SAVE Act

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.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks there have been growing concerns among many Americans relating to the capabilities of the President to carry out his duties. Not only that, but there have been concerns about the extent to which some in the White House, perhaps also in the Congress, have limited the ability of Americans to get access to the information that they need to form their own judgment as to those capabilities.

I think there is a lot that is going to need to be investigated in the weeks and months ahead in that regard.

I wanted to just highlight today what might be the most disturbing facet of this situation, and that is the systematic efforts by the Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the White House to illegally defy a congressional subpoena in order to deprive Americans of access to this sort of information.

I want to specifically highlight what is perhaps exhibit A, you might even call it a smoking gun, that the White House acted in a consciously political way and deprived Americans of access to information, defied a congressional subpoena, defied the idea of the separation of powers and checks and balances for purely political reasons.

For months, the Judiciary Committee, under its lawful oversight authority, asked for the Justice Department to produce the interviews that President Biden had with Special Counsel Hur. These interviews were conducted, of course, as part of an investigation into the President's mishandling of classified information. The ultimate report produced by Special Counsel Hur stated that there was significant evidence the President had broken the law, but he was not going to recommend charges for, among other reasons, the fact that the President exhibited diminished faculties and a poor memory in the course of these interviews.

The House Judiciary Committee had several legitimate bases to request access to those interviews, and, indeed, the Justice Department appeared to agree in as much as they did produce transcripts of those interviews. However, they have adamantly and consistently refused to actually provide the best available evidence of materials that they have agreed are pertinent to our oversight responsibilities, and that is the recordings themselves.

These recordings exist. There are audio recordings that continue to be suppressed and concealed from the American people.

What I have here is the letter from the White House counsel Edward Siskel written to the chairman of the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee formally invoking executive privilege. This happened after weeks and weeks and weeks of stonewalling from the Justice Department. It happened moments before a hearing was convened to hold the Attorney General to cite him in contempt. Suddenly, the President exerts executive privilege.

What they said in this letter, this line right here, is really the giveaway. You might even call it a smoking gun. It says: ``The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings''--of course we had a legitimate need for them cited repeatedly in correspondence, but this is what he said: ``The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal--to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes. Demanding such sensitive and constitutionally protected law enforcement materials from the executive branch because you want to manipulate them for potential political gain is inappropriate.''

First off, this might remind you of what we have been hearing now for weeks and for months about various videos posted online, that these were somehow selectively edited, these were deepfakes, these were eliminating context. We now know that all of that was fairly bogus in terms of what Americans have now seen plainly with their own eyes.

What is clearly going on in this paragraph is the White House is relying on a political justification for withholding materials, but they know they can't state that explicitly, so they simply accuse us on the committee of having a political motivation. You don't even have to read between the lines. It is stated right there directly that they are afraid that these materials would be used against the President for potential political gain. In other words, they are afraid that they would be politically harmful to the President. That is not--that is not--a valid legal basis for defying a congressional subpoena. It is not a valid basis for asserting executive privilege, and it is very revealing as far as what the White House knew about the recordings and about the concerns that the American people have in overwhelming numbers right now is they feared that what was

revealed in those recordings would be politically disadvantageous to the President.

As we continue to learn more about the efforts that have been undertaken by the White House to deprive Americans of their right to know the most crucial of information, I think that this report and this entire series of events related to the subpoena issued to the Attorney General is going to be a very important starting point.

Celebrating Proposition 36

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an important moment for the people of my State of California with the official qualification of Proposition 36 for the November ballot.

This is the initiative to end the era of Proposition 47 in California, which has been responsible for a huge increase in theft, other crimes, homelessness, drug use, drug overdoses, and a whole host of other problems.

The initiative has qualified for the ballot and will be voted on by Californians this November, and I believe it will pass overwhelmingly this November in spite of one of the most corrupt schemes in the history of our State that was cooked up by the Governor of California-- actually, a series of repeated schemes, all very novel and unprecedented in character, all directly meant to undermine the democratic process in California, all meant to continue to make our communities unsafe, and all of which, despite the Governor having an overwhelmingly supermajority legislature, failed.

The people of California, despite the Governor's best efforts, will have the chance to reverse one of the most damaging laws in our State's history. I think that it is simply important to note, for all Americans to see, when you have something like this that happens within our system where you have an elected official--in this case, the Governor-- who directly seeks to undermine the democratic process. After they tried and tried to stop this initiative from getting the requisite signatures to qualify for the ballot in every way, they began a scheme to try to remove it from the ballot, using a host of pressure tactics to try to get the organizers of the initiative to withdraw.

When that failed, the Governor came up with a truly unprecedented scheme where they inserted poison pills into a smattering of existing public safety bills in the legislature. These poison pills stated something truly incredible, which is to say that they would be automatically reversed if voters passed the end Prop. 47 initiative in November.

The point of this was to give the attorney general a pretext for lying to voters about what the initiative would do. They would say because now there was this poison pill that would reverse all of these public safety bills, if voters pass the initiative, then the initiative is actually an anti-public safety bill.

