H.Res. 1341

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 13, 2024.

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

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

Res. 165

Dear Member of Congress: The undersigned organizations who

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

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

companion legislation in the Senate, which would undo the

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

that strengthens Title IX's protections against sex-based

discrimination in federally funded schools. Not only would

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

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

reinstate any of these protections. This effort must be

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

finalized rule reinforces and restores Title IX's

protections, ensuring that every student has the right to a

safe and welcoming learning environment, free from sex

discrimination, including LGBTQI+ students, survivors of

sexual assault and other sex-based harassment, and pregnant

and parenting students.

The updates clarify that Title IX protects against

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender

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

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

victimization never reporting an incident to school staff--

the Title IX updates will clarify remedies for students

facing all types of sex-based harassment and hold school

officials accountable for fostering safer school

environments. This regulatory clarification ensures that

LGBTQI+ youth will be able to equally participate in

educational opportunities, from being able to attend prom

with a date of their choice and wearing clothes that reflect

their gender expression to using a restroom that corresponds

with their gender identity.

We collectively reject the false narrative that equal

educational opportunity for transgender and non-binary

students undermines protections for cisgender girls and

women. Transgender women are women and transgender girls are

girls who deserve the full protection of federal civil rights

law. Policies that seek to undermine protections for

transgender women and girls--whether in accessing school

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

allowing them to be subjected to unwarranted and

inappropriate scrutiny. This scrutiny also falls particularly

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

standards of womanhood, and any cisgender woman or girl who

fails to conform to sex-based stereotypes of femininity

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

country have had gender identity nondiscrimination policies

in place for years without any issue, and comprehensive

nondiscrimination policies that explicitly enumerate gender

identity are associated with safer school environments that

result in lower rates of discrimination. Such policies are

especially critical for sex-separated spaces such as

bathrooms and locker rooms. Transgender and nonbinary

students avoid sex-separated spaces at higher rates than

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

adverse impacts on a youth's physical and physiological

state, mental health, and academic success and attention at

school. Forcing transgender and nonbinary students into sex-

separated spaces that are inconsistent with their gender

identity may result in increased risk of bullying and

physical harassment. In fact, survivor-led organizations and

anti-sexual assault and domestic violence organizations

support full and equal access for transgender people to use

restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender

identity.

Additionally, the Title IX rule reverses the Trump

administration's 2020 Title IX rule that significantly

weakened protections for student survivors seeking help in

the wake of their victimization and incentivize schools to

further sweep sexual harassment and assault under the rug.

Undoing the 2020 Title IX rule brings justice to survivors by

ensuring they are not denied their right to educational

opportunities in the wake of sexual assault or harassment.

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

ignore many reports of sexual assault and remove unfair

hurdles uniquely faced by student survivors in their schools'

investigations--hurdles that students and employees

complaining about any other type of misconduct do not have to

experience.

Lastly, the updates to the Title IX rule provide greater

clarity on pregnant and parenting students' rights, including

affirmative steps schools must take to ensure those students

are aware of their rights. Schools must provide reasonable

accommodations, such as the ability to take breaks and access

to a sanitary and private lactation room. According to the

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

birth withdraw from school and do not receive their high

school diplomas by age 22. Research indicates that

discrimination plays a major role in students having to

withdraw early from school, despite pregnant and parenting

students earning higher GPAs than their non-parenting peers.

These Title IX rule clarifications are much-needed to ensure

pregnant and parenting students have a right to equal

education opportunities.

Every student deserves to have an education free from

discrimination and harassment, including on the basis of sex.

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

undermine this milestone rule that ensures equal educational

opportunity for LGBTQI+ students, survivors of sexual assault

and harassment, and pregnant and parenting students.

Sincerely,

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

American Association of University Women, American Atheists,

American Humanist Association, American Psychological

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

Ally, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, CA LGBTQ Health and

Human Services Network, Center for WorkLife Law, CenterLink:

The Community of LGBTQ Centers, Chicago Alliance Against

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

Clery Center, Colorado Teen Parent Collaborative, Doctors for

America.

EdTrust, Education Law Center, Education Law Center

Pennsylvania, End Rape On Campus, Equal Rights Advocates,

Equality California, ERA Coalition, Esperanza United, Family

Equality, Feminist Majority Foundation, Generation Hope,

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

Network, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First,

Immigration Equality, Institute for Women's Policy Research.

