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.
42 public bills, H.R. 3897- 3938; and 7 resolutions, H. Res. 500-506, were introduced
Pages H2653-55
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H. Res. 499, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119- 152).
Page H2653
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Yakym to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H2619
Recess
The House recessed at 10:38 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H2623
Recess
The House recessed at 12:12 p.m. and reconvened at 1:31 p.m.
Page H2625
Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act
The House considered S. 331, to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances. Consideration is expected to resume tomorrow, June 12th.
Pages H2625-33
H. Res. 489, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 884), (H.R. 2056), (H.R. 2096), and (S. 331) was agreed to yesterday, June 10th. District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025: The House considered H.R. 2056, to require the District of Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws. Consideration is expected to resume tomorrow, June 12th.
Pages H2634-39
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in H. Rept. 119- 151, shall be considered as adopted.
Page H2634
H. Res. 489, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 884), (H.R. 2056), (H.R. 2096), and (S. 331) was agreed to yesterday, June 10th. Rescinding certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974--Rule for Consideration: The House agreed to H. Res. 499, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, by a recorded vote of 213 ayes to 207 noes, Roll No. 165, after the previous question was ordered by a yea- and-nay vote of 210 yeas to 204 nays, Roll No. 164. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 499, House Resolution 492 is hereby adopted.
Pages H2634-39, H2639-46, H2646-47
Governing Board of the Office of Congressional Conduct: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following individual to serve on the Governing Board of the Office of Congressional Conduct: Nominated by the Speaker after consultation with the Minority Leader: Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia.
Page H2647
Senate Referral
S. 1136 was held at the desk.
Page H2625
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H2625. Quorum Calls--Votes: One yea-and-nay vote and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2646 and H2646-47. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 5:24 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: 113 of 172 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.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding Lauren Matthew of West Valley High School of Spokane, the rightful State champion in the girls' 400-meter race.
Lauren is the winner. However, the Washington State high school record books will tell a different story.
Last weekend, a transgender athlete claimed the Class 2A girls' State title in the 400-meter dash for the second year in a row. Every person in this country deserves dignity and respect, but this outcome is unfair and deeply troubling.
Keeping women's sports female is common sense and an issue that unites the vast majority of Americans. Transgender males should not be competing in girls' athletic events. It is not just unfair. It is a betrayal of the young women who dedicate themselves to excellence through hard work and training.
Like many others, I welcomed President Trump's executive order earlier this year, keeping men out of women's sports, as a step in the right direction. However, in Washington State, the law still requires schools to allow participation in sports based on gender identity, not biological sex. That violates Title IX and Federal protections for women's athletics.
We honor these young ladies like Lauren Matthews for their commitment, their discipline, and their performance. Moreover, we will keep fighting to ensure fairness in women's sports is not just a talking point but a promise kept. Their achievements deserve to be celebrated.
Here in this Chamber, Lauren Matthews and all the young female athletes out there just like her are celebrated.
Here in the Halls of Washington, D.C., in our Nation's Capitol on the floor of Congress, I am proud to recognize Lauren as the champion of the State 400-meter dash. She is an outstanding athlete and an inspiration to so many young girls and young athletes out there, including my own.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage Lauren to keep running hard, keep working, keep inspiring, keep winning, and know that we in Congress have her back.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm on the economic harm President Trump's reckless tariff policies continue to cause across this country, especially in my district of western New York.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, these tariffs are taxes, and they are being paid not by foreign governments or corporations but by working families and small businesses at home.
Whether it is raw materials, auto parts, or everyday goods at the grocery store, these costs are being passed on directly to American consumers. Families struggling to put food on the table are now being squeezed from every angle by rising prices, unstable markets, and Republican policies that put politics over people.
Mr. Speaker, whether you call it tariff roulette or a trade tug-of- war, it has created instability that has devastated communities across the country.
In western New York we are already seeing the fallout. As a Representative for a northern border community, I can tell you firsthand, Mr. Speaker, that this trade war is hurting Americans.
Annually, Canadians have a $1.1 billion economic impact in western New York. In our community, we have already seen a serious drop in Canadian visitors who for decades have driven across the border to support our local economy.
This is happening all across America as well. It is hurting our economy, and it is devastating to the people who live in our great country. It is not pocket change. It is people's paychecks.
Additionally, it goes beyond tourism. Canada is New York State's largest trading partner. New York exports
Pair that with this President's big, ugly bill that guts healthcare, slashes food assistance, and throws millions off their insurance, and what we have got is a vise grip on the American people and our economy.
We don't need chaos. We need common sense, and we need smart economic policy. We need stability and support for working families, not another round of trade retaliation disguised as strategy. We must reject this reckless approach and stand up for workers, small businesses, and families who are paying the price. In western New York and across this country, people are not pawns. Americans deserve better.
It is time to reject this billionaire's first agenda and fight for an economy that works for everyone.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary woman, Ms. Mary Ann Murphy, maternal care director at Mercy Hospital of Buffalo, as she retires after an incredible 46 years of service to our community.
Throughout her career, Mary Ann helped deliver more than 90,000 babies. That is not just a number. It represents generations of families, lives she safely welcomed into this world, and moments she helped make unforgettable.
Mary Ann touched my own family's life. We delivered four beautiful babies at Mercy. While three were traditional deliveries, one was of our daughter, Brigid, who was not expected to survive. Mary Ann made sure we had compassionate, skilled nurses who understood our situation. She ensured our family could stay with us around the clock, arranged sleeping accommodations, and provided bereavement support, including a special memory box created in honor of our beautiful baby.
While this was very personal, it seemed like special care for our family. This was simply what Mary Ann did for all families. She showed love during their happiest moments and their hardest days.
Mary Ann's role went beyond the four walls of the hospital. Her compassion and leadership didn't just shape patient experiences or the maternity ward, she shaped our entire community.
As one colleague of hers put it: Mary set the standard for the quality and compassion that defines Mercy maternity to this day.
At her retirement, Mary Ann said: ``It's the best job in the world; 46 years in the blink of an eye.''
Let us thank Mary Ann Murphy not only for what she has done, but for who she is: a caregiver, a leader, an inspiration, and a friend. Her legacy will continue in every nurse she has mentored and every family she touched, including my own.
Congratulations to Mary Ann. May she enjoy her well-earned retirement, and Godspeed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a true Mountaineer, former West Virginia delegate and minority leader in our house, Doug Skaff.
Doug tragically and unexpectedly passed away yesterday, leaving behind three beautiful children and his wife, Melisa.
Doug was a West Virginian through and through. From his time as student body president at West Virginia University to his time in the West Virginia House of Delegates, Doug loved our State, and he loved our people.
Years ago Doug and I actually coached our children's soccer team together in Kanawha City, and it was a wonderful experience for my children and his.
He was a wonderful father and a wonderful community leader. He was somebody who just loved life and could light up an entire room when he walked into it.
Doug loved politics. He just fed off of it. He loved the debate. He loved running for office. He was just great at it. He tragically left us far too young. He was 48 years old when he tragically left this Earth yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all my fellow West Virginians to join my wife, Mina, and me to pray for them and their family in this tragic time period. He is going to be so missed in the State of West Virginia. We will never forget him and the indelible mark that he left on our people.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the House GOP's rescission request that would take back $9.4 billion in Federal funding Congress appropriated for foreign aid, the State Department, and public media.
We know how devastating the loss of this funding would be for people around the globe. Ending these investments will undoubtedly cost lives and diminish our standing in the world.
Taking back the almost $1.1 billion in funding that Congress appropriated for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is ludicrous.
The Trump administration says they are cutting public broadcasting because it is partisan and biased.
What is the basis for that claim?
Maybe it is because the shows on PBS, like the very popular ``Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood,'' teach children the importance of kindness, respect, empathy, and caring for others. These are all traits that are absent from this current administration.
The only partisan bias is from this administration itself as they seek to weaponize public broadcasting, which offers many benefits to everyone, including: alerting the public and sharing information about emergencies in times of crisis; teaching children reading and social and emotional development skills; and reaching areas that lack reliable and affordable access to broadband internet, particularly in rural areas.
The loss of PBS KIDS in particular would deprive millions of children and families of formative learning experiences from programs that are designed specifically for kids, not just ``Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood,'' but also ``Arthur,'' ``Sid the Science Kid,'' and much more.
The Trump administration claims to be pro-family, but this request to rescind the funding is yet another antifamily example from this administration.
Further, the $1.1 billion cost for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting represents 0.0001 percent of the entire Federal budget. PBS reaches every congressional district across the country and costs a mere $1.60 per person each year.
What else provides so much value for less than $2 per person?
The Trump administration is cutting pennies of valuable programming out of spite. Most Americans trust PBS because it is publicly funded. Just like public broadcasting should be objective, so should the funding decisions about it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rescission package.
Mr. Speaker, in their big, ugly bill, Republicans are once again trying to rip away clean energy tax credits, one of the most effective job-creating tools we ever had.
Thousands of workers, many in rural and coastal counties in my home State of Oregon, but also across the country, will lose the jobs they just started. Jobs in solar, wind, battery storage, clean manufacturing, those are jobs with good wages and benefits that are supporting their families.
Ripping away these credits means that instead of finishing construction on clean power plants, Republicans will abandon billions in sunk costs, leave half-built equipment, and electricity bills will go up. Utility companies are expecting major rate hikes if these credits vanish because, without them,
Local economies will be devastated by shuttered worksites, canceled investments, and families will be uprooted.
Imagine if we could generate our own power right here in America with the safest, most advanced technologies in the world. Now consider that we can deploy cheap, clean energy, but the Republicans won't let us. Are they afraid of offending big oil companies?
These credits are working. They sparked more than $300 billion in private sector investment. They have launched a manufacturing comeback in communities that have waited decades for it.
Repealing them, that would be economic self-sabotage. Here is the thing: Republicans are pushing this repeal, and they are also backing Donald Trump's declaration of a so-called energy emergency. If we are in an energy emergency, why would we gut the industries that are expanding supplies, cutting costs, and creating stability? We wouldn't. We don't solve a so-called emergency by kneecapping every solution except oil.
It is not about ideology. Many, if not most, of these projects that will lose out are in parts of the country represented by my Republican colleagues. It is about whether we keep building the future or tear it down before it has had a chance.
We should be competing with China. We should be making energy cheaper, not more expensive. We should be backing the American workers who are finally getting the chance to accelerate our energy leadership. Instead, the Republicans' big, ugly bill says to pack it up and go home.
I won't stand for that, and neither should anyone who claims to care about jobs, economic growth, or energy security.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the remarkable career of Mark Peterson, a distinguished journalist who has served my community with unwavering dedication and integrity for decades.
On June 24, 1985, Mark began his tenure at WNDU, embarking on a journey that would see him become one of the most respected reporters in our region.
Throughout his 40-year career at WNDU, Mark has been lauded for his ability to quickly grasp complex issues and report them with great clarity and composure. His commitment to factual reporting and his calm demeanor under pressure have made him a trusted voice in our community.
As someone who grew up in South Bend, I have vivid memories of watching Mark deliver the news with professionalism and poise. His reporting was not just informative, it was a fixture in our home.
To now have had the privilege of working alongside him during my tenure in public service has been not only an honor but also a full- circle moment.
Mark's dedication extended beyond the newsroom. He viewed his colleagues at WNDU as family and approached his work with both seriousness and a sense of comradery. His passion for journalism and commitment to the community left an indelible mark on our region.
As Mark embarks on his well-deserved retirement, I extend my deepest gratitude for his four decades of service. His contributions have not only informed but inspired countless individuals in my community. I wish Mark and his wife, Sue, all the best in this new chapter of their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring Mark Peterson for his outstanding career and his unwavering commitment to journalistic excellence.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the momentum and pride on full display in Milford, Delaware, a small town with a big story to tell.
Delaware is the small town State, and Milford reminds us why that is something to be proud of. I had the pleasure of touring downtown Milford with local leaders recently. Despite a torrential downpour, we met with small business owners, local artists, and community members who are working every day to turn vision into progress.
What I saw in Milford is what is possible when communities believe in themselves. Whether it is the thriving downtown storefronts, the Riverwalk's beauty, or the vibrant art scene, including Gallery 37, Milford is a town that is honoring its history while investing boldly in its future. Make no mistake, that future is being built by and for Milford's residents.
We talked about infrastructure needs, economic development, and the importance of expanding access to housing and opportunity. Over the past decade, Milford has become a model for what small town revitalization should look like, driven by public-private collaboration and a clear focus on inclusive growth.
Milford's motto: Art Town, River Town, Home Town, is more than a slogan. It is a reflection of a community that is rooted in creativity and care for one another.
I am proud to represent Milford in Congress, and I will keep fighting for the investments, partnerships, and policies that empower towns like Milford to thrive. When small towns succeed, our whole State grows stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of the liberation of Delaware from the tyrannical yolk of Pennsylvania and the British Crown.
In June of 1776, Delawareans laid the groundwork for the single longest running tradition in our State's history: the Separation Day. Separation Day serves as a reminder of the fierce commitment at the heart of the greatest State in the Union. It marks the moment when Delaware said: ``We can govern ourselves. We can shape our own future.''
That commitment to dignity, democracy, to self-determination is the essence of who we are as Delawareans.
Each June, my neighbors gather in Old New Castle, one of the most historic towns in America, to honor our legacy with joy and pride.
Separation Day isn't just about the past. It is a reminder that democracy isn't something we inherit. It is something we practice, because that bold act in 1776 wasn't made by kings or generals. It was made by ordinary people who believed that a better future was worth the risk. They understood something we should all remember to this day: There are no kings in a democracy.
This year, as we celebrate our independence from one empire and one governor across the State line, let us also reject any attempt to crown a new monarch, whether with a golden crown or a gilded office, because in this country no one is above the law.
Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy Separation Day to Delaware.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize two extraordinary young leaders from Delaware, Gabriella Bourantas of Wilmington Christian School and Emily Geldreich of Kendall Academy, who have earned the Congressional Award Gold Medal.
Through over 400 hours of public service, personal development, exploration, and physical rigor, Gabriella and Emily have set and achieved ambitious goals through perseverance and commitment.
Gabriella served the Blackfeet Nation in Montana, honed her field hockey and Greek dance skills, and helped her family explore our national parks.
Meanwhile, Emily taught American Sign Language, distributed food, and became a stronger swimmer and martial artist, all while deepening her understanding of deaf culture and global history.
Their achievements remind us that the Congressional Award isn't just about logging hours. It is about building character. In their dedication and drive, Emily and Gabriella reflect the heart of Delaware, where young people lead with purpose and pride.
Mr. Speaker, Delaware is proud of Gabriella and Emily and their hard work. They represent the best of the
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of Julian L. McPhillips, Jr., the people's lawyer of Alabama, who passed away on April 12, 2025, at the age of 78.
Julian was a compassionate lawyer, a devoted family man, an obedient man of God, a dedicated servant leader in Montgomery, Alabama, and a dear mentor who was instrumental in my personal and professional development.
Julian was born in Birmingham and raised in Cullman, Alabama. He was a gifted athlete and a graduate of Sewanee Military Academy. He became an All-American wrestler at Princeton and graduated cum laude in 1968 with a degree in history. He earned his law degree from Columbia University Law School in 1971 and began his legal career on Wall Street.
Julian returned to Alabama in 1975 and launched his own Montgomery- based law firm in 1978, which became known as McPhillips Shinbaum, LLP.
As a lawyer in Alabama for over five decades, Julian gave a voice to the voiceless, representing the marginalized and disenfranchised. He took a bold stand against discrimination of all kinds and was a champion for civil rights, labor rights, and social justice.
