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.
27 public bills, H.R. 7167- 7193; 1 private bill, H.R. 7194; and 3 resolutions, H.J. Res. 141; and H. Res. 1012-1013 were introduced.
Pages H1170-72
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 6502, to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of Education to develop requirements for institutions of higher education on formatting financial aid offer forms, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-460); and H.R. 6498, to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to increase transparency in college tuition for consumers, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-461).
Page H1170
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Newhouse to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1125
Recess
The House recessed at 10:38 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H1130
Recess
The House recessed at 1:09 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Page H1138
Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act
The House passed H.R. 6945, to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to clarify the authority of States to use funds for pregnancy centers, by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 209 nays, Roll No. 37.
Pages H1139-47, H1155-56
Rejected the Moore (WI) motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means by a yea-and-nay vote of 209 yeas to 213 nays, Roll No. 36.
Pages H1147, H1155-56
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-17 shall be considered as adopted.
Page H1139
H. Res. 1009, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 6945), (H.R. 6359) and the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 213 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 35, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 34.
Pages H1131-39
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN: The House passed H.J. Res. 140, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, by a yea-and-nay vote of 214 yeas to 208 nays, Roll No. 38.
Pages H1147-55, H1156-57
H. Res. 1009, the rule providing for consideration of (H.R. 6945), (H.R. 6359) and the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 213 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 35, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 34.
Pages H1131-39
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, January 22nd.
Page H1157
Order of Business
Agreed by unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 68 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast, Representative Meeks, and Representative McGovern, or their respective designees.
Page H1157
Discharge Petition
Representative Morelle presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 982) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6039) to advance commonsense priorities (Discharge Petition No. 14). Quorum Calls--Votes: Four yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H1138, H1139, H1155-56, H1156, and H1156-57. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:51 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: 157 of 227 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 6, 2026, 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 Bruce Dart, who closed his photography studio after more than 40 years.
Bruce is a native of Mansfield, Pennsylvania, earned a bachelor of arts degree from Mansfield State College, and later served in the Navy.
During his time in the Navy, Bruce was trained as a journalist and took courses focused on broadcast journalism and photography, sparking his interest in the industry.
Following his tenure in the Navy, Bruce worked for a newspaper in Connecticut and later returned to Pennsylvania and worked for the Williamsport Sun-Gazette as a photographer. In 1973, Bruce accepted a position as assistant director of public relations at Mansfield State University and left after 6 years to fully pursue a career as a freelance photographer.
Bruce studied for more than 10 years at the Triangle Institute of Professional Photography in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and attended New York State's photography workshop, crediting this to his extensive experience.
Bruce is a member of various photography associations and has won multiple awards over his 40-year career. In 1986, Bruce earned the Certified Professional Photographer competency and has held this achievement for more than 30 years, a testament to Bruce's expertise and technical proficiency within the industry.
Bruce served on the board of directors of the Northeast Pennsylvania Professional Photographers Association, and he is the only photographer to be awarded the organization's Photographer of the Year Award five times. Additionally, some of Bruce's photographs have been published by the Associated Press.
Aside from photography, Bruce has been an active member of the community. He was president of the Greater Mansfield Area Chamber of Commerce and served on the Mansfield Borough Council for over 20 years. Bruce is also an active member of the Austin Cox American Legion Post and VFW Post 6757.
Bruce has been pivotal in capturing key moments throughout the Mansfield area but also moments in people's lives.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Bruce for his service to the community, capturing important moments throughout the years. Bruce has been a great leader in the photography community, but also a great mentor to many aspiring photographers. I wish Bruce all the best.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Wayne Barth, a physical trainer at Union General Hospital, who has been named one of the 2025 Hospital Hero Award recipients by the Georgia Hospital Association. This prestigious award recognizes the amazing hospital workers in our State for their longtime service in healthcare.
Mr. Barth serves as director of rehabilitation services, where his team is committed to delivering quality care
Mr. Barth has provided extensive care for disorders that affect speech, function, movement, and swallowing. His specialization lies in restoring mobility in patients, reducing pain, rehabilitating injuries, and increasing movement and overall health. Mr. Barth's allegiance to his patients highlights the importance of leaders stepping up and caring for patients across Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Barth for all his hard work and for being a trusted and compassionate professional in his field.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara Harn, a breast health nurse at Northside Hospital Cherokee, who has won the 2025 James Shepherd Lifetime Achievement Award.
This award honors a hospital employee who has dedicated a lifetime of service to the healthcare field and has made a significant impact in enhancing operations in patient care at their hospital.
Ms. Harn is a longtime Northside Hospital faculty member, compassionately caring for patients for more than three decades. She personifies this commitment through her outstanding and unwavering dedication to her patients, colleagues, and hospital.
Additionally, Ms. Harn is a loving mother, grandmother, and friend to all those around her.
This achievement speaks not only for Ms. Harn's fantastic skills as a professional, but also for her grateful and compassionate attitude.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Harn for her professionalism, dedication, and commitment to her field.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nurse Heather Daniels, a perinatal services nurse at Liberty Regional Medical Center in Hinesville, Georgia, who has been named a 2025 Hospital Hero Recipient by the Georgia Hospital Association.
This award recognizes the time, talent, and expertise of hospital employees in their respective fields. Ms. Daniel exemplifies this by being dependable, unfailing, and caring in all she does.
In addition to faithfully serving patients, Ms. Daniel has served as director of perinatal services and secretary for the Georgia Perinatal Association, and she worked diligently in reducing morbidity and mortality in pregnant mothers and infants.
Ms. Daniels' passion and dedication for her profession are truly inspirational. This recognition speaks not only to her skill, but also to her compassion and commitment to healing and serving others.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize seven Georgia golf courses as being named Golfweek's top 200 resort golf courses in America.
Among these, three were ranked in the top 100: Seaside Golf Course on Sea Island Resort ranked No. 24, The Keep at McLemore Resort came in at No. 25, and Great Waters at Reynolds Lake Oconee tied for No. 73. Additional courses at Reynolds Lake Oconee, McLemore, and St. Simons Island also earned national recognition.
Georgia is home to hundreds of golf courses, but our resort golf courses stand among the very best in the Nation.
These rankings are based on expert evaluations of course design, conditioning, and overall quality, highlighting Georgia as a premier golf destination. This distinction showcases both Georgia's natural beauty and wonder in our State's renowned golf courses.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the proposal Republicans voted on to take money from families in need and divert it to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.
As a medical doctor, I want to be crystal clear. Crisis pregnancy centers are not medical facilities. They do not even have to employ licensed medical professionals.
Women who seek help at these centers routinely report being misled, pressured, or given false information during one of the most vulnerable periods in their lives.
Democrats offered commonsense amendments that would have required facilities receiving these Federal funds to provide medically accurate information. That should not be too much to ask. Republicans rejected those amendments.
The American people deserve to know exactly what that means: Republicans are knowingly funding centers that do not have to uphold basic medical standards, and they are doing it at the expense of families who are already struggling.
Let us not ignore the cruelty of the timing. The day before the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which Trump gutted, Republicans are making it even harder for women to get honest information to make decisions about their own bodies.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sheriff Clint McRae and the outstanding men and women of the Walker County Sheriff's Office.
For over 20 years, Sheriff McRae has led with distinction and unwavering commitment to the people of Walker County. His hands-on leadership and devotion to community policing set the standard for excellence.
The Walker County Sheriff's Office fulfills its mission each day. From volunteer programs engaging citizens in public safety to responsive patrol operations, these deputies exemplify what it means to serve with honor.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for their tireless dedication and proud to represent them in Congress.
Recognizing Sheriff Byron Lyons and Polk County Sheriff's Office
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sheriff Byron Lyons and the brave men and women of the Polk County Sheriff's Office for their exceptional service to our community.
Under Sheriff Lyons' leadership, the patrol division of 1 captain, 1 lieutenant, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, and 15 deputies keeps 1,100 square miles and 1,500 miles of roads safe day in and day out.
Beyond their patrol duties, these law enforcement officials engage our community through innovative programs that build trust and strengthen the bond between law enforcement and the families they protect.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent these outstanding officers who serve with integrity, professionalism, and unwavering dedication to Polk County.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sheriff Sam Houston and the dedicated deputies of the San Jacinto Sheriff's Office.
Serving over 27,000 residents across 628 square miles, these law enforcement officers protect our county and keep our families safe every single day.
Sheriff Houston leads with commitment to community and engagement in public safety training programs that make our communities stronger and safer. Beyond enforcement, they build trust with our families and serve with honor.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for their dedication to the people of San Jacinto County.
Mr. Speaker, when I am back home in the district, I make it clear that although my name is on the ballot and I am the elected Member of Congress, when I go to Congress, we all go to Congress.
Instead of assuming that I knew what mattered the most to people in my district, we sent out a survey to ask people in Ohio's 13th what mattered most to them. Thankfully, more than 2,000 people took the time to respond.
What they told us was pretty straightforward. They wanted me to
The number one issue by far was protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. People didn't talk about these programs in abstract terms. They talked about their lives, how Social Security is how they pay their bills; Medicare is how they get healthcare without going broke; and Medicaid is how their kids, their parents, and neighbors with disabilities can get the support and help they need.
These aren't government programs to them. They are lifelines promised to them after a lifetime of work and service. That is why I have been and will continue to be hyperfocused on protecting them.
I have worked across the aisle to introduce bipartisan legislation to keep Social Security offices open and services running during government shutdowns because seniors shouldn't lose access to help just because Congress can't get its act together.
I have pushed the Social Security Administration to stop clawing back overpayments when the mistakes were not the fault of the seniors.
I introduced legislation to make sure survivors of domestic violence are not punished under Social Security rules for leaving unsafe marriages.
If you have worked your entire life and paid in every paycheck, Congress should keep its promise in its Social Security program.
The second big issue that people raised was the cost of living and lowering costs. Families feel it everywhere: gas, groceries, housing, healthcare. It just costs too much to live.
People are working just as hard as they always have, but they are falling behind. That is why I have been fighting to extend the ACA's tax credits to lower healthcare costs, especially for our most vulnerable citizens. It is why I voted against the big, ugly bill that is now putting healthcare coverage at risk for millions of Americans while raising energy costs for families.
In fact, just today there is a report that came out that showed over 120,000 Ohioans chose to forgo their healthcare because they simply couldn't afford it. These are real people, and that bill had real consequences. Not only does it impact us in terms of healthcare in my district, it also impacts our number one economy, which is healthcare systems and hospitals.
Additionally, I introduced legislation to crack down on junk fees that would drain family budgets, and I have worked in a bipartisan manner to lower costs and improve clean water infrastructure in communities that need it the most.
I have stood up for homebuyers, pushing back against corporate practices that drive up housing prices and shut families out of the market.
Instead of staying focused on lowering costs, House Republicans have spent too much time protecting tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, blocking reforms that would help families, and threatening government shutdowns that only add to more chaos. I would also mention the no tax on overtime that they have so happily touted doesn't really help so many people in organized labor. We do have a bipartisan fix for that, but we haven't been able to get to it because making sure people have more money in their pockets is simply not a priority for House Republicans.
Finally, the third issue people raised with me is they wanted to fight government corruption. People are tired of feeling like the rules are different for those at the top. They want accountability that actually means something. They want ethics laws to apply to everyone, no matter their title or their party. They are seeing that this corruption is raising their costs and making it more expensive. They see the connection between the two.
That is why I have helped lead a package of reforms with a new generation of lawmakers to close loopholes, strengthen ethics rules, and bring some common sense and some integrity back to Washington, D.C.
Public service should be just that: serving the public, not helping yourself. When you look at these survey results, Mr. Speaker, the contrast is hard to miss. My constituents are asking us to protect their earned benefits while the leadership, Mr. Speaker, is keeping them at risk.
They are asking us to lower costs while House Republicans and this President get distracted by the wrong fights. They are asking us to clean up corruption while Republicans enable this President to treat accountability as optional while he is getting richer and everyone else is getting poorer.
That is not what the people sent us here to do, and it is certainly not what my constituents sent me here to do.
Mr. Speaker, listening to your constituents should not be controversial. It is our job. I will keep fighting for what the people of Ohio's 13th Congressional District made clear when they sent me here because this Congress does not belong to party leaders or special interests. It belongs to the people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor another of the bright lights of eastern Washington, but I also rise with sadness as I honor the life of Larry Batterton, a devoted husband, father, and community leader from eastern Washington who passed away on January 16 of this year.
Larry dedicated his life to service--first to his country as an Air Force dependent, and later to his community in Spokane and Stevens Counties. He was active in We Believe, We Vote and active in civics, community, and government in Stevens County. In these roles he led with faith, kindness, and conviction, always working to strengthen trust in our elections and unity in our civic life.
Larry and his wife, Susan, shared 54 years of marriage and built a wonderful family of four children and many grandchildren.
His faith guided everything he did, and Larry's steady leadership left a lasting mark on eastern Washington.
We give thanks for the life of Larry Batterton, his love of family, his enduring service to his community, and our State. When our Founders created this wonderful Republic that we live in, they thought of its foundation of good people like Larry Batterton. He will be deeply missed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the tax proposal in Washington State of Governor Bob Ferguson and his so-called millionaire's tax.
Mr. Speaker, I hear frequently from folks back home that they are very pleased with the work of this Washington and what Republican leadership has done to give our country the largest tax reduction in history. They tell me how much they enjoy and look forward to no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, a tax deduction on interest for loans for American-made cars, and new tax credits for education.
All the work we have done here in Washington, this Washington, reduces the cost of living for Americans, but I hear very frequently, as well, while this is going on, in the other Washington, my home of Washington State, that the Democrat leadership there is increasing taxes.
It is time for a reality check about budgets.
In Washington State, the legislative session has just begun, and the Governor has proposed a new income tax that would push Seattle's top earners into one of the highest tax brackets of anywhere in the country. There would be higher taxes in Washington State than even deep blue States like New York and California.
It doesn't stop there.
Other taxes are being considered, too, such as higher payroll taxes and higher business taxes for starters. It is sad. Just 3 years ago, Washington State had a $14 billion surplus, and instead of saving for a rainy day, the Democrats in Olympia spent recklessly.
State revenues went up by 25 percent, billions of extra dollars, but it was all spent, all to wind up $12 billion in the red today. That is after last year when the Democrats gave our State the largest tax increase in history, and now they want even more taxes.
Implementing this tax will hurt job creators in Washington State, hurt our innovative economy, hurt our family farms, hurt job creation, and hurt growth.
In the Federal Government we have a better record. Again, I voted for the largest tax reduction in history joining my Republican colleagues. The Democrats and Governor Ferguson in Olympia need to learn this lesson, not go even deeper into our pocketbooks and drive even more job creators out of the State.
My message to Governor Ferguson is this: Get spending under control. Stop taxing the good people of Washington State.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Matthew J. Fisher, a pillar of south Buffalo, who tragically passed away on December 12, 2025, at the age of 57.
Born and raised in south Buffalo by his parents, Richard Sr. and Joann, Matt grew up surrounded by family, friends, and the close-knit parish of St. Ambrose Catholic Church. It was there that he built lifelong friendships and learned what it meant to belong to a community rooted in shared responsibility to one another.
A graduate of Canisius High School and Buffalo State University, he studied in the community that raised him, carrying those lessons with him throughout his life.
Matt was a loving husband, a devoted father, a man of deep faith and a humble voice for good whose impact will continue to be felt in our community for generations.
He lived out his values through acts of service, compassion, and an unwavering belief that making the world a better place begins in our neighborhoods, in our houses of worship, and in the everyday moments where dignity and care matter most.
That sense of belonging stayed with him his entire life and guided his decision to raise his own family in the very same neighborhood that raised him.
Matt was a devout Catholic, an active parishioner, and a eucharistic minister who lived his faith outwardly. He prayed for those who were struggling. He showed up for those in need, and he treated everyone he encountered with authenticity, humility, and genuine care.
Matt's spirit of service defined his professional pursuits as a housing and economic development professional. Whether working for Erie County, the city of Buffalo, or organizations like the Old First Ward Community Association, Matt devoted his career to public service. Because of his work, countless families in western New York were able to remain in their homes, invest in their families, and navigate systems that are often overwhelming and complex.
Beyond his professional accomplishments, Matt's heart was firmly planted in our community. Matt served as chairman of the South Buffalo Neighborhood Accountability Board and founded South Buffalo CREW, Concerned Residents Engaged in Work.
In those roles, Matt championed grassroots initiatives that focused on beautifying our neighborhood and supporting our small businesses.
As president of South Buffalo Baseball, he mentored countless young people. He was committed to keeping the program affordable, inclusive, and rooted in the neighborhood because he believed every child deserved a place to belong.
Matt Fisher's legacy reminds us that the soul of this country is found in people who live extraordinary lives of service and the neighbors who coach little league teams, check in on the elderly, serve at their parish, and quietly make their community stronger day by day.
To his beloved wife, Dina, and to their children Joseph, Hannah, Anthony, Veronica, Nicholas, and Aidan: Our community, State, and Nation mourns with you.
South Buffalo and western New York are stronger because of Matt Fisher. Our community and our country are better because of him.
May we carry forward his example and care for our neighbors with the same faith, generosity, and love that Matthew J. Fisher showed us every single day. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that through community project funding, my team and I have secured $3 million for southeast Iowa, delivering targeted investments in public safety, water infrastructure, and housing development.
These investments include: $500,000 for the SAFECity Initiative in Oskaloosa, bringing advanced public safety technology to the community to help prevent crime, improve emergency response times, and keep Oskaloosa residents safe; $2 million for the Papoose Creek Redundant Force Main in Muscatine to support a critical water infrastructure upgrade. This will protect homes, improve flood control, support growth, and strengthen environmental safety for years to come.
I also secured $750,000 for the Veterans District sewer project in Knoxville to help build a sanitary lift station and storm and sewer lines to serve more than 110 acres of future housing in the Veterans District.
With these historic investments, I have now secured over $8 million for southeast Iowa and will continue fighting to secure all the Federal resources our communities need and deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Haley DeGreve, founder and president of The Gray Matters Collective, and local leader Jon Zumkehr for their partnership in raising awareness about mental health and suicide prevention among correctional officers and law enforcement officers.
Their work became a lifeline for many after the tragic death by suicide of correctional officer Blake Schwarz who worked at Thomson Federal Prison but lived in Iowa, a loss that rocked our community and exposed the silent suffering of so many who serve behind the walls.
In the aftermath, Jon Zumkehr, an 18-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, reached out to Haley and invited her to Thomson. She shared her own journey of survival and hope, speaking openly about her struggles and recovery and the realities that far too many correctional officers face in silence, many of whom are former military veterans.
On August 28, Haley nearly became another statistic, believing suicide was her only way out of pain. Instead, she chose to fight and founded The Gray Matters Collective, a nonprofit with chapters for veterans and first responders. She has listened to hundreds of stories like her own and like Blake's, and she has made it her mission to break the stigma and offer real support.
Jon and Haley's partnership has made a real difference. Together, they have sent 24 officers at Thomson to ASSIST training, organized suicide prevention walks, and led multiple staff recalls focused on mental health and resources. They have also created a law enforcement support group open to all staff with licensed counselors and free to anyone who needs it.
After Blake's death, I was honored to sit down with Jon and work to introduce Correctional Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act, legislation aimed at providing the resources and recognition our correctional officers deserve. I thank Jon and Haley for their courage, compassion, and relentless advocacy bringing attention to this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to wish a very happy birthday to my nephew, Andrew Martino.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 16th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, a decision that
In Citizens United, a 5-4 conservative Court majority endorsed almost unlimited political spending by corporations and wealthy individuals, and alongside several subsequent Federal Court rulings, demolished longstanding limits designed to prevent undue influence in our politics.
It is well beyond time for Congress to pass a comprehensive campaign finance reform package to protect our constituents from the widespread political corruption that Citizens United unleashed.
Since 2010, more than $10 billion in corporate and dark money has saturated every aspect of our politics. Super-PACs and dark money groups now spend vast sums to influence, and sometimes determine, election outcomes while shielding their donors from public scrutiny. Compounding the problem, the Federal Election Commission has too often failed to enforce the law, leaving voters vulnerable and unable to discern who is trying to influence them and why.
We know that transparency is a baseline requirement for a functioning democracy. We know, too, that its absence erodes public trust in politics and fuels the belief that the system is rigged for wealthy elites and insiders. Most troubling, however, is that Citizens United threatens to compromise the incentives of those of us who serve in public office.
House campaigns now require previously unimaginable sums of money. Members spend far too much time courting wealth or corporate donors rather than engaging with constituents.
Americans reasonably question whether this imbalance helps explain why policies related to taxes, healthcare, corporate regulation, and environmental protection so often favor powerful interests over working families, families who are struggling with an affordability crisis that this administration has exacerbated.
While Citizens United greatly harmed our body politic, we will not let it prove fatal. In a 1938 address to Congress, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a stark warning: `` . . . the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.''
House Democrats recognize the fierce urgency of this warning. At the request of Leader Hakeem Jeffries, I am coordinating a comprehensive anticorruption legislative agenda to restore fairness, transparency, and a requisite principle of our Republic, that government must serve the people, not the highest bidder.
This sweeping agenda will address corruption across all three branches of government as well as, critically, unfettered corporate influence in our broken campaign finance system.
The package will include pieces of legislation that House Democrats have long championed, like the DISCLOSE Act, that will shine a light on the dark money donors that seek to purchase the outcomes of our elections. It will fundamentally reform the FEC, so our Federal campaign finance laws no longer go unenforced.
Indeed, at present, the FEC has no quorum and cannot function in a law enforcement capacity at all. House Democrats will put a cop back on the beat.
Vitally, House Democrats will move to ratify a constitutional amendment to overturn the horrific Citizens United decision.
House Democrats will ensure this package reflects the pressing reform interests of Americans from coast to coast, Americans who demand an end to the culture of corruption endemic in Washington.
While Citizens United did not create every problem in our politics, it has undeniably enhanced the power of the wealthiest few at the expense of the many. When a single billionaire spends more on an election than countless thousands of voters combined, the principle that every voice counts equally in our political system withers. We must, and we can, remedy the rot at the deeply misguided Citizens United decision introduced into American politics.
As ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, the committee with jurisdiction over campaign finance legislation, I look forward to continuing to work to restore trust and honesty to American governance.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the civic commitment of an organization of active and concerned citizens in Scarsdale who labor to involve everyday residents in the important issues of the day, the Scarsdale Forum.
The organization traces its roots back over 120 years to 1904, with a charitable and educational mission at its core. The forum sponsors events and seminars addressing the issues, choices, and solutions that directly impact the community. The floor committees study substantive issues, produce reports for discussion, and interact directly with elected officials.
The leadership team, President Jill Spielberg, Vice President Karen Brew, along with Elaine Weir, Madelaine Eppenstein, and a large cadre of talented neighbors in key roles, provide a strong base of abilities all committed to the benefit of Scarsdale.
From the floor of the House of Representatives, we salute the men and women of the Scarsdale Forum who have made the level of voluntary, active citizenship envisioned by our Founding Fathers come to life in the village of Scarsdale.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the Trump administration's recent attack on childcare and family assistance. This administration has decided to freeze funding for three critical programs in New York and four other Democratic States. As usual, they are putting their politically motivated agenda on full display.
