H.Res. 838

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, for yielding. The bill we are debating here today, the so-called Protecting Our Democracy Act, is another attempt by the outgoing majority to relitigate many of the Democrats' sham investigations. Many of the bill's provisions are unnecessary and recycled attempts to take away individual States' sovereignty. If we were really here to talk about protecting our democracy, then we would focus on the importance of voter rolls list maintenance to ensure only eligible citizens are able to vote in Federal elections.

Congress passed the bipartisan National Voter Registration Act in 1993. That is almost 30 years ago. This law requires States to conduct regular list maintenance to ensure their voter rolls are kept up to date. This simple, commonsense requirement is incredibly important for voter confidence in our entire election process and its outcomes.

However, the Biden DOJ refuses to enforce it. Instead, Progressives focus on defunding the police and embracing lawlessness, keeping our economy and Capitol shut down while ignoring the science, labeling concerned parents as extremist threats, and weaponizing the DOJ to go after them, and pursuing reckless, unnecessary spending that is driving the inflation every single American feels in their pocketbook.

If Democrats were really focused on protecting our democracy, the Biden Justice Department would investigate States like California where the number of registered voters far exceeds the number of adults in the State. Senator Alex Padilla, a newly appointed Senator from the State of California, knew about the problem and refused to address it when he was Secretary of State in California during the last election cycle.

Republicans care about election integrity because our constitutional republic means nothing if our citizens don't have faith in our elections.

When everyday Americans hear more and more reports of individuals on active voter rolls who have moved to another State, died, or are noncitizens, it frustrates them because it calls into question whether their valid vote actually counts. One eligible person, one whole non- diluted vote.

It is so frustrating because the fix is so simple, but Democrats refuse time and time again to address this problem. It is common sense and has been Federal law for decades that only eligible Americans should be on our voter rolls.

Republicans want every eligible voter who wants to vote to exercise that right. Democrats dilute your vote, but Republicans restore it.

I am here today to talk about protecting our democracy, and I think the only way to do that is to make sure Americans know our elections have integrity.

So today, I am calling on the radical Biden Justice Department to do the right thing and enforce Federal law across the board. Stop investigating parents that want to be involved in their children's education. Stop supporting efforts to defund our men and women in blue resulting in the lawlessness that we see ravaging our great country.

Focus on what really matters. Protect our democracy, protect our vote, and ensure States like California conduct voter roll list maintenance so that voters know only eligible American citizens are able to vote.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Department of Justice IG detailing the DOJ's official policy not to enforce Federal voter list maintenance requirements.

[From the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General,

March 2013]

A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights

Division

V. Enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)

In this section we review the Voting Section's history of

enforcing the National Voter Registration Act, the so-called

motor-voter law. Enacted in 1993, the NVRA has. two primary

purposes: to increase the number of eligible citizens who

register to vote in federal elections and to protect the

integrity of the electoral process. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg(b).

Critics have alleged that CRT leadership during the prior

administration favored enforcement of the list-maintenance

(electoral integrity) provisions because those provisions

purportedly are more strongly supported by Republicans and

remove more potential Democratic voters from the rolls.

Conversely, critics of the current CRT leadership allege that

it has neglected the electoral integrity provisions of the

NVRA in favor of enforcing the voter access provisions,

because these provisions purportedly are supported by

Democratic constituencies and lead to the registration of

more voters who are likely to support Democrats. Without

opining on the underlying political assumptions, we examine

both of these allegations in this section.

A. Data Regarding Enforcement Trends in NVRA Cases

Figure 3. 7 below displays the number of NVRA enforcement

actions initiated by the Voting Section on an annual basis

since January 1995, when the statute became effective in most

states. Figure 3. 7 is broken down by actions that enforced

the statute's list-maintenance provision (Section 8(a)(4)),

actions

that enforced the voter registration provisions (Sections 5,

6, 7, and the improper purging paragraphs of Section 8), and

actions that brought both types of claims.

The most noteworthy trend in the Department's enforcement

of the NVRA relates to the statute's voter list-maintenance

provision, Section 8(a)(4). In the 17 years since the statute

became effective, the Department has asserted list-

maintenance claims on 7 occasions, 6 of which occurred in a

3-year span between 2004 and 2007. According to Hans von

Spakovsky, CRT leadership initiated an effort to enforce

Section 8's list-maintenance provision in late 2004. Von

Spakovsky told the OIG that he recommended to Division

leadership exploring those cases because he believed that the

Department had never conducted a systematic review of states'

list-maintenance compliance in the 10 years since the NVRA

became effective. This effort ultimately resulted in the

filing of a complaint alleging list-maintenance claims in

2005 and 2006. According to witnesses involved in the four

other matters involving list-maintenance claims brought

between 2004 and 2007, those claims arose when the Section

obtained evidence suggesting a failure to comply with the

list-maintenance provision during the course of ongoing

investigations into other voting-related matters.

B. Enforcement of the NVRA during 2001-2008

We received allegations that the only NVRA cases that

Division leadership wanted to pursue during this period were

Section 8(a)(4) list-maintenance claims, at the expense of

cases to protect or increase voter registration under other

provisions of the NVRA. Critics further alleged that the

Division's leadership was particularly focused on bringing

such list-purging cases in political swing states and large

Democratic jurisdictions. The Division's leadership denied

any such focus and identified several cases approved by

Division leadership to controvert the suggestion that NVRA

enforcement decisions were driven by a partisan agenda. We

examined the entire range of NVRA cases pursued during

January 2001 to January 2009 in order to address this issue.

From January 2001 through January 2009, the Department was

involved in 12 NVRA enforcement matters, summarized in Table

3.2.

As reflected in Table 3.2, the Voting Section began filing

list-maintenance cases in 2004. As noted above, von Spakovsky

confirmed that Division leadership initiated an effort in

2004 to enforce Section 8's list-maintenance provision on a

systemic basis. Von Spakovsky told the OIG that he

recommended exploring those cases because he believed the

Department had never conducted a systematic review of states'

list-maintenance compliance in the 10 years since the NVRA's

enactment.

Division leadership directed the Voting Section to conduct

the research effort, to review the census data and voter

registration data for all 50 states to determine which states

had more people registered to vote than the voting-age

population, as reflected in the census data. Based on the

results of this research, the Section sent letters to 12

states, stating that the Section's review of relevant data

indicated that the state may not be complying with Section

8's list-maintenance provision and requesting information on

their efforts to remove ineligible voters from their

registration lists.

Von Spakovsky told the OIG that some of the targeted states

responded to the Department's letter, explained why there was

a discrepancy in the data, and established that they were

complying with the NVRA's list-maintenance requirements. He

also stated that a number of states failed to show that they

were in compliance with Section 8(a)(4) and that the Section

proceeded toward enforcement actions against those non-

compliant states.

Division leadership approved the filing of two complaints

as a result of this enforcement initiative. In November 2005,

the Section filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri

alleging both improper purging and failure-to-purge

violations. In June 2006, the Section filed a complaint

against Indiana alleging that the state failed to conduct

list purging as required by Section 8(a)(4). The Indiana case

was resolved by a settlement agreement, but the Missouri case

continued until early 2009, when the Division voluntarily

dismissed the case.

