Combating Global Corruption Act of 2021

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Scalise, for yielding.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the section-by-section analysis of the resolution.

H. Res. 5

Adopting the Rules for the 118th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Adoption of the Rules of the One Hundred

Seventeenth Congress.

This section provides that the Rules of the 117th Congress

are the Rules of the 118th Congress, except for the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in the resolution.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.

Subsection (a)(l) replaces current ``pay-as-you-go''

requirements with ``cut-as-you-go'' requirements. The

provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint

resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net

effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or

ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current

practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to

a special order of business which directs the Clerk to

engross the measures together after passage for purposes of

compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for

addressing ``emergency'' designations.

Subsection (a)(2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that

provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the

Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,

upon the adoption by the House of a concurrent resolution on

the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in

the House on the public debt limit legislation.

Subsection (a)(3) restores a point of order against net

increase in budget authority for amendments to general

appropriations bills.

Subsection (a)(4) restores a point of order against budget

reconciliation directives that increase net direct spending.

Increased Threshold for Tax Rate Increases. Subsection (b)

restores a requirement for a three-fifths supermajority vote

on tax rate increases.

Two Minute Votes. Subsection (c) provides that the Speaker

can reduce vote times in the House to not less than two

minutes on any question that follows another electronic vote.

The subsection also states that to the maximum extent

practicable, advance notice will be given when reduced voting

times are expected in a voting series.

Modifications to Calendar Wednesday. Subsection (d)

modifies the notice requirement to use Calendar Wednesday to

conform with the 72-hour notice requirement prior to

consideration of legislation.

Committee Authorization and Oversight Plans. Subsection (e)

restores the requirement that each standing committee (except

the Committees on Appropriations, Ethics, and Rules) vote to

adopt an authorization and oversight plan, which must be

submitted to the Committees on Oversight and Accountability

and House Administration no later than March 1 of the first

session of a Congress. The plan must include a list of

unauthorized programs and agencies within the committee's

jurisdiction that have received funding in the prior fiscal

year, or in the case of a permanent authorization, have not

received a comprehensive review by the committee in the prior

three Congresses. The subsection requires committees to

describe each program or agency that is intended to be

authorized in the current Congress or next Congress, and a

description of oversight to support reauthorization in the

current Congress. The subsection also requires the

plan include any recommendations for moving such programs or

agencies from mandatory to discretionary funding. When

developing these plans, committee chairs must coordinate with

other committees of jurisdiction to ensure that programs and

agencies are subject to routine authorization efforts.

The subsection also provides that committee authorization

and oversight plans may make recommendations to consolidate

or terminate duplicative or unnecessary programs and

agencies. Committees may make recommendations for changes to

existing law to address Federal rules, regulations, statutes,

and court decisions related to programs that are inconsistent

with Congress' Article I authorities, as well as provide a

description of other oversight activities that may be

necessary.

The subsection also requires the Committee on Oversight and

Accountability to report to the House no later than April 15

the authorization and oversight plans submitted by committees

together with any recommendations it may make to ensure

effective coordination of the plans.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Include

Macroeconomic Effects. Subsection (f) restores the

requirement that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint

Committee on Taxation, to the extent practicable, incorporate

the macroeconomic effects of major legislation into the

official cost estimates used for enforcing the budget

resolution and other rules of the House. The subsection

requires, to the extent practicable, a qualitative assessment

of the long-term budgetary and macroeconomic effects of major

legislation, which is defined to cover legislation that

causes a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by

the budget resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25

percent of the projected GDP for that year. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in

the case of revenue legislation the House member serving

as the Chair or Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on

Taxation, to designate major legislation for purposes of

this rule.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (g) directs the Committee on

Ethics to adopt rules which provide for a process to receive

complaints directly from the public.

Empaneling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on

Ethics. Subsection (h) codifies House Resolution 451, 110th

Congress, directing the Committee on Ethics to empanel an

investigative subcommittee or issue a report within 30 days

of the date a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner

is indicted, or criminal charges are filed.

Treatment of Evidence in Committee and Subcommittee

Investigations. Subsection (i) eliminates a requirement that

the Committee on Ethics adopt a rule allowing the use during

an ethics investigation of evidence presented in a related

criminal case where the respondent was convicted because this

is already contained in the committee rules of the Committee

on Ethics.

Designating Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Subsection (j) redesignates the Committee on Oversight and

Reform as the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Designating Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subsection (k) redesignates the Committee on Education and

Labor as the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subcommittees of Committee on Agriculture. Subsection (1)

permits the Committee on Agriculture to have six

subcommittees, codifying a separate order in effect since the

114th Congress.

Cybersecurity. Subsection (m) modifies the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Homeland Security to include functions of

the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity.

Committees currently holding jurisdiction over cybersecurity

functions of DHS will retain a shared jurisdictional interest

in such functions.

Scope of Authority to Act in Continuing Litigation Matters.

Subsection (n) eliminates ``including, but not limited to,

the issuance of subpoenas'' in the description of authority

to act as successor-in-interest in continuing litigation

matters, such language being superfluous.