The targeted programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Child Care and Development Fund, and the Social Services Block Grant program. This move threatens over $3.4 billion in annual funds that New York depends upon to provide critical resources, including childcare, public assistance, domestic violence services, homeless shelters, and emergency payments for families and children.
This action only serves to intensify the massive affordability crisis that New York and the rest of the country continue to face. Playing politics with people's lives, let alone vulnerable children and families, is unacceptable.
While this administration continues its cruel and vengeful behavior, my Democratic colleagues and I remain committed to protecting vulnerable children and families.
Mr. Speaker, I address this Chamber today as a longtime member of Rotary International. Rotary's top priority is eradication of the deadly disease, polio. Its members have invested billions of dollars and countless volunteer hours in polio vaccination campaigns in countries around the world.
In 1988, Rotary helped to create the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, a partnership with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the Gates Foundation, and the vaccine alliance, Gavi, with additional critical funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which no longer exists. Yet the entire effort is threatened by the administration's plan to defund key GPEI partners.
Just at the time when this disease is closer than ever to being eradicated, the risk of outbreaks is greatly increased. We must do all in our power to protect the gains already made, and finish the job, including appropriating the funds required.
People from my generation remember the terrible consequences of polio, often paralysis and even death for those with this highly contagious disease. Many Americans still live with long-term post-polio syndrome.
Still, outbreaks continue around the world and other countries that are just a plane ride away. Complete eradication depends on continued vaccination of children everywhere and constant surveillance.
Founded in Chicago in 1905 with the motto of Service Above Self, Rotary International is the headquarters organization for a vast number of Rotary Clubs. It is one of the largest nonreligious and nonpolitical civil society membership organizations. It provides people-to-people assistance reaching the community level with vital programs.
Rotarians have a wide range of political and partisan leanings, but they are united in their commitment to serve their communities and they share a common determination to end polio. We must hear their voices, and we must not let them down.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the success of the Warren Area High School robotics team, who have earned numerous awards this season.
Earlier this month, the team competed in the Pennsylvania State qualifier and were undefeated. The team earned three top awards: Tournament Champions, Skills Champions, and the Excellence Award.
This season, the team won three awards at their first three competitions, a historic achievement for the group.
The students have qualified for the State tournament in March and have been invited to an additional national tournament, which will be held in Iowa.
The team is working towards qualifying for the VEX Robotics World Championship, which is hosted in St. Louis this year. The team has qualified for the world championships for two consecutive years. At the world championship, participants are given the same materials to build a robot and must answer questions from a panel of judges.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the team on this historic achievement, and I wish them the best as they prepare for more tournaments this year.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bid farewell to my floor director, the incomparable Ray Salazar.
If you have had the privilege of serving in this Chamber, you know what a gem, what a patriot, and what an indispensable pillar of this institution Ray is. You also know what a reliable friend and adviser he is, and you know what a loss his departure will be for the House of Representatives.
From his time with Leader Hoyer to his years on my team, every time he stepped onto this floor he has strengthened our institution, always leading with values and integrity, bringing a steady hand to his work along with his encyclopedic knowledge of parliamentary procedure.
I thank Ray for his 13 years of extraordinary service. He is the model of what it means to be a public servant, waking up every day to work for the American people. We wish him all the best in his next chapter.
Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th President.
Taking over a weakened country with a crumbling Biden economy, Republicans have delivered lower costs, bigger paychecks, creating jobs.
President Donald Trump signed the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, which limits government, expands freedom, and provides for peace through strength.
The law allows Americans to keep their own money. Promises made, promises kept.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump. On the day that war criminal Putin invited envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Moscow, Putin launched 33 missiles and 339 drones on civilian infrastructure to freeze Ukrainian families to death, repeating the Stalin famine of mass murder. Sadly, war criminal Putin continues aggression, violating all agreements as he tries to resurrect the failed Soviet Union.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record standing beside my colleague, Congressman Pat Ryan, opposing plans by ICE to establish a facility in New York's Hudson Valley in the town of Chester, Orange County.
The proposed site, currently an empty warehouse formerly used by Pep Boys, is opposed by Republicans and Democrats of that area, including Republican County Executive Steve Neuhaus, a U.S. Naval Reserve officer, and State and local officials on both sides of the aisle.
The mission to warehouse large numbers of humans is the exact opposite of what the President and DHS Secretary
America has existed for 250 years without mass detention centers, but apparently, Noem and her cohorts plan for a different America to start the next 250 years, one where masked, unmarked agents seize people without judicial warrant, whisk them away to remote detention centers en route to uncertain final destinations. When such things have been done in other countries they are called pogroms and ethnic cleansing. This is not America.
Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 53rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade when the Supreme Court finally granted women the right to control their own reproductive healthcare. Tragically, in 2022, one-half century of reproductive freedom was stripped away when the conservative majority on the Court overturned Roe.
Since then, we have seen extreme abortion bans enacted across the country, including in North Carolina. Today, Republicans at all levels of government are waging an all-out war on Americans' access to care, pushing healthcare even further out of reach for millions of women.
First they took away our right to choose, and then they took away our healthcare coverage. They came for our freedom, and then they came for our doctors and hospitals.
Women deserve better. Republicans deserve the blame.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, with my friend Congressman Steve Lynch, I visited Quincy Community Action Programs in Quincy, Massachusetts, as part of my Statewide End Hunger Now tour.
We kicked off our visit with QCAP CEO Beth Ann Strollo and some of the young kids in their Head Start program enjoying healthy breakfasts of yogurt and berries. They were so enthusiastic.
Later on we heard from Ted Donnelly, who leads QCAP's food and nutrition programs at their South West Community Center. He spoke about the record-breaking number of people coming to the food pantry every month, especially when USDA let SNAP benefits lapse during the Republican shutdown.
We also heard poignant stories from a few of QCAP's clients, Nisha, Marybeth, Tanya, and Danielle. One noted that she would love to work more hours, but if she does, she will lose all of her food benefits.
Mr. Speaker, my visit to QCAP strengthened my resolve even more to fight back against the Trump administration's vicious attacks against our antihunger programs and end hunger now.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's threats to invade Greenland have destroyed the world order. Prime Minister Carney, quoting Thucydides, has said that America is acting as if might makes right. He is invoking Vaclav Havel's call for resistance not against authoritarian communism but against the arrogance of America.
Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed for my country. I want Prime Minister Carney to know that there is a new generation of America that believes in a multiracial democracy that raises the sovereignty and self- determination of all nations. I want him to know that there is a new generation that believes in statesmanship, not subjugation. I want him to know that there is a new generation that believes in Kant's vision of perpetual peace with free nations bounded by international law.
Prime Minister Carney and leaders of the world, I ask for your patience and faith that this new generation prevails in the United States of America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, eastern North Carolina farmers are facing a crisis. Over the past few years, our farmers have been hit by a perfect storm of drought, soaring input costs, and growing trade uncertainty. When our farmers don't have a clear backup plan or real support, then family farms and rural jobs are put at risk.
Some say: Congressman, why do you talk about farmers so much?
It is this simple. When farmers struggle, local businesses and entire communities feel the impact.
Our State's agricultural economy faces a potential $1.9 billion hit if things don't improve. That economic hit would devastate our cotton, sweet potato, peanut, corn, and soybean farmers, tobacco farmers, and pork and poultry producers.
We need bold, comprehensive action that lowers costs, expands market access, strengthens disaster recovery, addresses labor concerns, and stands up for our farm families.
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, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1009, providing for consideration of three measures. H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, is under a closed rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, is under a closed rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
H.J. Res. 140, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, is under a closed rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on three pieces of legislation. Beginning with H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
Mr. Speaker, across the country, pregnancy centers serve as trusted, community-based nonprofits that offer a wide range of material assistance and support, including pregnancy testing, prenatal education, parenting classes, ultrasounds, diapers, baby clothing, adoption referrals, and connections to housing and other services.
In 2024 alone, these organizations assisted nearly 2 million individuals nationwide, Mr. Speaker.
Despite their longstanding role in supporting families and advancing the core purposes of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, a proposed rule under the previous administration raised uncertainty about whether States could continue partnering with pregnancy centers even though these services clearly align with helping children remain in their homes and reducing dependence on government assistance.
H.R. 6945 addresses that uncertainty by making clear that States may not be restricted from choosing to work with pregnancy centers and that Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funds may be used for these services consistent with Federal law.
This bill does not mandate participation. Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not mandate participation, but instead preserves State flexibility and protects against future administrative overreach.
At a time when families are facing rising costs and difficult choices, ensuring access to proven community resources matters. This legislation reinforces support for pregnant and parenting women, respects State decisionmaking, and strengthens efforts to help families thrive.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, today's student population looks very different than it did decades ago. Nearly one in five undergraduate students is raising children while enrolled, yet many pregnant students remain unaware of the rights and accommodations already available to them under Federal law.
While Title IX clearly prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy and requires reasonable accommodation, those protections are only meaningful if students know they exist and understand how to access them. Too often, that information is buried, inconsistently shared, or not communicated at all.
H.R. 6359 takes a straightforward approach by requiring colleges and universities that receive Federal student aid to clearly disseminate information regarding pregnant students' rights and available accommodations, as well as both on-campus and community resources. This bill also ensures students know how to file a Title IX complaint if those rights are violated.
This legislation does not expand Federal authority or create new rights. Instead, it promotes transparency, consistency, and accountability so that pregnant students can remain enrolled, complete their education, and plan for their futures. By reinforcing access to information respecting existing law, H.R. 6359 supports students, families, and institutions alike.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 140, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.
The Duluth Complex is home to one of the largest undeveloped mineral reserves in the world. It contains roughly 8 billion tons, Mr. Speaker, of copper and nickel, in addition to cobalt and platinum. It is the world's second largest copper deposit and the world's third largest nickel deposit.
Currently, China controls approximately 60 percent of global critical mineral production, and we have seen them use their control over the industry as a bargaining chip. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that increasing domestic production of critical minerals is vital for America's economic and national security.
However, in 2023, the Biden administration issued PLO 7917, which withdrew 225,504 acres from mineral development in the Superior National Forest. This PLO locked these reserves for 20 years and prematurely ended the permitting process.
H.J. Res. 140 is simple. It permanently ends this irresponsible withdrawal and allows a transparent process to potentially develop the minerals in the Duluth Complex to move forward.
As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the sponsor of this bill, stated in the Rules Committee last night, this legislation doesn't green-light mining in the Duluth Complex. It reverses the Biden administration's mineral ban in the area and allows companies to continue to compete while following Federal permitting and environmental processes. Again, they will continue to follow Federal permitting and environmental processes.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of legislation. I urge passage of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we had plenty of time last night in the Rules Committee to debate these awful, lousy bills: H.R. 6945, H.R. 6359, and H.J. Res. 140. I encourage everyone to look them up. Don't take my word for it.
Two of these bills are about misleading pregnant women to stop them from making decisions about their own
All of these bills are being brought to the floor under completely closed rules--no amendments, limited debate, no nothing. I won't waste more time on these terrible bills. They are just more of the same stupid garbage that this majority has brought to the floor time and time again.
What I do want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, is that this week marks 1 year since Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. Republicans have had total control of the entire Federal Government-- the House, the Senate, and the White House--for over a year.
Yet still, after an entire year in charge, Republicans continue to point the finger at Democrats rather than take responsibility for their own embarrassing failures and broken promises. Republicans and Trump ran on fighting for working people, but every single day, they have governed on behalf of billionaires and corporate donors.
Let's take a look at some of these broken promises. Donald Trump said he would put America first. He has not. What he has done is given a $40 billion loan to Argentina. He stabbed American ranchers in the back, proposing that we import beef from South America. He threw a fancy party at the White House for a Saudi Prince who murdered an American journalist. He has not put America first.
He also promised no more endless wars. Give me a break. He renamed the Pentagon the Department of War. Last year, he bombed Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. He bombed Venezuela and now says that we are running the country, whatever the hell that means. He is also threatening to take an autonomous territory from Denmark, a NATO ally.
Let's go over another failure. Donald Trump promised ICE would only deport the worst of the worst. Guess what. That is not true. ICE agents are terrorizing not just immigrants, but U.S. citizens, sowing chaos, murdering an unarmed American mom in broad daylight, and deporting veterans and asylum seekers who are here legally.
Another campaign promise: Donald Trump said he would lower prices on day one. Oh, my God, Mr. Speaker, has anyone in this administration gone shopping? Let me say this as someone who buys his own groceries in Worcester, Massachusetts. Prices are not only high, but they are going up even more because of Trump's reckless tariffs. Remember when Trump bragged about how he would get gas down to $2 a gallon? It is $3 a gallon down the street from my house.
Let's keep going down the list. Trump said he would get drugs off our streets and put criminals in jail. Give me a break. He pardoned the guy who created the dark web market that smuggled in tons of fentanyl. Then he pardoned the Honduran ex-President convicted of trafficking tons and tons of cocaine into the United States.
Let's not forget, he pardoned all the January 6 rioters, many of whom have since gone on to reoffend with illegal gun possession and committing child sex crimes after Donald Trump let them out of jail.
Then, of course, we have the promise that Trump would replace ObamaCare with something better. Instead of something better, Republicans let the enhanced ACA tax credits expire at the end of 2025, which means that now people are paying more. Tens of thousands of people in Massachusetts alone have now dropped coverage, meaning they have no insurance at all.
Republicans don't have a plan to replace ObamaCare. They never have. Fifteen years later, I am starting to think that they never will.
Now, another thing that Donald Trump promised: no corruption and full transparency. Remember that promise? Seriously, how much money does one family need to make off the Presidency before Republicans admit it is corruption? The Trump family has gotten nearly $4 billion richer since he took office last year. How much can one family treat the Presidency like a piggy bank before Republicans finally step up and do something about it?
Why is his ballroom being funded by billionaire donors? What are they looking for?
What about the Epstein files? There has been no transparency there. We had to force a vote in Congress. He reluctantly signed the bill, and he still hasn't released all the files. Less than 1 percent of the files have been released. What the hell is taking so long? What is he so afraid of? What is he hiding?
It has been clear to me since day one of Donald Trump's disgraceful Presidency what it has been all about. Look at who was in the front row of his inauguration, all billionaires: his Treasury secretary, a billionaire; his education secretary, a billionaire; his entire Cabinet, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, all led by billionaires.
These people don't shop for themselves or they don't worry about paying rent. They don't care about us. Trump said he would drain the swamp. What a bunch of BS. He moved the swamp into the Lincoln bedroom for God's sake.
The bottom line is simple: He has not done a single damn thing that he promised to do. Not only have they failed, they have failed catastrophically, and look no further than the bills on the floor today.
There is nothing for workers, nothing to lower grocery prices, nothing to take on price gouging, nothing to bring down rent, nothing to help people buy a home, nothing to lower prescription drug costs, nothing to raise wages, nothing to strengthen workplace protections, and nothing to create jobs. Just culture war garbage and corporate giveaways is all the GOP knows how to do.
After 1 year of total power, there is nobody else to blame. This is the Republican record, and it is awful. This is Donald Trump's economy, and it sucks. The people back home see it. They feel it. They are living it. They see who keeps getting help and who keeps getting hurt. They see the billionaires cashing out while working families get squeezed. The Republican Party has had a year, and the American people have had enough.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
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, before I yield to Mr. Bost, I will say that by my count, I think my colleague blamed Donald Trump 14 times for the things the Democratic Party did before he got elected. Gas is very close to $2 a gallon in Tifton, Georgia, and I think it costs a lot less for gasoline in most Republican States than it does Democrat States right now because of the Democrats charging more and more taxes on their citizens.
As for the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare that you all take so much credit for and are so proud of the way you wrote it, the benefactors of that legislation, the large insurance companies' CEOs are actually going to be on the Hill this week and will get to be questioned. I hope you will question them fairly hard, but I did bring one of my bills because I expected you to say that.
The charge is $546.53. The insurance carrier discount is $509.93. Insurance paid zero, nothing, not one dime. I paid $36.60.
Now, if you wanted to fix it for the American citizens, the question is: Why was it even a $500 charge if the fair value is $36? Republicans are trying to work to fix that. Unfortunately, we can't get a single Democratic vote for a piece of healthcare legislation that will actually work for all of the American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), my friend and chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Mr. Speaker, Friday is the March for Life. It is a moment for compassion, common sense, and a commitment to our most vulnerable. That is why I rise today in strong support of the pro-life bills included in this rule, including
These bills are about something very simple: Protecting the dignity of the unborn and meeting very real needs of mothers and families.
Pregnancy resource centers offer counseling, medical services, parenting resources, and support systems through some of the most difficult moments that a mother can face. They should never be targeted or defunded because they protect life.
At the same time, no woman should be forced to choose between continuing her education or continuing her pregnancy. Women who choose life should be supported, encouraged, and empowered, not pushed aside or told that their dreams for the future don't matter.
I have always been proud to stand for life, and that commitment has guided my work not only here in Congress but my work as a State legislator. My wife and I make sure that we put our money where our mouth is in supporting young women who find themselves in a situation with a pregnancy out of wedlock.
Being pro-life is about doing more than just talking about it. It means standing up for life at every stage and backing it up with actions. This Friday, this Mall out here will be packed with a powerful demonstration of the sanctity of life. It is important that the people's House meets that moment. We should be unafraid to say that every life has value and that mothers deserve our support, not our silence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and these pro- life, profamily priorities.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consumer.
I will correct the Record on something. Donald Trump promised he would lower gas prices to $2 a gallon. I just did Google maps and looked at the price of gas in the gentleman's district. It is like $2.80. That is a far cry from $2.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, to restore the rights of women to an abortion nationwide and undo extremist abortion bans in States across the country.
Mr. Speaker, since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, 13 States have imposed complete abortion bans and many more have imposed extremely short timeframes to get an abortion, endangering women, threatening doctors with criminal prosecution, giving politicians in State capitol buildings extreme power over personal medical decisions and fundamental freedoms.
The bills in this rule are part of that dangerous trend. One bill actually diverts Federal TANF funds meant for low-income families to fund so-called crisis pregnancy centers, which provide pregnant women oftentimes with fake medical advice with the goal of dissuading them from accessing contraception or abortion care.
Republicans aren't providing more funding for TANF. God forbid they do that. Giving this money away to these fake medical clinics is stealing money from low-income families who need real help. The damage these fake pregnancy centers do isn't theoretical.
In my district, a woman was told by one of these centers that she had a viable pregnancy, but as time went on and she continued to feel sharp pains, she went to a real doctor and was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy that threatened her life and resulted in an emergency surgery. She will have lifelong complications. If she had received actual medical care earlier, she could have received the treatment she needed before it was too late.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up a bill that will actually protect women and allow them to access the full suite of reproductive care options.
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, right now, millions of Americans are struggling to afford healthcare. Millions of new and expecting mothers are seeing their premiums skyrocket and they are being forced to go without health insurance. Across this country, countless women are being forced to flee their States for lifesaving abortion care while too many others have suffered or died waiting for care that should never have been denied.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation this body is considering today does nothing to address these real crises. Instead, it diverts scarce Federal antipoverty dollars, TANF dollars, away from struggling families and toward so-called crisis pregnancy centers that exist to shame, mislead, and delay women from accessing abortion care.
This bill does nothing to lower healthcare costs. It does nothing to help families afford prenatal care, childbirth, or postpartum care. It does nothing to address the deadly consequences of extreme Republican abortion bans that are forcing women to delay care and risk their lives.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question on this rule, my Democratic colleagues and I will offer my bill, the Women's Health Protection Act, or WHPA. WHPA is the Federal solution to the extremist Supreme Court's decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. It would restore the right for everyone, no matter what State they live in, no matter their ZIP Code, to receive abortion care.
In a world where doctors are being threatened with prison time for doing their jobs, it would protect providers who are simply trying to save lives. This is the legislation this body should be considering today.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I can't help but notice. Some of my colleagues talk about whether or not someone is a real doctor. I don't understand how someone is not a real doctor when they show a patient an ultrasound. Giving them all of the information and letting a woman make a decision is somehow not celebrated here.
If we were really for life, wouldn't we be excited that a woman looked at that ultrasound and said: You know what? I have decided I want to have that baby.
That is not a choice everyone in this body wants that woman to make. They want them to make a different choice for some reason.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to support the pregnancy centers across America, including Life Network in my home of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Pregnancy centers offer hope, and they offer opportunity. They promote life and give necessary and lifesaving resources to struggling mothers and fathers. It is these very pregnancy centers whose only focus is for the enrichment and support of these often inexpectant parents who are the target of a punitive and distasteful action by the previous administration.
In Colorado's Fifth Congressional District, Life Network has served 3,900 patients, providing high-quality pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, early pregnancy care, and more for free to anyone who walks through their door.
This is just the impact in my district. I know that the presence of similar pregnancy centers across the country are providing hope and support to thousands of parents each day. Funding for these mothers and fathers, many of whom are underserved, should never be politically taken away.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Fischbach for introducing the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, which I strongly support, to provide a statutory protection for pregnancy centers under the Temporary Assistant for Needy Families program.
Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 52nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a decision that allowed women to make their own decisions about what to do with their bodies without the interference of politicians.
It allowed women to make those decisions in consultation with their own faith, their own doctor, and the people they love. Roe v. Wade proved that when women have that freedom to make our own healthcare decisions, we live healthier and fuller lives.
Sadly, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, 22 States implemented full or partial abortion bans. We have seen women bleed to death or become infertile after the onset of sepsis because they couldn't get care for miscarriages or other pregnancy-related complications.
House Republicans today are joining the effort to limit women's access to full reproductive healthcare and information. Instead of acting to lower healthcare costs, we are in a healthcare crisis. Instead of addressing the affordability crisis, they are trying to pass laws to siphon funds away from needy families and offer a skewed vision of what a pregnant student should hear from her university. Republicans are using this moment to remind us just how little they respect women's lives or our choices.
As chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus, I know that pregnancy can be joyful. As a woman who almost died on an operating table when I was pregnant, I also know how complicated pregnancies can be. That is why I am so mad about these bills.
Republicans' so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act pretends to help pregnant students. It provides no childcare, no diapers, no formula, no housing, nothing pregnant students actually need. What it does do is it controls. Republicans seem to be always about controlling women, controlling people in their doctor's offices. It is about control.
It requires schools to tell students about carrying a pregnancy to term but not about what resources might be available for miscarriage, not about abortion, and not about the full range of medical care that they might need to access.
If a doctor only tells a person about one treatment option which might not be the best for them, that would be malpractice. Here on the House floor, it is called Republicans' priorities.
Then we get the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, which is another nice name but another ugly attack on women. This bill allows red States to siphon cash assistance meant for food, rent, and childcare into unregulated crisis pregnancy centers, places that masquerade as medical clinics. They spread misinformation, delay care, and shame women who may choose to have an abortion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, what is worse is their bill blocks the Federal Government from monitoring States' use of TANF dollars for those anti-abortion clinics. They don't want accountability on those clinics.
