[Pages H4735-H4740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8997, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8998, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1370 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1370

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 8997) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 118-42 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8997, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 4
of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in part A of the report
of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against further amendments printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as
provided by section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 4. During consideration of H.R. 8997 for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8997
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill,
as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
8998) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-41 shall
be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived.
Sec. 7. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8998, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 8 of this
resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 9
of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report
of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 9 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against further amendments printed
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 8 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 8. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as
provided by section 9 of this resolution, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 9. During consideration of H.R. 8998 for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 10. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8998
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill,
as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong). The gentlewoman from Minnesota is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

general leave

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 8997 and H.R. 8998. The rule provides for both
bills to be considered under structured rules, each with 1 hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, and
provides for one motion to recommit for each.

[[Page H4736]]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and am in support of the
underlying legislation.
I hear time and time again that Congress needs to get serious about
addressing our debt. This rule provides for consideration of two
measures that cut wasteful and unnecessary spending. They responsibly
fund the Federal Government, and they support American production,
pushing back on the ridiculous Green New Deal agenda under the Biden-
Harris administration.
H.R. 8997 refocuses spending on things that matter. It eliminates
wasteful spending on unnecessary and redundant climate change programs,
reins in the out-of-control regulation being implemented by the
executive branch, and prohibits funding from being used to promote DEI
and CRT initiatives. I don't think I need to go into all the ways
misguided DEI efforts are failing.
It removes the Department of Energy's role in the LNG export
application review process, something that has bipartisan support, and
this legislation counters the very real Chinese and Russian threat by
investing in national security and American energy production.
It should come as no shock to anyone that the Biden-Harris
administration has been attacking American energy production at every
opportunity, giving up power to adversaries like China and Russia in
the process.
H.R. 8997 counters these national threats, investing in U.S. energy
security and strengthening our economic competitiveness. It funds key
nuclear programs to regain America's leadership in the global market,
and it safeguards our energy and technology assets from foreign
threats.
H.R. 8998 right-sizes Federal Government spending, limiting
burdensome and unnecessary regulations, respecting taxpayer dollars,
and eliminating government waste. It strengthens our national security
by encouraging domestic energy production, requiring the government to
resume oil and gas leasing and expanding critical mineral access on
public lands like those in northern Minnesota.
It respects the taxpayer by cutting government waste, including a 20
percent reduction in the EPA, reducing the Council of Environmental
Equality to its authorized levels. It removes the gray wolf from the
Endangered Species List, an issue that hits home with so many people
across this country dealing with the menace of wolves, including in my
home State of Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, the Biden-Harris agenda does not achieve their stated
goals. What it does do is it hurts our domestic producers and gives
Russia and China a competitive edge. This legislation takes a serious
step to address our debt, strengthen national security, and focus
funding where the American people need it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we heard last week that the Republican Party is newly
focused on unity, toning down the rhetoric, and bringing people closer
together. Wow, that is rich. I mean, I guess they mean only to unite
people under their extreme agenda because the four funding bills we met
on last night are part of the same unpopular, divisive, controversial,
extreme MAGA agenda that they have been pushing since they came into
the majority.
None of this is serious. None of these bills are ever going to become
law. All of the bills are aligned with the GOP's Project 2025, their
dystopian plan to consolidate power in the Presidency and take total
control over our country and our lives.
If Trump and the Republicans win in November, they promise to gut the
checks and balances that protect our freedoms. They promise to advance
abortion bans in every State. They promise to give big corporations
billions of dollars while increasing taxes for middle-class families.
That is their plan for America. It is not about unity. It is about
division. It is scary, quite frankly.
These policies are centered around driving people further apart, not
bringing them together. They even had to pull the Agriculture and
Financial Services appropriations bills because they were too extreme.
They didn't even know whether they had the votes within the Republican
Conference to vote for these crummy bills.
Just to reiterate, this rule only brings half of the bills we heard
testimony on last night to the House floor because the other half were
so controversial, so divisive, so partisan, again, that the Republican
leadership wasn't even sure they had the votes within their own
Conference.
What is the point of wasting time at the Rules Committee if these
bills aren't ready for the floor? I have never seen lawmakers work so
hard and force institutional staff to spend so much time putting in
such extensive effort to do absolutely nothing--nothing. This
majority's superpower is wasting people's time.

