MIL USHOR-2b Engine

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

20 February 2025

Contact: Liam Forsythe

liam.forsythe@mail.house.gov

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (CA-44), a member of the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health, led 19 of her colleagues in a letter urging the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to reinstate the collection of demographic data and requirement for health equity plans at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI).

CMMI develops and tests health care payment and service delivery models to improve patient care, lower costs, and align payment systems to promote patient-centered practices in Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

On Tuesday, February 11, 2025, CMMI announced it would no longer collect data from its payment model participants on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, and preferred language, and that it would remove all requirements for CMMI payment models to submit health equity plans, which are aimed at measuring and addressing health disparities.

“The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation plays a vital role in lowering costs for the healthcare system and ensuring our communities receive the quality care they deserve,” said Rep. Barragán. “Demographic data, such as data on race and ethnicity, is an essential resource for identifying and addressing inequities. This information can be used to make our healthcare system more efficient and improve the health of underserved communities, benefiting all of us. I urge the Trump Administration to swiftly reverse course and take action to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live a long, healthy life regardless of their background.”

“Community Catalyst is deeply concerned about CMMI’s decision to stop collecting data on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, and preferred language. This move disregards progress from initiatives like the AHC Model, which improved access to services and addressed health-related social needs for historically excluded communities. Data showed that Black, Hispanic, and other non-white Medicare beneficiaries who engaged with navigation services experienced lower Medicare costs, fewer emergency visits, and reduced hospital admissions,” said Brandon G. Wilson, interim co-president & CEO at Community Catalyst. “Health care is rapidly changing, but too often, those most affected—especially communities long harmed by systemic racism, classism, and other forms of oppression—are left out of decisions about their care. Health innovations can’t succeed without centering these voices from the start. Without data on diverse populations, resources risk being allocated toward models that fail to reflect their true effectiveness or value for all—undermining both cost-effectiveness and quality improvement. Ending this data collection hinders CMMI’s ability to identify what works, ultimately increasing costs without delivering better care. CMMI must prioritize inclusive data to achieve better coverage, better care, and better health for everyone.”

In addition to urging HHS and CMS to immediately rescind these changes, the letter requests specific information on the cost implications of these decisions to determine the impact on beneficiaries and their caregivers.

In addition to Barragán, the letter is signed by Reps. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20), Gilbert Cisneros (CA-31), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Robin Kelly (IL-02), Ted Lieu (CA-36), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Grace Meng (NY-06), Dave Min (CA-47), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-00), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Darren Soto (FL-09), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Jill Tokuda (HI-02), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12).

The letter is endorsed by Community Catalyst. 

The full text of the letter can be found here.

# # #

Congressmember Nanette Barragán represents California’s 44^th District.  She sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and works on environmental justice, healthcare, and digital equity issues. 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

20 February 2025

Contact: Liam.Forsythe@mail.house.gov

Legislation prioritizes investments in environmental justice communities 

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswomen Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44) and Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09) reintroduced a bill that would create a federal program to build clean energy microgrids to power critical infrastructure for communities in the aftermath of an extreme weather event or power shut-off.

The Energy Resilient Communities Act takes a significant step forward in energy equity and environmental justice, by prioritizing grant applications from low-income communities and communities of color for clean energy microgrid grants. These grants will help combat power outages and rolling blackouts, reduce pollution, create green jobs, and fight the climate crisis. 

“As wildfires, hurricanes and other climate disasters become more frequent and severe, we must ensure that communities—especially those historically overburdened by pollution and energy shortages—have access to reliable, clean power,” said Rep. Barragán. “The Energy Resilient Communities Act invests in clean energy microgrids, ensuring hospitals, fire stations, and essential services stay online when disaster strikes. This bill will create good-paying jobs, lower energy costs, and strengthen our clean energy future.”

“As communities in every corner of our nation continue to face extreme weather events and other natural disasters brought on by the climate crisis, the need to fortify their climate resiliency and bridge long standing environmental disparities remains abundantly clear. Congress cannot and must not leave vulnerable Americans to fend for themselves in the face of this existential emergency, and that’s why I’m proud to stand with Congresswoman Barragán to reintroduce the Energy Resilient Communities Act,” said Rep. Clarke. “This critical legislation will empower at-risk communities with the resources they need to develop clean energy microgrids, ensuring they’ll keep power through whatever challenges this crisis may bring.”

