Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance".

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the Biden- Harris administration's Title IX rule.

The administration's final Title IX rule does three things. First, it safeguards against all forms of sex-based harassment and discrimination by making several improvements to the 2020 Trump administration's Title IX rule. These include requiring schools to take prompt and effective acts to address sexual harassment as opposed to the lax Trump standard that a school's response just not be deliberately indifferent.

The new rule places the duty to report possible discrimination on more employees, in contrast to the old rule, which only required some employees to report when they had actual, not possible, knowledge of sexual discrimination or assault, and it recognizes that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity following Supreme Court precedent.

Second, the Title IX rule promotes accountability and fairness in how schools respond to and discipline sex-based discrimination by mandating that schools handle complaints in a timely manner and implement a fair and transparent process.

Finally, this rule empowers students and families to exercise their rights under Title IX. The administration's Title IX rule explicitly protects sexual assault survivors and people affected by discrimination from retaliation for seeking to have their Title IX rights enforced.

Further, the rule guarantees access to supportive services for survivors of sexual assault and accused individuals and, despite what my colleagues repeatedly claim--I thought I was in the wrong debate for a minute--this rule does not address students' participation in sports.

This false narrative follows the many attacks against the LGBTQI+ community in this House and State legislatures across the country. We have had more than 60 anti-LGBTQI+ votes on the House floor this Congress, and it is a distraction to claim that this rule harms women in sports.

For example, the Department has not issued a separate proposed rule to address athletics. They are working on it, but it has not been finalized. That is not the debate we are having today.

Let me be clear: Trans girls like all girls deserve the opportunity to participate on school sports teams, but my colleagues across the aisle keep talking about athletics because they don't want to admit the truth behind this resolution. The resolution is an attempt to undermine nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQI+ students. LGBTQI students, including trans students, deserve to go to school free from discrimination, and that is what this rule is about.

It is not about bathrooms. In fact, the real risk of violence occurs when transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facility. Transgender people experience shockingly high rates of sexual and physical violence and are much more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator.

I am also extremely concerned about the false narrative that my colleagues have invented to portray trans individuals as criminals attempting to enter restrooms to harm others. That is not supported by evidence or data.

Transgender people want the same thing everyone else wants: safety, comfort, and privacy. We must work to protect the transgender community from discrimination and stop the false narratives that exacerbate and encourage prejudice against innocent people.

This bill is particularly extreme because passing it would prevent any substantially similar rule from being enacted on these issues in the future. Voting for this bill would prohibit protections for sexual assault survivors and protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools that receive Federal funding.

If Republicans truly cared about protecting women and children, they would stop this prejudiced rhetoric and take action on bills that would actually protect women from discrimination and harassment and defend women's reproductive healthcare, make childcare more affordable, and preserve opportunities in workplaces for all parents, especially women.

Instead, this joint resolution is another attempt to undercut this administration's efforts to empower survivors and protect all Americans from discrimination.

I do want to note that this is another plank in the extremist Project 2025 takeover of government that will sanction discrimination and strip Americans of their rights and freedoms. That is on page 333 if you are looking for it.

I also note that yesterday my Republican colleagues were supporting dignity for dishwashers. I implore all of you to show some dignity to the LGBTQI students who just want to go to school and learn free from discrimination. Show some dignity to the girls and women who survive sexual assault and deserve justice.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons and others, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will note that the Bostock case did not expressly rule, but they did not say it does not apply. The issue is not before them, and that is why several courts have actually extended the ruling from Bostock to other civil rights laws.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.

Madam Speaker, in making these important decisions, it is important to rely on experts like child psychiatrists and pediatricians.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), my colleague from the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to Mr. Takano, I reiterate that this rule is not about athletics. There is a separate rule being drafted about addressing athletics. This is not it.

Also, I am concerned about the scare tactics that are being used. Studies show that allowing trans people to use facilities consistent with their gender identity does not result in increased safety risks. Nondiscrimination laws do not allow men to go into women's bathrooms, period. The claim that allowing transgender people to use facilities that match the gender they live every day allows men into women's bathrooms or women into men's bathrooms is based on a flawed understanding of what it means to be a transgender person or a misrepresentation of the law. The real risk occurs when transgender people are barred from using the appropriate facilities.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my colleague from the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the full committee.

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

I just want to point out that it is definitely not the first time that the definition of discrimination based on sex included sexual orientation and gender identity, because Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch did exactly that in the Bostock v. Clayton County case.

I also note that in this resolution, they are saying it is going to hurt girls and women. It absolutely will not. It is going to strengthen protections for girls and women because it ensures colleges and universities properly address sexual violence, violence that disproportionately impacts girls and women. The rule clarifies protections for pregnant and parenting students, and the rule explicitly clarifies protections for the LGBTQI community, including lesbian, bisexual, and transgender girls and women.

As Representative Jayapal said, these rules and protections have been in effect in many States, and the sky is not falling. People are free from discrimination in those places.

