and waterways;

$50 billion to weatherize our infrastructure and insulate it against the threats of droughts, floods, and wildfires.

$55 billion to drinking water infrastructure, including eliminating the Nation's lead service lines and pipes, thereby delivering clean drinking water to up to ten million American families and more than 400,000 schools and child care facilities that currently do not have it, including in Tribal nations and disadvantaged communities.

$65 billion to upgrade our power infrastructure to facilitate the expansion of renewable energy.

$21 billion in environmental remediation, making it the largest investment in addressing the legacy pollution that harms the public health of communities and neighborhoods in American history.

$65 billion to connect every American to reliable high-speed internet, building on the billions of dollars for broadband deployment in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

Across this country, far too many communities are struggling with crumbling roads and structurally unsound bridges, outrageous congestion, lead-coated pipes and no broadband access.

The Senate Amendment to H.R. 3684 addresses economic disparities in our economy and the consequences of decades of disinvestment in America's infrastructure that have fallen most heavily on communities of color.

Through critical investments, the legislation increases access to good-paying jobs, affordable high-speed internet, reliable public transit, clean drinking water and other resources to ensure communities of color get a fair shot at the American dream.

These critical investments are first steps in advancing equity and racial justice throughout our economy.

Additional investments are needed in our nation's caregiving infrastructure, housing supply, regional development, and workforce development programs to ensure that communities of color and other underserved communities can access economic opportunity and justice.

This bill will address these challenges, and will also deliver much- needed investment to my home state of Texas, making life better for millions of Texas residents.

Specifically, under the bill, Texas is expected to receive:

$26.9 billion for federal-aid highway apportioned programs and $537 million for bridge replacement and repairs with a focus on climate change mitigation, resilience, equity, and safety for all users, including cyclists and pedestrians;

$3.3 billion over five years to improve public transportation options across the state through healthy, sustainable transportation options for millions of Americans;

$408 million over five years to support the expansion of an EV charging network in the state; and

Texas will also have the opportunity to apply for the $2.5 billion in grant funding dedicated to EV charging in the bill;

A minimum allocation of $100 million to help provide broadband coverage across the state, including providing access to at least 1,058,000 Texans who currently lack it.

In addition, 8,381,000 or 29% of people in Texas will be eligible for the Affordability Connectivity Benefit, which will help low-income families afford internet access.

Madam Speaker, in sum, I encourage all members to support the Rule governing debate of Senate Amendment to H.R. 3684 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, so that we can invest in strengthening our infrastructure and competitiveness, and do so in a way that creates the good-paying union jobs of the future, addresses long-standing racial and economic injustice, and helps to fight the climate crisis.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in strong support of the Rule governing debate of S. Con. Res. 14, which reorders budgetary priorities to provide $3.5 trillion investments to build back better and provides reconciliation instructions to 13 House and 12 Senate committees to support visionary and transformative investments in the health, well-being, and financial security of America's workers and families.

It is often said that the federal budget is an expression of the nation's values and the budget resolution before us is a clear declaration of congressional Democrats' commitment to ensuring that our government, our economy, and our systems work For The People.

Madam Speaker, these long-overdue investments in America's future will be felt in every corner of the country and across every sector of American life, building on the success of the American Rescue Plan, accommodating historic infrastructure investments in the legislative pipeline, and addressing long-standing deficits in our communities by ending an era of chronic underinvestment so we can emerge from our current crises a stronger, more equitable nation.

Should our friends across the aisle join us in this endeavor, it would send a powerful signal to the American people if our colleagues across the aisle would join us in this effort because nothing would better show them that their elected representatives can set partisanship aside and put America first.

And that bipartisan achievement would portend success for similar initiatives in the area of strengthening the infrastructure of democracy in which every American has a vital interest, national and homeland security, and criminal justice and immigration reform.

I would urge my Republican colleagues to heed the words of Republican Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia who said colorfully several months ago, ``At this point in time in this nation, we need to go big. We need to quit counting the egg-sucking legs on the

cows and count the cows and just move. And move forward and move right now.''

The same sentiment was expressed more eloquently by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when he memorably wrote:

``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.''

Madam Speaker, the bipartisan action we took in February 2021 when we passed the American Rescue Plan was a giant step in the right direction, but it was a targeted response to the immediate and urgent public health and economic crises; it was not a long-term solution to many of the pressing challenges facing our nation that have built up over decades of disinvestment in our nation and its people in every region and sector of the country.