Record Votes on Measures Reported by the Committee on

Rules. Subsection (o) requires reports from the Committee on

Rules to include a depiction of recorded votes.

Access to the Hall of the House. Subsection (p) strikes

language providing Governors of Territories and the Mayor of

the District of Columbia access to the Hall of the House.

Resolution Declaring the Office of Speaker Vacant.

Subsection (q) strikes language from rule IX to allow any

member to offer a privileged resolution declaring the Office

of Speaker vacant.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Holman Rule. Subsection (a) reinstates the ``Holman Rule''

which allows amendments to appropriations legislation that

would reduce the salary of or fire specific federal

employees, or cut a specific program.

Restoring Legislative Branch Accountability. Subsection (b)

states regulations adopted pursuant to House Resolution 1096,

117th Congress will have no force or effect in the 118th

Congress.

Requirement with Respect to Single Subject Bill. Subsection

(c) provides that, effective February 1, 2023, a bill or

joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor

submits a statement setting forth the single subject of the

bill or joint resolution. This statement must be included

with the statement required by clause 7(c) of rule XII

(Constitutional Authority Statements). A statement for any

bill or joint resolution introduced prior to the effective

date shall, to the extent practicable, be submitted by the

sponsor prior to committee or House consideration.

Question of Consideration for Germanenes. Subsection (d)

establishes a question of consideration on a special rule

that waives germaneness for an amendment. The question of

consideration is debatable for 20 minutes and is not subject

to any intervening motion.

Budget Matter. Subsection (e)(l)(A) provides the authority

for the chair of the Committee on the Budget to file

allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary

levels for the purpose of enforcing provisions of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Additionally, this

subsection states that the provisions of S. Con. Res. 14,

117th Congress shall have no force or effect.

Subsection (e)(l)(B) provides adjustment authority to the

chair of the Committee on the Budget for a bill, joint

resolution, amendment thereto, or conference report thereon

if the measure does not increase direct spending over five

or ten years. It additionally provides adjustment

authority to the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

take into account the most recent baseline published by

the Congressional Budget Office.

Subsection (e)(1)(C) allows the Majority Leader or his

designee, should the chair of the Committee on the Budget not

yet be elected, to file statements permitted under

subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B).

Subsection (e)(1)(D) allows the chair of the Committee on

the Budget (or the Majority Leader or his designee, should

the chair not yet be elected) to adjust an estimate under

clause 4 of rule XXIX to exempt the budgetary effects of

measures to protect taxpayers with taxable incomes below

$400,000 from an increase in audits above the most recent tax

year from the Internal Revenue Service.

Subsection (e)(2) establishes a point of order against

consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a

committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an

amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has

the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of

$2,500,000,000 for any of the four consecutive 10 fiscal year

periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10

fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The levels of net

increases in direct spending shall be determined based on

estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the

Budget.

Subsection (e)(3) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation that shows changes in mandatory spending

which cause a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year

covered by the budget resolution that is equal to or greater

than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP for the current fiscal

year, to the extent practicable, to provide an estimate of

the inflationary impacts of that legislation. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

designate major legislation for purposes of this order.

Subsection (e)(4) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation impacting either the Medicare Part A trust

fund or OASDI trust fund that causes a gross budgetary effect

in any fiscal year covered by the budget resolution that is

equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP

for the current fiscal year, to the extent practicable, to

display: (1) the impact of legislation on the Medicare Part A

trust fund's unfunded liabilities over a 25-year projection,

solvency projections, and the net present value of those

liabilities; and (2) the impact on the OASDI trust fund's

unfunded liabilities over a 75-year projection, solvency

projections, and the net present value of those liabilities.

This subsection also allows the chair of the Committee on the

Budget to designate major legislation for purposes of this

order.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (f) provides for spending reduction account

transfer amendments and requires a spending reduction account

section to be included in all general appropriations bills.

Scoring Conveyances of Federal Land. Subsection (g)

reinstates the separate order from the 115th Congress

providing that any provision in a bill, joint resolution,

amendment, or conference report requiring or authorizing a

conveyance of federal land to a State, local government, or

tribal entity, shall not be considered as providing new

budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory

spending, or increasing outlays.

Member Day Hearing Requirement. Subsection (h) modifies the

Member Day hearing requirement to only occur at the full

committee level. Each standing committee (other than the

Committee on Ethics) must hold a Member Day Hearing during

the first session of the 118th Congress to receive testimony

from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on

proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. The subsection

permits the Committee on Rules to hold its Member Day Hearing

during the second session to receive testimony on proposed

changes to the standing rules for the next Congress.

Information to Committees of Congress on Request.

Subsection (i) requires that the chair of the Committee on

Oversight and Accountability be included as one of the seven

members of the committee making any request of an Executive

agency pursuant to section 2954 of title 5, United States

Code.