In 2006 and 2007, Division leadership approved three

additional complaints containing Section 8(a)(4) list-

maintenance claims, against the States of Maine and New

Jersey and the City of Philadelphia. According to the Voting

Section attorney supervising those efforts, these complaints

did not arise out of the enforcement initiative described

above. Instead, the complaints were brought as a result of

investigations under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that

uncovered evidence of both HAVA and NVRA violations. The

Section ultimately settled the lawsuits with Maine, New

Jersey, and Philadelphia. In each settlement agreement, the

jurisdiction agreed to implement specific steps to satisfy

its list-maintenance obligations.

In August 2007, Voting Section Chief John Tanner initiated

a program to enforce Section 7 of the NVRA, requiring states

to provide voter registration opportunities in public

assistance and disability offices. Section attorneys reviewed

federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) data to identify

states that were not meeting Section 7's requirements and

discovered 18 states that reported registering 0 voters in

offices providing public assistance over the previous 2-year

period. Following further investigation, the Section entered

into settlement agreements with Arizona and Illinois to

resolve Section 7 violations.

In 2007 and 2008, Voting Section teams reviewed EAC data

and census information to identify states that might not be

in compliance with the NVRA'sSection 8(a)(4) list-maintenance

requirements. The teams identified states in which a

significant percentage of the counties or electoral

jurisdictions had more registered voters than voting-age

population. The teams recommended to Division leadership that

the Voting Section initiate investigations into the states

that failed to meet the relevant criterion. The states that

were the subject of these recommendations included some

states that historically have consistently favored one party

in presidential elections as well as political ``swing

states.'' The 2007 recommendation was approved and the

Section later issued requests for information to the relevant

states. Ultimately, however, no further enforcement action

was taken arising out of this effort. The investigations that

were proposed in late November 2008 were never approved by

either the outgoing or the incoming administrations.

C. Enforcement of the NVRA during 2009-2012

1. Division Leadership Declines To Act on Voting Section

Proposal for Section 8 Investigation

In February 2009, shortly after the new administration took

office, the Voting Section submitted a memorandum to Division

leadership requesting approval to initiate investigations

into the list-maintenance procedures of a State (``State

E''). According to the State E memorandum, voter-registration

data indicated that roughly 22 percent of State E's counties

had more registered voters than either the voting-age

population or the citizen voting-age population. The

memorandum stated that the Section had been alerted to State

E's potential list-maintenance failures in connection with an

unrelated Section 5 investigation. We were told that the

Section never received a response from Division leadership to

the proposal memorandum.

2. Drafting of NVRA Guidance

In the spring of 2009, a few months after the inauguration

of the new administration, the Department commenced an effort

to draft public guidance concerning the requirements of NVRA

Section 7. Samuel Hirsch, who joined the Department in March

2009 as a Deputy Associate Attorney General and led the NVRA

guidance effort, described the project as rewriting the NVRA

in plain terms and posting it on the CRT website to assist

those running state governmental offices in complying with

the NVRA's requirements. Hirsch told the OIG the original

scope of the NVRA guidance project was limited to Section 7

because the administration believed that Section 7 had been

somewhat ignored by state government officials. According to

Hirsch, there was a sense in the administration that NVRA

Section 8 and other provisions were working fairly well,

but that Section 7 ``was slipping through the cracks.''

DAAG Julie Fernandes and AAG Thomas Perez became involved

in the NVRA guidance project after they joined the Department

in July and October 2009, respectively. According to

Fernandes, she expressed concern to Hirsch that the project

was limited to Section 7 and proposed broadening the guidance

to include other NVRA provisions, such as Sections 5 and 8.

Perez also told the OIG that in early 2010 he instructed that

the guidance include a discussion of all NVRA provisions,

including the list-maintenance provisions. Hirsch told the

OIG that he did not oppose expanding the guidance to include

Section 8, but stated that he may have been opposed to

holding up the release of the Section 7 guidance while

preparing the Section 8 segment. The Division ultimately

posted guidance concerning NVRA Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 on

its website in June 2010.

3. Comments by DAAG Julie Fernandes Regarding NVRA

Enforcement at a November 2009 Section Meeting

DAAG Julie Fernandes told the OIG that she urged Voting

Section Chief Christopher Coates to hold section-wide

meetings shortly after she joined the Department in July

2009. As a result, the Voting Section held several brown-bag

lunches. In addition to the September meeting at which

Section 2 enforcement was discussed as outlined above,

another session devoted to NVRA matters was held on November

10, 2009.

At some point during the November meeting, the discussion

turned to the enforcement of the NVRA's voter list-

maintenance provision in Section 8. Witnesses who recalled

Fernandes's statements uniformly remembered that she said

something to the effect that she was more interested in

pursuing cases under NVRA Section 7 than Section 8 because

Section 8 does not expand voter access. Witnesses'

recollections of the context of Fernandes's statements, her

precise wording, and the meaning of her comments, however,

varied widely.

Thirteen witnesses told the OIG that Fernandes stated that

she ``did not care about'' or ``was not interested'' in

pursuing Section 8 cases, or similar formulations. For

instance, Chris Herren, who was later promoted by current

Division leadership to Section Chief, told the OIG that

Fernandes made a controversial and ``very provocative''

statement at this brown bag lunch. In particular, Herren

stated that Fernandes stated

something to the effect of ``[Section 8] does nothing to help

voters. We have no interest in that.'' Herren told the OIG

that he winced when he heard Fernandes's response because he

believed it would raise a controversy. Two other Section

attorneys took handwritten notes at the meeting, both of

which quoted Fernandes saying that she did not ``care'' about

Section 8.

Ten attorneys who attended the meeting told the OIG that

they interpreted Fernandes's comments to be a clear directive

that Division leadership would not approve Section 8 list-

maintenance cases in the future. One Section attorney told

the OIG that he understood Fernandes's statements to mean

that proposing a Section 8 case would be futile and that he

believed proposing Section 8 could be detrimental for the

attorneys.

Seven Voting Section attorneys told the OIG, however, that

they did not believe Fernandes said that the Division would

not enforce Section 8 of the NVRA. Among these were three

Deputy Chiefs who told the OIG that they believed Fernandes

meant that Section 7 cases would be prioritized over Section

8 matters, but that they did not construe her statement to

mean that Section 8 cases would not be approved. Those

attorneys who were generally identified as being more

conservative tended to recall that Fernandes took the more

extreme position, while those generally identified as being

more liberal tended to recall her statements as being more

limited.

Fernandes told the OIG that she did not recall exactly what

she said at the November brown bag lunch regarding

enforcement of Section 8 of the NVRA. She said that she and

the Section staff discussed the NVRA and what their approach,

goals, and strategy should be. She said that she talked about

how Division leadership is interested in creating equal

opportunity for minority voters. Fernandes further told the

OIG that she talked about wanting the Section to focus on

voter access, which would involve NVRA Sections 5, 7, and 8,

all of which are in the vein of ensuring that jurisdictions

have a fair and accessible process for all voters. She stated

that she recalled being asked about Section 8 and that her

response included something to the effect that Division

leadership's focus is on the provisions of the NVRA

pertaining to voter access.