I would tell my Republican colleagues not to lecture us about waste, fraud, and abuse when they refuse to monitor anti-abortion clinics and when they stay silent when Trump pardons over 44 people convicted of fraud. That is a conviction of fraud, not just a suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, while the gentlewoman was speaking, I did take a second to pull up a couple of things on gas prices since they are blaming President Trump for it. They are correct.
In Worcester, the gas price is $2.91 a gallon on average. In Oklahoma, it is $2.21. In Wyoming, it is $2.22. In Texas, it is about $2.23. In Georgia, it is about the same thing.
Do my colleagues know what the difference is? We all have Republican Governors. Our Republican Governors are working to lower the cost of energy. The Democratic Governors are obviously keeping energy prices high and blaming the President for that. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. Now the gentleman is blaming the Governors and not Biden. I don't even know where the hell Worcester is. I never heard of that place the way he is saying it. It is certainly not in Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, in any event, while this Chamber is wasting more time on yet more messaging bills, a real crisis is unfolding in plain sight. Our allies are preparing for a possible military conflict with the United States. Let me repeat that again.
Our closest allies, our partners in freedom and peace for decades, are reinforcing their territory because the President of the United States has plunged us into the greatest transatlantic crisis in a generation.
Are we supposed to be relieved by the fact that finally, after a week of chaos, he said he won't use force? Is that supposed to somehow comfort us? I don't really feel very comforted because these are the same people who told us they wouldn't invade Venezuela the week before they invaded Venezuela. Let me remind everyone how this started.
Last weekend, Donald Trump sent a message to Norway's Prime Minister. I want the President's words in the Record because the American people deserve to hear them.
``Dear Jonas, considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace.''
Now, let's listen to that again. Since he didn't get the prize, the President of the United States says he no longer feels obligated to think of peace.
Then he pivots from grievance to threats, saying that he wants ``complete and total control of Greenland.''
That is nuts. Again, this is truly crazy. This is the President of the United States talking about a NATO ally the way that Putin talked about Crimea before he invaded Ukraine.
`` . . . if we don't do it the easy way, we are going to do it the hard way.''
Again, that is not a Putin quote. It is a Trump quote. You can hardly tell the damned difference anymore. Wake up, America.
Are any of my friends on the other side of the aisle going to step up and put an end to this insanity, or are we all just going to shrug it off and move on? The President's own words show that he is living in a different reality. He told The New York Times that acquiring Greenland is psychologically important to him. Not to the United States, but to him personally.
Mr. Speaker, just so we are all on the same page, the U.S. does not need to invade Greenland to protect America. We already have a U.S. military presence there, and Denmark has basically said that they are happy to partner with us even further, because our militaries already work very closely, to make sure that Russia or China doesn't gain a foothold in the Arctic, so his own justification is total BS.
Threatening to annex Greenland actually makes us less safe. If we wanted to stand up to Russia, I can think of a really easy way to do that that doesn't involve invading a NATO ally. No, no, no. In no way is this about national security or defending the Arctic. It is a cover story.
This is about a thin-skinned, petty man throwing a global tantrum because he didn't get the prize that he thinks he deserves. Through all of this, barely a peep from most Republicans--not a whisper. Imagine if this were a Democratic President. They would be up in arms. We would be having investigations and subpoenas, and it would be a national scandal. Yet, we are hearing nothing from Republicans because they are in a cult.
I will say what they won't: None of this is normal. This is not a joke. This is not something Republicans can
European allies have begun sending troops to Greenland to protect it from an American invasion. Canada has signaled that such an invasion would activate Article 5, meaning our allies would be obligated to take military action against us. Record-setting protests are taking place in Greenland and in Denmark because they have no interest in being taken over by Trump.
Instead of deescalating, Trump is ramping up--tariffs, threats, blackmail, trying to bully our allies into letting him grab territory.
Do you know what the kicker is to all of this? Working people will pay the price for Trump's little temper tantrum. When you blow up alliances, you don't just blow up diplomacy. You blow up supply chains. You blow up markets. You blow up global stability, and it is never the billionaires who eat the cost. It is families. It is farmers. It is workers. It is regular people.
Maybe that is why 91 percent of Americans think that taking over Greenland is a stupid idea, but here is the bottom line: China benefits when America alienates Europe. Russia benefits when NATO is weakened and distracted. Every authoritarian on Earth benefits when the President of the United States starts acting like a two-bit tyrant.
I will just end on this: The world where America invades Greenland is a horrible, horrible world. It is a world with no moral compass. It is a world with no North Star towards liberty and justice. It is a world where China, Russia, and America conspire together to subvert freedom, democracy, and peace. It is a world I don't want to live in, but it is the world that will come to be if we allow this President to do what he says he wants to do.
My message to our allies is simple: Do not mistake this President for the American people. Stand up to him. Do not appease him, and know that there are Americans and there are Members of Congress who will stand with you in defense of democracy, alliances, and the rule of law.
My message to House Republicans is even more simple: It is time to take the car keys from grandpa. Stop worshipping this President. Stop acting like you are in a cult. Grow a spine, and for once in your lives, cut the BS and do something to stop him.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is reminded again to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want everybody to take a deep breath, and I want you to know that Donald Trump, nor the United States is going to invade Greenland. It is not going to happen. It is just not.
Now, Russia might invade it, and China might invade it. As far as Canada and the NATO alliance goes, I just have to tell you that Canada committed to buying approximately 90 F-35s. Do you know how many they actually purchased? Less than 20.
Canada's national security strategy is to pick up the phone and call Donald Trump to protect us. Donald Trump has done the right thing by making NATO and our partners stand up and acknowledge that they don't have the defenses in place that they need.
While some people might not want to believe it, I will tell you one that does.
Mark Rutte, NATO chief, praises Trump at Davos by saying that he forced Europe to step up on defense. Now, this is the head of NATO. He is the head of NATO. A couple of comments about President Trump.
`` . . . I'm not popular with you now because I'm defending Donald Trump, but I really believe you can be happy that he is there because he has forced us in Europe to step up, to face the consequences that we have to take care more of our own defense,'' Rutte said.
Wednesday, in remarks at Davos, Switzerland: ``No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They are all on 2 percent now.''
It went on during a panel at the World Economic Forum.
``I'm absolutely convinced, without Donald Trump we would not have taken those decisions. And they are crucial, particularly for the European and the Canadian side of NATO to really grow up''--``grow up,'' this is the head of NATO saying this about NATO--``in the post- Cold War world.''
``The Americans still have over 80,000 soldiers in Europe. . . . including in Poland, in Germany . . . they are still heavily invested in European defense. And yes, they have to pivot more towards Asia. So, it is only logical for them to expect us in Europe to step up, over time.''
I will tell you: Donald Trump doesn't have any plans to invade Greenland, but the Russians do. The Russians do. If NATO is not willing to do what it takes to defend Greenland, then the United States should.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of two commonsense, profamily bills before the House today.
This week, as thousands gather in Washington for the March for Life, we are reminded that being pro-life means standing with mothers, children, and families.
The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act allows States to better partner with pregnancy centers who are providing real help to new mothers who are taking the journey of parenthood. These centers are a pillar for nearly 2 million families every year, making it easier to provide and foster a loving bond throughout communities just like mine in North Carolina.
No longer will political discrimination keep compassion at the doorway. No longer will bureaucrats in Washington prevent pregnant mothers from accessing services and assistance from faith-based pregnancy centers, which help their families grow and thrive.
Mr. Speaker, we need to be a country that affirms life.
In tandem, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act communicates a simple truth to young women: The birth of your child is not an ultimatum of choosing to grow your family or continuing your education. If you are a young woman who gets pregnant and is getting your education, this bill strengthens Title IX protections to make sure that your school clearly informs you of your rights and ensures accountability if those rights are violated.
For too long, young women have felt isolated, pressured, and unsupported. That is unacceptable, and it needs to stop.
Mr. Speaker, these bills reflect what the pro-life movement has always stood for: dignity, opportunity, and hope. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, support these families, and stand on the side of life.
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to be lectured by people who claim they are pro-life but who vote to take food away from hungry kids in this country, who vote to cut SNAP by $200 billion in the big, ugly bill, who vote to cut Medicaid by $1 trillion in the big, ugly bill. It really is incredible. It takes my breath away.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I thought maybe I was in the wrong place when I heard the debate when I walked in today. I do want to add that I agree it is not pro-life to cut services to families and to make childcare more expensive. These bills are anti-choice.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to these two deceptively titled bills: H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, which allows Health and Human Services funds to be sent to crisis pregnancy centers, and H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, which unfairly limits the information it requires colleges to provide to students and the students it chooses to support.
Most crisis pregnancy centers are sham organizations. They have the sole purpose of advancing an anti-choice
For example, a pregnancy resource center in Pennsylvania told a pregnant woman that she had a miscarriage, so she left. Then, later, she was still experiencing pregnancy symptoms, so she went to a real doctor who told her she still had a viable pregnancy.
This deception is wrong on so many levels, and these centers should be held accountable, not receive government funds.
I introduced the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act to prohibit unfair or deceptive advertising about abortion services and services that crisis pregnancy centers do and do not offer.
Also, pregnant students deserve access to medically accurate, comprehensive planning resources and a full range of reproductive healthcare options. Yet, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act only requires colleges to provide information about carrying a child to term.
I offered an amendment to this bill that would have colleges also provide comprehensive, medically accurate information to students, but my Republican colleagues rejected it.
Deciding whether and when to have a child is a deeply personal--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Deciding whether and when to have a child is a deeply personal decision. It should not be made by politicians, and it certainly should not be made by anti-choice extremists.
The biased, anti-choice efforts underpinning these two bills will make it harder for students to make informed decisions about what is best for them. They are the ones who should be making these decisions. Promoting partisan legislation that fails to address the full healthcare needs of students does not lead to academic success.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these bills, reject H.R. 6359 and H.R. 6945, and instead stand up for those who are making that personal decision themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of people who work in these centers. They are honest, dedicated, hardworking people who care about the pregnant mothers and the unborn children. I think that the attacks on them are unfounded, unwarranted, and unprofessional.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let's be clear, all of these crummy bills that are coming to the floor today are under completely closed rules.
The gentlewoman who just spoke, her amendment was blocked from being debated and voted on on the House floor by my Republican colleagues. Everything is just closed--their way or the highway. It is a terrible pattern that has developed here.
Mr. Speaker, after 1 year of total Republican control, there is nowhere left to hide. Republicans ran on helping working people. They ran on lowering costs. They ran on grocery prices and rent. What did they do? They delivered all right--for billionaires and big donors.
If Wall Street wanted a tax break, it would get done in a nanosecond. If Amazon wanted another loophole, it would materialize out of thin air. If Big Oil wanted another permit, they would roll out the red carpet. If Big Pharma wanted to rip off people, Republicans look the other way.
That is how things have worked around here for the last year. It is never a problem paying for tax breaks for billionaires, but somehow, when everyday people needed help, Republicans were nowhere to be found. They cut food assistance, cut Medicaid, and cut help for regular people. They stole from those with the least to give more to those with the most.
I am so sick of the excuses. For a year, we have heard Republicans blame everyone but themselves: blame Biden, blame Democrats, blame George Soros, blame the Clintons, blame Kamala Harris, blame the blue States, blame the media, blame fill-in-the-blank.
Here is a thought, Mr. Speaker: Why don't you guys blame yourselves? You control the House, the Senate, and the White House. You are in charge. You set the schedule. You control the government. You have been in power for an entire year. If you are still blaming someone else, that is really not a strategy. It is a confession.
As much as you guys might need a priest, I am not here to offer forgiveness or absolution. I am here to demand accountability.
Republicans need to take ownership of your pathetic, incompetent, disastrous inability to deliver on anything you said you would.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, after listening to that, I can't help but go back to when 99 percent of Republicans voted to keep the government open just a couple of months ago, and 100 percent of Democrats voted to shut it down, how the Democrats were running around saying: See what the Republicans did. I mean, it is a totally false narrative.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the House can advance three simple pieces of legislation under this rule.
H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, addresses uncertainty and makes clear that States may not be restricted from choosing to work with pregnancy centers and that TANF funds may be used for these services consistent with Federal law. This is not a mandate, Mr. Speaker. We are not saying that the States have to do this.
H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, requires colleges and universities that receive Federal student aid to clearly disseminate information regarding pregnant students' rights, available accommodations, and both on-campus and community resources.
H.J. Res. 140 rescinds the Biden administration's mineral ban on almost a quarter of a million acres in the Superior National Forest and allows a transparent process to develop the minerals in the Duluth Complex to move forward.
Mr. Speaker, all three of these measures are worthy of support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6945, Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 1009) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6945) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to clarify the authority of States to use funds for pregnancy centers, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6359) to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, nays 210, not voting 9, as follows:
Messrs. GOTTHEIMER and CONAWAY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BARR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the bill (H.R. 6945) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to clarify the authority of States to use funds for pregnancy centers, 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 1009, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-17 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 Ways and Means or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) 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 and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act led by Representative Fischbach.
What this bill does is really pretty simple. It ensures States will be able to continue to use TANF funds for pregnancy resource centers and the maternal care they provide to pregnant women and moms. That is it, Mr. Speaker.
Pregnancy resource centers offered material support and care to over 2 million women at more than 2,700 locations in 2024 alone, including diapers, prenatal vitamins, parenting classes, and transportation, just to name a few of the many services provided to these mothers.
These services meet the core purposes of TANF. Yet, the Biden administration proposed a regulation to discriminate against the pro- life mission of pregnancy resource centers by forbidding States from using TANF funds for these centers. It was a deliberate attempt to sidestep the law to achieve a partisan political agenda. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, in the TANF statute gave the Biden administration or any other future administration the ability to target pregnancy resource centers.
Following pressure from the Committee on Ways and Means and this Chamber, the Biden administration withdrew the rule in its final days. Think of what would have happened to maternal care in this country. One of the few places women can get care and support would have been closed.
In my home State of Missouri, $3 out of every $4 the State gives to pregnancy resource centers comes from TANF, and it is not just Missouri. Women in other States would have had fewer choices for their own care.
That is why we are passing this bill, to give pregnant women and moms a choice about where they receive maternal care and to stop any future administration from taking the same action as the Biden White House.
Democrats will talk until they are blue in the face, Mr. Speaker, about a woman's right to choose, but they oppose this bill, which is all about empowering women to make their own choices.
Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Simply because it doesn't align with their political agenda. The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning, Mr. Speaker. Democrats only believe in choice when it is the choice that their party would make.
Republicans are on the side of pregnant women, moms, and children who choose to get the help they need at one of these centers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as families across the country are being crushed by rising costs and stripped of their healthcare, it is shameful that Republicans have chosen to bring a bill to the floor that does nothing to address these crises for pregnant women and families.
Instead, the bill before us today would allow Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, dollars to be used to fund so-called crisis pregnancy centers that have a proven track record of intentionally lying to, misleading, and endangering women.
It is no coincidence that this bill is being rushed to the floor this week as Republicans once again prioritize appeasing a national anti- abortion group in town for its annual rally instead of addressing the real crises facing American families.
I want to paint a picture as to what happens to a young woman who suspects that she may be pregnant. She has a mix of emotions. She may have overwhelming fear and anxiety, especially if she has few resources. She goes to what she thinks is a medical center or clinic, and it is called a pregnancy center of some sort.
When she gets there, she is greeted so warmly with open arms. There are people in white coats, who she assumes are medical professionals. They tell her she can get so many things for free: pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, pregnancy counseling, and, after the birth, even free diapers and formula. It all sounds so wonderful to this woman that she says sign me up.
They don't tell this woman that, in order to get these free services, she has to first sit through an ideological or religious indoctrination session in which all the reasons not to have an abortion are given.
They don't tell her that the person administering the ultrasound has no medical credentials, that, in fact, this is not an official ultrasound, and that she could be misdiagnosed.
They don't tell her that half of the personnel in the so-called clinic have no medical credentials at all and, therefore, are not equipped to advise on any medical complications, such as an ectopic pregnancy.
They don't tell her that this is not a medical clinic at all. In fact, because it is not, this woman's privacy is not protected, and her information could be shared with the public.
The real world of the crisis pregnancy centers is exemplified by an OB/GYN in Iowa, who has seen patients who visited these centers and were told that using contraceptives was the same as having an abortion. She has seen patients who suffered miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies because they were misdiagnosed by these anti-abortion centers.
These women were told that their pregnancies were in the early stages or that they were experiencing normal amounts of pain because the staff members they saw were not actual, qualified medical professionals.
As a result, these women ended up in the hospital, needing emergency care and surgery to save their lives.
In Illinois, a woman seeking an abortion was deliberately misled by a fake clinic. She was subjected to graphic videos and told that having an abortion would make her infertile and, ultimately, mentally ill.
Ultimately, she was coerced into carrying a pregnancy to term. After giving birth, she lost her job and health coverage, and the so-called clinic never offered real medical care or follow-up support.
This is why the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have raised serious ethical and medical concerns about these clinics.
Now, Republicans want to guarantee that taxpayer dollars through these TANF funds will fund these centers and that there will be no accountability for these dollars.
Let's first be clear about what TANF is actually supposed to be for. TANF exists to help families experiencing poverty meet their most basic needs and stabilize their lives so parents can work and children can thrive. TANF was never intended to subsidize anti-abortion propaganda or unregulated sham clinics that endanger women's health. Yet, that is exactly what this bill does.
Not only that, it goes beyond the regular TANF program, which requires reporting and accountability. Actually, this bill says that nothing shall be construed to restrict TANF funding for these centers, meaning that funding could not be taken away from them even if the center engages in deceptive practices or even causes a woman's death.
When the Ways and Means Committee marked up this bill last week, Democrats offered commonsense amendments that should have been uncontroversial to anyone who cares about women and families. We simply proposed that TANF funds not go to pregnancy centers that have engaged in deceptive or misleading practices that provide medically inaccurate information or that have endangered the health of a woman seeking care.
We also offered amendments to address the real crisis affecting the TANF program, which is the Trump administration's decision to seek revenge against five Democratic Governors by preventing them from accessing $10 billion in already appropriated funds for TANF and childcare.
Republicans rejected every one of these amendments.
Clearly, this bill is not about supporting pregnant women and families. It is about shielding deceptive actors, supporting Trump's revenge tactics, and using public funds to advance an extreme anti- abortion agenda.
If Republicans truly cared about pregnant women and families, we would be debating how to undo their $1 trillion cut to Medicaid, which rips healthcare away from millions of pregnant women, new mothers, and children, and how to help the millions of women seeing their health insurance premiums skyrocket due to months of Republican inaction.
Instead, this bill is merely an attempt to distract from these devastating realities with the ultimate goal of appeasing the anti- abortion advocates parading around Washington this week as countless women suffer and die under extreme Republican abortion bans. Their priorities are clear and profoundly misguided.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak. I am so proud to rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
For too long, previous Democrat administrations have weaponized the Department of Health and Human Services against pregnancy resource centers by attempting to cut off their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, funding. This bill puts a definitive stop to that harassment. It clarifies that these centers fundamentally meet the statutory purposes of TANF by providing essential assistance to children and expectant mothers.
The TANF block grant is built on four specific statutory goals, and States have broad authority to pursue them all.
Let's look at the second goal: to ``end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits through work, job preparation, and marriage.'' Cash assistance alone does not end dependence. It often merely just manages it. Pregnancy resource centers offer the best hope of achieving this goal by providing parenting classes and life skills training to help that mother move from a crisis to self-sufficiency.
Pregnancy centers are the backbone of community-based support. The impact of their work is undeniable.
In 2024 alone, over 2,700 centers aided nearly 3.8 million women, children, and families. These centers provided over $452 million in total medical care, education, and material goods.
As Democrats continue to attack pregnancy care centers, I have asked them repeatedly if they have ever visited a center, ever bothered to go and see what they are talking about because if they had, they would see the compassion, the support, and love that are present in these facilities. These centers are staffed by trained men and women who guide and support mothers, fathers, children, and families. They are for the families from pregnancy through childbirth and beyond with parenting classes and assistance such as formula, diapers, and whatever else that family may need.
The attempt to strip TANF funding from these centers was never about fiscal responsibility. It was a targeted, ideological attack on organizations that provide a real alternative to abortion.
Democrats say choice, choice, choice over and over, but they try to deny women the choice to choose life.
H.R. 6945 codifies the operations of TANF to ensure this funding stream remains focused on its mission, helping needy families and children, rather than serving as a tool for ideological gatekeeping.
I am incredibly proud of this bill, which protects the most vulnerable among us and ensures that every woman facing adversity has the options, resources, and support she deserves.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the previous speaker said that these clinics have trained staff, but many of these centers pose as clinics, offer incorrect medical advice, and even go so far as to wear scrubs and white coats to appear as though they are trained. Actually, fewer than half of crisis pregnancy centers have a licensed medical professional on staff. Mr. Speaker, 95 percent do not provide prenatal care, and only 1 out of 607 provides contraception, and the facilities are unregulated.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. Speaker, as we begin 2026 with Trump and Republican policies squeezing workers, spiking costs, tanking job security, the Republican leadership advances this bill to divert money intended for poor children to dangerous anti-abortion centers.
When my home State of Illinois and four other States are facing an illegal reduction of about $8.9 billion in TANF and SSBG funds due to political retaliation, the Republican leadership chooses to move a bill restricting women's reproductive choices.
If Republicans really wanted to help parents care for their children, they would work with Democrats to ensure that HHS follows the law and immediately releases the childcare funds that HHS is illegally delaying from States across the country.
Illinois receives about $400 million from the Child Care and Development Fund and another $500 million from TANF that help low- income working families afford quality childcare.
Disruption to this funding will have substantial, immediate, and destructive consequences to children, families, businesses, and communities.
I am upset but not shocked that the Republican leadership rejected my amendment to this bill that would penalize HHS for illegally withholding payments of TANF, Child Care Entitlement to States, or SSBG funding if the agency fails to pay an amount due to a State within 5 days by requiring the agency to make a monthly payment of the amount due plus interest.
HHS should be held accountable for harming individuals, families, and businesses.
I strongly oppose this bill that tramples on women's rights to choose their own best health interests.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and for his leadership. I especially want to thank Michelle Fischbach for her leadership and compassion by offering and authoring this legislation to protect pregnancy care centers from discrimination and to ensure that they can continue their important work of assisting families in need.
Mr. Speaker, I was at a New Jersey pregnancy center dinner a few years ago when two women through tears of joy expressed their deep and abiding gratitude for the incredible love, respect, and care that persuaded them to reverse their decision to abort their babies.
They spoke of how desperate, even hopeless, they were. They spoke about the pressure that they were under to abort until they met the director of the pregnancy resource center who reached out to both of them at different times but within about a month in a gentle and nonjudgmental way.
They chose life and thanked God, the director, and the pregnancy resource center for helping them avert the loss of their precious babies' lives.
Then, Mr. Speaker, two teenaged girls took to the podium and spoke about their lives: schools, sports, friends, and their reverence for the sanctity of human life.
Near the end of their remarks, they turned toward the director of the center and thanked her for being there for their moms through those very difficult times and said: If you weren't there for them, we would be dead.
This is coming from two girls standing at the podium, and that has been replicated many, many times throughout the country. There are more than 55 pregnancy care centers in my district. I have been to many of them. They are filled with the most loving, compassionate, and honest people I have ever met.