Remote Appearance of Witnesses. Subsection (j) provides

limited authorization to a chair

of a committee to allow witnesses to appear remotely at

committee and subcommittee proceedings. This subsection

applies only to witnesses appearing in a non-governmental

capacity and in accordance with regulations issued by the

chair of the Committee on Rules and printed in the

Congressional Record.

Deposition Authority. Subsection (k) provides the Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence and each standing committee

of the 118th Congress (except for the Committee on Rules) the

authority to order the taking of a deposition by a member or

counsel of such committee and limits persons who can attend

depositions to members, committee staff, an official

reporter, the witness, and up to two, personal,

nongovernmental attorneys. Depositions taken under this

authority are subject to regulations issued by the chair of

the Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional

Record.

Broadening Availability and Utility of Legislative

Documents in Machine-Readable Formats. Subsection (l)

instructs the Committee on House Administration, the Clerk,

an other officers and officials to advance

government transparency by continuing efforts to publish

documents of the House in machinereadable formats and

broaden their utility by enabling all House staff to

create comparative prints.

Improving the Committee Electronic Document Repository.

Subsection (m) directs the Clerk, the Committee on House

Administration, and other officers and officials to continue

to improve the existing electronic document repository

operated by the Clerk for use by committees. Such

improvements are intended to increase public availability and

identification of legislative information produced by House

committees, including votes, amendments, and witness

disclosure forms.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (n) carries forward provisions that

clarify the procedures of the House regarding the receipt of

Article V memorials from the States by directing the Clerk to

make each memorial, designated by the chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary, electronically available, organized by

State of origin and year of receipt, and indicate whether the

memorial was designated as an application or rescission.

In carrying out this subsection, it is expected that the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary will be solely

charged with determining whether a memorial purports to be an

application of the legislature of a state calling for a

constitutional convention or rescission of prior

applications. The Clerk's role will be entirely

administrative. The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will only designate memorials from state legislatures (and

not petitions from individuals or other parties), as it is

only state legislatures that are contemplated under Article V

of the Constitution.

In submitting each memorial to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

that indicates it has been designated under this subsection.

The Clerk will make publicly available the memorial and the

transmission letter from the chair. Ancillary documentation

from the state or other parties is not expected to be

publicized.

War Powers Resolution. Subsection (o) continues a separate

order from the 117th Congress expressly providing that any

motion to discharge a measure introduced pursuant to section

6 or section 7 of the War Powers Resolution is not subject to

a motion to table.

Further Expenses for Resolving Contested Elections.

Subsection (p) authorizes such sums as may be necessary for

the Committee on House Administration to resolve contested

elections. Funds shall be available for expenses incurred

between January 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024. Amounts made

available under this subsection shall be expended in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on

House Administration.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (q) directs the Speaker to

establish a bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive

review of House ethics rules and regulations. The task force

is directed to submit a report to the Speaker, Majority

Leader, Minority Leader, and chair and ranking minority

members of the Committees on Ethics and Rules.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (r)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, Delegates, the

Resident Commissioner, former Members, former Delegates,

former Resident Commissioners, officers, and former officers

of the House and their spouses to any former Member, former

Delegate, former Resident Commissioner, former officer, or

spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying

Disclosure Act of 1995 or any successor statute, or who is an

agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause 5 of rule

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the majority leader.

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

I begin by thanking my good friend from Massachusetts for his leadership of the Rules Committee over the last 4 years. While we certainly haven't always agreed, we have tried to always be agreeable while working with one another. I certainly associate myself with his remarks about the terrific work of the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping us facilitate the operation of the House over that 4-year period. I look forward again to working with my friend in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the rules resolution that will govern the House during the 118th Congress.

Determining the rules we will follow is one of the first and most consequential decisions we must make as a body at the beginning of each Congress. In many ways, the Rules of the House of Representatives serve to demonstrate where our priorities and values lie as an institution.

Make no mistake, the priorities of the new Republican majority are fully on display in this resolution.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to reopen the people's House and ensure that we, the people's elected servants, are here in Washington, D.C., doing our jobs.

For far too long, the House allowed Members to do their jobs from home without ever setting foot in Washington. What started out as a pandemic accommodation lasted far longer than necessary, but today, even President Biden admits that the pandemic is over.

It is time for the House of Representatives to return to our normal operating procedures, and it is time for the Members of Congress to actually show up to work. Today's rules package eliminates proxy voting and puts an end to remote committee proceedings.

We restore the requirement for committees to establish plans for how they will conduct much-needed oversight. Republicans have robust plans to ensure that we will hold the Biden administration accountable for its actions, but being a counterbalance to the administration will not stop there. With today's rules package, we will also establish a new select subcommittee, modeled on the Church Committee, to investigate the radical left's weaponization of the Federal Government in recent years.

We will also modify the jurisdiction of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to ensure we investigate the origins of the virus and finally look into the financial and societal impacts of shutdowns.

We will establish a Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to respond to threats posed by the CCP, ensure economic competitiveness for America, and protect human rights.