With respect to the comments attributed to her that she did

not care about enforcing Section 8, Fernandes told the OIG

that she did not think she said the words ``don't care''

about enforcing Section 8 because that is not her position.

Fernandes denied saying that she or Division leadership had

no interest in pursuing Section 8 cases. Fernandes said that

she believed her comment about not caring was in the context

of how to determine what jurisdictions they should target for

enforcement, given that she believed there is widespread

noncompliance with the NVRA.

Fernandes noted that the list-maintenance provision of

Section 8 requires jurisdictions to employ reasonable, non-

discriminatory measures to ensure that people who are

eligible can vote and those who are ineligible cannot.

Therefore, Fernandes stated, she does not care whether a

jurisdiction's voter list is big, but rather whether it has a

list-maintenance program that does not work. She explained

that the fact that a jurisdiction's voter list is too big

means that the Section may want to inquire about the

jurisdiction's list-maintenance program, but that alone would

not justify bringing a lawsuit.

Roughly one year later, in September 2010, allegations

concerning Fernandes's comments at the brown bag lunch

regarding NVRA enforcement surfaced in news media. Fernandes

and other Division leadership personnel assisted other

Department officials in preparing talking points to address

the allegations and Fernandes stated in one of the relevant

e-mails: ``If we are o.k. with having priorities, we should

say that we have a priority on the enforcement of the NVRA,

with a focus on the parts of the statute that require states

to provide voter registration opportunities in a variety of

settings.''

4. Approval of List-Maintenance Investigations

In September 2009, the Section submitted a memorandum to

DAAG Fernandes requesting authority to initiate formal

investigations into the list-maintenance procedures of eight

states. The recommendation was based on the Section's review

of an EAC report that contained voting-related data from each

of the 50 states covering the period from November 2006 to

November 2008. A Deputy Section Chief supervised a team of

Section attorneys that reviewed the EAC report for anomalous

entries, particularly states that reported that throughout

the 2-year period they did not remove any voters from their

rolls due to death or that they had not issued any voter-

removal notices related to citizens who were believed to have

moved out of the state. The team identified eight states that

met one of those criteria, four of which reported removing

zero ineligible voters from their rolls over the 2-year

period for any reason, including death, change of address,

disqualifying criminal conviction, or mental incapacity.

The team presented the relevant data in its memorandum to

DAAG Fernandes and stated that the information suggested that

the eight states in question were not fulfilling their list-

maintenance obligations under Section 8. As a result, the

team recommended initiating formal investigations of the

states in question and directing inquiries to relevant state

officials.

Fernandes told the OIG that, after receiving the proposal

for the Section 8 investigations, she told Section Chief

Coates that he needed to ``hold off' because she was not

ready to decide whether this was the proper approach for NVRA

enforcement. Fernandes told the OIG that she believed the

Section's NVRA work when she became DAAG in July 2009 was

disorganized and that its process for evaluating NVRA matters

was ``random, unstrategic, [and] not very well thought-out.''

She said that Division leadership and Voting Section

management were therefore engaged in a process of identifying

what their NVRA enforcement strategy should be by reviewing

where the Section had focused its enforcement efforts in the

past, determining which areas had been neglected, and

developing an analytical model to bring NVRA cases.

According to Fernandes, she and Division leadership

believed that the NVRA enforcement efforts from January 2001

through January 2009 had focused on Section 8's list-

maintenance cases, largely to the exclusion of the voter-

registration provisions in Section 7, which she believed had

been underenforced and neglected. While we found no evidence

that she examined any data to support this belief, it was

consistent with what we found to be the prevailing belief

about the prior administration's efforts in this area.

Fernandes stated further that she believed the way to

``rectify this imbalance was to determine what Section 7

efforts were in process, whether they were being performed

correctly, and whether the Section should expand its Section

7 enforcement further. Fernandes stated that her supervisors

were pressuring her to move forward on Section 7 enforcement

and that she received a clear message that they viewed

enforcing Section 7 as a higher priority than Section 8. She

told the OIG that she believed she had to ``scratch the

Section 7 itch before turning to Section 8 matters and that

her supervisors would have criticized her if she had approved

Section 8 efforts first. She also noted that there was

significant criticism of the Department from civil rights

groups that their Section 7 enforcement efforts had been

inadequate, saying they had gotten--and continued to get--

``beat up all the time by [their] lefty friends not doing

enough on Section 7.''

This is a report from the DOJ's IG. It takes this many pages to tell the American voter that they are not going to enforce Federal law in ensuring that States actually provide and exercise the required voter list maintenance. This is an affront to election integrity in our great country, and it needs to end today.

Let's protect our democracy, and let's work together to make that happen.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky for yielding.

Madam Speaker, our most basic duty of the Federal Government should be protecting the right for our citizens to vote, but we are not doing everything we can to protect that. A disturbing trend across the country is that more and more States and localities are allowing noncitizens to vote. Furthermore, many States are conducting elections that rely on wildly outdated voter lists, many of which include these noncitizens.

In some States, such as California, the voter rolls are so outdated that they have more registered voters than people who reside in the State. This creates a potential for our citizens' votes to be diluted. LA County had over 1.5 million ineligible people on their voter rolls. A suit filed by a nonpartisan watch dog alleged that LA County had 112 percent of its adult citizens registered to vote.

Under pressure, California and LA County finally agreed to clean up their voter rolls in 2019. Unfortunately, when then-California Secretary of State Alex Padilla appeared before my committee in 2020, he could not confirm that many of those ineligible people had actually been removed from California's unmaintained voter rolls. I do not have a lot of faith that California is doing everything it can to protect the integrity of our elections.

And then there is New York City, which just decided to allow nearly a million noncitizens to vote in city elections. New York can make its own bad decisions, but it is our job to ensure that we protect Federal elections. Common sense will tell you that combining noncitizens and eligible American voters on the same voter rolls is ripe for abuse.

I will also use a final example from my home State of Illinois. In Illinois, noncitizens cannot vote, and if they do, they face major legal consequences and could be deported. But in 2016, Illinois' automatic voter registration program mistakenly registered to vote more than 500 noncitizens who had done the right thing by checking the box stating that they are not citizens on their driver's license application. However, several of these noncitizens voted in the 2018 and 2019 elections.

This does nothing to bolster voter confidence in our elections; in fact, it does the opposite.

Not only does this undermine the integrity of our elections, the mistake by Illinois could have had dire consequences for these individuals, and it could be prevented if States were being forced to maintain accurate voter rolls. Whether intentional or not, we know this is happening. It is undermining the integrity of our elections.

This amendment would simply ensure those who are noncitizens who do not have the right to vote in Federal elections are removed from States' voter rolls. As someone who has attended many citizenship ceremonies as a Member of Congress, it is unthinkable that we have States undermining what it means to be a citizen of this great country.

My office has helped many immigrants go through the legal process to become American citizens, and there is nothing better than seeing them raise their right hand and swear to support and defend our Constitution; to swear to bear arms in defense of this Nation; to swear allegiance to this great country.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing better than to think that their vote, something they worked hard to get, the right to vote on something that they worked hard to get the right to do is being undermined. That is unthinkable.

