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.
04Adjusting Imports of Processed Critical Minerals and Their Derivative Products Into the United States: Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 119-134)
05Adjusting Imports of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Parts, and Buses Into the United States: Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 119-135)
06Adjusting Imports of Semiconductors, Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment, and Their Derivative Products Into the United States: Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 119-136)
12Expenditure Reports Concerning Official Foreign Travel
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
39 public bills, H.R. 7481- 7519; and 3 resolutions, H. Res. 1058-1060 were introduced.
Pages H2185-87
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H. Res. 1057, providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1383) to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2189) to modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 261) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3617) to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, and for other purposes; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules (H. Rept. 119-493); H.R. 3495, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the definition of employee as it relates to direct sellers and real estate agents, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119- 494); and H.R. 6472, to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for in-state tuition rates for certain residents of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-495).
Pages H2184-85
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Evans (CO) to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H2121
Recess
The House recessed at 4:55 p.m. and reconvened at 5:16 p.m.
Page H2167
Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act
The House passed H.R. 3617, to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, by a yea-and-nay vote of 223 yeas to 206 nays, Roll No. 64.
Pages H2150-54, H2167-68
Rejected the Landsman motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce by a yea-and-nay vote of 214 yeas to 215 nays, Roll No. 63.
Pages H2154, H2167-68
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
Page H2150
H. Res. 1057, as amended, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (S. 1383), (H.R. 2189), (H.R. 261), and (H.R. 3617) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 215 noes, Roll No. 62, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 216 yeas to 214 nays, Roll No. 61.
Pages H2121-38
Relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025
The House passed H.J. Res. 72, relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025, by a yea-and-nay vote of 219 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 65.
Pages H2154-61, H2169
Undersea Cable Protection Act
The House passed H.R. 261, to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency, by a yea-and-nay vote of 218 yeas to 212 nays, Roll No. 67.
Pages H2161-66, H2169-71
Agreed to amend the title so as to read
``To amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from prohibiting, or requiring any permit or other authorization for, the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have been authorized by a Federal or State agency.''.
Pages H2170-71
Rejected the Carbajal motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Natural Resources by a yea-and-nay vote of 214 yeas to 216 nays, Roll No. 66.
Pages H2166, H2169-70
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
Page H2162
H. Res. 1057, as amended, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (S. 1383), (H.R. 2189), (H.R. 261), and (H.R. 3617) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 215 noes, Roll No. 62, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 216 yeas to 214 nays, Roll No. 61.
Pages H2121-38
Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act
The House passed S. 1383, to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access, by a yea-and-nay vote of 218 yeas to 213 nays, Roll No. 69.
Pages H2171-72
Rejected the Morelle motion to commit the bill to the Committee on House Administration, by a yea-and-nay vote of 214 yeas to 217 nays, Roll No. 68.
Pages H2149, H2171
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-19, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
Pages H2138-41
H. Res. 1057, as amended, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (S. 1383), (H.R. 2189), (H.R. 261), and (H.R. 3617) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 215 noes, Roll No. 62, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 216 yeas to 214 nays, Roll No. 61.
Pages H2121-38
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust
The House agreed to discharge from committee and agree to H. Con. Res. 72, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.
Page H2172
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, February 12th.
Page H2172
Presidential Messages
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification of the reasons why he has decided to take action to adjust imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products (PCMDPs) so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States--referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119-134).
Page H2166
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification of the reasons why he has decided to take action to adjust imports of medium and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs), and medium- and heavy-duty vehicle parts (MHDVPs), and buses so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States--referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119- 135).
Pages H2166-67
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification of the reasons why he has decided to take action to adjust imports of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States--referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119-136).
Page H2167
Quorum Calls: Votes
Eight yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2137-38, H2138, H2167-68, H2168, H2169, H2169-70, H2170, H2171, and H2171-72. Adjournment: The House met at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 8:14 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: 177 of 365 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Providing for Consideration of S. 1383, Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2025; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2189, Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act; Providing For...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for consideration of four pieces of legislation. The rule provides for consideration of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides for one motion to commit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, the Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
Further, the rule provides same-day authority through Friday, February 13, for a rule providing for consideration of a continuing resolution related to the Department of Homeland Security funding.
Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives works to deliver on the critical issues our Nation faces, we urge our colleagues today to prioritize the passage of S. 1383, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE America Act, which builds upon the SAVE Act introduced in previous Congresses that requires States to obtain proof of citizenship for Federal elections, ensuring only U.S. citizens are voting in those elections. In addition, the SAVE America Act requires individuals to present a valid photo identification before voting.
Our Founders set forth our electoral processes 250 years ago based upon the simple and ultimate principle that only Americans should vote. However, in this age of progressive, suicidal empathy, basic concepts such as voter ID and proof of citizenship have been attacked as suppression.
Let's consider the facts.
Fact one: Under the previous administration, the Biden-Harris- Mayorkas administration, some 10 million or more illegal aliens poured into communities across our country, adding to an existing foreign-born population, which totals upward of over 50 million people or close to 16 percent.
Fact two: While only U.S. citizens are legally eligible to vote in Federal elections, Federal law actually interferes with and prevents States from using Federal data to check their voter rolls to ensure that only citizens are voting, such that we end up in the upside-down situation where a State like Arizona has two different sets of systems, one for State and local and one for Federal.
Fact three: This is a recipe for fraud and a recipe for having people vote who shouldn't be voting. It undermines people's confidence in our electoral system. When combined with the fact that several jurisdictions offer driver's licenses and other benefits to illegal aliens and other foreign nationals, it provides opportunity for noncitizens to register to vote.
Fact four: Polling data is overwhelmingly in support of the SAVE America Act and its principles, that only American citizens should vote, and that we should use voter identification when we go to vote. Polling indicates that over 70 percent of Democrats across this country, over 90 percent of Republicans, and well over 70 percent of virtually every ethnicity and ethnic group in the country--Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, White Americans, men, women, rural, urban--overwhelmingly support voter identification and ensuring that only citizens vote.
Fact five: We passed the SAVE Act in the previous, preceding Congress. We passed the SAVE Act in this Congress focusing on citizenship. We now bring the SAVE America Act forward that adds voter identification, which is, again, overwhelmingly popular.
The SAVE Act passed on a bipartisan basis. Democrats joined with us in the previous Congress. Democrats joined with us in this Congress. In both instances, the House of Representatives affirmed that only U.S. citizens should vote in Federal elections.
Let's add voter ID to it. Let's pass the SAVE America Act. Let's send it over to the Senate and let the Senate move this legislation to the President's desk.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have four bills in this rule today. All of them are completely closed--no amendments, no debate, completely closed. I feel like I am in Russia. Three of them are from the failed rule last night, which was the third failed rule in this Congress, the seventh under Speaker Johnson, and the tenth of the reigning Republican majority. That alone demonstrates Republicans' inability to govern.
Then we have the so-called SAVE America Act. The gentleman from Texas is going to spend today's debate trying to convince you that this is a commonsense, simple bill, but I want you to remember a very few important facts while he is talking.
First of all, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections, period, full stop. If noncitizens are voting in Federal elections, they should be prosecuted. We don't disagree on that.
Second, nobody disputes the fact that voters should follow the law and indicate who they are. We agree on that, too. Nobody is debating that on the floor today.
What we are debating is whether we are going to believe the BS conspiracy theories cooked up by Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans about whether or not elections can be trusted in this country.
What we are debating is whether, in response to those lies, we are going to require Americans to go down to their county clerk, to take the train to city hall, or to drive down to the registrar's office and jump through bureaucratic hoops just to register to vote.
Who asked for more red tape? Did Jim Crow call?
I mean, that is what this bill is about. It is not about voter ID. It is about voter registration, and it is about voter suppression.
We always tell people to vote, make their voices heard, participate in our democracy, right? Those are supposed to be good things.
Why are Republicans passing a bill that makes it as hard as possible to vote? I will let them answer that question, but I guess it is about what I have come to expect from a party that no longer believes in democracy, though.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I asked the chairman of the Committee on House Administration a simple question: Did Donald Trump win or lose the State of Minnesota in the last three Presidential elections? It is not a curve ball; not a difficult question.
Of course, anyone living in reality knows the answer to this--Donald Trump lost Minnesota three times--but not Donald Trump. He continues denying election results. He said just last Friday that because of voter fraud, he feels he won Minnesota.
The Republican chairman of the House Administration Committee, the congressional committee which regulates Federal election laws, couldn't give me a straight answer, couldn't answer that question. He couldn't tell me if he agreed with Donald Trump. He wouldn't say who won Minnesota. He went through all kinds of contortions to avoid answering the question.
I mean, this is a simple question. That is shocking, Mr. Speaker. I mean, you guys want America to trust you to write our election laws? Americans can't even trust you to tell us who won the election.
Oh, and then here is another thing: One of the changes that were made--by the way, this bill didn't go through committee process. I mean, this was kind of rushed to the floor. All kinds of major changes have been made in the last week, but here is one of the major changes: This bill, if passed, was supposed to take effect in the year 2027. There is a change in this bill. It takes place immediately, for this election.
I mean, how is that going to happen? We have elections beginning in a matter of a few weeks, and you are expecting every State to be able to comply with all these new rules and regulations, like, immediately?
This is about sowing chaos and confusion. My friends on the other side know they are probably going to lose the next election, and they are going to lose big. Rather than live up to the reality or respect the voters, they are going to try to make up some conspiracy theory that the election was stolen or undocumented migrants came in and voted against them.
Here is the hard truth: If Republicans want to know why people are losing faith in our elections, they ought to look in the mirror. They ought to look in the mirror.
People are losing faith because Donald Trump, the election denier in chief, can't admit he lost. People are losing faith because Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel's FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, based on recycled conspiracy theories. They seized 2020 election results, even though it was Donald Trump who asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,780 ballots so that he can win, even though he lost, and that is on tape.
They are losing faith in our elections because they saw Pam Bondi trying to shake down Minnesota's State government, saying the administration would only withdraw ICE if Minnesota handed over their voter rolls to Trump's DOJ. They are losing faith because of bills like this, which force every State in America to give their voter rolls over to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
Let that sink in. She is probably one of the least trustworthy people in the country right now. I wouldn't trust Kristi Noem to tell me the correct time, and we are asking States to turn over their voting rolls to her. Give me a break.
We don't need any more lectures from Republicans about the sanctity of democracy or why people are losing faith in our democratic institutions. We know why, and we know what this bill is. This is Jim Crow 2.0. Republicans think that when fewer Americans vote, they win. It is as simple as that.
I am so sick of the other side just making things up. This widespread voter fraud conspiracy is all part of the same election denialism that goes right up to the Oval Office.
The other side has been making these claims for years now. We have heard about this for over a decade. They claim that massive numbers of noncitizens are voting, swaying elections, and that rampant voter fraud is changing results.
Every single one of those claims, Mr. Speaker, has been investigated again and again by Republican Governors and Republican Secretaries of State, by journalists, by academic researchers, and by President Trump himself, whose own voter fraud commission was disbanded because he couldn't find enough evidence to warrant the absurd allegations that he was making.
Every time these claims are investigated, they disappear like a mirage. This entire bill is fundamentally predicated on a lie. In fact, when you crunch the numbers, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than to successfully impersonate someone at the polls. Enough already.
The SAVE America Act is a terrible bill that makes it harder for American citizens to participate in our democracy. That is it.
America does not want to be saved by a Republican Party that spent a year propping up Trump's tariffs, which have driven costs through the roof. We don't want to be saved by the people who continue covering up for pedophiles in the Epstein files. America certainly doesn't want to be saved by the same people who still can't get over losing the 2020 election so they are going to try to rig the next one.
Go save somebody else, but we don't want this garbage. We will fight like hell to stop you from making it harder for millions of Americans to register to vote.
We know why you are doing this. It is because you are afraid that you are going to lose in November. Well, too bad. Too bad. Either change your crappy policies or face the voters and deal with the consequences of your own actions. Those are the only two options in a democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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, I rise today in strong support of the SAVE America Act, which implements commonsense measures backed by the vast majority of Americans, across party lines, to secure our elections and ensure that it is easy to vote but hard to cheat.
As my great State of Georgia knows all too well, we must do more to deliver secure elections. The survival of our constitutional Republic relies on free, fair, and secure elections.
Thankfully, this legislation bolsters election integrity by requiring a government photo ID to vote, requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and directing States to remove noncitizens from existing voter rolls.
These are not controversial issues. In fact, leftwing CNN's own recent polling shows that 83 percent of Americans support voter ID, including the majority of Republicans and Democrats, as well as voters regardless of their race.
Who would oppose such a bill and why? Unsurprisingly, my Democrat colleagues oppose the SAVE America Act because it hurts the Democratic Party's ability to cheat in our elections.
Just think of all the things Americans need an ID for, yet face absolutely
To underscore the Democrats' hypocrisy even further, in funding negotiations, Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are demanding that ICE agents show IDs to arrest illegal aliens. They support photo ID to enforce immigration laws but oppose photo ID to ensure our elections are secure. This is incredible hypocrisy.
In Proverbs 11:9, God says: ``The hypocrite with his mouth destroys his neighbor.'' That is exactly what Democrats are trying to do: destroy this country with their hypocrisy over voter identification.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me first correct the gentleman from Texas, who mischaracterized deliberately my remarks. I made it very clear in my opening, and I will read it again to him, that if noncitizens are voting in Federal elections, they should be prosecuted. We all believe it. He doesn't have to listen if he doesn't want to, but please don't mischaracterize what I said.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking over to the other side of the aisle and can't help but be stunned by the number of people over there who I remember coming on this floor and denying the election results in the year 2020 because they didn't like the results.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order amendment No. 10 to the SAVE America Act, which prohibits Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, their spouses, and dependents from owning or trading stocks.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with 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, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), the sponsor of the amendment and the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my longtime friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, for his vigorous defense of our position and his encouragement that people vote against the so-called SAVE America Act.
Mr. Speaker, the way to enhance Americans' trust in government is by holding ourselves to a higher standard, not by disenfranchising citizens seeking to participate in our democracy.
The vast majority of Americans believe that it is time to end the practice of Members of Congress and the President and Vice President from trading stocks, and that is what the Restore Trust in Government Act would do.
Speaker Johnson has refused to move any bill to ban Member stock trading. I offered this proposal as an amendment to the SAVE America Act, but it was rejected by the majority.
I also have a discharge petition on stock trading that has over 170 signatures, nearing the 218 signatures needed to pass the House. If we want Americans to trust us, to trust our government, we need to root out corruption, real corruption, not imaginary voter fraud.
We have an opportunity to do that right here and right now. That is what the Restore Trust in Government Act would do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of the moment and to defeat the previous question. Once we do, the House can finally pass a stock trading ban.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Arizona, but I will just note that, as one of the lead sponsors of the legislation to deal with prohibiting Members of Congress from engaging in the act of trading in stocks, we are working on a bipartisan basis. We have legislation we are going to move. There will be a time to do that, and this is a complete substitute. In other words, this is fake.
It is a bunch of drama because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want voter identification to be used to vote, and they do not want to guarantee that only citizens vote. It is that simple.
Mr. Speaker, we will deal with stock trading. I am one of the lead sponsors of that legislation. We will get it done but not as a substitute for what 80 percent of American people want, which is to guarantee only citizens vote and that they show up with a voter identification.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, Mr. Roy, for yielding 2 minutes to me.
Mr. Speaker, I will say this. This is really humorous to hear the machinations and the twisting and goings-on from our friends across the aisle. As they say, this is too much.
Mr. Schumer denigrated Black people and basically said they can't get the IDs. Kamala Harris said rural folks can't get IDs. It is just too hard. That is BS. They know it is BS. The American people know it is BS. It is exactly why 85 percent of Americans say we need to do this.
Let me just say that I come from a State that is the most unique State in the country because we have been, for years, requiring proof of citizenship when a person registers for a State ballot. We have to do that in Arizona, and we have had no suppression. We are the only State that does it because the Supreme Court ruled that way. Somehow, we can't do it for Federal ballots?
Mr. Speaker, think about that. For an alderman or legislator in Arizona, we have to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. We can't do it for the President, though. How absurd is that?
We have had no problems. There has been no voter suppression. They want to make it an issue because they don't want that proof, and we need to have that proof. Every rational American knows it is not suppression. It is common sense. That is why we need to show ID when we vote. It is popular in Arizona. It is popular across the country.
We need to show our citizenship when we register to vote. That is what has to happen in Arizona. It will work across the country. There is not a doubt in my mind, and I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let's talk about common sense for a second. When the gentleman from Texas introduced this bill, the effective date was in 2027. All of a sudden, because, I think, a right-winger on their side did a tweet that caused all kinds of chaos, they moved for it to take effect immediately, notwithstanding the fact we have primaries beginning in some States in a matter of just a few weeks.
I would just point out to the gentleman who just spoke that we have this thing called a Real ID. For 20 years, we have been trying to implement it. We spent billions of dollars trying to implement it and still not everybody has it. It has taken 20 years. My colleagues are pushing all these new changes on States. They have to do it in a matter of a couple of weeks?
We all know what this is about. We all know what this is about. People see through this. This is not about protecting our democracy. It is not about preventing undocumented immigrants from voting. That is already illegal in this country. This is about sowing confusion and chaos because they know they are going to lose the next election. What an underhanded way to deal with elections in our democracy. What an insult to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't secure elections. It shrinks the electorate. I find it so interesting that in real time we are having this conversation. When we talk about Black voters, we are going to talk about Black voters.
This bill was written so poorly it doesn't even take into consideration women of all races who changed their names when they got married. It is ridiculous.
It has been a Federal crime, we know, for noncitizens to vote since 1996. Georgia audited 8.2 million voter registrations and found 20 noncitizens, Mr. Speaker, 20. That is the emergency. That is the emergency that justifies blocking 21 million American citizens who don't have the papers to fill what this bill demands. We all know the history.
Darnella Cavaness, my grandmother from Malvern, Arkansas, had to face the poll tax. After Reconstruction, nobody wrote the word ``race'' into a single suppression statute. They wrote poll taxes. They wrote literacy tests, good character clauses. It was all race neutral on paper but devastating in practice.
The SAVE America Act sits in that tradition. I will say it again. The SAVE America Act sits in that tradition.
I have a 14-year-old daughter. I won't stand here and make voting harder for her when she decides to register to vote.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't get to shrink the franchise. I urge a strong ``no'' from all of our colleagues who believe in a democracy that we were all promised.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the SAVE America Act. This essential legislation would require, as we have said previously, proof of citizenship when registering to vote and the presentation of a valid ID when at the ballot box. Currently, only 13 States do not require any form of voter ID. Having this requirement should be the standard and not the exception.
My Democratic colleagues claim that requiring a photo ID to vote is too burdensome. Some say it is too difficult for rural Americans and will lead to voter suppression. I grew up in rural America.
The reality is that Americans use photo IDs every day to carry out basic tasks like opening a bank account, boarding a flight, checking into a hotel, renting a car, or applying for a business license.
Americans use photo IDs to buy alcohol, tobacco, or nicotine products. They use it to sign a lease or rental agreement. It is also used to get a marriage license, purchase firearms or ammunition, check in for jury duty, or enroll in a college or university. Purchasing insurance or donating blood requires a photo ID.