Fortunately, the legislature ultimately refused to do the Governor's bidding. They said this is too corrupt for us. We want nothing to do with it, and that plan failed. Then, in the eleventh hour, when it was past the deadline even to put an initiative on the ballot, the Governor offered up a Hail Mary where he said: Okay, I can't get the end Prop. 47 initiative off the ballot, so what I am going to do is to put on my own competing initiative, which is watered down, which is a very weak initiative, but that will be enough to confuse voters.

What is more, he put in there that if his initiative passed with higher numbers, then the other initiative would be wiped out in its entirety, even though there are a lot of things in it that didn't conflict.

It was literally a mechanism that the Governor proposed, drafted, and introduced in the legislature to overturn the results of a democratic election in California where the end 47 initiative could have passed with 60 percent of the vote. Nevertheless, it would have been null and void, according to the trick that the Governor tried to implement.

He even moved back the deadline for propositions to qualify. He even moved back the deadline for the secretary of state to number the proposition so that his own proposition--the imposter initiative, we called it--would get a higher number and then have a better chance of getting more votes. Fortunately, this scheme failed, as well.

Once again, his own supermajority in the legislature refused to do the Governor's bidding. So now, it is official. Californians will have the opportunity to vote on what has now been numbered as Proposition 36. It will be a fair vote where voters can decide whether we want to continue with this failed experiment or whether we want to return respect to our law enforcement officials, have appropriate consequences for thieves, be able to get drug offenders the treatment they need, and be able to hold fentanyl dealers accountable.

That is what this initiative is going to do. I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the concerted efforts by the Governor of California to thwart and undermine our democratic process in an attempt to keep our communities unsafe.

Supporting the SAVE Act

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, the SAVE Act, which requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in Federal elections.

I am very grateful to say that I voted for this bill today and that it has passed out of the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, though not nearly as much bipartisan support as it should have.

In States like Massachusetts, Ohio, and Virginia, noncitizens have recently been removed from the voting rolls, and many of those noncitizens, it appears, have actually voted.

The Arizona secretary of state website is currently falsely promoting the idea that individuals who fail to present proof of citizenship when registering will be eligible to vote in Federal elections.

We also have several municipalities, including in California, that have explicitly authorized noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. H.R. 8281, the SAVE Act, seeks to address these problems in a couple of ways.

It will, number one, require an individual to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in Federal elections and, number two, provide States with access to existing Federal databases so they can clean up their voter rolls and remove noncitizens from the rolls.

This should be a pretty commonsense idea, that only American citizens should vote in American elections. It is astonishing to me that you had a couple of hundred people in the House of Representatives today who voted against this, although, fortunately, it did pass, again, with bipartisan support.

One of the objections to the bill was very interesting. The objection was: Wait a minute, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections. We don't need this law.

It is also already illegal for folks to cross our border illegally. It is kind of a tautology. It is illegal to immigrate illegally.

Does that mean it is not happening? No. Of course, it is happening in an overwhelming way unlike we have ever seen in our country's history, with millions and millions of people coming into this country illegally.

What we have learned from this administration's approach to illegal immigration is that simply having something be unauthorized under our laws is sometimes insufficient to address the problem.

While it is true it is already illegal to come into this country without being granted a pathway to be here legally, nevertheless, we need to pass bills like H.R. 2 that provide enforcement and safeguards and that ensure that the law is being followed.

In a similar vein, even though it is already illegal for noncitizens to cast a ballot, we need to have this legislation to put in place equivalent safeguards to make sure that it doesn't occur.

That is why I am encouraging the Senate to act promptly, now that it is in its court, to pass the SAVE Act to close the loopholes that are allowing this to happen, to enhance our election security, to minimize the risk of outside interference, and to restore and protect Americans' confidence in our elections.

Addressing FAFSA Deadlines

Mr. Speaker, every year, millions of high schoolers across the country who are interested in pursuing higher education fill out the Federal

Application for Federal Student Aid or FAFSA.

The FAFSA is designed to make post-secondary education accessible and affordable for students across the United States and let students know what Federal student aid, Pell grants, or work-study programs are available to them.

Traditionally, the FAFSA is released by October 1 every year, giving students, families, and schools plenty of time to decide what post- secondary education is right for them. Unfortunately, the Department of Education under President Biden has been unable to meet this standard. As early as 2022, the Department of Education refused to commit to the traditional October 1 release of the FAFSA application for the 2024- 2025 school year.

Mr. Speaker, 6 months later, in March, the Department finally admitted that it would be delayed until ``sometime in December,'' only to reveal in November that the launch date would be on December 31, the very end of December.

When the forms were finally released, processing of completed FAFSAs was delayed for months. Once processing finally began, millions contained calculation errors, rendering them useless for schools and requiring reprocessing. This caused great confusion for schools and families, and schools were forced to push back deadlines, causing uncertainty and stress for fall enrollment as if the process of applying for college isn't stressful enough.

Current law recommends FAFSA be released by October 1 but allows the Department of Education to delay the FAFSA release until January 1. Last year, the Department abused the statutory gap and continually failed to give a clear date for when the FAFSA would be released.

That is why I am cosponsoring a piece of legislation that passed the Committee on Education and the Workforce yesterday, the FAFSA Deadline Act. The FAFSA Deadline Act gives students, families, and schools much- needed clarity and stability by ensuring the FAFSA is released on October 1.