Energy Resilient Communities Act Highlights:

• Authorizes $50 million in annual grants for technical assistance and $1.5 billion in annual grants for clean energy microgrids to support the critical infrastructure needed in the aftermath of an extreme weather event. 
• A minimum of $150 million of annual authorized funding is reserved for grants supporting the construction of community-owned energy systems. 
• State and local governments, territories, political subdivisions of the state, tribal agencies, utilities, and non-profits can apply for grants. 
• Grants are prioritized for applications from environmental justice communities. 
• Examples of critical infrastructure include hospitals, grocery stores, community centers, public safety facilities, water systems, public or affordable housing, medical baseline customers, and senior housing. 
• Projects are additionally prioritized based on several criteria, including how effectively they reduce pollution and improve public health, whether they are built on previously disturbed land, whether they provide contracts for women and minority owned businesses, their utilization of apprenticeships, and whether the proposed project will be a community-owned energy system. 
• The maximum federal cost share of 60%, except for environmental justice communities, where the maximum federal cost share is 90%. 
• Includes Buy American provisions to maximize the creation of American manufacturing jobs in the production of materials and technology for microgrids. 
• There are worker hiring targets for each project to maximize the number of local and economically disadvantaged workers, including those who live in environmental justice communities or were displaced from a previous job in the energy sector. 

The bill can be found here. 

Reps. Barragán and Clarke were joined by 30 original cosponsors of the Energy Resilient Communities Act: Hank Johnson, Emmanuel Cleaver, Andre Carson, Troy Carter, Suzanne Bonamici, Ro Khanna, Rashida Tlaib, Steve Cohen, Paul Tonko, Kevin Mullin, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jerrold Nadler, Melanie Stansbury, Pramila Jayapal, Mary Gay Scanlon, Raul Grijalva, Ed Case, Jared Huffman, Jared Moskowitz, Jill Tokuda, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mike Quigley, Shri Thanedar, Andrea Salinas, Chellie Pingree, Johnny Olszewski, Kathy Castor, Yassamin Ansari, Doris Matsui.

###

Congressmember Nanette Barragán represents California’s 44^th District.  She sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and works on environmental justice, healthcare, and digital equity issues. 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 19, 2025

Contact: Liam.Forsythe@mail.house.gov

CARSON, CA — Today, U.S. Representative Nanette Barragán (CA-44) joined Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, a parent, and student at Stephen M. White Middle School to denounce the Trump administration’s reported plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. The proposed elimination of the department would strip critical funding from public schools, putting millions of students at risk.

“The Trump administration’s plan to eliminate the Department of Education is reckless, illegal, and harmful to our students,” said Rep. Barragán. “This move would devastate funding for low-income schools, eliminate protections for students with disabilities, and make college less accessible for working families. We cannot let this happen.”

The Department of Education plays a crucial role in funding essential programs such as:

• Pell Grants that help low-income students afford college.
• Title I funding that supports schools in underserved communities.
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding that ensures students with disabilities receive the resources they need.
• Federal protections against discrimination to safeguard LGBTQ+ students, students of color, and other vulnerable populations.

“Los Angeles Unified is proud of the educational progress our students have made over the past two years after the learning loss endured during the pandemic,” said Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho. “Now, more than ever, our students will continue to rely on all available funding sources to support their academic success and social-emotional wellbeing as they get ready for college, career and life. With nearly $1.3 billion of our District budget coming from the federal government, federal education programs such as Title I and IDEA help support our most vulnerable students including low-income and those with disabilities. Funding cuts for these programs could compromise our ability to provide essential services and resources to students and families.”

The press conference also featured a student and parent who shared personal stories about how federal education funding has shaped their academic success.

Rep. Barragán concluded with a call to action, urging community members to stand together in defense of public education. “This is not about partisan politics. It’s about the future of our children, our communities, and our country. House Democrats will fight to protect the Department of Education and ensure every student has access to the resources they need to succeed.”