We simply can no longer afford the costs of neglect and inaction; the time to act is now.

The Build Back Better Plan makes the transformative investments that we need to continue growing our economy, lower costs for working families, and position the United States as a global leader in innovation and the jobs of the future.

This $3.5 trillion gross investment will build on the successes of the American Rescue Plan and set our nation on a path of fiscal responsibility and broadly shared prosperity for generations to come.

The Build Back Better Plan will provide resources to improve our education, health, and child care systems, invest in clean energy and sustainability, address the housing crisis, and more; all while setting America up to compete and win in the decades ahead.

The Build Back Better Plan is paid for by ensuring that the wealthy and big corporations are paying their fair share and Americans making less than $400,000 a year will not see their taxes increase by a penny.

Let me repeat that: No American making less than $400,000 a year will not see their taxes increase by a penny.

In sum, Madam Speaker, the investments made by the Build Back Better Plan will expand opportunity for all and build an economy powered by shared prosperity and inclusive growth.

Madam Speaker, while I am proud to strongly support this Rule and underlying bill, I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment at the Rules Committee's decision to not include my amendments to this bill.

Jackson Lee Amendments #6, #7, and #8 are easy to understand and vitally important--they simply protect state legislators who, in keeping with their sacred oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, refuse to perform unconstitutional acts under the guise of legislative process.

Specifically:

Jackson Lee Amendment #6 allows for federal judicial review of any warrants issued for the arrest of a state legislator where said state legislator refuses to engage in the state legislative process due to a reasonably held belief that doing so would infringe on the right to vote.

Jackson Lee Amendment #7 inserts a Sense of the Congress stating that a state's power to arrest a duly elected representative of a constituency for refusal to engage in a state's legislative process should be subject to federal judicial review where such elected representative's refusal is premised upon a reasonable belief that participation would result in the suppression of voting rights or other violations of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Jackson Lee Amendment #8 privileges against arrest any member of a state legislature for any reason except treason or murder while the legislature of that state is debating or voting on legislation relating to redistricting or election practices or legislation relating to the right to vote in federal, state, or municipal elections.

These amendments would have critically strengthened H.R. 4 because state legislatures across the country are utilizing every weapon in their arsenal to curtail voting rights; and no one should fear arrest due to fighting for the Constitutional rights of their constituents.

This includes my home state of Texas, where earlier this month officers of the Texas House of Representatives delivered civil arrest warrants, signed by the Texas state Speaker of the House, for more than 50 absent Democrats in an attempt force a vote on the naked attempt at voter suppression known as Texas S.B. 7.

This is the latest Republican attack on these brave state legislators, which began on May 30, where after a night of impassioned debate and procedural objections, these Democratic lawmakers in Texas took action to block passage of this massive overhaul of the state's election laws.

Since the arrest warrants were issued, it is my understanding that mass intimidation of the Texas House Democrats has occurred.

State officials came to their homes with the purpose of dragging them back to eviscerate the voting rights of thousands of Texans.

These elected Texas Representatives have had to hide away from their friends, their families, and their loved ones, all to ensure that Texans retain their most sacred of rights.

They are risking their freedom to ensure every Texan has full access to their constitutional right to vote.

Texas Republicans seek to pass voting regulation laws focused on diverse, urban areas, by setting rules for the distribution of polling places in only the handful of counties with a population of at least 1 million--most of which are either under Democratic control or won by Democrats in recent national and statewide elections.

Standing between all of this and the voting rights of thousands of Texans are those brave state legislators who currently have a warrant out for their arrest.

No elected representative in this great nation should fear that he or she will be locked away for simply standing up for justice and ensuring that America's citizens have the right to vote.

For this reason, I believe that H.R. 4 would have been greatly strengthened by the inclusion of my amendments in the Rule.

I strongly encourage all Members of Congress to support this Rule and the underlying bill, because it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the need to pass this legislation is urgent because the right to vote--that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''-- faces grave threats.

The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.

Not to be content with the monument to disgrace that is the Shelby County decision, the activist right-wing conservative majority on the Roberts Court, on July 1, 2021, issued its evil twin, the decision in

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 601 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, earlier today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 601, providing for consideration of three measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designee. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Nadler, provides one motion to recommit, and provides the Judiciary Committee with the authority to insert in the Congressional Record explanatory material related to H.R. 4 no later than August 24.

The rule also provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3684. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3684. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their designees.