{time} 0930

For the two bills that are included in this rule, they are just as
unserious. Again, they will never, ever become law.
This is an energy and water bill that raises energy costs and is full
of more giveaways for big polluters and an interior and environment
bill that is potentially even worse, gutting funding for national
parks. Our national parks are like the only thing in this country that
has a 100 percent approval rating, and they are attacking national
parks. Give me a break.
What they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is they are going after national
parks while padding the pockets of big polluters. Follow the money.
There are more culture war riders and more attacks on LGBTQ people.
One of these bills has language to protect Confederate names of
things. I mean, that is unifying, commemorating the traitors of the
Civil War? Enough is enough.
This is just an awful, awful rule. I urge my Republican colleagues to
stop wasting people's time and vote ``no'' with us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the ranking member, I
think we got way, way off topic. In some cases, people just tuning in
may actually think it is a campaign rally.
Here to refocus us on what is actually in this bill and what we are
talking about is our colleague from Texas--excuse me--our colleague
from Missouri.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Alford).
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was born in Texas but proudly represent
Missouri.
I thank my friend from Minnesota for allowing me to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important appropriations
bills package before us.
As China continues to build up its military and reportedly has more
ICBM launchers than we do, H.R. 8997, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, will invest in America's nuclear deterrence to
ensure that we can keep pace with the threat from Communist China.
This legislation will also strengthen our Nation's energy security by
rejecting the Biden-Harris administration's damaging pause on new LNG
exports and supporting energy production right here at home.
A key issue for our district, Mr. Speaker, this bill pushes back
against the ridiculous Biden-Harris waters of the United States rule.
It will mandate transparency. It will help ensure the progressive
Democrats in the White House comply with the Supreme Court's decision
of Sackett v. EPA.
H.R. 8998, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, will rein
in the administration's job-killing climate and environmental
regulations, the green new scam, and it will slash the EPA's funding by
20 percent. The EPA needs to be operating on real science, not a flawed
political ideology.
As the Biden-Harris administration continues to shove its EV pipe
dream down the throats of America, this bill will promote critical
mineral production right here at home and help ensure China does not
continue to dominate the global market.
Mr. Speaker, these bills are vital for maintaining America's national
security, protecting our agriculture producers, and keeping pace with
the growing threat from Communist China.

[[Page H4737]]