Choosing the right college is stressful, and students and families should not have to deal with added uncertainty from the Department of Education. This legislation will prevent any future delayed rollouts by the Department of Education.

I am proud to have supported it in committee, to be a cosponsor. I am hoping it will soon pass the House and Senate and be signed into law by the President.

Preserving Lake Tahoe

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent truly one of the most beautiful places in the entire world, Lake Tahoe, and I am very proud to be a sponsor of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act.

We got some good news just this week. The Senate has acted on this legislation to extend the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for another 10 years.

Lake Tahoe is a national treasure, and we must honor our commitment to preserving it for generations to come, which is what this legislation seeks to assist with.

For over 50 years, Presidents, Governors, Senators, and Representatives from both parties have worked in a bipartisan fashion to protect the natural beauty and wonder of Lake Tahoe. I was honored to join many of them last year at the Lake Tahoe Summit and will be doing so again this August.

Nearly 80 percent of the land in the Lake Tahoe Basin is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service.

The bipartisan Lake Tahoe Restoration Act provides the Federal share for the environmental restoration projects in the basin in partnership with California, Nevada, local governments, and nonprofit and for- profit partners.

Since its enactment, a total of $104.7 million has been appropriated for the current Lake Tahoe Restoration Act as of fiscal year 2023, which is about 27 percent of the total authorization.

While Congress has steadily increased the pace of appropriations under the bill since its enactment, the act has a significant level of spending authority remaining under what was originally a 7-year bill.

Since its previous authorization, funds have gone to more than 700 projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and Lake Tahoe's waters are the clearest they have been in decades. We are keeping Lake Tahoe blue.

Nonetheless, that won't happen without continued work on the part of all of these stakeholders and the assistance provided by this legislation.

Lake Tahoe welcomes millions of visitors from around the world every year and is home to 55,000 residents. I remain committed to continuing the long history of bipartisan leadership that has preserved and protected this special place.

It is up to all of us working together to assure that future generations will continue to be able to experience the beauty that those of us who live or vacation or travel to Tahoe have the great fortune to experience.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to act quickly on this bipartisan legislation, and I urge the President to sign it into law.

Honoring the Memory of Jackie Weston

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I wish to take a moment to honor the memory of Jackie Weston, an Auburn resident and community leader who, sadly and tragically, passed away recently at the age of 40.

Jackie was an anchor to the local business community, serving as the chief executive officer of the Auburn Chamber of Commerce.

Her journey began when she moved to Auburn, California, in 1985, where she became an integral part of the community, graduating from Placer High School and embedding herself into the fabric of the community.

She dedicated herself to the betterment of Auburn, channeling her enthusiasm and dedication into countless community initiatives.

Jackie embodied the essence of leadership, tirelessly volunteering her time, organizing parades, nurturing the local business community, and extending a helping hand to all.

Her impact on Auburn has been profound, and it will be enduring, leaving an indelible mark that will resonate for a long, long time to come.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I wish to extend my deepest condolences to Jackie's partner, Ian; her children, Solomon and Evelyn; and the countless others whose lives were touched by her remarkable spirit and generosity.

Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Scott's Seafood Roundhouse

Mr. Speaker, I wish to mark and celebrate the 25-year anniversary of Scott's Seafood Roundhouse in Folsom, California.

In 1976, Scott's Seafood Grill & Bar opened in San Francisco, but it was in 1999 when John and Suzanne Cook brought Scott's to the Folsom community.

For the past 25 years, the bar and grill has served as a premier community establishment, engaging and enriching Folsom and the broader region with its quality food and service.

While it has always been located in Folsom, it moved 4 years ago to the city's historic district. Now located in the heart of Folsom, Scott's Seafood is becoming a local household name that was able to navigate through the immense challenges of COVID-19, as well as the devastating passing of the owner, John Cook, in 2022.

However, the resilience and continued passion for their business is very much evident in John's widow, Suzanne.

Scott's Seafood is known not only for their fresh seafood and delicious meals, but also for their commitment to actively participating in and serving their community.

It is a true honor to represent exemplary businesses, such as Scott's Seafood, here in Congress.

Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, it is my privilege to recognize Scott's Seafood Roundhouse for reaching this significant milestone of 25 years in business.

I congratulate them, and I thank them for all they do for our community.

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

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

Madam Speaker, you are going to hear a lot of fear-mongering rhetoric from my colleagues across the aisle today.

They claim the American people have no confidence in our elections. Where have we heard that one before? In 2020, Republican after Republican debased themselves by parroting lies about the election, by repeating claims they knew to be false.

They claimed that Americans had doubts about the election outcome, knowing full well that those doubts only existed because of the easily disproved conspiracy theories MAGA Republicans had been spreading. Those same Republicans organized illegal efforts to subvert the peaceful transfer of power that undergirds our cherished democracy.

There were criminal efforts to send false slates of electors to Washington to steal the Presidency from Joe Biden. People have been charged with crimes for these fake elector schemes, the very schemes that MAGA Republicans cheered on.

More than that, the former administration used the levers of government to try to retain their failing grip on power. Where is the respect for law and order? Where is reverence for justice?

As criminal indictments have shown, there were coordinated, intentional schemes among some in the White House and members of the Department of Justice to override the will of the American people, to suborn a coup d'etat right here in the United States.