Finally, the rule provides that S. Con. Res. 14 is adopted under adoption of the rule.

Madam Speaker, today is an important day. The underlying bills before us today are critical pieces of legislation to enact President Biden's Build Back Better agenda. This plan will create good-paying jobs, put money in the pockets of American families, lower healthcare and childcare costs, and invest in our Nation's infrastructure paid for by ensuring that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share in taxes. We also take important critical steps today to secure the right to vote and safeguard our democracy.

S. Con. Res. 14 begins the process to enact this important legislative agenda. In short, the resolution sets out President Biden's Build Back Better plan, which includes critical investments that we can and must make now to provide a better future for our country.

This is a plan to create jobs, to cut taxes, and to lower costs for working families.

Our plan will make things affordable for the middle class and working families and reduce healthcare costs.

The Build Back Better plan will help prepare our Nation for the impacts of climate change: Through historic investments in a reimagined Climate Conservation Corps, investments that will put people to work to protect and conserve our public lands and open spaces, invest in the electrification of our infrastructure, and ensure that we can prepare for and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

We will provide for wildfire prevention and mitigation, resources that are desperately needed, Madam Speaker, across the western United States as we continue to experience devastating wildfires year after year. My State of Colorado, along with many other western States, are in the midst of a terrible drought which, combined with extreme heat, is continuing to wreak havoc on our communities.

As a father of a 3-year-old daughter who will be starting preschool just next week, we will invest in our children through the Build Back Better plan by ensuring universal pre-K for every 3-year-old and 4- year-old in our country, provide tuition-free community college, childcare for working families, upgrading school infrastructure, and strengthening our education workforce.

We will fund investments in child nutrition programs, expand Medicare, Madam Speaker, for the first time in its 55-year history to include dental benefits, vision benefits, hearing coverage, critical coverage that will help our seniors access the care that they need.

The Build Back Better plan will be transformational for the American people, reaching every aspect of their lives and making investments in resources that they can rely on. Madam Speaker, we will lower costs for the American people, we will cut taxes, and we will create jobs. This resolution is a first step toward making those critical investments a reality.

I now turn to a bill that I know, Madam Speaker, you care deeply about, as you are the sponsor of the legislation, and that is the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, H.R. 4. Voting is a sacred right foundational to our democracy and to our Republic. It is a right that many have fought and died to secure and that the late civil rights hero, our dear friend and colleague, John Lewis, fought to protect, despite being harassed, jailed, and beaten. Madam Speaker, as you know, Mr. Lewis often told us that the vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool that we have.

Unfortunately, it is a right that is once again under attack, and we see it, Madam Speaker, in the laws that are being passed in Georgia and in Florida and in Iowa. In State after State after State, and in the glaring absence of Federal standards and enforcement, partisan legislatures are making it harder for those who are legally eligible to vote to do so.

We cannot stand by, Madam Speaker, as discriminatory measures run rampant, blocking Americans from participating in our democracy.

Voting is a constitutional right. It is ingrained at the very core of who we are as Americans, Madam Speaker. As a Congress, protecting that right is foundational; it really is the heart of our duty.

The vote can only truly represent the people's voice if they have the ability to execute it freely and easily. That is why Congress needs to take clear, decisive action today to protect voting rights by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. This bill would strengthen the VRA and respond to recent Supreme Court cases striking critical provisions of the bill, while making clear that Congress has the power to create a new formula.

The VRA has been reauthorized, Madam Speaker, as you know, on a bipartisan basis for decades, most recently in 2006 when the reauthorization on the VRA passed this Chamber 390-33, and in the Senate 98 votes for it, zero votes against it. This should not be a partisan issue.

Our democracy is safeguarded only when every eligible voter has the opportunity to participate, and that is what we will ensure today by passing this bill out of the House.

Finally, Madam Speaker, as you know, the rule provides for consideration of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This bipartisan bill is an important down payment toward meeting the critical infrastructure needs of our communities. We all know that our Nation's infrastructure is in desperate need of repair, and this bipartisan bill seeks to make those much-needed investments.

The bill invests in our roads, our highways, our bridges, focusing on making infrastructure resilient to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters.

It has become particularly clear over the course of this last year that access to affordable, reliable broadband is absolutely critical for Americans to be able to do their jobs and to participate equally in remote learning, to access healthcare, to stay connected. This Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides $65 billion to expand broadband coverage to areas most in need across the United States, and it also takes steps to make sure that that coverage is more affordable for individuals for whom those costs might be prohibitive.

