We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
53 public bills, H.R. 1223- 1275; and 22 resolutions, H.J. Res. 40-58; and H. Res. 126-128, were introduced.
Pages H673-77
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Miller-Meeks to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H647
Recess
The House recessed at 10:52 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H653
Recess
The House recessed at 12:12 p.m. and reconvened at 3:31 p.m.
Page H654
Midnight Rules Relief Act
The House passed H.R. 77, to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight rules'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 208 nays, Roll No. 41.
Pages H654-63
Rejected the Jacobs motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary by a yea-and-nay vote of 205 yeas to 213 nays, Roll No. 40. H. Res 122, the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 77) was agreed to yesterday, February 11th.
Pages H661-62
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, February 13th.
Page H673
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate by the Clerk and subsequently presented to the House today appears on page H654. Quorum Calls--Votes: Two yea-and-nay votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H662 and H662-63. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 95 of 122 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Gabriele Mucciarelli who we lost at the age of 90 earlier this month.
Gabe was an exceptional man whose life was a testament to hard work, loyalty, and the power of the American Dream.
In 1952, at the age of 17, Gabe left all that he had in Italy for Canada in search of a better life. There, he worked in a collision shop and realized his natural talent for auto repair.
After marrying the love of his life, his late wife, Maria, in 1961, they moved to Buffalo where they built a beautiful family and continued to work hard.
Three years later, his hard work paid off, and he opened up the first Gabe's Collision on East Delavan in Buffalo. Gabe's attention to detail and quality service made the business a success, and it quickly expanded to Genesee Street.
He was well respected in the industry and known around town as an honest man with impeccable talent, who could make any car look as good as new. Just last year, Gabe's Collision, which has grown from one small shop in Buffalo to three locations across western New York, celebrated 60 years in business.
Gabe lived his life no differently than he did his job. Treating those around him with fairness and integrity, he was always there to help and provide his loved ones with selfless, unwavering support.
He is survived by his children, Johanna and Jeff; grandchildren, Cristina Ippolito and Jioia Mucciarelli; as well as many nieces, nephews, and devoted friends.
Gabe's son, Jeff, has followed in his father's footsteps not only in business but in his commitment to honesty and integrity. For 40 years, Jeff was lucky enough to work alongside his father as they built Gabe's dream of a small collision shop into a large operation with that same commitment to quality and great work.
Gabe loved his family, his work, his community, and our country deeply. As we mourn his loss, let us take comfort in knowing how loved he was and his incredible impact on countless lives, and may Gabriele Mucciarelli rest in peace.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of James Francis Doherty, a remarkable public servant and family man whose perseverance and loyalty will continue to serve as an example for all of those who are willing and able to help make changes to this world.
A graduate of Bishop Timon-St. Jude High School and Buffalo State University, Jimmy went into the world wanting to make a difference, and that he did.
Upon graduation, he worked as a special education teacher at South Park High School until he ran for office. Jimmy was the youngest elected at-large councilman in the Buffalo Common Council. During his tenure, he was a fierce advocate for the people he represented, especially the most vulnerable in our community including women, people of color, and anyone who was disenfranchised.
He always kept a picture of his two beloved daughters, Brigid and Leah, behind his desk. Whenever someone came in with a request, he would point to the photo and say: I do everything for those two. So make sure whatever you are asking of me, I can be proud to share with them.
He would go on to be a mentor and a friend to many and remain active in city policymaking, inspiring generations of civic-minded Buffalonians. After retiring from politics, Jimmy led a selfless career in student transportation, holding executive roles at National School Bus, Laidlaw Education Service, and later First Student. Each fall, western New Yorkers could rely on Jimmy to help them usher in a safe return to school.
As president of the Wanakah Country Club, Jimmy was an avid golfer and passionate sports fan. When he wasn't helping others, he could be found on the green with his favorite golf partner and best friend, his brother Jerry.
Jimmy is survived by his beloved wife, Marleah; his devoted children, Brigid Doherty and Leah Roberts; his loving grandchildren, Haley and Sophia Jones and Anna and Harrison Roberts; as well as countless other nieces, nephews, family members, and friends.
Jimmy's loyalty to his family and devotion to his city made him a model leader, one whom all Buffalonians and western New Yorkers can look up to with pride and admiration. He will certainly be missed.
Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to remark on the outrage of my colleagues and others over the special government employee status granted to Elon Musk by the executive branch. We are hearing a lot of, oh, he is unelected or he is unaccountable.
Let me remind my colleagues and those voices that the vast majority of government employees who review and authorize grants, disburse billions of dollars, issue rules and laws, or even handle our Nation's pandemic response, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, are unelectable and unaccountable to the voters.
How about the IRS bureaucrat Lois Lerner?
How can we forget ACORN?
None of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were calling for accountability or investigations when Dr. Fauci was forcing his mandate on 300 million Americans.
None of them were expressing outrage when unelected bureaucrats were forcing 6-year-olds to wear masks or closing down schools or forcing Head Start students to continue to wear masks long after the rest of America had stopped wearing them and closing down churches and small businesses across the country.
Who can forget the government employee who leaked the pending Dobbs court decision?
No conservative has forgotten Lois Lerner of the IRS denying 501(c) status to those volunteer citizens wanting to protest the Obama administration.
These government employees yield tremendous power with no oversight, often making decisions behind closed doors that affect millions of Americans. Elon Musk was hired by the President of the United States, or brought on, to undercover waste, fraud, and abuse in our government. That is it. Every move being made by him and DOGE is being made in the public eye as an audit and not in the shadows.
Let's be clear because this really is not about accountability. It is about the fear of a system that might be held accountable and expose corruption.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Dover Police Department on 100 years of service to the capital of Delaware.
Beginning in 1925, with a mere two-room office in the basement of city hall, over the past 100 years, the department has grown to more than 100 officers, as well as professional support staff divided over three divisions and nine functional units.
Led by their 15th chief, Thomas A. Johnson, Jr., these dedicated public servants put their lives on the line every day to protect public safety and support victims of crime in Delaware's second largest city.
In all they do, Dover Police are ingrained in the community, working alongside our educators, health professionals, nonprofits, and business partners, as well as regional, State, and Federal law enforcement partners. Their commitment to community policing and their behavioral health unit reinforces their compassionate and holistic approach to public safety.
On the centennial of the Dover Police Department, I thank the heroes who have donned the badge with honor, courage, and unwavering commitment to Dover.
A grateful State wishes the Dover Police Department a happy centennial.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the commitment of a dedicated community leader, Paul Calistro, to the State of Delaware. A former mayor of Newport, Delaware, Paul has been the executive director of West End Neighborhood House in Wilmington since 1991, working tirelessly to provide direct programs, services, support, and advocacy to Delawareans, their families, and our broader community.
For more than 140 years, the West End Neighborhood House has empowered generations of Delawareans to become and remain self- sufficient. Under Paul's leadership, West End has grown their impact, helping over 10,000 Delawareans each year. They provide meals, place people in long-term employment, secure stable housing, and teach critical skills to community members.
While the backbone of that work is the dedicated team of staff and volunteers at West End, at the heart of that work is the big heart of Paul Calistro. When being honored several years ago, Paul said that somebody has got to stand up and be an advocate for people who can't speak.
Whether they are a youth aging out of foster care or a single mom trying to get a good-paying job, Paul is an advocate for those too often left behind. Ever the selfless leader, as Paul celebrates his birthday this week, instead of asking for anything himself, he has asked people to support youth in foster care.
While Paul celebrates his birthday by supporting others, a grateful State celebrates Paul for his ongoing commitment to making Delaware a place that more fully lives up to our values as a State of neighbors.
Mr. Speaker, in this ongoing conversation about government overreach and last-minute regulations that have been so damaging, I want to bring up how that has affected the water supply for California and for the West. For everybody that enjoys American-grown food, it affects them.
What we have seen happen is that there is an ongoing effort and an onslaught, really, to remove dams, especially in the Western States and in my own district in northern California.
What are the results of that? In order to somehow believe that they are seeking fish passage and greater fish populations, for example, with this government overreach, with these false pronouncements based on really faulty, fake data, what are we getting?
On the Klamath River we have thousands of dead fish and other wildlife after the removal of the dams that have happened. The silt loads that are behind that dam that we warned them about have been flowing down the river of the Klamath ever since. Massive amounts of fish are killed, and other wildlife are getting caught in that silt. We warned them about that.
They are pronouncing it nirvana. It is heaven because the water is flowing through there, and we have lost that hydroelectric power that the dams used to generate. It is becoming someone else's problem farther down the stream with the silt. If it doesn't wash out within 3 years, that is an entire salmon life cycle. It will actually wipe out the population of water that is sourced from what is actually a warm lake and is not ideal for salmon.
We see it time and again. The government overreach is affecting the smart use of water in California. Right now they are dumping water out of Shasta Dam and Oroville Dam in northern California. The water coming out of Shasta is actually flooding part of the town of Redding and then areas of Glenn County farther down the line along the Sacramento River because there is so much water going out. Yet there is still ample storage space behind Shasta. There is 600,000 or maybe 700,000 acre- feet behind that.
The problem is they don't use up-to-date weather forecasting in order to determine whether we should dump water or could we keep some of it a little longer because we are not going to get
We all get it. Flood control needs to be provided for behind these dams. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that is their charge. It seems like their hair trigger is to dump water instead of also trying to conserve it. This is really based not just on the ideal of flood control but also fish passage and fish water because we are receding down in the delta. They are limited in the Bay Delta to being able to only move about 6,000 cubic feet per second via the lift pumps into San Luis Reservoir and other places where they could be stashing this water.
We have a capacity of doing 15,000 cubic feet per second, which over 24 hours means 30,000 acre-feet of saved water. We are not going to have that opportunity soon once this rainy season is over with. Yet, we have a number of somewhere around 180,000 to 200,000 cubic feet per second flowing out through the delta that isn't being trapped and isn't being captured.
Do you think we would miss 9,000 more cubic feet per second out of the delta going into water storage for California than what is happening now out of 180,000 to 200,000, when you have got 60,000 flowing out of Shasta Dam flooding down areas and we have got huge amounts coming out of Oroville and other projects around the State?
We are not capturing the water. We are doing harm to ourselves. No wonder the people of southern California are actually getting really angry about what is happening as their eyes are being opened to how our State is being run and what is being done by government overreach by these last-minute regulations, these last-minute things that come in that declare yet another national monument. In my district, that means nearly a quarter million acres are now off limits for fire management on the forested lands or for other public uses.
The ideal for forest service land used to be--you would see the signs, ``land of many uses.'' Now, this boils down to land only being cut off from the people and from wise management of our forests.
If you enjoy million-acre fires, that is going to continue to be the prescription because of last-minute, eleventh-hour pronouncements such as these national monuments that the Biden administration did on the way out the door.
We have the power in Congress, under what is called the Congressional Review Act, to review regulations that are made by the stroke of a pen. The legislative process is supposed to have all of us here in the light of day, on TV, in committee, where the people can watch us do what we do instead of so much power being vested in the executive, such as under the Antiquities Act, which is where part of the abuses come from, all at the last minute, all at the stroke of a pen.
Madam Speaker, any day now, President Trump is gearing up to shut down the Department of Education. This is the latest power grab, an assault on our kids, an assault on our teachers, and an assault on our families in our district that rely on public education.
The Department of Education is a lifeline for many low-income residents and students. When the President says he wants to abolish it, he is coming after communities like Detroit, Southfield, Dearborn, and Livonia.
The Department's title I funding ensures all children, regardless of which ZIP Code they were born in, can access public education, quality education.
Here we go. The President is attacking public school students. More than half of our Nation's public schools educate low-income kids but also students with special needs. They are going after the different programs that help children living with autism, children having learning disabilities, needing that special care. I know that it is the public education system that takes them in and takes care of them and ensures that they have access to quality education.
We also know that States across the country want to whitewash Black history. They are already going after it, as if Black history is not American history.
We also know they want to erase the existence of LGBTQI+ students and discriminate against our children.
I know without the Department of Education, no one will be left to ensure civil rights laws are enforced in our schools. We know that community college students in my district alone will particularly suffer, because 50 percent of Henry Ford College in my district receives Pell grants that are going and administered through the Department of Education.
I know folks are thinking it is never going to happen. It already has started.
If my colleagues support abolishing the Department of Education, then they should publicly do it. Vote on it on this House floor. Don't allow the little minion billionaire to do it. If they want to do it, then their residents, the American people, deserve to see how they will vote. Will they leave our children behind or not?
It is important, critically important, that we do this in a transparent way, because I know my residents want me on record voting against abolishing public education.
Madam Speaker, here we go. Elon Musk, the richest man on the planet, and Russ Vought, the guy who wrote Project 2025, want to shut down the 911 agency for fraud and consumer protection that many of us call the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This is where my residents call for mortgage fraud, to fight against different scams that they fall victim to because we haven't done a good job preventing folks from out of the country and others targeting our seniors and so many others.
Financial predators like Wall Street and CEOs despise the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I wonder why. That is because it is the only agency whose sole mission is to protect working people from getting ripped off.
I still remember the success we had in going after loan servicers for student loans, getting back millions of dollars to people who were directly impacted by those scams.
Shutting down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lets financial predators run wild, and working-class families will pay the price.
Since it was created, we know it forced big banks and powerful corporations to give $21 billion back to our families that were cheated, but here we go. President Trump's minion, Elon Musk, wants to steal hard-earned money from the working class to reward their billionaire donors and CEOs, to protect them, not us.
I know that the CFPB has had a huge impact on the lives of my residents, doing things like capping credit card late fees, holding companies who break the law accountable, targeting junk fees, and eliminating $49 billion in medical debt from people's credit reports.
Think about that. No one plans to get sick. We have sick care in our country, not healthcare. No one should have to file bankruptcy because they got sick, and they couldn't afford to take care of themselves.
They helped also protect 15 million Americans that have medical debt on their credit report. It was supposed to be implemented in March to remove medical debt from people's credit report. It doesn't belong there.
I know that doesn't matter to these billionaires, but it makes a world of difference for our families who are just trying to make ends meet. They want to make sure that our government is about people, that we have their back. I know the 911 call they make to this agency to protect them has made a difference, but they want to eliminate that.
If they want to get rid of this agency, do it publicly. Vote on it. I have no idea why they are handing their duties and responsibilities and the oath of this office over to a billionaire that never took the oath.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of my good friend J.D. Rottweiler for a remarkable 15 years of service as Cochise College's president and to wish him the best on his well-deserved retirement.
Since his tenure began, J.D. has been a transformative leader known for his hyper-local initiatives and incredible work uplifting the college and its students.
Under his leadership, Cochise College expanded access to education by adding student housing at the Sierra Vista campus and launching the First Responders Academy to train and equip students with the tools necessary to keep all of their communities safe.
He oversaw the remodeling and revitalization of Sierra Vista's former hospital into an innovative downtown center that houses nursing, cybersecurity, culinary, and lifelong learning programs.