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

Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Women

International, Just Solutions, Justice and Joy National

Collaborative (formerly National Crittenton), Know Your IX,

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

Defense and Education Fund, Los Angeles LGBT Center,

MomsRising, Monsoon Asians & Pacific Islanders in Solidarity,

Movement Advancement Project, Mujeres Latinas en Accion,

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National

Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities,

National Association of Social Workers, National Center for

Lesbian Rights, National Center for Parent Leadership,

Advocacy, and Community Empowerment (National PLACE),

National Council of Jewish Women.

National Education Association, National Latina Institute

for Reproductive Justice, National LGBTQI+ Cancer Network,

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

National Women's Political Caucus, Network for Victim

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

Sexual Violence, PFLAG National, Population Institute, Public

Justice, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-

Choice America), Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, Sexual

Violence Prevention Association (SVPA), Silver State

Equality-Nevada, Stop Sexual Assault in Schools,

Supermajority, Tahirih Justice Center, The Trevor Project,

Trans Empowerment Project.

Trans Formations Project, Transgender Law Center, Ujima,

The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black

Community, UltraViolet, Victim Rights Law Center,

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

Foundation, YWCA USA.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence

Against Women,

April 21, 2016.

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

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

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

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

ALA American Library Association,

June 11, 2024.

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

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, US

House of Representatives.

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

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, US

House of Representatives.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of

the American Library Association (ALA), I write to

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

congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of

Education relating to `Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex

in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal

Financial Assistance.' ''

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

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

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

prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

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

recipients of Education Department funding may not

discriminate against LGBTQI+ library workers or students in

employment opportunities or the delivery of library services

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

manner).

All Americans deserve equal opportunity in education,

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

defend the rights of students and library workers by

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Government Relations and Interim Associate Executive

Director, American Library Association.

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

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement of Administration Policy

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

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

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

would disapprove the Department of Education's rule, under

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

strengthen vital nondiscrimination protections for students,

employees, and applicants in federally funded education

programs and activities.

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

it has opened doors for generations of women and girls and

increased access to educational opportunities for millions of

students. Despite this progress, rates of sexual harassment

and assault in our nation's schools and colleges remain

unacceptably high. Many women see their education derailed

because of pregnancy discrimination. And many LGBTQI+

students face bullying and harassment just because of who

they are.

The Department's rule is critical to ensuring that no

person experiences sex discrimination at school. The rule

provides protection from sex-based harassment, including

sexual violence; promotes accountability and fundamental

fairness through a fair, transparent, and reliable process;

and ensures that students, employees, and families understand

their rights and that institutions know their

responsibilities. The rule also advances educational equity

by requiring schools that have knowledge of possible sex

discrimination in their education programs or activities to

take prompt and effective action to end the sex

discrimination, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its

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

critical protections that keep students safe and able to

realize their full potential.

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

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

was enacted. The Administration will continue to fight

tirelessly to realize this promise and achieve equal

opportunity for all students and all Americans.

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

would veto it.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1341, I call up the bill (H.R. 7700) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing or enforcing energy conservation standards for dishwashers that are not cost-effective or technologically feasible, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7700.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7700, Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act, and I thank Congressman Langworthy for leading these efforts.

The Biden administration has lost sight of the original intent behind the Department of Energy conservation standards. Instead, they are contradicting the statutes and doing so at the expense of Americans' quality of life, their pocketbooks, and their energy bills.

Instead of harnessing the abundant resources we are blessed with in this country, the Biden administration wants to lower your standard of living by telling you what appliances you can have in your home, and they want you to pay more for it.

An analysis from the Department of Energy found that their dishwasher efficiency mandates would increase the upfront cost by up to 28 percent. It is estimated that these proposed standards may take consumers over 16 years to pay back the increased cost on a dishwasher that won't even last 12 years.

The Biden administration has abused the Department of Energy's appliance standard program to go beyond the authority granted to them by Congress by proposing these overreaching standards.

Americans will suffer the consequences of the Biden administration's rush-to-green agenda.

The DOE's net zero rush-to-green energy agenda is reaching into your home to impose cost increasing regulations on appliances in every corner of your home.

We have debated gas stoves and other appliances here, and now here we are today debating on dishwashers.

The Biden administration has proposed over 15 regulations that affect appliances, like I mentioned, not only gas stoves but hot water heaters, refrigerators, freezers, and now dishwashers.

They argue these regulations will save money and reduce emissions, but that is just simply not the case. One study found these regulations could increase the cost for the average American family by over $9,000.

These increased efficiency standards mean Americans need to run their appliances twice as long to get the same effect, and we all know it. You run the dishwasher, you open it up, the dishes aren't clean, and you have got to run it again. It happens to every American family multiple times. You are not saving money. You are not saving water and electricity running your highly efficient appliances when you have to run them two or three times just to get the dishes clean or to get them dry.