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and support
these rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman said that I was off topic in my opening speech. I
have never been more on topic. I actually talked about the crummy bills
that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor today. The
gentlewoman in her opening speech talked about ag producers. They
pulled the ag bill. It is so important that they pulled it because they
don't have the votes to pass it.
I will say, Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends are demonstrating to
the country what the definition of incompetence is. They don't know how
to run this place, and they can't pass appropriations bills.
I am looking at FY 2024. They had the agriculture appropriations bill
fail on the floor. They pulled three appropriations bills before final
passage because they didn't have the votes to pass them. There were
failed rules on appropriations measures. The defense rule last year
failed twice. Two of the bills that we had testimony on at the Rules
Committee, where Members actually filed amendments, were pulled because
they can't even get support within their own Conference. That is the
definition of incompetence.
You talk about a campaign rally? The campaign rally is going to be
later today in the Rules Committee when Republicans are going to call
an emergency meeting to pass a resolution bashing Vice President Kamala
Harris. Don't give me any lectures about campaign rallies because I
have never seen a more politically motivated majority in my life.
This is not the way this place is supposed to be run. None of these
bills, including the two that my friends are bringing to the floor
today, are serious. They are going nowhere. They will never become law.
This is ridiculous, and it is a waste of time. It is pathetic.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rushed to the floor this morning to oppose the rule
and the underlying legislation because these Republican bills will
raise electric bills on the families I represent back home in Florida
and likely raise costs on all American families.
The bills will stunt the incredible growth in clean energy
manufacturing, providing a gift to China especially. These bills will
pad the profits of big oil companies at the expense of hardworking
American families and small business owners.
I agree with the ranking member, Mr. Speaker. I am alarmed that the
Republicans are already pressing their radical Project 2025 agenda, as
it is apparent in these appropriations bills. Let's talk about a few of
the policies in here.
First, it is very important that we help our neighbors weatherize
their homes. It helps save them on their electric bills. It creates
jobs. We estimate that this Republican bill will now slam the door shut
for about 54,000 working-class Americans who need those weatherization
dollars.
The Republican bills propose to gut energy efficiency and renewable
energy initiatives at a time when we are seeing a manufacturing
renaissance across America. In less than 2 years since the Democrats in
Congress passed the infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act,
private-sector companies in the United States have announced a more
than $360 billion investment in 600 clean energy projects that have
created about 300,000 new jobs in America. This is where the economy is
going: the clean, sustainable energies. That is why it is so smart to
invest in our people, not to cede these industries to China and our
adversaries.
This bill would have us look backward, to say: China, you take the
lead.
I am not willing to do that. We are the United States of America. We
should lead. We should lead in building the batteries, the electric
vehicles, the solar panels, and all of the new technologies we need to
lower costs and to help solve the climate crisis that is also heaping
costs on my neighbors back home in Florida.
These Republican bills also make it easier to ship gas overseas,
including to our adversaries. What that does is it hikes prices on
people and businesses in our country.
This is a backward-looking bill. There is a better way. That way is
investing in cleaner, cheaper energy, creating jobs in America,
building the middle class, solving the climate crisis, putting people
over politics, putting people over polluters, putting people over this
radical 2025 agenda.
Please vote ``no'' on these bills. Vote for the USA. Vote for our
future and the future of our kids.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We are doing what the American people sent us to do. We are doing the
work. We are introducing appropriations bills, hearing them in
committee, sending them through the process in transparency. We are
doing that.
We have actually passed four appropriations bills off the floor, and
that represents the majority of spending. We are moving forward. We are
doing the work.
If we want to look at who is not doing their work, that may be the
Senate Democrats. We have sent bills over, and they just refuse to do
anything. What have they been doing with appropriations bills? We have
been passing these and sending them there. They have chosen to do
nothing.
We can just take a look at the tax bill, a negotiated tax bill that
had bipartisan support out of the Ways and Means Committee. We passed
it off the floor, and they have done nothing, even though that was
negotiated. They didn't even live up to the negotiations, the
agreements. If we need to look at who is not doing their work, let's
look at the Senate Democrats because we absolutely are passing bills,
and we are doing our work in transparent ways through the committee
process and on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to advocate for funding
in this bill and the rule that underlies it.
It is interesting to hear the ranking member from Massachusetts talk
about how this is all about corporations. We are going to talk about
energy. You heard the gentlewoman from Florida talk about energy bills
and it is going to cost jobs. My district, the Texas Gulf Coast, has
seven ports in it, more than any other Member of Congress. We produce
65 percent of the Nation's jet fuel and 80 percent of the Nation's
military grade fuel.
This is about working families. This bill will bolster our economic
strength. It will create jobs. It will ensure that our infrastructure
can support growth and withstand challenges.
The Texas Gulf Coast is the energy producing capital. We have got 7
of America's largest petroleum refineries, 3 LNG plants, and 60 percent
of the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
We are not talking about shipping gas to our enemies. Was that the
comment from the gentlewoman from Florida? We are talking about
shipping it to our allies, so they don't have to buy from enemies.
As the energy capital of the world in Texas, we understand the
critical importance of this bill. Our hardworking families--again, it
is about working families--depend on a robust energy sector. This
legislation will help us continue to lead in producing the cleanest and
most affordable oil and gas. Let's keep our Nation strong. Help me to
keep Texas strong. Let's secure this for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bills.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You hear lots of things on the House floor, but the gentlewoman from
Minnesota just said something I am having a tough time following. She
is blaming Senate Democrats for the failure of House Republicans in
bringing their appropriations bills to the floor.
Was it Senate Democrats' fault that the House agriculture
appropriations bill was pulled, that Republicans pulled it? We had a
hearing in the Rules Committee. People testified on amendments, and it
is not here. Where is it? I don't know where it went. They pulled it.
I gave the gentlewoman an opportunity yesterday to vote to bring the
House ag appropriations bill to the floor as well as the financial
services

[[Page H4738]]

bill, the ones they wrote. They are lousy bills, but I figure let's
bring them to the floor, we will amend it and have a debate. She voted
no. All Republicans voted no.