Let's pass this amendment to ensure only citizens are voting in our elections and prevent States from putting noncitizens at risk of intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law and illegally voting in our elections.

We will offer this solution as a motion to recommit. If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Oversight and Reform to consider an amendment to ensure States remove noncitizens from their voter rolls as part of a regular comprehensive list maintenance program.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 838, I call up the bill

(H.R. 5314) to protect our democracy by preventing abuses of presidential power, restoring checks and balances and accountability and transparency in government, and defending elections against foreign interference, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5314, the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5314, the Protecting Our Democracy Act. This sweeping package of reforms would restore integrity, accountability, and transparency to our government.

The landmark reforms in this bill would protect against future abuses, no matter who is President. This includes preventing abuses of the President's pardon power and requiring the President and Vice President to disclose their tax returns.

This bill includes many provisions that have bipartisan support. For example, the bill includes a provision based on a bill previously introduced by Representative Darrell Issa to make it easier for Congress to enforce subpoenas.

The bill would strengthen protections for inspectors general by only allowing an IG to be removed for specific documented causes. This reform passed the House with a bipartisan vote in June as part of a bill I introduced to increase the independence of inspectors general, and it passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2007.

This bill also includes the bipartisan Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act, which I was proud to introduce. These provisions would strengthen protections for whistleblowers who are retaliated against for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.

These reforms would provide whistleblowers the long overdue right to challenge retaliation in court. It would also prohibit agencies from launching retaliatory investigations and disclosing a whistleblower's identity; and it would make clear that no Federal employee, including the President or Vice President of the United States, may interfere with or retaliate against a whistleblower for sharing information with Congress.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act would also protect the government from political interference by strengthening the Hatch Act.

Just last month, the independent Office of Special Counsel found that 13 senior Trump administration officials, including top White House aides and Cabinet members, broke the law by using their official government position to campaign for President Trump.

This legislation would also limit who can be named an acting official and for how long. I thank Representative Katie Porter for her leadership on these reforms which are included in her bill, the Accountability for Acting Officials Act.

The reforms in this bill have broad support from over 150 groups, including the Brennan Center For Justice and the Project On Government Oversight.

My colleagues from across the aisle continue to claim that this bill is about punishing former President Trump, but this is simply not true.

While this bill addresses issues that were highlighted by past abuses, it is not about the past. It is about the future of our democracy, and it will strengthen our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the Protecting Our Democracy Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on House Administration.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great Commonwealth of Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

I include in the Record a letter of support for the Protecting Our Democracy Act listing over 150 organizations supporting this important legislation. We have widespread support across this Nation.

October 6, 2021.

Over 150 Organizations Send Joint Letter Urging Congress To Pass the

Protecting Our Democracy Act

Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations, on

behalf of the millions of Americans our groups collectively

represent, write to urge you to support and pass the

Protecting Our Democracy Act.

For decades, congressional authority has been undermined by

the executive branch, diminishing the ability of Congress to

fulfill its constitutional duties, to protect the rule of

law, and to hold all presidents accountable for overreaches

and abuses of power. The last time Congress passed

significant reform to protect our democracy from abuses of

executive power was after the Watergate scandal. The time has

come for new guardrails to reassert Congress' role as a

coequal branch of government.

Today, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both

chambers have an interest in restoring the checks and

balances entrusted to them in our Constitution. The

Protecting Our Democracy Act would do just that by restoring

the powers the Founders vested in the legislative branch to

serve as a check on the executive without infringing upon the

president's constitutional powers.

Among other reforms, this historic bill would:

Strengthen Congress's ability to oversee the executive

branch by fortifying congressional subpoena power by

providing expedited consideration of subpoena enforcement by

courts, so the executive branch cannot run out the clock on

congressional oversight;

Ensure inspectors general are qualified and empowered to

hold federal agencies accountable without fear of reprisal by

requiring the

president to have ``good cause'' for removing an inspector

general and enhancing reporting requirements when there is a

vacancy;

Ensure whistleblowers can continue shining light on

corruption and abuses of power that betray the public trust

by enhancing protections against retaliation, providing legal

defenses for whistleblowers against civil and criminal

liability, and allowing whistleblowers to have their day in

court;

Reinforce Congress's constitutional powers over spending

and the power of the purse by requiring the Office of

Management and Budget to make public basic information about

the management of federal funds, and reporting to Congress to

ensure those funds are spent in accordance with the law;

Prevent political interference with the U.S. Department of

Justice by putting a permanent, statutory requirement in

place that will ensure transparency and accountability

related to their communications with the White House;

Strengthen the Hatch Act to protect federal agencies from

being used for political purposes and ensure senior political

appointees are held accountable under the law the same way

other federal employees are.

Prevent abuse of the president's pardon power by increasing

transparency of the pardon process, prohibiting self-pardons

by the president, and clarifying that pardons are ``official

acts'' for the purposes of federal bribery statute;

Provide for enforcement of the domestic and foreign

Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, to prevent a

president from profiting from payments by foreign or domestic

governments; and

Secure our elections from foreign interference, by ensuring

political campaigns are informed of the laws banning foreign

interference and are prepared to comply and report any

attempts of foreign interference.

In this perilous moment for our republic, we believe it

should be a top priority for this Congress to repair our

democracy, including ensuring that no future president is

permitted to abuse the power of their office.

If enacted, the Protecting Our Democracy Act would protect

against future presidential abuses of power, restore the

integrity of our democratic institutions, and ensure

transparency from the chief executive.

Given the urgency of this crisis and for these reasons, we

call on you to swiftly pass this critical legislation.

Sincerely,

20/20 Vision, Academics Stand Against Poverty,

Accountability Lab, Affiliation of Christian Engineers,

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Oversight,

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Animals

Are Sentient Beings, Inc., Arab American Institute (AAI),

Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor alliance,

AFL-CIO, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Beyond Pesticides,

Blacks in Law Enforcement of America, Blue Wave Postcard

Movement, Brave New Films, Brennan Center for Justice.

Campaign Legal Center, Center for American Progress, Center

for Common Ground, Center for International Environmental

Law, Center for International Policy, Center for Media and

Democracy, Center for Progressive Reform, Citizens for

Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Clean Elections

Texas, Coalition of Labor Union Women, AFL-CIO, Columbia

Legal Services, Common Cause, Communications Workers of

America, Community Research, Community Science Institute,

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Constitutional

Alliance, Consumer Action, Corruption kills, Council for a

Livable World, CovertAction Magazine.

Demand Progress, DemCast USA, Democracy 21, Democracy Fund

Voice, Democracy Matters, Demos, Disaster Accountability

Project, Eco-Justice Collaborative, End Citizens United//Let

America Vote Action Fund, Equal Justice Society, Equal Rights

Advocates, Essential Information, Faith in Public Life, Fix

Democracy First, Fix the Court, Food & Water Watch,

Franciscan Action Network, Free Speech Coalition, Inc., Free

Speech For People.