Republicans are just repeating the lie that they are standing up for women to hide from the radical antiwomen agenda. You don't have to take our word for it. Leading gender justice organizations, like the National Women's Law Center, the American Association of University Women, and Girls Inc., all oppose this resolution to repeal the Title IX rule. That is why these groups, and more than 100 organizations working to advance gender justice, LGBTQI rights, civil rights, and student rights have written to Congress urging us to oppose this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition of Gender Justice, LGBTQI+ rights, civil rights, and student rights groups, opposing H.J. Res. 165.

June 13, 2024.

Re Coalition of Gender Justice, LGBTQI+ Rights, Civil Rights,

and Student Rights Groups Urges Members to Oppose H.J.

Res. 165

Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations who

work to advance gender justice, LGBTQI+ rights, civil rights,

and student rights urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 165, and its

companion legislation in the Senate, which would undo the

U.S. Department of Education's recently published final rule

that strengthens Title IX's protections against sex-based

discrimination in federally funded schools. Not only would

H.J. Res. 165 overturn the entirety of the protections set

out in the rule, it would prevent any future effort to

reinstate any of these protections. This effort must be

rejected, as the U.S. Department of Education's recently

finalized rule reinforces and restores Title IX's

protections, ensuring that every student has the right to a

safe and welcoming learning environment, free from sex

discrimination, including LGBTQI+ students, survivors of

sexual assault and other sex-based harassment, and pregnant

and parenting students.

The updates clarify that Title IX protects against

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender

identity. With a staggering 83% of LGBTQI+ youth reporting in

school victimization--and 62% of those who have faced

victimization never reporting an incident to school staff--

the Title IX updates will clarify remedies for students

facing all types of sex-based harassment and hold school

officials accountable for fostering safer school

environments. This regulatory clarification ensures that

LGBTQI+ youth will be able to equally participate in

educational opportunities, from being able to attend prom

with a date of their choice and wearing clothes that reflect

their gender expression to using a restroom that corresponds

with their gender identity.

We collectively reject the false narrative that equal

educational opportunity for transgender and non-binary

students undermines protections for cisgender girls and

women. Transgender women are women and transgender girls are

girls who deserve the full protection of federal civil rights

law. Policies that seek to undermine protections for

transgender women and girls--whether in accessing school

restrooms or playing sports--harm all women and girls by

allowing them to be subjected to unwarranted and

inappropriate scrutiny. This scrutiny also falls particularly

hard on women and girls of color who do not follow white

standards of womanhood, and any cisgender woman or girl who

fails to conform to sex-based stereotypes of femininity

because of how they look or act. Further, schools across the

country have had gender identity nondiscrimination policies

in place for years without any issue, and comprehensive

nondiscrimination policies that explicitly enumerate gender

identity are associated with safer school environments that

result in lower rates of discrimination. Such policies are

especially critical for sex-separated spaces such as

bathrooms and locker rooms. Transgender and nonbinary

students avoid sex-separated spaces at higher rates than

their LGBQ+ peers, and delayed use of bathrooms can result in

adverse impacts on a youth's physical and physiological

state, mental health, and academic success and attention at

school. Forcing transgender and nonbinary students into sex-

separated spaces that are inconsistent with their gender

identity may result in increased risk of bullying and

physical harassment. In fact, survivor-led organizations and

anti-sexual assault and domestic violence organizations

support full and equal access for transgender people to use

restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender

identity.

Additionally, the Title IX rule reverses the Trump

administration's 2020 Title IX rule that significantly

weakened protections for student survivors seeking help in

the wake of their victimization and incentivize schools to

further sweep sexual harassment and assault under the rug.

Undoing the 2020 Title IX rule brings justice to survivors by

ensuring they are not denied their right to educational

opportunities in the wake of sexual assault or harassment.

The updates to the Title IX rule no longer allow schools to

ignore many reports of sexual assault and remove unfair

hurdles uniquely faced by student survivors in their schools'

investigations--hurdles that students and employees

complaining about any other type of misconduct do not have to

experience.

Lastly, the updates to the Title IX rule provide greater

clarity on pregnant and parenting students' rights, including

affirmative steps schools must take to ensure those students

are aware of their rights. Schools must provide reasonable

accommodations, such as the ability to take breaks and access

to a sanitary and private lactation room. According to the

CDC, roughly 50% of teenagers who become pregnant and give

birth withdraw from school and do not receive their high

school diplomas by age 22. Research indicates that

discrimination plays a major role in students having to

withdraw early from school, despite pregnant and parenting

students earning higher GPAs than their non-parenting peers.

These Title IX rule clarifications are much-needed to ensure

pregnant and parenting students have a right to equal

education opportunities.

Every student deserves to have an education free from

discrimination and harassment, including on the basis of sex.

We urge you to oppose H. Res. 165, and any efforts to

undermine this milestone rule that ensures equal educational

opportunity for LGBTQI+ students, survivors of sexual assault

and harassment, and pregnant and parenting students.