Moreover, he played a pivotal role ensuring his students had access to high-speed fiber internet at the Douglas campus by enhancing connectivity and accessibility for students and staff.
As a proud product of community college myself, I know firsthand the crucial role these programs play in the lives of our students.
My friend J.D. has truly left a lasting legacy not only for our students but for our entire community. May he enjoy his well-deserved retirement. He has accomplished a lot, and I look forward to seeing him around the district soon.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a patriot of the highest order, Vietnam war veteran Bruce Bigelow.
Mr. Bigelow is a true hero who exemplifies the highest ideals of service and sacrifice. It was my profound honor to present him with the Purple Heart medal for his heroic service when I visited him in Sierra Vista last fall.
The Purple Heart is a distinguished award given to those who have been wounded or killed in action while serving our Nation, and it symbolizes the immense sacrifices they made to preserve our freedoms and way of life.
Mr. Bigelow served two tours in the United States Marine Corps in Vietnam from 1966 to 1971. In the course of his service, Mr. Bigelow was awarded numerous recognitions and honors, including the National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Rifle Marksman badge, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, and certainly, not least of these, the Purple Heart.
His courage is a testament to the bravery and resilience of those who have answered duty's call to wear the uniform as a member of our Armed Forces.
I had the privilege of pinning this Purple Heart on him and thanking him for his service to our Nation in front of his family and his friends.
He told me he was honored, but truth be told, the honor was all mine.
On behalf of a grateful community and Nation, I say again thank you to Mr. Bigelow for his courage, sacrifice, and enduring commitment to service.
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my Republican colleagues, waiting for the moment when they are going to fight for the American people, the constituents they have that are not Elon Musk. So far, the silence is deafening.
If they are not cheering it on, they are standing aside silently as cancer research labs are shut down, as the veterans administration is targeted, as the healthcare for millions of Americans is threatened, and eggs--oh, those eggs--have hit an all-time high of $8 a dozen. This silence is a betrayal of all Americans, of their very voters.
Let's just take a closer look at one example. Now, they are letting Elon Musk dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Most people haven't heard of the CFPB, but Americans know the corporate greed that they have gone after on their behalf for more than a decade: the predatory loan sharks and the abusive debt collectors. When Republicans are silent, they are siding with the scam artists.
Let me give you one example. Before the CFPB stepped in, a marine stationed in Texas who needs a loan to repair his truck would be charged the average payday interest rate in Texas. Do you know what that is? That is 664 percent. If he took out a $2,000 loan, he would pay $1,100 in interest.
I do hope my Republican colleagues remember the days when they supported the rule of law. When the CFPB enforces the law that limits interest rates for U.S. servicemembers, they reduced that interest on that loan to $60.
Altogether, the CFPB put $360 million back into the pockets of our servicemembers and veterans. That is what they do. They save Americans money. They went after bogus overdraft fees. That is $5 billion back in the pockets of working families every year, over $200 per family. They banned outrageous late fees on credit cards. That is $10 billion every year going back to consumers.
What is the problem with this agency? Apparently, Republicans in Congress would rather have that money go into the pockets of CEOs and spend that money cutting billionaires' taxes instead of fighting fraud and corporate abuse.
The American people did not vote for more scams and more corporate greed. They didn't vote to have our servicemembers go into more debt. They voted for people to fight for them, for lower costs, and for their part in the American Dream.
Let's wake up, GOP. Stand up for the American people.
Madam Speaker, I rise today as we celebrate Black History Month and honor the incredible achievements of Kenny McMorris, a visionary leader, champion for community well-being, and constituent in our Second District of our great State of Nebraska.
Mr. McMorris is a veteran healthcare executive, innovator, influencer, and strategist with an extensive leadership, policy, community, and public health background. His wife, Makayla, is the founder and owner of Moxie16. They are the proud parents of two children, Kenny Jr. and Makenli.
As the CEO of Charles Drew Health Center, Inc., Kenny oversees the health center's business, community, and primary care operations. The center has a $24 million operating budget, over 200 employees, 13,000 patients, and nearly 40,000 outpatient service visits annually.
Under his leadership, Charles Drew Health Center has expanded its service locations from 4 to 16, including primary medical, dental, pharmacy, and behavioral health services. It emphasizes the disenfranchised and addresses the social drivers of health.
Over the course of his decade-long career at CDHC, Kenny has contributed to transforming healthcare delivery and equity through his innovative strategies and disciplined commitment to serving disenfranchised communities.
As a North Omaha native, Kenny attended the University of Nebraska Omaha, earning a bachelor's degree in business administration and management in 2002. In 2004, he earned an MPA in public management and healthcare administration.
After his education, he brought his expertise to the Omaha community as the first executive director of the 100 Black Men of Omaha and director of marketing and development for the Urban League of Nebraska.
Kenny has shown himself to be active in both the professional and larger communities. In his advocating career, Kenny is board-certified in healthcare management and a fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives and Community Health Centers Executives Fellow. He holds memberships with the National Medical Association, the National Association of Health Services Executives, the American Public Health Association, and Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.
These demonstrations showcase his engagement in advancing professional standards, networking, and mentoring. Furthermore, Kenny McMorris also
It is crystal clear that Kenny is not just a professional of the highest caliber but a great community leader who exemplifies public service, vision, and unwavering commitment to making a difference in our communities.
Kenny's accomplishments include the University of Nebraska Omaha Young Alumni Achievement Award; University of Nebraska Omaha College of Public Affairs and Community Service Alumni Award of Excellence; National Association of Community Health Centers' Betsey K. Cooke Grassroots MVP Award; Urban League of Nebraska African American Leadership Award; Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, Mid-Western Region Award for Excellence in Health and Wellness; and University of Nebraska Medical Center/Nebraska Medicine Servant Leader Award. He has done it all.
The accolades Kenny received reflect his excellence through investing in public health, uplifting community development, and demonstrating to inspire innovative change in every role he has played while being a great husband and father, which I also admire.
Through dedication and perseverance in tackling healthcare inequities or inequalities, Kenny has encompassed a meaningful vision for disenfranchised populations. His role has laid a foundation for healthier, more equitable communities.
Kenny McMorris' contributions in Omaha exemplify nothing short of the values of Black History Month, which celebrates resilience, leadership, and a commitment to advancing public health and opportunity for all.
Omaha is a better place because of Kenny McMorris. His impact has been positively felt by thousands upon thousands.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the illegal and unwise policy recently announced by the National Institutes of Health to limit their indirect cost recapture rate to 15 percent.
To start with, as we start with most Trump administration maneuvers these last 3 weeks, it is illegal. I know that my Republican colleagues don't think that it is possible for the President to answer to the rule of law, but it is critical, particularly with the biomedical enterprise that makes long-term, expensive investments, to have confidence that when Congress or the President make a commitment, they stand by it over the course of years and even across decades. Undermining the rule of law undermines our ability to do the kinds of long-term, transformational science that changes lives.
In 2017, when the Trump administration first attempted to lower the indirect cost recapture rate to 10 percent, the Appropriations Committee, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, rejected it and froze the IDC at its current level. That has been reauthorized every single year from 2017 through 2024.
I ask my Republican colleagues: You voted for this. They are breaking that law that you voted for. What are you going to do about it?
Now, the NIH might say: Well, we are referring to a different section of the code whereby we can, for a subset of grants with documentation, reduce the IDC.
That is not the NIH policy, though. The NIH did not do a subset of grants. They did it for every single grant and with zero documentation.
Wake up, Republicans. They are breaking your law.
The NIH might claim that what we are doing here is actually not cuts to the NIH because the same $35 billion is going to go out to science, but now it is just going to be more of those direct experiments, the people, the reagents, and the travel, and less of that expensive overhead. While it is true that the same amount of dollars could go out the door, in reality, these institutions, whether universities or hospitals, are going to be decreasingly able to afford to accept them.
Of any given experiment, the overhead associated with that experiment is well more than 15 percent. Research facilities, energy bills, support personnel, and data and technology, these things are expensive. We are not in the era of beakers in somebody's backyard doing chemical experiments. We are in an era of cutting-edge genetic engineering, and the equipment costs money.
Fewer institutions and investigators are going to be able to accept these grants. What we are ultimately going to do is privatize research infrastructure, so we are going to get less of it. It is just as though the Department of Transportation told businesses to build their own bridges and sidewalks. We just wouldn't get as many of them.
The impact in Massachusetts is going to be profound. It is a $2 billion attack on the research infrastructure that undergirds our eds and meds enterprise, an enterprise that creates billions of dollars in economic activity that supports hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. Each of those jobs in biopharma, for example, can create five other jobs. That is a profound economic multiplier.
The work that we do in Massachusetts changes lives. There is progress on Alzheimer's, under which 15 million Americans will suffer by 2050 if we do not come up with therapies. Gestational diabetes--and, just recently, a non-opiate painkiller was developed in Massachusetts with NIH basic research funds that will provide outlets for acute pain that do not expose people to this most addictive chemical that has caused so much pain.
My Republican colleagues might say, ``Yeah, that is Massachusetts.'' That is the whole point, don't you see? ``It is the blue State and those universities and hospitals who think they are so much better than everybody else.'' That is exactly the point.
Here is my challenge to my Republican colleagues: Go back to your districts, talk to your universities, and talk to your hospitals. See how they are feeling about this policy. What you are going to hear is that they can't afford to take these grants. The research, the development, and the commercialization that you brag about when you go home, the ribbons that you cut for new companies and for new projects, all rest upon this research infrastructure that is getting cut.
Go talk to these companies. Go talk to these institutions of higher education. Go talk to these hospitals. They don't want to see this policy go into effect, and they want to see you vote for it and explain it back home, not hide behind the NIH.
So, they are losing. Who is winning? China. There were two main themes in the recent J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. One was artificial intelligence, which, by the way, requires a lot of research infrastructure. The second was how good China has gotten at biotech in the last few years.
The Chinese biotech enterprise is looking at the United States cutting our own research infrastructure at a time when they are investing tens of billions of dollars, and they cannot believe their luck.
My Republican colleagues need to wake up, stand up, and support basic science.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a man whose journey from Jamestown, New York, to the pinnacle of professional football is a testament to perseverance, grit, and the power of believing in yourself: Philadelphia Eagles Head Coach Nick Sirianni.
As a lifelong Buffalo Bills fan, I never thought I would be here on the House floor praising the coach of another NFL team, but some stories transcend football rivalries, and Nick's is one of them.
From a young age, Nick was a student of the game. He was immersed in football. He was brought up by two very loving parents who instilled a tremendous work ethic and value set in
At Mount Union, Nick Sirianni won three national championships, but an injury nearly ended his playing career. Instead of giving up, he pivoted, launching a coaching career that would take him from his alma mater to the NFL. He climbed the ranks with the Chiefs, Chargers, and Colts, proving himself every step of the way.
Four years ago, he took over as head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles and wasted no time turning them into a real contender, but this season, against all odds, his underdog Eagles did more than just compete. They dominated.
In a stunning Super Bowl victory, his team overwhelmed the Kansas City Chiefs, proving that heart, preparation, and relentless determination can overcome even the toughest challenges.
Nick's success isn't just measured in wins. It is measured in the message he sends to every small-town kid in Jamestown, New York, the southern tier, and across small-town America: No dream is too big, and no setback is too great. Success is never given. It is earned. It is built on faith in God, family, and an unrelenting will to win. It is forged through late nights, overcoming obstacles, and moments of doubt that are met with unwavering determination. It is about proving that talent when paired with hard work can take you anywhere.
Nick's hometown stands a little taller today. He has shown us what is possible when resilience meets opportunity.
While hoisting the Lombardi Trophy is an unforgettable triumph, I know this: His greatest chapters lie ahead for him.
I congratulate Coach Sirianni. He has reached the top of the mountain. He is a Super Bowl champion. Chautauqua County celebrates him, and America honors him. I know there is even more yet to come.
Madam Speaker, Ukraine is the scrimmage line for liberty on the continent of Europe today. We all have witnessed hundreds of thousands of war deaths at record levels in this 11-year, cruel war that Russia has perpetrated against the free nation of Ukraine.
Russia had no provocation. For 30 years, Ukraine had tried to build her land forward.
Importantly, this morning in Europe, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made an opening statement, along with many of our allied nations, seeking an end to the horrific 11-year killing field that is Ukraine after war criminal Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion, as I said, in 2014. It has been 11 long years of war.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated a negotiated peace will require an exchange of territory. Working with our closest and most-valued allies in NATO in the free world, the United States must do everything possible to bring full liberty to Ukraine and move Russia back into her own borders.
The international community must safeguard those borders, and those negotiations are yet to come. We have some hope this morning if we are serious about making sure the dividing line between the free world and the suppressed world is clearly drawn and safeguarded.
Madam Speaker, I rise this morning on behalf of the people of northwest Ohio. We face an economic reality that many across our country are experiencing.
Prices are on the rise. Trade war panic is causing more inflation. Uncertainty and the short supply of goods and services rise as inflation rises. It was announced this morning that prices are up 3 percent across the board, more than expected over the past month of this new administration.
Too many families are overwhelmed by the cost of living, and everyday people are having to face really hard choices between paying for groceries or rent, between medicine or a tank of gas. Do you just fill it halfway?
The latest curse: rising property taxes. In Ohio, eggs cost between $6.66 a dozen and $8 a dozen. Gas is back up to over $3 a gallon. Unemployment is ticking up. Property taxes are skyrocketing, and working people are being squeezed from all sides. They don't have a lot of time to think about politics.
With Democrats here in the House, President Biden was able to allow a few prescription drug prices to be lowered, but it is no secret that the majority of families struggle to pay for medicine when they need it.
Meanwhile, major pharmacy chains, like Rite Aid, are shutting their doors, leaving entire communities with no pharmacy.
Why are there no hearings on that here in Congress?
Where are people supposed to go to fill their prescriptions?
People aren't just feeling economic pressure. They are being crushed by it.
Rents keep rising. This forces families and seniors to downsize or leave communities they have called home for decades.
Consumer credit card fraud is on the rise, bilking people who are already stretched thin. When families have no room left in their budgets, far too many gamble on their futures, making desperate choices just to get by.
My district is no stranger to gambling with lottery tickets, scratch offs, and casinos. The wheels just turn faster. People take chances. In the last election, that is exactly what they did. They gambled.
Many didn't vote. They voted not because they support radical extremism but because they want to get ahead. They want this Congress and the new President to help them do that.
I hear them. We all should, but the reality is that prices are going up. The Consumer Price Index just rose over the past month with 3 percent unexpected inflation. Prices for eggs are up, as I have said, 53 percent.
Look at what is happening with the price of higher education, which is now unaffordable for the majority. If our young people can't afford to go to school and learn, what does that imply for the future of this country?
Madam Speaker, January 29 is typically a day of celebration in Kansas. From Manhattan to Goodland, Topeka to Liberal, Kansas City to Dodge City, Kansans come together to celebrate the rich history of Kansas and to celebrate the anniversary of our statehood.