Geos Institute, Global Integrity, Government Accountability

Project, Government Information Watch, Green Delaware,

Greenpeace USA, Hanford Challenge, Heart of America NW, Hip

Hop Caucus, Human Environmental and Leadership Prevalent

Center (HELP Center), Indivisible, Information Trust,

Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection,

Georgetown Law, International Association of Whistleblowers,

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Iowa Institute for

Public Accountability, Keep Our Republic, Kentucky

Environmental Foundation, Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), League of

Women Voters of the United States, Mainers for Accountable

Leadership, Michiganders for Fair and Transparent Elections,

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, MoneyOutVA, Mormon Women for

Ethical Government, MoveOn, Muslim American Law Enforcement

Association (MALEA), National Center for Health Research,

National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, National

Education Association, National Employment Law Project,

National Organization for Women, National Security

Counselors, National Voter Corps, National Whistleblower

Center/Whistleblower Network News, National Workrights

Institute, Network for Environmental & Economic

Responsibility of United Church of Christ, NETWORK Lobby for

Catholic Social Justice.

New American Leaders Action Fund, New Moral Majority,

Niskanen Center, No More Guantanamos, Northwest Immigrant

Rights Project, Open The Government, Our Bodies Ourselves,

Pax Christi USA, People For the American Way, People's Parity

Project, PRESS4WORD2020, Professional Managers Association,

Project Blueprint, Project On Government Oversight (POGO),

Protect All Children's Environment, Protect Democracy, Public

Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,

Public Justice Center.

Republicans for the Rule of Law, Rock the Vote,

RootsAction.org, S.T.O.P.--The Surveillance Technology

Oversight Project, Secure Elections Network, Senior

Executives Association, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change,

Sierra Club, SocioEnergetics Foundation, Sojourners, Stand Up

America, Stand Up Republic, Strategies for Justice, BWMP LLC,

Sustainable Energy & Economy Network, T'ruah: The Rabbinic

Call for Human Rights, The Digital Democracy Project, The

Ecotopian Society, The National Air Disaster Foundation, The

National Vote, The Press Freedom Defense Fund of First Look

Institute.

The Rutherford Institute, The Shalom Center, The Signals

Network, The Workers Circle, Transparency International--U.S.

Office, Truckers Justice Center, Tully Center for Free

Speech, Un-PAC, Union of Concerned Scientists, Unitarian

Universalists for Social Justice, UNITED SIKHS, Voices for

Progress, Vote Vets, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil

Rights and Urban Affairs, Washington Office on Latin America

(WOLA), WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Whistleblowers of America,

Win Without War, Women's Action for New Directions (WAND),

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom US,

Workplace Fairness, Worksafe, X-Lab.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chair of the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Natural Resources and Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), the distinguished vice chair of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. We came to Congress together, and I thank her for her outstanding leadership in this body and her beautiful statement today.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my very good friend and colleague, Mr. Comer, that President Trump is no longer President. This bill is not about President Trump. If anyone, it is about President Biden and our future Presidents and having more oversight, accountability, and transparency.

Now, addressed in this bill are past abuses that have occurred. This is not about the past; it is about the future. It is about the future of our democracy and the strength of our democracy.

Democrats are not standing alone. The reforms in this bill have broad support from over 150 outstanding groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice, the Project On Government Oversight, and many others. I have included that list in the Record.

Madam Speaker, the Protecting Our Democracy Act is a historic package of prodemocracy reforms to create or strengthen guardrails and prevent the abuse of executive power. Many of the provisions in our bill have broad bipartisan support and have literally been authored by Republicans.

You yourself at the Rules Committee said that the President should release his taxes. You said that.

These are issues that both sides of the aisle should be supporting. It is time for Congress to restore our authorities as a coequal branch of power.

Madam Speaker, this is about the future, the strengthening of our democracy, and I urge strong support from all of my colleagues. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in strengthening democracy and urge them to vote with Republicans for this very important reform bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 838 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 838, providing for consideration of H.R. 5314, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Maloney and makes in order 34 amendments. It also provides en bloc authority to Chairwoman Maloney and one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of S. 1605, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It provides authority for the chair of the Armed Services Committee to insert into the Record explanatory materials through December 10 and provides for one motion to commit.

The rule also provides for consideration of S. 610, the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and provides for one motion to commit.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills through December 9, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, ever since the founding of our great Nation, we have debated how to appropriately check and balance the various branches of our government with a primary concern, dating back to the 1700s, being how to prevent abuses of executive power and how to address such abuses when they occur.

In the 1970s, Congress passed a variety of reforms in response to abuses of the Nixon administration to address the imbalance between Congress and the President--laws like the War Powers Act, the Inspector General Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Impoundment Control Act.

Now, just like then, Congress must pass additional reforms to protect against Presidential impunity and reset the dysfunctional relationship between the branches of government.

Many Americans did not realize that we didn't already have laws to prevent the kinds of abuses we saw during the Trump administration. They thought that our laws required the disclosure of tax returns by Presidential candidates and the avoidance of financial conflicts, particularly from foreign nations, and that our laws prevented the use of pardons to protect political allies from criminal liability.

In a country founded by men for whom public service to promote the common good was the highest calling, we have long expected our elected leaders to adhere to ethical standards that far exceed minimal legality, and for the most part, they have. People didn't realize that a wayward President might have a dangerously wide berth to avoid legal and ethical guardrails, subvert the other branches of government, and escape accountability for doing so.

They were surprised that the former President and his administration would offer pardons in return for political favors, illegally repurpose taxpayer dollars, violate the Hatch Act, or remove inspectors general when they investigated executive misconduct.

They were surprised that the former President would politically interfere in

Federal law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, order Federal agents to violently disperse peaceful protesters, or use his office to direct business to properties that he owned and profited from.

This is no way for a democracy to function. When a President, any President, abuses the power of their office, we all suffer, and our democracy is weakened. We often hear that the United States is a nation of laws, not men, but so long as those laws are enforced by men, we need a functional system of oversight and accountability to prevent lawlessness, graft, nepotism, crony dealings, and abuses of Presidential power.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act focuses on three major areas of reform: limiting abuses of Presidential power; improving accountability, transparency, and the system of checks and balances; and protecting against foreign interference in our Nation's elections.

Former President Trump and his administration made it abundantly clear that the functioning of our democratic institutions had become too dependent on the good behavior of good people and that our government was vulnerable to the dangers posed by people in positions of power who might value their own political or financial interests more than public service or the common good.

These are not esoteric concerns. Just last week at a townhall, several of my constituents asked sharp questions about the failure to hold anyone accountable--so far--for inciting the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the misuse of government funds intended for COVID relief, and the measures necessary to hold people in contempt when they defy congressional subpoenas.

While the Trump administration may have ended, our democratic institutions are still vulnerable to future Presidents who try to commit the same crimes, abuses of power, and other improper actions.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act is the culmination of years of work by dozens of bipartisan Members and nine congressional committees to institute reforms to protect our democracy and rebalance the relationship between Congress and the President.

For decades, Congress has ceded many administrative and oversight responsibilities to the executive branch. Congress is granted broad powers in Article I of the Constitution, but over time, many of these powers have been weakened or absorbed by the Presidency.