I hope that people who don't have a photo ID don't get sick because they need a photo ID to purchase things like Sudafed, NyQuil, and Mucinex D. I hope they don't have to pick up a package at the post office because we have to have a photo ID to pick up a package at the post office.
If we require a photo ID to prevent fraud in these areas I just mentioned, why are my colleagues so opposed to preventing fraud in elections? It is hard to argue that a photo ID is too much to ask for in voting when Americans already use it routinely for far less important activities.
Mr. Speaker, protecting election integrity should be a priority. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying SAVE America Act to secure our elections.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from ``ABC News'' titled: ``Election Fact Check: Noncitizens Can't Vote, and Instances Are `Vanishingly Rare.' ''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Election Fact Check: Noncitizens Can't Vote, and Instances Are
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from NPR titled: ``Despite grand claims, a new report shows noncitizen voting hasn't materialized.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Despite Grand Claims, a New Report Shows Noncitizen Voting Hasn't
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Cato Institute titled: ``Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record another piece from the Cato Institute titled: ``Trump's Claims About Noncitizen Voting Are False. We Can Prove It.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Trump's Claims About Noncitizens Voting Are False. We Can Prove It.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the American Immigration Council titled: ``Unpacking Myths About Noncitizen Voting--How Heritage Foundation's Own Data Proves It's Not a Problem.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an excerpt from an academic article from the journal on Electoral Studies titled: ``An exploration of Donald Trump's allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2016 election,'' which finds:
`` . . . expansive voter fraud concerns espoused by Donald Trump and those aligned with him are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 election.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, the final thing I will say before I yield to my colleague here is that not too long ago former Governor Rick Scott claimed erroneously that there were hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants registered to vote in Florida. He launched this massive investigation and spent all kinds of money investigating it. It was essentially a witch hunt.
I would ask my colleagues if they know how many people were prosecuted in that or convicted of any crime. One person was prosecuted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Olszewski).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is a solution in search of a problem, as the gentleman from Massachusetts just pointed out.
My colleague pointed out earlier some polling numbers. Let me put another polling number out there. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks. If that is the standard, let's pass a universal background check right now. Let's save lives from senseless gun violence.
Republicans say that this bill will stop noncitizens from voting, but as the ranking member from the Rules Committee pointed out, nonpartisan studies have found that over 24 years and out of hundreds of millions of votes cast, there has been proof of this happening exactly 77 times.
To be clear, voter fraud should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. We welcome conversations to do that, but that is not what this bill does.
Indeed, if my colleagues were serious about election integrity, we would include protections for American voters who are overseas, like the brave men and women of our military. We would provide free automatic IDs. We would allow same-day voter registration for eligible voters, and we wouldn't force married women to navigate even more bureaucratic obstacles. We wouldn't force States to turn over their voter rolls, and wouldn't actively discourage voting by mail.
Mr. Speaker, I have a different challenge for my colleagues from the Republican side. They should join me in focusing on what Americans actually need: relief from the crushing cost of living crisis in this country. Let's stop pretending that this bill defends democracy and start helping the people we represent.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud that this administration is relieving the devastating costs on the American people by creating economic growth and undoing a lot of the damage of the previous administration. We are seeing that on a daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is simply incorrect with respect to the amount of evidence that has mounted over people who are voting and should not be. The record is replete. In one example, ICE arrested criminal illegal alien Ian Andre Roberts, who was serving as the Des Moines, Iowa, school district superintendent at the time of his arrest. After his arrest, it was found that Roberts was a registered voter in Maryland despite his illegal immigration status and long criminal record. It was a criminal record filled with narcotics trafficking, driving vehicles he shouldn't have been driving, unauthorized possession of a firearm, and other crimes.
Yet we act like this isn't occurring. I have dozens of other examples right here of arrests that have been occurring this year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jack).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for this rule and to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy). There is no greater advocate for law and order and election integrity than Mr. Roy, and the incredible people of Texas are well-served by his leadership and stewardship of our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us enables us to debate and vote on one of the most consequential pieces of legislation concerning election integrity in our country's history. S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, will require voters to present photo identification to vote in Federal elections and to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
Public opinion overwhelmingly supports this legislation, and it is our duty to adhere to the will of the people by swiftly passing this bill and sending the SAVE America Act to President Trump's desk for signature.
Mr. Speaker, you know me to be a data-oriented individual, so let us review the numbers before us as we debate this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of Americans favor requiring a government- issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot. By party, 95 percent of Republicans favor requiring photo ID to vote, and 71 percent of Democrats, the party across the aisle, favor requiring photo ID to vote. Hardly anyone, except, apparently, my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, opposes photo ID requirements before the ballot box.
Another national survey confirms the very same truth that 84 percent of Americans want mandatory voter identification in Federal elections. This includes 98 percent of Republicans who want voter ID requirements along with 67 percent of Democrats. Most importantly, 83 percent of Americans want proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time in our country.
Mr. Speaker, the Framers of our Constitution intended for this House of Representatives to be the most accountable to the will of the people, and the will of the people is clear. We must pass this bill today and enact the SAVE America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) read a list, and I asked him to yield to me, but he didn't want to. What the gentleman was doing was cherry-picking cases basically to sow distrust in our elections, just like Donald Trump does.
If the gentleman wants to read a list, I will read a list.
Matt DePerno, a former Michigan Republican State attorney general candidate, was charged with conspiracy and undue possession of a voting machine.
Former Republican Michigan State Representative Daire Rendon was also charged with conspiracy to commit undue possession of a voting machine and false pretenses. What was Ms. Rendon's punishment for this? The Republican Party promoted her to be the chairwoman of the party in her congressional district.
A Republican county clerk in Colorado, Tina Peters, is in prison for a scheme to breach voting systems, fueled by 2020 election conspiracy theories.
A Republican official in Georgia was fined for illegally voting multiple times.
A former GOP lawmaker in Arizona pled guilty to attempted election fraud involving forged signatures.
In North Carolina, four people pled guilty on Monday to misdemeanors for their roles in absentee ballot fraud in rural North Carolina during the 2016 and 2018 elections to help Republican congressional candidates.
Let's not even get into Donald Trump actually being recorded--it is recorded--asking for 11,800 votes to basically change the results in Georgia during the 2020 election.
If my Republican friends want to talk about voter fraud, look in the mirror. Look in the mirror and maybe remember that old saying: ``Physician, heal thyself.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).
Mr. Speaker, the SAVE America Act makes it harder for Americans to vote. As a member of the Subcommittee on Elections, my responsibility is to protect access at the ballot box, not to restrict it.
That is why I offered several comments and amendments to preserve online voter registration, ensure due process when an eligible citizen is denied the right to vote, mandate that citizenship only needs to be proven once, and allow the use of an expired passport to register to vote.
My amendments sought to limit the harm that this bill would cause and ensure that every citizen had accessible and secure ways to register and cast a ballot. This seems normal to me. This isn't about ID. This is about access. This is about procedures that will minimize the inconvenience to the United States citizens to cast their ballots.
Despite these facts, Republicans on the Rules Committee unanimously blocked these amendments from even being considered. That tells you everything you need to know. This isn't about making it easier for Americans to vote. It isn't about so-called election integrity. It is about tilting the playing field.
Republicans are losing support because voters aren't buying their ideas. Instead of changing their policies, they are trying to silence the American people at the ballot box. It is not working for their rigged, gerrymandered districts. It is not working for this effort to try to preclude people from registering to vote.
If Republicans really cared about people registering to vote, they would have online voter registration. The majority would make it to where people didn't have to go to one registrar's office in the middle of a county only during working hours when they are working their own shifts and they are not able to get there. How are people expected to register to vote under these rules?
If my Republican colleagues really cared, they would open it up. They would make online registration the rule and the law of the land.
It is shameful. It is undemocratic. I urge my colleagues in this Chamber to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I note that a couple of things that are important for the American people to see is that this administration has driven unemployment down to historic lows. Economic growth is now back up to close to 4 percent, we believe, in the fourth quarter, and we get those numbers at the end of February.
We are seeing, importantly, a massive surge in employment among American citizens. That is among native-born American citizens. The fact is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't care about that. They don't want to ensure that we are protecting American citizens. They don't want to have voter identification, and they don't want to ensure that only citizens vote in American elections.
That is what this is about. It is pretty simple.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time on this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the SAVE America Act. I am proud to cosponsor this bill.
Our democratic process depends on free, fair, and secure elections. When Americans cast their ballots, they have to have full confidence that their voice carries equal weight and that our elections are protected from abuse. Yet, in recent years, alarming loopholes that allow voting without proper identification, lengthy time to vote before elections, or time to register when you show up to vote have weakened the confidence in elections in States like mine, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and undermined a core principle of our democracy.
The right to vote is one of the most important privileges of American citizenship. That privilege must be safeguarded. Allowing individuals to vote without verifying their identity diminishes the voices of lawful voters and opens the door to illegal immigrants influencing our elections. That is unacceptable.
Illegal immigrants are here in this country. They came in by over the millions in the last 4 years. They are in California being given driver's licenses and then using those licenses to register to vote. It is happening all across the country. It is happening in States like Massachusetts.
I have an article from the Boston Herald, from February 8, 2026, titled: ``Massachusetts jury convicts illegal immigrant of identity theft, stealing benefits, voter fraud.''
This is an example of the type of voter fraud that is going on right here in our backyard and right in the backyard of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I would argue that this legislation is even more necessary now than ever.
When you had a Colombian woman unlawfully residing in Boston who was convicted 2 days ago, following a 5-day jury trial in Federal court, of identity theft offenses, including receiving rental assistance, Social Security, and SNAP benefits, as well as voter fraud under stolen identity, voting in several Federal elections, including the 2024 Presidential election, this is a real problem in Massachusetts right now. I would argue that we need to pass this legislation to actually take action.
The time for delay is over. I hope we can pass this today. I hope the Senate will take it up immediately to protect the integrity of our elections and preserve confidence in our democratic processes for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I love the fact that all these guys have are statistically insignificant anecdotes that they like to put forward here.
The gentleman from Texas talked about how wonderful the economy was. This is an article that just appeared today. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that U.S. employers added 181,000 jobs last year, far fewer than the 1.46 million that were added in 2024.
You may be impressed by that, but I am not a cheap date when it comes to making sure people have jobs in this country.
The gentleman from Texas said that we don't want to protect elections. We do. We want to protect them from you. We want to protect them from Trump. We want to protect them from all of you who are trying to suppress the vote, who are constantly in denial over the results of our elections.
Last night, we had Republicans come before the Committee on Rules, and they couldn't even bring themselves to say who won the 2020 election. They couldn't even say that Donald Trump lost Minnesota. They are so afraid of being punished by this administration. It is pathetic.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, voting rights are sacred. Many members of my family fought tooth and nail to be able to exercise that sacred right.
History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
My great-grandfather, at the turn of the 19th century, in the name of making sure that citizens voted and election integrity, had to take a literacy test and find three White men to vouch for his character. He got all the questions right. Because his name was on a list of people that the State of Alabama didn't want to register to vote, the registrar said: ``I need more questions because this nigger got them all right.'' He got all of them right, and he registered to vote. Yet, my father and my grandfather had to pay poll taxes to be able to vote in Tennessee.
All of this was done to make sure that local election officials could deny people they didn't want to vote the ability to vote. I took my oath of office on the Bible where my father kept his poll tax receipt, which is behind me. He kept it in there because it was a sacred right.
I swore to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, all of it. That includes the 24th Amendment, which banned poll taxes.
Yet, the SAVE America Act is a modern-day poll tax because every ID that you would have to use to register and to vote, with maybe one exception, costs money. The one that is free is a military ID.
For our military who are overseas or not able to get home to register in person, it is an added burden. For rural communities, it is an added burden. For people of color, it is an added burden. For the 21 million American citizens who don't have ready access to these documents, it is a burden.
The right to vote is sacred, and I will fight any effort to put more barriers in citizens' way to exercise it, and that is exactly what the SAVE America Act does. That is why I will oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my friend and colleague, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule. The American people deserve elections that they can trust, and this rule moves us just one step closer to restoring that trust.
It is simple. Only American citizens should be voting in American elections. I can't believe we are even having to say that.
Right now, our system has real gaps, and the longer we ignore them, the more confidence we lose. Some of the left would rather keep those loopholes wide open than ensure the integrity of our elections.
We have already seen what happens when Washington refuses to act. We have seen the chaos at the border. We cannot let that chaos spill over into the ballot box. The SAVE America Act helps prevent that.
This bill delivers on one of President Trump's top priorities, and that is to secure our elections and to make sure only citizens vote. That is not controversial. That is the standard voters are demanding.
Let's do what is right. Let's pass this rule and move the bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree very strongly with what was just said. I don't see Trump trying to preserve our elections. I have been witnessing him trying to undermine trust in our elections and to rig our elections.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a prime example of how awful the process has been under this Republican majority. The SAVE America Act was introduced by the gentleman of Texas just 12 days ago, and it included significant changes from its original version, the SAVE Act.
After the SAVE America Act's initial introduction, the Committee on Rules posted a complete rewrite of it last Friday. Even after two sweeping rounds of edits, Republicans were not done changing their half-baked bill. Yesterday, they posted a manager's amendment, which makes more changes, including changing when the bill would take effect and which voter IDs would be acceptable. We have seen three totally different versions of this bill in a dozen days.
It is important to say that all of these changes were backroom deals. There were no hearings, no markups, no regular order. The chairman of the Committee on House Administration didn't even feign a desire to include rank-and-file members in the process. He actually requested a completely closed rule for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, bad process is not a rare occurrence around here. It is a fundamental feature of Republican governance. Last Congress, Republican leadership made history for running the most closed, unproductive, dysfunctional Congress in modern American history. This Congress, Republicans have only doubled down on this shameful record.
Eighty-four percent of measures that Republicans have sent to the House floor have been totally closed, no amendments, no discussion, no democracy, just take it or leave it. Republican leadership has blocked 82 percent of amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules, over 3,300 amendments blocked, including most Republican amendments, and over 60 percent of bipartisan amendments.
If you are a Democrat, forget it. I am not sure they even read what we submit.
This blockade on amendments is leading to some shameful records. For example, this Republican majority set a record for the fewest House votes cast in the first session of a 2-year Congress in over 35 years. Under Speaker Johnson, the Committee on Rules is where democracy goes to die.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, why should we trust Republicans to rewrite voting laws when they are setting records for blocking voting in the people's House? This Republican Congress is an insult to the American people and a disgrace to our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that when the gentleman from Massachusetts tries to dismiss the supposed trivial or anecdotal or cherry-picked cases, there are so many that it would take me more time than I have to read through them all of prosecutions for voter fraud and individual instances of voter fraud.
We have one here of Angelica Maria Francesco in Alabama in 2024, an illegal alien charged by Federal authorities with nine criminal counts in connection with her fraudulent assumption of the identity of a U.S. citizen, including voter fraud.
We have Alford Nelson, as known as Alford Samuels, in Florida in 2024. Alford Nelson was known as Alford Samuels, among several other aliases. He was charged by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in Broward County with two felony counts of voting as an unqualified elector. Nelson, illegal alien, unlawfully voted by mail.
I can keep on going on and on and keep going down the list. It is real. The only thing that we are putting forward is a common sense proposal to ensure that only citizens vote in American elections and that we provide voter ID at the polls.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand in support of the SAVE America Act.
Consider the simple realities of life. In this country, you are required to show an ID to drive a car, to board an airplane, or to cash a paycheck. These are routine requirements for everyday participation in our society. Yet, for the most fundamental act of a self-governing people, the right to vote, that same standard of verification is missing.
Let us be clear. Despite the rhetoric, this is not about creating hurdles at the polling place. It is about the integrity of the registration process. As Americans, our right to vote is sacred, but that right is only as strong as a system that protects it. When one single illegal vote is cast, a legal vote is diluted. When a foreign national influences an election, the voice of an American citizen is silenced. This isn't a hypothetical concern. It is a matter of protecting the value of everyone's choice.
The SAVE America Act is guided by one simple principle: Only Americans should decide American elections.
Across this country, we have seen noncitizens identified on voter rolls. This is a vulnerability we can no longer afford to ignore. By passing this act, we provide the public with the one thing our political system needs most: trust--trust that the process is secure; trust that the rules are followed; and trust that every legal vote counts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me. Let us unify around the democratic principles that built this Republic. Let us pass the SAVE America Act to keep our elections exclusively in the hands of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas I appreciate him reading that list, but the reason we know about that is because those people were caught. The list I read of Republican officials who were caught engaging in voter fraud, the reason we know about it because they were caught. The system is working. Stop trying to sow division and chaos into our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that in 2005, 18 of the 21 members of a bipartisan Federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of photo ID requirements more stringent than what Indiana had at that time. ``Voters in nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card without fear of infringement on their rights,'' the commission stated.
In regard to voter registration fraud, just last year, six people were indicted for fraudulent voter registration forms submitted ahead of last year's Presidential election.
The allegations of fraud appeared to be motivated by the defendants' desire to make money and to keep their jobs and was not an effort to influence the election, so said the Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday. It really doesn't matter what the motivation is. What matters is the result--fraudulent voter registrations.
Back in 2008, there was an organization called ACORN. There was an ACORN whistleblower who worked for both it and its Project Vote registration affiliate from 2005 until 2006. She said: It is ludicrous to say that fake registrations can't become fraudulent voters. She said: I assure you if you can get them on the rolls, you can get them to vote, especially using absentee ballots.
There were documents that were provided by the whistleblower that indicated that the goal of ACORN's New Mexico affiliate was that only 40 percent of its submitted registrations had to be valid.
I think fraudulent voter registration is a problem. I think requiring a valid photo ID, as President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker said, is totally a way to ensure integrity in our elections and is not a burden on the people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Texas who wrote this bill: How the hell are States supposed to implement this new bill in a matter a few weeks? His original bill gave States until 2027. We have primaries coming up in a matter of a couple of weeks. How the hell is this going to be implemented, Mr. Speaker? This is ridiculous. This is about sowing division and chaos in our elections. The bottom line is it is a rotten thing to do.
People want to participate in our democracy. They want to vote. I am going to tell you, I can't wait until the next election because they are going to vote you guys right out of office. The economy stinks under this administration. I mean, the rhetoric coming out of this White House is appalling. Enough.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle made a number of claims about this legislation. With respect to the gentleman's question, I would tell you that what we are talking about with respect to voter identification is simply a presentation of voter identification.
Thirty-six States already have voter identification requirements. To the extent that we are able to get this passed, as I hope we will and signed into law in the next month or two, we will have the ability that States can immediately be able to implement voter identification, present true voter ID. That is it, present it.
With respect to the other claims, claims about the implications for married women, the fact is that the SAVE America Act does not, as is alleged, disenfranchise voters but, rather, it provides a very specific process for anyone who changes his or her name to register to vote, including by signing an affidavit.
We believe the original form of the SAVE Act would have provided ample ability for States to have taken care of it, but we went ahead and added an additional provision to ensure that the affidavit process was there for the small fraction of the population it might have impacted. We wanted to ensure there was no chance of issues.