Among his many victories, Julian successfully challenged laws targeting low-income Alabamians and civil rights activists, and he secured acquittals in all five death penalty cases he undertook.
His fearless advocacy for the marginalized earned him the moniker of ``The People's Lawyer.'' He was a brilliant lawyer, fierce advocate, and a generous investor in people and just causes.
Julian's heart was his family: His beloved wife, Leslie; his three children, Rachel, Grace, and David; and his seven grandchildren; as well as his surviving siblings, his two sisters, Sandra and Elizabeth, and his brother, Frank.
On a personal note, my life's journey was paved by many mentors but none more influential than the special relationship I shared with Julian McPhillips.
It was a phone call by Julian when I was a senior at Selma High School inviting me to his home to learn about Princeton that set my life on a different course.
Julian had read a newspaper article about my winning national debate tournaments and got in touch with me through my school guidance counselor. Julian's love for Princeton was infectious, and his insistence that I apply was relentless. He wrote me a glowing recommendation letter, telling the admission officers that with a Princeton education I would certainly be the Barbara Jordan of Alabama.
There were countless times throughout my life's journey that Julian stood in the gap making sure that I didn't fall through the cracks. It was Julian that gave me a summer job before college at his law offices so I could save money for school. While my parents could not afford to visit Princeton, it was Julian and Leslie that came to campus for athletic and alumni events and always took me and my roommates out to lunch or dinner.
When I graduated from Harvard Law School, it was Julian who suggested that I apply to work at his old New York law firm, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, and made the call. When I moved back to Alabama 7 years later, after my father's massive stroke, it was Julian who suggested that I give his brother, Frank, a call to learn about his Birmingham law firm, Maynard Cooper & Gail.
When I decided to run for Congress, yes, it was the McPhillips brothers, Julian and Frank, that gave me my first checks.
When Julian believed in something or someone, he was relentless. Julian's faith in me was unwavering, and his kindness knew no bounds. His belief was so powerful that he made me believe in me too.
When his prediction came true, it was Julian and Leslie that stood with my parents as I placed my hand on our family Bible to be sworn in as Alabama's first Black Congresswoman.
There are times in a person's life that change the trajectory of one's life. Some may call it serendipity, but I call it divine intervention.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Leslie and the entire McPhillips family for sharing Julian with me and my family. I thank Julian for being one of the angels in my life. I am so proud to call him a lifelong mentor and friend, and I am forever grateful for the profound impact that Julian had on my life.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Alabama's Seventh Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary life and legacy of ``The People's Lawyer,'' Julian L. McPhillips, Jr. May his legacy live on in the many lives that he touched and may my dear friend rest in power and peace.
Mr. Speaker, I bring good news today talking about what is happening right here in our great House.
First and foremost, what I am most pleased about is, isn't it refreshing that when politicians talk during election time, they actually for a change keep the promises that they made to the public. The President promised the idea that we would get America back on track, secure our border, and reduce taxes for those hardest hit over the last 4 years.
When people look at the tax bill they are working on, what is called the big, beautiful bill, the great thing about it is that who gets helped most. Those folks who earn overtime, who earn tips, who have earned Social Security, those are the folks being helped by this tax package we are putting together.
One of the myths that is out there, over and over I hear on this floor every day, is that somehow this is a big tax cut for the rich.
Mr. Speaker, let me inform the public very clearly: The current tax rate for the rich is 37 percent. Under this bill, the tax rate will be 37 percent.
When you look at the actual tax cut package to those folks who are hardest hit with high food prices, rent prices, and gas prices and are now, finally, getting relief, let alone families who are enjoying the largest tax cut in American history with this package, it is smart policy to reward those families that make America work every single day and to recognize that sometimes the government has left them behind and that we need to step up and help those folks most in need.
The second issue that a lot of people talk about--in fact, in my campaign the most--was the issue of the border. They talk about almost 10 million people coming here, not just illegally, but we don't even know who the heck they are. They could be all kinds of vicious. We want to make sure that we let people into this country who are the right people who assist and contribute to society as opposed to taking from it, let alone commit violent actions against society.
The good news to report is that the number of people coming across the border is down 99 percent. It didn't take a new law. It simply meant enforcing the law. Those people who are enforcing the law are actually men and women in the military, including my own son, who is in the United States Air Force.
The great news is that because America's spirit is back, the enlistment numbers are at record levels. A year ago, they were at record lows. Now, they are at record highs.
That is the kind of enthusiasm that people have, once again, for America. The chants of ``USA, USA'' will permeate not just, of course, at the baseball stadium tonight but across America because we believe that America is back. The respect is back, especially after the failures of what happened in Afghanistan.
With this in mind, how do we move forward? One of the things that has really disappointed me is this debate we have had about Medicaid. I happen to know a lot about Medicaid because I
Just so everyone understands, it is not Medicare. It is Medicaid. Medicaid is the program that is simply known as welfare healthcare, which helps people most in need: persons in nursing homes, the disabled, kids from low-income families, and pregnant women. That is an essential program, and we want to help those people who truly are most vulnerable.
Yet, the demagoguery on this issue has really gone over the top, and it is really frustrating, as a person who actually understands Medicaid, that we are not cutting one single person out of that program who truly qualifies for that program.
The only people who will be out of that program or ``lose healthcare'' are people who lied on their applications and are no longer eligible.
Second, if a person is an illegal alien, they will not get Medicaid. People will say that is not true. Ask the Governor of California. He even talked about how he is going to make sure that we can't allow illegal aliens on Medicaid.
Third and finally is the issue that if you are able to work, you should work. You should not be a ward of the State. You should not be getting free healthcare when other people are working hard to pay their $1,500 or $2,000 a month to get healthcare.
These are commonsense realities. This is something that Bill Clinton and others talked about in the late 1990s, the idea of for welfare to work, that it should not be a permanent state because God did not put you on this Earth to be a ward of the State.
I am proud to support the One Big Beautiful Bill Act because it keeps the campaign promises that the President talked about. We helped the people hardest hit over the last 4 years, and we bring the American Dream back to America by investing in people instead of investing in more and more government.
I am looking forward to working with the President and, more importantly, to signing this bill later this year so that we can see these programs in action, move this country forward, and empower America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our neighbors and community members, our immigrant brothers and sisters who are being targeted and abducted, taken from their homes, torn away from their babies, and disappeared on their way to church, work, and school.
There are children crying in their teachers' arms, families separated, and communities traumatized that if they have not already been kidnapped, they are fearful that they will be.
Children crying in their teachers' arms are afraid that they are going to come home and their parents will be gone. There are elders carrying all of their medications with them in their comings and goings for fear of being abducted and sent somewhere without access to necessary healthcare.
We see a spike in no-shows and cancelations at health clinics as patients would rather miss critical care than risk detainment. We see young parents and grandparents alike attending their immigration court hearings, eager to officially call this country their home, only to be met with handcuffs and shoved into cars by masked ICE individuals.
This is Donald Trump's America, but these are real people. These are hardworking people whose labor and contributions make our communities a better place. These are young people who show up every day in our schools as part of our learning communities. These are mothers and fathers working overtime to provide for their children.
In my district, Massachusetts-07, my Chelsea constituent Kenia and her three children were driving to a Mother's Day church service with her husband, Daniel, when ICE agents in unmarked vehicles ambushed them, broke the passenger side window, forcefully extracted Daniel from the car, and slammed his face on the hot sidewalk while their three children watched on in horror.
In East Boston, my constituent Mercedes and her son are struggling after her husband, Jose, was arrested at work and detained for 2 days at an ICE facility in Burlington. Jose was living here legally with temporary protected status but was told by the ICE agents who detained him that only people born here have rights.
These are real people--real people--children and adults alike traumatized, whose lives have been disturbed, upended, and irreparably harmed.
Donald Trump and ICE claim that they are committing this assault on our communities in the name of safety. Terror makes no one safe. It does the opposite. It sows chaos. It breeds fear and fosters unrest.
From my home in Massachusetts-07, where mothers have wept on my shoulder, pleading for their husbands to come home and for their families to be reunited, to Los Angeles, where Donald Trump sent the National Guard and the Marines to descend on justice-seeking, peaceful protesters, the hurt and harm of this hostile White House is felt by us all.
This has nothing to do with law and order. That is laughable coming from the most godless, lawless Oval Office occupant in our history.
This has everything to do with power and control: deploying the National Guard without a Governor's approval and taking unwarranted and unprecedented action against peaceful justice seekers and freedom fighters.
We must see our neighbors' humanity in this moment. Yet, across the country, occupant Trump is working overtime to be a fascist dictator, to weaponize our government against its own people, to sow fear and chaos, and to silence dissenting voices in our communities, at our colleges, in the courts, and, in fact, even in Congress.
These actions are lawless, a complete violation of our constitutional rights to due process, and void of common sense and compassion.
Know this, for those of you watching at home who might be tempted to think that this is not your problem: An extremist march toward fascism is everyone's problem. Trust me, if you are not already suffering, you will be.
We need solidarity, resistance, and a rejection in this moment of these attacks on our immigrant communities. An attack on our immigrant communities is an attack on all of us.
As a woman of faith, my God tells me to welcome the stranger. Do not be indifferent to the suffering of your neighbors. Immigrants make our country a better place. Immigrants make America great, and our immigrant brothers and sisters deserve to call this country home.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that America has a new baseball team, and that baseball team is the Murray State Racers located in Murray, Kentucky.
Murray State is a real-life Cinderella story. Murray State was the number four seed after winning the Missouri Valley Conference. They played in the Oxford Regional where, of course, Ole Miss is, and they beat Ole Miss twice and Georgia Tech once to advance to the Super Regional. Then Murray State did what every blue-blooded Kentucky Wildcat fan could only dream of, they beat Duke. They didn't just beat Duke on their home field once, they beat Duke twice to advance to Omaha to the College World Series.
This is a historic achievement for a small school. Murray State defied the odds in the era of NIL and big contracts and players getting paid. This is a group of baseball players that want to play ball. They play hard every game. They weren't highly recruited, and they win.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Coach Skirka and the Murray State Racers and the entire Murray, Kentucky, community.
The President has our troops sleeping in squalor, not on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq, but in Los Angeles. I guess this is what you would expect from somebody who has described our brave war dead as suckers and losers.
We were promised that the immigration policy would deport the most violent criminals. That is something I support. That is something everyone here supports. Instead, it has deported a 4-year-old American citizen battling cancer. It detained a U.S. marshal over the weekend. Nobody is asking for this. Our troops deserve much better.
The cost of this is $134 million of your hard-earned tax dollars, $134 million.
Mr. President, take the troops out of Los Angeles and get back to a sane immigration policy that only deports the most violent in our community and addresses the real workforce crisis in agriculture, hospitality, childcare. We can do better.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against the Uyghur Muslim population.
Four years ago, I was grateful to join with Congressman Jim Banks, now Senator, as the first Members of Congress to declare Chinese Communist Party crimes against the Uyghur population as genocide. Only a week later, President Trump carefully declared these crimes a genocide.
The Chinese Communist Party is eliminating the Uyghur population through slave labor, forced sterilization, and mass detention.
Today, Uyghur retired doctor Gulshan Abbas will spend her 63rd birthday unjustly imprisoned by the Chinese Communist Party in retaliation for her family's courageous advocacy in America. It is important that Radio Free Asia Uyghur Service be able to confirm that Congress stands for the immediate release of Dr. Abbas.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump, mocking Trump with murderous drone attacks intended for hospitals in Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to honor the remarkable life and legacy of Dr. Richard Eakin, who dedicated 14 years of his life as Chancellor of East Carolina University.
Dr. Eakin was my mentor, my instructor, and my dear friend. He inspired me to pursue a doctoral degree in education, and I will always be grateful for that.
Dr. Eakin was one of the most compassionate and insightful leaders I have ever known.
He earned his B.A. in math from Geneva College and his M.A. and Ph.D. in math from Washington State University.
Before his time at East Carolina University, he held several administrative positions at Bowling Green State University.
He did all of this while always wearing an infectious smile. His gentle, yet impactful approach, left a mark on Pirate Nation and everyone who learned from him.
My heartfelt prayers are with his wonderful wife, Jo, and their family.
Mr. Speaker, in the futile chase to try to reduce the amount of CO2, carbon dioxide, in our atmosphere, many trillions of dollars around the U.S. and other western countries, the enlightened countries, are going to be wasted chasing this endeavor.
When I ask the average person how much CO2 do they believe there is in the atmosphere, with all the hype, with all the fear that has been put on for the last couple of decades by the left, by the environmental groups, I get numbers like 20 percent, 50 percent, 70 percent. Even people I ask in committee that are supposed to know, that are supposed to be experts, give me numbers that are way out of line with the actual number.
My graph right here shows what really is in the atmosphere: Nitrogen, 78 percent; oxygen, 21 percent. It doesn't leave a whole lot left for the CO2 threat to mankind, does it? You actually find that skinny one right there, 0.04 percent. We are going to ruin our economy in order to sequester carbon, to spend all of this money and not run power plants, like in California, for example, because they have to have permission to operate only if they capture CO2 out of the atmosphere or out of their exhaust and shove it underground and store it for who knows how long and to what effect.
The CO2 thing is a scam. This climate change talk is harmful to our country and other Western countries that have bought into it.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is going to develop and use more oil and gas than ever. The trends are going to skyrocket up in developing countries. China builds more coal-fired power plants than you can shake a stick at. Only the U.S. is going to be the ones suffering from chasing the CO2 thing, to reduce it from 0.04 percent to 0.035 percent.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 489, I call up the bill (S. 331) to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, 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 489, 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 Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous materials on S. 331.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, most Members in this Chamber know someone who has been affected by the drug overdose epidemic plaguing our country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2023, there were more than 107,000 overdose deaths that occurred in the United States. These staggering numbers are due in large part to the increasing presence of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues which are approximately 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. The lethal dose of fentanyl is just 2 milligrams or about four grains of sand.
A loophole that the cartels have tried to use to traffic their illicit fentanyl into our country is by changing one part of fentanyl's chemical structure to create fentanyl analogues. The cartels did this in an attempt to evade our criminal laws.
Right now, fentanyl analogues are considered schedule I substances, but only because of a series of temporary scheduling orders, and that order is now set to expire on September 30 of this year.
That is why the HALT Fentanyl Act, led by myself and my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) in this House and then Senators Cassidy and Heinrich in the Senate, is critically needed.
This bill aims to curb overdose deaths by permanently scheduling fentanyl analogues as schedule I substances, Mr. Speaker. This will strengthen law enforcement's ability to prosecute fentanyl traffickers and act as a deterrent.
The HALT Fentanyl Act promotes research by improving the registration process so eligible individuals can conduct studies on schedule I substances
By encouraging research of schedule I substances like fentanyl analogues, we can better understand how these substances work and how we can prevent potentially harmful impacts in the future. The temporary bans, Mr. Speaker, did not deal with the research component. So without this bill, we cannot legally do the research on the analogues that may, someday, be found to have medical benefits.
Because fentanyl itself has a proven medical use, it is considered a schedule II drug, but illicit derivatives of fentanyl, also called fentanyl analogues, currently have no demonstrated medical value.
Let me be clear. This bill will have no impact whatsoever on a physician's ability to administer fentanyl in medical settings. The HALT Fentanyl Act deals specifically with analogues, not medicinal fentanyl.
We must address this bipartisan issue immediately and not allow this temporary extension to expire in September.
Once fentanyl analogues are permanently placed into schedule I, Congress will continue to build off this work to continue to address the illicit fentanyl crisis in our country.