Sincerely,

A Better Balance, AFT, All* Above All, Alliance for Girls,

American Association of University Women, American Atheists,

American Humanist Association, American Psychological

Association, Arab American Institute (AAI), Ascend, Athlete

Ally, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, CA LGBTQ Health and

Human Services Network, Center for WorkLife Law, CenterLink:

The Community of LGBTQ Centers, Chicago Alliance Against

Sexual Exploitation (CAASE), Clearinghouse on Women's Issues,

Clery Center, Colorado Teen Parent Collaborative, Doctors for

America.

EdTrust, Education Law Center, Education Law Center

Pennsylvania, End Rape On Campus, Equal Rights Advocates,

Equality California, ERA Coalition, Esperanza United, Family

Equality, Feminist Majority Foundation, Generation Hope,

Girls Inc., GLAAD, GLSEN, Guttmacher Institute, Healthy Teen

Network, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First,

Immigration Equality, Institute for Women's Policy Research.

interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, Ipas, It's On Us,

Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Women

International, Just Solutions, Justice and Joy National

Collaborative (formerly National Crittenton), Know Your IX,

Advocates for Youth, Legal Momentum, The Women's Legal

Defense and Education Fund, Los Angeles LGBT Center,

MomsRising, Monsoon Asians & Pacific Islanders in Solidarity,

Movement Advancement Project, Mujeres Latinas en Accion,

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National

Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities,

National Association of Social Workers, National Center for

Lesbian Rights, National Center for Parent Leadership,

Advocacy, and Community Empowerment (National PLACE),

National Council of Jewish Women.

National Education Association, National Latina Institute

for Reproductive Justice, National LGBTQI+ Cancer Network,

National Organization for Women, National Women's Law Center,

National Women's Political Caucus, Network for Victim

Recovery of DC (NVRDC), Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and

Sexual Violence, PFLAG National, Population Institute, Public

Justice, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-

Choice America), Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, Sexual

Violence Prevention Association (SVPA), Silver State

Equality-Nevada, Stop Sexual Assault in Schools,

Supermajority, Tahirih Justice Center, The Trevor Project,

Trans Empowerment Project.

Trans Formations Project, Transgender Law Center, Ujima,

The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black

Community, UltraViolet, Victim Rights Law Center,

VOICEINSPORT Foundation, Women's March, Women's Sports

Foundation, YWCA USA.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to note that there are so many groups, domestic violence and sexual assault organizations, such as the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, that have all signed onto a national consensus statement of anti-sexual assault and domestic violence in support of full and equal access for the transgender community.

They noted: Nondiscrimination laws do not allow men to go into women's restrooms or locker rooms, period. The claim that allowing transgender people to use the facilities that match the gender they live every day, that it allows men into women's bathrooms or women into men's, is based on a flawed understanding of what it means to be transgender.

I will note that out of approximately 110,000 collegiate athletes, there are approximately 35 who identify as transgender.

Nondiscrimination laws protecting transgender people have existed for a long time. In some cases, these protections have been in place for decades. The laws have protected people from discrimination without creating harm. None of those jurisdictions have seen a rise in sexual violence or other public safety issues due to nondiscrimination laws.

Assaulting another person in a restroom or a changing room or a locker room is against the law in every State, including under this rule.

I include in the Record a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women in opposition to this resolution and in support of full and equal access for the transgender community.

National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence

Against Women,

April 21, 2016.

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

I just want to respond to ``the natural laws of this world.'' It is not a new concept. There are two-spirit people in Native-American culture. There are hijra people in South Asia and many more in Judaism. For example, the Talmud, the sacred text, lists six genders. The sky is not falling.

I also note that the gentleman referred to redefining ``sex'' to include sexual orientation and gender identity as some sort of novel or woke concept. I suggest you take that up with the Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch because he wrote the opinion making clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

I include in the Record letters from the American Library Association, the National Education Association, and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities. These three letters are all in opposition to H.J. Res. 165.

ALA American Library Association,

June 11, 2024.

Re H.J.Res. 165, Title IX rule disapproval--OPPOSE

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, US

House of Representatives.

Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, US

House of Representatives.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of

the American Library Association (ALA), I write to

respectfully oppose H.J. Res. 165, ``Providing for

congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of

Education relating to `Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex

in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal

Financial Assistance.' ''

The Department of Education's Title IX rule, issued April

29, 2024, applies the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v.

Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), to codify that Title IX

prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

or gender identity. By doing so, the rule clarifies that

recipients of Education Department funding may not

discriminate against LGBTQI+ library workers or students in

employment opportunities or the delivery of library services

(e.g., removal of library materials in a discriminatory

manner).

All Americans deserve equal opportunity in education,

employment, and the freedom to read. We urge Congress to

defend the rights of students and library workers by

rejecting H.J.Res. 165. If we can provide more information,

please contact Gavin Baker (gbaker@alawash.org).