The bill makes critical investments in our drinking water infrastructure, ensuring that clean, safe drinking water is a right in all communities.

Lastly, I would be remiss, Madam Speaker, if I didn't mention that there are several priorities that I have been working on with many of my colleagues from the western United States that are part of this bill, the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Program, my bill to help restore our forests and respond to wildfire risks; the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Program; and, of course, the Disaster Safe Power Grid Act, which ensures a safer and more resilient power grid in the face of emergencies.

The Senate has already passed this bill and shown the desire to invest in our infrastructure, and the House must now do the same.

Madam Speaker, these three underlying bills that we are considering today make essential investments in American families and communities, and we have to meet this moment for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I must say with great respect for my colleague from Minnesota, I think the Republican minority leader of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell, would disagree with the gentlewoman's characterization of the bipartisan infrastructure bill being for--I think she said--urban cities or blue cities.

Madam Speaker, 19 Republicans voted for that bill in the United States Senate, including the Senate minority leader. So I think that it is important for us to recognize that the investments made in that bill, as well as the investments made in the resolution, the Build Back Better plan that we are also considering over the coming weeks are incredibly important for the future of our country.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of both the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, you know what is interesting? I don't remember the ranking member complaining about the deficit 3 years ago when they passed tax cuts for billionaires across our country to the tune of $2 trillion in terms of adding it to the deficit. I don't remember them complaining about process when they had to do three rules within a time period of 6 weeks to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act back in 2017.

I heard much today by way of process, but very little in terms of substance. Why? Because they know that the plan we have put forward today will lower costs, will cut taxes, and will create jobs.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly understand where my colleague is coming from and have great reverence and respect for him and his service to our country, and I certainly look forward to continuing to work with him on the important issues that he described.

But defeating the previous question would hand over the floor to the Republican Conference. And, as you know, Madam Speaker, we have incredibly important pieces of legislation that we are considering, specifically, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and the bipartisan infrastructure budget, and the President's Build Back Better plan today.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to voting for the rule, and would encourage all Members in the House to vote for the rule, to vote for the previous question so that we can proceed with the business of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for the respectful way in which she has engaged in today's debate. I wish I could say the same for all of the speeches that Members have delivered today.

I think it is unfortunate to have deeply partisan speeches made on the floor on matters of such great significance. I have great respect and reverence for Democratic and Republican Members of this body who have served so honorably in our Nation's Armed Forces and who have been working together to do everything they can, in concert with the administration, to evacuate Americans and our Afghan partners out of Afghanistan.

I think it is unfortunate, as I said, to hear folks politicize that particular issue. I didn't hear much, Madam Speaker, regarding the bipartisan infrastructure deal that we are considering today. I didn't hear much by way of specifics in terms of the voting rights advancement act that we are considering today. Why? Because my friends on the other side of the aisle know that both the Build Back Better plan and the bipartisan infrastructure deal will create jobs, will lower costs, and will cut taxes.

I wish we could have a reasonable debate on the merits of these particular policies, but it is clear that some would prefer to avoid that debate entirely.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my distinguished colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, while I would relish the opportunity to respond to the points made by my colleague, we have a lot of enthusiasm on our side to speak in support of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has led on the child tax cut for decades.

Madam Speaker, my colleague from California is certainly right about one thing, the Build Back Better plan would raise taxes on billionaires. The tax cuts that ultimately were approved by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle several years ago for the richest Americans in our country, we do not pursue that in our bill. Instead, we pursue tax cuts for working families, for middle-class Americans.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Financial Services, whose leadership has kept millions of Americans in their homes over the course of the last year.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

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

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

We have heard a lot about partisanship during the course of today's debate.

What are the three bills that we are considering within the rule today?

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. VRA has been reauthorized by Republicans and Democrats in the United States Congress for decades. The last time it was signed by George W. Bush, a Republican.

A bipartisan infrastructure deal that earned the votes of 69 Senators, 19 Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, but apparently, that proposal is too radical for the House Republican Conference.

And a Build Back Better plan that would invest in American families, that would lower costs, that would cut taxes for working families.

Americans are worth investing in. Our families, our students, our teachers, our firefighters, our communities

are worth investing in. And we have a chance to do that today.

The late Congressman John Lewis once said that every generation leaves behind a legacy. What that legacy will be is determined by the people of that generation. Madam Speaker, I would say that our legacy must be one of progress, of courage, and of action.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and on the previous question.

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