So I find all the smear that we always hear so objectionable. They are an amazing group of women. They are almost all women, who run these pregnancy care centers.
Consider the story of Jean Marie Davis, a mother and a survivor of human trafficking.
I know a little about human trafficking. I have written five laws on trafficking, including the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. There is a big, heavy, trauma-informed emphasis on victims, and we have one now pending to further that effort.
This woman, Jean Marie Davis, is a survivor of trafficking who says that her life was saved by a pregnancy care center.
She said: ``I was trafficked in 33 States.''
She went on: ``Even though I was losing weight from the drugs, my belly kept growing, and I soon discovered the pregnancy that would ultimately save my life.''
Fighting despair and with only $1.38 to her name, she had almost no place to turn. She was connected with a woman named Phyllis at a local pregnancy care center.
She says:
The pregnancy center provided me with free resources and support, and then when the child was born to take
That is because these people have such compassion, not the smear we hear from the other side. They have compassion, and I am just amazed at that, that the other side says these things about these wonderful people.
Years later she applied, and now she is the executive director of the Branches Pregnancy Resource Center in Vermont. She is giving back. She was given so much by these individuals, and now she is giving back.
Across the U.S., there are more than 2,700 pregnancy centers offering mothers and their precious children an oasis of love, compassion, and care.
One report found that in 2024, $452 million in free medical care was provided. I have been to these. There are so many nurses at these pregnancy care centers. They do ultrasounds.
Frankly, when the woman does see the baby, it is transformational. Mr. Speaker, you don't get that in a Planned Parenthood clinic at all. They talk about the child being a nonentity and not a human being.
Recognizing the extraordinary care provided at these centers, some States--there are at least six of them, including the distinguished chairman's from Missouri--do provide TANF funding. Biden was in the process of promulgating a rule that would have precluded that.
We can't allow that to happen now or ever. This important legislation--again, I can't thank Michelle enough for it--would ensure that pregnancy centers cannot be excluded or restricted from receiving TANF funding as a result of discrimination and the smear campaign that they suffer.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will soon render its decision on a very important case coming out of my State, and I do think it will be favorable. These are amazing centers, and we ought to be supporting them, not smearing them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the previous speaker could have met this Massachusetts woman who sought care at a crisis pregnancy center after a Google advertisement led her to believe it was a legitimate medical facility where she could confirm her pregnancy. At Clear Way, a nurse administered an ultrasound and told the plaintiff that she had a viable intrauterine pregnancy. The nurse was not licensed to diagnose viable pregnancies and did not undertake appropriate medical measures to rule out an ectopic pregnancy.
Rather than referring the patient for immediate medical evaluation, Clear Way staff focused on encouraging her to continue the pregnancy. As a result of the misdiagnosis, this woman's ectopic pregnancy ruptured, causing massive internal bleeding and requiring emergency surgery. She lost a fallopian tube and narrowly avoided death.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record links to three articles. The first is: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ``Issue Brief: Crisis Pregnancy Centers.'' https:// schneider.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/schneider.house.gov/files/evo- media-document/crisis-pregnancy-centers-rep-schneider.pdf.
The second is from the AMA Journal of Ethics: ``Why Crisis Pregnancy Centers Are Legal but Unethical.'' https://schneider.house.gov/sites/ evo-subsites/schneider.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/why-crisis- pregnancy-cen ters-are-legal-but-unethical-rep-schnei der_0.pdf.
The third is an article by a number of doctors from Women's Health Reports: ``Truth and Transparency in Crisis Pregnancy Centers.'' https://schneider.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/schneider.house.gov/ files/evo-media-document/truth-and-transparency-in-crisis-preg nancy- centers-rep-schneider.pdf.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is shameful that my Republican colleagues have brought this bill to the floor to funnel money to so- called crisis pregnancy centers and away from programs that truly help families in need.
My Republican colleagues are saying that these centers help women. In reality, too many of these centers trick women before they even walk in the door.
They advertise themselves as real medical clinics. They are not. They might look like a normal doctor's office with ultrasound machines and employees wearing lab coats, but the coats are for show, and the employees are not medical professionals.
Mr. Speaker, don't be fooled. The primary purpose of these centers is to deceive women, and the organizations promoting these centers are the same organizations advocating for a national abortion ban.
Here is what should concern us all: These centers routinely spread medical misinformation and intentionally cause delays in accessing legitimate healthcare. Their theory is delay long enough and women in crisis are effectively forced to continue their pregnancies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you will hear my Republican colleagues tout that these centers offer maternal care. They don't. Real maternal care requires real medical professionals who offer real, ethical, and comprehensive health services, who are licensed and regulated, and who don't have a personal bias counter to their patients' medical interest or decisions.
Yet, my Republican colleagues want to divert Federal TANF funding away from families in need and to these clinics instead. This is a disgraceful diversion. If my Republican colleagues were serious about helping children and families in need, let them speak out against this administration's illegal payment freeze for childcare and child welfare funding.
Right now, as we debate this bill on eligibility for TANF spending, the Trump administration is illegally holding up more than $10 billion in Federal funding for childcare and family assistance funding, including TANF funds, to States, including my own of Illinois, as well as California, New York, Colorado, and Minnesota.
The administration is illegally withholding payments to States for childcare, foster care, child protective services, and cash assistance to low-income families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
Across our Nation, more than 2,700 pregnancy centers serve nearly 2 million women and families each year. I have seen firsthand my local pregnancy centers in California and the services they provide offering diapers, baby clothes, prenatal education, ultrasounds, housing referrals, and additional real, compassionate support during life's most vulnerable moments.
These services are valued at over $450 million annually and help families choose stability, self-sufficiency, and hope.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was created to strengthen families, reduce dependency, and ensure children can be cared for in their own homes.
Pregnancy resource centers, especially in rural communities, clearly advance those goals. However, under the Biden administration, a proposed rule was issued that singled out pregnancy centers and preemptively suggested State spending on these organizations would no longer be allowable.
The Biden rule was never finalized, but there is a need to make sure future administrations do not pursue similar actions. H.R. 6945 ensures fairness. It clarifies that States may continue partnering with pregnancy centers without political interference now and in the future.
Mr. Speaker, this bill stands for mothers, children, and families, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I wish we could think of the woman in Pennsylvania who was pregnant who sought care at what she thought was a medically certified clinic, but during her appointment, the staff told her she had already miscarried and was sent home.
As time went on, though, she continued experiencing pregnancy symptoms, so she later went to a licensed doctor who told her she was still pregnant and that the crisis pregnancy center had given her the wrong information. This misdiagnosis greatly increased her risk of having pregnancy complications.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislation that prioritizes a partisan agenda over the health, privacy, and autonomy of women.
Most of these so-called pregnancy centers are not licensed medical clinics. What does that mean? It means they can and often do share women's private medical information without their consent. It means they can and often do provide false and misleading medical information about abortion, contraception, and other reproductive health services for women.
In California, my home State, our attorney general was compelled to issue a consumer alert warning the public about deceptive practices employed by these centers.
At a time when access to reproductive healthcare is under attack, our Republican colleagues are advancing a bill that funnels resources to organizations that mislead women rather than provide comprehensive medical care.
Let me repeat: Most of these so-called pregnancy centers are not licensed medical clinics. How can we, in good conscience, send our constituents for healthcare to unlicensed facilities? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, the proudest title that I carry is one that was given to me some 26 years ago from my son: Mama. I have also been a nurse for more than 30 years. Not only do I have my doctorate in family practice but also in psychiatric mental health.
I have spent my entire life caring for others, especially women and families in crisis. I have listened to their fears, and I have worked to make sure that they weren't facing those moments alone. That is why I rise today in support of H.R. 6945, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
As thousands gather in Washington for the March for Life, we are reminded that the pro-life cause isn't just about protecting the unborn, but it is about honoring life at every single stage. That means showing up with real help, not just during the pregnancy, but as families begin the journey of nurturing a child.
Under the Biden administration, there were efforts to block States from partnering with pregnancy centers. This bill pushes back. It protects a State's ability to work with trusted local organizations, centers that offer prenatal care, parenting classes, counseling, and everyday necessities like diapers, formula, and baby clothes.
I have visited centers like this in my own district and seen the compassion that they offer firsthand. These are places where women are met with dignity, not judgment, and where families are supported not just through pregnancy, but long after.
This bill reflects what we believe: that every single life is a gift from God, every mother deserves compassion, and every child deserves a chance because, as Scripture reminds us: ``I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.''
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Kentucky, where a postpartum nurse with 20 years of experience was motivated to volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center. During her training, she learned that the clinic was using expired disinfectants to sanitize ultrasound equipment. Not only that, the kind of disinfectant that the clinic was using was ineffective in targeting human papillomavirus, which causes 90 percent of cervical cancer cases.
The volunteer nurse quit. She filed whistleblower complaints with the State, but nothing was ever done, highlighting the lack of accountability at the centers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. Speaker, in their incessant drive to impose a national ban on all forms of abortion, Republicans continue to block relief for millions of Americans who are struggling with soaring ObamaCare health insurance premiums. Now, today, they offer this bill to funnel taxpayer dollars to fake health clinics.
To deceive women, these so-called pregnancy crisis centers use medical jargon and dress up in scrubs, yet most of the 2,600 clinics do not have a single licensed medical professional. Instead, they rely on fear and misinformation to discourage vulnerable women as they are trying to make one of the most important healthcare decisions about what is best for them.
Much more shocking than the waste that is promoted through this bill is the indifference with which so many extremist Republicans have shown to the right to life, the right to life for the mother, the right to life for American women.
I chaired an Austin field hearing last August, and I heard dozens of tragic stories from Texas women like Kaitlyn Kash and Amanda Zurawski, forced to the brink of death before they could receive care for a miscarriage, hemorrhage, or sepsis.
An obstetrician, Dr. Donell Oliver, testified: ``Women are dying; families are suffering; and medical professionals' hands are being tied.'' That is the result of the kind of strict abortion ban Republicans have imposed on Texas women that some here want to impose on all 50 States and all women in our country.
I think the death certificates for so many other women who have been denied treatment for pregnancy complications should really read the truth, which is ``Cause of Death: Republican abortion ban.''
For every American whose life is threatened by Republican extremist interference, I strongly oppose this bill and urge its rejection.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats are fear-mongering today. The majority of pregnancy resource centers have voluntarily signed on to industry standards, a call to commitment of care and competence created by Heartbeat International. These standards set an ethical code where they agree to adopt a transparent and honest service model.
According to a recent report that surveyed 2,750 different pregnancy centers in 2025, there were 4,779 licensed medical professionals on staff, and 5,396 licensed medical professional volunteers.
I include in the Record a copy of Heartbeat International's ``Our Commitment of Care and Competence.''
Mr. Speaker, from hearing my Democratic colleagues talk today, it is clear that none of them has ever been to a pregnancy resource center, and they certainly have never used their services.
Mr. Speaker, 17 years ago, my wife, Sallyann, and I found out we were expecting our first child. Sallyann thought she was having some issues with our pregnancy when she was only 7 weeks pregnant. We were young, and we were scared. We didn't have a place to turn until one of her friends suggested that we go to a pregnancy resource center.
We went down to the Women's Care Center in South Bend, where they welcomed us with open and loving arms. They gave her an ultrasound, and for the very first time, we saw our child, who, at that time, was about the size of a peanut. Half of that peanut was a heartbeat. Most importantly, they assured us that our child was okay and would be just fine.
When we went to leave, I had just one question for them: How much do we owe you? They looked at us and they said: Guys, the services that we provide here are free. You can go on your way. They assured us that our baby was healthy, and they gave us such peace of mind.
Here we are, 17 years later, and our daughter Elle is smart. She is beautiful. She is a junior in high school, and we are out looking for colleges. The pregnancy resource center in my community was there for us when we were young and scared, when we had very limited resources, but, unfortunately, if my Democrat colleagues had their way, our healthcare would have been denied.
Why deny the Sallyann Yakym's of the world access to the care that they need? Why deny people like my daughter, Elle, the care to make sure that they are okay?
I wish my friends from the other side of the aisle would simply join me in voting ``yes'' today on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), for the introduction of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, let me say, there is a comprehensive study by the Alliance for Women's Rights and Gender Equality that studied 607 crisis pregnancy centers across nine States, and they documented a consistent pattern of deception, misinformation, and patient harm.
Nearly two-thirds of the centers promoted patently false or biased medical claims about pregnancy, abortions, contraception, or reproductive health providers, and fewer than half reported having a licensed medical professional on staff.
These are not isolated incidents. These are standard practices for these centers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6945.
The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act is yet another Republican betrayal cruelly masked by a misleading title.
After spending the last few weeks threatening access to childcare support and doing literally nothing to help millions of Americans afford their healthcare, Republicans want to direct taxpayer dollars away from helping families afford necessities like food, rent, and childcare to crisis pregnancy centers that prey on vulnerable women seeking legitimate reproductive healthcare.
We have heard today that wonderful, caring people staff these crisis pregnancy centers, and I don't doubt that, but crisis pregnancy centers do not provide medical care, though they imply that they do. Crisis pregnancy centers are unregulated, deceptive, and dangerous.
As an OB/GYN myself for more than 20 years, I have seen far too many patients who have had, at best, confusing and, at worst, life- threatening experiences at crisis pregnancy centers. They don't serve patients. They serve the anti-abortion agenda.
Let me be clear: Every person has the right and deserves the dignity to make their own healthcare decisions, free from intimidation, deception, and coercion. At a time when our country has a shameful maternal and infant mortality crisis and is facing a worsening shortage of obstetricians, the so-called pro-life movement is focused not on helping women or supporting their families or delivering the IVF coverage the President promised; they are focused on denying women their reproductive rights and failing to deliver for American families.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand for women and families, for dignity and for freedom, and vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, holy cow. The things that you hear from the other side in this body could not be so--not truthful-- false.
They paint with a broad brush and say the most ridiculous items, saying that pregnancy resource centers do not help anyone. Give me a break. Where I come from, whenever someone says something useless, we call it hogwash. They are swimming in hogwash on that side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, well, it is not hogwash to this woman in Georgia. She sought care from an unregulated clinic that offered free ultrasounds and medical advice. She thought that was so great. The ultrasound technician incorrectly informed her that her baby's kidneys were filled with water and that she needed to see a primary care doctor.
The diagnosis was incorrect, but the stress of that misdiagnosis severely impacted the mother. She said: The irony in all this is that they could have caused me to lose a perfectly healthy pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Despite the grandiose title, Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, this bill carves out--let's keep the main thing to main thing. What it does, it carves out an earmark for an industry with a narrow ideological mission to provide, I guess what I call anti- abortion, but Mr. Chairman over there, he called it pro-life counseling services.
Actually, this just does not fit within the four core purposes of the TANF bill, which is why the Biden administration prohibited this. No more that we provide moneys for abortion counseling, which if you stop and think about it, it would fit more neatly into the core provisions of the TANF bill, and that is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We don't provide abortion clinics with TANF moneys nor should we provide it to these clinics.
Mr. Speaker, I hear the tortured explanation of how this fits into the core duties of the TANF bill, and I hear them talking about the diapers and the formula and all the wonderful things. The March of Dimes provides all that stuff, too, but we don't provide them with TANF funds.
No. This is a diversion from the already underfunded TANF program which has been flat funded for 30 years at $16.5 billion and now we have, according to the chairman, millions of women, 2 million, and 7,000 centers that are now going to be able to access TANF dollars.
These TANF dollars were meant not to provide baby wipes and diapers for babies up to 6 months old, but to help a woman navigate her way into the workforce to get job training, to have cash assistance until she can get on her feet, not to provide moneys to stand up this ideological and, quite frankly, religious organization.
That is why I oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I am going to later on offer an amendment that would allow States to use TANF dollars, again, not undermining this bill, but adding a section that would allow States to use TANF dollars for security at childcare facilities and to be able to gather evidence of harassment of childcare providers and to give local law enforcement the ability to secure a place for children because one of the core responsibilities of the TANF funding is to provide childcare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
This all comes because there have been vigilantes showing up at childcare centers.
These are people who are not Health Department officials, not auditors showing up and harassing TANF recipients who need childcare as we deny
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record my amendment.
Mr. Speaker, let the record reflect that this bill maintains the status quo of funding. Right now, people can use TANF dollars for funding. That is how it has always been. This is just protecting that it continues to do so because the prior President, President Biden, decided to try to eliminate it for the first time in history. We are trying to prevent it so that no future administration can do that. Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk about one individual. We hear all kinds of examples over here.
Let me talk about a 21-year-old named Faith who found out she was pregnant. While driving down the highway, she saw a sign for a pregnancy resource center in Rolla, Missouri, my congressional district.
While sharing her initial visit, Faith said that the center specifically told her: ``Anything you need, we will help you get it.'' She was shunned by her family and pressured by her fiance to abort their unborn child.
After being shunned, Faith decided to return to the pregnancy resource center in Rolla, Missouri. Through talking with those at the center, Faith realized that she ultimately did want to have her child. She gave birth to her son, Noah. Now, years later, Faith volunteers at the very center that helped her life and protected her son, Noah.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that this bill actually allows these funds to be free of any accountability. It actually changes the way in which these TANF funds are being used.
Right now, there has to be accountability if States use TANF funds for the crisis pregnancy centers. What this bill does is, by amending section 404 of the Social Security Act to state that nothing in this part may be construed to restrict TANF funding for pregnancy centers, this bill actually overrides TANF's statutory purposes, reporting requirements, penalty authority, and HHS enforcement provisions.
As a result, any future Federal effort to limit condition or review TANF funding for these crisis pregnancy centers could be challenged as prohibited by this statute.
Even if that center engages in deceptive advertising and does actions that even result in the death of a woman, there would be nothing that could be done about that crisis pregnancy center.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk. I am closing. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated, my amendment, Mr. Speaker, would be added onto section 2 of the bill and would just enable childcare centers--TANF to fund childcare centers, which are now under siege and really compromising the security of our children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman asking for unanimous consent to insert the text of her amendment?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is abundantly clear. Both the American Medical Association and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have raised serious ethical and medical concerns about so-called crisis pregnancy centers.
These facilities are unregulated. They have no obligation to provide accurate medical information. They are not subject to HIPAA. They are not required to protect patient confidentiality. Yet, Republicans are determined to send them Federal taxpayer dollars anyway.
I talked about this very comprehensive report by the Alliance for Women's Rights and Gender Equality, which studied 607 crisis pregnancy centers across 9 States. They documented patients' experiences at the centers.
In one case, a patient seeking abortion care was misled into believing she was too early in pregnancy to receive medical care and was encouraged to delay seeing a licensed provider, despite experiencing symptoms consistent with a pregnancy complication.
In another documented case, a patient was falsely told that abortion would cause infertility and severe mental illness, information that directly contradicted established medical evidence.
Several patients reported being reassured that severe pain or bleeding was normal, only to later require emergency medical intervention when complications were left untreated.
If Republicans truly cared about TANF oversight, they would have spoken out when millions of TANF dollars were stolen from struggling families in Mississippi to build a volleyball stadium and when the Trump administration stepped in to shield the perpetrators from accountability. Instead, they were silent.
The bottom line is simple. Anti-abortion centers that spread misinformation and put women at risk should not receive taxpayer dollars. Certainly, they should not receive taxpayer dollars that are completely unregulated.
If we want to support parents and pregnant women, let's continue helping them. That is why the House should reject this particular bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats will make all kinds of wild and ridiculous claims about pregnancy resource centers. They have tried to twist giving diapers and ultrasounds to moms into some sort of nefarious activity, giving diapers to moms.
The millions of women who have sought and received care at a pregnancy resource center know the truth. I hope every American is watching this debate today on this floor.
Democrats distract and fearmonger because they can't admit that pregnancy resource centers fulfill the purposes of TANF. These centers provide material support and assistance to women in need and reduce dependence on government assistance. They are eligible for State TANF funds, period.
I thank Representative Fischbach for her very hard work on this bill. She has been a champion--a champion for women, mothers, and children her entire career. I am glad she once again led the effort this Congress to preserve funding for pregnancy resource centers.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard story after story of people seeking care from crisis pregnancy centers only to be provided with misleading or deceptive medical information or services that endanger their health.
That is why during last week's markup on this bill, I introduced a responsible amendment that would have prohibited fraudulent centers from receiving TANF funds funded by taxpayer dollars.
Republicans regularly talk about rooting out government waste, fraud, and abuse, but not a single one supported my amendment.
It's clear that Republicans have no interest in addressing fraud if it conflicts with their dogmatic ideology even at the cost of their constituents' health.
Republicans are outraged at the idea of simply holding crisis pregnancy centers to the same medical standards as licensed health facilities.
Why are Republicans willing to categorically turn a blind eye to the countless horror stories happening at these sham health clinics?
It is because for Republicans, when it comes to women's health, accountability isn't required.
This bill defines pregnancy centers as organizations that support ``protecting the life of the mother and the unborn child,'' but Republican's commitment to funneling taxpayer dollars to medical grifters endangers both.
I urge my colleagues to vote No on this irresponsible bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1009, 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.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis...
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1009, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
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 H.J. Res. 140.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Congressional Review Act resolution, which would overturn the Biden administration's reckless withdrawal of more than 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest from mineral exploration and development.
Mr. Speaker, at issue is the Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota, one of the largest mineral deposits on the planet, including the world's largest copper-nickel deposit.
The Federal Government routinely granted and renewed mineral leases to these deposits beginning in the 1960s. Decades of planning, exploration, investment, and environmental reviews have gone into the region, and with good reason.
The minerals in the Duluth Complex include copper, nickel, and cobalt. They are the ones that make up the 21st century economy and help it run. They are the essential inputs for telecommunications devices, cutting-edge defense systems, and much more.
As we are all keenly aware, the Chinese Communist Party has a stranglehold on far too many mineral supply chains. Mining in the Duluth Complex was poised to change that. It was going to help usher in a new era of American mineral dominance and create and support thousands of American jobs. It was going to help end our dependence on foreign adversaries and reorder the entire global mineral market, positioning the United States at the center and driving our rivals to the margins.
When President Biden abruptly closed off 225,000 acres of Federal land in the Duluth Complex for mineral development, he threw a future of American abundance, security, and global leadership into chaos. The decision undermined America's economic, military, and strategic interests and those of our allies.
The minerals in the Duluth Complex are called ``critical'' for a reason. We need them. The whole world needs them. Nations, businesses, militaries, and individual consumers are going to acquire these minerals. The only question is whether they will be mined here in the United States by American workers, protected by American labor laws, and with the strongest environmental standards and most advanced mining techniques, or not.
The Duluth Complex is also home to a world-class helium reserve, which has attracted investment from investors. Specifically, the withdrawal itself locks up roughly 11,000 acres for helium exploration, blocking development of one of the largest and most concentrated helium deposits in the entire world.
Don't let the rhetoric around this issue confuse what is at stake here. The resolution before us today is about more than just one project. There are two options, Mr. Speaker: mineral dominance or mineral dependence. There isn't a third option, and it is long past time for the Federal Government to act like it.
Our global allies rely on America's leadership. If we are to remain a leader in the global economy, then domestic mineral abundance is a strategic necessity, not a political football.