Then the gentlewoman comes to the floor and says, oh, it is the
Senate Democrats. What? People are paying attention. We have got to be
serious here. Getting our appropriations work done is one of the
essential jobs that we have in the House of Representatives, and
Republicans can't get it done.
These bills are so polarizing, so awful, that they can't even get a
majority of Republicans to vote for it. So she is blaming the Senate
Democrats? Give me a break. I have heard everything. I have heard
everything as an excuse why they can't get their work done.
This is incompetence. This is pathetic. We need a majority in this
House that puts the people first, that actually gets its work done, not
someone who comes up here and points fingers at everybody as an excuse
to not bring bills to the floor.
We had two appropriations bills that we heard testimony on in the
Rules Committee that were pulled, including the House ag appropriations
bill that they wrote. They are in charge. I can't believe this.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the
previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has
full access to essential reproductive healthcare.

{time} 0945

Republicans continue to double down on ending access to abortion
care, even going so far as to try to end access to IVF and assistive
reproductive services. However, because it is so deeply unpopular and
plain wrong, now they are trying to hide it. They don't like to mention
it anymore. However, we still see their attacks every single day. We
see the toxic riders that they attach to their bills banning abortion
and contraception.
We saw it last night in the Rules Committee with Mr. Rosendale
putting forward his amendment to ban IVF. We saw it in the
Appropriations Committee markup when Ranking Member DeLauro offered an
amendment to protect IVF coverage in our Federal employee health
benefits plan, and the Republicans on the committee voted ``no.'' They
voted ``no.'' Thankfully, they pulled that bill from the floor because
they don't even have the votes among their own Conference for this
extreme, radical agenda.
House Democrats are focused on protecting women, protecting patients,
and protecting Americans' rights. H.R. 12 will keep fundamental
healthcare services available across the country, and we must get this
passed.
Mr. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I proudly yield 4
minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and
in strong support of the Women's Health Protection Act.
The Women's Health Protection Act would protect the right to abortion
nationwide. It would restore the intensely personal freedom for
pregnant people to make decisions about their own bodies.
That is the complete opposite of Trump's Project 2025, the extremist
Republicans' agenda for their policies that they want to advance.
Trump's Project 2025 outlines a whole-of-government approach to
eliminate the right to abortion. It restricts access to contraception.
It calls for the Federal Government to stop enforcing laws that require
hospitals to provide emergency care to pregnant people in need of an
abortion.
Let me just be clear, Mr. Speaker. This fight is about our
fundamental freedoms, the freedom to make choices about our own bodies,
our own health, and our own economic future.
I am standing here as one of the one-in-four women in America who has
had an abortion myself. I can tell you that these decisions are
intensely personal. We do not need an extreme Republican Party trying
to control our freedoms.
In my case, I had already experienced a very difficult pregnancy, and
my daughter was born prematurely at 26\1/2\ weeks. She was actually
just 1 pound, 14 ounces. She was about the size of my hand. She weighed
about the same as a small squash, and she literally almost did not
survive. My doctors told me that if I were to have another pregnancy it
would be extremely high risk both for me and for the child. Hence, I
took my daily contraceptive pill that Republicans are trying to get rid
of for Americans across this country so that I could protect my health
and the health of any future pregnancies.
In fact, what happened was I got pregnant anyway, and my doctor said:
You really should have an abortion.
I made that decision with my doctor and with my family.
Why should anyone else be a part of that decision?
It was a hard decision for me, but for every person it should be
their choice.
Donald Trump has bragged that he did a ``great job'' getting rid of
Roe v. Wade. Well, thanks Donald Trump. Thanks to Donald Trump, one in
three women in this country of childbearing age now live in a State
with an abortion ban. Thanks to Republicans, a woman who was 20 weeks
pregnant when her water broke was told by doctors that the pregnancy
was not viable, but still she was not provided the fundamental freedom
to do what she needed to do for her health. She was forced to go
through the pain of delivering a stillborn child.
Trump's Project 2025 and the Republican policy agenda tells millions
of families across this country who want to plan their families that
they can't even use contraception or IVF.
This is not theoretical. This is very real.
Just last week J.D. Vance became Donald Trump's running mate; J.D.
Vance who thinks abortion is ``comparable'' to slavery, J.D. Vance who
has criticized exceptions for even rape and incest, and wants to help
Trump and Republicans enact a nationwide abortion ban.
Democrats have a completely different vision. It is in the Women's
Health Protection Act, and that is to defend and protect your
fundamental freedoms.
Vote ``no'' on this motion.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. 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.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[From BBC News]