This has been a long and slow process with Presidents of both parties over the past 50 years taking advantage of the broken system of checks and balances to expand Presidential power. But it has become increasingly clear, particularly so over the last administration, that this problem has dangerous consequences.

To protect against abuses of Presidential power, the Protect Our Democracy Act prevents Presidents from pardoning themselves and updates Federal bribery laws to prevent quid pro quo pardons. The Protect Our Democracy Act suspends the statute of limitations so that Presidents cannot escape accountability for crimes committed before or during their terms in office. And this act would allow Congress to enforce the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, preventing future Presidents from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments or others who seek to influence Presidential actions.

To improve transparency and accountability, this act makes a series of necessary reforms to bolster the enforcement of congressional subpoenas. Presidents have increasingly used a variety of legal methods to stall or obstruct congressional investigations, and these issues came to a head during the Trump administration where the executive branch refused to turn over information to Congress for so long that the administration ended before Congress could obtain that information. Congress needs to be able to promptly and effectively conduct oversight in order to fulfill its constitutional role as a check and balance to a rogue administration.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act's reforms will give Congress important legal remedies to ensure that the recipients of congressional subpoenas actually comply with them in a timely manner. It will place important limits on presidentially declared emergencies so that Presidents cannot indefinitely maintain emergency powers.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act will additionally prevent the President from illegally diverting or spending taxpayer dollars. It will prevent Presidents from dismissing inspectors general when they conduct investigations that disclose misconduct by an administration.

Importantly, the Protecting Our Democracy Act will reinforce measures to prevent the White House from trying to interfere in Federal law enforcement for political reasons.

Lastly, the Protecting Our Democracy Act includes policies to protect our Federal elections from foreign interference. Since 2016, numerous foreign governments have gone to great lengths to interfere in our elections and manipulate American public opinion.

Building on the reforms passed by the House as part of H.R. 1, the For the People Act, the Protecting Our Democracy Act would require campaigns to affirmatively report any contact with a foreign government or its agents, expressly prohibit those contacts, and strengthen criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of the prohibitions.

All in all, the reforms in the Protecting Our Democracy Act will establish essential guardrails to protect our democratic institutions from illegal and unethical behavior by a President or his or her administration. These reforms are long overdue, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bill when it is considered on the floor.

However, I do want to note to my colleagues that while the Protecting Our Democracy Act can address many of the abuses of the recent administration, and prevent them in the future, ultimately, the responsibility for holding the executive accountable falls to Congress.

Under our Constitution, Congress plays an equal role in the functioning of our government. Through our powers to authorize and appropriate funds, conduct oversight, pass laws, structure government agencies, and grant executive authority, under Article I, the first article of the Constitution, Congress has the ability to limit Presidential power and punish Presidents who break the law, violate norms, or act in ways to undermine our constitutional order. And we all must have the courage to exercise that power.

So while it is true that Congress has ceded many of its Article I powers, the responsibility to get them back falls entirely on us. We cannot count on an executive, of any party, to relinquish powers that we have given away. Whether it is war powers, emergency powers, or the enforcement of subpoenas, ethical norms, and criminal penalties, it falls on Congress to pass legislation to resolve these issues.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule also provides for consideration of the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. I applaud the work of my House colleagues to consider and pass the NDAA in a timely fashion, and I regret that the Senate has once again held up congressional business.

This year's NDAA makes important and necessary improvements to our national security policies, ensuring that the United States is able to appropriately respond to ongoing and emerging threats.

The NDAA will provide the resources to combat aggression and malign activity by Russia and China; it will strengthen our security relations with important allies in Europe and Asia; and it will continue vital modernization and acquisition programs.

The NDAA includes important policies for my district, including funding for five Block II Chinook helicopters and nine more V-22 Ospreys, all of which are manufactured in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania. The 4,500 men and women who build these incredible aircraft are immensely proud that their hard work directly supports our national security and disaster relief efforts around the world, and the fiscal year 2022 NDAA is an investment in these amazing workers.

The NDAA also includes funding for the fifth of five National Security Multi-Mission Vessels which are being built at the Philadelphia shipyard, the

birthplace of the United States Navy. These are training ships for our nation's maritime academies which are needed to train the next generation of mariners as we experience growing shortages to that workforce. This program has already created hundreds of jobs in my district and throughout our region, and it will create hundreds more as work continues.

These training vessels are critical to our national commerce, our national defense, and our regional economy. This Friday, I am looking forward to attending the keel laying ceremony for the first of these vessels at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.

I want to highlight, as well, the important reforms that the NDAA finally makes to the way the military handles cases of sexual assault. Thanks to years of work by advocates and members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the NDAA will remove special victims crimes from the chain of command and create an Office of the Special Victim Prosecutor within each service that is independent from the military justice system.

These reforms will ensure that allegations of sexual assault get an independent investigation with experienced criminal justice attorneys, allowing our servicemembers to seek justice without the pressures and obfuscation that keep these crimes in the shadows. While I believe that a lot more can and should be done to address sexual assault in the Armed Forces, the FY 2022 NDAA makes much-needed progress.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, today's rule will provide a process for expedited consideration in the Senate of legislation to raise the Nation's debt limit. Congressional Republicans have held the country hostage for nearly 4 months, threatening to derail our economy, and the world's economy, as part of a fiscally irresponsible political stunt.

Again, it is incredibly irresponsible for Members of Congress to support fiscal policies that require the Treasury to borrow and then to prevent the Treasury from doing so. We must raise the debt limit, and we must be responsible stewards of the full faith and credit of the United States.

It has been said multiple times but bears repeating: Raising the debt limit is necessary to allow the Treasury to pay the bills our country has already incurred. It has nothing to do with the national debt. The United States cannot default on its bills without creating a global financial crisis and inflicting serious financial harm on our country and its inhabitants.

It is grossly irresponsible for any Member of this Congress to deliberately court financial disaster by nonpayment of our debts, and particularly to do so for partisan political purposes.

I look forward to legislative action in the future to permanently lift the debt limit and to permanently remove this political football from the Halls of Congress. I am glad that both Chambers of Congress have come to an agreement on the path forward to raising the debt limit for the present so that we can end the economic anxiety caused by this arbitrary and functionally useless budget provision.

In addition to the debt limit provision, the rule includes important budgetary provisions to protect funding from Medicare and other important Federal programs as our Nation continues our robust recovery from last year's recession, and to fight the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 838, I call up the bill (S. 1605) to designate the National Pulse Memorial located at 1912 South Orange Avenue in Orlando, Florida, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1605.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank all the people involved in this

process. Certainly, the staff of the Armed Services Committee, our bipartisan staff, worked incredibly hard over the course of this year to put the bill together, first to get it through our committee process, off the floor and then in the negotiation process that has led to this final bill.

I think it is an incredibly important process because it includes so many people. Throughout the House, throughout the Senate, Members who have concerns in a wide range of policy areas have the opportunity in this bill to have those concerns heard and to try to address them through legislation.

When you add it all up, of all the different proposals that have come at us in the House and the Senate negotiating process, you are well north of a thousand different ideas that have been sent our way, and the staff sift through all of that, working with Members and their staffs as well, to try to come up with the best solutions.