# # #

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 18, 2025
Contact: Liam Forsythe, (202) 225-8220
liam.forsythe@mail.house.gov

LONG BEACH, CA – Today, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (CA-44) joined L.A. Care Health Plan, Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson, health care providers, and community advocates to highlight the critical role Medicaid plays in ensuring access to quality health care for millions of Americans. The press conference, held at the L.A. Care and Blue Shield Promise Community Resource Center, underscored the devastating impact that proposed Republican cuts to Medicaid would have on working families, seniors, children, and individuals with disabilities.

“Medicaid is a lifeline for more than 10.4 million Californians,” said Congresswoman Barragán. “It ensures that families, children, seniors, and people with disabilities can see a doctor, afford their prescriptions, and get the in-home care they need to live with dignity. The Republican proposals to slash Medicaid funding would rip this safety net away from those who need it most, putting lives at risk and increases costs for everyone.”

“Medicaid is a lifeline for millions of families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities here in Long Beach and across the country. In fact, 36% of Long Beach residents are enrolled in Medi-Cal not to mention those enrolled in Covered California,” said Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson. “Any attempt to cut these critical resources is an attack on our most vulnerable neighbors. We are here today to send a clear message: We will fight to protect and expand access to quality health care, not roll it back. I stand with Congresswoman Barragan, L.A. Care, and our health care advocates in ensuring that every resident—regardless of income—has the care they need and deserve.”

“Federal proposals to cut Medicaid funding, impose work requirements, or shift costs to states threaten Medi-Cal’s stability. These cuts would reduce coverage, limit access to doctors and mental health services, and eliminate critical benefits like dental and vision care,” said Martha Santana-Chin, CEO of L.A. Care Health Plan, the nation’s largest publicly operated health plan. “We recognize that Washington faces tough budget decisions, but balancing the budget should not come at the expense of working families, seniors, and children. Healthcare is not a partisan issue—it’s a human one.” 

# # #

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

21 January 2024

Contact: Kevin G. McGuire | 202-538-2386

Kevin.mcguire@mail.house.gov

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (D-CA) introduced the “Commitment to Environmental Justice Act,” to lock-in a government-wide commitment to environmental justice by federal agencies. The bill is in response to several of President Donald Trump’s first day Executive Orders that aim to roll-back the federal government’s progress on environmental justice and equity.

By codifying President Biden’s Executive Order 14096, “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All,” the bill ensures that prioritizing environmental justice remains a core responsibility of federal agencies, regardless of changes in administration.

“Every federal agency must have environmental justice as a guiding principle for their work,” said Congresswoman Barragán. “This legislation makes sure that the most vulnerable communities are not forgotten, and that our government will continue to protect clean air and clean water for communities of color and disadvantaged communities.”

By codifying Executive Order 14096, the Commitment to Environmental Justice Act will defend overburdened communities from the disproportionate environmental and health impacts they face, and mandate federal agencies to integrate environmental justice into their missions and actions permanently.

The Commitment to Environmental Justice Act is cosponsored by Representatives Paul Tonko Pramila Jayapal, Mark Takano, André Carson, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Melanie Stansbury, Yassamin Ansari, Raul Grijalva, Jared Huffman, and Jennifer McClellan.  

A copy of the bill can be found here.  

###

Congressmember Nanette Barragán represents California’s 44^th District.  She sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and works on environmental justice and healthcare issues.  She is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and is a Co-Chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Larson (1st District of Connecticut)

Rep. John B. Larson wrote the following op-ed that appeared in the Hartford Courant:

Earlier this month, President Joseph Biden signed legislation to avoid a catastrophic default. While not perfect, the president did an admirable job negotiating with the extreme Republicans who began their tenure in the House majority by attempting to leverage the full faith and credit of our nation with cuts to Social Security and Medicare. In that light, what was agreed to falls far short of these dangerous goals.

Still, we cannot normalize what played out over the last six months. While I would never support a national default, once it became clear that legislation to raise the debt ceiling would pass overwhelmingly, I voted against the legislation to protest the normalization of holding the American economy hostage in order to extract policy goals. It is also why I support ending this recurring threat once and for all.