According to a 2021 GAO report, there was a 90 percent decrease in these analogues coming into our country the year they were placed temporarily into schedule I.
This bill is a critical step in combating the opioid crisis in our country because China and Mexico are heavily involved in this business. China sends the precursors of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, the API, or active pharmaceutical ingredients, to the cartels in Mexico who are then making the drugs and bringing them across our borders.
By making these analogues permanently schedule I, it removes the incentive to traffic these drugs into our country due to the penalties if they are caught.
China has even realized the risk of analogues themselves and has permanently scheduled these analogues on their strictest schedule. Other countries have followed suit and done the same.
This bill received bipartisan support on the House floor with a vote of 312-108 in February. The bill has the support of many law enforcement agencies and other entities calling for the need to pass the bill.
With passage of this version of the bill, it will be sent to the President's desk. I am hopeful the President will sign this bill into law quickly so that we can continue to combat this crisis and begin research in earnest to see if there is any benefit from any of the analogues that may help people who are afflicted having been addicted by accident or on purpose to fentanyl.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act. The House approved this bill in February, and since that time, the Trump administration has set its sights on dismantling our Nation's public health infrastructure, including the agency directly responsible for addressing mental health and substance abuse disorders.
Republicans are going to claim today that they are addressing the opioid overdose crisis with this bill, but this is nothing but a distraction from the fact that Republicans continue to silently stand by and allow the Trump administration to gut our public health agencies.
Republicans are also attempting to distract from the fact that last month they passed the largest cuts to healthcare in American history as part of their big, ugly bill. Republicans are stripping healthcare away from 16 million Americans so they can give giant tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations, two groups that don't need any help right now.
Now, Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years, we have made significant progress in addressing the opioid overdose crisis. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a 24 percent decline in drug overdose deaths for the 12 months ending in September of 2024, compared to the previous year. This is encouraging news, but I am deeply concerned that the Trump administration's attacks on public health, coupled with the Republicans' attacks on Americans' healthcare will seriously threaten the improvements we have made.
The bill before us today permanently schedules fentanyl-related substances on schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This is based on a class definition disputed by scientists. I oppose this bill because it is a permanent extension instead of a temporary one that we agreed on for 2 years in the end-of-the-year appropriations package.
Now, that bipartisan package was pushed aside by Speaker Johnson after Elon Musk voiced his opposition to the overall package. The temporary option would have left the door open for an off-ramp to substances found to have potential medical applications. However, this Republican bill would also exacerbate inequities in our criminal justice system because drugs placed on schedule I include mandatory minimum sentencing. S. 331 also does not provide additional resources for prevention, treatment, recovery, or harm reduction.
So this bill is essentially recycling an incarceration first response to what I consider mainly a public health challenge. That is because Republicans don't want to talk about this as a public health challenge. Instead, President Trump and House Republicans want to focus on piecemeal policies in the hopes it will distract from their efforts to gut Medicaid and drug treatment programs.
Now Republicans are sabotaging Medicaid, which will be devastating to people who struggle with mental health and substance use issues. Medicaid is the single largest payer in the country for behavioral health services, covering 40 percent of all Americans with opioid use disorder.
Americans with substance use and mental health issues will face new barriers and red tape in signing up for and staying enrolled in their health insurance. House Republicans are setting up new barriers and roadblocks to care that will, unfortunately, result in our mental health and substance abuse crises only worsening.
Republicans are silently standing by as the Trump administration is moving forward with an unauthorized and illegal plan to eliminate the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, better known as SAMHSA. SAMHSA is the very agency responsible for preventing substance use disorder, increasing access to treatment, and promoting recovery.
It will be combined with other agencies that the Trump administration doesn't care about under the banner of a larger make America healthy again office. Now, these critical programs to treat mental health and substance abuse will be deprioritized or eliminated in favor of Secretary RFK, Jr.'s, pet projects, like destroying Americans' access to vaccines. He is going to prioritize that, and not SAMHSA and substance abuse treatment.
Congress has received zero information from the Trump administration about how this new office will work and how the work of SAMHSA to address the mental health and substance use treatment needs of our community will be prioritized.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Nation's leading mental health and substance use treatment organizations. It is called the Mental Health Liaison Group.
Mr. Speaker, this letter is in strong opposition to the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate SAMHSA, as well as their reference to drastically cut funding and eliminate critical SAMHSA programs.
As they write in this letter: These proposals ``would have devastating consequences for the 84.5 million Americans with a mental health and/or a substance use disorder, many of whom rely on SAMHSA's programs, research, oversight, and leadership to address critical mental health and substance use disorder needs.''
Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is also rescinding more than $1 billion in essential funding that States rely on through block grants. This rescission is wreaking havoc on States' efforts to support prevention, treatment, and recovery. That is because States, counties, and towns are the main places where these treatment programs are.
My Republican colleagues refuse to hold this administration to account for these devastating and illegal cuts. Instead, they are trying to distract with this bill. This bill is opposed by nearly 190 national, State, and local public health, criminal justice, and civil rights organizations.
So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well.
I don't want anyone to misunderstand. What I am saying is that if we don't treat mental health and substance abuse as a public health crisis and, instead, we just say that we are going to have mandatory sentences and throw everybody in jail, lock the door, and throw away the key, then I don't think that is going to solve the problem.
I will continue to highlight that while Republicans propose these mandatory sentences and want to put fentanyl permanently on the schedule, that is not the answer to this mental health crisis. It is not the answer. The answer is to provide adequate treatment, and education. It is also to prevent the drugs from coming into the country but not just to put people in jail and throw away the key.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, for 4 years I have worked tirelessly with my colleague from Virginia's Ninth District to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act. In 2023, we saw over 107,000 overdose deaths, 75,000 of those attributed to synthetic opioids, especially fentanyl-related substances.
Currently, fentanyl and fentanyl analogues temporarily fall under schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the CSA, due to a temporary scheduling order that runs through September 30 of this year.
This bill would permanently place fentanyl analogues into schedule I of the CSA. A schedule I controlled substance is a drug, substance, or chemical that has a high potential for abuse,
Today, this Chamber is permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances as schedule I.
We owe it to our communities, our constituents, the families, and to the victims. Cartels are quite literally killing Americans for ten cents. Among teens, fentanyl poisoning accounted for an average of 22 deaths per week in 2022.
Fentanyl is the number one cause of death among adults 18 to 49, more than cancer, heart disease, and car accidents. This isn't about criminal justice reform. This is about victims getting justice.
Currently, to trigger a 10-year mandatory minimum, an offense must involve 100 or more grams of a mixture containing a fentanyl analogue. Two milligrams of fentanyl will kill. This means 100 grams of fentanyl analogue can kill roughly 50,000 people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank our Senate colleagues for passing this critical legislation, and I encourage all of my House colleagues to support the HALT Fentanyl Act so we can get this to the President's desk and stop the greatest poisoning in American history.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think House Republicans know that we can't simply schedule our way out of this crisis, but they have refused to pass bipartisan solutions that address prevention, treatment, and recovery to help stop overdose deaths.
I know that they passed reauthorizing the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act last week, but the bottom line is that all of the programs under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act that have helped with treatment, helped with education, caused the number of overdose deaths to decline are being gutted. The staff that administer them and SAMHSA, the program that they are under, all of these things are being either eliminated, gutted, or the funding frozen by the Trump administration.
My point today is this is not just a criminal justice issue. We must combat this opioid crisis through a multipronged public health approach.
Nearly half of all people in Federal prison today have been convicted of a drug-related offense, with a racial and ethnic disparity among those convictions.
Access to treatment remains a challenge today. In 2023, according to SAMHSA, approximately one-quarter of the people who are classified as needing substance use treatment received it in the last year. People with a substance use disorder who are untreated are eight times more likely to die of an overdose compared to those who receive medication treatment.
Just putting people away and throwing away the key is not the answer. Cutting back on the treatment programs, and the education programs under SAMHSA, is certainly going to make things worse.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the answer to the problem. This problem is not going to be solved by only putting people in jail and throwing away the key. I will tell you there are people who are purveyors of this illicit fentanyl that deserve to be put in jail and throw away the key. That is what we have to do to people that are selling this poison to children.
Congress has people that testify before our committee that their child took Adderall before a test, and it was laced with fentanyl. They were poisoned. It is not that they had addiction issues. It is that they are poisoning our communities.
There are people selling this. They are purveying it, creating it, growing it, and creating it chemically.
What the Energy and Commerce Committee is doing, today we are doing the HALT Fentanyl Act to address the criminal justice side of it. However, my friend from New Jersey is correct, what also has to be addressed are the issues affecting people that are suffering from substance use disorder. We did that in the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 where we had over, I think, 350 votes on the floor. It was broadly bipartisan on the floor of the House. We are committed to ensuring that people have access to treatment. We are equally committed to ensuring that people that are purveying this poison on our communities, our cities, bringing it across the border, deserve to have their day in court, and deserve to answer to justice. If it be the case that these are the people poisoning our children, they should be put in jail and the key thrown away. Our committee will not apologize for that.
It takes an all-of-the-above approach for this issue, and we are willing to do an all-of-the-above approach. I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is extremely important. The DEA alone has said that they support this, and it is time we do it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of our committee knows I have great respect for him, but the bottom line is that this bill does not consider individual circumstances. It is not just people that are selling drugs.
Look, I totally agree that if someone is selling fentanyl, it is a totally different situation from someone who is arrested for possessing it. The fact of the matter is this bill covers both those who possess it, using it for themselves, and those who are selling it--maybe those who have a huge ring of selling it.
My point is that when there are mandatory minimums, all those people come under the same rubric. The legislation, because it now makes permanent fentanyl on the schedule I, the mandatory minimums apply, and the harsh penalties do not consider individual circumstances.
I don't want to keep repeating, but I will, about how the legislation has no resources for prevention or treatment and just simply locks people up. The point is that there are going to be families and communities, because of the minimum mandatory sentencing and the inability of the judge to look at the individual circumstances, that we are going to repeat the same mistakes that were made for many years responding to other drugs.
Right now we know that people of color have been disproportionately incarcerated and sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences. The trend of racial disparity also can be seen in prosecutions for offenses involving fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.
The Sentencing Commission data from fiscal years 2021 to 2023 provides strong evidence that these prosecutions disproportionately target people of color.
I would like to get beyond the point here when we debate these bills of saying that mandatory sentencing is a good thing, regardless of whether they are charged with possession or selling or how much they are selling, but that is not what this bill does. They get locked up. There are no individual circumstances considered. We know the consequences of that for people in many cases who, in my opinion, if I was the judge, would not impose these harsh mandatory penalties.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, who is the original sponsor, along with Representative Latta from the great State of Ohio. This is a very important bill, and I strongly urge that the House pass this particular bill.
For far too long, our communities have been plagued by poisonings from fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances. Every one of our congressional districts have been affected by this crisis. Kids are dying. They are dying, and Congress has got to make this permanent.
Illicit drugs have poured across the border, made it onto the streets, and affected our communities, every one of our communities. They are often mixed with other illicit drugs, and users are
People hear stories on a regular basis where kids go out and party. They shouldn't be using recreational drugs, but they don't deserve to die. I heard the example just today by our chairman with regard to some of these drugs, say marijuana, what have you, and other drugs. The kids should not be using these drugs, but they don't deserve to die. They are laced with fentanyl, and it is just awful. It is awful for the kids, but also for the families and the friends of the kids.
We must ensure that law enforcement has the tools it needs to address these threats, and that is what we are doing today. The HALT Fentanyl Act will permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances as a class I drug. This is long overdue.
I know my good friend, Mr. Griffith, and also Mr. Latta, have been working on this for years. This must pass the United States Senate after we get it out of the House today. We need to save lives. That is the bottom line.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the HALT Fentanyl Act, which permanently extends President Trump's 2018 schedule I classification of fentanyl-related substances.
Mr. Speaker, the United States is facing a poisoning epidemic, and it is caused by illicit fentanyl and its related substances that are pouring over our borders and into our communities.
In 2023, under the Biden-Harris administration, more than 107,000 people died of drug overdoses, roughly 75,000 of whom died from synthetic opioids, largely illicit fentanyl, or fentanyl-related substances.
Included in that number is a family from Georgia who lost their two sons, 22-year-old Gannon and 19-year-old Max, to fentanyl poisoning.
We cannot allow this lawlessness and tragedy to continue to tear our communities apart. That is why we must stop deadly fentanyl from flooding across our borders and crack down on traffickers.
President Trump has already made progress by securing our borders, and Congress must support him in this critical effort. That is why Congress must pass the HALT Fentanyl Act that is before us today.
Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill, secure our borders, stem the tide of the growing fentanyl crisis, and save lives.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this is fentanyl poisoning. We are not talking about addiction here. We are talking about one pill, one pill that poisons, and that kills people. That is what my colleagues are trying to prevent here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the chairman of our Health Subcommittee said, and I am not arguing with him that we have to look at the fentanyl crisis in many ways, particularly at the border, and prevent it from coming into the country from China and other places that flood this country with it. Yet, my point is that what we are hearing from the Trump administration and from the Secretary of HHS, Robert Kennedy, Jr., is that we are going to defund substance use disorder programs, mental health programs, and treatment.
The fact of the matter is that about 58 percent of the people in prison right now have a substance use disorder. People with these disorders have challenges in getting appropriate treatment, and incarceration often exacerbates their symptoms. By having these mandatory penalties and putting more people in prison, who are, in many cases, only there because of mandatory sentences for possession of fentanyl and analogues, it only exacerbates their condition. It leads to individuals staying incarcerated longer, and they don't get treatment.
In the congressional justification for the Trump administration for a healthy America, the HHS agency proposes to cut various substance use and mental health programs that are helping State and local health departments combat the opioid crisis.
For fiscal year 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to zero out State opioid response grants, the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, first responder training, youth prevention and recovery programs, and many, many more. I talked about this recently.
The bottom line is that if you zero out all of these programs--I think it is over $1 billion that has already been frozen--you are going to have no opportunity locally to actually help people with treatment and education. All you are going to do now is just throw them in prison, which only exacerbates the problem.
In the President's budget, they propose to cut SAMHSA programs that assist with harm reduction strategies to help those in need, as well as programs to help prevent Americans from using controlled substances. The President's budget also calls for reducing opioid overdose prevention and surveillance by $29 million.
I think that every dollar that is cut for prevention, treatment, and education is a life that is left unprotected. Terminating these critical programs and offices just puts millions of lives battling substance abuse in jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleagues would spend time on these issues of protecting public health and coming up with solutions instead of retreading a bill that prioritizes this criminal justice approach, which I think doesn't work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act.
Mr. Speaker, opioid overdoses have become an epidemic in this country. Last year, over 100,000 Americans lost their lives to overdose, and fentanyl poisoning is the driving force behind that.
Mr. Speaker, it is not just the country at large that has experienced this problem. In my own district, we have seen an over 1,000 percent increase in the rate of fentanyl poisoning and deaths.
Mr. Speaker, I had the most difficult day in my over 20 years in public office recently when I had to console one of my constituents, a mother who lost both of her sons on the same day to the same fentanyl poisoning event.
We must give our law enforcement the tools to combat this problem. This bill does exactly that. It permanently reschedules fentanyl and its analogues as a schedule I narcotic, and it gives our law enforcement agencies the tools that they need to begin dealing with this problem.
That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the House version of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Guthrie and Congressman Griffith for their leadership on this issue.
This is a historic moment, Mr. Speaker. House Republicans are delivering on a promise to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl that, for years, has been flooding our communities and, tragically, tearing families apart.