Sincerely,

Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D., Senior Director, Public Policy &

Government Relations and Interim Associate Executive

Director, American Library Association.

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

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining.

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

I want to note in the big picture as we consider this conversation today, LGBTQ youth and trans youth are more likely to have experienced sexual violence than their straight counterparts.

Further, nearly 59 percent of LGBTQI+ students report experiencing discriminatory policies and practices at school, particularly those targeting students' gender and limiting their ability to participate in activities consistent with their gender identity.

Madam Speaker, 62 percent of LGBTQ students who were harassed or assaulted at school did not report the incident because they don't feel safe. This is creating hostile environments that are leading to adverse outcomes for LGBTQ students.

The report that I mentioned found that students who experienced discrimination and higher levels of victimization have higher dropout rates, lower academic performance, and increased mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.

Madam Speaker, 68 percent of the students reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression.

We should not be creating this hostile school climate that is making students feel unsafe because of who they are.

I want to again encourage my colleagues to think about the message that this is sending to students, that they do not belong, that they are not safe in their schools. This is the Education and the Workforce Committee. We should be making students feel safe, not making them feel threatened.

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

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

The Biden-Harris administration's Title IX rule is a necessary step in protecting all Americans from sex-based harassment and discrimination. It would uplift and empower survivors while holding schools accountable for their handling of these sensitive cases.

This Congressional Review Act that Republicans have put forward undermines the rights of survivors of sexual assault and advances a baseless, prejudiced narrative against LGBTQI+, especially transgender, individuals.

I am incredibly frustrated that Republicans are spending time obsessing over what bathroom is used instead of addressing the real problems faced by women and children.

I also include in the Record, Madam Speaker, a Statement of Administrative Policy providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code. If this President were presented with H.J. Res. 165, he would veto it, and for good reason because this bill takes us back.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.J. Res. 165--Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department

of Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 165, which

would disapprove the Department of Education's rule, under

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, to restore and

strengthen vital nondiscrimination protections for students,

employees, and applicants in federally funded education

programs and activities.

Since Title IX was signed into law more than 50 years ago,

it has opened doors for generations of women and girls and

increased access to educational opportunities for millions of

students. Despite this progress, rates of sexual harassment

and assault in our nation's schools and colleges remain

unacceptably high. Many women see their education derailed

because of pregnancy discrimination. And many LGBTQI+

students face bullying and harassment just because of who

they are.

The Department's rule is critical to ensuring that no

person experiences sex discrimination at school. The rule

provides protection from sex-based harassment, including

sexual violence; promotes accountability and fundamental

fairness through a fair, transparent, and reliable process;

and ensures that students, employees, and families understand

their rights and that institutions know their

responsibilities. The rule also advances educational equity

by requiring schools that have knowledge of possible sex

discrimination in their education programs or activities to

take prompt and effective action to end the sex

discrimination, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its

effects. Passage of H.J. Res. 165 would eliminate these

critical protections that keep students safe and able to

realize their full potential.

The promise of Title IX--an education free from sex

discrimination--remains as vital now as it was when the law

was enacted. The Administration will continue to fight

tirelessly to realize this promise and achieve equal

opportunity for all students and all Americans.

If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 165, he

would veto it.

We have made progress in making every student feel safe and be safe in schools.

I once again encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this harmful and extreme joint resolution for the sake of women, the LGBTQI community, and survivors across the Nation.

Again, Madam Speaker, yesterday we were talking about dignity for dishwashers. Please show some dignity for people who are being discriminated against because of who they are and who they love.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Republican Party released their new platform, and I heard Republican pundits saying that this platform was going to be more moderate. I saw reporters even claiming that Republicans were softening their radical, extreme views on abortion and on same-sex marriage. I even saw one Republican Senator on TV yesterday defending the platform and trying to spin it to make Trump sound like a normal, rational, moderate person, which is an impossibility, by the way.

Then I actually read the platform, and it is more of the same old same old. It is more of the same fear-mongering and divisive politics that they have been pushing for years now. They are not kicking MAGA extremism aside; they are doubling down on it.

Talk is cheap around here. Look at their legislation. Look at the bills before us this week. If someone looks at these bills and thinks the Republican Party is normal or rational or moderate, I think they need to get checked out because they are living in a fantasy world. These bills are getting crazier and crazier the longer they are in charge.

Here is the Republican agenda for this week: more attacks on the LGBTQ community; more attacks on immigrants; more attacks on voting rights because they know they can only win if fewer people vote; more attacks on working families; and more giveaways to special interests and billionaire companies.

There is nothing new here. There is just more division, more destruction, and more disarray.

There has been a lot of talk about Project 2025 lately, the Republican plan to dismantle the government, get revenge on their political adversaries, weaponize the White House, and install Trump as a dictator.

The former President recently made a laughable attempt to try to distance himself from its extremism, and what do you know, now Project 2025 is right here on the House floor because it is what Republicans actually believe.