This is an unbelievably important process because it is representative democracy. It is the way our system is supposed to work, and this bill truly reflects that. It is a bipartisan, bicameral product that took into account every single opinion that it could, and I think we have produced an outstanding product.

The number one thing that I want to make sure that people are aware of is how important the Armed Services Committee's job of exercising oversight of the Department of Defense is and how important our job of making sure that the men and women who serve our country have everything they need to carry out the missions that we ask them to do. That is what our committee does. A whole lot of other issues get involved, but at its core, that is what we are focused on. In this bill there are hundreds of provisions to help make sure that gets done and gets done well.

One of the major challenges our military faces right now is dealing with the rapid pace of technology. It is getting the Pentagon to better and more quickly adapt the innovative technologies that we need to meet our national security threats, and those threats are very real, as we are learning right now in real time, with what is going on between Russia and Ukraine, as we learn every day as we deal with an expansionist China, as we try to deal with Iran and North Korea and transnational terrorist groups. Those threats are real. Technology and innovation are crucial to meeting those threats, but we are moving too slowly at this point.

There was a commission on artificial intelligence run by Eric Schmidt and Bob Work that put a whole series of recommendations together. Jim Langevin's subcommittee worked on that. A number of proposals are in this bill to help them do a better job of handling that issue.

We had a task force last year on supply chain concerns, which we have heard so much about. A number of key provisions from that task force are in this bill. That is what we do.

Now, there are a lot of other issues, and it seems like when we get down to the end, we are always talking about the things we disagree about, which makes a certain amount of sense because, you know, you get through the stuff you can agree on, then you get down to the tougher stuff, and then you get down to the really tough stuff.

But when we get down to that really tough stuff, I really hope that people don't lose track of how important this piece of legislation is with the day in and day out work we do to support the national security and national defense of this country and to support the people who we ask to perform those tasks.

This is an outstanding bill that needs to get passed.

Now, it also happens that it is one of the few bills that consistently passes every year. Well, actually, it is the only bill that consistently gets passed every year, so we have a lot of issues from outside committees.

I forget how many hundreds of proposals we had, but at the end of the day, the hundred-plus proposals that were in this bill we got 40 percent of them included in the final product, and we are happy to do that because it helps advance important issues in a wide variety of other areas. We can't carry them all because you have got to get bipartisan, bicameral agreement. So those of you who didn't get what you wanted out of this, please look at what is in the bill and how important it is.

And the single most important thing in this bill, in my view, is we finally reformed our Uniform Code of Military Justice for how it deals with sexual assault. A stain on the military to this day is the fact that we have not adequately dealt with and protected the servicemembers who have faced sexual crimes in the military.

This is the most transformational change that we have done on that issue. We take all sex crimes away from the commander, and we create a Special Victims Prosecutor who will have the expertise, the commitment, and the focus to adequately decide what crimes should be charged and to prosecute those crimes effectively.

Now, a lot of people have worked on this. Nobody has done more than Jackie Speier. Jackie is responsible for getting this done and getting it to this point. Of all those people who worked on it, there were a lot of differences of opinion about how exactly to do it. And I know some folks think it should have been done slightly differently here, slightly differently there. This is the agreement that we can get done and get passed, and it is transformational in what it does.

It is also, I believe, crucial to dealing with one of the other major issues that we face in the military, and that is diversity.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

The diversity problem that we have with recruitment, promotion, and how is the UCMJ carried out with regard to people of color. This bill will give us the opportunity to set up a whole set of crimes that are under a new authority to take a shot at fixing that problem.

Now, I know some would like to add more crimes to that, and we had that debate. This is what we came up with, and it is huge. It is the biggest change we have had in a long time. It is worthy of our support. The entire bill is worthy of our support.

The last thing I want to say is, I want to specifically thank Mr. Rogers of Alabama, the ranking member on this committee. The bipartisan, bicameral work that we do would not be possible without leadership on both sides. I could not ask for a better partner. His staff has been outstanding, as well as we have worked to get this product.

I highly recommend this bill. Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to vote in favor of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), chair of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies, and Information Systems.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), chair of the Tactical Air and Land Force Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the chair of the Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the chair of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close at this point if the gentleman is.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin at an odd place. I don't want to discourage people from voting for this bill, but on the vaccine mandate issue, I want to make very clear that I heard a lot of things that were supposed to be done in this bill; none of that was done in the bill. We don't have anything in the bill which tells the military what they can or cannot do in terms of punishing people for refusing to meet the vaccine mandate, as a starting point. We certainly don't have anything in the bill that says natural immunity can count.

We do have language in the bill that says that the military should take a look at how the vaccine mandate could be--sorry. It is not in the bill; it is in bill language, which is a different thing. It says you can look at how the vaccine mandate is affecting recruitment and retention, and that is fine.

But all that other stuff, Madam Speaker, for those of you who are listening and thinking I may have lost my mind, I have not. We did not support that and did not do that.

That minor point aside, this is an outstanding piece of legislation that is truly bipartisan. There are a lot of small, little things here and there. But, again, the big picture is everything we do in this bill and everything that you heard, Madam Speaker, from primarily the chairs and ranking members of our subcommittee, an exhaustive list of all the provisions that are so important in making sure that we meet our obligations on national security, defense, and supporting the men and women who serve. It is a ton of work to figure out those policies, and it has never been, in my view, more important during my time in Congress.

As we have heard, we have these threats that are out there. They are real and as complex as they have ever been. Then also, we have the rapid pace of technology and innovation that is changing what is necessary to provide adequate deterrence and to provide adequate defense on a minute-to-minute basis.

The most crucial thing in our ability to meet our national security objectives is: How quickly are we going to innovate? How quickly are we going to adapt?

We are not innovating and adapting quickly enough right now, and there are a whole bunch of provisions in this bill to help push the Pentagon in the correct direction, to help make sure we give them the help they need or, in some cases, the push they need to adopt the technology that is going to move us in a better direction.

We also have a lot in this bill to help improve competition and to deal with some of the very painful cost overruns that we have seen on programs like the KC-46 tanker, programs like the F-35, and a whole series of other issues.

We introduce competition, and we introduce ways to make sure that we take advantage of technology because every time I see a cost overrun-- and the Speaker is uniquely positioned to understand this. Again, we have these terrible cost overruns we hear about, and we always hear: Oh, well, it is a software problem.

Well, yes, it is like a multibillion-dollar software problem. So why don't we fix those software problems and save us a lot of money?

This bill pushes us more in the direction of getting after those problems than any bill that I have worked on. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation that moves us forward in a positive direction.

Yes, we are also able to carry a few issues that were not in our jurisdiction. In fact, Madam Speaker, with the permission of everyone, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has arrived and was going to speak.

Madam Speaker, if I could yield to him just 1 minute or 2 to talk about the Committee on Foreign Affairs because the committee reauthorized a provision that is contained in this bill as well. I want to make sure the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has at least a couple of minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes of my remaining time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) to talk about the Foreign Affairs provision, and then I will close when he is done.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the staff for the outstanding job that they do. As I have always said, Members have constituents coming at us on a variety of different issues. We come up with ideas and say we ought to do this. And from that, that idea actually has to be written down and has to get approval. It is the staff that does all

that tireless work to make sure that we get the final product that is in front of us. I really, really want to thank the staff.