Today, drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death across the country, and fentanyl-driven overdoses are the leading cause of death for American adults between 18 and 45 years of age. That is because it is cheap to make, easy to transport, and so potent. Just a few milligrams can be lethal.
Addressing the spread of illicit and illegal fentanyl-related substances has been a top priority not only for myself but for many other colleagues in this House. It is hard for me to believe what I am hearing from the minority right now.
One of the first pieces of legislation that we introduced in the 117th Congress was the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act. SOFA is the same acronym as an organization started by Lauri Badura of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, Saving Others For Archie. Archie was her son.
Lauri has worked to raise awareness of the dangers of drug addiction
Mr. Speaker, I personally recognize the work of Lauri, as well as Dr. Timothy Westlake of Waukesha, Wisconsin, for spearheading legislation in the Wisconsin State Legislature that culminated in the bill being debated before us today.
Since 2017, they have been working on a permanent solution, and that is scheduling fentanyl as a schedule I item. It is the most important thing that this House of Representatives will do in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
First, I thank the ranking member for his leadership in addressing the scourge of fentanyl overdoses across our country.
I serve as one of the co-chairs of the Bipartisan Fentanyl Prevention Caucus with Representative Darrell Issa and Representative Madeleine Dean. It is certainly an issue that we have worked tirelessly on. I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation, notwithstanding, obviously, the disagreements with respect to this particular bill. I think the ranking member has spoken very eloquently with respect to his concerns.
I thank the ranking member for indulging me and giving me a few minutes to speak on the floor because, at the conclusion of this debate, I intend to make a unanimous consent request of the Chair. I would hope that it is a consent request that everyone in this House could agree to.
As many of my colleagues, of course, are well aware, there was a terrible, heinous terrorist attack in my district 10 days ago in Boulder, Colorado. We have introduced a resolution, H. Res. 476. It is a bipartisan resolution. Several of my Republican colleagues have joined me on this resolution.
It denounces anti-Semitism, condemns the horrific attack in my community, and lifts up the organization Run for Their Lives, which was heinously targeted by this terrorist. This is an organization that has been working every week to peacefully call for the release of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking for this House to consider my resolution. This terrible attack happened in my district. I have no doubt that if Republican leadership just puts the resolution on the floor, it will pass unanimously in this House. I have no doubt, so I am just asking my colleagues to give us the opportunity to weigh in or at least explain to us and my constituents why my community is being deprived of this resolution that honors law enforcement, the FBI and the Boulder Police Department, which acted so swiftly in response to this terrorist attack.
Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Griffith, in particular, to be somebody who shares, I believe, my views as I have articulated them with respect to this particular attack, and I just hope that my colleagues would agree to give this resolution its due course.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the HALT Fentanyl Act, critical legislation to crack down on the criminals who produce, traffic, and sell fentanyl and fentanyl- related substances.
Earlier this year, we were able to hear powerful testimony from two of my constituents, Ray and Deb Cullen, who tragically lost their son, Zach, to fentanyl poisoning. Unfortunately, they are not alone in this pathway to pain. Last year, one Pennsylvanian died from an overdose every 2 hours, with the overwhelming majority of these resulting from fentanyl poisoning.
We owe it to our future generations to end this plague on our society by passing the HALT Fentanyl Act.
Our courageous Border Patrol and law enforcement officers will be more effective in removing fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances that come across our border, end up in our communities, and poison our children, friends, and neighbors.
Additionally, this legislation will also result in harsher penalties for the criminals and cartel members who are responsible for the spread of this poison. As a nation, we can no longer sit by while future generations of American workers, parents, and community leaders are taken away from us.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation today and to save the lives of so many throughout this great country. It is time to halt fentanyl.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we had this bill in the House back in February, and then it went to the Senate. Essentially, what came back today for final approval or final passage is the same bill.
As was mentioned by my Republican colleagues, if it passes today, it goes straight to the President's desk. At the time in February, when we were discussing this bill, I had pointed out that President Trump had just pushed a scheme, really, straight out of Project 2025 to choke off virtually all Federal funding, including halting over $8.6 billion in grant funding for the Federal programs to combat the opioid crisis. At the time, congressional Republicans just stood by silently as it happened.
Trump halted over $6.5 billion in funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, which supports treatment programs and prevention efforts. He also halted nearly $1.5 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health drug abuse and addiction research programs, which conduct and support research on substance abuse and addiction, basically to better understand the causes of addiction and identify treatments and interventions that reduce overdoses.
Trump also halted all federally funded programs that provide critical opioid-related services, including federally qualified health centers, which serve a high proportion of patients disproportionately impacted by the opioid crisis.
The Department of Health and Human Services also eliminated the workforce training programs, including the Integrated Substance Use Disorder Training Program, which trains professionals to provide opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery services.
Mr. Speaker, we went to court over a lot of these things, and many of them were overturned. Yet, I don't want anyone to think that the President is giving up. He is going to continue his efforts to illegally cut these programs, and I mentioned some of them before. Again, House Republicans are doing nothing to halt any of this.
In addition to that, I have to say that the big, ugly bill passed a couple of weeks ago by the Republicans, I think, altogether, between Medicaid, the ACA, and Medicare, because of sequestration, cuts, I don't know, I would say $1.7 trillion or so.
Understand that Medicaid is the single largest payer for behavioral health services in the United States and covers nearly 40 percent of all individuals with opioid use disorder. Medicaid covers a full array of services and support for people with behavioral health needs, including services and supports that typically are not covered by other health programs.
This is an assault on every effort for prevention and treatment of opioid disorders, whether it is cutting Medicaid, eliminating SAMHSA's programs, or cutting the money that goes back to States and towns to help people with treatment.
Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is a distraction because it gives the impression that if you lock somebody up with a mandatory penalty, even if it is just for possession, and throw away the key, that is going to solve your problem. It is not.
Everything that the President is doing and the Republicans are doing to support him completely eliminates or significantly cuts back on the treatment and the education that are going to be much more important in terms of trying to save people's lives.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act.
This bipartisan bill will save lives by providing critical tools for law enforcement to combat the ongoing opioid crisis across our country.
Thousands of Americans continue to die each year from fentanyl overdoses, and Ohio has been particularly hard-hit by the epidemic.
Prior to the temporary rescheduling in 2018, fentanyl-related substances could only be controlled individually, allowing cartel chemists to easily create new uncontrolled compounds. This temporary rescheduling proved to be effective as the number of new compounds since then has significantly declined.
The prevalence of fentanyl-related substances and continued trafficking of dangerous narcotics across our southern border requires strong, decisive action from our Congress.
According to the DEA, there were more than 36 million fentanyl pills and nearly 4,000 pounds of fentanyl powder seized in 2025. This represents over 157 million deadly doses.
As a former prosecutor and a co-chair of the Addiction, Treatment, and Recovery Caucus, I understand the importance of law enforcement aggressively targeting traffickers and making sure that we are addressing societal challenges of addiction.
Each life lost to an overdose is a tragedy. We must declare war on the drugs that are killing our kids in our community.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the President's desk.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the bill before us today is the Senate companion to H.R. 27, which we voted on here in the House on February 6 of this year. The two bills are identical, other than a couple of minor punctuation differences. This bill would go to the President's desk, and he said he would sign it.
However, since that vote in February here in the House, the Trump administration has seriously threatened our Nation's ability to confront the ongoing opioid overdose crisis by attempting to dismantle the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, as I mentioned, firing hundreds of workers, including senior key officials, and rescinding over $1 billion from State and local behavioral health programs.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to oppose this bill because it is a permanent extension of fentanyl-related substances as schedule I drugs instead of the temporary one that we agreed on for 2 years in the end of the year 2024 appropriations package.
The temporary option would have left the door open for an off-ramp to substances found to have potential medical applications. This bill would also exacerbate inequities in our criminal justice system because drugs placed on schedule I include mandatory minimum sentencing. Furthermore, S. 331 also does not provide additional resources, as I have mentioned, for prevention, treatment, recovery, or harm reduction.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman said, this is an identical bill to the one that passed out of the House with the exception of a few technical changes the Senate made, including sticking their number on it instead of the House number. Other than that, it is essentially the same bill this House passed and, frankly, with bipartisan support.
I understand the gentleman's objections related to mandatory minimum sentences, but that is a different bill and a different day. That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about making fentanyl analogues a schedule I or making all of them schedule I substances.
The gentleman referenced that there is no off-ramp. I would suggest to him that the off-ramp is in the eye of the beholder.
What we did in this bill, and I think it is something that everybody on the floor can be proud of, we put into this bill the capability to do extensive research by universities, the NIH, and the FDA. We created a framework to do research on the 4,800 believed analogues of fentanyl.
I believe it has two advantages. One, if we find one of these analogues that has no harm and even has a positive effect for some issue, that creates your off-ramp. There is already an off-ramp in the law for drugs that show promise and have a medicinal benefit. That opens up other statutes. This one doesn't have that off-ramp, but other statutes do that would allow if somebody comes in and says, wow, look at what this does. It does good things in the X area or the Y area or whatever. This bill has the component parts to make that possible. Unlike our schedule I on marijuana, which never allowed research or realistic research and created some of the dilemmas that we have today with that substance. We fixed that with this bill.
Secondly, that research component, I believe if there is any benefit in the analogues at all, it may be that one of the analogues--I am not saying it will and I think the odds are slim, but it is possible that one of the analogues will have a blocking effect on the deadly aspects of fentanyl itself, and that would be a huge positive.
When my colleague says that it has nothing on dealing with the problem as far as people who have an addiction, he is right. It does not today, but that research component has great potential for the future.
In the short run, we stop the Chinese from bringing the precursors to Mexico and the Mexican cartels creating new analogues and trying to get around our laws by claiming it is not really fentanyl, it is an analog. We stop those attempts by the bad guys, the illegal people trying to bring this into our country and bringing it in, unfortunately, successfully. We stop it. We stop them using that technique to get around the law. Then we leave the door open for positive future benefits, if any, in the analogues.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have helped draft this legislation. I am proud to have drafted the part on the research component. I am proud that, notwithstanding the fact that they made a few tweaks and sent back a Senate bill rather than sending back mine and Mr. Latta's original House bill, I am proud to stand here today in support of the HALT Fentanyl Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in this House to vote ``yes'' and let's send it to the President's desk. Let's make this a permanent law in the United States.
As Chairman Guthrie said: It is not going to solve every problem, but it makes our kids just a little bit safer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Request to Consider H. RES. 476, Condemning the Violent Antisemitic Attack in Boulder, Colorado, and Expressing Support for the Survivors and Their Families
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H. Res. 476, my bipartisan resolution to condemn the terror attack in Boulder and to denounce anti-Semitism, be called for consideration by the full House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under guidelines consistently issued by successive Speakers, as recorded in section 956 of the House Rules and Manual, the Chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding under ``Jefferson's Manual,'' is that the Speaker has the ability to disclose in the Congressional Record the source of the objection. The minority does not object to this unanimous-consent request.
Will the Speaker tell the House and the American public, is it Speaker Johnson that opposes this?
Who opposes unanimous consent to this resolution denouncing the attack?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As indicated in section 956 of the House Rules and Manual, it is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to indicate which side of the aisle has failed under the Speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 489, I call up the bill (H.R. 2056) to require the District of Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 119-151, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act.
The House Oversight Committee has held multiple hearings on the failings of the Biden-Harris administration to secure our borders and protect our citizens. In March, the committee heard from sanctuary city mayors, who offered carefully crafted, lawyerly statements defending their decisions not to work with the Trump administration as it works to remove criminal aliens as quickly as possible.
At the end of the day, illegal alien criminals who threaten our communities have no right to be here in the first place. State and local governments must work with the Department of Homeland Security to share information on individuals they arrest. They must also honor lawful detainers. When they do not, Congress must act.
H.R. 2056 ensures that the District of Columbia cooperates with Federal immigration agencies, including ICE, to protect our citizens and nullifies prior attempts by the District to make itself a sanctuary city.
I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) for his work on this important topic, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 2056, which would effectively nullify laws, policies, and practices duly enacted by the District of Columbia because I strongly support the ability of the residents of the District of Columbia to govern themselves on local matters.
This is one of two D.C. bills that the House is considering this week to demonize immigrants. Let's be clear: The District of Columbia is in full compliance with Federal law. It does not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties.
D.C., like many other jurisdictions, limits its cooperation with Federal immigration agencies to what Federal law actually requires. Why do jurisdictions limit such cooperation other than the fact that immigration is a Federal responsibility? Let us ask the police chiefs for an explanation.
The Major Cities Chiefs Association opposes such cooperation for four reasons:
``Enforcement of routine civil immigration by police would undermine the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities which are essential elements of community-oriented policing.
``Courts have held that the lack of legal authority to enforce Federal civil immigration statutes exposes police to liability for unlawful arrest and detention.
``Local agencies do not possess adequate resources to enforce these laws in addition to the added responsibility of homeland security.
``Immigration laws are very complex, and the training required to understand them and to properly prosecute them significantly detracts from the core mission of local police to create safe communities.''
Let's be clear again: D.C. is in full compliance with Federal law. It does not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties, and it is backed by evidence demonstrating that limiting cooperation keeps people safer. Counties with laws that do not honor extrajudicial civil detainers have significantly lower levels of violent crime than counties that don't have such laws.
Mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and local leaders across the country have made clear that the way to combat violent crime is allowing local police to do their job of ensuring public safety in their own communities, not commandeering local police to spend limited time and resources rounding up and detaining nonviolent immigrants who pose no threat.
Forcing the District of Columbia to carry out the Federal Government's immigration duties also discourages residents from coming forward to share information with the police about violent crimes for fear that they or someone close to them will be detained or deported. This is simply bad policy and will hurt the residents of the District of Columbia.
The House should reject H.R. 2056 and stop interfering in local D.C. matters. Instead, it should pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act, and H.R. 51, Washington, D.C. Admission Act.
Mr. Speaker, let's have a candid conversation if we could, sir, with my colleague across the aisle about what is happening here.
Congress and America, we need to clarify for the citizens watching, Mr. Speaker, Congress has a unique authority, and therefore, responsibility for our Nation's Capital as opposed to other municipalities across the country. Why not Phoenix, New Orleans, Atlanta, et cetera? It is because they are not the Nation's Capital, that is why. It is because it is not reflected in the responsibilities that are enumerated for Congress for the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital.
With the pendular swing of majority control that we observe in our Nation, from Democratic majority to Republican majority, my Democratic colleagues feel responsible to make changes when they have the majority, as do we.
When we were under Democratic majority control in recent years, since I have been in Congress, the Democrats supported and did not oppose some policy and legislative decisions at the municipal level in our Nation's Capital that we knew would injure our Nation's Capital in the realm of law enforcement.
That is where we are. Republicans have majority control in the House, the Senate, and the White House, so of course we are going to respond to the threat that we face within our Nation's Capital toward law enforcement.
This is my bill, and this is how simple it is: It requires the District of Columbia to comply with Federal immigration law. What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? My colleague stated two or three times in his opening statement that the District of Columbia does not obstruct Federal law enforcement. That is not true.
America has to read between the lines. When he says they do not obstruct, it means they don't, like, physically stop ICE from executing a warrant. What he is not saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the District of Columbia does not comply with Federal immigration law enforcement warrant detainers, which is the safest, most widely accepted means by which a human being that is in the custody of one jurisdictional authority is transferred to another jurisdictional authority safely and within the parameters of the law for the benefit of the individual and the community.