Other important changes in this resolution are those that are designed to address our out-of-control spending problem, which the former majority made vastly worse last Congress. In fact, when Democrats were in control of this Chamber, they spent so much money through partisan bills that they managed to drive this country into an inflationary crisis. Those aren't my words; those are the words of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

The American people elected Republicans to get our fiscal house in order, and get our fiscal house in order we will. That starts with making key changes to House rules to ensure we will instill some fiscal sanity in Congress. These changes reflect a return to budgetary rules that were in place for over a decade before Democrats removed them.

We will restore the CutGo rule, which requires us to offset any increase in mandatory spending with a corresponding cut in mandatory spending. No more will the House be able to use budget gimmicks and tricks to pretend increases in mandatory spending are paid for when they actually are not.

We will restore a requirement for a three-fifths majority to approve any tax rate increase. If this rule had been in place, the House would not have passed the massive tax increases the Democrats included in last year's reconciliation bill.

We will eliminate the so-called Gephardt rule, which allows the House to automatically suspend the debt ceiling upon passage of a budget resolution. Just as the American people have to live within their means, so, too, should the Federal Government.

Automatically suspending the debt limit may be the easy and expedient way, but on a matter as important as the national debt limit, what is easy and expedient is hardly appropriate. The American people expect us to make a decision on the national debt limit only after full and fair consideration and debate in the House. That starts with ensuring it will receive a separate, standalone vote on the floor.

Finally, we will remove the rule that allowed Democrats to simply ignore budget estimates for bills dealing with the COVID pandemic or climate change. Although it may sound controversial to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans cannot and will not thrust our heads in the sand and ignore the effects of out-of-control Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but on the whole, I am very proud of today's rule package. It reflects Republican priorities and the priorities of the voters who elected us. It reopens this institution and ensures that all Members will be in Washington to do their work, as our constituents expect. It ensures that we will hold the Biden administration and the Chinese Communist Party accountable. It ensures that we will get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the rules package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my very good friend who had so much to do with some of the extraordinary changes in this rules package.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to postpone the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 5 to a designated time later today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question relating to House Resolution 5 that follows a 15-minute vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution establishing the rules of the 118th Congress. The changes we are proposing today will ensure that the institution is set on a path of success for the new Congress.

They will ensure that Members return to Washington and do their work here.

They will set up an institution to hold the Biden administration accountable.

They will put in place budgetary rules designed to prevent the kind of reckless spending spree Democrats recently engaged in.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

My staff and I have been in close contact with the Department of Defense regarding Ms. Harris's nomination. The Department of Defense is aware of my concerns with the nominee and also aware of the very simple request that I have made to the Department in connection with her nomination. For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is the law of the land. A single line from a single concurring opinion does not make the case for legislation that seriously threatens religious liberty.

The Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary. States are not denying recognition of same-sex marriages, and there is no serious risk of anyone losing recognition. There is not a single piece of legislation that I am aware of moving through the Congress or any State legislature to do the same.

But the Supreme Court majority explicitly stated in its Dobbs ruling earlier this year that the Dobbs decision had no bearing on the recognition of same-sex marriage. The proponents of this bill falsely claim that same-sex marriage is under attack because Justice Thomas suggested in a concurring opinion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court should take a closer look at all of its substantive due process jurisprudence; not necessarily to strike down those rulings, but often to consider whether they should be premised on a different constitutional hook. The majority opinion is what mattered, and it is the one that the majority of the Supreme Court supports.

Now proponents of this bill pretend that the legislation would simply codify the status quo. I take exception to that because I don't think that is true. But even before we get to that issue, I think it is important for us to think about what codifying Obergefell on its own terms could mean and why it is that we ought to look at steps to protect religious freedom in light of Obergefell and in light of anything that purports to codify Obergefell.

I remember when the Obergefell case was being argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. Solicitor General Don Verrilli, in representing the U.S. Government--with then the Obama administration in power--was arguing before the Court, and Justice Alito, my former boss, interjected with a question.

He asked Solicitor General Verrilli, if the Supreme Court of the United States recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage throughout the United States, whether that, when read with other precedent--read in context with other Federal civil rights protections, along with prior Supreme Court rulings--might not result in the risk of some nonprofits, including some schools and universities, being threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status.

Solicitor General Verrilli responded immediately and unambiguously. He said: Yes, Justice Alito. That is going to be a problem.

He reiterated it three times that that would be a problem and that it would be something that would have to be addressed.

What he was acknowledging was that there was a real risk dealing with Obergefell itself in that, unless we take steps to protect religious colleges, religious universities, and other religious nonprofits, some of those might be threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status, based solely on their religious beliefs about marriage--about what a marriage is and what it is not.

Many in the immediate wake of Obergefell came right out, and purporting to offer comfort to religious Americans and religious institutions in America, many came forward and said: Oh, this risk isn't going to materialize.

As I recall it, President Obama, at the time, said: Look, I am not going to force any church to perform a same-sex marriage contrary to its religious teachings.