This bill would prevent this abuse from the DOE, and it will prevent the Department from enforcing standards on dishwashers unless they are technologically feasible and economically justified, they are not likely to result in additional costs to the customer, and they won't enforce the standards unless they will result in a significant conservation of energy. American families know that is just simply not happening in their homes.

I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 7700, Stop the Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act, to protect affordability and preserve the quality of life that Americans expect and deserve.

I thank Representative Langworthy for leading this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the legislation would prevent the Department from enforcing standards on dishwashers unless they are technologically feasible and economically justified, unless they are not likely to result in additional costs to a consumer, and unless they will result in significant conservation of energy.

Americans know that this new standard and even older standards are not working. They are having to wash their dishes multiple times.

We have seen over and over agencies overreaching the constitutional mandate they were given. Thank goodness the Supreme Court last week overturned the Chevron deference, and now Congress can use other tools like pieces of legislation to direct agencies on what they should do and the limits they can do it under.

Sure, there is other legislation we ought to take up, but we have had to use Congressional Review Act legislation. We have had to use legislation like this to push back against these agencies and their overreach.

Thankfully, Mr. Langworthy knows a lot about this. He filed the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's own Department of Energy in their analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront costs by 28 percent and it could take consumers 12 years to pay back the increased cost on a product like a dishwasher that may only last 7 to 12 years.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to take you 12 years to pay for something that may wear out in 7 years based on DOE's own analysis. That makes no sense.

The gentlewoman mentioned earlier that Republicans were not wanting to help American consumers, that they want to take money out of their pocket. This is actually the opposite of that. We are wanting to help save the American public money over time by stopping these reckless rush-to-green regulations like we are voting on today dealing with both refrigerators and dishwashers and then gas stoves but only because they have a green agenda that really wants to do away with fossil fuels. Let's just call it what it is. That is their agenda, to end the use of fossils fuels in the United States of America at a time when we, as a growing nation, growing population, and growing metropolitan centers, need more energy. The demand for energy is only going up. It is not going down. The continued war against American-

produced fossil fuels is costing Americans' ability to improve their quality of life and their standard of living.

We need to continue debating the need for efficient, reliable, affordable, and dispatchable energy resources, something that is 24/7/ 365 always on, always ready, always available, not weather-dependent, and not sunlight-dependent, intermittent energy sources. We need to continue debating that. Instead, we are having to push back against an administration that, under broad legislation passed by the United States Congress, has given them the ability to write rules and make regulations without the necessary congressional oversight in many cases. That is why, I believe, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference to say that these agencies don't just have carte blanche to do whatever political agenda pushes them in the mindset to do.

I think Congress needs to focus on really defining what those rules are in the legislation we pass here, and I think that is what the Supreme Court is ultimately going to force us to do. They it made very clear with no ambivalence and no ambiguity.

We have a Nation that is hurting because of the Biden economic factors that are causing inflation. It started with energy on day one by stopping the Keystone pipeline, ending lease sales on the Outer Continental Shelf, destroying the American energy base.

The Democrats will say: Well, energy production is up.

It is, but it is up because of past administration policies that expanded oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf and on Federal land. These things don't pop up out of the ground overnight. It takes decades sometimes to get an energy product to producing. The permitting process alone takes years. Then you have to find the resource and produce the resource and get it online where Americans can benefit from it.

Guess who else can benefit from it, Mr. Speaker. The world can. With the abundance of natural gas we have in this country, we could be a tremendous exporter. We export a lot, but we could do a lot more because of the abundance of natural gas we have here to help the quality of life and standard of living of people all over the globe. Yet this administration says we are going to put this pause, which was basically a ban, on LNG exports.

That hurts our allies in Europe who are facing Vladimir Putin's cutting on and off the spigot of natural gas. It hurts folks around the world who are in energy poverty, and America could help raise them out of that poverty.

Americans know they are hurting because it started with energy. We talk a lot about that. Americans also see a border that is wide open and 16-plus million people who have crossed our southern border who are raping and killing American citizens. The crime rates are going up in cities. They are straining our social services at the State level and in our own communities causing our property taxes to go up and our State income taxes to go up to pay for folks who aren't even legally in the United States of America. That is because of Joe Biden's open- border policies.

Sure, we ought to debate a lot of things in this Congress instead of debating regulations on efficiency standards on dishwashers, gas stoves, refrigerators, freezers, and all these things, but the Biden administration has definitely overreached in these areas. It is because they have a green agenda that they are pushing.