The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated publicly that Pentagon officials feared that the former President would attempt to use the military to stay in power. It is heartbreaking that this happened in our country, but what happened next is even worse.

After witnessing these corrupt efforts to stay in power, this downright shameful attempt to overthrow our system of government, what did Republicans do? Did they defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic? No, they cowered.

Speaker Johnson, joined by 126 House Republicans, filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court that attempted to throw out millions of American votes. Where did this lead? To a violent and deadly attack on this historic, majestic building, to our colleagues in this very room, on both sides of the aisle, clad in escape hoods and frantically calling loved ones, praying for divine deliverance.

As the mob stormed the Capitol, savagely beating police and calling for the execution of the sitting Vice President of the United States, the former President sat idly by. He did nothing to stop the attack. He did nothing to try to save lives, to save the Republic. He watched television in the White House for hours as the democracy was shaken to its core.

As patriots like Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi begged for support from the National Guard, from anyone, the former President did nothing.

Even the memories of that darkest of days haven't deterred Republicans'

quest for power. They decided to try it all again.

Last month, a rogues' gallery of election deniers stood on the steps of the Capitol, spreading more inaccuracies about the security of our elections. They admitted that they had no evidence of noncitizen voting in our elections, the same rhetoric that nearly broke our Nation 4 years ago.

Republicans' continued election denialism is akin to collective hero syndrome, where individuals create harmful situations like lighting a fire only to seek praise for putting the fire out.

This was a deeply dishonorable exercise when it began in 2020, and the dishonor has not abated.

The SAVE Act, and all the untruthful rhetoric around it, is part of the same project that election deniers began years ago. They are continuing--indeed, they are magnifying--the collective delusion by claiming that noncitizens are voting in Federal elections.

Simply put, they are not. It is against the law for noncitizens to register to vote and to vote in Federal elections. Let me repeat this: It is against the law for noncitizens to register to vote and to vote in Federal elections.

The false claim that there is a conspiracy to register noncitizens is a pretext for trying to overturn the 2024 election, potentially leading to another tragedy on January 6, 2025.

Let's turn to the profoundly damaging bill in front of us, the so- called SAVE Act. If I were to summarize what this bill does, I would offer this description: It would create enormous burdens for those registering to vote, erecting barriers that would shock most Americans, including most Republicans.

To begin, as my Republican colleague admitted at the Rules Committee on Monday, the SAVE Act will prohibit most Americans from registering to vote with their driver's license alone. Yes, you heard that right. The SAVE Act will bar Americans from using a standard State-issued driver's license alone when registering to vote.

The bill will prohibit the use of the new and improved Real IDs for over 95 percent of the American public, and this bill will apply to every American citizen.

What is a citizen to do if they cannot use their Real ID-compliant driver's license? The SAVE Act will allow Americans to use a passport to register, but only 48 percent of Americans have a passport, so over 130 million Americans are out of luck.

Wait, as they say, there is more.

Can a member of our military use their military ID to register to vote? Surely, military IDs will be enough to register to vote in our elections. Not so. According to Republicans, servicemembers will need to bring their military ID and a copy of their service record showing their place of birth within the United States.

Many servicemembers were born abroad, say, to military parents overseas. Those servicemembers will be entirely blocked from using their military ID to register.

This bill requires any new registrant to show their proof of citizenship in person at an election office. Any servicemember deployed overseas who wants to register to vote will not be able to. No dice.

That is right. The SAVE Act will prevent members of our Armed Forces deployed overseas from registering to vote.

Republicans are pushing a bill that will disenfranchise U.S. military personnel protecting us overseas from registering. It is unpatriotic, and it is shameful.

Wait, there is even more.

Native American voters will be unable to use their Tribal IDs to register to vote unless their Tribal ID demonstrates their place of birth in the United States.

Does every American's State or Tribal-issued ID show their place of birth? The answer almost certainly is no.

What about birth certificates? Under this bill, one could present their birth certificate alongside their photo ID, but herein lies the problem: Tens of millions of Americans, particularly married women, have a different name on their birth certificates than they have on their photo IDs.

Under the terms of the SAVE Act, these millions of married women will not be able to use their birth certificates to register to vote. The bill would disenfranchise countless married women who are U.S. citizens.

Let's be very clear: What is a voter supposed to do if they don't have a passport? What if their Real ID, like almost every American, does not show citizenship status? The SAVE Act will not allow them to register, especially millions upon millions of American women, students, servicemembers, Native voters, and many more.

This bill is not actually about preventing noncitizens from voting in Federal elections. I will repeat what I said before: It is already illegal for noncitizens to register and to vote in Federal elections.

We litigated this back in 2020 when Republicans alleged mass voter fraud in State after State. Yet, every recount, audit, and lawsuit demonstrated the 2020 election was fair and free from fraud. Our Federal elections are safe and secure. It is that simple.

During today's debate, we will hear from my colleagues across the aisle about the risk of noncitizens flooding our border and then somehow registering and voting in Federal elections on a massive scale. It is rich to hear so-called concern from the party that killed a bipartisan border deal to address this problem.