That isn't how this happens. That is not how this risk materializes. That isn't the risk. It never really was the risk. The risk is, rather, whether religious Americans, whether acting individually or as a group, will be retaliated against--denied some privilege or status or access under Federal law to which they would otherwise have access--based solely on a religious- or a moral conscience-based belief about the definition of marriage.

So that risk exists independent of this legislation. It has been enhanced by the Obergefell ruling, and it would be materially enhanced if this legislation were to pass without corresponding, necessary, statutory protections for religious freedom.

Indeed, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops warns of this very thing.

He warns as follows:

This bill's harms would be far-reaching. In any conflict

with same-sex civil marriage and the rights that flow from

it, it will be said that Congress took pains to codify

Obergefell, but not to protect the freedoms of speech and

religion that Obergefell harms, making them second-class

rights.

In other words, this bill only makes things worse. This bill takes the preexisting risks presented by Obergefell itself and enhances them, expands them, especially because, by protecting one set of interests-- those identified in Obergefell, in the decision itself--but doing nothing to address the corresponding enhanced risks we are presenting for religious freedoms, it makes for a very, very significant concern.

He continues:

The bill will be a new arrow in the quiver of those who

wish to deny religious organizations' liberty to freely

exercise their religious duties, strip them of their tax

exemptions, or exclude them from full participation in the

public arena.

So this bill--this bill that has been brought before us--will, unless modified as necessary, result in three significant problems.

First, the bill will label people of faith with differing views on marriage, influenced by their religious beliefs and moral convictions, as bigots.

Second, the bill's new private right of action will subject religious Americans to a torrent of litigation--even more than they face now. Doing so will further erode their constitutional right to freely live according to their religious beliefs. This is, after all, what happens any time we allow for the free exercise of religion to be chilled by such action.

Third, the bill will put in jeopardy the work and existence of religiously minded social agencies, educational institutions, and other nonprofits as their tax-exempt status will be threatened.

Our country was founded on the principle that government should not interfere with the ability of people of faith or of people of no faith at all to practice their religion and to live by the tenets of their own faith in their daily lives.

Of course, this can and should be done without interfering with the right of other people to live their lives. That is what we expect. In fact, every time we as Americans seek to protect freedoms, liberty, whether through the adoption of the First Amendment or the adoption of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, for example, or anywhere else, we seek to do it in a way that doesn't create a zero-sum game by enhancing the rights of some while diminishing the rights of others. That is not who we are. That is not how we roll. That is not how our constitutional framework was ever intended to function. It is antithetical to who we aim to be.

This bill elevates the rights of one group and does so at the expense of another, and it does so needlessly as there is a way to accommodate both interests, but that way, unfortunately, isn't pursued by the authors of this bill.

Many, including some on the left, want to label people who disagree with them on marriage as bigots and force them, in this instance, through endless litigation and threats, to comply with the beliefs of the left and renounce their genuine, sincere religious beliefs.

Proponents of this bill claim that the substitute amendment, which we saw for the first time just a few days ago, somehow fixes all of the concerns raised by those of us who want to protect religious liberty. They are wrong. They couldn't be more wrong. They are sadly, sadly, and severely mistaken. The amendment's narrow protections for people of faith apply to only limited circumstances--for example, to the solemnization and celebration of marriages. That protection and a few others are severely anemic when viewed against the backdrop of the threat to religious freedom presented by this bill.

Indeed, these changes brought about by the most recent amendment do nothing to prohibit the already existing, already mounting threat of government discrimination against individuals and organizations that hold traditional views regarding marriage--a risk that is materially enhanced by this legislation and all that will flow from it.

For example, Catholic Charities and other religious adoption agencies could be shut out of foster care and adoption ministries due to discriminatory government policies--policies that discriminate against them specifically because of their religious beliefs. The bill will only exacerbate what is already occurring in Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and the District of Columbia, potentially making this a nationwide trend.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' work with the Department of Health and Human Services in providing foster care to unaccompanied alien children and to unaccompanied refugee minors will be even more at risk than it is right now.

The legislation itself will put religiously affiliated schools and faith-based organizations and others who hold traditional views of marriage at even more risk of being compelled to hire or retain employees whose conduct contradicts their religious beliefs. Wedding vendors will potentially be subject, because of this legislation, to increased lawsuits, harassment, and the destruction of their livelihoods based on their religious beliefs and their desire to live their lives according to their beliefs. This includes small- and family-owned businesses, including religious businesses like kosher caterers.

Nonprofits face the potential revocation of their tax-exempt status based on their religious beliefs. At a time when we have added 87,000 new IRS agents, we shouldn't give them any additional encouragement to abuse that power in a way that threatens the beliefs and institutions that are so important to so many Americans and that form the bedrock of some of our most important institutions.

The bill's proponents claim that they want to protect religious liberty and that their most recent amendment does that, but they refuse to adopt my amendment or anything like it that would prohibit the Federal Government from discriminating against people or organizations that have traditional views on marriage based on sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions.

In many instances, they claim that the most recent amendment, in fact, does that--or they at least suggest that. The language of the most recent amendment even reads as if it might be going in that direction, but a closer inspection reveals that, alas, it does not. It does no such thing.