To understand the radical nature of House Republicans, it is important to understand the debt ceiling in context. Congress has lifted the debt limit almost 80 times since 1960, including three times where Republicans overwhelmingly supported raising it under President Trump. Now, however, we have experienced three occasions where this usually routine process has become a manufactured crisis: 2011, 2013, and 2023. There is no stronger evidence that Republicans’ only use for the debt ceiling is as a political weapon than the fact that they raised the ceiling without dramatics three times under President Trump while he added $8 trillion to the national debt. Yet Republicans demand extractions under Democratic Presidents.

The debt ceiling as it stands is a failed policy, which gives our worst actors the tools to threaten defaulting on payments they themselves voted for in order to extract concessions. Prior to an agreement being reached, I led other members of Congress in urging President Biden to recognize that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment reads, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”  Bottom line: we must pay our bills to preserve our standing around the globe and the dollar here at home.

There are other ways the debt ceiling can be amended to make its use more responsible. I am working with Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle (PA-02) on legislation that would empower the secretary of the treasury to initiate increasing the debt ceiling. Should Congress find such an increase irresponsible, it would have 30 days to pass a resolution blocking it. If Republicans think that default is the most responsible course of action, they should be required to put their name behind a vote to do so and make the case to the American public.

It should serve as a warning sign to us all that no sooner than legislation to raise the debt ceiling passed the House, Speaker Kevin McCarthy went on Fox News to say that Social Security and Medicare were only spared because President Biden had walled them off from cuts. McCarthy then announced his intention to go after the Republican Study Committee’s goal of cutting Social Security and Medicare.

The debt limit stands as a tool that empowers those who would threaten Social Security checks, Medicare coverage, and our entire economy to deliver on radical and unpopular political goals. I felt I had to send a clear message: there’s a better way. Once it was clear the nation would not default, I felt it was my responsibility to vote no.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Larson (1st District of Connecticut)

Rep. John B. Larson and former Connecticut Secretary of the State Miles Rapoport wrote the following op-ed that appeared in the Hartford Courant: 

Our democracy only works if The People vote. As U.S. Representative of Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District and as a former Connecticut Secretary of the State, we recognize voting is both a fundamental right and a civic duty. This responsibility is an integral part of making our nation’s policies work and reflect The People. Universal voting is one way we can make that a reality.

We believe it is time for states and the nation to engage in discussions about bold reforms that include and amplify the voices of all Americans. In last November’s midterm elections, both nationally and in Connecticut, we did not hear from more than half of potential voters; 48% voter turnout is not anything to boast about. It is minority rule.

Recognizing voting as a civic duty and a responsibility of all Americans would be a giant step forward to a fully inclusive democracy. For too long, young people, communities of color, and voters without college degrees have been consistently underrepresented every election. And as states across the country try to limit access to the ballot box, making sure every American votes would tear down these barriers and ensure that state and local governments facilitate accessible voting. We can transform our voting culture to fully encourage responsibility and participation in a democracy, which would only further enhance our efforts to educate, engage and provide greater accessibility.

If, as a candidate or a party, you know that every eligible citizen is required to vote, and therefore everyone is listening, you need to speak to everyone and persuade them on the merits of your candidates and ideas.

The analogy with jury duty is a strong one. In the interest of fair verdicts in our courts, it is a responsibility for our citizens to serve on a jury if they are called. As a society we insist that the jury pool reflects all parts of our community. We think the same logic applies to voting; we should insist that the decisions of the government be made by a fully reflective pool of voters.

Today, 26 countries across the globe have universal voting, including Australia, which has used the system for close to 100 years.

How does it work in Australia? First, the government, political parties, and civil society organizations do tremendous outreach. People are then required to cast a ballot, but don’t have to vote for or against anyone; blank ballots allow voters to register their disapproval if they wish. Elections are held on Saturday, and there is a celebratory civic culture. Australia achieves 90% voter participation in every election. The system is popular, and there has never been a serious attempt at repeal.

Connecticut is not alone in this discussion. In the state of Washington, 14 state senators introduced legislation to move toward universal voting; it recently moved out of committee. At the federal level, I was proud to sponsor the Civic Duty to Vote Act in the last Congress, after the concept was put forward by E.J. Dionne and Miles Rapoport in their book, “100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting.” This legislation would require all eligible voters to vote in federal general elections and provide state and local governments with the funding to facilitate it.