January 29, 2025, changed the meaning of this day for Kansans forever. The entire world stood in disbelief as we watched a tragedy unfold in the crash of American Airlines flight 5342 out of Wichita and a U.S. Army helicopter. The world lost 67 bright, innocent souls that day, and I speak for all Kansans when I say that this is a day that we will never forget.
When we celebrate our statehood in years to come, we will also feel the nudging of the somber emotions aroused by last month's accident. We will remember our fellow Kansans whose lives were tragically lost. They were farmers, parents, professors, college students with bright futures, all taken from us far too soon.
Audrey and I continue to grieve, and we are praying for the victims and their families. We express our deepest gratitude to the efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers and first responders. It is our prayer that God would continue to provide comfort to their families, communities, and loved ones.
There will be a lot to uncover in the days ahead. For now, we join Wichita, our beloved Kansas, and the Nation in mourning the lives lost.
Psalms 34:18 states: ``The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.''
God is near us.
Kansas is the heartbeat of the country. As our State motto reminds us, we will persevere together through this difficult time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of Laura Francis, an American
Since 2018, Laura has served as the chair of the Kansas Republican Party's Big First District. Over the last 6 years, Laura oversaw the helm of a historic chapter of the Kansas GOP's First Congressional District.
Laura led our district in a historic election of delegates to secure President Trump's nomination. She rigorously defended our Nation's motto from being erased from law enforcement vehicles, fought to protect our children and their parents' ability to choose an education that is right for them, and grew our conservative base that will reverberate through Kansas politics for many years to come.
Somewhere in the middle of her historic term, she fell in love with her husband, Drew. On the same day as their first date, they attended an event that I hosted in my district in Garden City. They shared a phone call with President Trump that day, and the rest of their love story is history.
Laura and Drew married nearly 2 years later.
Laura is a fierce and loyal leader, but she is an even brighter neighbor, law enforcement community member, friend, mom, wife, and follower of Jesus.
Kansas is the pilot light of the country, and I can attest that the pilot light burns stronger and brighter because of Laura.
I thank Laura for her commitment and dedication to our congressional district, State, and Nation. It is so deeply appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, during the failed Biden- Harris administration, Federal agencies were allowed to drastically expand power, undermining the legislative authority of Congress.
Currently, the process for Congress to pass resolutions on an agency policy it disapproves of slows the ability of Congress to block destructive regulations, destroying jobs.
This week, House Republicans will vote on the Midnight Rules Relief Act, led by Congressman Andy Biggs. The bill allows Congress to disapprove of multiple policies through one resolution when those rules were issued during the last year of a Presidential term.
Ultimately, the bill will provide Congress with the necessary tools to reject regulations, protecting democracy and creating jobs.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Open borders for dictators put all Americans at risk of more 9/11 attacks as warned by the FBI. Trump will reinstitute existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength.
I thank legitimate President Salome Zourabichvili of Georgia for protesting the rigged presidential election in Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Let me tell you what the CFPB has done to protect working families for years, such as capping bank overdraft fees and credit card late fees, suing big banks for taking advantage of families, saving Americans over $20 billion from abusive corporations.
Now, Elon Musk and DOGE want to kill it because it is better for billionaires and big corporations and not for you.
Let me be clear: This does nothing to make your life more affordable. It is quite the opposite. In fact, none of what the Trump administration has done so far is making life more affordable for working Nevadans.
If you are concerned about these attacks on working families and attacks on our Constitution itself, I implore you to call your nearest Republican.
Let's face it: They control Congress, and it is up to them to stand up and help us stop this unconstitutional power grab and deliver on their promise to make life more affordable for you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the release of Pennsylvania schoolteacher Marc Fogel from Russian custody.
For more than 3\1/2\ years, Marc, a dedicated teacher, loving husband, and an American citizen, was unjustly detained in a Russian penal colony.
His punishment of 14 years of hard labor was an excessive and politically motivated sentence.
Despite years of bipartisan pleading with the Biden administration to bring Marc home, or at the very least designate him as wrongfully detained, there was no progress.
Enter Donald J. Trump.
In just 22 days, President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and a team of advisers successfully negotiated Marc's release.
Mr. Speaker, Marc Fogel is now back on American soil and reunited with his family.
Promises made, promises kept.
I thank all of those involved in bringing Marc home.
Mr. Speaker, immediately after taking office, the current President granted sweeping pardons and commutations to over 1,500 insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
At least 174 police officers were injured while protecting the Capitol that day, and 5 officers who responded later died.
One of the people the President deemed fit to be released from prison shot a stun gun directly into the neck of an officer, causing him to suffer a heart attack and sustain a traumatic brain injury. Another attacked officers with bear spray. After being released for these crimes, he is now at large for allegedly soliciting a minor in 2016.
I was one of the last Members who was evacuated from this building on January 6. I have vivid memories, as many of us do, of the Capitol Police officers battered and exhausted but still defending us.
The decision to grant clemency to many violent and dangerous individuals is an affront to our democracy, our justice system, and the brave police officers who defended us that day and every day.
Mr. Speaker, I ask Members and Americans to reflect on this decision.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 122, I call up the bill (H.R. 77) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight rules'', and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 77.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 77, the Midnight Rules Relief Act. This piece of legislation will allow Congress to efficiently oversee Federal agency rulemaking.
Under the Congressional Review Act, known as the CRA, executive agencies must report all promulgated rules to both Chambers of Congress. The CRA gives Congress, then, the authority to pass joint resolutions to prevent agency rules from taking effect. The CRA's disapproval mechanism gives Congress a check on Federal administrative overreach.
Currently, the CRA forces Congress to introduce a separate joint resolution for each agency rule it seeks to review. This limit slows Congress' oversight of agency rulemaking.
Its inefficiency is most clear during the midnight rulemaking period of the last year of a President's term, when executive agencies historically issue more regulations than any other time in a President's term.
The 119th Congress can examine Biden administration rules that fall within the CRA lookback window. This window includes any rule submitted to Congress from August 16, 2024, to the end of the Biden administration.
During that period, the Biden administration finalized a staggering 1,406 rules.
H.R. 77 would make Congress' oversight more efficient during this midnight rulemaking period.
The Midnight Rules Relief Act would allow Congress to introduce joint resolutions considering multiple agency rules during the final year of a President's term.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that this bill is only an attempt to slow down agency rulemaking, but that is incorrect. There are no provisions in this bill that are designed to slow down rulemaking.
Rather, this bill would merely allow Congress to more efficiently exercise the oversight authority it already has and respond to the influx of agency regulations during the midnight hours of the President's final term.
My colleagues would also like Americans to believe that this is an effort to repeal every regulation submitted to Congress. Again, that is inaccurate. After reviewing submitted regulations, Congress can pick and choose which rules to overturn, just as we do now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the gentleman's bill is not to give Congress the power to undo midnight rules because Congress already has that power.
Under the Congressional Review Act, House Republicans can go to the floor this week, and they can try to undo every single regulation that was issued by the Biden administration from August of last year to Inauguration Day.
What does their bill do? It would allow the majority to roll up lots of midnight regulations and lots of others, too, including what you might call twilight, midday, and early morning regulations--indeed, all of the regulations adopted in the final 365 days of the prior administration, an entire year that takes place at midnight. All the regulations adopted in the last year could be tied together into a bundle, wrapped up together in a giant bunch, and then voted down as a single jumbo resolution.
This tactic could be used to try to get Congress to eliminate no fewer, by my count, than 355 major regulations from the last year of Joe Biden in one fell swoop, forcing every Member to vote either to sustain all of the regulations or to overturn and destroy all of them. By destroying them, that means the agencies could not try to promulgate similar regulations in the future without an act of Congress.
This would allow Trump's enablers and the sheeplike new Elon Muskovites in Congress to obliterate hundreds of completely diverse and unrelated regulations in one fell swoop. These are regulations that were adopted over the last year: Everything from removing lead from drinking water to making cell phones compatible with hearing aids to creating safety standards for infant bath seats to implementing the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
Mr. Speaker, the reason that 43 States have constitutional or statutory single-subject rules for policy legislation initiatives and referenda is because voting on completely different subjects at the same time is a moronic way to govern and an invitation to political manipulation of the will of the people.
What is a Member to do if he or she strongly approves of, say, overturning 20 percent of these rules but strongly opposes overturning 80 percent of them? This weird dilemma makes us ask why we would even want to force such a choice. After all, the vast majority of America rejects this whole concept.
Well, the obvious purpose of this bizarre legislation is to get Republicans to vote to repeal extremely popular, commonsense regulations but then try to enable them to escape the political consequences of doing so.
Consider some of the Biden administration regulations which they would tuck into this monstrosity, omnibus midnight relief resolution and decide if you are willing to vote to overturn them, even if they are tucked in with some infamous washing machine regulation they love talking about.
Consider this one from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It cuts credit card late fees from an average of $32 to $8, meaning your credit card company cannot charge you more than $8 for late fees because the CFPB brought a suit and determined that is the whole administrative cost of a late fee. It didn't say the credit card companies couldn't charge anything, but it said when they are charging you $32, that is just a rip-off.
Now, our friends on that side of the aisle want to repeal this regulation because they insist it violates their precious laissez-faire principle. That is, let the credit card companies do whatever they want, but when it comes to leaving middle-class and working-class consumers to the mercy of gigantic credit card companies, my friends, laissez isn't fair. At least that is what the Democrats think, and we will stand up for this regulation.
If you think the credit card companies should be restored their power to charge whatever they want for late fees, way beyond their actual administrative expenses, then by all means support the Republicans' bill. Elon Musk and the billionaires will love you for it. Musk did, after all, just sign an agreement with Visa for his X wallet.
Another rule Republicans could add to their giant bundle is from the Department of Transportation, which requires airlines to provide automatic refunds when your flight is canceled and to disclose upfront baggage and flight change fees.
It used to be they could cancel your flight and just say they will give you another flight in the future at some point. The Department of Transportation determined that is not fair. If they cancel your flight, you get a refund. If you want to fly later or go take a train or find another mode of transportation, you can do it.
Now, they could throw that into the big bonfire of regulation destruction they are so excited about, and then you could consign your rights back to the microscopic fine print on the back of your airplane ticket rather than having the consumer champions at the Department of Transportation try to stand up for the people.
If you want the airlines to have that power over you, go ahead and vote for the GOP bill, support more laissez-faire for the billionaires. Strike a blow against the reviled Bidenomics. Give yourself all the airline inconvenience you want.
Another rule that they would throw in is the FTC's wildly popular click-to-cancel rule mandating that it should be just as easy to cancel a service advertised online as it is to sign up for it. The American people love that, right? Do you want to go back to the days when it was as easy as A-B-C-1-2-3 to sign up for an online service but then like the 12 labors of Hercules to try to get out of it when you no longer need it, then by all means support this great laissez-faire Republican bill. Strike a blow against the big, bad, evil, mean, wicked, terrible regulations.
If you fall for all that propaganda, and you are more afraid of the big, bad, evil regulations than the big, bad, evil corporations, go ahead and vote for it. The unelected billionaire bureaucrat and his nameless, faceless, racist, junior bureaucrats in the Muskovite nighttime wrecking ball crew will be thrilled if you vote for it.
Another rule that is up for reversal is the CFPB regulation capping bank overdraft fees at $5. My constituents in Maryland, who might not be as rich as some of the constituents over on the other side, were getting overdraft charges of $35. They didn't like that, so they support the CFPB regulation capping overdraft fees from banks at $5, which is at most what it costs the banks to process it.
That practice was costing American consumers, mostly young people, mostly older people and working-class people, $5 billion a year. Biden's new $5 rule, that is the max for overdraft fees. Excuse me. It is not a rule. It is a dreadful regulation to cut overdraft fees by more than 80 percent.
Guess what? The banks didn't go bankrupt. They have never been wealthier or healthier, with record profits in the last quarter, even with consumer safety regulations, which we are supposed to be so terrified about.
Go ahead and vote for the big banks, Elon Musk, and the Republicans. Vote against your own interests. You can lift the $5 overdraft fee. I would be interested in what the gentleman thinks it should be, $30, $40? I don't know.
Finally, consider an HHS rule that you could be forced to vote for in advancing the big omnibus package they want: a ban on junk health insurance plans that rip our people off when they need healthcare the most and are most desperate. That is an HHS rule, and the Republicans say that that rule should be repealed because I guess the low-quality health insurance companies don't want to rip you off, right? If you believe that, then by all means, vote for the bill.
Instead of considering these regulations one at a time on their own merits and then voting on them transparently and publicly, as current law requires and as the vast majority of State constitutions and State legislatures require, this Republican bill would give Congress the power to wipe out all of these rules and hundreds of others in one single, massive party-line vote, which completely pulls the wool over the eyes of the American people.
Why do it? They haven't said. They just want it to slide through. They want to throw all these excellent regulations, supported by the vast majority of American people, in with a couple of regulations that I have heard them talk about, when I asked them why they want to do it, about washing machines. All right, say you don't like
Each regulation gets its own vote. What is wrong with that?
No. They want to flood the zone with confusion and treat the people like sheep, not citizens. They don't want their constituents to notice the damage they are inflicting on the public good.
When I first heard about this legislative rip-off, I actually wanted to get in touch with the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Representative Andy Biggs, because I remembered that he was the proud and impassioned sponsor of H.R. 91, which he introduced just a few weeks ago, on January 16, 2025. It was a very impressive bill. Guess what it is called? It is called the One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act. Let me repeat that: the One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act. That is his bill. I love the fact that he has been fighting for that. His bill ``requires each bill or joint resolution to include no more than one subject and the subject to be clearly and descriptively expressed in the measure's title.''
The midnight regulation kitchen sink bill would violate everything that I thought Congressman Biggs believes about the legislative process: Members should be voting on one subject or one regulation at a time, not a dozen different subjects, not 100 different regulations in a single resolution, and the title of the bill should indeed clearly and descriptively communicate exactly what we are voting on, which means one thing.
Amazingly, before I could get to find Representative Biggs to tell him that we had to get together across party lines to stop this new monstrosity I heard about, I was told by my staff that he was actually the author of the Midnight Rules Relief Act.
I couldn't believe it. I was dumbfounded and gobstopped. The lead sponsor of the One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act was now advocating this massive conglomeration of subjects and regulations, a huge legislative stew, a gumbo where poison pills and healthy vegetables are mixed up freely into one toxic, indigestible, and incomprehensible meal.
It is amazing to me. This is the cynical tactic that I thought my friends in the Freedom Caucus have for years been complaining about: the passage of bewilderingly complex and inscrutable legislation covering way too many subjects at once.
As Mr. Biggs' press release on his bill stated: ``Too often, congressional leaders use `must-pass bills' . . . as methods for passing laws that may have failed if considered on their own.'' I will have some more to say about things that he has said about it in the past.
He had a solution to all of these tactics of political dishonesty. The One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act would require that every bill considered by the House encompasses no more than one subject at a time. Let me repeat that: no more than one subject at a time. If a bill addresses two or more, then guess what? The bill becomes void.