Questions were raised about our uniformed personnel, our men and women who serve this country overseas. We believe our previous version would have made it fine for them to be able to do what they needed to do to register to vote and vote, but we made a clarification to ensure that UOCAVA governs what happens with our men and women in uniform. We have made every attempt to work to ensure that this bill is doing exactly what it is intended to do, which is ensure that only citizens vote and that we present voter ID at the polls.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Palmer).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the question I wanted to ask to my Democratic colleagues is
If they are going to be against voter ID to exercise a First Amendment right, then I would assume also that they would be against photo ID to exercise a Second Amendment right.
I have not seen any legislation from my Democrat colleagues to do that, so I really don't believe that. I think it is all a hoax.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to offer, as I have done already, a number of examples, numerous other examples, of individuals committing fraud.
Laura Janeth Garza in Texas, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty to two felony charges of voter impersonation and ineligible voting. Garza stole the identity of her cousin, a U.S. citizen.
Another example is that of Mario Obdulio Orellana in Texas, a 57- year-old El Salvadoran national, who was indicted by the Department of Justice on Federal immigration and voter fraud violations.
Now, I could go down and give more and more examples. The fact is, yes, these are good examples in which we have been able to intervene and stop this voter fraud and identify the individuals and prosecute those individuals.
However, we know that there is significant additional fraud going on that we are not capturing and that we are not catching. There is a very simple and basic premise of those who have been in a prosecutorial function, which is that you only catch so many people. In this case, we have been going after some individuals, but we can certainly prevent any further abuse of our voter elections. Making sure that we have integrity in those elections is to make sure we have voter identification and ensure that only citizens are voting.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing out these anecdotal cases of voter fraud, and I appreciate the fact that he mentioned they were all caught, just like all the Republican officials that I read, and I have a volume more that I could read. They were caught, so it sounds like the system works.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me state, again, for the gentleman from Texas, because he doesn't seem to understand me: Nobody should vote illegally.
If this is the rampant problem they say it is, then maybe he should call Pam Bondi and ask her why she has only secured one or two voter fraud convictions nationwide out of over 155 million votes cast in 2024.
Maybe he should explain to us why his solution to a small handful of voter fraud cases is to punish the 155 million American citizens who did vote by making it harder for them to vote the next time.
Again, Republicans keep insisting there is this massive voter fraud conspiracy. The onus is on them to prove their absurd claim. Every time they try, every time this is investigated by States, by commissions, and by prosecutors, the result is the same: no widespread voter fraud conspiracy. There have been billions of votes cast over decades and a teeny tiny percentage of fraud. That is not a crisis, and it certainly is not a justification to rewrite the rules of democracy. But that is what is happening with the Republican lies to erode the trust in our democracy. That is why this bill is so toxic.
Again, the SAVE America Act tells millions of Americans: You have to show up in person and jump through hoops just to register to vote. Mr. Speaker, you can file your taxes online, you can pay your bills online, and you can get your medical results online, but if this bill passes, you can't fully register to vote online. That is nuts.
You have to buy a passport, Mr. Speaker--that is $130--or you have to buy a copy of your birth certificate. Good luck, because you might even have to pick that up in person. What if a person lives in a rural community and has to drive 100 miles round trip just to get to the clerk's office?
What if they can't afford to take the day off from work just to register to vote?
Who gets punished?
They are students, seniors, Americans with disabilities, and working parents who just can't leave a shift early to stand in line at a clerk's office window that closes at 5:00.
We know this isn't really about voter fraud. It is not about protecting our elections. This is a smokescreen. It is a distraction. If Republicans wanted to protect elections, they would be focused on real threats: cyberattacks, foreign interference, disinformation, intimidation, and violence against election workers. That is where the real danger is. Yet this bill does nothing to address those things.
The SAVE America Act is about denying elections and sowing distress in our system. That is because, according to Donald Trump, it is only fair and square when he wins. When Democrats win, then it is fraud. That is their whole argument in a nutshell.
The most ironic thing of all is that Republican leaders are the ones who seem to commit voter fraud the most. A Republican county clerk in Colorado is in prison for a scheme to breach voting systems fueled by 2020 election conspiracy theories. A Republican official in Georgia was fined for illegally voting multiple times. There was a former GOP lawmaker in Arizona.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't about voter suppression. This is a lousy bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts said that we are just doing this legislation because we are afraid of losing this election.
The fact of the matter is we are not. We want to ensure that we win this election by getting the votes of American citizens and not noncitizens. It is pretty simple.
I would note that the gentleman dismisses as trivial, or as the process working, the examples that we have given in the Record of the countless times where individuals have engaged in voter fraud and they have been caught and prosecuted. I would also like to point out that they were caught after they voted. That is the problem.
The core issue here is a very simple one. We all agree Americans overwhelmingly believe by polls and by all indication that only American citizens should vote in American elections. We currently have a problem. We even have problems where noncitizens sometimes don't know they are doing something wrong.
We should be very clear: When you register to vote, you are a citizen. When you show up to vote, you present voter identification. That is all that we do.
Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will make a technical correction to the manager's amendment to reflect the intent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. Speaker, I know mistakes happen, but just so everyone knows what is happening here:
There was no hearing, no markup, and a slew of changes and fixes in a matter of days. It makes you wonder what other mistakes there are, all to make it harder for millions of people to vote.
I would just say to my colleagues: Slow down. Do this process right. You want to implement this bill in a matter of weeks when we have primary elections coming up in a matter of weeks? I mean, it should give everybody pause. This process of legislating here needs to improve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, nays 214, not voting 2, as follows:
Messrs. CARSON and SCHNEIDER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call up the bill (S. 1383) to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-19, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 119-493 (modified by the amendment specified in section 6 of H. Res. 1057), 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, is debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include additional material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act. I thank my colleague, Chip Roy, for his work on this bill, as well as my colleagues on the Committee on House Administration.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to move forward with election integrity and to regain the trust of the American people in the way that we operate our elections.
The SAVE America Act has two key principles, both of which are common sense. The individuals who want to vote in U.S. elections should be U.S. citizens, and we should have a proof of citizenship when individuals register to vote. The second principle is that individuals when they vote show voter ID. Both of these are commonsense principles.
We know there are some on the other side of the aisle who want noncitizens to vote in our elections. In fact, we could just look at our Nation's Capital, which allows noncitizens to vote under current law in municipal elections.
I am of the view that U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens only and that we should be proving that citizenship at the point in time that an individual registers to vote.
We should also be showing voter ID when we go to vote. This is a commonsense principle. The American people know that they need to show photo identification when they board an airplane, open a bank account, or buy a six-pack of beer.
I am often reminded of a debate we had at committee, and then I flew home to my home State of Wisconsin. I went to go buy a six-pack of beer. The clerk recognized me and said: Hi, Bryan. I said: How are you doing? She said: I need to see your ID. I handed over my ID. She confirmed it and allowed me to buy the beer.
I think it is nuts that we protect our beer in this country more than our ballots in jurisdictions. This is our opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to change that, to instill significant election integrity.
Before I close, let me say that during this debate today, we are likely to hear all sorts of comments from my colleagues on the left. They will make arguments about disenfranchisement. They will use terms like ``Jim Crow 2.0.'' I remind everyone watching to reflect back on the same language that was used when Georgia instituted election integrity provisions in 2021.
We can actually look, because the State of Georgia has operated two significant elections since then, and voter participation remained high. The University of Georgia conducted a significant survey to determine how people experienced the election in the State of Georgia. What they found was that people had a positive experience in how that election was conducted across all key demographic groups. The survey found statistically zero percent of Blacks had a poor or negative voting experience in the State of Georgia.
Making sure that it is easy to vote and hard to cheat is a core principle. As we instill election integrity in our system, we will see more people participating because they will have faith in our elections.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I stand here not just in strong opposition to this bill but in strong opposition to recent efforts by this administration to take over, literally take over American elections--but not just any American election, this American election, the one that is happening now. Ballots have already been mailed overseas to military voters for several State primaries.
I am opposed to this bill and any effort by the President of the United States to nationalize a Federal election for partisan purposes because I believe in this country. I ardently, fiercely believe that the United States, the shining city on a hill, represents the best humanity has to offer.
I believe the United States should, it must, stand in defense of and on behalf of every single American. Our Republic was founded on the simple yet revolutionary idea that our American government derives its power from the consent of the governed, from the votes of the people. Yet achieving that idea has required struggle over generations and generations.
With the Reconstruction Amendments, since the 19th Amendment, America expanded its right to vote. Americans have defended this right against efforts to restrict access to the ballot, to pull back from history's progress.
Congress has repeatedly affirmed and defended the ability for every American to participate in our elections, including through the passage of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The principle of government with the consent of the governed is why we are all here today. The principle is what we swore an oath to defend, but this Republican majority has made a sharp turn away from that sacred principle.
This bill which we are considering today represents a betrayal of every representative principle of this country. Passage of this bill, support for it from within this Chamber would be a tacit endorsement of a broader ominous, dangerous agenda.
The SAVE America Act is not an isolated piece of policy. It is part of a concerted effort by the Republican Party's leadership and this administration, this President, to centralize partisan power over American elections, to diminish the authority of American States, to once again stoke fear and mistrust of immigrants and in our electoral system, all for the partisan gain of Speaker Johnson and the White House this November.
Just days ago, President Trump publicly called on Republicans to take over, to nationalize voting across the country. This is not hyperbole. This is not hysteria. These are his words.
It should not surprise anyone that the SAVE America Act would require States to provide sensitive personal voter data to Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security, to send your personal data directly to the Federal Government, to directly invade your privacy, your family's privacy.
Why does the President want to send your information to DHS? Why does he want to take over this election? Why would he advocate for Republican control of Federal elections, a direct affront to the United States' Constitution?
Because he knows that without such drastic action, Republicans will lose the midterm elections in 9 months.
Just look at recent election results in Virginia. I know the President has. Look at them in New Jersey. Look at them in Texas.
Americans know that everything in this country has gotten more expensive under this administration, so it should be no surprise that this bill would make voting more expensive. Passports, which millions of Americans don't have but would need to register to vote, cost $130.
But beyond the cost, these Republican efforts to nationalize how we vote have nothing to do with safeguarding our elections. Instead, they threaten the very fabric of American self-government.
Now, ensuring the integrity of elections is not only legitimate, it is American. But integrity is achieved through the rule of law, through adherence to our constitution, through trust in the American people, of the electorate.
The security of our elections is not advanced, however, by a Department of Justice under Attorney General Bondi that sends an extraordinarily extortionate letter to Minnesota officials.
She suggested violence by Federal agents in the Twin Cities would only end if Minnesota just turned over sensitive voter data to the Federal Government, violating your privacy, demanding your information at the barrel of a Border Patrol rifle, the same data the SAVE America Act would force every State in this Nation to surrender.
This letter, the President's rhetoric, their push for Americans' personal voter data, none of this can be divorced from the legislative push we see here today. We all know why.
The SAVE America Act is part of a comprehensive Republican strategy to cement power this year. Speaker Johnson wants to make it harder for Americans to vote and easier for Washington Republicans to control how elections are run.
Let us not forget that elections in this country are administered by clerks, by secretaries of State, and by commissions and bipartisan boards chosen by citizens in every single community in America. They are not run out of the oval office. They are not dictated by partisan interests.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the SAVE America Act. I implore them to reject efforts that would centralize control in the hands of Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, or Kristi Noem over how Americans vote, over who is allowed to vote.
Most of all, I urge this Chamber to reaffirm its commitment to the fundamental democratic principles that all eligible citizens should have the opportunity to participate in free, fair, and secure elections without unnecessary burdens and without partisan interference.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge defeat of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), a leader on this legislation and a member of the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. Speaker, the SAVE America Act ensures that only American citizens vote in American elections. This should be the easiest ``yes'' vote this year.
The American people want the SAVE America Act. Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of adults support requiring a photo ID to vote, as do 73 percent of Democrat voters.
Democrat politicians standing here today oppose it, just as they have opposed every election integrity measure.
Democrats cannot win on their ideas because their agenda has made life harder for American families.
The Democratic Party knows that cheating is their only path to victory. Their goal is to replace the votes of American citizens with those of illegal aliens.
House Republicans are standing up for the American people here today.
Congress has a responsibility to protect the integrity of our elections. The SAVE America Act upholds that duty.
I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people and vote ``yes.'' America is watching.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mrs. Miller: Do 80 percent of Americans want the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to have your personal, private information and data? I think not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), a member of the House Administration Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Trump's voter suppression bill. In recent months, President Trump's attempts to interfere in the midterm elections have become more brazen and alarming day by day.
We have seen State legislators redraw maps to benefit Republicans. We have seen the FBI raid an election office and seize ballots in Georgia. Most recently, President Trump threatened a Federal takeover of our election in clear violation of the Constitution.
This week, Trump's efforts to rig the elections have made their way to Congress where Republicans are pushing this piece of legislation, which will block millions of voters from casting their ballots.
Let us be clear. This is not a voter ID bill. It is a voter suppression bill, plain and simple.
This bill is so extreme that even your driver's license would be insufficient to register to vote. Instead, Americans would be required to present their birth certificate or their passport.
The reality is that half of Americans do not have a passport. Get this: This bill also requires States to turn over personal identifiable information to the Department of Homeland Security, the same Department whose rogue agents are responsible for the deaths of two American citizens in Minnesota.
Here is the truth: Under this bill, tens of millions of eligible American voters will be blocked from casting their ballots. It is simply unacceptable and un-American.
The ability of voters to choose their leaders is foundational to our democracy. It is a freedom that generations of Americans have fought, bled, and marched for, many in my hometown of Selma, Alabama.
We know that it is so important that we safeguard these important truths. Our freedom is under assault. Make no mistake, Republicans know that their policies are failing, that prices are going up, that jobs are going away, that healthcare is being slashed, and that the American people are struggling to make ends meet.
Republicans know that they cannot win on the merits, so rather than changing their policies, they are seeking to change the rules.
John Lewis was not bludgeoned on a bridge in my hometown for the Republicans and Donald Trump to take these freedoms away from us. This is a blatant power grab, and Democrats will not stand for it.
Mr. Speaker, the SAVE America Act will block illegal immigrants and noncitizens from voting.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there being spread by the media and my friends across the aisle. House Republicans and President Trump want to protect the ballot box and ensure integrity in our elections across this great country.
Only U.S. citizens should participate in the election process. The laws we create in Congress affect all Americans, and Americans should be the ones who select their leaders.
This SAVE America Act puts in place safeguards, Mr. Speaker, to prevent noncitizens from abusing our democratic process. United States citizens should be the people choosing our elected leaders, not illegal immigrants.
I am not a drinker. Everybody knows that. But I know if I go to Weigel's in Knoxville, Tennessee, down on the corner of Emory Road and Tazewell Pike, and I go in there to buy a six-pack or a can of Skoal or a scratch-off, then I have to produce an ID.
Mr. Speaker, when you purchase a firearm, when you board a plane, and when you open a bank account, if I put $100 in the bank and right then ask for $20 of it back, I have to show a dadgum ID.
Why can't you vote for an elected official without one, Mr. Speaker?
This legislation codifies President Trump's executive action to secure our voter registration process, which has been a key platform of President Trump this term.
Democrats are lying, Mr. Speaker, saying this bill prevents minorities from registering to vote. It protects their vote. It protects every American citizen's vote. It disgusts me, and, frankly, I find it racist to assume that minorities cannot obtain an ID.
We need to have the guts to stand up and protect our dadgum election, Mr. Speaker, and that means we need to pass the SAVE America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Tennessee, but I do want to inform him that actually current Federal law prevents noncitizens from voting in Federal elections, so he may want to look that up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), who is a member of the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. Speaker, let's stop pretending the SAVE America Act is about election security because it is not. This bill is about power and silencing Americans. Republicans don't want voting. Thousands of Americans are protesting, demonstrating against the policies of this administration.
Republicans know that they will lose the midterms.
The President asked them to cancel the election, and guess what, Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next best thing to that. This is a show-your- papers mandate to disqualify Americans who oppose their evil agenda. Americans would have to appear in person and present a passport or birth certificate just to register, and again, every single time they update their registration, every time they move, if they get married, if they get divorced, blah, blah, blah.
Here is whom it will hurt: the more than 140 million Americans who don't have a passport, including Republicans, by the way.
As many as 69 million women who follow the traditional practice of changing their name after marriage do not have a birth certificate that matches their legal name. Republicans know this and want to use that misinformation to block them from voting.
This bill would eliminate the voter registration methods that over 90 percent of Americans rely on, including online, mail-in, and DMV registration.
In rural areas, Americans would be forced to drive 7 or 8 hours round trip just to show documents, and they would have to do it every single time they move.
When Kansas tried a similar law, 32,000 eligible citizens were blocked from registering. Zero noncitizens were found because election officials had already verified their eligibility.
Republicans call this voter ID. This is voter suppression. When they can't win on ideas, they try to win by blocking the ballot and taxing our right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this attack on our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are spending a lot of time lecturing the American people on how this is going to require them to show their papers. Last time I checked, during COVID they demanded that if you simply wanted to go to a funeral, be with your loved one while they are dying, or get married, then you have to show your papers. In fact, in New York
Yet the SAVE America Act, a commonsense piece of legislation that requires two things, voter ID, plus proof of citizenship, is being labeled by people in the Senate and people in this very Chamber as Jim Crow-era laws.
Let me remind the American people of history. It was the Democratic Party who championed the Jim Crow-era laws. And this is the farthest thing from it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you are doing that, then you are insulting over 70 percent of your voters, Democrats, who believe that voter ID is the best way to secure an election.
Then we have the argument that we have from BlueAnons saying that Trump is trying to steal the election, and orange man bad, and this is somehow going to fix the midterms. However, the fact is that if we are going to play that game, then you would want voter ID and you would want to secure the elections.
So please support this legislation.
I do not believe that Barack Obama in showing his voter ID was engaging in Jim Crow-era law or pushing that type of perspective. And for the same people who are advocating saying that Kristi Noem and ICE will demand your personal information and you will be under surveillance, might I remind them that they actually all authorized the reauthorization of FISA, unreformed, that violated our constitutional rights.
This is pretty simple. If you are not an American, Mr. Speaker, then you do not get to vote in our elections. This not a free-for-all country. A majority of Americans support this. A majority of the world has voter ID in place. It is not racist.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues and the House Administration Committee for doing this. I support all of my colleagues, and I urge them to vote for this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have said that this bill, the SAVE America Act, and the constant attempts by Republicans to clamp down on voter fraud solves a problem that doesn't exist. I couldn't disagree more.
The problem is that Republicans are losing at the ballot box. They are losing young voters, voters of color, and women. So there is a problem, that no one is buying into Republican ideas and policies and the only solution is for Republicans to engage in a coordinated effort to silence the American people.
They want to stop people from exercising their most fundamental constitutional right, the right to vote. The SAVE America Act doesn't save anything. Instead, it continues to restrict access to the ballot box, imposing a modern-day poll tax and a dangerous show-your-papers mandate.
Under this bill, Americans would be required to appear in person or by mail, just hoping that the elections clerk accepts their documentation, and present either a passport or a birth certificate to register to vote, and every single time they want to cast a ballot. A passport costs $150, and a copy of a birth certificate could cost up to $60. Many Americans simply can't afford to purchase these documents. Those requirements constitute a poll tax.
The reality is that one-half of Americans, more than 140 million citizens, don't have a valid passport, and as many as 69 million women who have taken their spouse's name do not have a birth certificate matching their legal name. Because this legislation has a requirement to show documents, this legislation would eliminate online voter registration.