The resolution before us does not mandate projects, mining sites, firms, or schedules. It simply reverses the Biden administration's unilateral short-circuiting of the normal permitting process.
This resolution is a step toward balance and the rule of law. It is a step toward the mineral abundance that the American people deserve and that Washington has denied them for too long.
I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for introducing this resolution and for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 140, a resolution that would threaten America's beloved Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, Boundary Waters draws more visitors than any other wilderness in the country. Millions of Americans have paddled, fished, swum, and found solace among its pristine lakes and forests. It supports a multibillion-dollar outdoor economy, thousands of jobs, and a way of life that has been passed down for generations.
It is an area that Presidents, reaching back to Teddy Roosevelt, and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have long recognized in terms of its value, and we have protected it as part of our American heritage.
Yet, the Boundary Waters have been under threat for years. Twin Metals, owned by Antofagasta, a Chilean mining company with close ties to China, has been lobbying for years to set up a mine just outside the wilderness area, along the banks of waters that flow north, directly into the wilderness.
The type of mining that Twin Metals has proposed has a 100 percent track record of toxic pollution. There has never been a mine of this kind that did not leach toxic pollution.
Despite what the other side of the aisle might say, there is no guarantee that the precious minerals that were just talked about produced from this mine would actually stay in the U.S. and benefit the American economy or American national security at all.
Antofagasta sends most of its minerals to China, where they are then sold on the global market, likely the same fate for these minerals if this mine is allowed to happen.
All of this is why, nearly 3 years ago, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland protected the lands surrounding the Boundary Waters and its headwaters from mining for 20 years through a public land order, a standard tool and process backed by peer-reviewed science and extensive public engagement.
The Congressional Review Act resolution on the floor today would overturn those protections, once again putting our beloved Boundary Waters at risk of toxic pollution from a foreign-owned mine.
If that weren't enough to convince my colleagues that this resolution is a terrible idea, I will briefly touch on the abuse of the Congressional Review Act itself that this resolution represents.
The Congressional Review Act, or CRA, has been used to overturn rules finalized by administrations of both parties since it was signed into law in 1996.
This Congress, the Trump administration and Republicans in both Chambers have been using the CRA to overturn public lands protections that have never been considered rules in the past. In an entirely unprecedented move, they are moving forward, even though the Government Accountability Office hasn't yet ruled on whether they believe this public land order constitutes a rule that would be subject to the CRA.
This administration and its allies in Congress have just unilaterally decided that they can do this, despite the fact that the Department of the Interior has never before considered a land withdrawal like this to be a rule.
Congress received notice of this withdrawal 3 years ago. If the resolution's sponsor wanted to pursue a CRA, he should have inquired then.
If this CRA succeeds, it won't just open the Boundary Waters to pollution but would set a terrible and dangerous precedent for Congress to roll back protections for any of our treasured public lands with little oversight or notice, just because Republicans have decided they would rather pillage them for profit.
Some places are just worth protecting, and this pristine, one-of-a- kind place is one of those incredible places.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this backdoor attempt to open our public lands to foreign mining, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Facts can be stubborn things. There are some things that we all can agree on. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a wonderful place, but the Boundary Waters Canoe Area has been protected, is currently protected, and will be protected even after this CRA is passed.
The Congresses that came long before us made sure this was the case, long before the Obama administration ever did a lease withdrawal in the area. They established the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Then, they set a buffer zone around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and they said this other part of the Superior National Forest could be used to develop mining and also used for forestry purposes.
Any deposits that we are talking about are not inside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They are not inside the buffer zone to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They are out in the forest that the Biden administration said can't be developed anymore, even after Congress had already said this was the case.
I think what we are doing today is we are exercising our Article I power where an administration abused it and tried to make rules. The Government Accountability Office said this bill or this rule is subject to the Congressional Review Act, so here we are, to right the wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and the lead sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 140, to reverse Public Land Order 7917, which enacted the Biden administration's dangerous mining ban in northern Minnesota.
The district I am proud to represent, Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, is blessed with an abundance of mineral wealth. On the Iron Range in northern Minnesota, we have been responsibly mining for 145 years. We mined the iron ore that won us two world wars and currently mine the taconite that is used to make 80 percent of this country's domestically produced steel.
Before Biden's mining ban, we had the opportunity to mine the copper, nickel, cobalt, and other critical minerals that are necessary for this country to compete and win in the 21st century. That is because northern Minnesota is home to the Duluth Complex, the largest untapped copper-nickel deposit in the entire world. It is home to one-third of our country's copper reserves, 95 percent of our nickel reserves, 88 percent of our cobalt reserves, and 75 percent of our other platinum group metals.
Public Land Order 7917 locked up the Duluth Complex and ended this opportunity that we had. This PLO withdrew 225,504 acres--that is nearly a quarter of a million acres--in the Superior National Forest, which is a working industrial forest where timber harvesting and mining are desired activities. This ban was a 20-year ban, where, I will note, again, the Forest Service plan states mining and timber harvesting are desired activities.
This PLO sacrificed thousands of good-paying union jobs that would support families for generations, along with billions of dollars of revenue for our schools, State and Federal governments, and, most importantly, our Nation's mineral security.
It didn't only block our access to precious critical minerals, Mr. Speaker, it also cut us off from one of the largest and most concentrated deposits of helium, a gas that is necessary in everything from medical and manufacturing equipment to state-of-the-art defense systems. Just like our critical minerals, we are blocked from responsibly accessing the helium, making the United States more dependent on foreign imports and increasing Russia's share of global helium markets.
When issuing this ban, the Biden administration even went so far as to
The Secretary of the Interior had no idea that the biggest copper- nickel find in the world was in northeastern Minnesota, where she banned mining. It was a dangerous, purely political decision that disregarded the science and the facts.
Under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, the Department of the Interior is required to notify Congress of public land orders impacting in excess of 5,000 acres. The Biden administration failed to properly transmit Public Land Order 7917 to Congress when it was finalized in January 2023.
Public Land Order 7917 implemented a broad policy that hinders access to American resources and is wholly detrimental to our Nation's national and mineral security. It is exactly the kind of action Congress intended to review under the Congressional Review Act.
H.J. Res. 140 would overturn this mining ban under the CRA and allow important proposed mining and helium development projects to continue through the regulatory and permitting process, which they will have to complete at both the State and Federal levels before moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, this CRA will not green-light any proposed project. All it does is remove the dangerous, misguided ban that stops us from considering any project. This ban disregarded the science. It disregarded the facts. Lifting this ban will simply allow the science and the facts to prevail.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 140, and I include in the Record a copy of Public Land Order No. 7917.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to the claim that Secretary Haaland failed to notify Congress as required by law, I am holding the notification that went out 3 years ago to the gentleman from Minnesota, personally, from the Secretary of the Interior. Maybe there is a misunderstanding there, but we have the receipts on that one.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which risks polluting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, as has been stated, our Nation's most visited wilderness.
If this resolution passes and the mineral withdrawal is overturned, toxic sulfide-ore copper mining will contaminate the water and the habitat in this priceless wilderness.
The BWCA is a huge reserve of the most pristine water in the United States, so clean you can directly drink from its lakes or streams. This water is under threat once again.
In 2017, the Obama administration applied for a mineral withdrawal of the Rainy River Watershed--the watershed is up here--which is the headwaters that flows into the Boundary Waters Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. It started a 2-year environmental study, which included extensive public input and scientific review.
While the Rainy River Watershed was being studied, Paradise Valley in Montana and Methow Valley in Washington State were going through the same exact process. All three of those watersheds were threatened by sulfide-ore mining.
In Montana and Washington, those studies were able to be completed, and their mineral withdrawals happened in 2018, protecting their waters, but the Rainy River Watershed was left unfinished.
When President Trump took office, his administration initially promised to complete the study. Instead, President Trump honored his promise from a campaign rally and did not protect the watershed. His administration canceled the study for Minnesota's watershed without releasing any of the scientific findings.
This is what we received in the committee instead, and it is an entirely redacted study--no information, nothing scientific in it, nothing, all blank. Now, I serve on the Defense Committee. If we needed to go in a SCIF, I would have been happy to go in the SCIF and get this if it was so classified
The Biden administration decided to finish the study, and they followed the scientific recommendations and the public input. In 2022, a comprehensive environmental assessment was finally completed. The Forest Service recommended a mineral withdrawal to protect the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, just as it had for the waters in Montana and Washington.
Currently, we have 17 years left of a 20-year mineral withdrawal that is protecting and preserving this water, but today Republicans want to overturn those protections using, in my opinion, a legislative stunt.
In January 2023, almost 3 years ago, the mineral withdrawal was completed. It was noticed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The law was followed. The Department of the Interior notified the Congress of the withdrawal on January 26, 2023, and as my colleague, the ranking member from the committee, just pointed out, we all received those letters. I received one. Mr. Stauber received one. The chair of the committee received one. Everybody got a letter.
Then Congress had 90 days to adopt a resolution of disapproval. Republicans have tried to disapprove of the withdrawal, but they weren't able to bring it to the floor. Congress didn't ask, and the window of disapproval closed.
Now they are trying to use the Congressional Review Act to get a do- over. The CRA wasn't created to overturn a public land order, especially one that is nearly 3 years old. CRA resolutions are for rules, which public land orders are not, and they are to be used within 60 days of the congressional notice, not 3 years later.
Let me point out another, in my opinion, falsehood about this legislation. I am the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. There is no immediate national security interest that would be advanced by mining in this watershed.
How do we know this? We know this because Antofagasta, as has been pointed out, is a Chilean mining company who owns Twin Metals. It is lobbying to undo the current mineral withdrawal and restore their leases to extract the copper. Here is what Antofagasta does with the extracted copper, and we can't say this enough: They send it to China where it is smelted and then it is sold on the open market or it is used for its own defense weapons.
This resolution is not about national security. This is about water, the world's most critical natural resource, and it must be protected not only for today but for future generations. We have a responsibility to future generations to have water available.
Also, in my opinion, some places are just too precious to mine. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, before I do that, I would like to enter the following documents into the Congressional Record: The January 2023 notification to Congress, the letter we all received; the redacted environmental assessment; and the complete environmental assessment. The links are as follows:
The combined letter notification to Congress can be found at: mccollum. house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum. house.gov/files/evo- media-document/blm-correspondence_rep-westerman_ rainy-river- withdrawal-combined.pdf.
The redacted environmental assessment can be found at: Mccollum. house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum. house.gov/files/evo-media- document/sept-2018_fs-ea_fully-redacted.pdf.
The complete environmental assessment can be found at: mccollum.house. gov/sites/evo-subsites/mccollum.house. gov/files/evo- media-document/02-rainy-river-withdrawal-ea.pdf.
Mr. Speaker, I also include two letters. The first letter is a letter dated January 16, 2026, from a group of hunters and anglers opposing this legislation; and the second letter is a letter dated January 20, 2026, from a group of environmental organizations opposing this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as a former Secretary, I don't think anyone in this body has spent more time on Twin Metals reviewing the science than I have, so I think we should separate the hype from the science and the bull from fact.
First of all, why are we here and why is it important at all?
Well, this behind me are a few things we need critical minerals for: particularly our military, medical, and supply chain.
What do all these have in common? The MQ-9 Reaper, the Javelin missile system, the Virginia-class submarine, the Tomahawk, the night vision, and Amron, what do they have in common? Those minerals are found in Twin Metals in the great State of Minnesota.
Now, is it in the boundary waters? Is it in the area that is protected around it? No, it is not.
I have seen these wonderful pictures of canoeing, of waters, of streams, of lakes, and they are absolutely beautiful. The problem is that is in the boundary waters. That is not where the mine is.
Then, oh, Deb Haaland--I respect Deb Haaland. I had her in committee, Mr. Speaker. I asked her one question after a few: What minerals were in the mine area which she rescinded and put a moratorium on? I was amazed at her answer. She couldn't name one. So let's follow the science.
I agree. There is a place to mine, and there is a place not to mine. I think probably I stand on the conservation side as much as any Member, but I have actually read the documentation. I have actually read the mining plans. I have a degree in geology and looked closely at it. Do you know what. There are good projects, and there are bad projects. We don't mine like we used to.
In Montana we have Virginia City. They took a paddleboard up the river stream, took everything, turned it around. We don't mine like that anymore.
We use science now, and when you look at the science and documentation on this mine, it uses the best technology.
Oh, by the way, water, it is a closed-circuit. What does that mean? That means effluent doesn't travel outside. Its reuse is compressed. When you do mine, what you do is you put core samples in. That core sample will tell you how much overburden you have to remove. After the core samples, then you have a mining plan that tells you where the material is moved. In this case it is not an open-pit mine. It is subsurface.
I would invite my colleagues to look at the science and look at the water tables. They say 100 percent of the mines in the past were pollutants. They are not pollutants if you have a mining plan that undergoes the scrutiny that this one has.
Lastly, I will speak about the law. Notification and memo are not the same thing as a rule. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that people actually look at the mining plan and read it, just like reading the law, what the law says. It is not a trick. I am not here tricking anyone.
What I am saying is this: Once again there are good places to mine, and
Mr. Speaker, on the basis of this, we are facing a crisis in our country because foreign adversaries hold our critical minerals, which are critical to everything we do in medical and in our military.
Secondly, follow the science and not the hype. I understand political gerrymandering and fundraising and showing pictures of wonderful canoes going across, and, oh, we are going to mine right in the middle of the wilderness area, but that is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I ask and I urge my colleagues to support this. It is a good mine. It is a good project.
By the way, it doesn't approve anything. You still have to go through the process. So approving this act today you are not going to start the mine tomorrow. They still have to go through the process. It is about process, and that is what makes decisions good or bad is going through the process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate that the gentleman from Montana is suddenly so forthcoming about all of the analysis that has gone into this particular mining project because that wasn't always the case. When he was Secretary, we asked to see that analysis, and what we got back was page after page of redaction. We got zero information.
I appreciate the newfound candor from the gentleman, but I have to question his scientific credentials when he assures us that this will be the first ever copper mine of its kind to have no toxic pollution, even though 100 percent of mines using this particular method have leeched toxic pollution. Somehow, we are told this will be the first one to not do that because of all the extra scrutiny it has received.
Well, this series of black pages tells you a lot about the transparency and the scrutiny we have come to expect from the folks across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison).
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 140. This resolution would permanently allow copper sulfide mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Copper sulfide mining is the most toxic industry in America, and it is particularly ill-suited to water-rich environments because it acidifies the water. It leaches heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and mercury into that water, which is part of the reason it has never been done in Minnesota before. Remember, Mr. Speaker, we are the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Minnesotans do not want a toxic mine on the watershed of the Boundary Waters. In fact, 70 percent of Minnesotans want permanent protection for the Boundary Waters, our State's crown jewel.
Antofagasta, owned by a Chilean billionaire who is a crony of President Trump's, is the foreign mining company that wants to extract minerals from this watery wilderness. They have contracts set up to send copper they extract to China for processing, and from there, it will be sold on the open market. Allowing a Chilean mining company to extract copper from our public lands, destroy the Boundary Waters, and send minerals to benefit billionaire owners and China will not protect our national security. Some sacred places should be off-limits from this kind of mining, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is clearly one of those places.
Mr. Speaker, remember too that 22,000 outdoor recreation jobs and the $13.5 billion outdoor recreation economy in Minnesota will all be in serious jeopardy if this resolution passes. The Boundary Waters is a national treasure, the most visited wilderness area in the United States. There is no place like it on Earth, and once it is destroyed, it will be gone forever.
Like many Minnesotans, people around the country and the world, my husband and I have paddled and camped with our kids on the Boundary Waters every year since they were small. We share magical and life- changing memories from our adventures there that we all cherish. Preserving this wilderness for future generations should be our goal, not its destruction.
This resolution is an existential threat to our beloved Boundary Waters. I implore my colleagues to reject this resolution. Mr. Speaker, you have the opportunity to stand up for public lands and the Boundary Waters and prevent the inevitable water, air, noise, light, and land pollution that will destroy this unique wilderness.
Mr. Speaker, again, I can't emphasize this enough: There is not going to be any mining in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. There is not going to be any mining in the boundary area around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. If there is ever a project approved, it would be in the land set aside by Congress in the Superior National Forest for mining and timber harvesting.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. Speaker, it won't surprise you that the Representative from that area supports this resolution. My colleagues and friends across the aisle, even from my great State of Minnesota, mention mining in the Boundary Waters.
Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time: There will be no mining in the Boundary Waters. There will be no mining in the buffer zones around the Boundary Waters.
Mr. Speaker, that was settled in 1978. Then-Democratic Congressman Jim Oberstar said: Okay, if you are going to make the wilderness area, do not take our livelihoods away, which was timber harvesting and mining.
These are good mining job. Mr. Speaker, according to 2023 statistics, the average miner in the State of Minnesota makes $115,000, and the seasonal tourist employee makes $35,000.
Unions, LIUNA, NABtu, operating engineers, the Iron Range, and building and construction trades all support this project. These are good union jobs. By the way, there is a project labor agreement. Three million work hours, Mr. Speaker, are going to go into any proposed mine. This is all union work for all my constituents in northeastern Minnesota so we can keep our schools open, so we can keep our economy going.
By the way, every school district benefits from mining in the State of Minnesota. These acquired Federal lands, through the life of any proposed mine, will bring $1.8 billion, Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion in Federal royalties. Over the life of the mine, that is about $800 million in Federal taxes.
When my colleagues across the aisle say that it is not going to do anything, I just named a great portion and a benefit.
By the way, I go up to the Boundary Waters. I canoe there, I fish there, and I recreate there. We are not mining in the Boundary Waters. That is a falsity. That is not true. That has been misrepresented for a lot of years. Mr. Speaker, in the State of Minnesota, we have a saying: It is better in our backyard. It is better in our backyard.
We are not going to use child slave labor like over in Congo. One- third of the world's cobalt comes from child slave labor, forced slave labor. We have 88 percent of the reserves right in that complex.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, this Congressional Review Act doesn't approve or disapprove any mining. It reverses the mining ban, the dangerous mining ban, that the Biden administration put forward under Secretary Haaland. By the way, Mr. Zinke said she couldn't name one critical mineral in the mine, yet it is the biggest untapped copper- nickel find in the world.
We will not rely on China or other adversarial nations. We can do it. This can be a win-win-win. If anybody knows how to mine, it is the Minnesota miner. It is better in our backyard than China, Russia, or other adversarial nations.
Minnesota has been mining for 145 years. We know how to do it. Mr. Speaker, it is better in our backyard where our environmental and our labor standards are met or exceeded and our State permitting is met or exceeded.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard this song and dance over and over again: No mining. That is big key because my State of Arizona has taken the brunt of this.
This CRA needs to be done away with because we have to have that ability. The predecessor of the gentleman across the way advocated no mining. In fact, he used a national monument, disgracefully, to actually bring in a tin-silver mine. Yes, that is bad, but we can have our cake and eat it too. That is technology.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Boundary Waters that everyone is debating, we have Canada actually doing gold mining up here with more toxic chemicals.
Have they had a break?
I don't think so.
I am wondering what makes the difference here. It is not in my backyard.
I sit on the Natural Resources Committee. We kept asking the other side, the opposition: Where would you like to have it? Have you been to a mine? Yes.
Guardians actually made that comment.
I said: Which mine did you go to? They actually said: Resolution Copper. I said: Really? How did you like the information and the precautions that you have to take going down in the pit that takes 20 minutes on an elevator?
Obviously, they had to rescind it because they didn't go down there.
There have been problems from way past, but that has been 100 years ago. We have technology like this I am holding in my hand that will actually take away any oil and anything that comes out. That is where our future is, but to bind this up where you don't have a future is the wrong answer. This CRA needs to go back and get serious about mining.
Mr. Speaker, now we hear about a gold mine on the Canadian side of the Boundary Waters watershed that has been producing minerals without incident. I am beginning to worry that my colleagues don't understand basic hydrology and how water flows and moves. To begin rebuttal, I include in the Record two articles on New Gold:
Mr. Speaker, the mine was fined nearly $200,000 for discharging 19 million liters of pollution into the watershed. New Gold was fined again in 2018 after a sediment spill from a dam.
The only reason that that wasn't catastrophic for the Boundary Waters is because that mine is on the north side of the wilderness, where the water flows away from the protected areas.
That is how it works: Water in a watershed flows downhill in whatever direction that watershed takes it. I don't know why that basic principle seems so hard to understand, but apparently we have some hydrology problems across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I said it: Would it surprise you that the Representative from the district supports the resolution?
I talked about jobs and the economy. I am going to reiterate: NABTU, the Operating Engineers, Teamsters, and the Iron Range Building and Construction Trades have 3 million work hours, with an average mine salary of $115,000. This is good for my constituents.
As we go forward, I want to reiterate to my colleagues: This CRA does not approve any mine. The CRA simply removes the withdrawal. It reverses the dangerous withdrawal that the Biden administration put forth for purely political reasons. They stated in their reasoning that it was to prevent mining. The Secretary, again, when asked said: I didn't think there were critical minerals there.
In the biggest copper-nickel find in the world, she signs the PLO that removes mining in the Superior National Forest, where timber harvesting and mining are desired activities.
Democratic Congressman Jim Oberstar was so far ahead of his time. When the wilderness was enacted, he said: Okay, if you are going to enact the wilderness, don't take our livelihoods away. He was so far ahead of his time.
Today, we are fighting that fight. I am fighting for my constituents. I am fighting for our economy. I am fighting for our community, our technology, and our national security. It is worth it. It is deeply worth it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, Mr. Stauber said it, I have said it, and others have said it. This CRA simply reverses the withdrawal that the Biden administration put out. It takes us back to Congress' original intent to allow somebody to propose to develop a project. It doesn't change any of the permitting laws. They still have to go through every permitting law.
There seems to be a lot of scare tactics on what this mine, which hasn't even been permitted or approved yet, is going to do, but we know one thing. It will have to stand up to all the rigorous permitting requirements that the U.S. has to offer. It will also have to stand up to the labor, health, and safety requirements that we have here in the U.S., unlike many of the places around the world where these critical minerals are mined.
This gives somebody a chance to develop a project to provide the things that we need here in America, to provide jobs for northern Minnesota, and to provide a stronger sense of national security, as we all saw the equipment that these critical minerals go into that Representative Zinke showed in the poster.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have been told time and again by our friends across the aisle that we have nothing to worry about here because this mine, even though it is proposed right next to the Boundary Waters wilderness on a river that flows directly into the wilderness with a type of mining that has a 100 percent track record of leaching toxic pollution, that, in spite of all that, we have all these wonderful environmental standards that will protect America's most popular wilderness.
That is pretty cold comfort, Mr. Speaker, coming from lawmakers who are working overtime to gut every single one of those bedrock environmental protections.
It may not be in this particular bill, but do I have to remind my colleagues that, just a few weeks ago, we were here on the floor debating their legislation to gut the National Environmental Policy Act. In our markup the same week, Republicans led the charge to eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. Separately, in other committees, they are going after the Clean Water Act.
Every one of these safeguards that we are told will be a backstop against anything going wrong in the Boundary Waters is under unprecedented attack
Don't be fooled that everything will be fine because of our environmental laws and standards. Those are under an unprecedented attack.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this resolution for both the extreme danger that it poses to the Boundary Waters and the outrageous abuse of the Congressional Review Act that it represents.