I will stand up for that principle today that I thought once unified us. Borrowing from his own statements, I have also proposed an amendment to the Midnight Rules Relief Act. Using language taken directly from his legislation verbatim, I propose that any resolution we consider overturning agency regulations should be limited to a single subject, and if the resolution attempts to nullify regulations in two or more diverse areas, the resolution becomes, of course, null and void.
The whole point of the one bill, one subject House Republican movement led by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona is that Congress should not be destroying legislative transparency or accountability by shoving unrelated packages into a single moving legislative vehicle.
By the way, please spare me any lame rebuttal that we don't have time to actually do our jobs and hear each bill on its own, an argument that my Freedom Caucus friends have rightfully shown contempt for when raised in the past. If you want to repeal the $5 bank overdraft fee, the clean water rule, or the click-to-cancel rule, be my guest. We have all the time in the world to debate why you want to overthrow the $5 bank overdraft bill.
This week, the Republicans have brought a grand total of three bills to the floor, I think it is. We had some procedural minutia and three bills. We have nothing but time here. They have got no agenda.
Their whole agenda has been sidelined and supplanted by Elon Musk, who I thought was the fourth branch of government. Now, he seems to be the first branch of government, too, as my colleagues across the aisle simply want Elon Musk to do their jobs. We have members in committee thanking him for doing such great oversight.
Gee, I thought that Chairman Comer on the Oversight Committee was supposed to be doing oversight. I didn't think we needed a new fourth branch of government called Elon Musk to do that completely lawless and reckless and replete with conflicts of interest, but I digress.
Twenty-four resolutions of disapproval of specific regulations have actually been introduced in this Congress. Do you know how many of those resolutions of disapproval have been taken up in committees of jurisdiction? Zero. Do you know how many have been brought to the floor of the House by my colleagues, who are so exercised about big, bad, terrible, evil, and mean regulation? None of them.
They have not brought a single regulation forward. They have done nothing on regulations with all the time in the world. Now, they want to destroy every principle they claim to adhere to in terms of legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives.
The truth is that these Republican politicians are terrified to overturn these regulations in broad daylight. They know America supports them.
They should show some courage. Stand up for your anti-working class, anti-middle class, and plutocratic principles. Go ahead and vote to destroy the $5 bank overdraft rule, but do it openly, do it clearly, and do it one by one.
Take each one on. We will stay here with you all day. We will even work a 9-to-5 day, something we haven't seen around here in a long time. We will work 8 hours or 12 hours if you want to get into the details of it.
Let's do our jobs for real. I dare you, all you single-subject zealots out there, to oppose this embarrassing and humiliating Midnight Rules Relief Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good humor that came from the other side of the aisle. It had me in stitches.
I don't really believe that the gentleman was chasing me around because he wanted to sign on as a cosponsor of my single-subject rule. He knows where to find me. I am in the committees with him. He could have done it. He didn't do it.
What I do find is this is a problem for me because I had the Democratic debate bingo card going, and I was feeling pretty good because he did mention ``Elon Musk'' five times. He mentioned ``billionaire'' three times and ``unelected billionaire'' one time. I had those on my card.
Words I didn't have include ``Muskovite,'' and I should have had that because he used that in Judiciary Committee earlier today. I also didn't have ``flood the zone,'' and I also didn't have ``gobstopped.'' I missed those on the bingo card for today.
I do find really intriguing his attempts to try to distract us from what this bill does.
The last thing I will say here before I yield to my friend from California is that the gentleman from Maryland mentioned omnibus bills, these omnibus bills that have everything in them, and he called them moronic. No doubt, I agree with him. The Inflation Reduction Act was moronic.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).
Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Maryland, I would say that one of the nice things about this bill that we are considering is that it allows us--if there are any good Biden-era regulations out there, they can
Then to this idea that we can't disapprove of regulations as a batch because we need to have a debate over each and every one in this rarified Chamber, I would point out that there was no debate at all in this Chamber for any of those regulations when they were imposed by the agencies. We had no role whatsoever. This act allows us to reclaim our legislative authority and our role in the policymaking process going forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Midnight Rules Relief Act because President Joe Biden went on a regulation binge in his last few months in office. From August 1 of last year through the end of his Presidency, there were 1,524 new regulations issued. This bill today will allow us to press the reset button and to have a more considered process for policymaking when it comes to all of these different areas affected.
There are three main reasons I think that this is a good idea. The first has to do with the nature of regulations themselves, the death by a million cuts that is being felt by every industry and every sector throughout our country. When it comes to energy projects to make our country energy independent, when it comes to transportation projects to make our roads safer and to alleviate traffic, when it comes to forest management projects, when it comes to just about anything you can think of, and when it comes to being a small business owner, the sheer weight of regulation after regulation is making it unduly difficult to build, grow, expand, empower people, hire, and move us toward the prosperity that this country is truly capable of.
Secondly, there is a question of democratic legitimacy. When you have a President who has just been rejected by voters, or in this case at least he has chosen not to run again and his Vice President did not succeed in getting elected, to then issue over 1,500 regulations is a way of trying to lock in unpopular policies.
What this bill does, again, is it only affects new regulations in the last year of one's Presidency. It prevents this sort of undemocratic hangover effect, where new regulations are hastily thrown together in order to block the change that people have voted for.
Finally, I point out that there is an opportunity for Congress to reclaim its legislative authority. We have seen the administrative state and the bureaucracies that issued the sort of regulations we are talking about that have continued to grow and grow and affect American life in new ways and more intrusive ways every single year. We have had a few changes that have allowed us to reverse this decades-long trajectory. Of course, there is the election of President Trump and his commitment to rolling back regulations. There is also the decision from the Supreme Court revisiting the Chevron doctrine.
This legislation adds to that mix. It gives us the ability to say that we are not going to continue to outsource all of our lawmaking authority to administrative agencies. Rather, when it comes to the core of making policy that will affect the lives of Americans, we ought to be very mindful of giving that away and allowing bureaucrats to do the job that the American people have entrusted to us.
When we do that, we can reclaim the idea of self-government, that policy is made by those who truly represent the people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for proposing this legislation. I look forward to seeing it pass, and I look forward from there on out to the newly empowered Congress being able to consider the merits of those regulations and decide on much better policies moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 77, the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act. Despite the bill's title, this legislation is not really intended to address midnight rules at all. Instead, it is nothing more than an effort by the Republican majority to advance their antigovernment, deregulatory agenda under cover of darkness.
Republicans know that taking a series of votes making it easier for corporations to undermine our health, safety, and economic well-being would be deeply unpopular. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want the public to know that Republicans care more about corporations than consumers, so they want to package as many rules as possible into a single resolution that would eliminate these rules all at once, reducing transparency and obscuring the consequences.
This legislation would allow the majority to put dozens of critical regulations issued by the Biden administration on the chopping block. Republicans will talk all about the costs of these regulations, but the majority will never talk about the benefits, like healthier children, safer drinking water, and stronger consumer protections.
If my Republican colleagues really want to roll back regulations that ensure the safety of bath seats for infants or create dust, lead, and lead pipe safety standards, or update certain emergency braking standards, fine. Let's have that debate out in the open. We can let our constituents judge whether we took the right vote. Don't hide behind a giant omnibus bill that obscures the consequences of the majority's actions.
If we are truly concerned about so-called midnight rules, we have other options to check them. For example, at the end of President George W. Bush's administration, I authored a bill that would delay implementation of rules issued near the end of a President's term, giving his or her successor the chance to review such rules and to determine if they should go forward.
I believe there are ways that we could work together in a bipartisan manner to address this issue.
Where past efforts tried using a scalpel to address the problems associated with midnight rulemaking, today's Republicans want to instead use a machete, hacking away at the Biden administration's regulatory agenda, putting all of the rules together in one vote, and furthering their ideological goal of radically transforming our government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have mentioned several rules that Democrats particularly favor: bank fee regulation, maybe something about lead pipe regulation, and drinking water regulation. These aren't legislation. These are regulations.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: If you are afraid to vote on them, you are going to stick them in this midnight rules reversion.
This is what I would submit: When all legislative authority is delegated to the bureaucratic agencies--Elon Musk isn't the fourth branch of government. He is not. Scholars have said and written for 30 years about the administrative state effectively being the fourth branch of government.
When my colleagues look at what scholars have said about that and are delegating that, my Democratic colleagues should just fess up and say: We are afraid. We are afraid to put the CFPB bill on the floor that would reduce the fees. We are afraid of doing that because we might be held responsible by our constituents.
That is what the minority is claiming that we want. In reality, Democrats would rather have nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats govern this country. That is what my Democratic colleagues want.
Mr. Speaker, when one looks at that, I find myself saying: If Democrats want to preserve the separation of powers, it may be gone, but we can actually reinstitute it. It is not three coequal branches of government. That is not what the Founders intended.
The Founders are very clear in the Constitutional Convention that Article I, that branch, which happens to be this branch, was meant to be the most powerful, and why? It was closest to the people.
Why was that important? They wanted this group of people to be actually bound to the people, be closest to the people.
When Members do what the Democrats want to do, which is to actually
Mr. Speaker, Democrats argue that the Midnight Rules Relief Act does not allow for sufficient debate. That is one of the things we have heard here, but the purpose of the Midnight Rules Relief Act is to increase Congress' opportunity to consider and debate rules.
Since there was an influx of rules at the midnight hour, the last few months of a President's term, which my colleague from New York just mentioned, calling it, I believe, the Biden regulatory agenda, that is what it is. It is the Biden regulatory agenda. It is not the Democrat's elected official agenda, nor the Republicans. It is not these elected officials' agenda. It is not even President Biden's agenda, except for it has been done by a regulatory agency. My Democratic colleagues like that over there.
Congress becomes overwhelmed when we have 1,400 or 1,500 of those rules in the last few months. When Congress is overwhelmed like that, it means that many agency rules are left unreviewed altogether by Congress. It is not just some, but most. It is the vast majority, without a single second or an iota of debate by the elected officials.
America is being governed by unelected bureaucrats. That is who is governing America. The Midnight Rules Relief Act increases the opportunity for Congress to debate agency rules by allowing Congress to consider more than one rule at a time.
This allows agency rules, that would not otherwise receive any debate, to be debated in Congress. Take back the unelected bureaucrats' authority and put it in the hands of the people who have been elected.
Why is that important? We are meant to be accountable to the people. The reason that the House had the purse strings added to it is because we were closest to the people. We are meant to be more accountable to the people.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, the States had their authority and their rights preserved and protected by the U.S. Senate, but now the U.S. Senate is just a bunch of glorified national politicians.
What I would suggest is, if Congress wants to take back the legislative authority and actually have people who are accountable, then the Midnight Rules Relief Act needs to be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) just said that I agree with because he wasn't talking at all about his bill.
Let's start with what I really agree with the gentleman about.
Article I makes Congress the preeminent and predominant branch of government, as Madison said in the Federalist Papers. We are the predominant branch. Don't accept anything from anybody on either side of the aisle if they get up and talk about how we are three coequal branches, which is what they teach people in fifth grade.
First of all, ``coequal'' is not even a word. That is like the term ``very unique'' or something like that. Republicans are saying we are three equal branches.
I think not because the preamble of the Constitution leads right into Article I. All of the legislative power is vested in us, and it is laid out in Article I, Section 8. There are 18 different powers to regulate commerce domestically, internationally, the budget, taxes, et cetera.
Then Article, I, Section 8, Clause 18 says: and all other powers necessary and proper to the execution of the foregoing powers.
Going to Article II, there are four short sections about the President. There wasn't even a President included in the Articles of Confederation. They decided to add it. Why? What is the core job of the President? It is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not distorted, not mangled, not overturned, not defeated, not thwarted.
The President doesn't have the power to impound money that has been appropriated by Congress. An appropriations act is just another law, like the law that you can't assault Federal officers. An appropriations act is just like that. Congress is, indeed, preeminent and predominant, but I am afraid that, at that point, my agreement with the gentleman falls off.
Let me start by addressing the comments of the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley). I don't know if the gentleman is there.
Mr. Kiley was actually a student of mine at Yale Law School. He was an A student all the way, but I would say he just gave us a B-minus argument because he at least addressed the idea of Congress reviewing regulations, and he said he thought that was important for legislative power.
We have that power. He didn't address what this bill is about, which is bundling together a whole bunch of dissimilar and unrelated regulations and voting on them once. The distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) never talked about that. I hope the gentleman comes back to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) says that the Democrats are giving away legislative authority to the administrative agencies. Not at all. No. No. On the contrary. We think the administrative agencies must faithfully execute the laws that we, Congress, have passed.
This month, Republicans are the ones who have completely abdicated their legislative power. The majority is allowing Elon Musk's actions. God knows what role he is playing. He is a special government employee who hasn't turned in any conflict of interest forms, at least that I have seen.
I don't even know who he thinks he is representing or advocating for other than his own business interests, and he hasn't shown us that he has a conflict of interest waiver for the billions of dollars of taxpayer money he gets from government contracts. Yet, my Republican colleagues are perfectly happy to sit on their hands for several weeks and not do anything to get in the way.
Some of them shamefully have even gotten up and thanked Elon Musk for the great job of oversight he is doing when we have an Oversight Committee that the Republicans chair. The Judiciary Committee could be looking at it also.
Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are applauding a guy and his nighttime crew of a bunch of junior Muskovites who are hacking into computers and taking over the private data of millions of Americans in blatant violation of the Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which was pushed by Ronald Reagan, who would be turning over to learn what has become of his party.
Mr. Speaker, why do Republicans want to be able to bundle all of these bills? Republican Members haven't said.
Why don't my Republican colleagues tell us which bills the majority wants to bundle together?
The gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) said: We are not going to put all those popular ones that I just talked about from the CFPB and the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Education. We are not going to put all those in it. It is just the unpopular ones.
Tell us which are the unpopular ones that Republicans are going to bundle together as the majority barrels this through.
The distinguished gentleman hasn't explained why he thinks this is befitting the legislative branch of government, which he rightfully commends as the preeminent branch of government.
I thought my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were opposed to multiple subject rules. I thought that the gentleman was advocating for single-subject bills. This is the exact opposite of that when everything is thrown into one big gumbo.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I did not have junior Muskovite on the bingo card. I do find it interesting that the gentleman would be commenting on Ronald Reagan's current condition and his state of repose because I think he probably doesn't understand Ronald Reagan's philosophy at all.
Let's talk about what might be good if regulations are bundled together. Let's just consider a couple of things.
The need for the Midnight Rules Relief Act is most clearly seen in the wave of regulations issued by the prior administration in the eleventh hour of their administration. In the last few months, the Biden administration issued a staggering total of more than 1,400 final rules.
Here are two that might be single subject. Let's think about it. Would Democrats be okay if the Biden energy final rule of December 2024 was included, which effectively banned gas-powered water heaters in homes, which would increase their price by hundreds of dollars?