I want to be very clear. This is how people give up. They quit trying to register to vote, and that results in them not voting, and their voices not being heard. That is the intent of what is going on here. None of this is about election integrity or protecting the ballot box.
When Republicans come to this floor to talk in front of the cameras, they say it is about this, but it is blatantly lying to the American people.
Our job in Congress is to make it easy for people to participate in our democracy, to make it easy for people to vote and not make it harder.
The bottom line is simple. The SAVE America Act and the countless number of other efforts Republicans are pushing will deny millions of Americans their right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first address a comment by the ranking member, Mr. Morelle. We both hail from New York. He is a dear friend, but I just want to point out something.
New York City Democrats actually put up a bill to allow noncitizens to vote in their elections. Our far-left leaning--and I think you can argue that very easily--Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, actually turned that down and said: No, only citizens can vote in our elections. That is New York State law, and that is our national law.
I just want to make sure that that was your response to Mr. Burchett to make sure you understood that we have addressed this in New York, and we have established that only citizens can vote. We want to make sure we secure the ballot and know that citizenship in this country has value.
There is nothing more profound or important for the preservation of our constitutional Republic and to keep the power in ``we the people'' than the sacred right to vote.
Democrats have continuously undermined election integrity, sowing the seeds of mistrust with mail-in ballots, failing to provide ID, not proving that there is, indeed, one citizen, one vote.
This bill merely requires that you prove that you are a citizen and that we secure the ballot by knowing that there is one citizen, one vote.
As the cofounder and the chair of the Election Integrity Caucus, I would love to see every legal citizen vote in every election. I know I have as a proud American citizen.
Consider this situation: If you discovered that you had won the lottery, only to find out that a cartel member had perfectly replicated your winning lottery ticket and it was worth, let's just say, $200 million, maybe even $50 million, and you went to go turn in your ticket, but somebody else without a valid ID stole your identity and took your money, you would probably argue that we should have a valid voter ID.
I only wish that Americans would value their right to vote, as simple as it is, and to recognize that important act of voting as important to preserving our country, our Republic, and keeping power, again, in ``we the people.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, a secure valid ID system is the only way to ensure one citizen/one vote.
I urge all of my colleagues to join the Election Integrity Caucus and stand for election integrity and make sure that every citizen eligible to vote votes in every election.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. He is aggrieved about that, and so now he is peddling claims of fraud as a pretext to take over our elections and disenfranchise millions.
He tried to extort Minnesota into handing over their voter files. Fulton County was raided. He has sued Wisconsin and other States for their voter data. This bill would provide Kristi Noem access to all the voter files in every State and upend the authority and the independence of States and counties.
Why? It is so they can rig the elections and save Republicans. We have to reject the so-called SAVE America Act and save our free and fair elections and save our democracy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes in this room I feel like I am in the twilight zone. We are hearing that the world is going to end, but Americans
Number one, it says you have to show a photo ID in order to vote. This is something that people overwhelmingly support because we have to do it in every aspect of our lives.
Second, it says you should have to prove you are a citizen in order to register.
Now, the argument that is made against these things is it is somehow racist to require them. What I find repulsive about that argument is it is racist to imply that minority communities somehow don't have the ability to go and get a photo ID, somehow don't have documentation to prove that they are an American. I have talked to my constituents about this, and they are aghast at the idea that anyone would make this claim.
Now, look, this is a real issue. In Florida, I worked on a bill when I was in the legislature where people would call who had been accidentally put on jury duty and say: Hey, I don't know how I got registered to vote, but I am not an American. We had to take them off jury duty. Democrats opposed our efforts even there to clean up the rolls.
There is nothing we have more important to do here than to make sure that Americans are confident in our elections and the results that they achieve, particularly with the kind of heated rhetoric that we say here.
Why do they oppose it? There is one simple reason: It is because they want to cheat. We pass this bill, we clean up our elections, and we make sure that Americans can have confidence in not only what we do here but in the elections that we are going to have this November.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to say my distinguished colleague from Florida conveniently left out one part of what this bill does, which is to share your personal, private data with the Department of Homeland Security.
From this point forward, if this bill were to become law, every single person, when they register to vote, all their data will be sent to the Department of Homeland Security--not the department of elections, not some other department that has control over the election process--the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, whose people have now killed American citizens on American streets.
If that is what Americans want--I am pretty sure Americans do not want that. Somehow the gentleman forgot to mention that that is what this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. Speaker, in California when you register to vote, you do so under penalty of perjury. Then they cross-check your information to make sure that you are eligible. Then we have a very active district attorney in Orange County that says if you violated this under penalty of perjury, we are going down on you.
Instead, I would ask my friends, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let's do everything we can to make sure that every eligible American actually votes.
Why would you take away the right of a veteran to vote, of a senior to vote, of somebody in the military to vote? Let's go the other way.
Democracy is stronger when we have stronger participation. Vote ``no,'' and let's move on with democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the SAVE America Act because nothing matters more than securing our elections. Our Republic depends on it.
Free, fair, and honest elections unmoored by fraud or suspicion are fundamental to our constitutional Republic. The right of citizens to have their votes properly counted without illegal dilution is vital to determining the rightful winner.
This legislation is straightforward. It requires proof of citizenship for voter registration and voter ID for Federal elections. It ensures only American citizens participate in American elections and provides States with tools to determine and verify the citizenship and maintain accurate voter rolls.
There is only one reason not to pass this, and we all know what that is. Some in this Chamber oppose anything that interferes with their effort to control elections and consolidate power.
Congressional Democrats sat silent as the Biden administration allowed millions of illegal immigrants into the United States. I fear the intention was to garner votes. However, my colleagues across the aisle now have an opportunity to prove me wrong by supporting this widely popular legislation.
The SAVE America Act reinforces that voting is a right only of citizens, not just anyone within our borders. Opposition to this act makes sense in that context, but that is precisely why we must pass it.
We have a duty to the American people to preserve their voice, protect their vote, and secure their sovereignty, and we must save the Republic from forces that would undermine our most sacred democratic institution. I urge my colleagues to pass the SAVE America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do think the only people in America who are confused about American citizens being the only people voting in Federal elections are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think most Americans get that, which is why we see no evidence of the widespread fraud that they keep talking about, talking about a solution desperately in search of a problem.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
Mr. Speaker, the SAVE America Act is back before the House today, and right along with it is yet another attempt at voter suppression. It is no coincidence that this is happening right before the midterm elections.
In January, the FBI raided the Fulton County election office, my home county, where I am a voter. That raid was a bold attempt to intimidate voters in the Fighting Fifth.
The SAVE America Act is just another part of a scheme by House Republicans and the Trump administration to take over our elections.
Atlanta's civil rights leaders, like my predecessor, the late Congressman John Lewis, faced one of the bloodiest battles over our right to vote.
The SAVE America Act will make it harder for millions of Americans to get registered to vote by requiring in-person registration at election offices--government offices with government hours. This is a burden for caregivers and any hardworking American with a 9-to-5 job.
The SAVE America Act is an unfunded mandate to silence voters. The goal of this bill is voter suppression, plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.
Mr. Speaker, ``let the good times roll''; ``laissez les bons temps rouler.''
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding, and I thank Chip Roy for bringing the SAVE America Act to the House floor.
This is a bill that is critically important to one of the most precious franchises in America, and that is the sacred right to vote, the right that so many gave their lives to preserve, to allow to pass on to our next generation.
The importance of that vote is even more underscored when you recognize that, yes, there have been times where people have stolen your vote, Mr. Speaker. That veteran who was talked about deserves the right to vote. If somebody votes illegally, Mr. Speaker, they are stealing that veteran's vote. They are stealing your vote. They are stealing everybody's votes if we allow people who aren't legally eligible to vote to participate in elections.
How can you best preserve that? One way is that, when you are registering to vote, you have to prove citizenship. It is in this bill. Another way is when you go to vote, you just have to show your ID.
This is not some convoluted idea, Mr. Speaker. You hear the other side talking about it as the end of the world.
It is not the first time that they have used that phrase. They used that when the State of Georgia put an ID requirement on voting. They said it was going to be horrible and take away people's rights. It was going to disenfranchise minority voters, Mr. Speaker. That is what they said, but then what happened? We have actually got history to go look at.
After Georgia passed that law that was called every ridiculous name in the book, what we saw was record participation in elections. You actually had the University of Georgia that went and asked voters after that election, and a whopping zero percent, Mr. Speaker, of Black voters said they had a poor experience going to the ballot. Over 72 percent said they had an excellent experience at the ballot. Then, you could go further.
By the way, the American people get this. They understand that there are examples of voter fraud. I come from a State where our elections commissioner went to jail--yes, went to Federal prison--for stealing elections. We cleaned up our election system in our State. We have seen an increase in voter participation.
Why? Again, they would tell you if you actually increased the integrity of elections by requiring picture ID that somehow it is going to suppress votes, but the opposite happens, Mr. Speaker. What really does happen is that voters now have confidence in the sanctity of elections. More people will participate because they know that somebody is not going to be stealing their vote by showing up when they are not supposed to be there, just by requiring a picture ID.
Americans have been asked about this. An overwhelming 83 percent of Americans are in favor of requiring a photo ID to vote. That is not Republicans. That is all across the spectrum. Over 70 percent of Democrats support picture ID, 82 percent of Hispanic Americans support picture ID to vote, and 76 percent of Black Americans support a picture ID to vote.
If they still want to lie to people on the other side, Mr. Speaker, if they still want to try to scare people and talk about Jim Crow, then you might want to ask those same people why the Democratic Party at their convention just in 2024 required photo ID to get in. You couldn't get into the Democratic convention without showing a photo ID. If they want to call it Jim Crow, they need to look in the mirror, Mr. Speaker.
If you want to ensure the sanctity of the vote, the SAVE America Act does that. You will see higher participation because Americans across all spectrums--Black, White, Hispanic, Republican, Democrat, Independent--will know that there is a higher likelihood that nobody there is showing up illegally to steal your vote if you have the right to vote.
One person, one vote--that is the mantra that we all ought to embrace. The SAVE America Act gets us back to that great franchise of American democracy, and that is the right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to pass this bill over to the Senate and then the Senate to get it to President Trump's desk so we can strengthen American democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will comment that we have heard repeatedly that one person who is a non-U.S. citizen voting is too many. I agree. We have laws to prevent it. How many people is it okay to deny, U.S. citizens, who want to participate in the right to vote? To me, that would be the greater evil.
We have 80 million Americans--voter-eligible U.S. citizens--who didn't vote in the last Presidential election. Isn't that astonishing? It is a big number, so it is hard to get your head around it. Eighty million Americans didn't participate.
I am not saying that is anyone's fault, but I am saying this: Our committee and our House should be focused on how we increase voter participation. How do we make it so that more people feel as though they should engage?
That is the only way we will get to the true promise of American democracy, when all 244 million Americans who are U.S. citizens participate in our elections. We should be doing everything we can to make it easy for those people. It is their God-given right, an inalienable right, as we often say.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).
Mr. Speaker, as I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what I hear is the same racist, misogynistic trash, different decade.
Republicans are invoking historical policies intended, let's be clear, to disenfranchise Americans, especially working people, women, students, indigenous people, and anyone who can't afford the burden of a new bill.
The SAVE America Act is yet another Republican attempt to intimidate and suppress the votes of anyone who threatens their extremist, white supremacist agenda.
Don't take my word for it. Just look for the threats that surround the polls, the gun-wielding masked men. It will become clear to you that Trump and Republicans want to control who votes so they can remain in power.
That is not democracy. That is destroying free, fair elections. It is just another page from the authoritarian playbook, and we must have the moral clarity in this place to stand against it, just like our ancestors did.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to vote with moral clarity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and unapologetic support of the SAVE America Act, legislation that defends the integrity of our elections and makes one principle perfectly clear: U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens only.
This is not extreme. It is common sense. Citizenship matters. Sovereignty matters. Americans alone must decide America's future.
Yet radical Democrats have abandoned the standard. New York City has allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections. Washington, D.C., has done the same, granting political power to foreign nationals in the Capital of our Nation.
Georgia's own Senator John Ossoff, who once said that voter ID was right and appropriate, now supports his party reframing it as voter suppression.
The law didn't change. Public opinion didn't change. What changed was he and other Democrat politicians like him realized that illegal immigrants could no longer vote to keep Democrats in office.
They oppose this bill because it chips away at their voting base, plain and simple. For years, conservatives warned that this was the radical left's goal, and we were mocked for it.
That is exactly what Democrats are doing right now, fighting to allow illegal aliens to vote. This is not only grotesquely unjust, but it waters down the meaning of American citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, by passing this bill, we reaffirm a simple but sacred truth. American elections belong to Americans, no loopholes, no exceptions, no apologies.
Mr. Speaker, we are debating this bill because Donald Trump is still trying to overturn an election that he lost 6 years ago. Some in this body are helping him do it.
The SAVE America Act is built on the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. That lie has been investigated, litigated, audited, and debunked over and over again. Instead of accepting reality, the authors of this bill are using that lie as an excuse to take control of our elections. This is not on the level.
Let's be honest about where this is coming from. It is coming from the President himself. We are being asked to trust Donald Trump and his allies about elections while he is actively trying to subvert them. That is dangerous, and Congress should not be a willing partner in it.
Mr. Speaker, our democracy does not need a takeover. It needs truth, and this bill has none of it.
Mr. Speaker, what do airplanes, Costco, alcohol, tobacco, entering a nightclub, and opening a checking account all have in common? We have to show our ID.
We require identification for everyday activities. Why on Earth would we not require it for something as sacred as determining the future of this Republic?
When the SAVE America Act becomes the law of the land, three simple things will be true:
Number one, everyone who shows up to vote in a Federal election will have to show their photo ID.
Number two, States will only register American citizens to vote in Federal elections.
Number three, States will actually have to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls.
Every American--Republican, Democrat, or unaffiliated--wants to know that their vote counts and is not canceled out by someone who is here illegally. This bill ensures just that.
The right to vote is precious, and the SAVE Act restores confidence, strengthens integrity, and protects the voice of every lawful American citizen. I am confident my colleagues in the House will do the right thing and vote to secure our elections.
I now address my colleagues in the Senate.
Save America. Bring this bill to the Senate floor to debate. They should own their position in front of the American people. They must use every tool at their disposal, including the talking filibuster, to ensure that this bill makes it to the President Trump's desk.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot delay securing our elections and defending our Republic.
Mr. Speaker, one other thing States are required to do is States would be forced to give our personal information to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. Mr. Speaker, that creates great, great concern for Members on this side of the aisle and I think the vast majority of American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so- called SAVE America Act.
The supporters of this bill claim that undocumented immigrants are overrunning our elections and voting in droves, but I will give an example of the reality.
We actually did a study in Virginia of all the election irregularities over 20 years. How many instances of noncitizens voting do my colleagues think we found? We found zero. Another study found it was pretty much nonexistent between 1999 and 2023 in the United States. They are solving a problem that does not exist.
What this bill does do is it creates other problems that make it harder to vote. It undermines our democracy. It makes it harder for military voters who move a lot. It makes it harder for families impacted by natural disasters who lose documents. It makes it harder for the nearly 70 million women who have changed their name after marriage and have a birth certificate that no longer matches their voter IDs. It also makes it harder for the half of Americans who don't have passports.
The President claims that this is just an attempt to secure our elections. But let's be real. This is just another attempt to tilt the electoral deck in his favor.
If we want to make elections safer, we should stop threatening to nationalize elections. Stop threatening to have ICE at voting locations. Why don't we save America from this bill and vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Wisconsin for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a better example of political expediency than my Democrat colleagues opposing a voter ID law on the grounds of States' rights.
First, the Constitution is clear. Rules for running elections have been delegated to the States. But in that same provision, the Constitution says Congress may at any time alter the process. I certainly think our Founding Fathers would support strengthening the integrity of our elections.
Democrats know this, Mr. Speaker. They must think the American people, though, have forgotten about their for the politicians act in the 117th Congress, where they basically codified a COVID-era and fraud-ridden election law. They included, ironically, prohibiting voter ID essentially. It also included ballot harvesting, promoting mass voting by mail, and taking taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns.
Let's be clear. Democrats believe Congress has the power to ban voter ID but not the power to require it. This shouldn't be controversial. Requiring proof of citizenship to register and a valid voter ID is as common sense as it gets.
Mr. Speaker, American elections are for American citizens. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the SAVE America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to just correct one thing. We certainly care about States' rights. We understand what the Constitution says. What I am really concerned about is people's rights.
Every American should understand this. I am going to say this again. The SAVE America Act requires States to surrender to DHS every American's entire information on the voter rolls. This is their private and personal voter information.
The SAVE America Act is a clear attempt to nationalize elections by involving Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security, the rogue department, into our elections.
I would ask people to go up and down their streets. Knock on doors. Ask how many of their neighbors think that is a good idea.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear here. Republicans aren't worried about noncitizens voting. They are afraid of actual American citizens voting. Why? It is because they are losing.
Among women they are losing by 10 points in the upcoming midterms because losing is what happens when my colleagues tell people they are going to tackle the high cost of living, and they turn around and hike their healthcare premiums. They hike grocery costs. Also, billionaires can weasel out of paying their fair share.
They are trying to say this is a voter ID bill. That is not what is happening here.
Let's just look at a typical mom. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle must know some working mothers.
The ones I hear from across my district and across this country are struggling to put food on the table for their kids. They work two jobs to try and make ends meet. They are trying to juggle getting their kids to school and maybe catch an occasional game. They fear they will never find childcare they can afford. They pray nobody in the family gets sick because they can't afford a doctor either.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are going to say to those women that because they got married and changed their names, they have to go down to a clerk and prove that they are citizens, sign affidavits, and do this in person.
This is a minefield of red tape that the majority has put in front of women and American citizens and their right to vote.
Thanks to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace), the so- called champion of women and safe places, this bill will now go into effect immediately, which means that primaries that are weeks from now, all of these people are going to be met with the fact that they didn't have time or know that they had to prove their citizenship.
Good luck voting, ladies.
As a kicker, the bill mandates that every State turn over their voter rolls to DHS and Kristi Noem.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an outrage. This is election rigging. This is voter suppression.
The American people aren't going to stand for it, and nobody should vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, which I am proud to cosponsor and hope will pass the House floor today.
I also note that I think it is shockingly racist and sexist for my colleagues on the other side to believe that we are not smart enough to figure out how to get IDs. I can assure my colleagues that we are, even if we get married.
The SAVE America Act requires individuals to provide documented proof of U.S. citizenship along with a valid photo ID when registering to vote. This commonsense legislation strengthens election integrity through practical measures, including voter ID requirements and safeguards to prevent noncitizens from voting.
The SAVE America Act is particularly important as we continue to address the consequences of the Biden-Harris border crisis, which led to millions of individuals entering the country unlawfully.
Secure elections are fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our democratic process. The State of Wyoming has already taken steps to implement many of the reforms outlined in this bill, demonstrating that securing our elections must be a national priority.
I thank the bill's sponsors, Representative Roy and Senator Lee, as well as Chairman Steil, for their leadership on this critical issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the SAVE America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), but I guarantee that American women are smart, and we believe that. They will be smart enough to see that the legal hurdles and burdens being put in place in front of them by this legislation are not only unnecessary but incredibly burdensome and are an attempt to make their lives so much more difficult.