By suggesting that it doesn't do anything to alter or revoke tax- exempt status or any other status under Federal law--that the bill itself doesn't do that--it ignores the fact that this bill sets in motion, keeps in motion, and accelerates existing threats to religious freedom and to their revocation of tax-exempt status for broad categories of nonprofits based on religious beliefs.

It is disingenuous to suggest that this halts government from doing what I am warning of here. This amendment does not do that, which begs the question: Why? Why wouldn't they accept it?

Importantly, my proposed amendment places no restrictions on individuals or even on State or local governments. It simply prohibits the Federal Government from discriminating against individuals or organizations that have sincerely held religious beliefs or moral concerns that marriage is and should be a relationship between a man and a woman. That is all.

What I don't understand is why my colleagues claim to want to protect religious liberty and uphold the First Amendment and, in fact, claim that their amendment essentially does that while simultaneously opposing my amendment so vigorously. I think we all know the answer to that question.

The bill pays lip service to protecting religious liberty, but it does not even begin to address the most serious, egregious, and likely threats to religious liberty presented by this bill. Those with differing views and beliefs can exist in the United States without threatening the constitutionally protected rights of one group--rights upon which our country was founded--to score political points.

You see, that is the beauty of America. Our Founding Fathers believed strongly in the principle that all religious beliefs should be protected, not just those favored by those in charge of government. It is yet another reason why, when we approach rights through legislation in the U.S. Senate and as Americans more broadly--when we protect rights--we know that we have a duty, an obligation, and an ability to secure those rights that we are trying to secure in a way that doesn't undermine the rights of others.

The fact that one group of Americans might have more political support for a particular right and in protecting that right doesn't make it OK within our system, within our culture, within our traditions to undermine the rights of others. That is exactly what we are facing here.

The good news is we can fix it. We can fix it. It is easy to amend this thing in a way that doesn't have to be this way. I have yet to hear any of my Democratic or Republican colleagues who supported the bill say that they want the Federal Government to be able to go out and indiscriminately threaten the revocation of tax-exempt status in order to punish religious beliefs with which they disagree.

I have yet to hear a single Republican or a single Democrat in the House or in the Senate or anywhere else in this town say--I have yet to hear any of them say--yes, that is what we want to do.

In fact, everyone who has addressed the issue has said: No, that is not what we want to do. Most of those on this bill have said: No, we have already taken care of that with this amendment. If that is really true, let's just adopt my amendment.

And if you don't want to do it in that form, if you want to write out another version of the same thing, something that does the same thing, that is fine too. But they shouldn't be able to punish religious belief. That is all I want,

a protection saying the Federal Government may not punish any individual or entity based on a religious or moral conviction-based belief about marriage. That is not too much to ask.

If you ask any American citizen whether that was reasonable, shoot, if you ask any Member of this body in public whether that is fair and reasonable, I think they would have to say yes because it is.

When legislation goes through this body and through this Congress in the proper way, we have a better chance of ironing out these details, of making sure that we are not expanding the zone of protected rights and interests of some at the expense of others. We do that pretty well.

Mr. President, you and I serve together on the Judiciary Committee. That is the committee of jurisdiction for legislation like this. This legislation should have gone through the Judiciary Committee, and yet we have not held a single hearing on it. We have not marked up this bill in Judiciary. We haven't independently voted on this bill in the Judiciary Committee.

In fact, it hasn't been through any committee process in the Senate that I am aware of. If it had, you know the kind of work we would have run it through, the kind of work we would have put into it, and the kind of carefully crafted language we could have produced as a result of it.

I am confident we could have and would have and definitely should have worked this out in committee had we had the opportunity to do so.

This legislation bypassed committees. Sometimes that happens. I understand that it happens from time to time. It is usually a very unfortunate thing when it does. But when it does, it does not excuse us from the obligation to try to replicate that process by at least making sure that we are not harming other people outside the immediate zone of intended protected beneficiaries of the legislation in question. That is all I am asking for here, and it isn't too much to ask.

States and the Federal Government can, and surely will, continue to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, and they can do so without trampling on the First Amendment rights of those who believe in traditional marriage.

That is what it means to live in a pluralistic society. That is what it means to live in a society where we respect each other's differences, we allow each other to be who we are, live as we choose to live. That can't be done unless we allow each other to believe as we believe and not retaliate against others simply because they believe differently than we do.

Americans of good faith can continue to live by their own religion and daily life by living as they do and doing so without posing any threat to those who disagree with them. I am confident of that. But this bill does not strike that balance. It purports to do so, and it fails.

It labels people of good faith as bigots and subjects them to endless harassing litigation and discrimination and threats by that same government that was founded to protect their religious liberty.

Let's do this the right way, not the wrong way. We need to protect religious freedom. This bill doesn't do that. It places it in grave jeopardy. Let's fix the problem.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate our incredible new House Democratic leadership team: Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar. It is a dawn of a new day here in Congress, as a new generation takes on the solemn responsibility of leadership.