That is what this SAVE Act is about. It is a voter suppression bill that lays the groundwork for them to undermine the next election so they can justify another January 6-style attempt to seize power even if they lose.

They will use this gotcha bill to say Democrats want to give noncitizens the ability to vote in Federal elections. Let me say now: That is a lie. It is a total lie. It is a lie that Democrats are against preventing noncitizens from voting in Federal elections. That is already illegal. What we are against is making it harder for American citizens to vote, and that is what this bill does.

Republicans in this bill want to require all this new documentation for an individual just to register to vote. They say: Well, you can use your passport.

What about someone who can't afford a $130 passport? What about someone who doesn't have the time to take a day off from work to get their birth certificate? What about someone who recently got married and changed their name so their birth certificate doesn't match their

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't even know where to begin after all that.

Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the CATO Institute titled: ``Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.''

Madam Speaker, at a press conference on the SAVE Act, the Speaker of the House said: ``We all know intuitively that a lot of illegals are voting in Federal elections, but it has not been something that is easily provable. We don't have that number.''

Madam Speaker, this body legislates based on facts--at least, it is supposed to--not on intuition. Maybe it is time for House Republicans to get serious about their jobs and stop making laws based off of absurd conspiracy theories.

If my Republican friends want to talk about protecting elections, maybe they ought to start telling the truth about the last election. Let me remind my colleagues that the leader of their party tried to submit fraudulent slates of electors to steal the last election.

That is voter fraud, Madam Speaker. That is what voter fraud looks like.

My friends on the other side of the aisle said not a thing after court after court upheld the fact that we had a free and fair election, but the former President actually submitted fraudulent slates of electors to try to change the results of the last election.

The gentleman from Texas went on about the cost of living and blamed the American Rescue Plan Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. Those bills were passed in the aftermath of a pandemic to save our economy and to save American families from going bankrupt.

Madam Speaker, I remind the gentleman that inflation is coming down faster in the United States than in any other country in the world, but if he is blaming the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan Act for increased high inflation in countries like China and other countries in the world, that is absurd.

Let me just say one other thing because this is the rule that we are talking about here today. Republicans are emboldening our adversaries and abandoning our allies. They held up aid to Ukraine for 9 months, doing irreparable damage to the fight against authoritarianism.

By the way, I should also point out to those who dragged their feet on Ukraine that Russia bombed a children's hospital in Ukraine. Deal with that. Another war crime, yet we had Republicans holding up the Ukraine aid package. The Ukrainians are fighting against authoritarianism.

Speaking of authoritarianism, we have here four more closed rules, four more completely closed rules. Putin would be proud of some of the most authoritarian rules I have ever seen. They must have learned that from their patron saint, Donald Trump.

On the one structured rule here, they made only Republican amendments in order, no bipartisan amendments nor Democratic amendments, even though many of them were rule compliant. Republicans just want to shut this place down. They said ``no'' to everything.

If this is what my Republican friends consider a fair process, wow. I mean, we have a bill that we think will disenfranchise millions of American citizens in terms of voting.

The ranking Democrat, Mr. Morelle, had an amendment that he offered that was totally rule compliant. We ought to at least have that debate. The majority can vote to suppress the vote all they want, but we ought to have that debate and get people on the record. The Republicans of the Rules Committee said no.

What is the majority afraid of? Are Republicans afraid of a little debate on some of these important issues?

We have a different definition of ``fair'' because this process, once again, makes a mockery of this institution and once again shows the majority's disdain for democracy. The Rules Committee continues to be a place where democracy goes to die.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Madam Speaker, sadly, this place is becoming a forum for trivial issues to get debated passionately and important ones not at all. I would say to the gentleman who just spoke that--and he should know this--that it is illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections. It is already the law, but I feel like we have to point that out to my Republican friends.

In listening to the way he spoke with such passion about dishwashers and refrigerators, I feel I need to remind the viewing audience that this is not Home Depot. This is supposed to be the United States Congress where we are supposed to be tackling serious issues that are confronting the American people, and, unfortunately, under this Republican leadership, we never do that.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would restore the nationwide right for providers to provide abortion care and for patients to receive care.

With bill after bill, House Republicans are letting the American people know who they are. Every opportunity they get they try to inject poison pill riders to ban IVF, to restrict access to abortion care, and to make life harder for the American people. As I have said before, they want to turn back the clock on our rights.

Just look at Project 2025, a dystopian plan for the future of our country crafted by former Trump administration officials. They want to cut your earned benefits. They want to cut school meals, and, yes, end access to abortion care. They even want to take mifepristone off the market completely.

Madam Speaker, we must bring H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, to the floor to let them know that we will not let them turn back the clock on the American people.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), to discuss our proposal.

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

Madam Speaker, let me remind people what we are here about, as well, a voter suppression bill, we are here to talk about freedom for household appliances, and we are here to attack the LGBTQ+ community. That is what these bills are all about before us today.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the BBC titled ``Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump Presidency, explained.''