Mr. Speaker, I do just make a comment. Late last night, the Republicans offered a manager's amendment that would move up several of the effective dates in this bill, which was supposed to take effect in 2027. I think it bears noting that if this bill becomes law, it will now be effective immediately. This amendment was offered initially by our colleague, the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace). Chairman Steil took the mantle of it.
I am sure that the members of this committee know that Arkansas, Texas, Illinois, Mississippi, and North Carolina all have March primaries. In fact, many of the UOCAVA ballots for these primaries have already been mailed to Americans overseas. How are election administrators in these States even supposed to begin to comply with a new Federal law that takes effect in the middle of voting? This is, quite frankly, election malpractice. It shouldn't be before us.
Yesterday, the Committee on House Administration heard from a former executive director of North Carolina's voting who called this effective date unworkable. I think that sums it up well.
This is a mistake. It is a mistake in so many different ways.
Mr. Speaker, I just say one other thing because I have heard a lot about this now. There is not one person on this side of the aisle who thinks that non-U.S. citizens should be participating in American elections. Not one. Not one has said it, despite the repeated allegations that that is the case.
I do ask: Are congressional Republicans okay with masked Federal agents hiding their faces and hiding their badge numbers from the American public while forcing American citizens to turn over their addresses to Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Speaker, how is this even a serious debate? Think about what my colleagues on the other side are saying today.
They are saying that American minorities are not capable of showing an ID to vote. It is an insult. It is abusive. In reality, 76 percent of Black Americans support voter ID in poll after poll, and 82 percent of Latino Americans support voter ID in poll after poll.
What the left is saying is that they don't trust the American people to prove who they really are. Americans show an ID to board a plane. Americans show an ID to drive a car. Americans show an ID to open a bank account. Americans show an ID to enter Federal buildings and for a host of other reasons.
Of course we should expect it for American elections. It doesn't silence voters. It empowers voters. It only ensures that Americans are voting in American elections. For God's sake, why would anybody be opposed to that? Think about it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the SAVE America Act, to show an ID before you cast your ballot.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard on the other side of the aisle in this very debate that it is already illegal to cast a ballot when you are not eligible to vote. It is already illegal. We don't need another law.
Mr. Speaker, it is already illegal for a minor to purchase alcohol. Yet the clerk says: Please show me your ID.
America is hungry for fair elections. I don't think it is too much to ask that we show an ID to restore election integrity. Let's give America what they want.
For all those who say that it is too much to ask to show an ID, I say that it is nonsense. One citizen, one vote is the foundation of our Republic.
Mr. Speaker, let me go ahead and do the math for you and everybody in this room. One illegal vote is one too many. Let's pass the SAVE America Act now, and let's save voter integrity and voter elections right now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I note that it has been a vigorous debate, and I continue to argue that this bill, in the strongest terms, should not be passed.
I just note, particularly for Members who spoke here today, for instance, in my dear friend Chairman Steil's district, 165,000 women in his district have a different name on their birth certificate than on their current photo ID, and 346,000 residents of Wisconsin's First District lack a passport. It would cost them nearly $45 million for those people to purchase a passport.
For the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), 150,000 women in her district have a different name on their birth certificate, and 414,000 residents in her district lack a passport. It would cost them $53 million.
For Mr. Burchett's district, 176,000 women have a different name on their birth certificate, and 390,000 residents don't have a passport, which would cost them $50.8 million.
Mrs. Luna has 170,000 women in her district who have different names on their birth certificates than on their photo IDs, and 319,000 of her residents lack a passport. It would cost $41 million to purchase that for all of them.
Ms. Tenney has 145,000 women in her district who have a different name on their birth certificate and 420,000 residents without a passport. It would cost them $54 million.
Mr. Speaker, you have an estimated 170,000 women with a different name on
The list goes on and on. That is the impact of this.
Here is the truth, Mr. Speaker: President Trump wants to take over American elections this November to maintain his tenuous grip on power.
Republicans have a singular purpose in supporting the SAVE America Act: helping the President get what he wants. That is what they are always about: helping the President get what he wants, not the American people. Republicans are falling over each other to help Donald Trump nationalize the 2026 midterm elections.
Don't take my word for it. This is what the President is trying to do. He says it. He always says the quiet part out loud. He said: ``We''--meaning the Republicans--``We want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.'' That is what the President said.
That is why this bill forces States to surrender your personal, private information to the Department of Homeland Security, to the Department that has unleashed ICE brutality on the streets of America against American citizens.
The bill is so extreme that even a Republican Senator said this week that she opposes it, calling it Federal overreach.
In response, in just a moment, I will offer a motion to commit. This motion to commit would send this bill to committee with an instruction to strip the provision that gives your address, your personal information, to the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of my amendment to the motion to commit.
Mr. Speaker, I warn Republicans that a vote against this motion to commit is a vote to send American citizens' data to the Department of Homeland Security. A vote against this MTC is a vote to put Kristi Noem and Donald Trump and ICE and the Department of Justice in charge of the midterm elections this fall.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all to vote ``yes'' on the motion to commit because Kristi Noem should not control our elections. Donald Trump should not control our elections. We, the American people, the people of the United States, control our elections.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the main motion and support of the motion to commit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's bring this debate to its close. The questions before Members of the House of Representatives are very clear. One, do you think individuals should be U.S. citizens and prove that when they register to vote? Yes or no? Two, should individuals going to vote need to present voter ID upon arrival at the polls? Yes or no?
If you believe, like I do, in a commonsense proposal to make sure that only U.S. citizens are registering to vote and that people are who they say they are when they go to the polls, you should vote ``yes.''
The answer to this is easy. It is common sense. It is why it is popular. Let's make sure we reinstall integrity in our elections.
For the record, let me just clear up a few misconceptions that our colleagues on the left have tried time and time again to bring.
First, are noncitizens voting in U.S. elections? We know what the Democratic playbook is. We only have to look here in our Nation's Capital, where noncitizens under current law are allowed to vote in municipal elections. We know our Democratic colleagues want noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections. It is why making sure that we are ensuring individuals who are registering to vote, in particular for Federal elections, are U.S. citizens.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle bring up the married woman argument. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I am engaged and going to be married in a few weeks from now. My fiancee is planning to change her name, move to the great State of Wisconsin, and register to vote. She and countless other individuals will have no problem registering under this bill. You can bring forward your identification. You can sign an attestation if you don't have the documentation.
We want to make sure that it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. We could look at our committee hearing that we had just this week where we brought in the secretary of state of Wyoming, which has strong election integrity provisions. We asked the gentleman on the record, the secretary of state. Wyoming has delivered and shown the American people that you can implement citizenship verification and photo identification without the problems, without the hyperbole that we continue to hear on the left.
We heard hyperbole as it relates to information being shared with DHS' SAVE database. They only offer the first part, that it goes to DHS. Why? Read the bill. It is actually to check if individuals who are on the voter rolls in States across the country are citizens of the United States. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to check the voter rolls to determine if an individual is a citizen of the United States. It should leave you with a great question as to why they are concerned.
We should be checking and cleaning up the voter rolls and removing individuals who are not eligible to vote. Every citizen deserves the right to vote. One individual who is ineligible to vote is one too many because it casts out the vote of a legal United States citizen.
Finally, we hear arguments against voter ID. This is a core, commonsense principle. My colleague, Mr. Bean, brought up the example that it is illegal for an underage individual to purchase a beer, but as you go to buy a beer, you get asked for your ID. As I said earlier, I think it is absolutely nuts that we protect our beer more than our ballots in jurisdictions across this country.
If you are like me and think that we should have voter ID, vote ``yes'' on the SAVE America Act. This is our opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to take a major step forward in election integrity, making sure that U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens only and making sure that people are who they say they are by checking voter ID when individuals go to vote. It is a commonsense proposal.
The American people will get to see where their Member stands, and I encourage every Member of this Chamber to vote ``yes'' on the SAVE America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call up the bill (H.R. 3617) to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, 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 1057, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, 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 Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 3617.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, introduced by Representative John James, my colleague and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee from Michigan's 10th Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation enhances the Department of Energy's ability to assess, to identify, as well as address vulnerabilities in the supply chain for energy resources that are absolutely essential to the economic and national security of these United States of America.
When the Department of Energy was organized in 1977, Mr. Speaker, the American people were suffering from the energy security fallout of OPEC's oil embargoes. You may remember prices went up, gas lines formed, and our Nation's economy was threatened because adversarial nations took advantage of U.S. reliance on energy imports for their own interests, Mr. Speaker.
Ultimately, the answer to energy security concerns was advancing United States' production and unleashing American energy dominance. Now the United States is the premier oil-producing nation on this planet.
Today, we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, in a similar disadvantaged position. An adversarial nation controls the access to key resources, as well as retains the ability to restrict American imports at will, threatening to bring the American economy to its knees. Instead of oil, it is critical minerals. It is rare earth elements, and it is energy resources that are essential to the daily lives of the hardworking Americans as well as a linchpin to the next-generation economy.
These resources, Mr. Speaker, are absolutely required in virtually everything we need to compete as well as defend our country from foreign threats: semiconductors, nuclear reactors, oil and gas infrastructure, the transmission system, and military weaponry, just to name a few.
Make no mistake about it, Communist China knows this and is taking advantage of it. The numbers are absolutely staggering. Communist China produces 60 percent of the world's rare earths and 90 percent of the respective processing capacity, along with 80 percent of the processing capacity for critical minerals, and the vast majority, the production, for at least 50 more critical minerals.
The Chinese wield this authority through export controls to disrupt supply chains as well as market manipulation tactics to ensure no investments flow into these job-creating industries.
Almost 50 years later, the answer to this problem lies in our ability to reshore essential energy production as well as refining facilities that can absolutely compete with our adversaries.
Importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has prioritized opportunities to combat undue influence from those same adversaries. For instance, last week, the United States and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding on strengthening cooperation between the countries on critical minerals, supply chains, and working to develop their critical mineral accessibility away from China.
In addition, the Department of Energy's recent organizational realignment established the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation to fortify American supply chains that are essential to a reliable, affordable, and resilient energy industry.
H.R. 3617, Mr. Speaker, will absolutely enhance the work being done by the Trump Administration by
We know what is at stake with the next-generation economy: cutting- edge technologies, like AI and advanced manufacturing, hold tremendous promise to lift up communities across the country with stable, good- paying jobs, while lowering costs for hardworking families.
Mr. Speaker, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act takes an important step towards solidifying the U.S. position as a global leader in economies and technologies of the future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when American families are struggling to make ends meet, as costs for healthcare, energy, housing, education, and groceries are skyrocketing, House Republicans are wasting floor time on a bill that does absolutely nothing to provide any relief.
To make matters worse, this bill does not help Americans address the critical mineral supply. It just props up polluting fossil fuels at the expense of cheaper and cleaner energy technologies.
Critical minerals are a critical component of many modern technologies, from our cell phones to solar panels to electric vehicles. The demand for these minerals will only increase as the world continues in transition to clean energy. We must strengthen our domestic production, processing, and recycling capabilities as well as cement relationships with our allies to access new critical mineral supplies.
Democrats were in the process of doing exactly this with the bipartisan infrastructure law that included $3 billion for battery manufacturing and recycling, to build out a circular and sufficient supply chain that reuses critical minerals instead of letting them waste away in landfills. Instead of building on this important work, Republicans took a sledgehammer to these investments. Their big, ugly bill repealed vital clean energy tax credits and programs and canceled billions of dollars in projects that would have helped with critical mineral supply.
The Trump administration also shut down the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, the office Congress created to lead a lot of the clean energy and critical mineral supply chain work. The administration also canceled more than $700 million in battery and manufacturing grants that that office had issued.
Now, this is extremely harmful to our economy and to families' monthly power bills because the rest of the world, particularly China, is making the necessary investments in the clean energy transition. In 2022 alone, China installed roughly as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined. China controls more than 70 percent of the world's battery manufacturing capacity.
Today we rely on imports of minerals such as cobalt, lithium, and graphite that are integral components of clean energy technology. China controls around 80 percent of the world's processing capacity for these critical minerals, posing serious national economic and energy security risks.
We should all be concerned about securing domestic critical mineral supply chains, but this bill does not solve the problem. In fact, it would only risk diluting resources away from critical mineral supply chains and toward fossil fuels.
The only mention of critical minerals in this bill starts and ends with its title. Instead, it focuses on critical energy resources, which is defined as any energy resource that is essential to the energy sector.
This overly broad language will inevitably result in additional resources spent on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas at the expense of actual critical mineral and clean energy supply chains.
With this bill, Republicans are handing the Trump administration yet another tool to prop up polluting fossil fuels at the expense of cheaper and cleaner energy technologies.
If Republicans truly want to be competitive with China, canceling clean energy projects that drive market demand is not the solution. Under Trump's watch, we have lost more than $30 billion in American manufacturing investments.
Mr. Speaker, electricity prices are rising across the country, including in my State of New Jersey. Americans are going into debt to heat their homes this winter. President Trump has failed on his day one promise to bring down prices for American families. Instead, his big, ugly bill is projected to increase electricity prices by an additional 61 percent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hear from my constituents every day that affordability is their top concern. Yet, today we are here debating yet another Republican energy bill that would do nothing to lower prices for Americans. Frankly, I think it is a shame.
My concern is that with this bill, Republicans continue to ignore the affordability crisis while they give the Department of Energy new authority which they will use to give more support to their oil and gas buddies.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas whose devastating good looks are only exceeded by his patriotism and sense of humor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advance a transformative vision for our Nation's energy future through my bill, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act.
This legislation is a bold and necessary step to ensure that the United States leads the world in energy innovation, security, and independence. At a time when global supply chains are increasingly weaponized and controlled by foreign adversaries, America cannot afford complacency.
The Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act redefines the term ``critical energy resource'' to provide the Department of Energy with a clear and unmistakable mandate: Secure the minerals essential to powering our energy sector and lowering costs for Americans.
This first step ensures the Department remains squarely focused on protecting and strengthening our Nation's critical energy resources, while making sure Americans are able to put more money in their pockets.
Mr. Speaker, this bill could not come at a more important time. Today, China controls more than 90 percent of global rare earth refining capacity. Russia maintains roughly 44 percent of the world's uranium enrichment capacity and supplies a significant share of nuclear fuel imports to the United States. These are not just economic statistics; they are strategic vulnerabilities.
If we are serious about an all-of-the-above energy strategy, then we must secure the minerals that make those technologies possible.
Mr. Speaker, this is where Michigan comes into focus. Michigan's geology is rich with opportunity. The Upper Peninsula, in particular, holds significant deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt, and platinum group metals, minerals essential for defense technologies and next- generation energy systems. For more than a century, the Upper Peninsula helped power America's industrial rise. Today, it still possesses the potential to power America's energy future.
Researchers at Western Michigan University are actively working to map and evaluate Michigan's critical mineral potential, preserving and analyzing decades of geological data to better understand what resources lie beneath our soil. Their work demonstrates that Michigan is not just a part of the conversation. We are the solution, and we will continue to lead.
Mr. Speaker, strengthening domestic critical mineral production is not just about national security. It is about economic revival. By unlocking responsible--responsible--development of critical minerals in the Upper Peninsula, we can create good-paying jobs, attract investment back to Michigan, strengthen local supply chains, and bring new life to communities that have long contributed to America's prosperity. Boosting domestic mineral production means boosting Michigan's
My legislation directs the Department of Energy to conduct ongoing assessments of supply chain vulnerabilities, develop strategies to strengthen domestic production, and invest in innovative technologies that expand American mineral independence. It equips our Nation to counter anticompetitive tactics and human rights abuses in global markets while ensuring our own energy systems are resilient, secure, and self-reliant.
This is about unleashing American energy. This is about reshoring and reindustrializing American manufacturing. This is about reducing dependence on foreign dictators and despots. For Michigan, it is about harnessing the full economic potential of both of our great and strong peninsulas.
The Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act is a cornerstone for building an energy-independent America, one powered by American workers, American resources, American ingenuity, and Michigan grit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in unleashing the full potential of America's energy might.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3617. I wish we were here discussing how we could lower the cost of living. I wish in the Energy and Commerce Committee, where we are controlling the time, we could discuss a bill that will lower electricity prices for our neighbors back home. Or even as the title of this bill suggests, it is related to critical minerals, but when you read the bill, Mr. Speaker, the text of the bill, there is nothing related to critical minerals. It is kind of a sneaky little bill.
Actually, if we pass this bill, it is quite likely that energy bills and electricity bills are going to go up. It is likely that this will lead to higher costs across the entire economy. Electric bills are already sky-high.
American families last year were suffering from, on average, about 13 percent increases in their electric bills. They were much higher in many places across the country.
In Florida, they passed along a $6 billion rate increase. They were calling it the largest rate increase and the highest rate increase in the history of the country.
What have we seen out of this administration?
We have seen just the sabotage of affordable, reliable, clean, and cheaper energy coming onto the grid, and now this.
This is an important topic. I have gained a little bit of knowledge not just from the Energy and Commerce Committee, but I serve on the bipartisan Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. My colleague, Republican Rob Wittman, and I led a critical minerals working group in the last Congress.
It is clear the United States is way too reliant on China. Beijing has weaponized the critical mineral supply chain. That is why Democrats leaned into it and passed important policies in the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act to spur domestic manufacturing and policies that enabled us to work with our partners and allies across the globe to counter China. We didn't do anything like threaten Greenland or insult Canada. We thought it was important to work together to counter all of the coercion from the Chinese Communist Party.
There have been major investments in domestic critical mineral supply chains, breaking the dependence on China. The United States energy sector relies on a broad portfolio of critical minerals, so we have to have a resilient supply chain for the advanced technologies and the innovation in energy generation, storage, and transmission.
The International Energy Agency estimates that mineral demand for clean energy technology will almost triple by 2030 and quadruple by 2024. Therefore, the development of diverse, resilient, and sustainable critical mineral supply chains, free from Chinese Communist Party influence, will be fundamental.
However, this bill just doesn't do it. As I said before, it is a sneaky, sneaky little bill.
It was introduced the last Congress. It hasn't gone anywhere because it doesn't solve any problem. It doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at what they want to do, they say: We are going to amend the Department of Energy's mission to include securing the supply of critical energy resources--not minerals--and it directs the DOE to conduct ongoing assessments to develop strategies to strengthen critical energy resource supply chains--not minerals.
Again, this vague definition risks diverting resources away from critical minerals actually and towards--and here is where we will yank the curtain back on what this really is about. It is about everything that this administration has done to serve the fossil fuel industry, the dirty fuel industry, from canceling clean energy projects that would help lower electric bills that would bring cleaner and cheaper resources onto the grid, projects like offshore wind that is fully permitted and ready to go and provide resources we can rely on during winter storms.
This administration has canceled large-scale transmission projects to help bring the additional load we need onto the transmission system, just to make the grid more resilient in America as we suffer through these extreme weather events.
We cannot afford these diversions. We cannot afford the Republicans continuing to sabotage cleaner, cheaper energy in America. This kind of sneaky maneuver reminds me of what they have done on tariffs this entire Congress that we finally overcame.
Everyone kind of understands now that they are paying more at the grocery store because of the President's arbitrary tariffs. I know he likes to say: Oh, other countries are going to pay these tariffs, but all of the experts, everyone knows, prices are higher because of these import taxes.