Leader Jeffries has been tireless in his work to put people over politics. His steady leadership as chair of our Democratic Caucus, uniting our Members, harnessing their talent and diversity, and fighting tirelessly to make life better for American people is a source of inspiration for me and so many others.

It is also a privilege to be here with my good friend Tom Cole, someone who I respect greatly and who I know greatly respects this institution. We sit on opposite ends of the dais, but I admire Mr. Cole's leadership and the example he sets. Even when we don't see eye to eye, I am proud of our work to build an atmosphere of respectful dialogue on the Rules Committee.

We have done so not just among our Members but among our hardworking staff, and I thank our minority and majority staff, led by Don Sisson and Kelly Dixon, for all of their hard work.

I look forward to working with Mr. Cole and his team this Congress to continue our collaboration on issues of shared concern.

Mr. Speaker, as Leader Jeffries put it so succinctly this weekend, our Republican friends campaigned on the claim that they would fight against inflation and fight for the American people. Instead, all they have done is come to Washington and fight with each other.

In fact, what has become crystal clear over the past few days is the extent to which the Republican Party has been hijacked by an extremist MAGA faction, a faction not interested in governing but in their own egos, a faction not interested in compromise but in their own power, a faction not interested in putting people over politics but instead interested in putting their own political ambition over the people we serve.

Now here we are, nearly a week later, considering their deeply flawed rules package, the first legislation on the floor by this new majority, and they are using it to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, attack women's access to abortion, make it easier for big oil companies to pollute, and interfere in ongoing criminal investigations into President Trump.

They are making it easier for billionaires and big corporations to avoid paying their taxes. Is that part of their contract with America? Is that their big plan to help everyday people? Because most people who read this package would think it must be a joke.

What I am concerned about is not just what is written down here. I am concerned by the backroom deals that Speaker McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus in exchange for their votes. Like Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace said just this weekend: ``We don't have any idea what promises were made.''

This is unconscionable. We are only 1 week into this, and this is how they are running this place.

There is a report out by Punchbowl News, and let me read it. It said: ``There is also a secret 3-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become Speaker--three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY 2022 levels, a debt ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments, and more.'' Is that what the Majority Leader meant when he talked about a new day and transparency?

These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They are essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right. The same Members of Congress who held this body hostage last week are the ones who ran interference for the January 6 insurrectionists, who tried to overturn a free and fair election.

Even the new Speaker of the House voted to overturn the 2020 elections. We couldn't even get a public acknowledgment from him on the 2-year anniversary of that horrific day, not even a tweet.

It is clear that Republicans welcomed the election deniers into their ranks with open arms, and now they are reaping what they have sown. The insurrectionists are in charge.

I am reminded of the words of President Kennedy: ``In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.''

The American people get it. They rejected extremism in the last two elections. That is why they picked Joe Biden, and that is why the red wave turned into a pink splash.

My Republican friends still aren't listening, and in fact, they are still empowering the extremists. Don't take my word for it. Let's go through their rules package.

They are giving a single Member the ability to remove the Speaker at any time, letting a small, far-right faction hold their leadership hostage.

They are trying to shut down criminal investigations into the former President's wrongdoing.

They are making it easier to slash taxes on billionaire corporations while dismantling the social safety net.

They are giving committee chairs unbalanced discretion over which witnesses can testify; rejecting pandemic safety procedures like remote voting; trying to force an end to congressional staff unionization; and the icing on the cake, a new subcommittee to push QAnon conspiracies and launch fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. What is next, a rule requiring we all wear tinfoil hats?

This package is disrespectful, not just to this institution, but to the people who sent us here to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Congressional Budget Office report from today titled: ``Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act.'' This nonpartisan report says that the GOP's IRS funding bill will add $114 billion to the national debt, so when people talk about taking steps to reduce the national debt, I am not sure what they are talking about.

[From the Congressional Budget Office, January 9, 2023]

Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business

Taxpayer Protection Act

Summary: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for

legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those

procedures are shown above.

The Congressional Budget Office adheres to laws and

Congressional rules concerning the federal budget and to a

set of principles (called the Scorekeeping Guidelines)

created by the Congress. Those principles guide how the House

and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget

Office, and the Office of Management and Budget attribute

budgetary effects to legislation, with the goal of promoting

consistent treatment of estimated effects among those

agencies. (For more information on those guidelines, see

Congressional Budget Office, CBO Explains Budgetary

Scorekeeping Guidelines, January 2021, www.cbo.gov/ publication/56507.)

When a provision in an authorization bill provides funding

for administrative or program management activities, such as

when the IRS receives additional funding for administrative

activities, spending of those amounts can result in increases

in receipts. Guideline 14, however, directs scorekeepers to

exclude those increases when estimating the budgetary effects

of proposals that would provide additional mandatory funding

for such activities.