D.C. doesn't do that for Federal immigration detainers. If they have somebody in custody, Mr. Speaker, for whatever purposes, and that guy has a warrant for ICE, they know that there is a warrant for that man. Under normal circumstances, the custody of that individual would be transferred safely once the District of Columbia was finished with that individual. They don't do that with ICE. They subject their communities to dangerous circumstances and law enforcement to absolutely unnecessary danger.
My bill just mandates that the District of Columbia is the one city that Congress has authority over, and therefore, responsibility to be involved with things like this.
We shouldn't have to have this law.
Why? Because the District of Columbia should be following the Federal law in the first place. We shouldn't have to bring this to the floor. We shouldn't have to engage in this debate. I shouldn't have to explain these things. However, we are going to, by God, require that our Nation's Capital comply with our Nation's Federal law.
I encourage my colleagues to take a deep breath, step back and say, yes, our Nation's Capital will be subject to the very laws that this body passes. I appreciate the chairman's advocacy for my bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's take up that challenge. Let's make sure the laws that we have passed in this House apply and are complied with in Washington, D.C.
The gentleman may forget, this isn't the first debate we have had about Washington, D.C., or the District of Columbia. We have had this debate through history ever since the Founders of this country created the District. It is a special district in addition to being our National Capital.
Most recently, in 1973, this Congress created the Washington, D.C. Home Rule Act. I will explain to the gentleman what that requires. The Home Rule Act in D.C. says because there is shared jurisdiction within this District that the people of Washington, D.C., the residents here, may govern their local affairs as they please. I emphasize: as they please, for local affairs.
The performance of their local police force is an area within their local control. That is number one. Let's enforce the laws that have been passed in this House respective to the people of the District of Columbia.
Number two. Violent crime, the special circumstances about keeping Washington, D.C., safe. Violent crime in D.C. reached a 30-year low this year, this past year, a 30-year low. Compare that to any city in the country, and it is a favorable comparison.
The police department in Washington, D.C., is doing an amazing job, and the political leadership of D.C. has stepped up. There were years many years ago when there were deep and serious questions about the leadership in Washington, D.C. They have improved dramatically over the last few decades.
This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period last year, and studies show that handling law enforcement the way they have, with community policing and getting to know the people in the neighborhoods, has been a key element. This is according to the last five police chiefs in this city. That spans over about 50 years. This is what they say, that this is the way to keep the people safe, work with the local community.
I know the gentleman is from law enforcement. I am just asking to afford the same respect and deference to our local law enforcement leaders here in this community, give them the benefit of the doubt of how they provide safety in their own city. They know it best. They know the people. They know the streets. They know the challenges.
It is a special place. There is a protest every couple of days, a major one in this city, people for various causes marching through the city take it over, and the local law enforcement has to be part of that effort to keep those people safe so they can express their rights.
It is a special place, but I think we should give deference to the local law enforcement community that they know how best to provide that safety, especially with the record that they have, a 30-year low on crime in this city, 22 percent less violent crime this year compared to the same period last year.
The gentleman's argument was correct. He shouldn't have to bring a bill up here to do this. He shouldn't have to interfere with local control in this city. He shouldn't have to bring a bill up here to tell the local people how to run their city when Congress has already, in 1973, given them that power in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. I shouldn't have to defend that right that has already been granted by previous Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the Delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic, anti- immigrant bill, which would nullify laws, policies, and practices enacted by the locally elected District of Columbia Government. The over 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of local self-government.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters, one from every Member of D.C.'s locally elected legislature, the Council; and one from D.C.'s locally elected Attorney General, Brian Schwalb, opposing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, D.C. residents are treated as second-class citizens by Congress. They are required to pay Federal taxes, serve on Federal juries, and register with Selective Service in the same manner as residents of the States. They have served in the military since the Revolutionary War, which was fought to end taxation without representation and to give consent to the governed. Yet, Congress has denied them voting representation in Congress and full local self- government over the past 200 years.
Last Congress, 100 bills and amendments were introduced to repeal or block local D.C. laws and policies. This Congress, 28 such bills and amendments have already been introduced, including bills to abolish the locally elected D.C. Government.
Three months ago, Congress passed a bill that cut over $1 billion from the local D.C. budget, which consists entirely of locally raised revenue. While Congress has the authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, it does not have a duty to do so.
In Federalist No. 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''
In 1953, the Supreme Court held that: ``There is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power.''
The council has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. This is called democracy.
Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is the antithesis of democracy.
Congress has the authority to grant D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government. It simply needs to pass H.R. 51, the D.C. statehood bill, which would make the residential and commercial areas of D.C. a State.
The Admissions Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit new States. All 37 new States were admitted by an act of Congress. The District Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to reduce the size of the Federal district, which it has previously done.
The substance of H.R. 2056 is irrelevant since there is no justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters, but I will briefly discuss it.
Consistent with Federal law, the position of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and D.C.'s values, D.C. limits cooperation with Federal immigration agencies. D.C. concluded that cooperating with Federal immigration agencies would make D.C. less safe for all residents by diverting police resources
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to respect the will of D.C. residents by voting ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act.
I have to be honest. I am kind of disappointed in the debate right now. My colleague from Massachusetts is talking about how we have previously granted the authority to the District of Columbia to do X, Y, and Z. He is correct, but with us granting power, there comes responsibility.
My colleague from Washington, D.C., is talking about the home rule and this and that. This city makes me sad. I mean, I have hope now that President Trump is here that the D.C. Government is starting to do things that they should have been doing all along.
What about Representative Cuellar, who was mugged, robbed at gunpoint in a carjacking?
What about the Rand Paul staffer who was stabbed in a bar five blocks from here? I don't go there anymore. I don't go there anymore because it is not safe.
What about Brad Finstad, who got robbed at gunpoint?
What about the staffers who got robbed 6 months ago?
Justice Sotomayor's detail shot an 18-year-old multiple times because he was trying to rob the Supreme Court Justice.
In what world are you living in that you think that the power that we granted to the District of Columbia is being executed responsibly?
We are talking about something very simple: Abide by Federal detainers. If the Federal Government says you have arrested an illegal immigrant who has a criminal detainer, you have to follow the law.
We didn't give the billion dollars to the District of Columbia because they need to understand that actions have consequences. When I don't feel safe at night, when my constituents come here and I tell them to be careful, when my commanding officer stays at a hotel three blocks from here and I tell him not to walk to the baseball game, to take an Uber, what world are you living in? This is unacceptable.
We will have law and order in this city. The President has said so much. We are going to use every tool in our toolbox to make this District what it should be.
A nation's capital in decline is a nation in decline. We are not a nation in decline.
The city of D.C. needs to live up to its obligations to keep us safe.
Get the homeless people help. Letting them live in the streets is not helping them. You are hurting them. Get them mental health counseling. Get them a shower. Get them a job. Get them help. Letting them live under bridges is not helping them. It is wrong. The fact that I have to sit up here and tell you this makes me sad.
We are going to make this city safe. We are going to show the world that we are not a nation in decline. We are going to not only Make America Great Again, but we are going to make the United States Capital great again.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about crime in D.C. Let's talk about crime in D.C., as the gentleman mentioned. Let's talk about that.
Let's talk about January 6. We had 1,500 people ransack the Capitol. Let's talk about what happened to them in consequence. They were rewarded. They were pardoned.
Yet, to this day, the Speaker of the House refuses to hang the plaque honoring the over 150 police officers who defended the people in this Chamber, who defended the Republicans.
I know all the Republicans didn't feel safe that day because I saw them running from the crowd, running in fear, until the President told them, no, that was just a tour of the Capitol. They all made excuses for what happened that day. Not one of those people who ran out of the Capitol for safety that day came back to say that they should be held responsible. Now, all of those people have been pardoned.
Mr. Speaker, when they talk about crime in D.C., holding people accountable, and feeling safe, do they think that day was making democracy great again when the elected leaders had to hide, being chased out of this Chamber doing the people's business?
Is this an example of how the Republicans are going to bring the rule of law to D.C.? Give me a break. You have to be kidding me.
To this day, Officer Sicknick's family--there were three officers who eventually died of causes related to the attack on the Capitol on January 6. Those families would hope that the people who were saved that day might be grateful. Those families lost their husbands, fathers, and sons. They simply want to have their sacrifice and law enforcement recognized by the people who were rescued.
I know there are a number of my colleagues on the other side who had exemplary careers in law enforcement. They understand better than any that when you have a son, daughter, husband, or wife who gives their life in service of protecting the people in this Chamber, you would hope for at least just a small gesture, a plaque to commemorate that heroism and service to their country. That is not happening, and that is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, introduced by my good friend from Louisiana, Mr. Clay Higgins.
Bringing in and harboring illegal aliens is not only a crime under Federal law, but it is also an absolute affront to the American people.
As a matter of fact, it already says in our law, under title 8, section 1324, that there are criminal penalties for any person who ``knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.''
This is already our law, but not here in Washington, D.C. Prohibiting officials from cooperating with Federal immigration agencies and preventing the release of an individual in custody for the purpose of transferring them to a Federal immigration agency is shielding and concealing illegal aliens, for my Democratic colleagues.
Sanctuary cities protect and defend these criminal illegal aliens, and by definition, if they have broken our immigration laws, they are criminals and must be held accountable.
Due to the Democrats' last 4 years of wide-open borders, this country has experienced one of the greatest national security threats in our entire history as a country. Democrats welcomed over 13 million people from all over the world to come across our border and then made the American people pay for them.
This was outrageous. These are people who came into our country, invaded our country, raped our women and children, and murdered our own people.
Then, the cartels traffic fentanyl across from China, which killed an average of 300 people a day.
They set historic records by allowing the highest number of border encounters ever recorded in a single day and a single month. It was over 3 million illegals in fiscal year 2023, which was the highest ever recorded in history.
Democrats set records. They sure do. They set records by supporting criminals to invade our country.
Mr. Speaker, instead of defending the American people, the Democrats defend illegal alien criminals, gangs, and cartels at all costs.
Take, for example, their favorite MS-13 gang member, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. This MS-13 gang member and wife beater was deported to El Salvador for countless violations of our laws. Democrats labeled him as a ``wrongfully deported Maryland man,'' oh, boo-hoo, and they flew to El Salvador to speak with him.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats couldn't wait to go on vacation to go down and pretend like they cared about this MS-13 gang member as if they really actually do.
He is now charged on multiple felony counts for human trafficking. As a matter of fact, we are thrilled to bring him back and prosecute him and make the Democrats continue to own him.
I would remind my colleagues he is their Maryland man.
According to the indictment, his transporting of illegals spans decades and includes children and MS-13 gang members. He is alleged to have participated in more than 100 trips. That is impressive. That is the faith of the Democratic Party.
This is who they defend. This is who they fight for. The do not fight for the American people, not their districts, not the people's hard- earned tax dollars, and not disobeying the law. They fight for illegals.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2056.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that the gentleman that the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene) was referencing is the same gentleman that two members of the House Oversight Committee requested authorization travel to go down to El Salvador and defend. I think that she was very factual in everything she said, especially her criticism.
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.
The title of this bill is misleading. The District of Columbia already complies with Federal immigration law, including warrants and orders related to immigrants issued by Article III courts.
It is ironic that the Republican leadership is cutting or denying the ability of the District of Columbia to spend a billion dollars of the money that they have raised within the District to meet their obligations here in the city. Yet, while they are cutting their budget by $1 billion, they are saying, even though Federal law doesn't require cities to do all this stuff, we want them to do the Federal Government's job, as well. That is the irony here.
Federal immigration law doesn't require the States or cities to inquire about citizenship or immigration status or manage immigration policy. They don't require cities to do that, especially a smaller jurisdiction like Washington, D.C.
What my colleagues want to do is they want to shift the burden of the Federal responsibilities onto the District of Columbia and their political leadership, at the same time when they are cutting $1 billion of the budget from Washington, D.C. It is adding insult to injury.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because I strongly support D.C. home rule. For this reason and at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
If House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would have been the text of S. 1077, the District of Columbia Local Funds Act. I would have tried to put that $1 billion back into their own budget.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, I must note that it has been nearly 3 months since the Senate passed the bipartisan District of Columbia Local Funds Act, which would undo the $1 billion cut to the local D.C. budget in the House Republican-drafted fiscal year bill.
The Republican-led Senate understood immediately the cut's harms and passed the District of Columbia Local Funds Act within 4 hours of its introduction by the Republican Senator, Susan Collins, the chair on the Committee on Appropriations.
The local D.C. budget consists entirely of revenue raised by D.C. It is raised by the District of Columbia, which is why the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the District of Columbia Local Funds Act would have zero effect on the Federal budget.
For the prior two decades, Congress had allowed the District of Columbia to spend under its current local budget for the duration of every continuing resolution. However, the fiscal year 2025 full-year continuing resolution forced D.C. to revert to its fiscal year 2024 local budget.
It did so halfway through the fiscal year. In doing so, the continuing resolution sabotaged the D.C. local budget. There was no time to respond.
On March 28, President Trump called on the House to pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act immediately. Last month, Speaker Johnson said the House had been too busy to act on the District of Columbia Local Funds Act, while it worked on the reconciliation bill. The House somehow found time to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
The House passed the reconciliation bill on May 22. The House has found time this week to take up three bills to overturn the ability of the people of Washington, D.C., to govern themselves. The House is now out of excuses on the District of Columbia Local Funds Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump's electoral mandate includes his promise to the American people that Republicans would resolve the criminal illegal alien crisis across our Nation.
This bill is a necessary step in ensuring our Nation's Capital is an ally, not an opponent, in the fight to end this crisis.
Specifically, H.R. 2056 represents an important step in codifying President Trump's executive order on making the District of Columbia safe and beautiful by directly supporting the directive for enhanced coordination between the Federal Government and law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage each of my colleagues to support this critical legislation sponsored by Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
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.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 499, providing for the House's consideration of H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025.
This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit
Additionally, the rule provides that House Resolution 492 is hereby adopted.
Mr. Speaker, before we get into the substance of the bill today, I would like to clear up any confusion about any remarks I made in the Rules Committee last night.
Let me be crystal clear. I encourage all Members to support the rule before us today. My comments last night were lacking in context. Democrats made the argument throughout the hearing that this process is somehow another vote on H.R. 1. That is false.
The resolution today makes purely technical changes to protect the privilege of the reconciliation bill as it heads to the Senate.
It is not a redo or relitigation of any underlying policy issues in the bill.
Let me repeat: There are no policy decisions included in this engrossment correction.
That is what the Senate is working through, and I look forward to considering H.R. 1 when the bill returns from the other Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain on a positive, forward moving trajectory in delivering upon the American people's mandate from November. Just a few short weeks ago, we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
This week, we are taking up a nearly $10-billion rescissions package, and soon we will be moving into the appropriations process.
Discretionary waste is about to be put through the congressional shredder.
Mr. Speaker, the American people demand that this happens. Now our colleagues across the aisle will leap to their feet and scream bloody murder about how the waste we are targeting simply doesn't exist and how we are laying siege to everything under the Sun.
Au contraire. We have the receipts to back everything up.
Here is just a small sampling of the mind-boggling discretionary waste that we will be slashing in foreign funding:
$158 million from the Lebanon peacekeeping mission which has been fraught with waste and abuse as evidenced by its abject failure to contain Hezbollah;
$3 million for an Iraqi Sesame Street;
$833,000 for services for transgender people, sex workers, and their clients and social networkers in Nepal; and
$500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda.
These examples barely skim the surface, Mr. Speaker, and it is really no wonder why Americans are outraged that their tax dollars are being squandered.
It is the American people's money. A single dollar of taxpayer money wasted is $1 too many in our view.