Project 2025: A Wish List for a Trump Presidency, Explained

(By Mike Wendling)

President Joe Biden's Democrats are mobilising against a
possible governing agenda for Donald Trump if he is elected
this November.
The blueprint, called Project 2025 and produced by the
conservative Heritage Foundation, is one of several think-
tank proposals for Trump's platform.
Over more than 900 pages, it calls for sacking thousands of
civil servants, expanding the power of the president,
dismantling the Department of Education and other federal
agencies, and sweeping tax cuts.
The Heritage Foundation unveiled its agenda in April 2023,
and liberal opposition ramped up as former President Trump
has taken a lead in polls after President Biden's poor debate
performance.
Early this July, Heritage president Kevin Roberts raised
the prospect of political violence during a podcast
interview.
``We are in the process of the second American revolution,
which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,''
Mr. Roberts told the War Room podcast, founded by Trump
adviser Steve Bannon.
The remarks prompted the Biden campaign to accuse Trump and
his allies of ``dreaming of a violent revolution to destroy
the very idea of America''.
The comments have refocused attention on Project 2025.
It is common for Washington think-tanks to propose policy
wishlists for potential governments-in-waiting. The liberal
Center for American Progress, for example, was dubbed

[[Page H4739]]

Barack Obama's ``ideas factory'' during his presidency.
What has Trump said about Project 2025?
In early July, Trump said on his social media platform that
he knows ``nothing about Project 2025''.
``I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of
the things they're saying and some of the things they're
saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,'' he wrote.
``Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to
do with them''.
However, several people linked to the project worked in
Trump's administration or as allies in his re-election
campaign.
Project 2025 director Paul Dans was chief of staff at the
Office of Personnel Management under Trump.
Associate director Spencer Chretien was a former special
assistant to Trump and associate director of Presidential
Personnel.
Adviser Russell Vought worked in Trump's Office of
Management and Budget.
What is Project 2025?
The Project 2025 document outlines four main aims: restore
the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the
administrative state; defend the nation's sovereignty and
borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live
freely.
It is one of several policy papers for a platform broadly
known as Agenda 47--so-called because Trump would be
America's 47th president if he won.
Heritage says Project 2025 was written by several former
Trump appointees and reflects input from more than 100
conservative organisations.
Here's an outline of several key proposals.

Government

Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy,
including independent agencies such as the Department of
Justice, be placed under direct presidential control--a
controversial idea known as ``unitary executive theory''.
In practice, that would streamline decision-making,
allowing the president to directly implement policies in a
number of areas.
The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for
thousands of government-employees, who could then be replaced
by political appointees.
The document labels the FBI a ``bloated, arrogant,
increasingly lawless organization'' and calls for drastic
overhauls of this and other federal agencies, including
eliminating the Department of Education.

Immigration

Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border--one
of Trump's signature proposals in 2016--is proposed in the
document.
However, more prominent are the consolidation of various US
immigration agencies and a large expansion in their powers.
Other proposals include increasing fees on immigrants and
allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a
premium.

EPA--Climate and Economy

The document proposes slashing federal money for research
and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next
president to ``stop the war on oil and natural gas''.
Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to
increase energy production and security.
The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is
divided on whether the next president should try to boost
free trade or raise barriers to exports.
But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump
administration should slash corporate and income taxes,
abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to
gold-backed currency.