Guideline 14 was adopted in part to avert cases in which

possible, but uncertain, receipts were used to offset near-

term increases in spending resulting from the same bill. That

guideline is asymmetrical, however. That is, even though

increased receipts cannot be credited to a bill that would

increase administrative funding, estimated receipt losses

that might result from a decrease in such funding are

included in the estimated budgetary effects.

H.R. 23 would rescind unobligated funds provided by

paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4),

and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117-169. CBO estimates

that the bill would decrease outlays by $71 billion and

decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period.

Both of those effects are included in accordance with

Guideline 14.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Women's Health Protection Act.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) to discuss our proposal.

We heard a lot about inflation, but none of the first 12 bills that my Republican friends are bringing up have anything to do with inflation or mention inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my friends that over a million Americans died of COVID, including a Member-elect who was supposed to be sworn in in the last Congress. These remote procedures undoubtedly saved lives of Members and staff here in this Chamber. So, please, let's not diminish what the point of all that was about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is taking credit for the 72- hour rule, which we created in our rules package, but thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democrat whip.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that the first bill they are doing is going to add $114 billion to the deficit. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned the 72-hour rule. Once again, I will say: You are welcome. Then she talked about this being the most open and transparent rule ever. Maybe the gentlewoman can share with us the secret 3-page addendum that we are reading about, because none of us have seen it. So much for transparency. I guess she is not going to share that with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for mentioning the 72-hour rule which has been mentioned many times. But I wrote it, and I thank the gentleman for keeping it.

But when I hear people talking about balanced budgets, give me a break. The first bill that my friends are bringing to the floor, according to CBO, adds $114 billion to the debt. We don't need any lectures from anybody on that side about balancing the budget. Give me a break.

Maybe the gentleman can, again, share with us the secret addendum that apparently was negotiated behind closed doors, so we actually know what agreements were made.

Four days and 15 votes, and there is only one change in the rules package going from five to be able to vacate the Chair to one. Well, there is a lot more to it. We all know that, but that is a big secret. So much for transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that in the vast majority of cases we did comply with the 72-hour rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, following the vote on the previous question, Representative DeLauro will offer a motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, again, let me just ask, will anybody on the other side share with us the secret 3-page addendum that Speaker McCarthy negotiated with the Freedom Caucus so we can know what else was decided on, given away? I guess not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my friend, but really? I mean, come on.

What were the last 4 days about? I mean, again, days and days, and 15 roll call votes, and reporting by multiple sources tell us that there is this signed agreement with the House Freedom Caucus that deals with some of the most controversial concessions.

So, you know, I know it exists. It will come out sooner or later. Everybody is talking about transparency and openness. It would be nice if there was a little bit more transparency and openness from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, let me continue what I was beginning in the last exchange.

At least one GOP office apparently has the much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum. ``We are taking a look at it . . . we're just going through it,'' Rep. Ken Calvert, a Steering Committee member, tells Axios. Asked if Members have received a copy: ``I don't know if everybody has.''

Again, don't come to the floor and talk about transparency and openness and a new day. This is backroom politics. That is what this is about, secret deals that no one is going to know anything about until it is too late.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last time House Republicans were in charge, they ended their time in power with a government shutdown. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they shut the government down and walked away.

Upon taking power once again, they began with a legislative shutdown, a shutdown where a far-right fringe held the incoming Republican leadership hostage and got them to give away everything, including their own dignity.

What is clear from all of this is that the Republican Party no longer cares about governing. This rules package is exhibit number one.

The American people sent us here because they want us to put people over politics. Sadly, this rules package puts politics first, empowering the extremists who are only interested in their own power.

As I have said again and again, if this new majority wants to work together in good faith, my door is open. If this is their plan, they have clearly chosen to become a party that embraces election deniers and extremists, and Democrats will not go along to get along.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had some harsh words for this rules package. Call it ``tough love.'' I care very deeply about this institution, about the work we do here, and the awesome responsibility of the decisions we make. I am glad that my friends kept the McGovern rule on the 72-hour and the McGovern rule that committees have to do hearings and markups before they come to the Rules Committee.

We weren't perfect, but overwhelmingly we kept our word.

This legislation does a great disservice to the people we represent, and it does not live up to the high standards that we should have for this institution. I believe that calling this House to a higher standard is the right thing to do.

But let me be clear that my criticism is reserved for the resolution we are considering and not for the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), whom I respect and admire as a person even when we strongly disagree, as we do today.

These rules are a giveaway to the far right, but this Congress need not be. If my Republican colleagues want to get anything done, it is clear that they are going to have to work together with Democrats to get things done.

Let's end the extremism and put people over politics to get stuff done.

People do not want government shutdowns.

People do not want to see us default on our financial obligations.

People want us to get stuff done and to keep the lights on.

The last two elections were a rejection of extremism. My friends predicted an overwhelmingly Republican majority in the last election, and instead, they got a pink splash because the American people, Democrats, Independents, and a lot of Republicans said: You are too extreme.

So put the extremism behind you. I urge the Speaker to work with Democrats and not just work with the small fringe group in the Republican Conference, but to work in a way to move the people's agenda forward.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, a ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.