Overall, we both believe universal voting can be a “north star” reform and a powerful way to make our democracy fully inclusive and vibrantly participatory. It is absolutely time to begin this vital discussion of ideas, and we celebrate that Connecticut is one of the places advancing this conversation.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Larson (1st District of Connecticut)

Rep. John B. Larson wrote the following letter to the editor that appeared in the Washington Post:

The Feb. 9 news article “Benefits programs get rare consensus” stated that “leaders of both parties have become unwilling to discuss potential changes to Social Security and Medicare.” As chairman of the Social Security subcommittee last Congress and current ranking Democratic member, I know that categorization of “unwilling” is fundamentally false.

Republicans have released plans to cut, privatize and end Social Security. Though in denial, they have proposed using the national debt to leverage those cuts but to date have not presented legislation. In stark contrast, however, Democrats in both the House and Senate have.

In the previous Congress, more than 200 House Democrats supported Social Security 2100 with the goal to lift up the 5 million seniors who receive below-poverty-level checks from Social Security. This plan is a solid start and enhances benefits while eliminating more than 60 percent of Social Security’s projected shortfall, something that hasn’t been done in more than 50 years.

Privately, my Republican colleagues will confide that they know benefits need to be enhanced. However, they criticize it in public hearings while never offering an alternative.

A great service of the fourth estate would be to call on Congress to produce legislation for public consumption and open for discussion in the full light of day, not behind closed doors without any public or political accountability.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Larson (1st District of Connecticut)

Rep. John B. Larson wrote the following op-ed that appeared in Aviation Week:

Over the past year, the public debate on how best to modernize the F-35’s propulsion system has dragged on. We have heard from the military services, the partners and the contractors—no shortage of analyses have looked closely at the potential pathways ahead, which will have major implications for the entire program. The facts and data are clear. It is time for us to modernize the F-35’s existing engine, the F135, and dispel the notion of a second engine once again.

A package of new weapons systems and other planned upgrades for the F-35, known as Block 4, will increase the demands for power and cooling on the engine even further beyond its original specification. Running the engine past its original specifications to meet these needs will shorten its life and increase sustainment costs. Modernizing the existing engine to meet the demands of the F-35’s Block 4 upgrades will allow us to enable critical combat capabilities our warfighters require and at the same time extend engine life and lower sustainment costs. In fact, a block upgrade for the F135, known as the Enhanced Engine Program, is projected to save the F-35 enterprise $40 billion over the program’s lifetime.

Some have argued we should replace the F135 engine instead of modernizing it. They point to the U.S. Air Force’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) as an option for future F-35 propulsion. This is a costly and risky proposition. For one, the current AETP engine options can fit into only the conventional-takeoff-and-landing variant of the F-35 used by the Air Force. It requires substantial airframe modifications to fit in the F-35 carrier variant used by the Navy. The AETP engines also are incompatible with the short-takeoff-and-landing variant used by the Marine Corps. The bedrock principle of the F-35 program from the very beginning was commonality. We would build an aircraft as capable as the venerated F-22 Raptor while using a common airframe and engine to maximize economies of scale and allow training, maintenance and supply interoperability with our international partners to lower costs. It is a concept embedded into the very name, the Joint Strike Fighter.

We must also consider the timeline associated with propulsion modernization. The warfighter needs Block 4 as fast as possible. The AETP engine is still a development project that requires billions of dollars more in investment and a steep learning curve. By upgrading the current engine and leveraging its existing production capability and established maintenance network, we can deliver meaningful capability for our military services by 2030, years sooner than an AETP engine would. As recent world events have demonstrated, the threat is here now. We must deliver fully enabled Block 4 aircraft in quantities that matter as a deterrence as rapidly as we can.

The Air Force also must seriously consider if it is willing to sacrifice future F-35 tails in order to invest in a new engine. Today, the average fighter aircraft in the Air Force fleet is 28 years old. The F-35 is the only fifth-generation fighter in production in the U.S. or with our allies. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall himself recently stated: “It’s an expensive engine. It takes a lot just to do the development—several billion dollars. [That] is, in rough terms, 70 F-35s. So are you prepared to have 70 less F-35s in order to have that engine in the ones that you do have?”