Madam Speaker, this article describes Project 2025, a policy wish list for a second Trump term cooked up by some of Trump's closest allies at the far-right Heritage Foundation. It is chilling. It is a chilling window into what may await us come January should Mr. Trump win.

The items on Project 2025's agenda are straight-up dystopian. They want to take complete control of the Department of Justice and end the independence of all Federal agencies. They want to take mifepristone off the market which would amount to a virtual nationwide ban. They want to slash efforts to combat climate change, implement inhumane border policies and fire thousands of government employees.

I am just scratching the surface here. You can read it for yourself, Madam Speaker. I urge people to download it and to read all the information on it.

If that wasn't horrifying enough, the architects of this atrocious Project 2025 are also threatening political violence to all who oppose them.

Just last week, Kevin Roberts, the president of The Heritage Foundation, said that the second American Revolution will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.

Madam Speaker, Donald Trump literally incited an insurrection to stay in power. He claimed he would be a dictator on day one of his second term, and the Supreme Court just granted him full immunity for acts committed while in office.

Is anyone here stupid enough to believe he won't act on these threats?

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

I didn't think I was.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying: When Democrats speak of freedom, we are talking about freedom for people, not for dishwashers.

The gentleman raised the issue of Project 2025 as somehow it is the product of some distant think tank.

Madam Speaker, I would include in the Record a list of all the former Trump administration officials who are architects of this atrocious document.

I also point out for the record that the key witness in the House Administration Committee on this horrific voter suppression bill is one of the coarchitects of Project 2025.

The gentleman tried to take a swipe at the Center for American Progress. I think they actually have good ideas, but the Center for American Progress doesn't want to install Joe Biden as a dictator, unlike what Project 2025 wants to do with regard to Trump.

Madam Speaker, we know that there is a lot that we can do when you have competent leadership in control. Look at the last Congress when the Democrats were in charge. We invested to rebuild our neglected infrastructure of airports, roads, bridges, and ports in our communities.

Many of my Republican friends voted against it, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take bows and issue press releases when the majority gets the money and a project is happening in their district.

We brought manufacturing back to the United States, passing the Chips and Science Act to drive innovation and create good-paying jobs. We made the largest investment in climate, protecting our water and our air. We strengthened our supply chains and set up new programs to support minority businesses. We ensured that our veterans got healthcare that they earned during their service.

I would say to my friends: It is possible for us to deliver for the American people, though I haven't seen much of it yet this year. All we have done is vote on bills that destroy and dismantle progress, that further polarize this country. Now the far-right fringe are forcing us in a way that we are plummeting toward a costly government shutdown in an effort to get their extreme agenda through.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Hill titled: ``Democrats deliver as Republicans dither.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?

Okay. I will give you copies of what I am saying so you can have them.

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

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, it is not just about the legislation here. It is about two competing visions for America.

Democrats want an economy that lifts all people up. We are fighting for workers. We want opportunities for kids, success for families, and dignity for seniors. We want democracy to be secure at home and around the world. We have a vision of a better future and an idea of how to get there.

The bills today show, once again, that Republicans are more interested in division and taking us backward and turning back the clock on reproductive freedom, on voting rights, on lowering prices, on holding big corporations accountable. On all these things and more, the majority wants to drag us back. That is what their party now stands for. That is why we are wasting time with more misguided MAGA junk instead of working together to get things done for the American people.

I know those who are watching this debate maybe think this is a little bit strange, the topics that we are talking about here today. I think my Republican friends are confused what House they are in.

Again, they are not in Home Depot. They are in the House of Representatives. We ought to be debating big issues. We ought to be moving this country forward. Instead, we are dealing with this garbage. This is a waste of time. It is a waste of time.

I get it. Republicans are beholden to the most extreme elements of their Conference, but we could actually find common ground and get stuff done. We don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. Surely there are some things we can agree on that we have in common that we can move forward to help move this country in the right direction.

Instead, it is all the same old same old. Every bill that comes to the floor has all these anti-abortion riders, anti-LGBTQ riders, anti- anything-that-is-good riders. This has to stop. This has to stop. We can do better.

Again, I respectfully suggest to the chairman of the Rules Committee that one of the ways we could do better is that the gentleman can open up the debates a little bit more. We have four completely closed rules and no opportunity for any amendments. There is one structured rule, and only Republican amendments are made in order. All of the bipartisan and Democratic amendments, totally rule compliant, were shut out.

That is not the way to find common ground. That is not the way to move legislation forward in the way where it will eventually become law. We can do better. We have to do better. If not, I will say the American people in November, I think, will make a different choice, and we will be able to get back on the right track.

Madam Speaker, again, I wish we were doing something more substantive here today other than talking about refrigerators and dishwashers. I wish we were doing something more positive other than trying to repress the vote in this country, but it is what it is.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote down this rule, to open up this House, and to reject these awful, awful garbage bills.