My Democratic colleagues and I have clearly responded with the truth. The American people know Republicans are misleading them. Here is what the SAVE Act is actually about.

This bill is about scaring Americans. This bill is about silencing Americans. This bill is about disenfranchising Americans. This bill is about further damaging the foundations of our democracy.

As they look back on the wreckage they wrought 4 years ago, Republicans are not chagrined. They are not ashamed. They are, in fact, emboldened.

This is a deeply damaging bill. It will disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans. It will disenfranchise military voters, especially those serving bravely and courageously overseas. It will disenfranchise married women who change their names.

It will disenfranchise rural voters. It will disenfranchise Native voters, students, poor voters, and elderly voters. It will disenfranchise survivors of natural disasters like so many are experiencing this week across the United States.

House Republicans are fine with increasing the burdens and amplifying the costs in time, in money, and in effort for American citizens to vote.

House Democrats are not.

This bill is an overt effort to make Americans believe that American elections are rife with fraud. There is no evidence this is the case.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the defeat of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just note something that has been talked about for some time which is going back to an election that happened nearly 30 years ago in California.

It talks about Representative Loretta Sanchez in her 1996 election in California. My Republican colleagues continue to make allegations that there were roughly 600 noncitizens who voted in the race. It is patently false. The reality is the exact opposite. Many of the supposed noncitizens identified in the contest had, in fact, already become U.S. citizens through naturalization by the time they cast their ballots in 1996, and some had been U.S. citizens for decades.

Other U.S. citizens were erroneously identified as noncitizens because their names were like noncitizens' names that were in an INS database.

It is no accident. Even then, the Republicans were in charge of the Committee on House Administration. They investigated it, and they concluded that the committee's investigation had no irregularities. They dismissed the contested election. They concluded that the outcome of the election was not in doubt.

The fact that they would, 30 years later, bring up a contest that was decided admittedly by a few votes, where claims of widespread noncitizens voting has been thoroughly debunked says more about their lack of evidence than it does anything else.

It simply does not happen, and there is no evidence that that is the case.

I just use that as one more example of misleading the public into believing something that is false is true.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. Speaker, to my dear friend from Oklahoma, what I was suggesting was the Republican-controlled Committee on House Administration reviewed the allegations that 600 people who were not citizens had voted and ultimately made the determination that it was without merit and seated the individual, the Democrat at that time, Ms. Sanchez from California.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion of the distinguished gentleman from Texas, who is the sponsor of the bill, but I have not heard anyone dispute what I said in going through the incredibly burdensome path that citizens, American citizens, will now have to take in order to register to vote.

Your ID from your driver's license will not be sufficient if it doesn't have your place of citizenship. Mr. Speaker, 95 percent or more of REAL IDs, which will have replaced driver's licenses in many States, do not list citizenship. Birth certificates will be okay unless your name has been changed because you have gotten married. A military voter, particularly one overseas who has no way to go physically to an election office to register, will be unable to register to vote. The military IDs will be insignificant, particularly if their military ID and their service record don't show them as being born in the United States.

Frankly, to be a citizen of the United States, you don't have to be born on the continent or in Texas or Alaska or Hawaii. You have to be born somewhere, but you can become a U.S. citizen after you are born.

So all I am saying is it is incredibly burdensome.

I would further say since there is no evidence that this happened, all they talk about are scare tactics, the demonizing of people, and saying that there is this effort, it sounds like there is a suggestion that there is an organized effort to have noncitizens vote in Federal elections.

There is absolutely no evidence that that is the case, and we have had so many meetings of the standing committee and Subcommittee of the House Administration on Elections, that I would think if there were evidence of that, then it would have been presented to us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), our distinguished leader.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my distinguished colleague and friend from New York. I don't know why we are having this bill on the floor either. Yes, we can all agree that only U.S. citizens vote in Federal elections. I know that we agree because it is the law of the land.

You can't register if you are not an American citizen to vote in a Federal election. It is against the law. It is also against the law to vote. I agree with him. There is no reason to be here. There is nothing to be gained. There is no problem to be solved.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it bears repeating. We are suggesting that every American, if this bill were to become law, would face enormous burdens with registering to vote. You can't vote, you can't cast a ballot if you can't register.

Let's take again the situation as it will relate to military personnel of the United States. The SAVE Act will prohibit any servicemember deployed overseas from registering to vote at all. That is what the bill says. Check it out.

You have to be in person. You may not register online, and there is no exception in the bill for a servicemember to do that. It requires Americans registering to vote by mail or online to present their proof of citizenship in person.

Good luck doing that if you are on a naval vessel in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. That applies to military personnel. It means that any servicemember deployed overseas will have to travel back to the United States and physically visit an election office to register to vote.

You don't think that is burdensome? You don't think most Americans, if they were watching this debate, would say that can't be right? It can't be right, but it is right. That is what the bill says.

Republicans are supporting a bill that would prohibit members of the military serving overseas from registering to vote while they are deployed. It is unpatriotic. It is outrageous. Also, they won't even allow any amendments to this bill, which we asked for. We asked for amendments which would make this better, although, frankly, it is hard to imagine that we could make this any better, but still no amendments were allowed. I asked for a structured rule on this and was denied the ability to do that.