I wonder if my Democratic colleagues would be comfortable with sticking that with another Biden energy regulation issued in the same month, December of 2024, after he had already lost the election, that forces appliance manufacturers to comply with onerous rules that slow down the washing times for dishwashers from an hour or less to more than 2 hours?
One wonders. Those sound like they might be single-subject bills.
Moreover, there is nothing in here that mandates that we just bind everything together. The minority knows this doesn't require everything to be stuck together.
My Democratic colleagues know that they can be analyzed and bound together, as they can currently, except that they can't currently, can they?
I just picked two rules out of the air. Those two rules right there would require two separate bills. They would require two separate bills. Democrats don't want that.
Last October, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule that dramatically raised the cost of repairing commercial and residential air-conditioning units. Maybe all three of those could go together in the same bill, but that can't be done under the current rule. That can't be done under the current law. We couldn't do it.
You would be stuck and you are going through the process, and believe me when I say I feel like we are going as slow as molasses here. My leadership would say that I complain about it all the time. We are taking next week off. Maybe Democrats would be comfortable if we were working next week and we were going to go through maybe 150 of these rules.
Maybe that would make you happy. What I will tell you is that the Midnight Rules Relief Act would allow Congress to consider and disapprove or accept all three of these burdensome regulations at one time. That makes us more responsive, and it makes us more able to process and oversee these regulators, these bureaucrats.
I find it intriguing. Elon Musk got mentioned again. He has replaced Trump. There is no longer TDS. Now, it is Elon Musk derangement syndrome because he has got to mention that on everything.
Here is the way it works. They want to say Elon Musk is looking at regulations and stuff like that, but we have an Oversight Committee. We do. We have an Oversight Committee, and we are busy conducting oversight.
It sure would be nice if the Oversight Committee could put some of these bills together as we consider these rules. However, when you have 1,400 rules, it doesn't matter how many oversight committees you have, you are going to have a tough time getting them done in a 2-year period. That is just the way it is.
Mr. Speaker, I know they talk about the deranged Trump syndrome. Now they are talking about the deranged Musk syndrome. I do know that Steve Bannon has described him as a truly evil individual, so I understand that there are major conflicts emerging over there.
In any event, back to the merits of the bill. I have to adjudicate the merits of this bill by the lack of coherence and energy and passion with which my normally passionate and eloquent colleague is operating today. One can barely torture out an argument from everything he is saying for the bill, and I noticed there is no one left on his side who wants to be associated with it in any way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which would strip away the robust debate, careful deliberation, and transparency our democracy requires when considering the repeal of long-established Federal rules.
I have to be honest with you, it is so funny to me that I have just heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spend 30 minutes talking about the preeminence of Congress, about how we don't want unelected bureaucrats making these rules, when they are literally allowing an unelected Elon Musk to run roughshod over Congress' power of the purse and to literally break laws that Congress has passed and mandated.
Let's talk about what the Midnight Rules Relief Act actually means in practice. It means that Republicans would dismantle important protections in areas like public safety, consumer rights, environmental conservation, data privacy, and so much more all in one fell swoop-- sometimes dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of rules that took years to develop all just smooshed together.
Things like safeguards against lead in our drinking water, rigorous safety standards for baby products, antismoking measures for youth, and consumer protections from shady business practices.
In one hasty move, these protections could vanish without thorough debate or transparent decisionmaking.
Those Federal rules and so many more could be wiped out in the blink of an eye without substantial debate, without sufficient transparency, without allowing the American people to know why we are repealing these rules or what conflicts of interest might be at play, especially from Elon Musk.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would prohibit the bundling of rules related to issue areas where Elon Musk has a clear conflict of interest. With a net worth of around $400 billion, Elon Musk has many conflicts of interests. That is why he should be bound by the same disclosure requirements and ethic guidelines as all other civil servants and elected officials, but, in the meantime, my amendment would force us to consider individually any regulation that may be a conflict of interest to Elon Musk.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Get ready for these lists of conflicts of interests because it is long: anything related to national security, the aerospace industry, transportation and highway safety, biomedical technology, artificial intelligence, peer-to-peer payment systems, workplace safety and workers' rights, and data privacy. It is a long list, and it is why we should keep Elon Musk far away from our government.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, surely, it must have snowed in Arizona last night. I thought I heard the gentleman agree with Steve Bannon. Hell must have frozen over is all I can say.
Now, here is the deal. We just heard the gentlewoman talk about how this bill would strip away robust debate. No, it won't. It won't do that. You can debate these regulations under this provision. There will be debate.
The same rules remain in place, but what she actually aggrandized and what the gentleman has been aggrandizing all day is bureaucratic control of regulatory schemes. That is what they are promoting. They want the bureaucrats to control with us not having adequate opportunity to review those.
When you have an administration like the Biden administration as well as the administrations of Clinton, Obama, and Bush, they all increased in their last 6 months by two-and-a-half times the number of regulations that they issued. Those end up staying in place because there is not capacity under the current law to review those regulations and actually debate them.
My bill actually does the opposite of what they are suggesting. It actually brings us in as Members of Congress to review, debate, discuss, and decide if we want to accept or reject those bureaucratic rules.
For the other aspect of this, before I reserve again, I will just say this: If you like those regulations, then why don't you put them in a piece of legislation and promote them yourself?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, why don't we put them in legislation? I would love to. If your leadership would allow us to bring it to the floor, to cap bank overdraft fees at $5, let's do it. I will take all these consumer public safety regulations, turn them into bills, and bring them to the floor as soon as you get an agreement from your leadership to do that. They don't even want to vote on the horrid bills that you bring forward much less the excellent bills that we have got.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: If you want to defend the $5 overdraft rule, if you want to defend the ban on junk health insurance, then vote against their bill. If you want to get rid of all this public safety regulation, then go ahead and support their bill.
The gentleman amazingly says in answer to my colleague from California that there will be time to debate the regulations. Their bill would allow for 355 major regulations to be bundled together so they can get away with just one vote. They would twist their arms to vote for that one vote for all the special interests out there who want to get rid of it.
Do you know how much time there would be to debate on each regulation if we had the normal 1 hour rule? As you know, right now each side gets 30 minutes. That is 60 minutes. We would be able to spend 10 seconds on each of those regulations. Just 10 seconds, and the gentleman assures us there will be ample time to do it.
Come on. Get real. Be serious.
This is an attempt to destroy the public interest in a way that the gentleman knows is an absolute travesty in terms of the integrity of the legislative process. He is the author of the one subject, one bill legislation. He is the author of it, and this bill is the absolute antithesis of it.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters of opposition, one from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and one from Earthjustice.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, when I consider everything that was just said and what a travesty this bill is and how hardened and offensive this bill is, I find it intriguing.
Just like I am not sure I can accept that he was chasing me down because he wanted to sign on to my single-subject bill, I am not sure that his math is right on the 10 seconds to discuss and debate each bill.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is, this bill has the potential to bring back into control and authority the legislative power that has been so wrongfully and wholly without oversight delegated to these agencies that are out there.
It has resulted, under Democrat and Republican administrations, in regulations that impact every aspect of every Americans' life, and they have been put together by unelected bureaucrats.
There is a reason that people said we have had enough of it. That is one of the things that President Trump campaigned on. My colleagues across the aisle don't want to accept that, but the bottom line is this: The meddling that goes on in every aspect of your life they want to control whether you can have a gas heater in your home. They don't want that, but by golly they are going to pass an omnibus bill that spends trillions of dollars and then they are going to complain because we are bundling a few regulations together.
There is no requirement that you bundle every regulation together. There is no requirement that you bundle all of them together. There is no requirement that you bundle two together.
This bill merely allows that to take place. I have mentioned several of what those rules may be that would actually be within the same subject even, but the bottom line is this: If we don't do it, the bureaucrats are going to continue to run this place. They are going to run the country, and the American people will have no recourse.
This gives them recourse. We are the ones who are elected, not the bureaucrats. If you want the $5 CFPB rule, then go ahead and introduce it. Don't complain to me, oh, gosh, your Speaker won't let it in. Yeah. I know how that goes. I have been here when there has been a Democrat Speaker. You know what? The pendulum swings back and forth, but what shouldn't swing back and forth is legislative authority.
We are the preeminent, predominant power amongst the separation of powers, the three branches of government, and there should not be four. Now, scholars will tell you there is a fourth. It is the administrative state. This curbs the administrative state. That is why this is so important.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support and pass this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, nays 213, not voting 15, as follows:
Messrs. BAIRD, BILIRAKIS, SMITH of Nebraska, GRAVES, GROTHMAN, VAN DREW, MASSIE, and TURNER of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. MORRISON, Messrs. LEVIN, MFUME, and STANTON, Ms. DeLAURO, and Mr. RUIZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, today I was unable to vote in the afternoon due to attending an event at the White House that was during voting time. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 40 and YEA on Roll Call No. 41.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank one of the longest serving members of Team Scalise, a son of Covington, Georgia, and a proud Ole Miss alum, Bart Reising.
Bart came to the Hill in 2011 after working on political campaigns and served my good friends, Austin Scott and Bill Flores, as their scheduler before joining my team in 2014 as operations director during the last few months of my chairmanship of the Republican Study Committee.
Bart continued his role as operations director when I was elected majority whip. He kept our office operations moving smoothly. Bart made sure that the workers in this beautiful Capitol, the men and women who literally make sure we have a functioning building, and the Capitol Police who protect us always knew that Team Scalise appreciated their efforts.
Later, as my member services director, he worked with so many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to make sure their needs were heard and taken care of.
When I became the majority leader and all my staff's roles and responsibilities expanded, Bart took on the role of deputy chief of staff, a position that my chief has often reminded me has been instrumental to the success of our team and our House majority in the last Congress.
Bart has been a mentor to so many young Hill staffers, always taking time out of his incredibly busy schedule to meet with interns and staffers alike, providing invaluable guidance as they navigate their Hill careers.
To me and my wife, Jennifer, and our two children, he has been a dear friend. He is fiercely loyal, and I am deeply appreciative of all he has done for me and this institution. While Bart may be leaving the Hill, he is forever Team Scalise.
I wish Bart good luck in this next new adventure that he is now embarking upon. I know his parents, Craig and Susan, and his brother, Brett, are so proud of what he has accomplished. I thank him for the positive mark he has left on this great institution.
Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize Khirye Tyler as Ohio's 13th Congressional District Champion of the Week.
Khirye is a music producer and recently worked on the production for Beyonce's country album, ``Cowboy Carter,'' which won Best Country Album at the 2025 Grammys.
Khirye's story is one of commitment and dedication, and he is a living testament to the saying: ``It's not how you start but how you finish.''
Khirye grew up in foster care where he was raised by pastors who often played piano for the church. It was during this time that he developed a passion for music. His work and passion helped ``Cowboy Carter'' debut at number one on the Billboard 200 album chart in April, and he is responsible for several credits, contributing to the writing, sound design, and production, as well as providing piano, percussion, and bass instrumentals.
As a card-carrying member of the BeyHive, I was thrilled to see somebody from Ohio's 13th Congressional District make an impact on an album that some have come to adore but, more importantly, put a stamp on music history. On Facebook on February 3, he posted:
Congratulations again to Khirye on this fantastic accomplishment. We thank him for all that he does to inspire the next generation of musicmakers. Creative visionaries like him are a shining example of what makes
Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Christopher Katz, a young man of extraordinary dedication, courage, and service.
At just 22 years old, Christopher had already built a legacy of leadership, mentorship, and commitment to his community and country before he was tragically taken too soon.
A native of Crompond, New York, Christopher was a standout athlete at Walter Panas High School where he played football and baseball. His love for sports extended beyond the field. He mentored young athletes, coaching with the same dedication and passion that defined his life.
Christopher pursued his dream of serving others, earning a degree in criminal justice from Temple University and serving as a military police officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. In November, he joined the U.S. Capitol Police, training to protect all of us here. Tragically, his journey was cut short in a car accident in Georgia while training with fellow recruits.
His kindness, bravery, and commitment to service left a lasting impact on all who knew him. Today, we honor his memory, and may his legacy continue to inspire us all.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to President Trump's attempt to dramatically reduce NIH grant funding for research institutions, including those in my home State of North Carolina.
Immediately after Trump implemented these extreme funding cuts over the weekend, my staff and I heard directly from universities and researchers in The Triangle about how devastating this decision would be. By slashing NIH funding, Trump would undercut groundbreaking research on cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and other conditions that kill millions of Americans.
While I am relieved that the Federal judge temporarily blocked these cuts from taking effect, the fight is far from over. This is just another example of Trump's complete lack of concern for the health of the American people. His actions would cost lives and jobs. I won't stop fighting until these lifesaving resources are permanently restored.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize retired Jackson County Sheriff Janis Mangum as the very first Special Georgian of the Ninth. This award highlights those who make a real difference in north Georgia, and Janis has done just that.
For nearly four decades, Janis dedicated her life to law enforcement, starting as a radio operator in 1985, serving 19 years as a criminal investigator, and then leading as Jackson County Sheriff for 12 years. Janis rightfully earned the Georgia Sheriffs' Association's 2023 Sheriff of the Year award, and she recently retired in December after 39 remarkable years of dedicated service.
Her impact extends beyond the Peach State, as she has also done inspiring work to help North Carolinians recover from the devastating destruction of Hurricane Helene.
The Ninth District is blessed to have heroes like Janis Mangum who continuously display a true servant's heart.
I thank Janis for her service and unwavering dedication to our North Georgia community. She is truly a Special Georgian of the Ninth.
In her retirement, may the Lord give her fair winds and following seas.
Madam Speaker, I rise today as we find ourselves in a situation where a small group of very powerful individuals led by Elon Musk are gaining unprecedented influence over critical national systems.
Right in front of our eyes, we can see how Republicans are allowing Musk to take full control of key resources, including access to Treasury payments and government-backed projects.
The consequence of this unchecked power is a billionaire's unchecked ability to take earned services away from American families, distort markets for personal gain, and influence the future of American democracy.
It is time to ask the tough questions: Why are Republicans enabling this concentration of power, and who is really benefiting from this arrangement?
It is time to take a stance for transparency and accountability in our government. It is time to stand for the rule of law and for our democracy.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Chief Patrick K. Kane, Jr., a dedicated public servant, a beloved family man, and a pillar of the Jessup community.
Chief Kane devoted nearly five decades to law enforcement, proudly and faithfully serving as a Jessup police officer from 1960 before leading as chief of police from 1971 until his retirement in 2008.
A U.S. Army veteran, Chief Kane stood watch at the Berlin Wall before returning home to continue his lifelong mission of protecting and serving his community. His leadership was defined by integrity, humility, and an unwavering commitment to his officers and community.
Chief Kane lived a life worth living in service of others. Known for his calm demeanor and firm determination, he truly embodied the words of Theodore Roosevelt: ``Speak softly and carry a big stick.''
Chief Kane leaves behind a lasting legacy of service, love for his family, and devotion to his community. He will be deeply missed.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, Elon Musk, an unelected, unvetted billionaire who has seized control of our government, addressed the Nation from the Oval Office.