Abortion

Project 2025 does not call for a nationwide abortion ban.
However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill
mifepristone from the market.

Tech and education

Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech
and telecoms companies that facilitate access to such content
would be shut down.
The document calls for school choice and parental control
over schools, and takes aim at what it calls ``woke
propaganda''.
It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws
and federal regulations, including ``sexual orientation'',
``diversity, equity, and inclusion'', ``gender equality'',
``abortion'' and ``reproductive rights''.
Jared Huffman, a Democrat congressman from California, has
launched a Stop Project 2025 Task Force.
He described Project 2025 as ``a dystopian plot that's
already in motion to dismantle our democratic institutions''.
Mr. Huffman said the project would ``abolish checks and
balances, chip away at church-state separation, and impose a
far-right agenda that infringes on basic liberties and
violates public will''.
``We need a coordinated strategy to save America and stop
this coup before it's too late''.
Heritage has previously said Mr. Biden's party was
scaremongering with ``an unserious, mistake-riddled press
release''.
House Democrats are dedicating taxpayer dollars to launch a
smear campaign against the united effort to restore self-
governance to everyday Americans,'' said Mr. Roberts in early
June.
``Under the Biden administration, the federal government
has been weaponized against American citizens, our border
invaded, and our institutions captured by woke ideology''.
The Heritage Foundation is one of the most influential of a
number of think tanks that has produced policy papers
designed to guide a possible second Trump presidency.
Since the 1980s, Heritage has produced similar policy
documents as part of its Mandate for Leadership series.
Project 2025, backed by a $22m (<brit-pound>17m) budget,
also sets out strategies for implementing policies beginning
immediately after the presidential inauguration in January
2025.
In his speeches and on his website, Trump has endorsed a
number of ideas included in Project 2025, although his
campaign has said the candidate has the final say on policy.
Many of the proposals would face immediate legal challenges
if implemented.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this article describes Project 2025 as 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 a chilling window into what may await us come January should
Donald Trump be elected President.
The items on Project 2025's agenda are straight-up dystopian. They
want to take complete control of the Department of Justice. They want
to end the independence of all Federal agencies, and they want to take
mifepristone off the market which would amount to a virtual nationwide
abortion ban. They want to slash efforts to combat climate change,
implement inhumane border policies, and fire thousands and thousands of
government employees.
I am just scratching the surface here, Mr. Speaker. You can read it
for yourself. I hope people will Google it and read the documents for
themselves.
If that weren't horrifying enough, the architects of this atrocious
Project 2025 are also threatening political violence to all those who
oppose them. Just last week, Kevin Roberts, the president of the
Heritage Foundation, said: ``The second American Revolution will remain
bloodless if the left allows it to be.''
Let that sink in.
Mr. 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.
If anyone here is stupid enough to believe that he won't act on these
threats, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that
anybody could be that gullible.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I will close on our side.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it is not just about the
legislation here. It is about two competing visions for America.
Democrats' record speaks for itself. We passed the largest
infrastructure bill in a generation, and my Republican friends are
falling over each other trying to take credit for infrastructure
projects in their district that most of them voted against.
We passed the largest climate change bill in world history. We
brought jobs back from overseas. Inflation is coming down, job growth
is solid, and we are working to guarantee that all Americans have an
opportunity to succeed. We are fighting for workers. We want
opportunity for kids, success for families, and dignity for our
seniors. We support our veterans. We want democracy to be secure at
home and around the world. We have a vision for a better future and an
idea on how to get there.
These Republican bills, once again, show the Republicans are more
interested in division and taking us backwards. They have no ideas to
make life better for Americans. They only have Donald Trump and Project
2025. That is it. That is it.
Here we are debating appropriations bills. We were supposed to be
having four on the floor today. Two of them were pulled after we had a
hearing in the Rules Committee, after Members testified on amendments,
after legislative staff spent hours and hours and hours drafting
amendments for Democrats and Republicans, and after the
Parliamentarians reviewed all these amendments to see whether they were
germane or not. CBO did scores on all of them.
All this work, and they pulled it. What a colossal waste of time, and
the