Republicans want to help Americans maintain their standard of living, improve their standard of living, and improve their quality of life. We can do that by lowering taxes. We can do that by improving the economy which the Biden economic policies have not done. We saw tremendous spending in the IRA and other things. More government spending equates to higher inflation. That is not me saying it. That is economists all over the globe who understand that simple concept.

We want to improve the quality of life of people and not make their appliances that they rely on every day be less efficient, cost more, and in the case of dishwashers, having to pay for something that wore out 3 or 4 years ago and they are still paying on it. If you factor in the cost savings, it is pennies a day. In fact, it is probably pennies a year. It gets into less than a $20 savings over the life of the appliance. That is not saving the American people money.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7700, the Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act. Let's protect affordability, and let's preserve the quality of life for Americans.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to address the gentlewoman, I wasn't going to engage in a colloquy on the floor during a debate on this issue, but I do load and unload the dishwasher.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, many times, I have opened the dishwasher, loaded properly, with the right amount of dishwashing liquid or pod put in, that all the dishes aren't clean. They were rinsed off before they were put in, to the gentlewoman.

I would run it again. Americans know this. This isn't just me and my household. Americans know they have to run the dishwasher ofttimes more than once.

How is that a cost savings? How is it a cost savings when you have to run it more than once?

Americans know you open that dishwasher after its cycle, and apparently the heating component of the efficiency standards didn't dry the dishes, so they get them out before they put them in the cabinet because you don't want to put wet dishes up. You get a towel down, and you dry every one of them off. Cup, knife, fork, plate, pan, you dry it off before you put it up.

Mr. Speaker, you might as well have just washed it in the sink versus using an inefficient dishwasher that is becoming more and more inefficient based on these standards. I am not going to stand here and be lectured by someone who seemed very pious about dishwashers or washing laundry or loading a refrigerator properly to stay away from the hotspots because we are going to go to refrigerators next.

I am sure some of these same comments are going to be brought up. Guess what, I don't have to because the American people know. The American people know what they deal with every day, and they know they are going to pay more for an appliance that is less efficient, and they may still be paying for it when the thing is worn out. That is unfair to the American people. We should be about improving the standard of living and quality of life of Americans.

I will address one other thing that the gentlewoman said: the so- called border crisis. Every American knows we have a border crisis. We have had over 16 million people in our country not with a visa, not with a permission slip, to come here illegally. They reside in our communities because guess what? Every State is a border State now, even California and even South Carolina, where I come from because these migrants have been bussed or flown at taxpayer expense into our communities.

I won't stand here and hear it be called a so-called border crisis because Americans know it is a border crisis when 16 million people illegally enter. We are not talking about 6, but 16 million or more. Those are just the ones we know about.

What about the ones that the Border Patrol see cross the border, who go into the bushes, and they go after them? They can't find them, and they are not counted in the got-away numbers because they have been told that those migrants may have gone back across the border, so they are not counting those numbers.

What about the ones who cross the border in areas that aren't patrolled currently, those people who come through who have no encounter with law enforcement at all, who are never counted. They may have nefarious goals in mind because all of these illegal aliens that have crossed our border aren't just from Mexico or Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Latin-American countries. A lot of them are coming from China and Russia and the Middle East. America knows we have no idea who is in our country.

Let me say that again: Americans, we have no idea who is in our country.

When I got into this conversation about energy prices and the border and economics and inflation, high interest rates, cost of goods costing more now than they did 4 years ago, ofttimes 28, 30, 35 percent more, Americans know. They don't want to pay more for an appliance that is inefficient. That is the gist of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act provides specific criteria for the DOE to follow in order to propose a new appliance efficiency standard. I went over those standards earlier. The Biden administration has consistently ignored these requirements by proposing and finalizing standards that violate the statute.

Mr. Speaker, I owe the gentleman from New Jersey an apology because I misspoke earlier when I said the payback period was 12 years.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to the Federal Register, Wednesday, April 24, 2024. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024- 04-24/pdf/2024-08211.pdf.

This is a table in the Federal Register, and it says it is a 16-year payback for dishwashers. I said 12. I apologize for misspeaking because it is really 16 years. This is not just words. These are in the Federal Register.

Americans know that these standards will lessen the efficiency of appliances, will cost them more in upfront costs, and ultimately cost them more in inconvenience, in multiple run cycles, in cost over the lifetime when you have a 16-year payback.

Mr. Speaker, this is the right piece of legislation to push back against the administrative overreach, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7700, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

The rule provides one motion to recommit for each measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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