Instead of tackling issues like rising costs, the Musk-Trump administration is consumed by an agenda to dismantle our democracy and deliver nothing but chaos.
It has provided no relief at the gas pump or at the grocery store. Worse, today, reports show a 3 percent inflation rate, the highest since June 2024, due to Musk-Trump tariffs.
While the Musk-Trump administration is on track to rack up over 100 lawsuits in its first 100 days, a direct result of its illegal, unconstitutional actions, it has failed to take any steps to help everyday Americans with everyday challenges.
House Democrats are working to protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition assistance programs, Head Start, the Department of Education, and much more. I urge this administration and House Republicans to
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Kamille Nuque, a seventh grader who won the Glynn County Spelling Bee on January 15.
Kamille, who is a student at Needwood Middle School in Brunswick, Georgia, won first place in the competition with 14 other spelling bee champions by correctly spelling the word ``astringent.''
Kamille's inspiration to compete is her older sister, Kara, who won back-to-back Glynn County Spelling Bees in 2021 and 2022.
In addition to inspiration from her older sister, Kamille was supported by her parents, Karl and Mary, who helped her study by asking her to spell words from books.
Because of her hard work and dedication, Kamille was able to stay relaxed and focused on stage during the intense competition.
I would also like to congratulate Needwood Middle School eighth grader Julia Knight, who came in second place and will serve as the alternate to Kamille in the region competition.
I wish Kamille luck as she represents Glynn County in the region 8 competition at Georgia Southern's Savannah campus on February 22.
Madam Speaker, when school lets out and the heat of summer comes, the promise of daily meals falls away for too many children.
Last year, summer meal programs in Georgia failed to serve one-third of our counties and reached less than 15 percent of eligible children.
The Federal summer EBT program fills in the gaps for hardworking parents who some nights might take less for themselves so there is enough to go around the table.
I have led three letters to the Governor of Georgia to encourage him to accept the Federal dollars that would give every eligible child access to summer meals. We have received no substantive response.
The next deadline is this Saturday.
Without this program, kids in Georgia might have to rely on only half a sandwich from a friend at the park picnic table or, God forbid, go without.
Please don't let Georgia families be left out again this summer.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Willett family and the life of Corporal Robert Willett, Jr. Ninety-eight-year- old Corporal Willett bravely served our Nation in both World War II and the Korean war.
The son of World War I veteran Roger Willett, Sr., he fought for his family's legacy. When Roger Willett, Sr., passed away, he was laid to rest at Canaveral National Cemetery.
Corporal Willett made a simple request to honor his parents, which was that his late mother receive the memorial plaque next to her family where Corporal Willett himself will one day rest. However, due to bureaucratic resistance, this has resulted in 3 years of denial from entrenched bureaucratic agencies.
Denying recognition is a failure to those who serve.
My office will not stand by as bureaucracy overrides honor. We will continue to fight for all Americans.
The Willetts' dedication reflects our Nation and serves as a powerful reminder.
It is my privilege to speak today, and I thank him for his service and resolve.
Madam Speaker, today, I stand with the long-suffering people of Ukraine. Theirs is a valiant fight to reclaim their territory, their sovereignty, their security, and their destiny.
Vladimir Putin brutally invaded 11 years ago with no provocation. Russia must be pushed back inside its own borders, and today, Secretary of Defense Hegseth stood on territory freed by 400,000 American soldiers, whose graves mark liberty's greatest victory over tyranny across Europe. Their sacrifice birthed the free world.
General Omar Bradley, one of our Nation's most beloved and great generals, created NATO. He would have been astounded at what Hegseth did in stating: It is unrealistic for Ukraine to return to its pre-2014 borders.
Why would Hegseth take Russia's side with its war criminals and murderous plunder of a free people? Why would he do that?
Ukraine's President Zelenskyy has consistently emphasized Ukraine's position that no peace negotiations with Russia are possible before the complete restoration of Ukraine's stolen territory and return to Ukraine's 1991 internationally recognized borders. The free world must achieve that.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, I had a chance to participate in the Border Security Caucus discussion with Chief Mike Banks of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
With over 25 years of experience securing the border, he gave us a clear look at CBP's operations and challenges they face.
One thing was very obvious, though. Under President Trump, morale has improved dramatically and illegal crossings have dropped dramatically into the low hundreds, numbers they haven't seen in many, many years.
Strong leadership and real enforcement policies have made a big difference there. Chief Banks made it clear that CBP has a solid plan to finish the border fence, along with all of the attending technology and equipment that needs to go with that. However, without proper funding, that plan will not work out. That is not an option.
Securing the border means enforcing the law, stopping horrific traffickers, and holding illegal immigrants accountable for breaking the law. If we are serious about border security, we need to back CBP 100 percent with the resources they need to get the job done.
No more delays. No more excuses. It is time to act. Indeed, you can see by the improved morale that things are moving in the right direction.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which I introduced with my colleague, Representative Espaillat of New York, last week. No one, no child in the classroom, no mother in a hospital, no family at a place of worship, should live in fear that an immigration raid should shatter their lives in the very spaces meant to protect them.
Under the prior established norms, we understood that schools and hospitals and places of worship were off limits to Federal agencies. Now, in my district and across the country, patients are skipping their appointments, fearful that they could be detained by ICE and separated from their families.
Churches are turning to virtual worship services so that they will not put their parishioners at risk, and teachers have been training to stop ICE from entering their schools, to protect children.
We cannot become a government that normalizes cruelty. This bill will ensure that the promise of safety in those places is enshrined in law.
In America, we do not weaponize fear. We protect our communities, and we do what is right.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the legacy of a Rhode Island institution, Joe Marzilli's Old Canteen.
For nearly 75 years, the Old Canteen wasn't just any old restaurant. It was a gathering place where families came together, friendships were formed, and traditions were passed down over some of the best Italian food in the country.
Located in the historic Federal Hill neighborhood in Providence, the Old Canteen and its iconic neon sign became a symbol of Rhode Island's proud Italian community.
At the heart of it all was the Marzilli family, led by Joe and then his son Sal, who can now enjoy a well-earned retirement. Like so many entrepreneurs across Rhode Island, Madam Speaker, the Marzillis showed us that when you pour your heart into your work, you can build something incredible.
The Old Canteen may have closed its doors, but its legacy will never fade.
To the Marzilli family and to all the wait staff, chefs, and regulars who made the Old Canteen such a special place, I thank you for an incredible 75 years.
Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate a momentous achievement for Camden County, North Carolina. They will soon have emergency medical services operational for the first time in history.
The county has relied on external EMS providers for emergencies, but thanks to the unwavering commitment of local officials and the community, Camden County will now deliver paramedic-level emergency medical services.
Such a transformative step means quicker response times, improved coverage, and, most critically, an enhanced capability to save lives when every second matters. In rural communities, reliable emergency medical services are not just a luxury but an absolute necessity.
Let us congratulate Camden County EMS on this significant achievement. We eagerly anticipate their first call, knowing that they will have a positive impact on the community for many years to come.
Madam Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Rod and Shirley Saunders, who have both dedicated decades of their lives to serving the Bronx community.
Rod is a former president of the African American Association of Co- op City and the Wakefield Kiwanis Club. In 2004, Rod was appointed by the Bronx borough president to serve on the NYC Department of Education's Community Education Council. Since 2015, he has served as a member of the Riverbay Corporation's board of directors and is currently serving as president of the board.
Shirley cofounded the African American Association of Co-op City and served as board secretary and chair of the security committee for the Riverbay board of directors. Shirley volunteered for almost a decade with the Girl Scouts as a volunteer mom, helping out Daisies, Brownies, and Girl Scouts. She is currently serving our community as deputy city clerk of New York for Bronx County.
They are the Co-op City power couple. It is an honor to recognize Rod and Shirley's service to the Bronx today, and a grateful community thanks them.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember Kyre Ambrose, an incredible young man and talent who, in his far-too-short life, touched the lives and hearts of many.
Kyre was a source of joy and love to his family, his community, and the audiences he performed for, where he shared his calling, his true artistic genius, his dancing with all of us. He was strength, beauty, and poetry in motion.
Kyre was a recent graduate of Boston Arts Academy and an incredible contributor to the cultural fabric of the Boston dance community, as well as OrigiNation, the BAA school community, and the American Musical and Dramatic Academy, where he was studying and performing.
Those who knew, instructed, learned from, and, most of all, danced with Kyre described him as a remarkable spirit who exuded love and tenderness on the stage and in his relationships.
The loss of his talent, joy, and love is deeply felt by the Mattapan and Boston communities. We mourn the passing of this young man on January 18, and we continue to grieve his absence.
To his beloved mom, Rina; to his father, Kyron; to his sisters, Hope and Ky'Leah; and to his grandparents, family, and friends, thank you for sharing the bright light and gift that Kyre was for so many of us. His memory and legacy will continue to dance in our hearts and minds forever.
Thank you, Kyre. We are honoring you here today on the House floor because I do consider your loss to be a loss for our Nation.
House Republicans Delivering Results for American People
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
Madam Speaker, the 119th Congress has been off to a great start with House Republicans delivering results for the American people.
This week, we are continuing our efforts to reverse the Biden administration's harmful policies and further protect our country from a dangerous, illegal border invasion.
Today, we passed Congressman Biggs' Midnight Rules Relief Act to amend the Congressional Review Act to allow Congress to disapprove of multiple rules through one joint resolution if rules were issued during the last year of a President's term in office.
House Republicans will also vote on Congressman Ciscomani's Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act, which holds accountable illegal immigrants who break our laws and engage in dangerous high-speed chases in our border communities.
I am grateful to my colleagues for joining me this evening to discuss these necessary pieces of legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
stopping regulators from taking away america's energy independence
Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Moore for yielding. I appreciate his leadership in putting the spotlight on the important issues and important legislation that will help us to better serve the American public with what they have asked for.
On the whole concept of government overreach and last-minute declarations that have really put a kink in Federal land use, which is important for people, for energy production, and for being able to utilize and enjoy them, what have you, it was very dramatic and very aggressive at the end of the Biden administration.
Madam Speaker, 674 million acres of U.S. lands and waters were cut off right at the end of the Biden administration from good uses.
The U.S. Forest Service signs at least used to say: ``Land of Many Uses.'' Now, they seem to be restricted down to just whatever a handful in government or environmental organizations want.
We have seen Antiquities Act abuse under President Biden. The Antiquities Act was used to set aside 6 million acres of national land as national monuments. Some of the big examples include, once again, the Bears Ears National Monument at 1.63 million acres, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah at 1.9 million acres, and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico at 242,000 acres.
A total of 15 national monuments were either created, expanded, or re-created after they had been rightsized in the previous Trump administration. They cover 9 million acres, including also the Chuckwalla and Sattitla Highlands National Monuments at 848,000 acres.
These are dramatic stretches of land that are basically being cut off from human use or usage of the resources, in some cases even the ability to effectively fight or prevent fire.
Madam Speaker, you have the Moab to Mojave Conservation Corridor, for example, covering 18 million acres across California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. They say they are protecting these lands. You would have to ask the question: Protecting from what?
Any type of operation you seek to do out there, whether it is going to be mineral extraction, energy, oil and gas, or timber, they all require permits. When they eventually are successful, these permits and processes can be extremely lengthy. It can take many years in some cases to get them. Still, we keep plowing on.
The 100 million acres of Federal lands that have been cut off through executive orders without approval from Congress also include, in Alaska, ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which was expanded, limiting even more energy exploration. In Arizona, the Sonoran Desert National Monument, at 496,000 acres, is restricting activities like ranching and energy development.
Other concerns for rural areas include restrictions on land use for industries, as I mentioned, logging, ranching, and energy production. They have hurt rural economies. Montana has dramatic limits on timber and grazing. Wyoming has increased regulatory hurdles for energy development.
What are the economic drivers and especially the inflation drivers of this in this country? High energy costs are a big part of that. President Trump wants to turn that back around, and I hope we can be successful soon.
Idaho, again, has diminished access to public lands for ranching and timber.
There are impacts on wildfire management as more lands are being designated as national monuments, like the new chunk up in my district that is protected, as they call it, under Federal rules. It makes it harder to manage forests and wildfires and access them with the fire equipment we need to get out there. When they take away the roads and make them roadless areas, we have that much less ability to be able to properly put people and equipment out there where they can be effective at firefighting.
It does worsen wildfire risks. In my home State of California, in my own district, a couple of years ago, we had a 1 million-acre fire. Year after year, there are six-digit fires.
Again, another 28 million acres in Alaska were limited, so it just makes energy production that much harder.
Then, the oceans, with the coastline marine conservation aspect of it, here is the big number: 625 million acres of U.S. ocean were withdrawn from future conversation about future oil and gas leasing, restricting, once again, energy development, which would help so much with our economy and lowering inflation.
Madam Speaker, 625 million acres translate into 1 million square miles--rounded off, 1 million. If you want a further illustration, that would be a 1,000- by 1,000-mile square--1,000 miles this way, this way, this way, and this way. It is a 1,000-mile square that Biden, by the whim and stroke of a pen, says no more.
The efforts we are making in Congress this week with the Midnight Rules Relief Act, and also through the ability to use the Congressional Review Act, are very important to stop out-of-control regulators from taking away the ability for us to produce in a way that is going to have America be energy independent and energy dominant and to have our economy be strong once again.
That is why we are fighting back on this. We can still do things very ecologically soundly. We want to take care of the environment, as well, but these things have been weaponized against the types of things Americans need and stand for, for the strength of our economy and for our independence.
I appreciate the opportunities and the good work my colleagues are doing on advancing this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California's persistence and willingness to be down here to help share the message.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos), who is a new Member from Florida. I have on good authority from his freshman colleagues that he isn't a huge fan of the cold we are experiencing here in Washington, D.C.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a very important issue that is facing more and more communities as they are faced with pressure from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, commonly known as the CFPB.
What was created under the guise of consumer protection has instead become a regulatory juggernaut, unaccountable and insulated from the very people it claims to serve, the consumers.
From the beginning, the CFPB was designed to operate outside the bounds of congressional oversight. It was built to be an agency that answers to no one, making sweeping financial regulations without the scrutiny that our Constitution demands.
Its most recent Director turned his bureaucratic machine into a weapon against economic growth, limiting access to credit and strangling the very small businesses and community banks that form the backbone of our economy.
The problem is clear. First and foremost, a lack of accountability. The CFPB functions without proper congressional oversight, wielding immense power without the input of elected Representatives. No agency should have the ability to dictate financial policy without being held accountable by the people.
Second, funding without oversight. Unlike nearly every other Federal agency, the CFPB is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, rather than through the regular congressional appropriation process. This structure allows it to bypass the checks and balances system that protects taxpayers from runaway regulatory excess.
Third, a constitutional violation. The power to tax and spend belongs to Congress. That is not a tradition. That is the law. The CFPB structure is a direct affront to the principle, undermining the separation of powers that defines our democracy.