I want to emphasize the fact that our staff on the Armed Services Committee is a bipartisan staff. It is the only committee in Congress that does that. Whether we are in charge or the Republicans are in charge, the staff is bipartisan, and I think that is incredibly important in getting the work done in the way that we do, working together to produce this product. This is a product every single Member of this body can be proud of, and it is a product I think every single Member of this body should vote for.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, today ought to be a rare day for bipartisanship on behalf of patients and healthcare providers across America. Sadly, it is another day for Democrats' partisanship.

Providing needed funding for Medicare providers, our local doctors and hospitals, especially as we recover from the pandemic, is just common sense. We should be on the same page. In fact, we were, as early as a few hours ago, when Republicans also introduced legislation to help our healthcare providers.

Instead, Democrats have decided to push a very partisan agenda that has led to crisis after crisis, including the one we addressed today.

Our border communities are overwhelmed. Bidenflation is robbing American paychecks. The President has mishandled the economy so badly, he is already nearly a million jobs short of his promises from his last $2 trillion spending binge.

Now, patients and doctors are being held hostage to pave the way for trillions of more reckless spending that most Americans don't even want.

Regrettably, Democrats are politicizing needed funding for Americans' healthcare with a poison pill that provides a process for lifting the debt ceiling, absolutely unrelated, and using patients and access to local doctors as leverage to increase the national debt on our children and grandchildren.

Last month, knowing this was coming, Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee called for a hearing, a bipartisan hearing, to address the issues around our doctors and our healthcare providers and reimbursement.

In a letter, we wrote to our Democrat colleagues, who we believed shared the same concerns, and said: ``If the stability of healthcare providers is, in fact, still a priority for you,'' let's hold a hearing so that we can discuss a legislative solution going forward to maintain patient access to our local providers.

Instead, once again, my Democrat colleagues are choosing to go it alone because seemingly they are obsessed with spending taxpayer dollars wastefully.

We know there is bipartisan support for doctors. We should do a standalone bill. But the truth is, House Republicans can't support using patients and access to local doctors as leverage to increase the national debt on our children.

We know there is bipartisan support for providers, and we know this could stand alone as a bill. Unfortunately, this is not the path the Democrats have chosen.

Make no mistake: This debt ceiling is being lifted to pay for trillions of wasteful socialist spending. This debt ceiling limit is increased until 2023, all to accommodate trillions of wasteful spending, and Americans know it.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has noted that President Biden's Build Back Better bill would cost nearly $5 trillion, while the President and others continue to claim falsely that this costs zero dollars.

Unfortunately for the President and the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill, The Washington Post fact checker found this claim false and misleading. They said it ``would take some dubious gimmicks that help disguise the true cost of President Biden's agenda,'' and these gimmicks are just to justify paying for absolute waste.

Democrats give away hundreds of billions of dollars to special interests and the wealthy, literally sending government checks to the top 1 percent and the biggest corporations.

Democrats protect so-called green companies from their new minimum tax. Wealthy individuals with up to $500,000 in income every year enjoy their own green welfare, including a $12,500 check from single moms and working Americans so they can buy the wealthy a luxury electric vehicle.

Democrats force the 90 percent of Americans who don't join a union to subsidize the few who do. Democrats provide loopholes and tax cuts for special interests like trial lawyers.

Democrats would increase the $10,000 SALT cap, providing wealthy taxpayers with a windfall of a quarter of a trillion dollars to help the wealthy.

Two out of three millionaires get a tax cut. One out of three middle- class families get a tax hike. Where are their priorities?

Democrats' tax and spending spree will more than double Americans' chances of being audited as it targets lower- and middle-income earners to make sure they pay their ``fair share.''

This proposal and that proposal will lead to an additional 1.2 million IRS audits each year focused on the middle class, and we will see $200 billion of new taxes on our Main Street small businesses.

What does it mean for Americans? More than double the chance of being audited, and not just for the rich.

Americans ought to take a step back and see what we are doing tonight as shameful. That is exactly what it is.

Democrats are threatening to hold up payments for our local doctors and healthcare providers, as they fight out of the pandemic, so Democrats can pay for measures they claim we need because of the pandemic.

We have gone from never letting a crisis go to waste to never letting a crisis get in the way of waste.

This debt ceiling crisis didn't have to happen this way. House Democrats have known this day was coming for 2 years, but they never bothered to pass a budget, never passed appropriations bills, and failed to have any bipartisan discussion. Here we are at the last minute.

Madam Speaker, commonsense Americans will not let their doctors and healthcare providers be held hostage to this debt ceiling crisis. We strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), the Republican leader of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the Republican leader of the Budget Committee and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), leader of the Republican Doctors Caucus who worked to put these solutions together.

Madam Speaker, may I ask, is the gentleman prepared to close?

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

The claim we just heard, that only Democrats want to prevent these cuts to our local doctors and hospitals, is just nonsense. Democrats and Republicans have worked hard together to extend the moratorium on the sequester cuts on our providers, our doctors and hospitals; to provide a 3 percent payment increase for our physicians; to make sure, in the administration's proposals, to help increase reimbursement for primary care physicians. You don't cut the payment for specialty doctors, many of whom were hurt so hard during COVID.

We also worked with our Democrat colleagues to delay for a year the proposed cuts by this administration on our labs and our oncologists, and we worked together to make sure other cuts didn't occur.

All that bipartisanship was all on track up until a few hours ago when my Democrat colleagues decided they would hold this hostage, hold the healthcare reimbursements for doctors and hospitals hostage for their debt ceiling crisis that they created.

It really is, I think, in a day and age where we have seen this one- party rule for an entire year, the arrogance of this power going to their heads. It is unfortunate that they couldn't continue to work just a few hours longer together with Republicans to provide help to our physicians, hospitals, and providers.

This bill ought to be a stand-alone bill. We should never hold them hostage for our colleagues' spending spree and socialist agenda. Unfortunately, that is what our Democrat colleagues have done today.

We have introduced legislation as Republicans that mirrors our Democrat colleagues because we believe so strongly together. Unfortunately, one-party rule tore this apart.

That is why the American public is going to return the majority of this House to Republicans in the next election and why President Biden's approval ratings are at a terribly low rate, a disapproval rate of 57 percent. It is unfortunate. We ought to be working together on that.

I would be glad to yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. Our colleagues have known for 2 years this debt ceiling was here, never passed a budget, never passed an appropriations bill. They let this crisis occur and built it time after time after time when we could easily have come together.

By the way, our Democrat colleagues hold the House; they hold the Senate; they hold the White House. They have the power to pass the debt ceiling, and they have had that for the entire year.

To my Democrat friends, you can try to sell this snake oil all you want, but the truth of the matter is, you wrecked a bipartisan agreement for your debt ceiling crisis. That is what we are voting on today.

Republicans support help for healthcare providers. We will not allow them to be held hostage to this debt ceiling crisis.

Madam Speaker, I urge strong opposition to this bill and urge my Democrat colleagues to someday work with us. Let's work together on these issues. I yield back the balance of my time.

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