As you have heard today, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is an American treasure with a strong, nonpartisan history of protection, dating back to 1909 through treaties with Canada and to 1964 with the Wilderness Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support back when we had great conservation champions in both parties.
Americans from across the country who have experienced the serenity of this wilderness know exactly what is at stake. Passing this resolution would pave the way for toxic mining that would, without a doubt, cause permanent and irreparable harm, mining that wouldn't even benefit the U.S. economy.
This move is deeply unpopular in Minnesota and does not put American critical mineral security first. This material will go to China.
It would also have far-reaching consequences for the future of public lands management, making beloved, protected lands across the country vulnerable to exploitation with very little oversight.
At the end of the day, some places really are worth protecting, and this is one of those places. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 140, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I include in the Record a coalition letter from over 140 organizations in support of H.J. Res. 140. These groups include the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Power, MiningMinnesota, Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council, Ely Public School District, Jobs for Minnesotans, Laborers' International Union of North America, and more.
Mr. Speaker, the letter states: ``Disapproving the withdrawal in Minnesota will undo an unnecessary and damaging action. It will also correct a course in which industries seeking to generate jobs and revenue for generations to come were simply no longer allowed to propose mining projects in the area and forbidden to go through the law and science-based environmental review process.''
Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I actually have taken hydrology courses. I am a professional engineer. It has been a long time ago, but I remember something very distinct from those hydrology and hydraulic engineering courses, and that is that water flows downhill. If it doesn't, you can get a pump. That is an engineering joke. It is probably not very funny.
The thing about these mines in Minnesota is, they are below-grade mines. They are not pit mines. They are actually digging tunnels down into the earth to pull this ore out to take it to the top to refine it. If there are tailings, these tailings will be placed in a secure area where there is no way they can be leached back into the watershed.
Don't let the scare tactics influence the way you vote on this legislation because the inputs we need to sustain our fast-growing electricity grid are right under our feet. We should be leading the world in technological innovation and AI infrastructure.
The only reason we are mired in mineral dependence today and not enjoying or sharing the benefits of American mineral dominance is because of outdated or misguided policies like the one we are overturning today.
The resolution before us would correct these policies by reopening mineral-rich land to exploration and reducing our reliance on China for minerals.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for his leadership on the issue. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1009, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 6945) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to clarify the authority of States to use funds for pregnancy centers, and for other purposes, offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, nays 213 not voting 9, as follows:
Messrs. PATRONIS, LaHOOD, McCAUL, and TURNER of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CARSON, Ms. DEXTER, Mr. BELL, Mses. CLARK of Massachusetts, LEE of Nevada, Mrs. McCLAIN DELANEY, Messrs. CLEAVER, and WHITESIDES changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, nays 208, not voting 9, as follows:
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 34, AYE on Roll Call No. 35, NAY on Roll Call No. 36, YEA on Roll Call No. 37, and YEA on Roll Call No. 38.
Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 36, YEA on Roll Call No. 37, and YEA on Roll Call No. 38.
Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of H. CON. RES. 68, to Direct the Removal of United States Armed Forces From Venezuela That Have Not Been Authorized by Congress
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 68 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative McGovern of Massachusetts, or their respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 4327, a bill originally introduced by Representative Greene of Georgia, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to welcome Jared Anderson and the Friends of Club 21 Choir here to Washington, D.C.
The choir, composed of talented individuals living with Down syndrome and who are based in Colorado's Fifth Congressional District, will be performing the national anthem to launch the March for Life rally this Friday.
Club 21 came and visited me just a couple of months ago here in Washington, D.C., and it is really one of the highlights of my time as being a Member of Congress. They have uplifted the Pikes Peak community onto the national platform, amplifying and empowering these brilliant performers through the arts and education.
I thank them for dedicating their time, their energy, and their passion in advocating for every human life.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in giving a warm welcome to the Friends of Club 21 Choir.
Mr. Speaker, after Monday's college football national championship, I rise to express my concern about the trend of private equity firms attempting to buy up college sports. These deals will be bad for athletes, students, and fans.
We have seen this play before. Media corporations' pursuit of college football and basketball viewers created nonsensical conference realignment that destroyed the regional nature of
Now private equity is looking to buy college sports revenue streams. If these deals are normalized, it is only a matter of time before private investors demand control over our university athletic departments. This creates the risk of further conference realignment, cutting nonrevenue sports, and expanding for-profit influence over universities.
This is why I have sent a letter with my Republican colleagues to end the NCAA.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today remembering the life and the legacy of a dear lady, Natalie Haslam, who passed away on January 16. Natalie set the true example of what it means to be a volunteer. She spent her life giving back to our community and the people who are in it, and, of course, to our great University of Tennessee.
Born in 1931, Natalie was raised in Knoxville and graduated from UT in 1953. In 1974, she married Jim Haslam, the owner and founder of Pilot Company. She is known for her leadership and philanthropy. Natalie became the first woman to serve as the chair of the East Tennessee Foundation Board in 1987.
I always remember Ms. Haslam when my dad died. I was at the mortuary, actually, with my mama picking out my dad's casket. Big Jim and Natalie called me and told me that everything would be all right and if I needed anything, just to call. I also remember when Mr. Haslam and I would be at events together. She would always shush us and then just give us a smile.
While serving the Knoxville community, her commitments to the University of Tennessee remained unmatched. Natalie and Jim through the Haslam Foundation donated $32 million to UT with $10 million going toward the Natalie L. Haslam Music Center. It is one of the finest music centers not just in the State of Tennessee or the country, but the world, Mr. Speaker.
Natalie is survived by her husband, Jim; three granddaughters; three stepchildren; six grandchildren; and seven great-great-grandchildren. She was a true humanitarian. She will always be remembered as someone in east Tennessee who gave back to a place where she lived and loved. I will always remember her as a very classy lady.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate my constituent, Isabeau Levito, who officially qualified for the U.S. Olympic figure skating team where she will represent Team USA at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan, Italy, next month.
Isabeau Levito grew up in south Jersey, training for years at the Igloo Ice Center in Mount Laurel.
Long before the spotlight, she was on the ice before sunrise, balancing schoolwork, family time, and relentless practice with remarkable discipline and grace.
This month, Isabeau achieved a lifelong dream. After earning a bronze medal at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships in St. Louis, she officially qualified for Team USA and will represent our country at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan, Italy.
Isabeau joins what experts are already calling the strongest U.S. women's Olympic skating team in decades, and she stands proudly among the best.
We are incredibly proud of her. On behalf of south Jersey, we wish Isabeau Levito the very best as she skates for the gold and for Team USA.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of January as National Blood Donor Month. Each winter, blood centers across the Nation experience reduced donor turnout, while the need for blood remains constant.
In the United States, someone requires a blood transfusion every 2 seconds to treat patients facing trauma, surgeries, childbirth complications, cancer, chronic conditions, and so much more, yet our blood supply remains critically low.
Because of the urgent and ongoing need for blood donations, I recently introduced H.R. 5791, the Boosting Lifesaving Operations, Opening Donation Centers Act, or the BLOOD Centers Act, alongside my Democratic colleague, Congresswoman Schrier.
This commonsense, bipartisan legislation would streamline the bureaucratic burdens of opening a new blood center while still ensuring oversight and safety in donation facilities and of the blood they collect.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the BLOOD Centers Act so we can expedite the ability of blood centers to open new locations and collect lifesaving blood for those who need it.
Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I also want to encourage everyone listening today to consider taking the time to donate blood if you are able to. First-time donors are always welcome, and every donation has the power to save a life.
Mr. Speaker, last week I visited Perkins High School in Sandusky, Ohio. My role: to celebrate excellence in STEM education.
This year, Kia Preston won the Ninth Congressional District App Challenge for a project titled ``Light Teachings.''
Kia's interactive app helps users understand fundamentals of ray tracing, a computer graphics technique that simulates how light interacts with objects to create realistic images in video platforms.
Kia's app will be honored here in our Nation's Capital later this year.
I also paid tribute to the school's robotics club that has partnered with NASA. They were the only high school in the United States of America selected alongside other higher education institutions like MIT.
Bravo Perkins.
After 4 school years building a satellite named ``Foras Promineo,'' which is Latin for ``outreach,'' it was launched to the International Space Station back in September.
Thanks to computer science teacher Mike Leffler and Robotics Club adviser John Stout for lighting the way for these bright, young minds who are going to lead America into the future and beyond.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Lenard Conklin, a devoted son of Stony Point who lived a life defined by service, tradition, and deep community roots.
Lenard was a lifelong resident, living in the very home his great- grandfather built on Gate Hill Road. Lenard was known as the last hay baler of Rockland County.
Lenard proudly served our Nation during the Vietnam war as a Navy Seabee, his dream position. In 2024, he was honored on the Hudson Valley Honor Flight, Mission 34, in Washington, D.C. His commitment to hard work and service continued at home, where he spent 31 years at Algonquin Gas before retiring from the Stony Point Sewer Plant.
Whether sharing stories of his time in service, his love of the Catskill Mountains, his passion for trout fishing and hunting, or doting on the love of his life, Nora, his presence made a difference in the lives of everyone he met.
I extend my deepest condolences to his siblings, stepdaughters, grandchildren, and the countless friends who knew him. May God bless his memory.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of former New Jersey Governor and longtime State Senator Richard Codey, known to all of us as Dick Codey, a public servant whose 50 years of public service remain unmatched in our State's rich history.
Dick Codey believed deeply in service, and he practiced it with heart. Dick was a champion for people living with mental illness long before it was widely acknowledged or understood. He was willing to go further than most, even going undercover in a psychiatric hospital to ensure dignity for those of us too often forgotten.
As Governor, he brought steadiness and integrity during a difficult moment for New Jersey, in return earning extraordinary trust from the public.
What defined Dick for me was his common touch. He returned constituents' calls himself. He conversed in diner booths late at night. He coached youth basketball. He never stopped being the same person, no matter the title he held.
I had the privilege of serving with Dick Codey in Trenton and of calling him my friend. He cared so deeply about the people he represented and the institution that he served.
New Jersey is better because of Dick Codey's life and work. He will be deeply missed by all who knew him.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the epidemic of waste, fraud, and abuse that is ripping off taxpayers with impunity.
Too often, Congress forgets that every dollar of government money collected comes from an American who worked hard for it. That is why waste, fraud, and abuse are not abstract problems. They are real problems that hurt real people.
When government programs pay twice for the same service, fund projects that never get built, or lose track of billions, taxpayers suffer and confidence in government weakens.
We need to honor hardworking families by pursuing the bad actors with a vengeance. Stewardship is our sacred responsibility.
We just found out about a case in my own district where an individual was collecting her dead mother's Social Security checks for 3 years. Her blatant fraud was finally discovered, and she was sentenced and ordered to repay $25,000 in restitution. This case is not isolated. The Government Accountability Office estimates that the Federal Government loses up to $521 billion to fraud every single year.
The American people expect honesty, fiscal discipline, and respect for their sacrifice. I am proud of the Republican Conference for doing just that.
Mr. Speaker, today, students returned to class at Brown University to start a new semester after the mass shooting in December that took the lives of Ella Cook and Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov and injured nine other students.
My thoughts remain with the victims, their loved ones, and our whole community during what, I am sure, has been a difficult few days.
For the Brown students who returned to campus this week, I want them to know we have their backs, and we are all thinking of them. If anyone is struggling, they should reach out for help.
As Brown, Providence, and Rhode Island continue to heal, I join countless others in making sure our community, our city, and our State have all the support we need to recover. We are on a long journey, but I know we are on it together.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Seth NeSmith, a registered nurse at Atrium Health Navicent, who has been named one of the 2025 Hospital Heroes recipients by the Georgia Hospital Association.
This award recognizes the top three hospital employees or volunteers from GHA-member hospitals who dedicate their time to improving both their organization and the world around them.
Mr. NeSmith has impressively received a registered nurse degree, bachelor of science in nursing, stroke certified registered nurse credential, and critical care registered nurse certifications.
Mr. NeSmith was also awarded last year's Atrium Health Navicent's DAISY Award for noticing a vehicle stuck deep in a ditch, pulling the victim out, and providing immediate further care.
Mr. NeSmith's leadership is vital for shaping the next generation of healthcare professionals who will go on to serve communities across Georgia. This recognition speaks to his extensive skills and expertise in nursing.
We appreciate Mr. NeSmith's commitment to hard work, compassion for everyone around him, and going above and beyond for his patients.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent Ashlyn Gwynn, who was recently involved in a near-death car accident.
Ashlyn was recruited to play soccer at Cal State Fullerton. This past September, on her way to another sporting event, she and her teammate Lauren were struck by a truck. Both were transported to the hospital, but Lauren tragically passed away after 6 weeks of intensive care. Her family's words were: ``Lauren fell asleep in the Lord.'' Lauren's legacy of goodness and positivity will always be remembered.
After Ashlyn stabilized, doctors let her family know that there was a strong possibility that she may never regain consciousness. If she ever were to, it was possible that she would never walk or talk again.
Thankfully, Ashlyn has made significant signs of improvement. She was transferred to a step-down rehabilitation unit, and through the generosity of a close friend of her father, she has been transported back to Utah, where she continues to receive physical and speech therapy and close care from her parents.
I don't know Ashlyn, but I know her parents, and Matt and Shelly Gwynn are the best people I have ever known. I am so fortunate to have gotten to know them in this role. He is a police chief back home as well as a State legislator, and they are giving her the best possible chance of success.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be joined by my colleagues in this Conference Special Order. To start us off, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).
Mr. Speaker, America is back, and so is common sense.
This last year has reminded us of what is possible when America has a competent and respected leader who understands the unique role that our great Nation should fill on the world stage.
I am grateful to have President Donald J. Trump back in the White House with the strength and vision needed to be the leader of the free world. One of the things I have admired most about the President is that he is the same man behind closed doors as he is in front of the camera. Whether you like him or not, you know what he stands for exactly, and he will act on that.
It is the type of leadership that has delivered real results for the American people. We have seen real results on our southern border as illegal crossings and the flow of illicit drugs has dropped significantly.
Families are feeling real relief at the gas pump and grocery store as their wages are going up and opportunities are increasing. In our schools and military, the emphasis is, once again, on merit instead of discriminatory DEI standards. In America, success should be earned and not engineered by woke bureaucrats. It is called common sense.
Every day of this last year, the President and House Republicans have worked to ensure that you keep more of your own money and remove the red tape so you can thrive. We are blessed to live in the greatest country in the history of mankind every single day. America's brightest days are ahead of us, and I am grateful to have a Commander in Chief who believes in the spirit and promise of America. He is a leader who is working to make sure this beautiful country remains the land of freedom and opportunity for all who are willing to work hard, take responsibility, and dream big.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Moore so much for the time. I appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, it is a new year and with every new year, I like to reflect on where am I going. What am I doing? What do I want to accomplish this year? What did I accomplish the year before? That is a great time to do it with America. Where are we?
It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin famously looked at the chair behind the presiding officer that was carved with a Sun and he asked a question that still echoes throughout history: Was the Sun rising or was the Sun setting?
In that moment, a fledgling Nation hung in the balance, and even the Founding Fathers did not know whether liberty would prevail.
For far too long, Mr. Speaker, the American people have felt the same uncertainty, years of what many viewed as America last policies that left families struggling, dreams deferred, and our Nation asking itself: Are we on the rise or decline?
To answer that question, we need to look at where we have been for the last year. We need to look at the results that this President, President Trump, and where the House Republican leadership has taken this country over the last year.
Together, we have accomplished real results. It starts with tax relief for American families with the working families tax cut. Mr. Speaker, do I need to remind you, it is only the largest tax cut in U.S. history. Workers can keep more of what they earn with no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. To our seniors, I have good news for you, too. With the new deduction, you are not going to pay any tax on Social Security benefits.
But wait, there is more, Mr. Speaker. We have unleashed American energy, restored our independence, and brought down costs at the pump.
Do you know why we don't hear why eggs cost so much anymore, Mr. Speaker? Because they don't. Thank you, President Trump.
We have restored law and order and brought accountability by securing the border, supporting law enforcement, strengthening the rule of law, shrinking the Federal bureaucracy, cutting wasteful spending, and demanding accountability for every taxpayer dollar. We are seeing it in real time. Finally, things are happening.
We have rebuilt American strength at home and abroad, revitalizing our military, advancing peace through strength, standing firm with allies, and deterring adversaries. We have put veterans first by expanding access to care and ensuring the benefits that they have earned. Our country has made that promise to them. We are honoring promises, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, we have brought transparency and common sense back to our institutions, dismantling DEI mandates, and restoring fairness, merit, and basic common sense. We have begun to make America healthy again by examining finally what is in our food supply, empowering patients, expanding health savings accounts, and improving access and accountability across our healthcare system.
We ran on these promises. We delivered on these promises.
Mr. Speaker, we are just getting started. Is the Sun rising or setting? I can say with absolute certainty, the Sun is rising under the leadership of President Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, and House Republicans.
Make no mistake, more is to come.
As the Sun rises, we are ushering in America's golden age: a time of renewed strength, prosperity, and opportunity for every citizen in every community across this great land. The best days of our Nation are still ahead, and together, we will make America stronger, safer, and greater than ever before. It is, once again, Mr. Speaker, morning in America.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his remarks. I feel ready to go out for the second half now, so the Sun is rising. I wish there was a second half to play.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah for organizing this Special Order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate a year of success, of restoring the American Dream, and of making America great again.
One year ago, Mr. Speaker, President Donald Trump returned to office with a clear mandate from the American people: secure the border, rebuild the economy, tame inflation, restore American strength, and put American workers first again.
In just 1 year, he has delivered. Let's just start at the southern border. President Trump restored order by ending catch and release, reinstating proven enforcement policies, and deploying the resources necessary to defend our homeland. The results were immediate and historic.
Illegal crossings collapsed to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Net migration turned negative for the first time in 50 years. Fentanyl trafficking at the southern border was cut by more than half, saving American lives and criminal cartels designated as terrorist organizations were stopped and the rule of law was reinstated.
Thanks to President Trump and his administration, this country removed more than 2.6 million illegal aliens from the United States through deportations and voluntary self-departures. More than 400,000 criminal illegal aliens charged with or convicted of crimes were deported and over 2 million self-deportations, ending Biden-era release incentives and restoring credible consequences.
This administration proved what Washington refused to admit for years: that border security works when the law is enforced. President Biden used to say that Congress needed to pass bipartisan legislation. No, actually, as it turns out, Mr. Speaker, all we needed was a President with a backbone to secure our border; and that President is Donald Trump.
At the same time, President Trump rebuilt an economy that works for all Americans. Congress passed the largest tax cut in American history, delivering relief directly to families and workers. No taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security, but in my district, I will share two perfect examples of why this legislation really helps people.
The made in America tax provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the working families tax cut bill, resulted in immediate investment. A $2.5 billion investment in Harrodsburg, in Mercer
In addition, we are known as the horse capital of the world in Lexington, Kentucky, and at Keeneland Sales, a world-famous, world- class horse sale, yearling sale, every September, it has a $6.5 billion economic impact to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. We are very proud of that, but because of the restoration of the 100 percent bonus depreciation, they set a record this past September, $531 million of yearling horses sold. That means jobs for working Kentuckians.
Mr. Speaker, that means more economic activity for working families in Kentucky. That means all the ancillary businesses all the way down to the farriers and the grooms and the restaurants. All of that money gets recirculated into the central Kentucky economy.
There were over 50 yearlings that were sold for over $1 million each. The results were phenomenal. It was a record sale. People around the country may not know about the horse industry, but that is just one industry that was benefited by restoration of full bonus depreciation. All the buyers at our auction said it was bonus depreciation that resulted in this uptick in sales and economic activity.
Inflation, which crushed households under the previous administration, is falling sharply. Wages are rising, and the American people are going back to work. Mr. Speaker, 2.4 percent is where inflation is now--near the Fed's target for price stability--down 70 percent from the height of Biden's inflation crisis. We also have the lowest mortgage rates in 3 years.
This is where I really think the administration's economic record is something to behold. We have seen the largest and fastest blue-collar wage growth in 60 years. It is not just that prices are coming down. It is that real wages, inflation-adjusted wages, are going up for the American people.
This wasn't an accident. It was the result of pro-growth policy. It was not just the tax cuts but deregulation. It decreased the cost of business so those businesses could afford to retain those workers through higher wages and faster wage growth.
Confidence is returning to the American economy, and President Trump has taken us from energy desperate under the previous administration to energy dominant again.
He declared a national energy emergency. He unleashed record oil and natural gas production. He reopened millions of acres for responsible energy development, and he rolled back radical regulations that were driving up costs.
President Trump, in Kentucky, thank you. Thank you for putting Kentucky coal miners back to work and putting Kentucky coal back in our bloodstream. We don't have a choice anymore. Under the last 16 years, we prematurely retired 290 coal-fired power plants, while China is building two new coal plants a week. They are committed to winning the AI race.
We took over 120 gigawatts of power offline. The energy demands of our country are skyrocketing because of the technologies of the future, because of digital asset innovation, because of quantum computing and, yes, because of artificial intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, it is predicted and projected that by 2030 power demands resulting from datacenter construction will triple just at a time when we have been taking all of this power supply off of our grid and out of our system.
We now have a President who is reversing those disastrous choices and putting our coal miners back to work so that we can revitalize this signature industry for the Commonwealth of Kentucky and power the technologies of the future to win the race for AI dominance.
President Trump ended the war on coal. He expanded coal leasing, rolled back Biden-era rules targeting coal-fired power plants, and restored commonsense permitting.
Coal remains critical for grid reliability, baseload power, and national energy security. I am proud to fight side by side with President Trump to ensure that our miners can go back to work, our lights can stay on, and our energy stays American so that we can compete and win against China.
It is no surprise that gas prices fell to their lowest levels in years, lowering costs for families, farmers, and manufacturers across our country.
Let's not forget about all the accomplishments on the world stage. President Trump restored American leadership and American strength. He got rid of DEI woke ideology at the Pentagon. He focused on rebuilding American military readiness and lethality and prioritizing the strength of the American military over liberal leftwing politics. The result was clear. He restored American leadership.
He destroyed Iran's nuclear weapons capability. He reimposed maximum pressure on rogue regimes. He restored peace to our key ally Israel, returning the hostages. He dismantled and degraded the capabilities of Hamas and Gaza. He worked with our allies in the IDF.
He dismantled the narcoterrorist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. He negotiated peace agreements on four different continents, proving that strength deters conflict and leadership produces peace.
Our allies stepped up. Our adversaries stepped back. America, once again, led from a position of strength and confidence. The results speak for themselves.
We have a stronger economy, lower inflation, higher wages, lower energy costs, a secure border, energy dominance, and economic resurgence. We have a restoration of the American Dream and a restoration of common sense.
There are no biological men in the private spaces of our daughters. There are no biological men competing against girls in their sports.
Thank goodness we have common sense in this country once again. Thank goodness we have a President who looks to the future and who wants to position the United States to be the leader, the crypto capital of the world.