The consequences have been devastating. The CFPB's heavyhanded regulations are cutting off access to credit for those who need it most. Small businesses are struggling to secure the loans necessary to grow and create jobs. Entrepreneurs, working families, and farmers are finding it harder to get the capital that they need to succeed. The community banks that support Main Street are drowning under the weight of this unnecessary and costly compliance burden.
Madam Speaker, this is not how government by the people and for the people should function.
The solution is simple: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority. We must bring the CFPB under the regular appropriations process, ensuring that no agency operates without unchecked power.
Regulatory agencies must answer to the people, not operate as independent kingdoms making rules without congressional oversight.
Madam Speaker, we stand at a crossroads. We cannot allow an unaccountable bureaucracy to continue restricting access to capital, hindering small businesses, and suffocating economic opportunity. We must restore the balance of power and ensure transparency and put the authority back where it belongs: with the American people through its elected Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join Chairman French Hill and my colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee in finally reining in the CFPB, restoring congressional oversight, and reaffirming our commitment to the principles of accountability and economic freedom. The future of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and hardworking families depends on it.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the Biden administration's open-border policies turned our border into a gateway for cartels, human traffickers, and criminals, putting American lives at risk and endangering innocent children.
That is why I introduced legislation to hold DHS and HHS accountable for properly vetting and tracking unaccompanied migrant children.
Under the Biden administration, HHS lost contact with over 300,000 children. Under the Biden administration, 300,000 children were lost. Let that sink in. That is not just incompetence. It is an absolute tragedy.
We must hold traffickers accountable and ensure that illegal immigrants who break our laws face real consequences. Our border must be secured, and those who exploit our system, whether criminals or failed bureaucrats, must answer for their failures. The American people deserve law and order.
Thankfully, Republicans and the Trump administration are quickly cleaning up the mess that Joe Biden left us.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Luttrell) for his comments.
A lot of times, with policies and things that go on back here, there are variations moving to rightwing policies and leftwing policies. There is not a more stark difference between what President Biden was doing at the border and allowing to have happen to what we are seeing now and the changes we are making. That highlights the simplicity of our messages.
We have to protect people's lives, and we are finally starting to do it, and it feels great. I think the American people are seeing that.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Luttrell) again for his comments.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the great Commonwealth of Virginia (Mrs. Kiggans), my good friend.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to wish a happy 100th birthday to a very important resident of Hampton Roads, U.S. Navy veteran Mo Maurizio.
This American hero has experienced more of the history of our great Nation than most people can even dream of.
Born on February 21, 1925, he grew up in Springfield, Massachusetts, before enlisting in the Navy in August of 1943 at the age of 18. After completing basic training in New York, he transferred to Hampton Roads, Virginia, to complete additional training at Little Creek in preparation for the invasion of Normandy.
On June 6, 1944, as Allied Forces launched the largest amphibious invasion in history, Mo was a part of the first wave of troops to hit the beaches on D-day.
After surviving this important first step on the path to liberate Europe, he then deployed to the Pacific theater.
On February 19, 1945, he was aboard a ship that took part in the battle for Iwo Jima, shelling the island ahead of American forces making their landing.
Mo didn't spend his 20th birthday celebrating. He was instead serving our Nation by landing troops and supplies during one of the worst battles of the entire war. In total, nearly 6,000 brave marines lost their lives to take this strategic island that day, and it is only 8 square miles.
In April, Mo continued his service, this time assisting with the deployment of marines on Okinawa Island. Months later, when Japan was set to surrender, Mo was among the crew of one of the first ships carrying U.S. troops to mainland Japan.
On September 2, aboard the USS Talladega, he was only a small distance away from history being made on the USS Missouri as the Japanese formally surrendered, officially marking the end of World War II.
Following the conclusion of the war, he continued serving in the Navy, both back in Massachusetts and in Virginia. Along the way, he met his late wife, Laura. Together, they had a set of twins, Bill and Stella.
One of my favorite stories of Moe's life is when, in 2014, his two children took him to his first-ever Army-Navy football game. As any good Navy fan would agree, he was hoping to watch the Navy midshipmen, and I quote, ``beat the snot out of the Army.'' Luckily enough, Navy won that year with a score of 17-10.
Mo retired from the Navy on June 6, 1966, exactly 22 years after he participated in the invasion of Normandy, but he did not retire from public service.
After the Navy, he joined the post office in Hampton Roads, where he worked on behalf of our community for nearly 40 years before retiring at the age of 80 on June 6, 2005, exactly 61 years to the day after D- Day.
This past June, at the age of 99, Mo had the opportunity to return to the Normandy beaches to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day invasion with his fellow World War II veterans.
I had the honor of meeting Mo with a group of his biggest fans last June at the Norfolk International Airport as he returned home from his trip.
Our world is free today because of the heroic actions made by these members of our Greatest Generation, like Mo, on that fateful day.
Since World War II, Mo and his family have called Hampton Roads their home.
Sadly, on December 7, 2024, the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, his loving wife, Laura, passed away after 73 years of marriage. Her memory lives on through Mo and their two wonderful children.
For 100 years, Mo Maurizio has embodied what it means to be an American hero. From the beaches of Normandy, to the islands of the Pacific, to our local community in Hampton Roads, Virginia, Mo has lived through truly foundational moments in our Nation's history. We will be forever grateful for all that he has done for our great Nation, the United States of America.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, two of the most important issues confronting our citizens today are the state of our economy and also the safety in our local communities. My focus while serving as an elected Member of Congress will be to address those two issues and the mess that we have been handed over the past 4 years from the Biden administration.
Over those last 4 years and preceding that, there were decisions made by State and local elected officials which have made our country less safe and our communities at home in a vulnerable situation.
Madam Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Homeland Security Committee to speak about the safety of our Lehigh Valley community and how the actions of one local elected official, Northampton's county executive, exemplified the negative impact that radical policy decisions can have on the safety of our law enforcement officers and the safety of our entire community.
In March 2020, 5 years ago, the Northampton County executive issued an order prohibiting county law enforcement from cooperating with ICE unless
Recently, the dangerous results of this policy were put on clear display in our local community and placed law enforcement and the general public in greater danger.
Over the last 4 years, our Nation has witnessed an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration. Under Joe Biden's administration, over 2 million illegal immigrants crossed the border each year, burdening communities nationwide. As of July 21, 2024, ICE reported that there were over 100,000 nondetained illegal immigrants with convictions, including homicide, assault, rape, and robbery.
In Pennsylvania alone, illegal immigration is costing taxpayers over $300 million for police and corrections, but this isn't just a statistical problem.
In our community of Lehigh Valley, 2 weeks ago, ICE agents arrested Luis Gualdron-Gualdron outside of the Northampton County Prison, which is situated within the Seventh District of Pennsylvania, which I have been elected to represent.
According to ICE, the U.S. Border Patrol arrested Gualdron near Brownsville, Texas, in December of 2023 for illegally entering the United States. He was served the next day with a notice to appear before an immigration judge. He made his way all the way to our local community 5 months later, and he was arrested in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, on charges of indecent assault against a minor.
In cases where individuals have entered our country illegally and then broken an additional law, the public has a right to expect that our local officials will cooperate fully with the Federal authorities. Unfortunately, that was not the case in this situation.
The county executive's order caused ICE to be forced to arrest this dangerous predator outside of the prison. There was no ability for a proper hand off to take place.
There is no need to just take my word that this was a dangerous situation. My office has spoken to ICE, and they explained that allowing this predator to leave the prison, rather than be arrested while already detained, greatly increased the possibility for escape from capture as this prisoner would have been free on the streets.
It also increases the danger to those law enforcement individuals who have to make an arrest in an uncontrolled environment, and it puts the public in greater danger as this predator has a greater chance of escaping justice.
Thankfully, ICE officers were successful in staking out the prison and arresting Gualdron, but that took them off of the streets, took away valuable law enforcement time, put them in greater jeopardy, and put our community in greater jeopardy. They shouldn't have been put in that situation but for that executive order from the Northampton County executive back in 2020.
Madam Speaker, this is simply unacceptable. At a time when our country is reeling from the consequences of 4 years of open borders, we also have to deal with these situations in our local communities.
We are making ICE jump through hoops to deport criminals who assault children, and it definitely shouldn't be happening right here in a community that is flagged as a trafficking hub. We know the problems. We are aware of the problems. We should be working with our Federal law enforcement agencies to make sure that these predators are off the streets.
The law-abiding residents of the Lehigh Valley and our entire country and community should never have to wonder whether criminal illegal immigrants will escape justice due to the challenges that have been created by our own elected officials.
The American people have made their position crystal clear on this. Madam Speaker, 80 percent of Americans oppose the concept of sanctuary cities, and 83 percent support deporting illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes.
Let me repeat that. There are 83 percent of individuals who support deporting illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes.
At the same time, we have a local elected official following through on the executive order that he signed back in 2020, making it such that our Federal law enforcement agents can't do their job and deport this violent criminal who has made his way all the way to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Madam Speaker, this is simply unacceptable, and it is time for a change. I am calling on the leaders of our local communities and this Northampton County executive to fully rescind that executive order, which is standing in the way of law enforcement doing their job.
Anything less is an admission on his part that he is going to stand with violent criminals and against our law enforcement. That is what it is. The public has spoken, and 83 percent of people want these violent criminals deported; yet, we have one person in Northampton County standing in their way.
I encourage that individual to change his mind, rescind that executive order which is inhibiting our law enforcement from doing their jobs, which is leaving them less safe and leaving our community more vulnerable, and ultimately leaving our country in a disastrous position. This is the very least that we can do to ensure the safety of our residents.
As the elected Congressman from Pennsylvania's Seventh Congressional District, I am going to continue to fight for all of our residents, every single one of them, to make sure that they are safe every single day of the week.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate and thank, again, the gentleman from Utah for this opportunity to address the Chamber this evening.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in saying it is past time to reduce the regulatory state in this Nation. We are crippling our businesses. We are smothering new ideas before they can even take flight. We are stifling innovation.
These regulations are coming from a runaway executive branch agencies filled with unaccountable staff who have never experienced the realities of turning a wrench, tilling a field, or turning a profit.
As a former energy regulator, I know the value of smart, efficient regulation.
For example, in North Dakota, electric utilities are required to follow least-cost planning. This ensures high reliability of our power systems at the lowest possible cost to customers. This is smart regulation.
In Washington, we have had just the opposite. We had the Biden administration setting the staffing requirements for nurses in every nursing home in North Dakota. Rather than improving care, this, like many other last-minute Biden regulations, will make it harder, if not impossible, for North Dakota organizations and businesses to do their jobs.
The rule and regulation mania of the last administration was historic.
According to a study by the National Association of Manufacturing, the total cost of Federal regulations in 2022 was more than $3 trillion, roughly 12 percent of the U.S. GDP.
Make no mistake, businesses don't just take on these costs. Hardworking American families pay for these rules and regulations in the price of anything they buy.
What is worse, these regulations burden small businesses the most, including North Dakota farmers, ranchers, energy producers, manufacturers, and Main Street businesses. I heard this loud and clear from North Dakotans in every corner of the State.
That is why my first official action as a Member of Congress was to send a letter to President Trump and then-Governor Burgum that identified 20 burdensome energy regulations. These regulations were created by Federal agencies--not Congress, the elected Representatives of the people--and they pose a major threat to American energy producers and energy workers.
The Trump administration is already taking bold action to repeal these regulations, and they have stepped on the gas even further by requiring agencies to identify 10 regulations to repeal for every new one issued.
For North Dakota businesses, workers, and families, this is certainly welcome news.
Today, the House passed the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which I was very proud to support. This legislation will allow Congress to rescind multiple agency rules simultaneously under the Congressional Review Act authority if they have been issued during the final year of a President's term.
Why is this needed? The Biden administration issued a staggering 1,400 regulations during the 60-day CRA lookback window.
Several of these regulations have significant impacts on North Dakota. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management finalized its sweeping new resource management plan for North Dakota the very last week of the Biden administration.
This plan will shut down leasing on millions of acres of Federal land in North Dakota, including 99 percent of the Federal coal acreage and 44 percent of federally owned oil and gas mineral acres.
Due to the nature of mining, this rule would make a majority of North Dakota's coal reserves uneconomic to mine.
North Dakota isn't alone in this, however, as the BLM finalized a separate resource management plan to effectively end all future coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, affecting Montana and Wyoming.
If these two plans are equally bad, why shouldn't we be able to use the CRA process to repeal them together instead of doing it one by one.
I am working with my Senate colleagues from North Dakota in beginning the CRA process to repeal the North Dakota plan and will support efforts of other States to do the same with their midnight rules that are strangling their businesses.
As demand for energy reaches record highs, we should be unleashing American energy production, not shutting it down.
Doing so will help reduce America's debt, lower energy prices for hardworking families, reduce global emissions, and bolster our national security. We must start reining in bureaucratic overreach and putting power back where it belongs, with the American people.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and the Trump administration to rein in the administrative state and help make life better for American workers and families.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Dakota. She has an authentic and sincere voice with actual expertise on all matters of energy. It is awesome to have the State very well represented.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), which apparently has an improved basketball team down there now. He is also somebody that is well deserved to be the new chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from the First District of Utah for yielding.
His magnificent career before he came to Congress in business and in national security make us all proud. We are so grateful that he is our vice chair of the Conference, and that he leads us in bringing the good work of Republicans to the House floor every week so the American citizens see what we are doing and hear from us directly.
Aside from his beautiful family, the best thing about him is that he is an Eagle Scout. People are still talking about his Eagle Scout project in Utah. I thank him for letting me share some time with him.
Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight to also express my deep dismay for the plethora of midnight rulemakings that we saw at the end of the Biden-Harris administration.
Last December, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott and I were clear when we sent letters to outgoing Biden-Harris regulators and department heads urging them to put their pens down. Don't issue any more rulemakings or guidance. Don't sue anybody. Their time has come to an end.
What did we see in response? We saw an avalanche of relentless rulemakings, one after another after another.
Madam Speaker, the worst offender was former head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra.
Madam Speaker, I think he became the poster child of midnight rulemaking renegades. Chopra never put his pen down. Under his leadership, the CFPB went full steam ahead with their reckless rulemakings. They capped fees on overdraft services, which is just another form of price control that harms customers who deserve access to financial choices and financial options when it comes to managing their household budgets.
He issued a rule to hide medical debt owed from credit reports, which will drive up the costs of all Americans' access to credit and to seeking healthcare. It will have a devastating long-term impact on consumers.
Mr. Chopra initiated lawsuits one after another before he left office.
Mark my words, Madam Speaker, we are going to fight to overturn these erroneous actions. The House passed my colleague Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona's bill today that ensures Congress can exercise appropriate oversight of these kinds of executive rulemakings.
It would allow multiple agency rules to be considered en bloc, that is in a group, as a single Congressional Review Act resolution if the rulings took place at the end of a Presidential term. I think this is a terrific idea from our friend and colleague Representative Andy Biggs.
It is an important step in fighting back to rectify the misguided rulemakings at the end of the Biden-Harris administration, and I thank him for leading this effort.