The Freedom to Vote Act by Congress would expand the ability of every American, including our servicemembers, to register to vote online. We want members of the military to vote. Frankly, we want every American to vote. If we have a problem in America, it is that too few Americans are voting, not that people who aren't registered or who aren't American citizens are voting. That is not the problem.

This committee and this House and this body ought to be working on ways to expand the franchise to every American because every right that we possess in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is dependent upon our right to self-governance, and our ability to have self-governance flows from the ability for every American to vote. This bill puts enormous burdens and barriers to making that the reality.

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

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

I do note that my friends and colleagues on the other side have turned this into a discussion about immigration and the border, which is not the bill before the House. The reason I know that is because they were too embarrassed, perhaps, or perhaps were influenced by folks outside this Chamber to bring a bipartisan border deal that would have dealt with challenges at the border.

They didn't want to do that, so what are they doing? They are making this burdensome bill now a question of the border. They had their chance to do that. We would love them to do that. What they will do instead is demonize people and talk about a problem that doesn't exist.

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

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

The SAVE Act is the most severe voter suppression bill ever considered at the Federal level. It would make it burdensome for Americans to register to vote and to cast a ballot.

It has been brought before this body not to solve any problem, since Republicans have admitted they have no evidence of noncitizen voting in Federal elections. The bill before us is for Republicans to lay the groundwork to undermine the outcome of the Presidential election, just as they did 4 years ago, just as they will again and again until they realize either the futility of this exercise or the Republic crumbles. I pray for the former.

Democrats, on the other hand, want a stronger and more equitable democracy, one that respects the rule of law and ensures that every voice is heard. That is why Democrats champion bills like the Freedom to Vote Act, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and the Native American Voting Rights Act, not the SAVE Act.

I fiercely oppose this anti-American bill. I urge every one of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to support the motion to recommit and defeat this extremist SAVE Act.

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

Madam President, one citizen, one vote--today, this foundational principle is under attack. It is under attack because President Biden refuses to enforce the law. Now we face a direct threat to our entire electoral system.

Consider this: Since President Biden's inauguration on January 20, 2021, over 10 million illegal immigrants have entered the United States. This figure exceeds the populations of 36 States, creating a crisis that has been met with troubling silence and inaction from far too many on the other side of the aisle.

With millions of unauthorized people now on U.S. soil, living here in the United States, the potential for election fraud through ineligible voting is not just a hypothetical risk--no; it is a looming reality.

With the influx of noncitizens under this administration, even if just a fraction--let's just say something like 1 in 100--were to vote, this could translate to hundreds of thousands of votes, enough to sway our tightly contested elections and potentially alter their outcomes.

This is deeply concerning considering that a recent study showed that noncitizens have ample openings to vote illegally. It found that anywhere from 10 to 27 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote and 5 to 13 percent of noncitizens do actually vote in Presidential elections, no less.

Across the Nation, instances abound where States have inadvertently facilitated this very crisis. From unsolicited voter registration forms being mailed out to noncitizens to driver's licenses issued without adequate checks, practices relying merely on the honesty of illegal aliens have opened up the floodgates to voter fraud.

While it is true that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections, there are no effective systems in place to verify the citizenship of voters. A mere check on a box is all it takes, with little risk of being caught. In short, you are on the honor system with those forms.

Federal law even prohibits States from requiring proof of citizenship when registering voters via Federal forms. So it is not just that the States aren't doing an adequate job of verifying citizenship as a condition precedent to registering to vote in a Federal election; they are prohibited by law from doing so.

An increasing number of localities permit noncitizens to votes in local elections, and this makes it even worse. It further blurs the distinctions that are there that have historically been meant to protect the integrity of our elections.

Prominent Democrats have openly discussed these tactics, in many instances as beneficial to their agenda, as likely to help their political ambitions. Only months ago, every Senate Democrat voted to count illegal aliens in the census to help them shore up more seats in Congress and consequently more votes in the electoral college.

This cannot continue. It is our responsibility, our imperative, to close these gates. My bill, the SAVE Act, would ensure that this stops. It would be a vital step in securing the electoral process, ensuring that every vote cast is legitimate and every voter is duly recognized and registered and properly brought into the system so that they can vote.

The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act--the same act that was interpreted a few years ago by the Supreme Court as prohibiting the States from requesting any positive proof of citizenship--so that States can

ensure that only U.S. citizens may participate in Federal elections. It fixes the NVRA. If the NVRA was interpreted that way, this would close that loophole.

The SAVE Act requires States to obtain concrete documentary proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration. It specifies acceptable documentation and requires States to establish alternative verification processes for those rare instances in which standard documents might be unavailable. Furthermore, the SAVE Act compels States to proactively remove noncitizens from voter rolls and introduces severe Federal penalties for those who intentionally register noncitizens.

This bill echoes the sentiments of the American people from coast to coast. It transcends political affiliations, with an overwhelming bipartisan supermajority of Americans supporting it, and it speaks directly to the core of what makes our country great: fair, free, and secure elections operating within our constitutional Republic.

This is about protecting our elections from foreign interference-- something my Democratic colleagues claim to care about and long have. If we truly want our elections to be free of foreign interference, then by all means pass the SAVE ACT. Let's pass it today. Let's pass it right now.