He signed into law the GENIUS Act--legislation, Mr. Speaker, that you and I worked on together--and put in motion an AI action plan to ensure that we can be the dominant leader in artificial intelligence. AI has applications across financial services, education, medicine, pharmaceutical development, and manufacturing efficiency and productivity. We have only begun to see all its potential. AI will help us deter our adversaries through the applications that AI presents by strengthening the capabilities of our military.
Mr. Speaker, as President Trump would say, the golden age is here. We must continue to support our President as he leads this Nation forward. I am proud to work with him to make America great again.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Commonwealth for his comments.
It is common among Members of Congress, both the House and the Senate, to be strong on policy. Also, many Members are strong communicators. It is very rare, however, to get somebody who is so good at both. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is extremely lucky to have Andy Barr representing that amazing State. I thank him for his shared words.
Yes, we know the horses. We get it. There are horses. It is a big thing down there.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleagues for being here to share their perspectives as we look back on some of the significant wins that we have experienced over the course of the last year. I wanted to briefly share a little bit about stuff that doesn't get as much attention.
As a proud father of four boys, we know that family is everything. Family is at the center of Utah values, and I have dedicated a lot of effort during my time in Congress to advance pro-family legislation.
I worked on legislation to permanently increase the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000; indexing the CTC--child tax credit--to inflation; and provide an additional $500 for families through 2028.
We worked to make the adoption tax credit partially refundable up to
One of the most unique things that we accomplished were the Invest America accounts, the Trump Accounts. These investment accounts demonstrate to American youth the power of capitalism and compounding interest. There is so much more, but that last piece is going to get a kickoff here next week.
There will be $1,000 seeded to each child born to this country over the next 4 years. That child will be able to track their investment account. Usually a person doesn't even start investing until they are 30 years old.
The best estimates are you graduate college. You have a little bit of student debt. You start a new job. You don't really start contributing to an IRA until you are 30, maybe even older. A 401(k) starts sometimes with your first job.
We now have a whole new generation of kids who are starting to invest in their IRA at age zero. That is 30 extra years of potential compounding growth that will be an absolute game changer.
Plus, this has garnered an enormous amount of attention from the philanthropic space where Michael and Susan Dell have announced a commitment of over $6 billion that will help children ages 1 through 10 in areas that aren't as economically advantaged. That will help those kids take advantage of this program and also create those accounts to watch those grow over time. It is a game changer and something we are really excited about.
Mr. Speaker, we are voting on legislation this week to support families and pregnant women. We just passed the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, ensuring that young families have access to prenatal vitamins, formula, and diapers. It also ensures that TANF dollars can be used to support pregnancy resource centers.
The Pregnant Students' Rights Act provides guidance and resources to pregnant students so that no student feels forced to choose between her education and her child.
Last week, I also introduced the SAFE KIDS Act to prevent foreign adversarial nations from abusing the American surrogacy industry to obtain U.S. citizenship for their children and traffic infants abroad. Most of the developed world has already banned international commercial surrogacy due to the trafficking risks, and this bill is a strong step in the right direction to prevent bad-faith actors from taking advantage of U.S. surrogate mothers and the children they bear.
I am proud to champion legislation that directly benefits Utahns and families across the country. We have strong families. We have strong communities, and these bills reflect our dedication to supporting them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Steve Hiatt, the recipient of the Hill Air Force Base 2025 Community Wingman Award.
Hill Air Force Base is one of the most important contributors to northern Utah's economy and livelihood, employing over 23,000 military and civilian employees. Every year since 2007, they have given one individual the Community Wingman Award in recognition of their support for the base and its personnel. This gives the base an opportunity to recognize the impact that Utahns in the surrounding communities have on the success of the base.
Few people have supported Hill Air Force Base more than Steve Hiatt. For nearly a decade, he served the city of Kaysville, Utah, as a city councilman and a mayor. This is an adjacent community to Hill Air Force Base. During this time, he ensured that the community fostered a strong relationship with the base.
After serving in elected office, Steve remained highly integrated in the Hill community by serving as the vice president of the Utah Defense Alliance, as air combat command civic leader, and three terms as honorary commander. In each of these positions, Steve worked directly with servicemembers and leadership stationed at Hill to better understand and assist their mission. His work has ensured that Hill will continue to be a successful and important contributor to our national defense for years to come.
I am proud to recognize Steve's strong example of service, and I congratulate him for this will-earned award. I thank him for his support of Hill Air Force Base and his many contributions to our State as a councilman, mayor, and community member.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. Speaker, today marks 16 years since the Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Citizens United.
The decision overturned critically important limits on political spending by corporations and billionaires. We said it at the time, and it has come true: The decision has unleashed unprecedented spending by dark money groups on our elections. Now campaigns are often defined not by a candidate's record or their ideas but, rather, by their access to dark money.
The wealthiest individuals and corporations can now help skew elections singlehandedly by giving millions to their preferred candidate. They can block progress that they don't want to see. In fact, the world's richest man spent more than $250 million to help President Trump get elected in 2024. Let's talk about that 2024 cycle.
Super-PACs spent $4.5 billion. That is up from $2.3 billion in 2022, almost double in 2 years. That is more money than the GDP of Greenland.
In the 2024 Presidential election, the biggest super-PACs supporting majority party nominees raked in $865 million from donors who contributed $5 million or more alone. Each year, our elections are increasingly defined not by big spenders but by the biggest spenders. Between 2010 and 2024, the percentage of Federal election spending by the top 100 individual donors has jumped from 2 percent to almost 15 percent. That is eight times as much.
This has resulted in Americans losing faith in the integrity of our elections and the integrity of our democracy because our democracy is predicated on the idea that every voice matters, regardless of how much money you have. When the wealthy few can drown out the many, we lose sight of who we are supposed to serve. Policymaking gets overshadowed by these special interests.
Yet, after Citizens United, it is too often small groups of corporations and billionaires tipping the scales based on who serves their business interests. This can and must end. The American people have a voice, and if the majority supports a candidate or a reform, that should win the day alone.
We must limit super-PACs, dark money, and excessive campaign spending. We must restore trust in the political process. We must restore democracy to the way our Founders intended, centered on equal access to government, and we must overturn Citizens United. We have that power.
I thank my colleagues for joining me today and for Assistant Leader Neguse for organizing today. I look forward to hearing from my many colleagues in the next hour about how we can tackle this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the single greatest force that continues to distort our democracy: the role of money in our politics.
Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago today, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and billionaire spending in our elections, drowning out the voices of working people. The decision overturned longstanding precedent rooted on independent political spending by corporations and billionaires.
The conservative majority embraced the idea that spending money on elections equals speech and that corporations are entitled to the same speech rights as people, giving carte blanche to corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money.
When money is allowed to dominate, it blocks progress on everything else. Private prison and immigrant detention contractors spend millions to influence elections and policy, all while people die in their facilities. Mr. Speaker, three people have died in just the last 6 weeks at a privately run tent camp in El Paso.
Fossil fuel and mining companies pour enormous sums into elections to block climate action while communities like mine in Arizona face record heat, drought, and wildfires and continue to deal with the devastating impact to our water, land, and environment.
The gun lobby spends millions to stop lifesaving reforms while my friend Congresswoman Gabby Giffords continues to fight for commonsense gun laws so that tragedies like that mass shooting in Tucson never happen again.
Nowhere is this corruption more visible than in the White House, where policy decisions are increasingly shaped by the interests of wealthy donors and corporate insiders. Literally, it feels like there is a sign in front of the White House saying: Justice for sale.
We should be clear that Congress doesn't have to wait to act. We can ban Members of Congress from holding and trading stock. We can pass transparency laws like the DISCLOSE Act. Ultimately, we need to pass a constitutional amendment reversing Citizens United. This is a choice between democracy that serves donors or one that serves people. The choice couldn't be clearer.
Mr. Speaker, 16 years after Citizens United, we need to shift the power back to everyday Americans and away from those who can write the biggest checks.
It is past time that we reverse course on Citizens United. It is time to act and end Citizens United.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reforms that people have proposed to overturn the damage done by Citizens United. I introduced legislation, the Campaign and Election Accountability Act. One of the things that Citizens United did was make it easier for foreign nationals to funnel money into U.S. elections.
The Federal Election Campaign Act currently prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to U.S. elections and political campaigns. However, it does not prohibit Americans from assisting foreign nationals from seeking to do so. We don't know if they are wanting to donate for nefarious reasons or if they just like a candidate, but we must ensure that our elections are free and fair from foreign influence.
It is a small tweak, but my bill will prohibit Americans from assisting foreign nationals who want to contribute to U.S. elections. This way, we can all have faith that only Americans are contributing to our campaigns.
For now, this is a step in the right direction as we all work toward the larger goal of overturning Citizens United.
I hear from a lot of constituents about what is the disconnect between Washington's policies and what is happening for everyday Americans because Americans are living through one of the worst cost- of-living crises in modern history. Working families are struggling with rising expenses, like healthcare, housing and utilities, and groceries, yet they have representation that seems to reflect the very wealthiest. We just passed a tax cut for the very wealthiest Americans this last summer, and people don't understand why.
If you look back at what happened with Citizens United, you realize that that influence on our campaigns and elections is why you end up with policies like that. This is why we have to make sure that we overturn Citizens United.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for this opportunity to speak on the floor today. He is new to the Congress, but he has already made an outsized impact during the course of his 13 months of service in this august body taking on corruption. I am deeply grateful to him for his efforts in that regard, not just with respect to overturning Citizens United, but tackling the corruption that has become so pervasive here in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of the people's House to deliver what I believe to be an urgent message: The time to confront political corruption and clean up government is now.
Sixteen years ago to this very day, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that decision overturned longstanding precedent and limits on political spending by special interests.
The decision created a dark money system, where money speaks louder than everyday Americans. It has shifted power and influence away from everyday Americans, from the folks in our communities that we are privileged to serve, to instead these shadowy special interests that flood television screens every evening.
In my view, Citizens United undermined what it means to be a country of the people, by the people, for the people, and, above all, accountable to the people. Unfortunately, for far too long, this Chamber has failed to do what needs to be done to renew the faith of the American people in our democracy. We cannot accept that. We have to do something about it.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced legislation in the form of a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would revoke Citizens United. It would ensure transparency through our campaign finance reform and prevent unrestrained spending and dark money in our elections. Put bluntly, it would put the power back in the hands of the American people.
I thank my Democratic colleagues, 73 of them, who have already cosponsored this legislation, who are joining us tonight to be part of this effort, this clarion call, supporting the restoration of integrity and transparency to Washington.
Together, I honestly believe, with enough reformers, we can change the Congress. We can ban stock trading by Members of Congress. We can end dark money in our politics. We can overturn Citizens United. We just have to have the political will to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for having that will and all of my colleagues who joined us on the floor this evening.
Mr. Speaker, today marks the anniversary of Citizens United. This decision did not rewrite campaign finance law; it sold our democracy to the highest bidder.
Before Citizens United, elections were about persuading voters. After it, they became about courting billionaires.
As of 2025, there are 2,502 super-PACs. For the 2024 election, they have taken in over $5 billion, much of it dark money, much of it undisclosed, and much of it designed to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.
Let's be clear: This isn't free speech. This is legalized corruption.
Super-PACs were supposedly independent. In reality, they have become shadow campaigns, circumventing coordination laws, allowing unlimited, often anonymous, contributions, and turning elections into auctions.
What does that buy? For a bargain price of $300 million, Elon Musk bought a gilded seat inside the Federal Government and walked away with billions in contracts from the very agencies he later DOGE'd. It is a parasitic, pay-to-play system disguised as innovation.
Meanwhile, teachers, nurses, construction workers, and police officers pay higher effective tax rates than private equity executives. Families struggle with housing costs, healthcare, and childcare while Congress stalls, paralyzed by fear of angering the super-PACs that bankroll campaigns.
That fear is the point. Dark money doesn't just influence policy. It changes behavior. It makes Members of Congress think twice before doing the right thing because they know one vote could trigger a massive smear campaign.
The losers aren't Democrats or Republicans. The losers in all of this are the American people, across parties
Fifteen years later, the verdict is in: Citizens United has sold out our democracy and all Americans across the country. It is past time to end the era when billionaires buy access, buy silence, and buy power.
Congress must act to close the coordination loopholes, rein in the super-PACs, and restore the simple idea that in America, people, not money, govern.
Mr. Speaker, today marks 16 years since the Supreme Court handed down its disastrous Citizens United decision, a ruling that opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate money in our elections and fundamentally distorted our democracy.
By discarding decades of precedent, the Supreme Court declared that unlimited spending in elections poses no threat to our democratic system and that corporations are entitled to the same political rights as the people whose lives are governed by the outcomes of those elections.
What emerged from this transfer of power was an election system that no longer depends primarily on voters but rather on outside entities whose sole purpose is to spend unlimited money, often without public accountability, to influence who holds power and how that power is used.
Since Citizens United, we have watched a parallel political system take shape, one dominated by super-PACs and dark money organizations that can raise and spend unlimited sums and operate with fewer rules, less transparency, and the ability to determine election outcomes long before voters cast a ballot. A small number of wealthy donors now wield influence far out of proportion to the voters they seek to affect.
This concentration of power has consequences for how this institution functions. When unlimited outside spending can be deployed against a single vote, it shapes the decisions lawmakers can take. It narrows the range of feasibility policy. It rewards delay and protects entrenched interests, often at the expense of the public's priorities.
Meanwhile, Americans face one of the most pressing affordability crises in decades. Healthcare, housing, childcare, energy, and grocery costs are all rising, yet policies that could provide immediate relief are repeatedly stalled.
At the same time, industries that benefit from higher costs or weaker enforcement continue to earn record profits and protect their advantage with unlimited political spending. Although Citizens United did not create these problems, it enabled them to persist and grow.
While the long-term goal must be to overturn Citizens United through a constitutional amendment, Congress has the power and the responsibility to act immediately to limit its damage.
The American people deserve a government that answers to them. Sixteen years of Citizens United is long enough. We must restore accountability, strengthen transparency, and defend the voice of every voter.
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for giving me this opportunity to speak, but also for his leadership. This is such an important discussion for Americans, and I think most Americans don't realize what a deliberate effort this was for years to take away their power and place it in the hands of the wealthiest and, unfortunately, the most obscenely greedy people in this country who think only they have the wisdom to govern.
I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to highlight how Citizens United has impacted not just the political landscape and indeed this room but also our Nation, our culture, and certainly our economy.
With the floodgates opened by the Supreme Court in 2010, corporations and billionaires can now make unlimited independent expenditures. As a result, the wealthy few have even more outsized influence on our politics.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the 2017 Trump tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the rich. The lowest 20 percent of earners got an average tax break of only $70 while the top 1 percent of earners received over $61,000 in tax breaks, and the top tenth of a percent saw over $250,000 of tax breaks. This is on top of the situation where we have the largest concentration of wealth in the history of this country, making it more obscenely unfair.
Those same tax cuts lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, which the Bipartisan Policy Center projected will increase the Federal deficit by almost $1 trillion dollars by fiscal year 2027.
Unsurprisingly, during the same period, billionaire spending on Presidential elections has skyrocketed, increasing from a total of $16 million before Citizens United was passed to over $2.6 billion in the years since Citizens United. What naive person would think that these people who contributed these obscene amounts of money did it for altruistic purposes? No, they did it for themselves. This is obscene greed. How much do they need?
When billionaires and corporations are able to spend unlimited amounts to influence the results of our elections, our elected officials are, in turn, unfortunately, more likely to respond by passing legislation that benefits corporations and the richest Americans while making life more expensive for middle-class Americans. If you are surprised about affordability, Mr. President, this is how real Americans have to live because of your policies and the people who preceded you.
Our Nation and the world are experiencing record levels of income inequality, and the impacts of Citizens United and other handouts to the obscenely rich and powerful are only making it worse.
It is past time that we change course and correct what has created this inequality. Compare it to the years of another Republican President, Dwight David Eisenhower, when we had the largest middle class in the country and the world in our history. Ironically, President Eisenhower said about working people, the labor movement: Only a fool--this is President Eisenhower--would come between an American worker and their ability to organize for other workers.
American voters deserve Representatives who will bring about positive change, not just cater to the interests of these obscenely wealthy donors and megacorporations. I am glad to be here today, and, again, I thank my colleague for doing this.
It is my belief America is about representing all of us, ordinary people as well as wealthy people. After all, are we a country of, by, and for Americans, or of, by, and for the obscenely wealthy?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to give me this opportunity to speak.
I believe that the greatest issue that we face in this country is the extreme concentration of wealth and power at the very top. It is unprecedented and dangerous.
At the end of 2024, the 65 million Americans with the least amount of wealth had about $4 trillion in wealth combined. The 905 billionaires at the end of 2024 had nearly $8 trillion in wealth. So put another way, 900 people have nearly twice as much wealth as 65 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, 900 people is the size of a small high school. Mr. Speaker, 65 million is almost the population of the entire Midwest. And $8 trillion is double, double what every American owes in student loans, car loans, credit cards, and nearly every other type of debt combined, meaning that these 905 billionaires could pay for everyone's debt in the United States and still be superrich.
Now, this may have gotten worse in 2025 in large part because of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that spent trillions and trillions of dollars on tax cuts for the superwealthy at the expense of millions and millions of Americans and that cut over a trillion dollars in healthcare. Fifteen million Americans are going to lose their
During my lifetime, since I was born, CEO pay has increased by over 1,000 percent, while worker pay has increased by 25 percent. On average, right now, a CEO makes more in a single day than a worker does in an entire year. The concentration of wealth and power has given a small group of superelites the ability to make all the big decisions in this country, and they have used their power and influence to further rig our economy and politics to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. This obviously got infinitely worse with Citizens United.
This was a multidecade campaign that big corporations and the superwealthy paid for to get a Supreme Court that would change the law so that they could spend whatever they wanted on their politicians. Now they can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, on campaigns, and on politicians, and they don't have to report any of it.
Every major issue in this country, whether it is the attacks on our democracy, the issues with our economy, or healthcare, it all can be traced back to the concentration of wealth and power and Citizens United.
It is why the American Dream is out of touch for the vast majority of Americans by nearly every measure.
Mr. Speaker, look no further than the fact that most Americans can no longer buy a home, and one in four Americans have zero dollars saved for retirement.
This is a crisis and a moment of reckoning. All of the money is stuck at the top, and our big mission, the thing that our generation has to do, is reclaim that money, that power and wealth, back for the American people. That is the number one thing. At the end of the day, our generation has to reclaim that power and wealth on behalf of the American people and return it to them.
The first thing we have to do is fix our democracy and politics, returning power back to the people. This includes banning dark money, reversing Citizens United, and ending voter suppression and eliminating partisan gerrymandering once and for all. It also includes government reforms to actually get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse and corruption of every kind.
Once power is back with people, we will be able to address all of the other major issues in our country.
We will have leaders who are willing to fix our broken economy and overhaul our tax code so that hard work pays off for every American.
Fixing the tax code does two things. One, it will ensure that the superwealthy and big corporations pay all their taxes just like the rest of us, and two, it will generate trillions of dollars that will be invested back in the American people. There will be trillions to help people with housing, healthcare, and education. It will help us pay down the debt. It will fix nearly everything that is broken in this country.
The economy belongs to all of us, not just the superwealthy. Fixing and reversing Citizens United will allow us to fundamentally improve the lives of every American and fundamentally improve our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for leading this work, and I appreciate him allowing me to say a few words.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.
It is the cycle and the concentration of wealth because of Citizens United that has led to the concentration of political power that you can see even more concentration of wealth. It is the cycle that Citizens United has created that is hurting our country and leading to record income inequality. It is reflected in some of the policies that we have passed that have hurt everyday Americans, working Americans.
While the long-term goal is to overturn Citizens United, certainly through a constitutional amendment--that is a very difficult goal, but certainly one that we should aspire to--Congress does have the power to act immediately to curb some of its damage.
We are talking about bills like the Freedom to Vote Act, the DISCLOSE Act, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, and the Ban Corporate PACs Act. These bills will help reduce and mitigate the influence of big money, strengthen transparency around it, and limit corporate power. This is a moment to draw a line between a political system that serves donors and one that serves the American people. What we really want in the end is to serve the American people.
If you just look back at the past couple of decades since Citizens United, since 2010--in 2010, in that cycle, $3.6 billion in total cost of Federal elections by election cycle, then it goes up to $6.3 billion. By 2022 it is at $8.9 billion. By 2024 it is at $15.9 billion.
This past cycle was a record high. Again, all of that is because of Citizens United and because of the ability to just flood these PACs, these super-PACS, dark money super-PACs, with as much money as they want with no accountability. Now there are ways to hide some of these donations, as well.
We have to do something. We have to act now, otherwise this is going to continue the cycle of pain for so many Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago today, the Supreme Court decided in the Citizens United decision to put our democracy up for sale. I am here today to say, Mr. Speaker, that democracy is not for sale, and it is time to get big money out of politics, to end Citizens United, and to hold this administration, this Congress, and this judiciary accountable. That is because what we have seen is the fundamental erosion of our democratic system, and at the rotten root of it all is the influence of big money in politics. That is because Citizens United opened the door for corporations and billionaires to dump untold sums of money on to our elections anonymously and calling corporations people.
Mr. Speaker, corporations are not people. The American people are whom we represent. It is not the corporations, not the billionaires, not the wealthy donors, and not the individuals who are trying to buy and sell our democracy.
We know that right now corruption and the buying of elections are having a profound influence on what we are seeing in this country. We are watching as a United States President is selling the United States out from under the American people. He is offering pardons for millions of dollars to his friends and letting dangerous individuals back on to the streets. These are individuals who have committed white-collar crimes all for the very cheap sum of giving him a few million dollars or a few billion dollars in his cryptocurrency.
He is selling our secrets and our national security to foreign adversaries by allowing them to deposit sums of money into his cryptocurrency by giving him gifts like multimillion-dollar jets and, yes, even allowing him to potentially launder money in a foreign bank account in Qatar from oil he stole using the American taxpayers' dollars and the U.S. military.
President Trump is showing what happens when you let big money buy politics. In fact, he told Big Oil just last year that if they gave him $1 billion in campaign funds, he would deliver. Well, promises made, promised kept, literally invading a foreign country to take their oil.
Here in this Chamber, just a few days ago, it was discovered that the husband of a member of leadership on the opposite side of the aisle had been trading in stocks, while we are considering a stock trading ban right now in this House. This is corruption in action.
We have a judiciary across the street who is considering undermining the fundamental voting rights of the American people.
After their wealthy donors took them on trips and involved them in this vast scheme over the last several years to fundamentally remake America, the same donors who donated to Donald Trump and who donated to our friends across the aisle are also making money hand over fist on the stock market right now.
This is what comes from Citizens United, and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely dedicated to fighting to make sure that we get big money out of politics and that we end Citizens United. When we take back the
It is time to get big money out of politics, and I am here for the fight.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and all the speakers today. This is the 16th anniversary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It was a 5-4 ruling. This decision overturned longstanding precedent that we had in this country, where we had clearly established limits on independent political spending by corporations and billionaires, and it was working.
For many years, political spending had essentially flattened out. Sometimes, it had gone down when it comes to the contributions of billionaires and the largest corporations, and we were able to have an election system where there was a lot of money in the system, but not to where we are today, where it has completely engulfed all of our actions and all of our campaigns.