Then there is NPR. I honestly don't even know where to begin on that one. Even if someone were to accept the premise that we need to finance a public radio outlet, then certainly we can all agree that it simply cannot be NPR any longer. NPR's own CEO testified before Congress that she has never seen any political bias at NPR. I don't know what reality she is living in, but it clearly isn't this one.
Here is the kicker: NPR does harbor political bias. It took a $1.9 million grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints.
There is the proof, and it is a concrete example that NPR's CEO was giving false testimony to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, you either understand that you are biased and need help, apparently in the form of taxpayer grants, or you haven't witnessed any bias. You can't have it both ways.
Then there is PBS. Again, I honestly don't know where to begin. On top of the concrete, statistically proven bias against conservatives, Republicans, and the Trump administration, this is the 21st century. We have Sesame Street now streaming on private services so the taxpayers are now subsidizing for-profit companies. We have seen private celebrities like Ms. Rachel who are engaging in crossover with Sesame Street which, again, leveraged taxpayer dollars to concentrate wealth to private individuals.
It is clear that we must slash this tranche of wasteful spending and continue down a path to fully restore fiscal sanity in our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before we even get to the rescissions, let's be really, really honest about what is going on here. This isn't just a debate about cuts, because in this rule, Republican leadership snuck in a rewrite of their big, ugly bill.
Yes, that is right. A vote on this rule is effectively a revote on their reconciliation package, a do-over. It is a
Now, when they rushed it through in the middle of the night, they included provisions that aren't even allowed under the Senate's reconciliation rules. Moreover, instead of coming clean and holding a straightforward vote on the corrections, they are trying to bury it in this rule for the DOGE rescissions package, hoping that nobody will notice. Think of it like a Trojan Horse, Mr. Speaker.
Let's be clear: The rescissions could be brought to the floor anytime. You heard that right, Mr. Speaker, they could be brought to the floor anytime. They are privileged. Speaker Johnson doesn't need this rule to move them. The only reason these things are being tied together is to trick certain Republicans into voting for a bill that they have already said they regret.
Now, it should be said that Republicans have an opportunity right now to change the bill before it goes to the Senate. Last night, in the Rules Committee, we could have voted to strip out the State artificial intelligence moratorium for the reconciliation bill, or we could have dropped the controversial language on contempt that some Republican Members objected to.
Nonetheless, Republican leadership deliberately decided not to do any of that. They decided that the very stuff their members are concerned about doesn't matter and, instead, are entirely leaving changes up to the Senate, as if we had no power or influence here in this House.
As the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said herself last night during the meeting: ``Any Member who has any regrets about his or her vote on the first bill has the opportunity to vote `no' on the rule tomorrow.''
She didn't recommend a ``no'' vote, but she pointed out the choice that Members have.
I agree with her. Members have a choice here. Those who didn't like this bill have a choice to stop it right here in this House.
So to all of the Republicans who said they regret voting ``yes'' for this reconciliation bill, especially those who complained about how much this will add trillions to the deficit and debt: This is your chance for a redo. This is your chance for a redo. Vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' here to stop this big, ugly bill from moving to the Senate. If Republicans have the courage of their convictions, then they will vote ``no.''
While Republican leadership is busy playing procedural games trying to slip this through, let's talk about what they are attaching this rewrite to.
The Republican rescission package is based on a scam, a con job, and a grift. This is not about actual savings, nor is it about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. This is based on cementing stupid, preposterous, and self-defeating DOGE cuts into law. These are DOGE cuts that, I might add, have already illegally been in place for months when the Trump administration wreaked havoc on our government systems by freezing critical funding.
From day one, DOGE has been one big excuse to reward Trump's wealthy donors, gut public services, and funnel resources away from programs that help ordinary people and into the pockets of the wealthy and well- connected.
Let's not forget: This is the same DOGE review that cut off funding to USDA bird flu experts in the middle of a bird flu outbreak. They sent pink slips to the people who secure our nuclear warheads. They gutted the National Weather Service so badly that right now we might not have enough meteorologists to warn communities about tornadoes and hurricanes.
DOGE was a total, complete failure, and now Republicans want to lock their disastrous cuts into law?
Come on. That is insane. That is crazy.
Mr. Speaker, look at what these cuts are targeting: funding for global health, clean water, food security, and democracy programs; funding for UNICEF and the World Food Program; funding for diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and for world peace, for Christ's sake.
People think our foreign budget is some huge, massive thing. We are talking about something that is 1 percent of our budget. So, please, do not come down here and pretend as if this is a serious attempt to cut funding.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to go after waste and save taxpayer money, then count me in. Count me in. I wish my Republican friends would express some concern about the fact that their President is spending maybe up to $40 million for a parade of military tanks on his birthday.
Really?
We are cutting money to save lives in this rescission package, but $40 million-plus is no big deal, as long as Donald Trump is happy.
We should start with the Pentagon if we are serious about getting after waste, fraud, and abuse. The Pentagon, by the way, has never, ever passed an audit. They have never passed an audit.
Let's look at tax breaks for Big Oil. We can't do that because they write big checks.
Let's go after the loopholes for billionaires. Let's end the corporate giveaways.
No. No. No. Republicans don't want to touch any of those things.
Meanwhile, the cuts in this rescission package hurt America. They weaken our leverage around the world. They pull back critical funding for our allies. They strip away tools we use to prevent conflict and promote stability. These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world.
At a time when China, Russia, and Iran are working overtime to challenge American influence, this bill says: Go right ahead. This is China's dream come true, the U.S. pulling back our soft power from around the world.
This is self-sabotage masquerading as savings, and it is not even a lot of money. These slivers of our Federal budget, these dollars that generate enormous return by keeping people alive and preventing crises before they happen that is what this money does. That is what Republicans are cutting.
This isn't just penny wise and pound foolish, Mr. Speaker. It is like saving money by burning down your house so you don't have to pay for the heat.
I would like to think that America's greatness comes from our humanity. It is clear Republicans believe that America's greatness is found in our inhumanity and in cruelty and callousness. I believe everyone can agree that is a truly dark, dangerous, and morally bankrupt place to govern from.
The American people deserve better than this. They deserve smarter than this. They deserve a government that prioritizes what works, not what flatters the egos of billionaires hopped up on ketamine.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is a disgrace, and the underlying bill is a disgrace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, I need to set the facts straight. Our colleagues keep flip-flopping on their characterization of cuts to wasteful spending and our campaign to get our fiscal house in order.
At one moment our spending cuts are so monumental and draconian that the Earth is going to stand still and people are going to die, as they told us in the Rules Committee. Literally seconds after they said that yesterday, not even minutes later, they tell us that the spending cut is inconsequential, that it is a rounding error, and that it is a drop in the bucket.
Mr. Speaker, which is it?
It has to be one or the other.
The fact that our colleagues keep twisting themselves in knots is simply evidence that they are doing everything in their power to hide the facts about this vote.
At one minute, this $10 billion return on taxpayer dollars is not worth Congress' time. At another minute, they will tell us that these are draconian cuts that they will oppose with every ounce of strength in their bodies.
Give me a break.
Republicans are finally offering taxpayers relief from years of profligate spending from Democrats. Again, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt. It is time to end that spending.
We are ending it in H.R. 1. We are ending it in this package here today, and we won't stop fighting for taxpayers. We can cut spending in little chunks and in big chunks.
In response to Mr. McGovern's obvious assertions, Members always have a choice to vote up or down on legislation, be it a rule, authorization, or appropriation.
The plain text of the rule provides for consideration of this rescissions package and advances H.R. 1 by adopting the engrossment resolution.
Since Democrats seem to have selective memory, let me remind them, and Americans, that during the 117th Congress, very recently, House Democrats deemed 29 items total. Also included in that number is the engrossment correction resolution they deemed in a rule for the American Rescue Plan Act, which included section and paragraph strikes.
In contrast, Republicans in the 118th Congress deemed only two measures. We understand that this is a tool of the majority that should be used only when necessary.
We all know the Democrats opposed H.R. 1. They opposed it weeks ago, and they opposed the engrossment resolution last night on the basis that it advances H.R. 1.
Mr. McGovern is tying himself in knots here. In a ``Dear Colleague'' he circulated, he characterized this rule as repassing H.R. 1, just before he went on to complain that H.R. 1's engrossment is not getting its own vote.
Nothing was added to H.R. 1. Let me repeat, nothing was added to H.R. 1. Every change was technical or simply removed provisions to make sure this big, beautiful bill has its day in the Senate.
Let's remind the American people what the Democrats voted against in H.R. 1. Democrats went on record against tax cuts for families, against tax relief for tips, against tax relief for senior citizens. They went on record against protecting Medicaid by advocating for the enrollment of 1.4 million illegal aliens. They went on record against increasing the quality of life funds for our Nation's military families.
We have a rule before us to protect H.R. 1's process in the Senate and restore fiscal sanity to our Nation, and the American people need and want us to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain this again because I don't know why this is such a tough concept for my Republican colleagues to understand.
Two things can be true. These Republican DOGE cuts can be incredibly cruel, which they are, and at the same time mathematically insignificant compared to the massive trillions of dollars that Republicans are adding to the deficit and the debt because of their reconciliation bill. So two things can be true. I don't think that is that hard for the American people to understand.
Mr. Speaker, as we have made clear time and time again, the big, ugly GOP tax scam is set to add $3 trillion to the deficit, $3 trillion. To be clear, that isn't me saying that. That is the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO.
It isn't just CBO. Every other reputable independent analysis of the bill, including the Joint Committee on Taxation, Yale Budget Lab, and Penn Wharton Budget Model came to the same conclusion. Even the right- leaning Tax Foundation agrees that this bill explodes the deficit, explodes it.
Yet, here we are with Republicans patting themselves on the back over the Trump-DOGE rescission package, a package that in all reality barely makes a dent in the very debt that they ballooned.
Since they want to talk about the debt, let's talk about the debt. I want the American people to take a look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. I want the American people to look at this chart. The red indicates the $3 trillion that Trump's big, ugly bill will add to the deficit. Then we see this tiny, little blue sliver. Thank God, I am wearing my bifocals here. I can barely see it. That little, tiny blue sliver-- again, you might need a magnifying glass to see it--that is the $9.4 billion that the Republicans are trying to save through these rescissions.
To break that down a little bit more, the $3 trillion deficit increase in the GOP tax scam is 320 times bigger than the $9.4 billion that Republicans are trying to rescind through these DOGE cuts.
The real kicker here is that under their GOP tax scam, CBO says that the top 5 percent of earners will get $1.6 trillion in total tax cuts. That is 170 times bigger than the $9.4 billion Republicans want to rescind.
Republicans are cutting $9.4 billion in Federal spending so they can try and justify the trillions and trillions of dollars they plan to add to the debt so they can deliver massive tax cuts to their billionaire friends.
So these rescissions, they are not even a drop in the bucket. They are a drop in the ocean compared to the multitrillion-dollar deficit- busting bill that Republicans are trying to jam through.
Just because the sliver on this chart seems small doesn't mean these Republican rescissions are not harmful. Republicans want to cut $900 million from global health programs, including $400 million for PEPFAR, an overwhelmingly bipartisan program created by President George W. Bush to combat HIV. This program has saved more than 26 million lives over the past 28 years.
That is not fraud, waste, or abuse. That is a big deal. That is something we should be proud of. Not properly funding PEPFAR means people will literally die. That is not hyperbole. It is just the truth. In fact, because DOGE and the Trump administration illegally suspended PEPFAR already earlier this year, tens of thousands of people have already died, including thousands of children. It is despicable. They want to cut $2.5 billion in development assistance that our allies and partners use to build schools, help farmers grow food, fund clean water projects, and combat poverty. They want to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for Ukraine and our allies at the border of Russia. They want to completely eliminate Federal funding for public TV and radio, which are trusted sources of news and educational programming for millions of American households, particularly in rural areas. I don't know what my colleagues have against rural areas, but those areas will be particularly hard hit by those cuts.
It is important to note, once again, that many of these rescissions, especially to foreign aid, have already started to hurt and even kill people. That is because the administration illegally froze USAID programs, which has threatened the lives of millions of people who rely on this funding to prevent or treat disease, afford food, and access to clean water.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record an article by the Associated Press titled: ``Children die as USAID aid cuts snap a lifeline for the world's most malnourished.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Children Die as USAID Aid Cuts Snap a Lifeline for the World's Most
Mr. Speaker, according to the Boston University School of Public Health--and listen to this--more than 50,000 adults and 6,000 infants have died of HIV due to the disruption of PEPFAR. People are already dying. More than 29,000 children have died of malaria, and 25,000 people have died of tuberculosis because the Trump administration froze funding.
Republicans want to rubberstamp the Trump administration's illegal funding freeze into law, and they claim that they are reining in the debt. Well, as we can see, Mr. Speaker, that is a huge load of garbage.
This rescissions package is a moral failure masquerading as fiscal responsibility, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This rescissions package does reduce certain global health accounts by hundreds of millions. Keep in mind that $10 billion has been appropriated for this work in these accounts, making this rescission exact and very targeted.
The Trump administration has communicated it will not reduce funds for treatment in PEPFAR, rather it eliminates programs antithetical to American interests and ones that worsen the lives of women and children. Enacting this rescission will get this funding stream back to its core mission by refocusing it on protecting health and supporting life-sustaining treatment.
What we don't need is the wasteful spending priorities of President Biden now exposed by the Trump administration: $500,000 for a Lesbian Justice Foundation in Canada; $9.3 million to the John Snow Research and Training Institute to advise Russian doctors on how to perform abortions and gender analysis; $800,000 for transgender people, sex workers and their clients and sexual networks in Nepal; $7.4 million for a One Health Workforce project whose curriculum includes teaching practitioners about environmental racism and the importance of DEI.
This spending, guised under the terms ``equity, reproductive health, and family planning,'' stray far from the mission of sustaining life and serve no benefit to the populations they are intended to help.
These are wasteful programs financed by the American taxpayer, funded by deficit spending; but no longer. This money is better off returned to the Treasury, and PEPFAR's integrity is now being restored.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Foxx for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025, a bill that finally codifies the spending cuts identified by the Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known as DOGE.
The American people are getting a front row seat to one party who is perfectly content to bankrupt this country, one party. We will get no votes on this rescission package, none from the Democratic Party.
They had their time. When their President, who was cognitively, let's just say, deficient, where were the cuts? None. They didn't say anything. They didn't stand up for the American people. They were silent.
Where were our good friends with the 15 to 20 million illegals coming into this country, with the drugs flowing in, with the children that were trafficked? Where were they? They were quiet. They didn't say a thing. Mr. Speaker, it is anti-American.
This package is not about tightening belts. It is about cutting loose the dead weight.
As Congresswoman Foxx just mentioned a few things, let me mention a few things that Democrats will spend Americans' money on:
$3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street; $6 million for NetZeroCities in Mexico--NetZeroCities in Mexico, what is that? Mr. Speaker, Democrats will spend $158 million for Lebanon peacekeeping operations which fail to contain Hezbollah; $135 million for the World Health Organization controlled by China. This is what Democrats are for. This is how they are wanting to spend your money.
With $38 trillion in debt, they will keep on spending and spending on their pet projects. President Trump is calling an end to it.
Mr. Speaker, of this, we are talking about $9.4 billion in rescissions, funds that should never have been appropriated in the first place. This includes $8.3 billion from foreign aid programs--some which I just read--$1.1 billion from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize a leftwing media operation like NPR and PBS. These cuts are more than symbolic. Mr. Speaker, they are structural. They target woke U.N. handouts, failing to keep the peacekeeping efforts, and Biden's DEI and climate propaganda campaigns masquerading as humanitarian aid.