In fact, tariffs are at their highest level in about 100 years. That is how high they are. The Budget Lab at Yale says on average households are paying probably $1,700 more than they would have without these crazy tariffs that the President wields like a tool of retribution and fear.
That is not how you--you have got to keep the American people and their pocketbooks central rather than you are threatening Greenland. He has to have Greenland. He is going to insult Canada and put tariffs on Canada.
Thankfully, later this afternoon, we are going to debate and try to remove some of these arbitrary added taxes on the American people and lower the cost of living. That is why your shoes, your clothes, and, yes, electric equipment and metals are costing more right now. It is costing everybody way too much more.
Here is what they did here in the House of Representatives. They actually said: We are not going to be able to debate a removal of tariffs in the House of Representatives, the people's House. They were able to get away with it for a year, almost a year after the President's liberation day. They snuck it into a rule so we wouldn't have any debate on the high cost of living driven by these import taxes.
Well, last night, late last night in the House of Representatives-- while you were probably watching ice skating in the Olympics--because three brave Republicans crossed over and joined all of the Democrats, we are going to have that debate.
We are going to have that vote because what is central to people's lives right now is their pocketbooks. They are just being hammered, not just by their electric bills, but also their grocery bills and everything they buy.
We have a responsibility in this House to look out for the people back home rather than serve the special interests. This Congress has been all about serving the special interests, and that includes the folks who really are pushing this bill.
It is not about critical minerals. If it were, then it would actually be in the text of the bill, but it is not. It is about, again, giving a gift to political supporters, the polluters who are running the show and the agencies that have all too much influence here in the Halls of Congress while electricity
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this sneaky little bill, and let's get on to the debate on how we improve the cost of living and serve the people who sent us here.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the things my Democratic colleagues have said. They are really high on China. They look at China as a model for America. Apparently, they like how they do their economy. They like their energy production.
I would just like to point out, Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58 percent of China's energy. Oil was at 20 percent, and natural gas was at 10 percent. Some of my colleagues struggle with math. I will just add that up for them. That is 88 percent of their energy production comes from hydrocarbon sources. That means that the remaining 12 percent came from hydroelectric, solar, or wind.
What is interesting about this is they make it seem as though China is just dominating the world in renewable energy production. That is approximately the same amount of renewable energy production as the United States. It doesn't sound like the model.
I also wanted to point out--because they keep talking about higher energy costs--the increase in energy costs has occurred in the States with the most stringent requirements for renewable energy: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut. That is where energy costs have gone up the most. That is where people are struggling the most to pay their energy bills.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of H.R. 3617, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), my friend and colleague. If the United States hasn't learned anything else from the war in Ukraine, it should be this, this is a fundamental principle: No nation, let alone America, should be reliant on adversarial nations for energy and refined materials, critical minerals, rare earth elements that would threaten our economy and threaten our national security, but that is where we find ourselves and where we put ourselves in terms of access to critical minerals, processed and refined critical minerals.
H.R. 3617 addresses this. It is a crucial challenge facing the United States today, how to decouple and derisk ourselves from China and other foreign adversaries and build resilient, secure, domestic energy and critical mineral supply chains?
Our country is blessed with an abundance of energy and critical mineral resources that are a linchpin to our economy. They are a linchpin to our national security and a linchpin to the new and emerging energy technologies that we are trying to develop here.
Yet we are stuck under the thumb of Communist China, who exerts their dominance over energy supply chains, critical mineral supply chains to undermine U.S. interests. This is not a new issue, but one that has grown over the last several decades.
The United States used to be a leading producer and refiner of many critical minerals and rare earth elements. We developed the technology to refine rare earth elements, to produce magnets that are critical in our economy and to our national security.
By the late 1990s, most of that industry, especially refining, went overseas. This trend has led us to where we are today. The United States is now almost 100 percent import reliant on a dozen critical minerals and heavily reliant on imports for more than half of all critical minerals.
The challenge we face today is exacerbated by burdensome permitting processes and regulations, uncertainty in commodity pricing, and market manipulation by Communist China.
A few years ago, I launched the Western Hemisphere Prosperity and Security Alliance as a soft power alternative to China. The Western Hemisphere Prosperity and Security Alliance could help us shed our dependence on Communist China when it comes to these critical resources.
H.R. 3617 directs the Secretary of Energy to coordinate with industry and relevant stakeholders to identify ways to diversify domestic critical energy resources and supply chains.
As part of that assessment, the DOE Secretary will assess how Federal regulations may be affecting domestic production of critical energy resources and minerals and how adversarial nations seek to exploit those markets to undermine investment in the United States.
Solving this issue is paramount, and we must address it before we are too late. Critical minerals and their supply chains are vital. We cannot allow the prosperity of future generations to be dictated by adversarial nations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to keep America at the forefront of the next generation's economy and support H.R. 3617.
Mr. Speaker, America has become unaffordable for so many Americans. Many families, if not most families, are now struggling to pay their bills, including their electric bills. Congress should be focused entirely on lowering costs.
The bill does not do that, unfortunately. It is not about securing critical minerals. It gives the Department of Energy broad, open-ended, authority that this administration has already used to roll back environmental protections, cancel energy projects, and drive costs up.
The bill would be a win for coal and natural gas, not American ratepayers. For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered that motion with an important amendment.
My amendment is straightforward. The bill would not take effect until at least the Secretary of Energy certifies that the tariffs imposed after January 20 are not increasing costs and not disrupting the supply chain for critical minerals while, unfortunately, they, of course, are doing both those things.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment into the Record immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame. Instead of trying to score political points, the Democrats should support our efforts to address supply chain vulnerabilities that Communist China actively exploits to the detriment of these American people that we serve.
Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is for the Department of Energy to take a holistic view of resources that are critical to the economic as well as the national security of the United States, regardless of the application.
Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes DOE's overarching responsibility for the security of the supply chains of the energy sector. When the Department of Energy was organized in 1977, energy security was a core concern as a result of the oil crisis in the seventies.
I was a teenager back then. I remember waiting in lines to get gasoline. Now, we face similar threats amidst the development of next- generation industries like AI as well as advanced manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, after decades of degrowth policies that drove energy production and refining abroad, our adversaries have exploited vulnerabilities and left American families susceptible to actions from places like Communist China.
We have already seen Communist China take steps to limit exports of minerals, such as antimony, that are essential to defense manufacturing for things like radar systems.
Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are focused on all critical energy resources, including critical minerals. Similarly, the Trump administration has announced substantial
This bill mirrors the administration's momentum on critical mineral policy and will further focus the Department of Energy on developing that very sector.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3617. I think it is important to provide a little perspective here. At a time when Americans are struggling to afford their electricity bills, we are wasting floor time debating a bill that will not even meaningfully improve our critical mineral supply chains.
In fact, this bill is just a retread from last Congress. That is right. The Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, so-called, was included in House Republicans' polluters over people act last Congress, a bill that sold the American people out to corporate polluters.
Here we are again, debating the same old bill because Republicans have no new ideas. H.R. 3617 is merely a distraction from the fact that they have no real plans to address issues that are important to Americans, like their increasingly unaffordable electricity bills.
My Republican colleagues need to start taking the affordability crisis facing the American people seriously. Eighty million Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills. Electricity prices are rising more than twice as fast as inflation across the country. Families are having to choose between paying for housing, medicine, food, or keeping their lights on. It is just unacceptable.
As elected officials, we have a responsibility to address this issue. We must address this because hardworking Americans are in desperate need of relief.
Yet, to President Trump and his Republican accomplices, the affordability crisis is just a made-up scam. That is what the President says. I have said it before, but it is worth repeating: Republicans' big, ugly bill will raise electricity prices by a staggering 61 percent, and the American people are hurting because of President Trump's policies.
We should be focused on advancing bipartisan legislation to end this affordability crisis, not a bill that seeks to provide additional support for the fossil fuel industry under the guise of supporting critical minerals. Republicans would rather spend precious floor time on a bill to support their fossil fuel friends instead of supporting the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge opposition to the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3617 is important. You can't make this stuff up, what they are saying across the aisle.
H.R. 3617 is important to securing our critical energy resource supply chains and eliminating our dependence on foreign adversaries like we have been talking about, Communist Red China.
This bill takes a holistic approach, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring vulnerable supply chains, impacting absolutely every single corner of the United States' energy sector, are addressed by the Department of Energy, and its passage is vital to their success.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3617 and vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February 10, 2026, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of February 10, 2026, 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 Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
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 resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to have a debate apparently for about an hour. We are going to have that debate for one reason and one reason alone. Democrats in the House and in the Senate as well, refuse to recognize that there is a crisis because of fentanyl entering the United States of America.
Whether on our northern border, on our southern border, through the Caribbean, or other places, they refuse to recognize that threat anywhere. Specific to the debate today, they would like to end an executive order relating to the crisis of fentanyl coming across our northern border.
Democrats don't recognize that there is a crisis and that it is killing thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, each and every year. They are trying to literally end that executive order that identifies the national emergency, an emergency that is literally agreed upon by our northern neighbor, Canada. Even Canada acknowledges that they have this as a national emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have heard that story before that this is all about drugs. If I recall correctly, the former President of Honduras probably put more drugs in the United States than Canada has combined. The President of the United States didn't say that was an emergency. He pardoned him. I have heard it before. It is all about drugs. That was the case.
What is the case and what is a fact is that in the last year, tariffs have cost American families nearly $1,700. That cost is expected to increase in 2026. That is the case. Since these tariffs were imposed, U.S. exports to Canada have fallen by more than 21 percent.
When I go home, my constituents aren't telling me they have an extra $1,700 to spare. They are asking me to lower grocery prices, lower the price of healthcare, and make life more affordable. That is what this is about. It is about the American people and making things affordable for them.
Today's vote is simple. It is very simple. Will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote to lower the cost of living for American families, or will they keep prices high out of loyalty to Donald J. Trump?
That is what this vote is. That is why we pressed for this vote today. That is why a day is a day, and we finally get our chance to have the Members of the House vote their conscience. Do they vote for the President and his ways, or do they vote for their people, their constituents?
Let's be clear about this so-called emergency Donald Trump declared on Canada and so many other countries where no emergency exists. For over 50 years, emergency authorities have been declared. What have they been? Yes, they have been for civil wars. Pandemics? I think that is an emergency. A massive human rights crisis could be an emergency.
Canada is none of those things. Canada isn't a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally. Canadians have fought alongside Americans, whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan, where 165 Canadians gave their lives after our country was attacked. There is no national emergency. There is no national security threat underpinning these threats.
In an interview just last night, Donald J. Trump admitted he placed tariffs on Switzerland. Why? I will tell my colleagues why. It is simply because he didn't like the way their leader spoke to him. He put tariffs on Switzerland.
That is not a strategy. That is impulse. That is a person who is just trying to say that he is the king. Mr. Speaker, guess what. That impulse, who is going to pay the price for it? Who is going to pay the price for that impulse? I will tell my colleagues who. It is the American people.
Our morning coffee, our kids' chocolate, lifesaving medical devices, those are the Canadian goods that are being hit by 35 percent tariffs. Americans are paying more for healthcare and their daily essentials during an affordability crisis, all because of a manufactured emergency and one person's ego.
The damage doesn't stop there. What about American products? They are being boycotted across Canada. Don't believe me? Just look at the President's social media posts from just 2 days ago where he said:
``Ontario won't even put the U.S. spirits, beverages, and other alcoholic products, on their shelves.''
Tourism from Canada is down 30 percent. People in the hospitality industry--Las Vegas, my home State of New York, and the chairman's home State of Florida--are losing their jobs because Canadians do not want to come to the United States of America.
What are the people getting in return? I will tell my colleagues what they are getting. They are getting higher electricity costs during one of the coldest winters in modern history. They are getting higher food prices and higher costs for industrial goods and healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, this is heads, we lose; tails, we lose.
Tariffs are bad for American workers. They are bad for businesses. They are bad for working families. Instead of addressing the affordability crisis, which the President has called a hoax, Republicans have spent a year blocking this vote to protect Donald Trump, rather than doing their job to help the American people and what the American people did send us here to do, which is to lower costs. That ends today.
Every Member now has to go on record. Do they stand with the disastrous trade war or with their constituents who are demanding relief? It is time we end this so-called national emergency because the only emergency here is the economic one created by Donald J. Trump's tariffs.
I urge the adoption of the resolution and the termination of these unnecessary and harmful tariffs, which are just taxes on the American people.
Mr. Speaker, 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, there is a lot to correct from that diatribe I just heard. I am going to start to go through some of that.
Number one, who will pay the price? That was a question begged by my colleague. Who will pay the price? It is a very sad thing to have been asked this by my colleague.
It is important to remember what this resolution is. This resolution ends an emergency related to fentanyl. I would say to the gentleman over here that 5,000 people a year die in his State alone from fentanyl.
If he wants to beg the question of who is going to pay the price for him trying to end an emergency that actually for the first time has Canada dealing with fentanyl because of the pressure being put on them, who is going to pay the price? It is going to be 5,000 more of his State's residents. That is who is going to pay the price.
I think the gentleman next to me mentioned as well, when he goes home, this is what he sees when he goes home. When he goes home each and every year, because they don't want to address fentanyl, they are going to see 5,000 less faces because they don't want to deal with fentanyl.
He said it himself. He sees no emergency. The ``so-called emergency'' were the exact words used, the so-called emergency. There is no emergency that exists, to quote my colleague. If 5,000 people were dying in my State every single year from one thing and one thing alone, I think that is an emergency. His people will pay the price.
Let's be clear again about what this resolution is and what it is not. It is not a debate about tariffs. We can talk about those, but that is not really what it is. This is Democrats trying to ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis. Again, they just ignored it. They just literally said it doesn't exist.
I will read again directly from the bill: `` . . . the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 1, 2025, in Executive Order 14193 . . . is hereby terminated.''
That is their language. They are terminating the executive order, and it is an EO on the fentanyl crisis at the northern border.
It matters to talk about that it is the northern border. Why? That is because my Democratic colleagues don't believe that there is a crisis there, but my Democratic colleagues don't believe there is a fentanyl crisis under any circumstance. Any fentanyl that flows into the country, they don't see any of it as a national emergency.
We have yet to find a place where Democrats say that drugs are a national emergency. They made it clear that there is not one single circumstance where they see the deaths of millions of Americans due to fentanyl as a crisis. They don't see that anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, let's look again at my colleague's own State. This is a report. Last report, almost 5,000 deaths, or just under that.
Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the largest fentanyl lab found in Canada. Where was that found in Canada that was recently shut down because of the pressure that President Trump is putting on Canada? It was 30 miles from the New York border. They didn't close it down 2 years ago or 3 years ago. Why not? It was because Canada didn't have the pressure put on them to do so. That is not a coincidence.
Mr. Speaker, again, do you know who is going to pay the price for taking the pressure off of Canada? It is going to be
Mr. Speaker, I lost 2,500 brothers and sisters in Afghanistan over the course of 20 years. Our country took that extremely seriously for every single one of them. Mr. Meeks' State is losing double that from fentanyl alone every single year, and he says that he sees no emergency. That is sad for the people of New York.
The administration is doing everything that they can to defeat fentanyl, while my Democratic colleagues are willing to do everything that they can to have those deaths continue. They don't support striking drug boats. We know that much. They don't support removing cartel leaders. We know that. Apparently, they don't support tariffing a country that acknowledges that they have a drug trafficking crisis but weren't doing anything to fix it.
I am going to suspect that my colleague over here doesn't know this as well: Last year, Justin Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, himself addressed the fentanyl problem and said that it needed to be eradicated. That is the Prime Minister of Canada, or former Prime Minister.
It was so bad that Canada created a fentanyl czar, who admitted that they underestimated--Canada underestimated the toll of the fentanyl crisis and what it had taken, and they literally called it, according to the Canadian fentanyl czar, a national security threat.
The northern border, for whom this emergency exists, is acknowledging that there is an emergency, a national security threat, but I guess my colleagues think that they know better.
Mr. Speaker, take the Chinese-run fentanyl lab that I mentioned being shut down, or one of them being shut down, of many. There was over 800 pounds of fentanyl confiscated. Why is it being shut down now and not before? It is being shut down now because the administration had the stones to put economic pressure on them, but my colleagues want to take that pressure off because they don't worry about their people dying in their State.
It is simple. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you care about the U.S. Government responding to millions of Americans being killed by fentanyl, this is the policy that addresses that. Even our northern partner acknowledges that.
The truth is that Canada hasn't wanted to put effort into cracking down on drugs. They didn't want to close the Chinese fentanyl labs. They didn't want to increase their spending on border patrols, but they have to do it because President Trump is putting pressure on them.
Tariffs get more attention than strongly worded letters, and millions of Americans' lives are being saved because President Trump has declared this national emergency and is actively forcing our neighbors, like Canada, to act. It is saving lives.
My colleague wants to make sure that that no longer happens because he doesn't see an emergency, even though 5,000 people from his State are dying every single year. That is pretty sad. That is where the price is paid.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have had some time from the last time that we were on this floor. If he were so serious about drugs, I asked the chairman previously: Why would the President of the United States pardon one of the biggest drug dealers who was killing Americans, Juan Orlando Hernandez. The last time, the gentleman said that he hadn't spoken to the President and didn't know why.
Mr. Speaker, if he is so interested in stopping drugs, maybe he could have and should have had a conversation.
Let me just tell you something about drugs, how much drugs are coming in from Canada, because that is what this is about. As a former special narcotics prosecutor--that is me--I know a little bit about that. Saying that you are going to focus and stop certain things from coming across the border of Canada, as if it is coming across in a cluster like it is an emergency, is just an out-and-out lie.
The fact of the matter is that if you look at the Federal prosecutions--this just came out not too long ago--for narcotics in the United States of America, it just came out that, under the Trump administration, Federal drug prosecutions fell to the lowest level in decades. It talked about that Federal drug prosecutions dropped 10 percent in 2025 as agents changed their focus to immigration, that the number of new cases being filed is the lowest in decades according to a Reuters analysis. High-priority drug investigations have stalled since Donald Trump took office. It doesn't sound like the President of the United States is really concerned about drug prosecutions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an individual who really knows about taxes and tariffs, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I led the negotiation on USMCA, and 195 Republicans voted for USMCA and 197 Democrats voted for USMCA. It was a bipartisan effort.
Tariffs, as threatened or imposed, can have an outcome, but not when we look at Brazil and say that we don't like the result of the Presidential election and that we are going to impose 50 percent tariffs, or that we are going to close a bridge as it goes to Canada, like Canada is an enemy. I have not met anybody in America who was ever mad at Canada for anything. They have been a great friend, great ally, and a great neighbor.
Let's have a tariff on NATO because of Greenland. Let's have a tariff on South Korea because of who they talk to in an international arena. Let's impose tariffs on our NATO allies or on European Union because we don't like this or that. We won't negotiate. We will just arbitrarily impose tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what the most ironic thing is in this debate? Heretofore, I have never met a Republican in Washington who was in favor of tariffs.
The party of Ronald Reagan embracing these tariffs is unheard of. The party of George Bush, Sr., embracing tariffs, part of their existence was to break down trade barriers everywhere. If you want to target a tariff based upon a particular product, gotcha. That is understood, but not the way that these tariffs are being imposed. The ranking member is on the right path.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague, Mr. Issa, I would ask my colleague--I am happy to yield a moment--would you like to say 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency?