And that analysis only takes development costs into consideration. The Air Force estimates it will cost nearly $7 billion just to move an AETP engine into production. Furthermore, the initial costs for a new engine production line and duplicative sustainment network will be high as the industrial base establishes and trains a new workforce, acquires the necessary machinery and learns from its mistakes. The F135 costs 50% less today than it did when the first production engine rolled off the assembly line. It would be a mistake to throw away all those affordability investments and sacrifice F-35s in favor of a new engine, leaving our military services with a capability gap that our aging fighter fleet cannot fill.

The F-35 is the largest defense procurement program in history. At the end of the day, the F-35’s greatest assets are its economies of scale and greater interoperability with our allies. Seeking a replacement engine for the F-35 puts those and the entire program at risk.

Rep. John B. Larson, a Democrat, represents Connecticut’s first congressional district and is the longest serving co-chair of the Joint Strike Fighter Caucus.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Larson (1st District of Connecticut)

U.S. Rep. John B. Larson wrote the following op-ed that appeared in the Hartford Courant:

In 1961, author Joseph Heller introduced “Catch-22″ into the American lexicon. That term referred to a fictional rule requiring repetitive behavior that leads to nowhere. In 2022, we are enduring the same absurdist nightmare visited upon the country by Senate Rule 22, which has single-handedly paralyzed our nation by grinding the U.S. Congress to a halt. Unlike Catch-22, Senate Rule 22 is not fictional, and the resulting dysfunction has become a reality.

How is it, in the past 16 months, the House of Representatives has passed more than 400 bills, 70% of which have been bipartisan-sponsored, and the Senate has yet to vote on any of them?

Democrats control the House, Senate and the presidency, yet bills to protect voting rights, enact gun safety, and safeguard women’s reproductive rights have passed the House of Representatives but never received a vote in the Senate chamber.

Once revered as the world’s greatest deliberative body, the Senate is now the most debilitating threat to our Democratic Republic. How so? Forty-one senators determine what bills the Senate will take up through Rule 22, the cloture vote.

Cloture is a vote to end a filibuster, and under Senate rules, requires 60 votes. Any senator can ask for the cloture vote without even coming to the floor. You should not mistake this for “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” where Jimmy Stewart holds the floor and principally tries to persuade his colleagues. This has nothing to do with principle or policy and everything to do with power and politics.

Is that in the Constitution, you may ask? No. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you need a super majority to take up House-passed bills. Beyond that, there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a filibuster to block majority rule. That, too, is a rule of the Senate that has become weaponized against democracy.

To be fair, both parties, Republicans and Democrats, have utilized the cloture vote to control the floor and block legislation. It has been used not to improve, amend or pause legislation, but to kill the will of the American people.

Most recently, the negative effects of the filibuster have been compounded by devastating Supreme Court rulings. How is it that in the Senate it only takes 51 votes to confirm three conservative Supreme Court Justices, yet requires 60 votes to safeguard women’s reproductive rights, pass universal background checks on gun purchases and protect the right to vote for all Americans?

If you want to know why things are not getting done in Washington, you need look no further than this unconstitutional rule allowing a minority of senators to block the people’s will. At John Lewis’ funeral, former President Barack Obama lamented that the filibuster needs to go.

With all the threats that we are facing: a global pandemic, Russia, China and foreign and domestic terrorists attacking the very fabric of our democracy, it may shock people to know that over 400 bills representing ideas put forward by the people’s representatives have neither been heard nor voted on in the U.S. Senate.

The Founding Fathers were aware of the threat posed by consolidated power. They meticulously countered it by devising a system of checks and balances whose premise was to govern by majority rule. When asked what kind of government they had created, Benjamin Franklin responded with this warning: “a republic, if you can keep it.”

These are consequential times, and the American people are looking for results and accountability. Rule 22 must go, and the good news is we do not need a constitutional amendment to change this rule. We only need a majority vote from a Senate that cares more about the nation’s well-being than power and politics. We cannot let the procedures of the Senate remain a Catch-22 for our republic.

John Larson represents Connecticut’s First District in Congress.