Let me be clear. This does not cut defense. This does not cut Social Security. This does not cut Medicare. This is about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse and very firmly putting America first, which they are not doing.
If we don't codify these cuts, they will be reversed quietly over time with no vote from this Chamber.
This rescissions package is the lockbox. It makes the DOGE cuts permanent. It ensures the victories that we don't want to get washed away in the next budget cycle. This is our chance to turn--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, this is about freedom. This is about maintaining America as we have known it in the past. This is about returning the American people to some fiscal sanity, which my friends on the left will not do and never have done, particularly in the last 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't even know where to begin after that. The gentleman talked about $100,000 here and $1 million there but not a word about the $3 trillion added to the deficit because of the big, ugly bill that he and Republicans voted for and supported. There was not a word about all that is going to be added to the debt.
Maybe the gentleman forgot this, but I am looking at a FOX News story here when the gentleman referred to the $9.4 billion as a teardrop in the ocean when he was interviewed. I don't know what happened, but somehow the gentleman couldn't bring himself to talk about the $3 trillion that Republicans are adding to the debt.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up amendment No. 1 to H.R. 4 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman), which would block Republicans from zeroing out Federal funding that Congress has already appropriated for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Public TV and radio are trusted sources of news and educational programming for millions of households across America and are particularly important in rural areas, where public stations are often the only source of local news.
This is a $1.1 billion cut, Mr. Speaker. Let's compare that to the big, ugly Republican reconciliation bill, which adds $3 trillion to the deficit and--get this--includes a provision that Republicans have been bragging about that removes a tax on gun silencers, which has been on the books for a century.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the JCT, this new tax break on silencers alone will increase our Nation's deficit by $1.5 billion. That is more than the $1.1 billion Republicans are ``saving'' by eliminating all funding for public TV and radio.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the American people and my Republican colleagues: Is this whole tradeoff worth it? Public broadcasting in exchange for cheaper gun silencers? I mean, really? Unless you are an assassin or a hit man, I hope the answer is a resounding ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on my amendment to President Trump's reckless and stunningly shortsighted rescissions package, which would, among other harmful cuts, entirely eliminate Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear. This is not cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. This isn't trimming around the edges. This isn't the teardrop in an ocean. This is all Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is PBS, NPR, and local public television and radio.
This is not just an attack, though, on PBS and NPR, as so many of my Republican colleagues have said. The majority knows full well that more than 70 percent of this cut will be felt by the local radio and television stations in their own communities and across the country.
These stations use federally funded CPB radio towers and infrastructure to disseminate lifesaving emergency alerts. They don't just inform rural Americans and serve news deserts to discuss local news, which, of course, they do, and they are often the only source of educational programming for children around the country, but they are also essential for disaster response and emergency preparedness.
There are 20 States that list NPR in their emergency response plans. This infrastructure is essential for emergency alerts, geotargeted text messages, and first responder communications. My colleagues know all of this. The Republicans know how devastating this defunding will be.
Even Chairman Aderholt acknowledged yesterday in the Committee on Rules that these cuts will harm his State's public broadcasting networks and that he would like to work on it with Democrats. The gentleman's chance is right now, on the previous question, which, if my colleagues vote ``no,'' we can work together on funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about actual funding. This is caving to Donald Trump's thin skin and his inability to deal with facts rather than to stand up for local stations, local communities, and the First Amendment, which specifically prevents Congress from abridging the freedom of the press.
To every Republican listening, this is yet another chance to oppose Donald Trump's attack on any objective form of accountability and to do what is best for your constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to choose their constituents over Donald Trump.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 mandates that all public broadcasting programs must demonstrate strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs. There is a myriad of statistical studies that prove they are not.
NPR banned coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming it was a mere diversion. PBS made 162 references to ``far right'' versus only 6 references to ``far left.'' Perhaps most damning for NPR is the fact that it had to utilize a $1.9 million Federal grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints last year.
The problem with the Public Broadcasting Act is that it lacks an enforcement mechanism, so we will go with our constitutional prerogatives here to enforce the law. That starts with this rescission of funding.
PBS and NPR will continue to pivot their response to this cut back and forth, as they have for some time. They tell us that their taxpayer-funded gift is just a drop in the bucket, not worth our attention. Nothing to see here. Yet, when we want to hold them accountable, it is the end of the world.
They will weaponize their content against congressional Republicans. They will hire lobbyists. They will buy ads. In fact, they have. They can continue to do that, but thankfully, it won't be subsidized by the taxpayer any longer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman, my friend from North Carolina, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I rise in support of the rule.
For the American people watching back home, we are here because, on June 3, the House of Representatives received a rescissions request from the White House to eliminate $9 billion in unobligated spending. Let's just say there is much more to go. This is step one.
Under the Impoundment Control Act, once a request is received, Congress has
Just look at what we have been funding with taxpayer dollars: $6 million for net-zero cities in Mexico; $5.1 million for programs to strengthen the resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer--good grief--global movements; $1.5 million to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces; $2 million for Moroccan pottery classes; $2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala; $33,000 for being LGBTI--I can't even keep up with this stuff; $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt; $32,000 for transgender comic books in Peru; and $1 million to help disabled people in Tajikistan become climate leaders.
Is that what Democrats think their taxpayer dollars should go toward? I can promise the minority that the people I represent think that this is absolute garbage.
How on Earth can my Democratic friends possibly defend that? My friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others that I didn't even list, somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble.
Let's just reject this now. The White House is right to send up this rescissions package. This should be just step one. There should be numerous other steps.
We should rescind billions upon billions of dollars of wasteful spending that is destroying our country through inflation and increasing the size and scope of government, undermining the safety and security of the American people.
How about the $160 million we can save by not giving more money to UNRWA, the organization whose own employees participated in Hamas' slaughter of Israeli citizens on October 7, which we now know to be verifiably and completely true?
Why would we continue to shovel money to an organization that is funding terrorism against our allies and against our American citizens? Yet, that is precisely what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would wish us to continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, let's address the One Big Beautiful Bill Act issue. My friends on the other side of the aisle are raising the prospect of $3 trillion of additional deficits. I have been very open in my belief that this bill should be better, that we should cut more spending and be more mindful of reducing the size of government to get deficits down much further than we are seeing in this bill.
To be very clear--and we had this debate in the Committee on Rules-- what my friends on the other side of the aisle are forgetting and not putting forward here in this debate, when they say $3 trillion of additional deficits, is what you believe the growth rate will be if you adopt policies that will actually increase economic growth. That is putting more money into the pockets of the American people and deregulating so that businesses can create wealth.
We assumed 2.6 percent economic growth. That is higher than the CBO's expectation of 1.8 but lower than the historic growth of 3.2 percent.
We hit the sweet spot. We believe that if you get that growth, you will have deficit neutrality on this bill so that you will end up creating wealth, creating jobs, putting more money into people's pockets, and trying to deliver on the spending cuts, reversal and termination of the green new scam, and the application of Medicaid work requirements to make sure that people aren't getting benefits when they should be working.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a good bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a good bill, and I will say it again: I think the bill can get better. I think the Senate should improve it. I think that we should find more savings, but to say to the American people that it is creating deficits, ignoring economic growth, is just simply not true.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, wow, that is something.
We were trying to keep up with the gentleman as he was ticking off all the initiatives that he doesn't like, and we were looking at these accounts. I think they all added up to $23.5 million. I don't know about some of the programs that the gentleman talked about. I am happy to look into them.
He came up with $23.5 million in programs that he doesn't like. I just want my friends to understand that that is half of what Donald Trump is going to spend on his 1-day parade on Saturday. That is half. I mean, give me a break.
Then, the gentleman said that the CBO doesn't assume a growth rate. Not only did the CBO take into account the growth rate, but so did every other think tank that did a budget analysis on the great big, ugly bill that Republicans passed.
I should also say to the gentleman and to the gentlewoman that many of these programs have already been halted illegally by the Trump administration.
Just for the record, it is estimated that over 107,000 adults have died as a result of the denial of funds, along with over 224,000 children.
I am ashamed that our government has pulled funding for programs that save people's lives. Maybe my friends think that is fraud, waste, and abuse. I don't.
People are already dying. People are already dying because the Trump administration has illegally halted funding from many of these programs, just withholding the money from USAID. I am happy to share with them the statistics.
Mr. Speaker, I also point out for my colleagues that the big, ugly way in which Republicans have advanced this big, ugly bill is just the tip of the iceberg.
Last Congress, the Republican majority presided over the most unproductive, dysfunctional Congress in modern American history. What an achievement. I know they are all proud.
Republicans shattered their own record by issuing 115 closed rules, meaning 115 times when the House could not debate a single amendment on the House floor.
Did they learn anything from being the most unproductive Congress in the history? Of course they didn't.
In just 5 months, the Republicans have racked up over 50 closed rules. More than 90 percent of the bills they bring up have no amendments, no discussion, no input. It is just take or leave it.
What are we even doing here? Republican leadership has blocked over 800 amendments, and we have yet to see a single bipartisan amendment make it to the House floor this year, not even one.
Only 14 amendments have been selected by Republican leadership to be debated across just four bills. That is a 98 percent rejection rate. They block 98 out of 100 ideas they receive.
Mr. Aderholt, who was testifying before the Rules Committee said: Oh, this rescissions bill gives us an opportunity to vote up or down on whether we want to support public broadcasting. The bottom line is, no, it doesn't because we are not having separate votes. You have to take the whole package or leave it. We can't even vote on the individual cuts that are being made a part of this rescissions package.
Republicans have blocked debate on amendments that would help States protect against deadly wildfires and post-disaster recovery. They blocked amendments that would support new mothers and infants impacted by substance use. They blocked amendments to protect SNAP and Medicaid for millions of Americans.
Really?
It is no wonder why no one likes Congress. Republicans are happy to debate trivial issues passionately but important ones not at all.
Mr. Speaker, here is the kicker: At this point in our majority, Democrats gave Republicans more chances to debate their ideas than their own leaders do.
In 5 months, only 6 of the 220 Republicans in this Chamber have had amendments made in order. I mean, that means over 97 percent of Republicans have not had a single amendment debated.
Are my Republican colleagues proud of being excluded from the legislative process?
Mr. Speaker, I say, again, to the gentleman from Texas who just spoke, I am sorry. Don't lecture us about deficits when you voted for a bill that added $3 trillion to the deficit.
It is shameful. The so-called budget hawks around here talk a tough game, and then they cave. We did have a debate in the Rules Committee about this last night, but the gentleman was absent.
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy) explained very well why we are not voting to increase the deficit by $3 trillion. We all know that that is coming from the fact that we are extending tax cuts that were passed in 2017.
By the way, if we go back and look at the Record at all the scare tactics and all the Armageddon comments that were made when we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, we heard the same things. None of those things happened. In fact, we had a booming economy. I don't think the same scare tactics are going to work again.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Every major organization that does budget analysis says that they are going to add trillions to the debt. The only people who don't are the gentlewoman from North Carolina. I am sorry. I didn't know that you do independent budget analyses, but every other one does.
There is one Republican in this House who is not afraid of Mr. Trump and that is Mr. Massie.
Let me read a couple of tweets that he posted. He writes: ``Why didn't Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act make tax cuts permanent?
``Because the impact of the tax cuts on debt after 2025 was understood by them to be too great. Now they're employing new math to claim that renewing the tax cuts, without cutting spending, won't impact debt.''
He writes: ``Hidden inside of a resolution we will vote on today to bring rescissions to the floor is an order to pass H. Res. 492 without a vote. H. Res. 492 changes the text of the BBB after it already passed the House. Sneaky.''
Can we at least be honest about what is happening here?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this harmful, shameful, and offensive rescission package.
The GOP is canceling $9.4 billion, yes, billion, in funding for programs that fund lifesaving work across the world. It is funding for public television and public radio, for agriculture and research jobs, in my own district, and to codify the DOGE cuts that two-thirds of Americans oppose. Our own President asked his other Cabinet members, just 2 weeks ago, if they were just total bullshit. That is a quote of the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell Members of this Chamber to vote ``no'' on this rescission package.
Transmitted by the director of the Office of Management and Budget and architect of Project 2025, Russell Vought: This package would make permanent cuts to USAID and the State Department which was put into motion illegally. They knew it because they were impounding funds. They essentially admitted that in the rescissions package because they said it was pursuant to the Budget Control Act. They knew that what they were doing was illegal.
Now, 5, 6 months later, they have transmitted this package to cut $8 billion in programs that saves the lives of children across the world, that would gut U.N. programs that would save thousands of lives, and gut public broadcasting.
This is a full-scale attack on our international system, global peace and security, the health and welfare of millions of children across the world and on public television. We will fight back every step of the way.
Mr. Speaker, not only am I a ``no,'' I am a ``hell, no'' on this package.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from using vulgarities in the House Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are the most generous and caring people in the world. We have set up lots of programs to save the lives of people across this country and across the world, and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing here is not going to cause people to be dying if the money is spent the way Congress intends for it to be spent.
Now, as my Democrat colleagues are well aware, reconciliation bills are different from other types of legislation and are prohibited from including provisions deemed as extraneous in the Senate.
What we are doing here in terms of the engrossment resolution for H.R. 1 is we are striking a few provisions in the bill that Senate Parliamentarians concluded would jeopardize the privileged status of the bill in the Senate.
The House is taking all necessary steps to enable the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to be considered expeditiously in the Senate and sent to President Trump's desk under the reconciliation process, which is what this engrossment resolution does.
Mr. Speaker, I will also remind the ranking member and my Democrat colleagues that when they were last in the majority, they also utilized an engrossment resolution to strike extraneous provisions from their American Rescue Plan in 2021.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with the reconciliation bill and with the rescission bill is, we are doing everything we can to get our country back in fiscal shape. That is more important to the people in this world than any individual program is. It is important that the United States remain the greatest country in the world and that we reduce our debt and deficit. That is the focus of Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk today about tightening belts and making tough choices. This bill doesn't make tough choices. It makes stupid choices.
These rescissions would gut PEPFAR, a program that saved millions of lives by preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS. It would slash funding for malaria prevention, for maternal and child health, for clean water, and for food assistance.
These programs are not giveaways. This money isn't a handout. These are smart, strategic investments that make Americans safer and save this government money down the road. Every dollar we spend on global health, on diplomacy, on humanitarian aid can save $10, $100, even $1,000 later by preventing conflict, disease outbreaks, refugee crises, and wars.
This bill eliminates those smart investments. It strips away those tools. It tells the world at a time when it is desperate for American leadership that we are walking away. It will let China, Russia, and Iran fill the power vacuum that we leave behind, and for what?
All so Republicans can say they cut spending while they protect billions in tax breaks for Big Oil and billionaire donors.
Let's be clear: This bill isn't serious about fiscal responsibility. If it were, there would be a rescissions package for the Pentagon. We would be debating clawbacks for defense contractors who charge $10,000 for a toilet seat. We would be looking at whether Elon Musk's companies should be getting massive government subsidies, but no.
The party of billionaires would rather defund ``Sesame Street.'' They would rather go after Elmo, and they would rather go after programs that help save lives.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is about Trump's military parade, too. The Army estimates it can cost between $25 to $40 million.
Let's do the math. We are going to kill disaster relief, gut UNICEF, and stop investing in global AIDS prevention. Yet we are fine with Donald Trump throwing himself a birthday party with tanks and missiles in the streets like it is North Korea.
What the hell are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? This is why people don't trust
Let's audit the Pentagon. Let's go after corporate welfare and Big Oil handouts. Let's close the loopholes that let billionaires pay zero in taxes. But let's not pretend this bill is about any of that.