Crickets.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Would you like to respond: 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, then, in this colloquy, I would present the opportunity again: Would my colleague like to deny or admit that 5,000 deaths in New York related to fentanyl is an emergency?
I would point to just Canada, number one. Canada, in the last year, had an additional 8,000 fentanyl-related arrests because they finally started cracking down on it. There was an increase of 80 percent that was seized at the U.S.-Canada border because of the actions taking place, so, yes, there were deaths going on in New York.
I note for the record, again, ample opportunities have been given for my colleague, who represents New York, to just say 5,000 fentanyl-related deaths in New York is an emergency. Silence, crickets, no response, because the death of 5,000 of his constituents apparently means nothing to him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. Speaker, I am going to slightly drift off, but not really leave this point.
Fentanyl kills 5,000 in New York. It kills 100,000 in the U.S. It kills thousands in Canada and thousands in Mexico. Those numbers are staggering, but those numbers are a small part of the tragedy to families.
For every fentanyl death in our countries, there are families who are suffering. For every fentanyl death, there is somebody who goes to the hospital multiple times. For every fentanyl death, there are three or four people who are living homeless, drug addicted, and their families are suffering. For every death, there is, in fact, a broken relationship somewhere. That is not 100,000 in America. That is millions in America.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know of an American that you talk to about fentanyl who won't tell you that they know someone whose family, their health, or their child has been destroyed by fentanyl, many of them being destroyed as we speak.
There are about 1,900 miles of Mexican border between the United States and Mexico. I represent about 80 of those miles right there outside of San Diego. I have seen the border closed as best it possibly could in an amazing way. I have seen submarines still coming in the Pacific to try to circumvent it. I know we will never get to zero.
All the President has asked Canada to do is show the kind of effort they can afford as a First World country, and that effort should be far greater at all of their borders than Mexico's, which is a relatively poor country. That effort should be shown. If it is shown, the President has made it clear that these tariffs will immediately go away.
This isn't a tariff that is just because you don't like someone. It is a tariff that says this behavior, this leverage, is being used for one purpose: to get you to live up to a standard that is in your own best interests.
By the way, the 5,500 miles of land border between the U.S. and Canada is our longest by far. The thousands of miles of sea border that Canada needs to also patrol is huge. This President stands with Canada to help them do it, to help in technical ways and every other way, but we cannot allow millions of Americans and countless other Canadians and Mexicans to continue to suffer without us having the real empathy to do something about it.
The chairman said: What about the 5,000? We got this answer: How do you know that they came from Canada? I am sorry, but every time we have a major bust on the Mexican border, my agents tell me that we are getting maybe 10 percent, maybe 20 percent in certain areas. We are never getting 80 or 90 percent. The reality is that those are indications of a small amount of what is getting in through Buffalo and other borders into the United States.
Although the gentleman from New York is from a fairly populous State, he is not from a State without a large rural border, one that you can simply walk across with impunity normally, which has been used to smuggle drugs successfully.
The point I make here today--and I thank the chairman for the time-- is: Every life matters. If the President of the United States cares about his 5,000 or 500 or 5 or 1 enough to use the power of the executive office to get the right thing out of our neighbors to the north and the south, then I want to stand with him. I would never take away a tool being used to save even one life, much less hundreds of thousands of lives and millions of families.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Issa for his remarks, and I believe there will be another Representative from California speaking on the other side. I will be curious if that Representative will acknowledge the thousands of deaths from fentanyl in California being an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Canada plays virtually no role in the United States' fentanyl influx, especially compared to other countries targeted by the Trump administration. Canada contributes less than 1 percent to our southern neighbor's border of street fentanyl, less than 1 percent. That is not according to me, because I don't know where he gets his facts, but that is according to the DEA, as well as the Canadian Government, 1 percent.
We do a lot of trade with Canada, and in Florida's 21st District, the chairman's district, exports to Canada support 1,650 jobs. Many of them will begin to lose their jobs. This is about affordability. This is about job creation and the economy. I wonder what he is going to say to those 1,650 people in Florida's 21st District.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution rejecting President Trump's illegal tariffs on Canada--our friend, our neighbor, and our ally.
The truth of the matter is that the arguments on the other side of the aisle are to distract. The vast majority of fentanyl that comes into the United States comes from China and comes in via boats in our ports of entry.
They want to distract to take away from the real issue, which is that the Constitution is very clear that the power to levy tariffs and regulate trade belongs to the Congress, not to the President. Yet, too many in this body are willing to give up that authority because President Trump demands blind loyalty from them.
The fact is, we already have a trade agreement with Canada. President Trump negotiated it, and this body ratified it. There is a lawful review process that goes into effect next year to find ways to improve it.
That is how responsible governments handle trade disputes, by following the law, not through weird social media tantrums about bridges and hockey trophies or through childish threats to annex a sovereign nation and make it the 51st State.
His daily barrage against Canada does not make him look tough. It is certainly not strategic. It is just reckless. Frankly, it is bizarre.
We are now seeing the consequences of allowing the President's unhinged behavior go unchecked. American families, small businesses, and farmers are paying the price for these endless trade wars.
Trump's tariff tantrums have cost households more than $1,600 a year in higher prices. Families in the United States are paying more for groceries, cars, housing, utilities, the basic necessities. What about the deaths from families that are struggling from food insecurity? Do those not matter?
It is pushing our allies closer to our adversaries. Last month, Canada announced it was lowering its 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. Those tariffs were imposed in coordination with the United States during the leadership of the Biden administration.
That cooperation strengthened our position against China.
Now, because of this administration's chaotic trade policies, that progress is
I commend the few Republicans who have the courage to break with the President and join with Democrats to force this vote. Reasserting our constitutional authority over trade should never have been a partisan issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Let's restore sanity and stability to our American trade policy.
Mr. Speaker, I would let my colleague know that just one-- because he said Canada plays almost no role in fentanyl deaths--one 70- pound bust of fentanyl alone was enough to kill every single person in New York City. Again, my colleague is unwilling to acknowledge that this is about fentanyl, because that is literally what the executive order says, and unwilling to acknowledge that 5,000 deaths in his State is an emergency, certainly in 1 year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), the chair of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats fought Republicans to require voter ID to protect the integrity of our elections, the cornerstone of our democratic Republic. Now they stand here today on the floor of the people's house, fighting the President in his effort to protect the lives of the American people against what is the most imminent threat and the number one cause of accidental deaths and drug overdoses.
We know where the drugs are coming from, pouring into our country and our communities, killing our friends, killing our families. I can't think of a greater security concern than this. The President has effectively and appropriately promoted and defended America's economic and security interests by the use of tariffs.
Today, Mr. Speaker, as a result, we have a lower trade deficit than we have had since 2009. By the way, the top 20 economies in the world that we do business with had twice the tariffs on our products, three times the tariffs when you measure agriculture products, and the deficit is going down. We have quadrupled revenue to strengthen America's balance sheet and pay down the tax on our children, which is the deficit. We have gone from 6.3 percent to 5.9, and exports are at an all-time high.
Now, what is the issue here? It is not about 301, unfair trade practices, although there are plenty of grievances against our northern neighbor in that regard. This isn't about USMCA. The USMCA products flowing from Canada to the United States are exempt. Eighty-five percent of the products, we are not talking about that. It is not about 232.
This is about one particular authority that this Congress empowered our commander-in-chief with to deal with unusual threats outside of the U.S. that would impact our national security, our foreign policy, and our economy.
Now, I can't think of anything more unusual, and I can't think of a bigger threat than a chemical warfare waged against the United States of America. Any President worth his salt, any commander-in-chief, would be derelict in their duty if they didn't use every tool at their disposal to stop it.
For my President to expect our neighbor from the north to have the same vigilance and the same urgency as he has because of the American people's mandate to stop this madness and protect our children, God bless him. God bless him.
For my colleagues to run to the floor, to raise their hands, and to scream foul that this President is somehow using tariffs in a way that has nothing to do with our interest, to talk about food security, we could go down the list. We wouldn't have food insecurity if we didn't have a cost of living crisis where the fuse was lit by unbridled spending. We could go down the list. Yes, we are doing something about that. We are bringing interest rates down. We are bringing real wages up. We are also preserving food stamps so they are not being defrauded or being spent on people here illegally.
Mr. Chairman, I would love to keep debating all day long. God bless America, and go West Texas.
Mr. Speaker, the talk time is soon over because of what I am hearing from the other side. Basically what this is about is the American people having a chance to see where their Members are, whether they want to--they will judge ultimately--believe that this is an emergency from what they hear and know of the President or whether they are concerned about their cost of living, whether they are concerned about that hot chocolate, whether they are concerned about that coffee, or whether they are concerned about life-saving medical devices.
What this will do--which has been blocked for almost a year--is simply to have a vote on the House floor so that the American people can see because then ultimately, we will know which way is the right way for them.
We are here to represent the citizens of the United States of America, not a President. We soon will have a vote because that is what is going to happen, which is what I have been asking for for over a year. If you think this is an emergency, if you believe the President, you are going to vote that way. If you think this is going to be accountable to the American people, if you think that the American people will say that the cost of living, the cost of electricity, the cost of food every day they go to the market is of concern to them, they will be watching how you vote on this bill. They will be watching. Vote how you want. This is for the American people to see where you stand, with them or the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose President Trump's disastrous tariffs and shine a light on the real harm they are causing families and businesses in my district.
My district is home to some of the best wineries in the world, and Canada is our single largest foreign market. After Trump imposed his tariffs, Canada responded with their own tariffs that lasted for months. Many Canadians continue to boycott our products, all while our growers and producers pay the price. They are facing higher costs, shrinking export opportunities, and real economic pain for real families.
In October, wine sales to Canada were down 84 percent when compared to last year. If we fail to act, this Congress will be complicit in enabling President Trump to destroy the hard-fought relationships my community has brokered. Wineries in my district built their relationships across the border over decades, and in one day, President Trump destroyed them.
These tariffs hurt American farmers and American consumers alike. We must act and protect the American people from the volatile whims of the petulant President.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me we are talking about the deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, and somebody is talking about wine. We are talking about the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, and my colleagues are talking about wine. Let's get some perspective here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the opposition to this take on two things: number one, that this has somehow raised the cost of living and that, somehow, the fentanyl crisis is not a national emergency. I would like to disassemble those two arguments.
A long time ago, long before I came to Washington, one of my first jobs was I taught economics. I would say to my colleagues that they need to get beyond Karl Marx's ``The Communist Manifesto'' to understand how the world actually works.
When Joe Biden was President, prices went up 5 percent a year. Under the
Economic results: The last quarter, our economic growth as a nation was 4.4 percent. The economy is booming. That is almost double what we saw the previous year under Joe Biden. His number started with a two.
These tariffs, rather than hurting America, have brought $15 billion, that is just from Canada, that we can use to pay down our debt and pay down our deficit, again, as we have lower inflation and higher economic growth. It has worked. The chairman talked about the cost of 5,000 lives a year in New York, almost 100,000 nationwide, but those statistics are 1 year old.
Under President Trump's tariff regime where he has cracked down on it, last year, fentanyl deaths in this country dropped by 21 percent. That is 20,000 Americans who did not die because of a fentanyl overdose. That is 20,000 national emergencies diverted. That is 20,000 families that aren't destroyed, and that is 20,000 futures that still get to be in our country.
We should not be criticizing the President for what he has done, because the last thing I will say is this: When I taught economics, we had a concept called Pareto optimality. It is something where everything is good and nothing is bad, and that is exactly what is happening here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one thing that I will say, yes, the economy is booming. Mr. Speaker, if you are a billionaire, the economy is booming. However, when I go home and I talk to my constituents, what they tell me is that the price of beef has risen 16.4 percent over the last year. The price of coffee is up a whopping 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. So for them, it is not booming.
As I said, this is just about a vote. It is just about a vote. I wish we could have had this vote 1 year ago. If, in fact, they believe this is an emergency, I don't know why it was held up for 1 year and tried to be prevented again.
It is a vote. Let the American people know where you stand, Mr. Speaker. They see it with your vote.
Do you stand with them, Mr. Speaker, trying to fix the affordability crisis, or do you stand with Donald Trump and my Republican colleagues who are just taking care of those for whom the economy is booming, the billionaires of our country?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).
Mr. Speaker, President Trump's tariffs are raising costs on working people. Just like everything else that Donald Trump does, his tariffs are all about helping himself and his rich friends at the expense of everyday people.
The Big Tech companies and the Big Oil companies have been donating millions of dollars to Trump's ballroom and lavishing him with gifts like a golden iPhone.
Wouldn't you know it, Mr. Speaker, he exempted them from the tariffs.
Who is not exempt?
They are the small businesses, the farmers, the restaurants, and the small manufacturers who can't afford to go to Mar-a-Lago to ask for special deals. They are the builders who are paying thousands of dollars more for materials to build new homes, and they are everyday people who are stuck with higher costs, working themselves to the bone and who can't keep up with their bills.
In Donald Trump's America, the rich and connected are always taken care of, and everyone else struggles.
For what, Mr. Speaker?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' report that came out today, we lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs last year.
End these tariffs. Stop this madness, and lower costs for working people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should educate themselves on what these tariffs are affecting. They are third-party goods coming in from countries like China. I don't think they are growing much coffee in Canada. They might want to look at the map and look at the temperatures and where these items grow.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution which would terminate the President's national emergency in response to the flow of fentanyl across our northern border.
As an Arizonan, I am all too familiar with the destruction these weaponized opioids have caused, and I fully support President Trump's mission to rid our Nation of this poison.
Under the previous administration, fentanyl claimed the lives of approximately 73,000 Americans per year and became the leading cause of death among those aged 18 to 45. President Trump was elected in part to confront this catastrophic crisis.
Fentanyl affects constituents of every Member of this body, regardless of political affiliation. As someone who has met with individuals devastated by this deadly substance, maintaining our momentum to stop fentanyl must remain a top priority.
Over the past year, the Trump administration urged Canada to work in coordination with our law enforcement partners to help stem the flow of dangerous narcotics. Unfortunately, our neighbors to the north have failed to adequately respond, prompting the administration to use leverage to bring them to the table. Now Democrats are on the House floor attempting to end the President's declaration, which would undermine efforts to prevent fentanyl-related deaths. It would be very unwise to tie the President's hands and remove this critical tool during an ongoing public health and national security crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the leadership of Chairman Mast, and I applaud the administration's commitment to preventing addiction and overdoses.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 72, the resolution to terminate President Trump's tariffs on Canada.
Families in San Antonio and across this country are already struggling with the rising cost of living. The price of everything is going up: groceries, housing, childcare, and rent. When you go to the grocery store, Mr. Speaker, beef prices are up 16 percent, and coffee is up nearly 20 percent.
Instead of lowering costs, the President imposed tariffs on Canada, which is nothing more than a tax on American families, and started a trade war with one of our closest allies. Those tariffs don't just hurt American families. They threaten jobs in places like my hometown of San Antonio. Nearly one-half, 48 percent, of San Antonio's exports go to Canada, the highest share of any major city in the country.
Our economy is deeply tied to North American supply chains. Thousands of San Antonians work in aerospace, automotive manufacturing, energy, machinery, semiconductors, and medical devices, exactly the high-paying industries we want to be growing here in the United States.
These companies chose San Antonio because we are highly integrated into trade networks with Canada and Mexico. When tariffs go up, local businesses pay the price. When Canada retaliates, it becomes harder for our workers to sell their products abroad.
This trade war is making life more expensive, creating uncertainty and putting good jobs at risk, all while the world continues to move around us. Congress has constitutional authority over tariffs. We must use it here and now. Let's lower costs for American families, protect jobs in San Antonio and across America, and end this reckless trade war.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country agree, the unmitigated flow of fentanyl under the Biden administration now constitutes an emergency.
Let's discuss some facts. In 2023 alone, this crisis contributed to the deaths of 70,000 Americans--in just one year, 2023--a number that only worsened the following year, when the amount of fentanyl that crossed our border with Canada was actually enough to kill 9.5 million people, given that potential.
Given this context, it is no surprise that between 2024 and 2025, under President Trump, fentanyl seizures at the northern border nearly doubled. As the supply of fentanyl is so tied to trade through the movement of precursor chemicals, the President has utilized trade policy to spur progress.
While today's resolution is meant to debate the merits of the emergency created by the flow of fentanyl, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will use this as a venue to debate trade policy. I have been watching.
I certainly welcome my Democratic colleagues' interest, relatively new interest, in the trade policy following what I would say was 4 years of neglect on trade policy under President Biden. However, if we are serious about engaging in real reform, I believe that my colleagues would not just resort to political maneuvers.
I am not a fan of tariffs. That is no secret. I am in favor, however, of robust engagement with our trading partners. Let me be very clear. In trade, there is no stagnation. If we are not gaining ground, I think we are losing ground, and data would show that.
During the Biden administration, the President and this body were way too passive on our trade agenda. Right now, President Trump obviously is taking a new aggressive approach in order to level the playing field and address supply chains that have put Americans at risk.
Beyond the gains made in addressing the fentanyl crisis and outside the scope of this emergency, the President's engagement has led to significant gains for fairness throughout the global trading system.
While Canada is one of our most important allies and trading partners, and a friend, there have been a number of irritants in our economic relationship. Under President Trump's leadership, we have seen this change, most recently when Canada removed its discriminatory digital services tax.
These productive--and I will say oftentimes uncomfortable-- conversations must continue, though, as we strengthen and extend USMCA during this 2026 Joint Review.
The President has, at every turn, reaffirmed his commitment to use tariffs as a means to drive these conversations, and Congress has delegated a number of tariff authorities to the executive.
While we are ultimately debating the merits of the emergency, let me be clear: This approach will not change the President's tariff strategy, just the conditions. This body works best when engaging with the full context of the policy environment.
As we await the Supreme Court's decision on whether tariffs lie within the authority of IEEPA, today's politically motivated vote, I believe, is premature. If my colleagues have full confidence there is no risk of fentanyl imports at the northern border, then they have more faith than I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, if this resolution is instead driven by a newfound tariff skepticism, I urge them to allow the Supreme Court to first make its decision.
To overlook the very basis of the emergency in the hope of removing tariffs for which the President has other authorities to pursue only increases uncertainty in the short term.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump's repeated bullying of Canada and its eloquent Prime Minister Carney is both embarrassing and alarming. Our country could not have a better neighbor or trading partner than Canada.
Declaring emergencies where none exist, Trump delights in these executive decrees for tariffs. He can act like a king, and he is enabled to be a king-like figure on this issue by Republicans, even though it is costing American families thousands of dollars.
There have been 76,000 American manufacturing jobs lost amidst Trump chaos. Small businesses are losing out if they don't have a lobbyist who can go to Mar-a-Lago and bargain with Trump.
This vote is about reaffirming ``no king,'' no rule by decree from the President when he has no authority to do this, and recognizing that our Constitution places responsibility for trade and tariff taxes where it should be, right here in this Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump loves tariffs. He calls them beautiful. He says they protect American workers, but here is the cold, hard truth: The American people are paying them.
Just today, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed what families already feel--American consumers are paying 95 percent of these tariffs. They pay at the grocery store. They pay in higher energy bills. They pay when small businesses shut their doors.