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1341 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 1341, providing for the consideration of five measures: H.R. 8281, Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.J. Res. 165, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance''; H.R. 7700, Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act; H.R. 7637, Refrigerator Freedom Act; and H.R. 8772, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2025.

House Resolution 1341 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 8281, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.J. Res. 165, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance''; H.R. 7700, Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act; and H.R. 7637, Refrigerator Freedom Act.

House Resolution 1341 also provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 8772, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2025.

The rule provides one motion to recommit for each measure.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to bring forward this rule and look forward to supporting the underlying measures on the House floor later this week. H.R. 8772 supports the House of Representatives and its operations, recommending approximately $5.5 billion for activities under the legislative branch's jurisdiction. This includes the support of certain agencies, such as the Library of Congress and the Government Accountability Office.

Each agency listed in this appropriations package provides research and analysis to Congress. The Government Accountability Office, in particular, provides fact-based information and investigates Federal spending and performance. The reports and recommendations of this office are often used by Members of Congress and their staff as the basis for legislative recommendations and the basis for amendments.

My Democratic colleagues admit themselves in the Committee Report that there is no contention with the funding in this package. I hope then, Madam Speaker, that we may be able to pass this bill on a bipartisan basis to support Congress and a continuation of its ability to work on behalf of the American people.

H.R. 7637 and H.R. 7700 prohibit the Department of Energy from issuing, updating, or enforcing energy conservation standards for refrigerators and dishwashers unless the standards are determined by the Department to be technologically feasible, economically justified, unlikely to increase net costs for consumers, and result in a net savings of energy.

Madam Speaker, inflation has taken a toll on every American. Appliance bills may not seem to be ostentatious, but they prioritize the taxpayer's right to choose how to furnish their homes based on their lifestyle and not this administration's Green New Deal laundry list.

H.J. Res. 165, introduced by Congresswoman Mary Miller, prevents a Department of Education rule proposed and finalized under President Biden from taking effect. This rule, if not reversed, would place unfair burdens on schools, colleges, and universities, as well as potentially undermining protections in Federal law for biological women.

We must uphold Title IX for females to have equal access in academic and

athletic settings. For nearly half a century, it has been successful in ensuring that female athletes and scholars have opportunities historically only afforded to their male counterparts. This final rule from the Biden administration counters these efforts and seeks to fundamentally change what might be protected under Title IX. I urge my colleagues to support Congresswoman Miller's resolution and oppose the Department of Education's rule on this matter.

H.R. 8281 introduced by my fellow Rules Committee member Representative Chip Roy requires proof of citizenship to vote in Federal elections. This is a commonsense bill, and I hope Members across the aisle can agree to it. The right to vote in our Nation is a privilege, and it is a responsibility given only to American citizens.

Since taking office, the Biden administration has released well over 8 million illegal aliens into the country and over 1.5 million of these have been what are called got-aways. In some places in our country, the District of Columbia included, they allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections. This legislation corrects this trend for elections on the Federal level, requiring States to obtain proof of United States citizenship and identity before votes are cast.

Additionally, this legislation both allows a State to remove noncitizens from existing voter rolls and permits citizens to sue election officials who fail to do so.

Americans' faith in our national elections has declined precipitously over the last two election cycles. To restore that faith, we must work to protect American voters and the integrity of those very elections. Strengthening existing voter ID laws is a certain way to achieve both of these efforts. We owe it to our constituents to restore confidence in their electoral process.

I appreciate the bills brought before us today by my colleagues and all of the effort that has gone into crafting them. We did have a robust debate with witness testimony last night in the Rules Committee. Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing those discussions here today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am going to yield to Mr. Alford here in just a moment, but let me yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of a response.

It is difficult for me to sit here and be lectured about the cost of living by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Speaker, 2 years ago in the Rules Committee, when Republicans were in the minority and Democrats were in the majority, we pleaded with the then-majority to not do the American Rescue Plan, to not do the Inflation Reduction Act, and to not engage in all of this vast Federal spending that they had teed up.

The problem was, after the coronavirus infection in December 2020, the economy was basically getting back on its feet. All we had to do was stay out of the way. Instead, $2 trillion went to the American Rescue Plan and $4 trillion to the Inflation Reduction Act, with an extremely bloated infrastructure bill.

What happened? The cost of living blew through the roof for the poor and middle class because inflation became so severe.

The people who are supposed to be watching this, like the Chairman of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary, said that inflation is transitory, that we will get a handle on that. We are sitting here now, 18 months later, and they don't have a handle on it.

My colleague talked about the cost of living and talking to his constituents about that. They are still suffering from what Democrats did at the beginning of this administration.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), who is a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to point out, and to bring us back to the discussion at hand, that we are talking about only having American citizens voting in American elections.

We are talking about checking a Department of Energy that has just run roughshod over the rights of working Americans. Let's remember what we are doing here today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes for the purposes of a response.

First off, on Project 2025, this is the work of a think tank. Here is a news flash for everyone: There are think tanks in Washington, D.C. There are a lot of them. There are right-leaning think tanks. There are left-leaning think tanks.