[[Page H4740]]

gentlewoman said: Well, it is the Senate Democrats.
I just have trouble following that logic. I have trouble following
that logic. It makes no sense.
The bottom line is that these bad bills can't even get over the
finish line. None of them are going to become law. We are wasting our
time. The way this is supposed to work is we are supposed to work
together, especially since it is a Democratic-controlled Senate and a
Democrat in the White House, and you have a very slim margin here in
the House for Republicans. We should be working together to construct
bills that can actually pass and that will actually help people.
Again, I had an amendment in the Rules Committee last night to bring
two bills, the Financial Services appropriations bill and the
Agriculture appropriations bill that we had testimony on, bring it to
the floor. I think they are garbage bills the way they are written, but
I had an amendment that made in order all of the amendments that were
offered by Democrats and Republicans. We didn't protect any amendments
from any points of order, and we could have had a debate and hopefully
made these bills better.
However, they were so bad that Republicans didn't even believe they
could twist enough Republican arms to pass them. We wasted time, and
they pulled them.
I will say this about the bills that are being brought to the floor
today. I want to give my friends who are watching a little insight into
the way they think about fairness. Mr. Speaker, 123 Republican
amendments are made in order, and 23 Democratic amendments. That is it.
Perfectly good, germane amendments that should be in order were not
made in order. That is their idea of fairness. It is a coming
attraction of what will happen if their candidate wins the Presidency
and they win the Senate. It is their way or the highway.
Right now, their way can't even get enough votes within the majority
party right now. They can't pass two of these bills, so they pulled
them.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, we have to do better. This is not a
serious Congress. This is not serious legislating. These appropriations
bills are important because our farmers rely on them. That is why the
Agriculture appropriations bill is important and the Financial Services
bill is important. All these bills are important. We need to not just
have ideological debates, we need to have bills come to the floor that
can actually pass and work its way through the process and get signed
into law.

This is the failing of this majority. My friend from Minnesota can
point the finger at the Senate, she can point the finger at Biden, and
she can point the finger at Vice President Harris. I mean, they can
point fingers all over the place. At the end of the day, unfortunately
for America, they are in control of the House of Representatives, and
they are doing a lousy job. They are doing a lousy job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the left have accused
Republicans of wasting time, and I take serious issue with that.
Republicans are going through the proper and transparent process to
pass these appropriations bills. We are doing serious work.
I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the work
they have done and for listening to the needs of the American people.
The Biden-Harris administration is hell-bent on imposing the radical
far-left Green New Deal agenda, and they do not care how much damage
they do to the country or to the economy or to the American people in
the process.
The legislation under the rule today reins in reckless government
spending, cuts harmful regulation, and restores independence putting us
back in competition on the world stage.
As an example, the EPA spends too much of its time and resources
creating new regulations to stifle the U.S. economy. When I go home to
Minnesota--and I know many of the other Members hear this when they go
home--I constantly hear about concerns with regulations largely due to
EPA rulemaking. This includes regulations on light-, medium-, and
heavy-duty vehicles, electric power plants, and the abuse of the
Endangered Species Act. All of these burden businesses and consumers.
H.R. 8998 will make significant cuts to these regulations and take
meaningful strides toward rightsizing our government.

{time} 1000

I encourage my Democratic colleagues, particularly those in the
Senate, to recognize that this legislation is the will of the people.
My colleagues should take it seriously to responsibly fund our
government, defend American producers, and address our Nation's debt.
My colleagues like to make it sound like Republicans are blindly
hacking away at government programs. I, for one, applaud the
Appropriations Committee for taking such a thoughtful look at where we
can responsibly cut spending.
The fact is that we are trillions of dollars in debt, and Americans
are facing the highest inflation rates in over 40 years. Families
across this country are being forced to tighten their belts. For their
sake, it is time for the Federal Government to do the same.
We must put a stop to reckless government spending. My Democratic
colleagues are not willing to do it and were not willing to do it when
the minority was in control, but we are. I call upon the other side to
help us get the debt under control.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 1370 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a
health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 12.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kustoff). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________