So for those of my colleagues who are opposed to this, why aren't they concerned about the ability of tens of millions of foreign nationals--noncitizens--in the United States to vote in America? Why should we allow tens of millions of foreign nationals who are not citizens of the United States to vote in U.S. elections?

Now, if the Biden administration insists on keeping America's border open as, to my great dismay, it has for the entirety of the 3\1/2\ years or so that Biden has been in office--if they are going to insist on keeping the borders open, by all means, they must at least, at a bare minimum, ensure that none of those noncitizens are interfering in our elections. Every single day that we delay, the foundation of our electoral process erodes a little more.

We cannot wait for this administration to enforce the law, to enforce the border, which they haven't done. They continue to refuse to do it. More people continue to enter, but in the meantime, they have let in 10 million illegal aliens. Add to that those who were already here, and an estimated 30 million noncitizens currently reside in the United States.

But this administration just keeps right on trucking, not doing anything about this problem. In fact, this administration strongly opposes this legislation. Now, let's run through the reasoning. The reasoning is really telling. There are several arguments raised by the White House in the statement they issued just earlier this week.

First, the White House protests:

It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal

elections--it is a Federal crime punishable by prison and

fines.

Now, to be clear, that is, on its face, a correct statement of the law. I won't disagree with the statement on its four corners, but the conclusion is really messed up. As I have already stated, there is absolutely no functioning mechanism for enforcing the law.

And it is worse than that. It is not just that current law doesn't create an adequate enforcement mechanism; it is that current law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, affirmatively prohibits the States from doing what they would need to do in order to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote and subsequently voting in Federal elections, contrary to Federal law. Meanwhile, DOJ investigations of illegal voting are all but nonexistent.

A law without enforcement cannot and will not stop illegal behavior; and there are many, many circumstances in which, notwithstanding the fact that the underlying conduct is criminally prohibited, you still need some sort of verification mechanism to make it enforceable.

By the White House's own logic, it would be unnecessary and, perhaps, even unwise to have laws requiring a photo ID to buy beer and cigarettes. You know, we have got these laws on the books, after all, that already make it a crime to sell beer and cigarettes to children. So according to the White House's logic, we shouldn't need an additional law requiring age verification with a photo ID. Now, nobody would be that crazy or that insane to make that argument there. We shouldn't be making it here. It is the same argument, the exact same argument.

Next, in second position, the administration makes the unsubstantiated claim that ``the justification for the SAVE Act is based on easily disproven falsehoods.'' But then, well, the administration utterly fails and defiantly refuses to offer anything to support that statement.

It is ironic because that justification for opposing it on grounds that the justification for the SAVE Act is based on disproven falsehoods is its own disproven falsehood. There is nothing there. There is no falsehood that has been disproven. They have not disproven the fact that noncitizens, whether legally or illegally in this country at the time, can easily obtain voter registration eligibility to vote in Federal elections--or the physical ability to do it, rather, so long as they are willing to check a box and sign their name.

They don't dispute the fact that, in all 50 States and DC, a noncitizen can apply for and receive a driver's license or that the National Voter Registration Act makes it easy, when applying for a driver's license, to check a box and sign your name and thereby register to vote in Federal elections. When you add to that the fact that States are affirmatively, legally prohibited, based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the NVRA a few years ago which said that the States cannot, may not, must not ask for any kind of documentation to verify citizenship, we have a problem.

So for them to say that our justification for the SAVE Act is based on falsehoods, on easily disproven falsehoods, is itself easily disproven, and it is a falsehood.

Third, the administration asserts that ``making a false claim of citizenship or unlawfully voting in an election is punishable by removal from the United States and a permanent bar to admission.''

Well, this is an interesting argument. This one is rich coming from this administration.

Look, it is true that the naturalization form, as a self-reporting mechanism, asks the applicant if the applicant has ever voted illegally. Yes, that is true. As far as I can tell, even when they do self-report in those, I suspect, rare instances when they do, absolutely nothing has been done with that information under the Biden administration. Joe Biden isn't deporting anyone for illegally voting. Joe Biden has opened the floodgates and just lets people come in. So that is rich coming from this administration suggesting that there is going to be, suddenly, rigorous enforcement of laws governing our border security in this instance when, No. 1, they are not doing it, and No. 2, everywhere you look, they are doing the opposite of that.

Fourth, the administration asserts, ``[s]tates already have effective safeguards in place to verify voters' eligibility and maintain the accuracy of voter rolls.''

That assertion is simply flatout wrong. It is just false. It is false factually, and it is false legally, meaning it is not true, and it cannot be true by operation of law for the reasons I have just explained. States are legally prohibited from requiring proof of citizenship when registering voters for Federal elections. This, I fear, may well be a feature, not a bug, for the administration and a reason for the administration to oppose it, tragically. We will get back to that more in a moment.

But, look, this loophole that I am describing based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the NVRA--telling the States they may not and must not ask for any kind of evidence of citizenship--is a gaping loophole that we must fix.

Lastly, the administration claims that, instead of safeguarding our elections, this bill, with its incredibly generous list of ways to demonstrate citizenship, would make it harder for Americans to vote.

Well, look, the reality is that there is an expansive list of ways to demonstrate citizenship even if you lack the documentation traditionally involved in proving it.