In fact, one of the more frightening left-leaning think tanks is Center for American Progress. The head of the Center for American Progress is now ensconced in the White House as the Domestic Policy Advisor to the Biden administration. Members shouldn't pretend that there aren't think tanks on the left just as think tanks exist on the right. Their purpose is to provide information to legislators, House Members and Senators, and sometimes to inform legislation.

The issue keeps coming up about freedom. Let's talk about freedom for just a moment.

What about the freedom for the parents who were targeted by the Biden Department of Justice for voicing their concern about their children at a school board meeting?

What about the freedom of the Jewish students who are being violently targeted on college campuses and whose mere existence is so offensive to the radical, pro-Hamas left?

What about the freedom for homeowners in my State on the southern border who cannot safely leave their homes because, in May alone, there were over 170,000 illegal immigrant encounters, including 350 members on the terrorist watch list, at least 350 that were apprehended. There is no telling how many more came across undetected and undeterred.

Let's talk about freedom of the American families who are working to put food on their tables, create opportunities for their families, but the economy of the Biden administration is crushing them.

Let's talk about freedom of citizens of our country who want to have a vote in secure elections and want to have confidence in our systems. This bill today will provide that confidence.

My colleagues support freedom, but it seems that their idea of freedom is reserved for those whose expression of it aligns with their values and their agenda. Nevertheless, the question that is before us today is not do we all share the same views on what constitutes good policy; but, rather, did we provide for consideration of these measures in a manner that is consistent with the rules and precedents of the House?

I believe we did our duty and responsibility at the Rules Committee to advance these measures to the House floor, where our colleagues can decide whether or not to support them on their merits.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Yes, I am. Are you prepared to take notes?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the ranking member. We don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. In fact, 81 percent of the Rules Committee measures passed in this Congress have garnered bipartisan votes on the underlying measures for final passage.

We do keep hearing the points made on the other side that the legislation on the SAVE Act is not necessary and that noncitizen voting is already illegal. It is also illegal to simply walk across the border into this country without the proper authorization, and yet it happens every single day.

Noncitizens registering to vote is not a hypothetical. In 2019, Pennsylvania admitted that it had inadvertently allowed over 10,000 noncitizens to register to vote. Texas found nearly 100,000 noncitizen registrations. I think 100,000 would cause a significant impact on a Federal election.

In 2020, when Illinois implemented automatic voter registration, more than 500 noncitizens were accidentally registered to vote.

As of May 2023, the Virginia Department of Election Officials have removed over 1,400 registrants from its official voter registration rolls with a reported reason for removal due to noncitizen status. Of those noncitizens who were removed, 335 individuals had cast a ballot in Virginia elections over the previous 4 years. In total, these noncitizens cast over 800 ballots.

To the question as to whether or not these offenses were prosecuted, in response to inquiries, the Virginia Attorney General's Office said that it had no prosecution records related to this illegal voting even though voting illegally is a class C felony in Virginia. The SAVE Act is really essential to close those loopholes.

I do find it sometimes perplexing when I hear the arguments on the other side that purportedly Democrats are here in defense of democracy and somehow Republicans are opposed to democracy. I will remind my friends on the other side of the House that it is not us who are attempting to undo the

votes of millions of Democrats nationwide to remove the nominee of their party from their ballot.

Madam Speaker, America is in a state of crisis. The southern border is wide open. Americans are paying for it with their lives. The Biden administration has turned its efforts to change protections under Title IX. I reiterate that, with the number of illegal aliens who have entered our country since President Biden took office, we should almost wish for a border czar in a situation like this.

There have been over 7 million encounters with illegal aliens at our southern border, and the number of got-aways has increased by 390 percent. Americans are losing their lives. This is not just theoretical. Americans are losing their lives due to this administration's failure to protect our sovereignty.

I have said it here on the House floor before. Let me repeat it now: Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, Alex Wise, Lizbeth Medina, Melissa Powell, Riordan Powell, and Travis Wolfe are just a few of those names who were taken from their families by this crisis at the southern border. How many more Americans will have to be named before the Biden administration acts?

House Republicans do have a solution. We passed it last May. H.R. 2 would be instrumental in securing the southern border and dissuading the abuse of our immigration system, providing funding to hire and train more Border Patrol agents, and hold Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden accountable for their inability to protect the American people.

Certainly, my colleagues would not oppose Mr. Roy's good-faith measure to ensure that those who come to this country illegally are not able to vote illegally. The right to vote in America is fundamental to what it means to be American. By ensuring that only American citizens are taking part in this tradition, we can safeguard the integrity of our electoral system and guarantee that the right to vote does not lose its importance.

Your vote matters. My vote matters. It is an extension of our voice. It is our participation in this country, our right to speak for what policies we want to see enacted and what leaders we want to see in office. It is important to protect this right as it is important to secure our southern border.

Madam Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to support this rule and support the underlying measures. I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

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

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

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

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``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.