House Members to Vote on Election Integrity

September 12, 2024 | Washington, D.C.

by Tabitha Walter, Executive Director, Eagle Forum

Both the U.S. House and Senate returned to Washington, D.C. this week after a six-week recess. They have three weeks to pass major legislation before heading back home to campaign for the November elections. The House hit the ground running with “China Week.” They are bringing up several Eagle Forum-supported bills to protect the US from Chinese money and influence in our schools, our lands, and the automobile industry. They will also vote on a bill to ensure that the Senate carries out its Constitutional duty of advice and consent to the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty that threatens American sovereignty.

Next week, the House must deal with the controversial issue of how to keep funding the government through the election and whether to insist Congress protect citizen’s voting rights before November.

House Leadership wants to move a continuing resolution (CR), an extension of current funding levels, that contains the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility “SAVE” Act (H.R. 8281). As we have reported previously, the SAVE Act would simply require individuals who register to vote to show proof of citizenship and allow states to have information to clean up voter rolls to ensure that undocumented immigrants are not registered.

With the millions who have poured over the border, and places like Washington, D.C. that allow illegal aliens to vote in local elections, it is imperative that this bill be attached to a must-pass bill to ensure fair elections. The House passed this bill with bipartisan support in July, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) refused to take it up. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is committed to forcing the Senate to act on the issue. By attaching the SAVE Act to the CR, he is forcing Schumer and the Democrats to choose between non-citizen voting and government funding.

Some Republicans are not willing to go along with this plan. Several members are opposed on principle to funding the government via repeated continuing resolutions. This is not how the government should conduct business. The correct process is for members of both parties to work together and negotiate twelve appropriations bills for the various government agencies and pass them individually into law. However, they haven’t followed the regular order for a long time.

Earmarks, social agendas, and extreme politicization have thwarted any attempt at moving forward individual government funding bills. Plus, the current dynamics of a slim Republican majority in the House and a slim Democrat majority in the Senate have led to a stalemate on funding bills. While the House has passed all 12 bills out of committee, only five have passed the full House and the Senate has refused to bring up even one for consideration.

Other members are concerned about the lack of an increase in defense funding by passing a CR. The Congressional Budget Office said a CR would result in the  Department of Defense (DOD) losing its promised one percent increase from the prior year, meaning it would receive $5 billion less than it expected. DOD Secretary Lloyd Austin has made unprovable claims that a CR would negatively impact military recruiting and hurt investments in submarine and ship-building bases. Unfortunately, some have bought into these mistruths.

The current state of military recruitment is already poor. Some military branches have surplus funds for recruiting they have been unable to spend. Additionally, the CR adds $2 billion in funding for Virginia-class submarines. The problem with investing in shipbuilding and recruiting eligible individuals for military service is not a funding issue — it’s poor administration of the agency by its head.

Another positive element of the Speaker’s proposed CR is that it lasts for six months. Too often, Congress has passed short-term CRs that expire in December. But this is an election year, and a short-term CR would expire during the lame-duck session — the period of time when elections are over and members no longer feel accountable for their actions. Attendance is usually a big problem during this time because of the holidays and the lack of motivation by Members who are retiring or have been voted out of office. Historically, the bills passed during the lame-duck session resulted in drastic funding increases and bad policy riders. We cannot afford a three-month CR. A six-month CR would allow Congress to work on a more substantive budget with new elected officials.

Eagle Forum supports the six-month CR with the SAVE Act attached and urges all House members to vote in favor. We also applaud Speaker Johnson’s commitment to the issue. He made clear,

“I believe we can do both things. I believe we can fund the government responsibly, and I believe that we can do right by the American people and ensure the security of our elections. I defy anybody to give me any logical argument why we shouldn’t do that.”