This bill is a fraud and a con job. America deserves better. The world needs better. This is a revote on the reconciliation bill.
Vote ``no'' if you are against gutting Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear: The American people gave Republicans a mandate to restore fiscal sanity. This rescissions package is part of achieving that end.
Republicans are cleaning up the ruin that the Biden-Harris administration left this country in. We are taking a fiscal scalpel to waste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment To H. Res. 499 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
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 adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, nays 204, not voting 18, as follows:
Mses. BROWN and TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, due to family matters, I was unable to vote today on H. Res. 499. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll Call No. 164 and NO on Roll Call No. 165.
Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent and missed the following votes on the House Floor. Had I been present, I would have voted accordingly: NO on Roll Call No. 164, Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 499; and NO on Roll Call No. 165, H. Res. 499.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the exceptional artistic talent of Emma Zacherl, a sophomore at Clarion-Limestone High School and this year's winner of the Congressional Art Competition for Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District.
Since its inception in 1982, the Congressional Art Competition has offered a platform for young artists across the country to showcase their creativity.
More than 650,000 students have participated nationwide, and I am proud to say that this year's winning entry from our district is a stunning example of that legacy.
Emma's piece, ``Waiting,'' a painting created using water-mixable oils, will soon hang in the U.S. Capitol along with winning entries from across the country.
For an entire year, thousands of visitors, guests, and Members of Congress will have the opportunity to view her artwork.
This marks Emma's second time taking first place in our district's competition, an incredible achievement that speaks volumes about her talent, vision, and dedication to her craft.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to welcome her to Washington, D.C., and look forward to all she will accomplish in the years ahead.
Congratulations to Emma and to all the students who participated in this year's competition.
Mr. Speaker, as prices rise and our economy stalls, this week, House Republicans are pushing a cruel and a senseless plan to cancel $9.8 billion in funding that Congress already passed into law. The rescissions package enacts the extreme and out-of-touch agenda that includes DOGE slashing support, reducing support for AIDS prevention, reproductive health, and even public broadcasting.
As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am particularly disturbed by the $8.3 billion in cuts to foreign assistance targeting programs that help the most vulnerable people across the world. These cuts include a $9 million cut to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has saved over 26 million lives. Additionally, cuts at home include gutting $1.1 billion from PBS and NPR, silencing trusted voices and educational content like Sesame Street.
These cuts are being celebrated as savings at the same time that the majority is pushing their big, ugly bill that will add at least $3 trillion to our national debt.
It is clear this isn't about savings. It is about pushing a harmful ideology on the U.S. and the rest of the world. I will not support it.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and congratulate the outstanding Whitehorse High School team from Montezuma Creek, Utah, for achieving national distinction in the Capitol Hill Challenge.
Out of hundreds of teams from across the country, this remarkable group finished in the top ten. This is a truly impressive accomplishment that speaks to their academic excellence and their strong grasp of financial markets, economics, and civic engagement. These students demonstrated exceptional teamwork, discipline, and a genuine passion for learning throughout the competition.
The team members who I met today, along with their teacher, are Hope, JaSea, Gabrielle, Nateo, and Kalvin, and they excelled under the leadership of their dedicated teacher, Mr. Gosney. Their success is a testament to both their individual talents and the support and guidance that they received.
I am immensely proud to have such bright and committed leaders representing Utah's Third District. Their achievement reflects the strength, resilience, and character of our community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Trump's rescission package, which includes an unfathomable $8.2 billion cut to USAID funding.
My home State of North Carolina is the fourth largest recipient of USAID funding, which invests roughly $194 million into our State economy. Gutting this support threatens local jobs, weakens our research institutions, and undermines the economic stability of communities across my State.
In my district alone, the damaging effects of the administration's cuts to USAID are already being felt. Thousands of talented professionals have lost their jobs, and vital partnerships with our local universities have been terminated.
These devastating cuts are not only costing people their livelihoods here at home but are also putting lives at risk around the world.
USAID is a cornerstone of our national security, advancing global health, powering research across the country, and reinforcing America's leadership on the world stage.
Slashing this funding will be disastrous for our allies, destabilize vulnerable regions, and hurt communities. We cannot stand for it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to commemorate the 127th anniversary of Philippine's independence and to honor the remarkable resilience and spirit of the Filipino people.
On June 12, 1898, the Philippines declared independence, breaking free from centuries of colonial rule. Like Guam, the Philippines displayed extraordinary strength and unity during World War II under occupation.
The Filipino community has long been a cornerstone of our island. They are educators, healthcare professionals, businessowners, and servicemembers. More importantly, they are our neighbors, friends, and family.
Mr. Speaker, Philippine independence celebrates not just the past but the people who continue to carry its legacy of freedom, unity, and cultural pride forward.
That is why today I introduced a resolution with Representative Bobby Scott to officially recognize June 12, 2025, as this year's observance of Philippines Independence Day.
I thank the Filipino community in Guam, across our Nation, and around the world for your countless contributions and lasting impact.
``Hoorah to the Philippines''; ``Mabuhay Pilipinas.''
Mr. Speaker, my father was a physician. One of the main things he was taught in medical school--and I think it is part of the Hippocratic oath--is do no harm.
Our budgets are doing a great deal of harm to our healthcare system.
The Association of Medical Colleges came out with a statement yesterday that our healthcare is in existential crisis because of the cuts to research and the cuts to graduate medical education; that our medical schools will suffer; and the number of doctors that are produced will suffer. That is not even to mention the problems immediately to people from taking away their Medicaid, taking away their ACA, and taking away that healthcare.
Do no harm. This bill is a big, deadly bill. People will die because of it because we are not putting money in the
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rachel Kinsaul who was recognized by the Georgia Department of Education as the Georgia Teacher of the Year for 2026.
She led an exceptional career in the Morgan County school system as a teacher of agricultural science, extending her involvement beyond the academic setting. Rachel serves as the chapter adviser to the Future Farmers of America organization and the president of the Morgan County Farm Bureau.
She continues to help inspire students to create their own philanthropic projects, developing future community leaders. Her efforts focus on fostering leadership, collaboration, and a sense of community in the young minds she educates.
As an alumna of the University of Georgia--Go Dogs--she has received several accolades, including the Outstanding Alumnus Award from the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and recognition as the 2025 Milken Educator of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Rachel on her well-deserved recognition as Georgia Teacher of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, this week, my office received our 100,000th message from the people of Oregon's Third District.
This is incredible. On an average day, I receive more than 650 messages, and that is just since being sworn in. We have got a lot to go.
Here is what I am hearing:
People in Portland are fearful. They fear for their children and their neighbors.
People in Rhododendron want to see courageous leadership that understands the needs of working families.
People in Gresham are working hard and are barely making ends meet. They want to know their families will be able to thrive.
People throughout Oregon's Third District want immigrant neighbors to feel safe, housing to be affordable, the climate to be protected, schools to be funded, and to have universal healthcare that they can access.
These messages aren't just correspondence. They are marching orders.
I thank every Oregonian who has written. Keep the emails coming.
Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weekends, I have attended two events of the Hmong Americans who populate Wisconsin. Wisconsin has the third highest Hmong population in the country.
I always love to talk about the Hmong because they came here not knowing a word of English, or many of them did not know a word of English. Nevertheless, they have largely succeeded.
I like to have conversations with somebody maybe in their sixties or seventies, and I ask them how many children they have. Then, I ask them how many grandchildren they have, how many brothers and sisters they have, and how many nieces and nephews they have.
The Hmong came here with big families, like recent immigrants frequently do, so they might be here with 40 or 50 children or grandchildren plus nieces and nephews. Then, I ask them how they are doing.
How many of all of these children did not graduate from high school? None.
How many of these 40 grandchildren or nieces or nephews had any problems with the law? None.
How many of the young gals got pregnant out of wedlock? None.
They all seem to be succeeding, despite the fact that they came here with all of these supposed disadvantages.
I would like to, one more time, salute the Hmong, who prove that anybody who comes here and works hard can succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of one of this body's greatest Members, the late Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York.
There are few men anywhere who have made as large a mark on their community and their government as Charlie Rangel.
Charlie Rangel led an extraordinary life. He was a decorated Korean war veteran, one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, and the first Black American chairman of the storied Committee on Ways and Means.
In his beloved community of Harlem, Charlie was a revered, legendary figure. He was loved by his constituents. He carved paths that others followed for decades. He was also an incredible dresser.
In the long history of the U.S. House of Representatives, over 11,000 men and women have served in this Chamber. Of them, just nine served longer than Charlie Rangel.
Mr. Speaker, Charlie Rangel's death has hit our community particularly hard, as his son-in-law Howard is the longtime leader of Eva's Village, which is a vital resource for our neighbors in the city of Paterson in my district.
Last year, I had the pleasure of sitting with Congressman Rangel at a reception. Even at 94, he was full of energy, anecdotes, and stories, and he remained a sharp dresser.
I send my condolences to Howard; his wife, Alicia Rangel Haughton; Steven Rangel; and Charlie Rangel's family.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the HALT Fentanyl Act when it comes to the floor tomorrow.
For the past 5 years, I have engaged with law enforcement, public health experts, and colleagues across the aisle to ensure the scheduling of fentanyl analogues doesn't lapse and is finally made permanent.
Permanent scheduling will ensure that law enforcement retains important tools they need to tackle the opioid crisis and hold traffickers accountable. These are tools that have helped drive down drug-related deaths in New Hampshire to the lowest levels in 10 years.
This is thanks to New Hampshire's all-hands-on-deck approach, pairing enforcement with treatment to bring down both the supply of opioids reaching our communities as well as the demand for them.
There is still work to be done, including getting this bill across the finish line and restoring vital funding that was cut by the current administration for treatment and recovery.
I will continue fighting to ensure that our communities have the support that they need to save lives and confront addiction head-on.
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to congratulate my constituent of the week, Dr. Janet Gullickson, as she retires from her post as president of Germanna Community College.
In 2017, Dr. Gullickson became the first woman to serve as president in the history of the college. Throughout her tenure, Germanna has been praised for its quality education and professional development opportunities.
From helping nursing students access experiential learning through their work with Mary Washington Healthcare to ensuring that Germanna remains on the cutting edge by becoming the first institution of higher learning to receive Amazon Web Services' mobile classroom, Dr. Gullickson has dedicated her presidency to ensuring that her students are set up for success in the classroom and beyond.
I also recognize Dr. Janet Gullickson as a great military mom. She raised a great soldier and military lawyer and my former captain. I wish her well on her next chapter.
Mr. Speaker, those are the lyrics to the song ``Ohio,'' written after the National Guard was deployed at Kent State University, killing four students and wounding nine others.
As a bright-eyed 17-year-old, I started college at Kent State University. I lived in Prentice Hall. In the parking lot lies a memorial where each student who was killed by the Ohio National Guard died. It is still there, and it serves as a reminder to all who pass by of what happens when you deploy the military against its own citizens.
The lives of Allison Krause, William Schroeder, Jeffrey Miller, and Sandra Scheuer were cut too short but should not be in vain because we know the consequences of what happens when the National Guard is deployed against its citizens: tragedy, four dead in Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Jonathan Ford Orser.
Jonathan was a devoted family man, public servant, community pillar, and proud son of northwestern Ohio.
Born into the Ford family, whose vision helped build northwestern Ohio's glass manufacturing legacy, John Orser lived a life shaped by service to his family, his country, his city, and his neighbors.
From his time in the U.S. Marine Corps, which he didn't have to do, to his diplomatic service in Africa and his amazing leadership as mayor of Perrysburg, Ohio, John never ceased working for the greater good.
By launching the Perrysburg Farmers Market, he brought new life to his hometown of historic Perrysburg, Ohio. He nurtured the arts as a generous benefactor of Toledo Symphony and its zoo and preserved the history for future generations to come. He was unselfish.
His legacy includes more than buildings or institutions. His lasting legacy lives on in the lives of people and communities he inspired time and time again.
John's deep commitment to civic duty, his boundless generosity, and his reverence for tradition marked every chapter of his productive 83 years.
We offer our deepest condolences to his beloved wife and first mate, Deborah, who walked in life with him every step of the way.
May she and his enormous extended family, numerous friends, and all who cherish his memory be blessed with gratitude and the memory of a generous, kind, and patriotic American who left his community and America a better place.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the obituary of Jonathan Orser.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
Mr. Speaker, in 2017, the United States ranked 14th in the world for solar panel manufacturing. Today, we are third.
This happened in large part due to Congress providing long-term certainty for tax incentives to both produce and deploy American-made energy technologies.
Clearly, this strategy was working, but the Republicans' big, ugly tax scam is putting hundreds of thousands of American energy jobs at risk.
The uncertainty caused by this process has already resulted in over 62,000 jobs being lost or threatened. Repealing these tax credits won't stop people around the world from driving EVs or using solar, but it all but guarantees they will be using Chinese technologies.
If China is the big winner, American consumers are the big losers. If these credits are functionally repealed, the average American could see their utility bills rise by hundreds of dollars per year.
This is a lose-lose. It is bad for people's wallets. It is bad for building a strong, competitive economy. It sells out current and future generations to fund tax cuts for billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to reject this disgusting abomination.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert Jones, the chancellor of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who is stepping down to take on a new role as president of the University of Washington.
I also congratulate Dr. Charles Lee Isbell, Jr., who has been appointed as the new chancellor.
As a proud alumna of the University of Illinois, I have sincerely enjoyed working with Chancellor Jones during my time in Congress.
A crop physiologist by trade, Chancellor Jones made history in 2016 when he became UIUC's first Black chancellor.
Throughout his tenure, Chancellor Jones helped launch a new program to provide free tuition to low-income students, oversaw the start of the Carle Illinois College of Medicine, and grew the university's profile as one of America's top research institutions.
He has partnered with the JJK Foundation in east St. Louis on their new Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition Innovation Center.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chancellor Jones for his dedicated leadership. I wish him all the best.
Republicans Are Attempting to Take Back Appropriated Funds
Mr. Speaker, this week, the majority is attempting to take back appropriated funds for important core initiatives like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and humanitarian foreign aid.
This is a terrible decision, one that undermines our national security, our global health, and our kids' cognitive and emotional development.
Let's be clear: Foreign aid is not a handout. It is a strategic investment that helps secure U.S. interests, prevent unrest, and combat disease and famine. Moreover, most of my career focused on children's online safety and digital learning. For rural communities like those in western Maryland that I represent, PBS provides trusted news and educational programming free of charge.
Our neediest families often lack access to broadband and can't afford the charges. They simply are not able to stream Netflix.
Instead, they rely on shows like ``Mister Rogers' Neighborhood'' and ``Sesame Street'' to teach their kids about the world and how to read.
Draconian budget cuts, like the rescission package, cut programs that strengthen our communities, our national security, and take critical learning resources from our kids. American families deserve more.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the 20th time to demand that the Trump administration restore funding for lifesaving food aid around the world.
Now, today, I will talk about promises. Since the Trump administration paused funding for emergency food aid through USAID 5 months ago, we have heard a lot of promises. Elon Musk tweeted that emergency food aid would be restored. He even mentioned the name of a factory in my district, Edesia, that makes Plumpy'Nut, a type of emergency food aid.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio multiple times has said that emergency food aid will be restored. He said it in his confirmation hearing. He said it just a few weeks ago in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee when asked by my colleague from Rhode Island, Representative Amo.
Just yesterday, the State Department told FOX News that they have a plan to restore this funding.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 5 months and every day that goes by is another day that children around the world are going hungry and starving to death because this aid has been held up. I will continue to speak on this House floor every day until the administration honors its commitment to restore this aid.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 24 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 12, 2025, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