There has been so much damage caused by Citizens United, as many of my colleagues explained today. We are talking about wealthy donors now dictating election outcomes, potentially, with the amount of money they can flood into these elections. Americans have less information about who is influencing those campaigns and politicians.
A lot of times, it is very easy to hide your contributions to these PACs and super-PACs. Because of that, we see a system now where we don't even know where the money is coming from. We see the names of some of these cleverly named PACs in the disclosures, but you can have PACs hiding PACs and chains of money. That is why I felt the need to even try to address the influence of foreign money, because it has become easier than ever for a foreign entity to also infiltrate our elections.
These reforms we are talking about here, campaign finance reform, have broad support from the American people across both sides of the aisle. In fact, they have felt that they cannot trust D.C., they cannot trust this administration, and they can't even trust this body, Congress, because of the influence of all this money in our politics today, in our campaigns today.
The dynamics show up repeatedly in the issues that we are working on that directly affect people's lives. We are talking about our efforts to lower prescription drug costs and healthcare costs, and how we see all the money spent by some of those groups to prevent legislation that will help the American people.
My colleague from New Mexico talked about the influence of oil and gas and that money on trying to address the environment--clean air, clean water, and climate change. We are talking about efforts that we are trying to make to crack down on corporate price gouging and how it has become incredibly difficult, an almost uphill battle when it comes to some price gouging efforts, because of the influence of all of this money on our politics.
Then, we talk about strengthening worker protections, as well. We are becoming a country that is not looking out for the average worker, and we are talking about times where workers are seeing their wages flatten, and lower if you take into account inflation, and the increase in income inequality as a result of it.
People are fed up, and they understand that part of the reason why they can't trust the policies coming from Washington, D.C. is because of the influence of this money on our policymaking and elections, and it needs to stop. It needs to stop.
Unlimited outside spending gives special interests the ability to threaten lawmakers with massive advertising campaigns, well-funded challengers, and relentless negative messaging. I have been through it, and I know many of our colleagues have been through it, where these super-PACs come in and change the dynamics of an election with millions and millions of dollars.
The one bit of good news is that many of us, like me, are here still. We fought that uphill battle and won it, but now we have to look at what is going to happen in the future, at what kind of political system our kids will have to endure. Will they feel like they have a voice in our politics, or will they feel like they are seeing a political system that is corrupted by all this money? It is about which side will be able to spend the millions of dollars to win, not which side has the right policies and right things for the American people and to serve the American people. This is all about service. This is not about money and the influence of the most wealthy corporations and groups.
We have outlined a lot of different ways that we can address this. Again, I go back to the Freedom to Vote Act, the DISCLOSE Act, the Protecting Our Democracy Act, and the Ban Corporate PACs Act. We can work on this right now. Even if we don't think we have the votes to overturn Citizens United, we should still try. We should still put it on the floor and put it up for a vote.
In the 16 years that we have had Citizens United go into effect, we see our airwaves, mailboxes, inboxes, and digital media influenced by all this money.
One of our country's core principles is that every citizen has a vote and that every citizen has a voice, regardless of how much money they have. When you allow unlimited money to come into our campaign system, those individual voices are drowned out. A lot of people feel the despair of not having a voice in our politics today. A lot of that is because of Citizens United.
We have lost something that has made our democracy special in some ways. I think the folks who spoke up today have really made a lot of good points about how many of us feel the anger of what is going on, but we are committed to getting this dark money out of politics.
This does not have to be a partisan issue. It never has to be. I know there are folks on both sides of the aisle who want to do this.
Some of my colleagues talked about the corruption today in our politics and how there is this perception of corruption and the reality of corruption. They are talking about what has happened in this administration as well, and all the corruption that has happened in this administration. It is disheartening to see some of the stories that we see every week about how foreign governments are influencing our policies now, and how foreign leaders, wealthy people, and wealthy corporations can easily buy some of our policymaking. That is the appearance, and that is the reality in some cases. That needs to stop. We need to do something about it. We need to do something now.
Again, we are all committed to making sure that people trust our institutions and our Congress. I thank my colleagues today for speaking up and being willing to take on this fight. This is not an easy fight. The easy thing to do is just to go with the flow and go along with the system that we have today. Instead, my colleagues have decided to speak up. My colleagues have decided that they will not accept the status quo.
I know many people were not able to come today. I know we have a few more still on their way, but the reality is that my colleagues understand that the system is not good for our democracy. It is not good for our country. It is not good for the perception of this institution or the reality of this institution. So, we have to continue to keep fighting.
If we look at the cycles, in the 2010 cycle, as I mentioned before, the top 100 individual donors spent 2.1 percent of all the spending in 2010. By 2024, it was 15 percent. If you extrapolate that, by 2038, about half of our spending could end up being from the top 100 individual donors. I mean, that is sort of where we are headed right now, where you are going to have such a concentration of wealth.
There are countries that have that right now, today, and those democracies are not functioning democracies. Some of them don't even call themselves democracies anymore, or don't even try to consider themselves democracies, where you have the few governing the rest.
When you see some of the spending that we have today, again, the 2000 cycle had $18 million in spending, and the 2004 cycle had $13 million in spending. The 2008 cycle had $16 million. It kind of leveled off.
Then, you look at the 2012 cycle, after Citizens United: $231 million in
We are at a point now where you need a billion dollars to run for President at this point.
The 2024-cycle was $2.6 billion. I think we are at a point now where some of our elections, the money is just outrageous. People want to feel trust in our institutions and our systems, but you want to get to a place where you can do that. What we are experiencing now is affecting our policymaking. It is affecting every single part of the way this institution runs today.
The other thing we, at least, want is disclosure. That is why I have talked about some of the bills that we can do right now, like the DISCLOSE Act, because at least we could have more clear understandings of where the money is coming from and a better ability to follow the money so that the American people can understand who is paying for that commercial that they keep seeing on TV, right? Is it actually the PAC? Who paid for that ad and where is the money coming from? What do they want and who received that money, right? It is very unclear right now to a lot of people.
There are a lot of issues right now that we can solve even without overturning Citizens United, although overturning Citizens United is our main goal. We have an opportunity and we have to act now. We can't wait.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that protected working families' voices in our democracy.
By embracing this idea that corporations are entitled to the same speech rights as people, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unchecked corporate influence in governance and billionaire political spending.
The Supreme Court effectively put a price tag on representation. They put a price tag on the seats of this Chamber and they put a price tag on our democracy. But today I will make sure that I am clear in the House of Representatives: Our democracy is not for sale.
Our democracy is weaker when the voices of Black, Brown, middle- and low-income folks are drowned out by the volumes of ads a million dollars can buy.
Since the Citizens United decision, outside spending by super-PACs and dark money groups has exploded at every single level of government.
The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are a clear example. We know that to make Trump and their billionaire bosses happy, my colleagues, bought by big, corporate money, will leave working people unhoused. They will leave them foreclosed. They will leave them detained, deported, poor, hungry, sick, uninsured, and drowning, literally and figuratively.
It is time we finally prioritize a democracy that works for working people. One where Donald, where Elon, where Jeff, and all these billionaires pay their fair share. Their money has to be out of our elections and out of the White House, and their hands out of the working people's pockets and off our services, where our rights and our freedoms mean working people have every single thing they need to thrive.
We need bold legislative action if we are going to end corruption and get big money out of politics and get their corporate influence out of our communities.
That is why last year, I filed the Campaign Transparency Act and the Stop the Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Act and supported the Abolishing Super PACs Act. And today, as we are here during Special Order hour, I am proud to announce that I will also be introducing the Lobbyist Loophole Closure Act with Representatives Mullin and Williams.
That bill addresses the loopholes created by the Lobbyist Disclosure Act. The bill includes provisions to increase transparency and accountability by broadening the definition of lobbying and by also lowering the time threshold for registration.
Mr. Speaker, I will close by thanking End Citizens United and its president Tiffany Muller for all the work that they are doing to get dark money out of politics and that we ensure a democracy by the people for the people. It is time we end this, and I know that collectively we can do it.
Mr. Speaker, I will definitely look into that bill. There are more solutions that we can act on right now while we try to overturn Citizens United. I thank all the speakers today. I thank Representative Neguse for helping organize this. I thank my staff, including Matt Fisher, for helping get everyone together today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President and to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, shall we have some fun with math and economics? It is something we just don't hear a lot of here on the floor of the House. Remember, this is my therapy because I often sit in the back of the room and stew when I hear people say things when it is obvious they didn't pull their calculator out.
I am going to try two things tonight, and if you are actually interested in budgets and economics, have fun with me. If you are not, go watch Netflix. We are going to actually try a couple concepts, where the money is going and within that, the scale of our debt and deficits. The fact of the matter is, we are at what is called interest fragility that--think about what happened over the last couple days in the discussions coming from the White House, from us. The bond market actually bounced up about 30 basis points. We were just playing on the back of napkins, the math, and if that had held for an entire year, just those 30 basis points would have been $33 billion of additional interest.
I will try to actually explain that and then actually talk about something that is really interesting. The economy from a GDP calculation standpoint, and this is just the economists looking at the vitality in the economy, is remarkably good. We are running over a 5 percent GDP, which if you go back and look at the economic projections, it is double what many of our smartest economists in the country thought we would be at a year ago, but our spending--because of interest and healthcare and the reality that we are going to have to deal with is debt, deficits, and demographics.
Once again, remember, we functionally have the same number of 18 year olds today as we had 20 years ago, but we have double the number of 65 and up. It is just what we are. Don't get mad. It is not Republican or Democrat. It is just demographics and understanding when our brothers and sisters move into their earned benefit years, what it costs.
The fact of the matter is, this Congress refuses to do the hard things because in 6\1/2\ years, the Social Security trust fund is empty and you get a 24 percent cut in your check and we double senior poverty. We double the number of baby boomers who will live on the street.
In 6\1/2\, 7 years, the Medicare trust fund is empty and your hospital gets an 11 percent cut and much of the financing things like Medicare Advantage and those actually just become, let's just say, difficult.
Let's walk through some of this. I pulled up this chart because I haven't used it in a few months and I am realizing there are not enough folks, particularly the staff--remember, I often do these because I am talking to a thousand televisions around the campus. The room looks empty, but we are on televisions. Hopefully, there are some staffers who are working on policy who will understand how important these numbers are.
Do you see the blue portion of that chart, Mr. Speaker? That is discretionary. That is all you and I get to vote on. As Members of Congress, we only vote on the discretionary portion, and this was a 2025 chart. Today, it is
Mr. Speaker, the math for last year, for every dollar we took in, in tax receipts, we spent $1.43.
We were just in the back. I was talking with one of my Joint Economic economists. We think it is lower this year but we are still not-- because we are having to make the adjustments on the student loans and those sorts of things, it could be down to $1.37 or $1.40 this year. Think about that. Last year, for every dollar that came in, we spent $1.43.
Realize all this in the red is on autopilot, and a portion of it is actually on borrowed money. If you just do the hierarchy, every dime of defense is borrowed. Every dime of nondefense discretionary is borrowed. That is only about $2 trillion. A wedge of the mandatory also ends up being borrowed.
There is one other thing I want to point out in the chart. If you actually take a look at the hierarchy of spending, Social Security is number one. It is $1.5 trillion.
Guess what is number two if you do the total interest paid. It is interest. Here is interest to the public who bought our bonds, whether it be your pension plan as an individual or another country, or the interest we have to pay back to the trust funds when we reach into the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, the railroad retirement trust fund, and those things. We borrow the money. We owe them interest.
Total interest last year was about $1.2 trillion, making interest the second biggest expenditure in this government. Medicare is number three. Medicaid and healthcare subsidies are number four. Defense is actually number five.
I always love it--I often have these conversations back home when I have a Democrat who says: Well, if you cut defense.
Then they look at me in horror when I ask them if they realize that in the hierarchy of spending, defense is actually the fifth biggest expenditure in Government.
This one is actually good news of some of what is happening. This is actually one of my favorite charts because it actually demonstrates here is our tax receipts as a percentage of the economy.
We were basically getting about 17.1 percent of the economy. We have some new math right now. It says we are probably peaking over 18 percent, maybe even higher, of the economy coming in, in tax receipts. That is wonderful except for one really yucky thing.
Remember last year, when we were up, getting 17.1 percent of the economy in taxes, we functionally were spending 23.4 percent. That delta is the deficit. What happens when your tax receipts are going up as a percentage of the size of the economy and the economy is growing but healthcare and interest are going up faster? Are we going to tell the truth about that?
Here are basic factoids. I did this last week, but I want to say it again because it doesn't seem to be sinking in. In about 33 or 36 months, half of every dime that the Federal Government spends, 50 percent of all of our spending will go to those 65 and up. Moody's Analytics has in 2035--what is that--8 or 9 budget years from now--30 percent of all tax receipts going just to interest.
There was an interesting economic paper. It was actually an economic paper demonstrating that Italy actually was more fiscally sound in the long term than the United States.
When you see that headline, you sit down and read it, within there was a factoid. If you use a 6 percent generational discount rate, which is reasonable--it could be slightly high--for a child born today, you need 104 percent of their lifetime earnings just to pay Federal pension obligations. Those are Social Security, Medicare, military, and Federal requirement.
Mr. Speaker, think of that. For a child born today, you need every dime they will ever make in their entire life, plus another 4 percent, to pay pension obligations. Does anyone see the immorality going on? But we can't talk about that because that would be hard.
I believe the American people are a hell of a lot smarter than we are. They are ready for us to tell them the truth about math. One of the first things we as the political class have to do is stop lying about math.
Let's actually walk through some of this, and I will blast through these because I am trying to make a point.
Also, before I go much further, if someone actually wants to bathe in the truth in math and what the future looks like and how we can fix it, go to the Joint Economic Committee Republicans. We publish some amazing things.
Every weekday, we do a text message to a few thousand people we call the Daily Debt. It shows how much came in and how much we spent. We give you a 12-month window so it fixes ups and downs. We will also give you the fiscal year as it sits.
Mr. Speaker, I just got my Daily Debt text message. We are borrowing over $71,000 every second. That is the 12-month calculation. It makes up all the highs and lows and averages out. You have got to understand that this ain't a game because that $71,000 a second, we need to have buyers of our bonds. We make our buyers of our bonds cranky. It gets really expensive.
This chart here is just trying to make a point of what is going on in our debt and deficits. Remember that discretionary spending, the blue on the pie chart I just showed you, is flat. It is not growing. Yes, there is waste and fraud in it. We need to eliminate that. We actually believe technology would eliminate that, except I can't believe how the bureaucracies are terrified of the technology that can find the waste and fraud.
Our growth is in the mandatory spending. It is the promises we have made that we have got to keep but we have got to figure out a way to finance it.
What this chart is showing is we see this slightly darker color here. That is the primary deficit. That is actually programs that we are spending more money than we have coming in. All of this lighter purple is the interest we owe.
The point we are making is this. If we have a $2 trillion deficit this year but interest is $1.2 trillion, interest now is the primary driver. Number two is healthcare costs. We just have this problem of telling the truth about healthcare costs are out of control. In many States, the government is the primary--is the majority of money spent in healthcare.
Let's have some fun here. I know we are all interested in bonds and how they refinance. Remember, if you have $38.5 trillion of debt out there, over $30 trillion of that is sold. That is what they call publicly held debt. About one-third of that--and I was going to show the charts of all the papers and the notes and the bonds. I realized no one cares.
About one-third of that--let's call it $10 billion--has to be refinanced this year. Much of that is coming off of lower bond prices from a couple of years ago.
On average, we are picking up one point of interest, 1.5 points, some 2. There is your problem. The chart here--I am just trying to show you--is we have to constantly refinance. We are refinancing at higher interest rates because we are making the markets cranky. We are not telling the bond markets that we are serious about taking on our debt and deficit.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard the term ``bond vigilantes''? It happened to the United States in the 1990s where, suddenly, we were making the bond markets cranky. They were starting to demand premiums. Our debt was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what it is today.
We are on the cusp of putting the bond market in charge of this country, not us. It is a really dangerous game we are playing. One of the ways we mitigate that is we tell the bond market: We are adults. We are being serious. We understand we have a demographic. We have a healthcare spending problem. We are going to take it on. We are going to adopt technologies. We are going to adopt other ways to make our brothers and sisters healthy. We are going to telegraph to the markets we are stable. We are America. We are the incredible investment.
If you think I am engaging in hyperbole, look at the price of gold. If the
It is estimated that, from fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2026, we are going to have to borrow--this is what we call virgin borrowing; it is new issuances--about $470 billion a quarter. That is less than $2 trillion, but it is pretty darn close.
That is on top of what we have to refinance. When you start to get a sense of what we are bringing to the bond markets, it is more than just the borrowing. It is the refinance. We are subject to the interest rates.
We need to be understanding. Convince the people who are loaning us money, whether it be your personal pension, your savings account, Japan, whoever is buying our debt, that we are stable, that we are adults, and that we understand. We have a demographic problem, but we are going to engage in adult-like technology and borrowing policy, things to manage our debt, and minimize it.
Mr. Speaker, this chart is substantially unreadable, but I wanted to actually just show it for the fun of it. This is one of the things that we use in our economic shop, where we try to actually say: Okay, here is 1 year. If it went up \1/2\ percent, that 1 year costs $206 billion over 10 years. It is basically a table that says that if interest rates pop up this much, and it only lasts for 1 year or 2 years, here is what it will cost us over the 10-year window.
The whole point of this chart is to start to demonstrate so many of the things we talked about here. We are going to save $1 billion. That is a lot of money. We believe, annualized, we are going to borrow over $6 billion a day. In the first quarter of the fiscal year, we are borrowing over $8 billion a day.
The arguments here and the debates we will have here, often to save money, which are wonderful, we will have borrowed more money during the debate than whatever the item being debated would have ever saved, because: How do you talk about the drivers of debt?
The other thing we also have to deal with is when we get our policies wrong, when we make the bond markets nervous, when they don't see that we are fixated on debt management, fiscal reality, and interest rates go up on U.S. sovereigns. They raise everything. It is more than just the money we spend.
Mr. Speaker, we had months last year when we had to borrow money to pay for our borrowing. That is partially because the tax collection cycle goes up and down, but we raise your credit card. We raise your car. We raise everything. When we screw up U.S. sovereigns, we make bond markets nervous. They go up 30 basis points. You have to understand that just raised every cost for borrowing up and down through the economy.
It is more than just when I sit here and spout about saying that we are going to pay this much in interest. Think about what we did to the American families, businesses, small businesses, and farmers. We somehow seem detached from the reality of the math.
Let's actually talk about where some of the money is going and why we have to do such borrowing. CBO, 2025, Medicare accuracy, they actually did okay, but okay when talking $1 trillion is, hey, they only missed it by around 7 percent. That turns out to be around $70 billion of spending.
Medicare, 2025 outlays increased by $77 billion, 8 percent. CBO was projecting only $51 billion. From this scale of accounting, it is pretty accurate, but you have to understand that we are looking at an environment right now where we expect Medicare spending to double, to go from $1 trillion to $2 trillion over the next 7 years.
So far, every healthcare chart I have where we are looking at what the closing numbers for the 2025 fiscal year, they are all in excess of what we projected. If you start to have a world where you are sitting at 7 percent medical inflation, even if you have tax receipts going up 3 percent or 4 percent, we are borrowing more money.
Let's actually take another look at one of these. Major healthcare programs were up $150 billion over the previous year, and the major healthcare programs came in at a 9-percent increase from the previous years.
Does anyone see a math problem? You have an economy right now that is growing at 5 percent. It is amazing. Yet, our spending, when you tack in the interest rates, the healthcare spending--if healthcare spending is over 9 percent, you have a math problem.
Then, the argument we have from our Democrats is: But we need to subsidize more.
We have turned healthcare into financial engineering instead of helping our brothers and sisters be healthier. Legalize the technology. Legalize the processes.
Do you realize that so many things where you could crash the price of healthcare, this body actually keeps illegal?
We are going to do a number of healthcare bills. Every single one of them is wonderful, except for one small problem: There are rounding errors.
I love, love, love price transparency. I don't believe you can have functioning markets without price transparency. Every academic paper I have in my office says it is only about \1/2\ percent of price improvement. Yet, major healthcare programs, there is a 9-percent increase in spending. You get \1/2\ percent, and in a single year, I have 9-percent growth in spending.
Does anyone see a mismatch? Great policy, great rhetoric, sounds great on the campaign trail, and it doesn't save us.
Now, for those folks who know--how do I say this nicely? I like Medicare Advantage. It is called Medicare part C if you are geeky. The majority of our brothers and sisters on Medicare actually are on Medicare Advantage. It is functionally supposed to be a managed care optionality for your healthcare. So, you get a network. You know what your benefits are.
We have a problem. We have these things called MedPAC reports. I have a stack of them on my desk. On my desk, if you open them up, which I am sure every Member of Congress opens them up and goes through them, it will tell you that Medicare Advantage right now is costing 120 percent of fee-for-service.
Medicare Advantage, which came into effect in 2005, is supposed to come in at 95 percent of fee-for-service. That is a 25 percent delta. We have been looking at charts and data and trying to say: Hey, we want to protect Medicare Advantage. That is what seniors have chosen. They like it. Can we actually get rid of the risk scoring and some of the games being played with the star ratings, where they are milking the system, because think of that?
MedPAC reports basically say that there is almost $2 trillion of misalignment and fraud over 10 years. That is actually the biggest in government. I know some people have problems with the difference between millions, billions, and trillions. A trillion is really big.
Look at this chart here: Overpayment Per MA Beneficiary. This is done by the MedPAC report, so this wasn't even done by my economists. This is done by a room full of people who just specialize in Medicare Advantage.
Mr. Speaker, in 2025, 14--actually, I think that comes out to $1.25 trillion, but this also comes to $200 billion, I believe, of misspending. Am I reading that correctly? Yes.
When you see $1.4 trillion, and over $200 billion is in the MedPAC report as being bad payments, misalignments, abuse, taking advantage of the system, waste and fraud, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do a second reconciliation, I would propose that one of the most moral and rational economic things that we can do is let's just fix Medicare Advantage and put it back to how it is supposed to work.
I know we have armies of lobbyists in our hallways here trying to stop us. Can you imagine why? If there is a couple of hundred billion dollars in play, they are going to absolutely knife us to stop us from doing the reforms.
Are we tough enough to do what is right for the American people for the next generation?
Think of this, Mr. Speaker: I have a 3-year-old. Yes, my wife is my age. We adopted a little boy--same birth mom as our little girl. When my 3-year-old is about 23 years old, every tax in the United States has to be doubled just to maintain baseline spending.
Is that moral? Mr. Speaker, you have kids. Is this the America where the
We are on the cusp of amazing technologies--synthetic biology, cures for diseases, things we can do that can make this another American century. We just need to tell the truth about the math and policy instead of the theatrics that go on in this place.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the six or seven people who have been willing to listen to me.
There is a way to make this work. It just turns out that it is really hard. Are we ready to do hard things for the country and then go home to try to explain it to our voters that we are doing the right thing for them?
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 51 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 22, 2026, at 9 a.m.