Keep in mind it is not unusual for Americans to be asked for proof of citizenship. Every single time an American citizen starts new employment, starts a new job, they fill out an I-9.

They have got to provide proof of citizenship. If you are not a citizen, you have to show evidence of your visa and your eligibility to work in the United States under that visa. If you can't do that, you can't start a job. This happens all the time.

It is not as if the ability to prove citizenship and a requirement that one do so is foreign to us nor is it the case under this bill that would be exceptionally difficult, because even if you are one of those rare individuals who, for whatever reason, doesn't have or have access to a birth certificate or something else that can prove it, we have got a long list of other ways you can do it even if you lack the traditionally utilized documentation.

This bill allows all American citizens to vote. More importantly, if enacted, it would mean that no American vote could be canceled out by a vote cast illegally by a noncitizen. This bill would make it harder to cheat in elections and ensure the integrity of every ballot lawfully cast.

There is no valid argument against the SAVE Act--none. The only reason to oppose this bill would exist if you needed illegal votes to win elections--full stop. That is it.

By passing the SAVE Act, we would send a clear message that in the United States of America, voting is not just a privilege of citizenship but a cherished and protected right. As debates about election integrity rage, the SAVE Act stands out by guaranteeing that only American citizens can have a say in our elections. American elections must be decided by American voters--full stop.

So, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 8281, which is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I appreciate how the Presiding Officer always speaks loud enough so that everyone can hear. The Presiding Officer also manages the floor with great assertiveness, which I also appreciate.

I am grateful to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from California, and his thoughtful approach to legislation.

There are some things that he said that I feel that I need to address. One of them is a reference to a belief that there is no credible evidence of noncitizens voting, at least no credible evidence of noncitizens voting in any significant numbers.

Well, there are studies that go in exactly the opposite direction, studies like the one that I cited just moments ago showing that it is a nontrivial sum, such that if even something at the low end of the percentages cited in that study were correct, that could easily be enough to sway the outcome of some elections.

But, regardless, what my friend is referring to has to be taken with a grain of salt, considering how things have changed on the ground. The enumerator and the denominator of that fraction have changed over the last few years, where we have now got about 30 million noncitizens living in the United States, with about 10 million who have come in who are illegally in the United States now, who entered this country unlawfully and are now living in the United States. That is not a nontrivial sum when that many people entered the United States that quickly. And when you have now got all 50 States and DC that issue driver's licenses to noncitizens; that, coupled with the National Voter Registration Act--and the way the National Voter Registration Act was interpreted a few years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States saying that the State officials who processed those Federal forms submitted under the NVRA so that people can register to vote in Federal elections while applying for their driver's license, that creates a toxic soup in which there is an environment just rife with opportunities for foreign interference in U.S. elections.

You cannot add this many noncitizens, legal or illegal noncitizens, to the United States in this short of a period of time and couple it with that kind of voter registration framework and not anticipate that there will be significant numbers of people who will end up registering to vote--some perhaps somewhat innocently, perhaps others less innocently. I don't know. But it would be supremely naive and, worse than that, willfully--willfully--blind to what we all know is going to happen unless we pass this.

Now, the House of Representatives passed this bill yesterday, which gets to another point made by my colleague saying that we have been down here over and over and over again doing this bill. I am not sure what he is referring to. The bill hasn't even been around that long, but something material changed yesterday.

Yesterday, the House version of the SAVE Act, which is the version that I am coming to the floor today to propose, the one that I just tried to pass by unanimous consent moments ago before it was met with the objection of the Senator from California, that bill was passed yesterday, less than 24 hours ago, by the House of Representatives, with bipartisan support, I would add--not just Republicans over there, some Democrats who are concerned, with very good reason, joined with Republicans in order to get this thing passed.

So to say that this is an area in which there is no credible evidence of any need to act is science fiction fantasy. It is contrary to fact. It is contrary to logic. It is contrary to our human understanding of nature, contrary to our understanding of the National Voter Registration Act and how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States and how elections work.

As to my colleague's suggestion that this is feigned outrage--feigned outrage--that is animating this, nothing could be further from the truth. Look, I wish this could be feigned. I wish I had the luxury of this being something that was feigned. This is serious business.

We lose something as Americans, certainly, anytime we allow our elections to be vulnerable to interference from forces outside the United States, including foreign nationals, non-U.S. citizens inside this country.

When that happens, when the public starts to perceive that others are voting in this, diluting their votes, that has deleterious effects on the effective operation of our republican form of government that are very difficult to recapture once they are lost. We can't treat this casually.

Look, I will be back. It is unfortunate that we weren't able to pass this today.

Let me restate the point I made earlier: There is not a legitimate reason to oppose this bill. We make it incredibly easy under this bill for any American. If you are an American citizen, you can easily prove your citizenship and you can do it in the way this bill requires and you can still vote. It is not hard. It is not expensive. It need not require anyone to spend a dime, a nickel, or even a penny. It just requires you to be an American.

There is not a legitimate reason to oppose this bill. There is not a logical reason to oppose this bill, unless, of course, your objective is different, unless, of course, you are just fine with and in fact excited about or reliant upon noncitizens voting. That is alarming.

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.