As the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, I am committed to my work with Chairman Tim Scott across the Capitol in the Senate, as well as the Trump administration, to rightsize the regulatory burden facing America's financial providers.
When we do that, we will preserve safety and soundness absolutely, but we will also increase the access to capital to our families, to our businesses that need it. Together, we will facilitate faster and stronger economic growth in the years ahead.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Utah and I thank him for the time.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas, and I appreciate his leadership.
I thank my colleagues, again, tonight for being here and for taking time to speak on these important pieces of legislation.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, Federal agencies expanded their power at an alarming rate, undermining the legislative authority granted to Congress by the Constitution.
I think if people truly understood how much of that was done during the Biden administration, there would be more appreciation--and it will take some time to understand what is going on, I know, but there will be more appreciation for trying to rightsize this, and that is a significant effort from the Trump administration.
I think it is important to see what had taken place, and I think from my perspective that you don't get anywhere else by being, you know, a Member of Congress, being involved in these issues on a day-to-day basis, you don't see the amount of rulemaking that is going on. You don't see the amount of expansion of the Federal Government.
People are lobbing that complaint or that criticism over to the Trump administration right now, and I get it because there is a lot of action and activity being done from the executive level, so the criticism can cut both ways, but the entire effort is to reduce the size of what Biden had expanded all this to. I just don't think people understand that nuance enough. That is why this process has to take place.
The Congressional Review Act of 1996 requires Congress to pass a separate joint resolution for each agency rule it seeks to disapprove, slowing Congress' ability to hold the administrative state accountable and block burdensome regulations.
That is the whole premise of why House Republicans just passed Congressman Biggs' Midnight Rules Relief Act to empower Congress to review and potentially disapprove of several regulations that Federal agencies may attempt to implement in the last days of an administration.
Again, we passed this, this actually affects a Republican administration, as well. This becomes law to try to hold the administration, regardless of the party, accountable.
This bill will equip Congress with the tools we need to reject the Biden-Harris administration's last-minute regulations, hold our government accountable, and protect our Nation's democratic values.
This bill reins in bureaucratic overreach, protects Americans from burdensome regulations, gives power back to the legislative branch, and ensures transparency in the legislative process.
We are also continuing our efforts to secure our borders and protect our communities.
Tomorrow, House Republicans will vote on the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act, introduced by Congressman Juan Ciscomani from Arizona. This bill will create new criminal offenses for operating a vehicle within 100 miles of the southern border while fleeing from Border Patrol agents or any law enforcement officer assisting the U.S. Border Patrol. This includes serious jail time and prohibition from ever receiving legal status in the United States.
This bill is in honor of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Raul Gonzalez, who, in 2022, died from injuries sustained in a crash while pursuing migrants who illegally crossed the Texas border.
This bill sends a message to traffickers, cartels, and other illegal immigrants that if they risk the lives of American citizens, we will hold them to the full extent of the law. House Republicans will not allow more Americans to die at the hands of illegal immigrants, and we are committed to ensuring the safety of our communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight an underpublicized but important hearing that was held today.
First of all, however, I would like to make one more time the point to my colleagues--because I recently heard one of the Senators grotesquely abusing the word--what form of government we have here today.
The Senator--fortunately, it wasn't a Congressman, but sometimes they do it, too--twice, in two sentences in a row, referred to the form of government we have as a democracy. Of course, we all should know by now that we do not have a democracy. We have a Republic, and our forefathers had contempt for democracy.
Alexander Hamilton said: We are a republican form of government. Liberty is never found in the extremes of democracy.
John Adams: Democracy never lasts long.
Benjamin Franklin, upon the completion of the U.S. Constitution: We give you a Republic if you can keep it.
When we say the Pledge of Allegiance, what, again, do we say? We pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic for which it stands.
Nevertheless, again and again around here, people misspeak and, I am afraid, miseducate the younger generation into thinking we have a democracy.
Why did our forefathers not like a democracy? Our Republic under our Constitution is designed to keep limited government and, therefore, liberty in the United States.
Democracy, or representative democracy, means a majority of people are free to take property from anybody in here or take freedoms from anybody in here. If a clear majority of people say it does not like a religion or, as is increasingly true in this country, does not like religion at all or some of the precepts of religion, they believe in a democracy that they can impose their will on other people.
One of the crises we are facing, which we are going to be talking about tomorrow night, is the huge debt we have. Why do we have such a huge debt? Under our Constitution, under our Republic, they were supposed to restrict the things that the Federal Government could spend money on. Instead, as we have gotten away from a Republic, and the arrogant people of this body think that we have a democracy--they think because they won an election or got 55 or 65 percent of the vote, they are free to either go into debt or spend other people's money until we are bankrupt.
If they had realized all along that we are just a Republic, they would be humble before our Constitution and say: We cannot spend money on such and such. Go to your State legislator.
I had a couple of groups from an educational institution in my office this week. Of course, they were asking for more Federal money. I didn't want to get angry with them or mad at them, but I just noticed that, one more time, a group of educators came before me and asked for more money. Because I won an election, they think I have the authority to give them other people's money. Well, I don't, and it is very irritating to see educators in particular say that we have a democracy when our forefathers disliked democracy and would have been terrified had they known.
Right now, we are almost 250 years down the road. I am sorry, we are 230 years down the road from the founding of our Republic under our Constitution. I am sure our forefathers would be terrified if they knew how many people were under the impression that we were a democracy.
Mr. Speaker, now, I am going to talk about the hearing we had earlier today and what I think is probably, next to the out-of- control immigration system, the biggest crisis that we face, and that is our welfare system and a huge marriage penalty associated with it.
When I talk about our welfare system, I talk of approximately 90 different programs that somebody who is almost broke is entitled to. Some you have to have children to be entitled to. All these programs, as you earned more money and went to work, you would lose eligibility.
There are two things we could say about these programs. I should point out the testimony in a hearing today from a guy by the name of Robert Rector from The Heritage Foundation. There are examples--and I know there are even greater examples than this--that we penalize a woman who marries the father of her children $28,000 a year if she makes too much money or, scarier, if she marries a man to support her or to support their family.
First of all, you might say: ``Well, that is hard to believe. Who wants to destroy the nuclear family?'' It is not hard to find people to destroy the nuclear family.
We have Karl Marx, of course, back from the 1860s, who felt the family was the root of so many horrible things.
We have Kate Millett, who I would describe as the mother of women's studies classes. Who knows how many of our poor college students have taken that drivel. She was very definite in the fact that she wanted to get rid of the American family and, in particular, wanted men outside the family.
We also have Angela Davis, a 1960s radical who was still powerful when she spoke into the 1980s and 1990s. She was clearly opposed to the American family.
Until they scrubbed their website, Black Lives Matter was against what they referred to as the Western-prescribed traditional nuclear family.
These people all were against having a mom and dad at home with their children.
You might say these people can't be that powerful, but you have to remember, the Democratic Party has proven that they can be led around by the nose by the most extreme elements of their coalition. That is why, even though they have to know better, they will vote for abortion at 8\1/2\ months. That is why the Democratic Party will vote for a boy pretending to be a girl going into the girls' restroom, because they will be led around by the most extreme group.
Therefore, I don't think it should be considered a surprise that the Democratic Party has supported programs that overwhelmingly favor and encourage an end to the nuclear family.
What type of programs are they? Almost any so-called antipoverty program you can think of. Certainly, food
All of these things are inducements to, as an Indian friend of mine said, result in the American system in which the women don't marry the men; the women marry the government.
Another downside, of course, is not only that the children do not have a father at home, and they would be better off with a father at home, but the fathers don't have anything to do, which is a problem, as well.
Normally, in life, the purpose or the goal of a man is to support his family, to be the husband and father of children. Of course, in the system encouraged by our welfare system, the men have nothing to do.
If you look in areas of society in which we have maybe the worst results of the welfare system, most of the bad results happen not to the children--although the children are damaged--not to the women, but to the men. When you think of areas of the United States that are more associated with people taking advantage of these systems, these benefits, the men are the ones who are largely committing the crimes. The men are going to prison. The men are doing the drugs.
We talk about it like it is society's problem. It is society's problem, but it was caused by an out-of-control welfare system that left the men with nothing to do. This was well documented by George Gilder, the great sociologist of the 1970s who followed around a young couple when the young gal got pregnant. He noticed it was not cause for concern. It was cause for celebration because of all of the benefits that were available.
A thing that really brings this home is the fact that frequently these programs provide a more beneficial system than even a low-income married couple has. We all know that when you talk to the clerks at the grocery store, they will frequently tell you that the people on the government are buying food that they themselves don't feel they can afford. We know that many young couples starting out may live with their parents, which is probably a good thing because the grandmas and grandpas can teach the young couple ways to live.
Unfortunately, here, they are not only given their own apartment but an apartment that is superior to most other apartments. When I had a staffer get married and look for an apartment back in Wisconsin, they found the best apartments were the low-income housing.
Why were the best apartments low-income housing? It is because we have a tax provision called section 42 in which we give overly generous subsidies to property developers to build new low-income housing. Since the government pays up to 70 percent of the cost of the housing, the developers, of course, are able to make those new apartments, which already are better than the old apartments just by their age. The new apartments are particularly nice because the government is paying for 70 percent of them. You get better apartments than you would for your sister who is getting married and having a husband.
We know that, frequently, middle-class families either choose not to help their children out when they go to college or don't have the money to help them out, and they wonder why somebody who comes from a family which maybe was living off the government in the first place gets free Pell grants and close-to-free college tuition, whereas the middle-class family does not.
When you look at the medical--and we don't want to take away anybody's medical care, but when you look at the medical, frequently people who have a job in the private sector may have a $10,000 or $15,000 deductible. Instead, people on the system have no deductible or almost no deductible. It is usually no deductible. Again, the government sets one up in which you are in better shape if you don't get married and marry the government.
As I said, a lot of the problems wind up landing on the men who have no purpose in life since the government has bribed the mother to raise the children without a father in the home, but it results in a lot of problems that this institution debates separately.
Over 100,000 people die every year in this country from illegal drugs. They can come from any family.
I want to emphasize that there are single parents who do a fantastic job. I know so many single parents, and their children would make anybody proud.
Nevertheless, when I talk to law enforcement, disproportionately the number of people who die of drug overdoses come from a difficult family background. If we were serious about doing something about fentanyl, we would be addressing the family background.
Now, we have nice bills this week. Though, they may be technically flawed--increasing the penalties for people with fentanyl--but if we really want to go after the 100,000 deaths, you figure you would want to do something about the family, but we don't care that much.
Crime. When I talk to law enforcement about crime that is going on, again and again they will talk about the family being broken down as the reason we have so much more crime than we did 50 years ago. As we get away from the crime caused from the tragic events in Minnesota, they have dropped the last couple of years. However, nevertheless, crime is much greater than it was before we passed the Great Society in the mid-1960s.
If we were serious about doing all we could to fight the crime in this country, we would address the current welfare system, which discourages making up a traditional intact family. In other words, I would not say that this institution is being entirely sincere in saying all they can do to fight crime when we continue to allow this welfare system to ramble on, give the men no responsibility, and have the high crime.
Another thing we spend a great deal of time talking about here is education. I was talking with my school superintendents about a month ago, and we talked about special education and the children who were having special problems. My school superintendents agreed that disproportionately those problems were caused by people with a tough family background. In other words, it is caused by the actions of this body who have set up a welfare system that discourages intact families.
This is the primary reason I ran for this job several years ago. If you are in a city council, if you are in a State legislature, and you want to address these problems like drugs or crime or the education system, you quickly realize that a lot of the problems are caused by the breakdown in the family, and that the Federal Government, who caused the problem in the first place, is doing nothing to solve the problem.
I ask our leadership, and I ask President Trump, in this important bill we are going to pass sometime in the next 2 or 3 months, to address our welfare system, which is designed to bribe, usually mothers, to raise the child without a father providing the support, without a father in the home. It is hard to believe we are trying to make America great unless we revisit the horrible welfare system.
There is one more thing that I think the press has not covered enough that I would like to touch upon today, and that is one of Donald Trump's great executive orders. He is doing a good job here. One of the things that I would like to get rid of and I thought it would take maybe 10 or 12 years to do, Donald Trump--at least temporarily until we have a Democrat President--got rid of it with a stroke of a pen.
In 1965--and something I think should have been unconstitutional-- Lyndon Johnson, with the stroke of a pen, said he would no longer enforce Executive Order 11246, which was an order put into effect by Lyndon Johnson that--well, he would argue it wasn't requiring--as a practical matter, it created an affirmative action type system in which preferences were given to women over men and preferences were given to people based on racial background.
Now, there are absurdities in the order in the first place. You could be a very well-off, say, Asian American worth millions of dollars, but you
I have told the story when I was first made aware of this before, and I will tell it again so you can see how it worked out as a practical matter.
I got a call from a human resources professional who worked for a company that had at least 50 employees and did at least $10,000 of business with the Federal Government. They hired out a firm to tell them how to negotiate this executive order.
I might have these numbers off by one, but they were told that when they had five engineers and wanted to hire a sixth engineer, that sixth engineer better be a woman. It didn't have to be a woman, but they had to prepare to show the Federal Government that they did all they could to find a woman.
They went from three to four members of management, and they were again told: If you are going to hire a fourth member of management, see if you can make it a minority. If you can't, that is fine, but you have got to prove that you went out of the way to find someone.
As a practical matter, we had the Government weighing in, giving preference to one person over the other person for different jobs in this company. Because I tried to do something with this when I was in the State legislature, people would come up to me with other examples. There were plenty of examples.
This applies not only to employees of Federal contractors, but the Federal contractors themselves. Recently, I had even heard stories of people in which the Federal Government is going to pay significantly more--which I think is illegal--for preferred contractors rather than men of European descent. It is not only costing the taxpayer money, but they were incredibly unfair to these people.
Sometimes you get around it by maybe it is a guy, maybe he puts his wife in charge of the company, and that way he can say we have got a woman-owned business, and they should get preferences.
In any event, Donald Trump, with the stroke of a pen, got rid of this ridiculous law. It could be challenged in court. I am sure the Supreme Court will uphold President Trump. I would hope this body would get rid of this law once and for all. It would be hard to get it out of the Senate. I think a lot of Americans don't know it exists. I didn't know it existed until 12 or 14 years into my political career.
I thank Donald Trump for making sure one more time we are hiring the most qualified people we can find. We are contracting with the best that we can find. In any event, there are three stories for you today, Mr. Speaker. Let me remind you one more time that we are a republic, not a democracy, and our forefathers were scared to death of having a democracy.
I, one more time, will point out the huge penalties that the welfare system has on a man and a woman who want to get married together and raise a child. I hope that this body takes up that problem. It is not an easy problem to take up, but if we care at all about the next generation or the generation after the next generation, we have to walk our way back from the insane policies put into place by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s.
One more time, we thank Donald Trump for allowing the government and contractors of the government to hire or contract with the best they can find.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 13, 2025, at 9 a.m.