These blanket tariffs on Canada are a slap in the face to one of our closest trading allies. Canada is Nevada's top international visitor. Tourism in Las Vegas is already down 7.5 percent. Nationwide, Canadian travel is down 23 percent, a $4 billion hit to our economy.
Today, though, thanks to Congressman Meeks, House Democrats, and Republicans who are willing to stand up, Congress can take back its power. We can give the American people real relief today. The families sitting around their kitchen tables tonight deserve a government that will lower their costs and that will end these Trump tariff taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
I thank Ranking Member Meeks for his great leadership on this critical issue.
It is time to end Trump's illegal tariffs on Canada, his tariffs on United States' biggest trading partner, Mexico, and the so-called liberation day tariffs. Congress has the power of the purse, not the President. It is time that we take our power back from an executive who is out of control.
Trump's tariffs have been a massive tax on the American people, costing an average household $1,000 per household just in the last year. These tariffs have led to slower job growth, a declining manufacturing industry, and less investment. They have hurt our farmers and increased food costs.
These tariffs have inflicted real damage on our relationship with Canada. Canada isn't just our neighbor. It has historically been one of our strongest military allies and biggest trading partners. Trump's constant insults, threats, and these punishing tariffs have turned one of our best friends away from us and toward the People's Republic of China.
Enough is enough. It is time that we end this. I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, send Trump a clear message that he can't unilaterally wage a trade war against one of our strongest allies and biggest trading partners.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
The American people are watching. This is very simple. Why did we take a year to get this vote? It is because Trump's tariffs are unpopular--the majority of Americans know it--and a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to be on the record. Well, they are going to be on the record.
They know that more than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of these tariffs. They know that the foreign governments don't pay these tariffs. They know that American families do. The farmers feel it. Small businesses feel it. Moms and dads feel it every time they see the prices at the grocery store.
What this is, we can go back and forth, but the American people are watching. They are the ultimate judges. They can see. They can hear. They know our friend. They know how Canada and Canadians are friendly to us in the United States of America, closest partners. Many Canadians have given their lives for us.
The American people can watch. What this simply does, this resolution, we will see. If you think that there is a crisis with Canada, then vote.
Still, the Constitution says it is the House of Representatives and the United States Congress, it is within our authority. Don't punt. Don't just hide behind somebody else. That is what this will do. If you believe that this is an emergency, vote that way, if that is what you really believe.
However, if you go to the grocery stores, if you see the price of beef, if you look at the price of coffee, if you feel that the economy is suffering as a result of these tariffs, if you think the economy for the average, everyday American is as good as those billionaire friends that the President has, then you vote with the President.
Give up, but don't give up your authority as a Member of this House to vote. The first fight here was the power to vote on this issue, which was blocked for 1 year. I choose not to give up that power. Whether I agree or disagree, I want to vote on it. That was prevented for over a year.
Today, we will vote on it. I thank some of my colleagues on the other side who have had the courage to stand up and say: Let's vote. Let's vote on this, and let the American people know how we stand. Let's vote on this to see if we believe that tariffs cause an affordability issue. Let's vote on this if we believe that Canada is not our friend, if Canada is an adversary, and you feel we should block a bridge like the President is talking about now, a bridge that Canadians paid for right across, block it, make them the 51st State, and insult them. If that is what you want to do, do it.
If you want to stand to bring down prices, if you want the average, everyday American to be able to raise their children and live the American Dream, if you want to make sure that families can afford to pay their rent, can afford to buy food, can afford to have healthcare, then you vote ``yes'' for this resolution.
The jury is really the American people. They ultimately will vote. They ultimately will tell us what is in their best interests. I have confidence in the American people. That is why I wanted a vote on this bill.
I didn't want to play the funny rules that were being played and were attempted last night. Fortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side did not want to play that game anymore either.
Those rules and those games that were played to prevent a vote on the floor in the United States Congress are over. That is what this is about, so the American people can see what we stand for. Do we stand for just going blindly with the President of the United States, or do we stand for the American people and making sure that their cost of living is cheaper and affordable so they can simply send their kids to school and be able to put a good meal on the table and a roof over the heads of their families? That is what this vote is about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. My colleague over here is the ranking member, the top Democrat. It is important that when we use our voice, when we speak, we speak accurately.
Number one, they refuse to speak about the fact that this bill is about ending an emergency relating to a fentanyl crisis. Number two, every single item that they like to talk about on tariffs and Canada are literally items that are exempt from tariffs in Canada.
It is very important, certainly as one of 435 in the House of Representatives, that you know what you are talking about. It is especially important as the number two person on the Foreign Affairs Committee that you know what you are talking about when you talk about tariffs.
There are not Canada beef tariffs, not Canada potash tariffs or dairy or food or grain or fertilizer. The list goes on and on. They mentioned coffee I don't know how many times.
The only things that there are tariffs on are things that are coming in from third-party countries into Canada and then coming into the United States of America. If it is grown in Canada, there is not a tariff on it. It is very important that my colleagues know that and recognize that and speak accurately in the positions that they are in.
Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what this is about.
My colleagues say there is no emergency. In fact, my colleague Mr. Meeks said that if you think there is a crisis, if you think this is an emergency, then vote. Those were his words.
I think the only person on that side who might be able to change the mind of Democrats is my colleague, Mr. Meeks, who is, again, unwilling to acknowledge that the death of 5,000 people in his State from fentanyl alone in 1 year is an emergency. He is unwilling to acknowledge it.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the remainder of my time here, about 1 minute, and give my colleague the opportunity one last time to correct the record for his New Yorkers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths are an emergency? Five thousand deaths in his State in 1 year from fentanyl-- preventable. The President is doing everything he can to stop it with drug boats, with the Caribbean, with the northern border, with the southern border. Crickets. You could hear a pin drop in here. Not a word from them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of February 10, 2026, 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 noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call up the bill (H.R. 261) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency, 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
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 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 261.
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 strong support of H.R. 261 sponsored by Congressman Buddy Carter of Georgia.
Undersea cables play a crucial role in the global economy. These cables are roughly 1 to 2 inches in diameter. Yet they crisscross the globe and carry approximately 95 percent of global internet traffic, facilitating trillions of dollars in global financial transactions.
The Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act as a condition to route these projects through a national marine sanctuary.
Undersea cables are and will continue to be subject to numerous environmental statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. These are just statutes in the Committee on Natural Resources' jurisdiction.
Many of these laws are implemented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. We will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that this bill hinders NOAA's ability to conduct an environmental review of these projects. That is simply not true.
What is true, however, is that the specific use permit, which under current law only lasts 5 years, has caused national marine sanctuaries to effectively become no-go zones for undersea cables. This means reduced routes of diversity, consolidation of cable landing zones, and an increased threat to our national security.
Notably, this dynamic does not just cause stress on the physical infrastructure of these projects. Many of us are aware of the stories from around the world of undersea cables being severed with recent examples of this occurring in both Taiwan and the Baltic.
In the United States, as these cables have a limited number of landing areas, our adversaries would have the ability to cut off an increasing portion of communications, internet activity, and financial transactions by attacking just a few points.
Combine this looming threat with the increasing number of cables required in the coming years to keep pace with demand, and their growing role as critical infrastructure in our daily lives, and failure to support the continued development of these projects could pose a grave national security risk.
Removing the requirement for a special use permit advances the objectives of House Republicans and the administration to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage American competitiveness, an objective that President Trump emphasized when he signed Executive Order 14267, Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers.
Advancing this legislation will allow for the deployment of undersea cables while providing appropriate protection of our marine resources. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have figured out the rhythm, the prime directive here for Republican governance these days.
First, they slashed the services that working families actually depend on. Then they turn around and hand the savings over to their billionaire friends. They do it time and again. It is rinse, lather, repeat.
What do we have on the floor this week? We have all guessed it. It is another corporate handout, this time to the biggest technical oligarchs in the world. These folks have shown that if a person has enough money and if they are willing to bend the knee, they can pretty much get anything they want these days under MAGA Republican governance.
Every time we have tried to add protections and regulations to their platforms that would keep users and children safe, they stop it. Every time we try to do something about the disinformation they allow to run rampant in order to appease the White House and cater to extremists, they stop it.
Now they have schmoozed their way into getting Republicans to add another huge giveaway to this long, favored list of theirs. That means millions of dollars in savings so that they can run cables through our national marine sanctuaries for free.
I have to ask: What is the endgame here? Where does it stop? Are we systematically privatizing every piece of America's national heritage for the richest and most powerful corporations in the world? That is exactly where H.R. 261 seems to be taking us.
It rigs the game so that, for example, family fishing operations, dive boat captains, whale watching guides, and the other businesses that operate in marine sanctuaries have to navigate regulations. They have to play by the rules and pay fees but not the Big Tech oligarchs. These conglomerates, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, get special treatment and exemptions.
Our national marine sanctuaries encompass over half a million square miles of America's most precious underwater ecosystems. They are economic engines generating billions in tourism revenue, sustaining entire coastal economies. They are living laboratories also where families snorkel with sea turtles, divers explore historic shipwrecks, and scientists unlock climate secrets.
This legislation would let tech moguls bulldoze right through these
The sponsors insist that these undersea cables are just little needles in a haystack, and they will probably hold up a little segment of one of these cables to try to suggest these are just needles in a haystack. It is true that the fiber-optic lines themselves are thin, but the installation process is anything but delicate.
We are talking about seafloor excavation projects that can obliterate coral reefs and hurt marine mammals across vast swaths of the ocean. What could go wrong when these projects are happening on the seafloor?
We can look at what Meta tried to do off the Pacific Northwest coast. Their drilling operation collapsed, scattering pipes, toxic fluids, and heavy equipment across the seafloor like an underwater junkyard. Then the company just wrote a tiny check and left town. It was nowhere near the cost of the actual damage that was incurred, and the marine habitat there is still trashed.
My district is home to one of our Nation's iconic marine sanctuaries. I can say without hesitation that my constituents don't want to see these industrial activities rip through our sensitive kelp forests that support fisheries and tourism. No project in these places should happen without very careful study, without mitigation and, most importantly, without paying their fair share.
This bill would let tech executives treat these national treasures off our coasts like some kind of an industrial sacrifice zone without even paying a cent for the use of these resources.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act is the only statute requiring compatibility with the conservation objectives of each sanctuary. If we strip that away, as this bill would do, we have created a regulatory sacrifice zone.
House Republicans can't even identify which licenses and permits would qualify in this bill in lieu of the special use permit process that would ordinarily apply.
Mr. Speaker, how can we look the American people in the eye and assure them that no environmental safeguards are going away when we don't even have that very basic information? For many in the majority, the truth is, the details just don't matter.
Meta and Amazon are what matter, and they want this legislation. The majority is willing to take it at face value and just pass this along, no questions asked. They will give the oligarchs what they want.
Democrats have proposed amendments to this legislation, commonsense protections. They have proposed a mandatory insurance coverage requirement, for example. They have also offered off-limits zones for very sensitive habitats and standard user fees like these oligarchs pay when they run one of these on land.
Our amendment would have allowed the basics of H.R. 261 to move forward, allowing an alternate process to the current special use permit, while preserving some of these basic operational guardrails to ensure the protection of these very special and fragile places.
The majority shot down every one of these proposals. This is not about efficiency. It is about preferential treatment for oligarchs like Meta and Amazon.
Consider this: When telecom companies want to access our national forests for one of these projects, they pay rent. When they cross national parks, they pay fees, but somehow marine sanctuaries are supposed to be free. That is nothing more than a corporate giveaway and a terrible precedent that won't stop with our marine sanctuaries.
The sponsors wrapped this handout in national security rhetoric. We have already heard some of it from the chairman. They claim that there is an urgent telecommunications crisis.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that these are multibillion- dollar projects spanning years and thousands of miles. They make their maps public. Everyone knows where these projects are taking place. The cost of environmental assessments is pocket change for these operations, but it could mean the difference between healthy habitats and destroyed resources in our national marine sanctuaries.
Here is what really stinks about this bill: While working American families are facing an affordability crisis, our Republican friends prioritize special favors like this for the wealthiest corporations on the planet. These are companies that could easily afford to just follow the rules and just pay a fair market rate for access to these places.
This sets a terrible precedent. We are witnessing the wholesale commercialization of America's natural inheritance, one sweetheart deal at a time. Today, it is cables and sanctuaries. Tomorrow, it will be mining in a national monument. Next week, it will be drilling in national seashores. Where does this corporate favoritism end?
If my colleagues want to modernize telecommunications, we can do that the right way. Let's invest in broadband infrastructure. Let's address transmission issues. We can incentivize clean, local, renewable energy. We can end President Trump's crazy war on clean energy.
Sure, maybe we can have a few fiber optic cables running through marine sanctuaries, but let's do it through proper analysis and siting. Let's be careful in these very special places. We don't need this bill to enable any of these shared objectives to move forward. Let us not create sacrifice zones in America's national marine sanctuaries.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless corporate giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we understand exactly what is going on here. If you look at this map, this is an example along the California coast. These pink areas are national marine sanctuaries. You have this one zone down here by Morro Bay and Grover Beach, where cables can actually leave the shore. You can see the concentration of all of the existing cables in this area.
Mr. Speaker, it is possible to put a cable across a marine sanctuary right now. There was a law or a rule passed in 2002, I believe, that set up this special use permit. The problem is that it gave a 5-year special use permit, and these are 25-year-plus projects when you put one of these cables in.
Mr. Speaker, NOAA had the assignment to come up with what the lease cost would be to put these cables across a marine sanctuary. In all of NOAA's infinite wisdom, they came up with a price tag of $40,000 to $100,000 per mile, subject to inflation.
Nobody has gotten one of these permits. Nobody has put a cable across because this rule by the Federal Government has disincentivized all of these companies from being able to run cables. It seems that the purpose of the rule in the first place was just to keep cables out of the marine sanctuaries.
Mr. Speaker, if somebody were to put a cable through a marine sanctuary, they would still have to go through the NEPA process. They would have to go through the entire regulatory process to get a permit to put the cable across the sanctuary. It is not like you are throwing away all environmental oversight and all environmental guidelines to be able to bury one of these cables, or not bury but run it along the ocean floor.
Again, they are 1 inch to 2 inches in diameter. If you just looked at 1 mile at, say, 4 inches in diameter, that strip of land at a rate of $40,000 per mile would be the equivalent of a yearly rent of about $1 million per acre every year.
The whole rule and the law was stacked against doing anything, and that is exactly what has happened. We want to open this up where American companies can invest in American fiber cables so that we can communicate across the ocean and we can get away from all of this consolidation in one area where it is easy to target.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the lead sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025.
Undersea fiber optic cables carry roughly 95 percent of all intercontinental internet traffic and nearly all transoceanic digital communications.
Trillions of dollars in financial transactions--trillions--global trade data, cloud computing, and secure government communications depend on these cables every single day. They are critical infrastructure, just as essential as ports, as pipelines, and our power grids.
Yet despite their importance, the United States has allowed overregulation and duplicative permitting to stand in the way of deploying and maintaining this infrastructure, especially on the West Coast, where permitting delays and overlapping approvals have made it effectively impossible to lay new cables in certain areas for decades. The chairman just described what we are talking about here.
These projects weren't stopped because they failed environmental review. They were stopped because of bureaucracy. That is the problem that H.R. 261 is designed to fix. Today, even when an undersea cable project has already received full authorization from a Federal or State agency, it can still be forced through an additional duplicate permitting process with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.
That extra layer adds years of delay, drives up costs, and discourages investment without providing meaningful environmental protection. H.R. 261 clarifies that once a project has been lawfully approved at the State and Federal levels, it should not be required to obtain an additional permit for the same activity.
Let me be clear. This bill does not weaken environmental protections. All existing environmental laws, reviews, and interagency coordination requirements remain fully intact. This is about eliminating redundancy, not eliminating oversight.
This matters for States like Georgia. Georgia's economy depends on global connectivity from the Port of Savannah and our logistics and supply chain networks, to manufacturing defense contractors, data centers, and a growing technology sector. Reliable undersea cable infrastructure supports jobs. It supports trade and economic growth across the country.
There is also a serious national security component to this. Undersea cables carry sensitive government and military communications. Delays in installing, repairing, or maintaining this infrastructure create real vulnerability to our national security. Even today, our adversaries, like China, are actively targeting global communication networks, especially cutting undersea cables that connect us to our allies, like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
Secure, resilient connectivity is not optional. It is a strategic necessity. H.R. 261 is a solution that offers a balanced, commonsense solution. It cuts unnecessary red tape. It preserves environmental safeguards. It strengthens our economy. Most importantly, it protects America's national security.
I implore this Congress to pass this legislation to secure America's technological dominance and fortify our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 261.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich to suggest that if this became law, we would lose no environmental protections. This bill eliminates the special use permit, under which the folks who protect our national marine sanctuaries make sure that there is proper siting, proper environmental review, proper mitigation, and proper accountability for when things go wrong, and things do go wrong.
The one example I can hold out is in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary because that is something that went through the special use permit process. It was for one of these undersea cable landings. Things got very complicated.
Thankfully, the National Park Service was able to charge market rent for the rights to go through this area, and it turns out that that was a good thing because there were all sorts of complications. In fact, there are still all types of ongoing repair and monitoring areas where things weren't installed properly and where there was all sorts of damage that wasn't foreseen on the front end.
Having that fair market value paid in the first place and then retained by the Federal agency that may need to follow up and make sure that these special places are protected is very important.
Mr. Westerman has suggested that the existing special use permit sets a fair market value that is just so prohibitive that none of these landings will ever happen in marine sanctuaries. The estimates from lobbyists are that without this bill, two 20-mile segments through a California sanctuary would cost these huge tech companies between $2.8 million and $7 million per year.
To put that in perspective, in the time that we have been arguing, these companies have made more than that. This is pocket change to these companies. They can afford to pay fair market value in order to go through our national marine sanctuaries.
As Mr. Westerman I am sure would not disagree, if they were proposing to run these things through a national park in Hot Springs, Arkansas, for example, it is a good thing they would have to get a special permit to do that, that they would have to pay fair market value, and that the funds they pay would be available to that unit of the National Park System to make sure things were done right and to make sure that there was accountability and mitigation going forward. We are just asking for the same thing for our national marine sanctuaries.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act.
Undersea cables are the backbone of our modern economy. These cables are no bigger than a garden hose but support over $10 trillion in international commerce on a daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, you would think that this clear significance would prompt us to make sure that it is easy to build these things, but no. The United States is one of the most difficult countries in the world to lay and operate undersea cables. This is a national security liability.
There is simply no reason to require a special use permit for an undersea cable because there is absolutely zero--and I say ``zero''-- environmental impact.
It is time for Congress to pay more attention to the critical infrastructure that surrounds us in this country. That is why I introduced the NEPTUNE Act, to make sure that the Navy maintains its undersea cable laying and repair capabilities. That is why I intend to vote for this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Buddy Carter from the Committee on Natural Resources for leading this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in firm opposition to H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025.
On its face, this legislation may seem like a narrow procedural change of streamlining permitting for undersea fiber-optic cables. In reality, it strips away critical environmental and economic safeguards that we and the communities we represent depend on to help power our Nation's blue economy.
We know that four of the five national marine sanctuaries in California generate more than $114 million a year and support over 1,800 jobs in commercial fishing alone.
H.R. 261 is a giveaway to megacorporations at the expense of the American taxpayer, the oceans, and the Great Lakes we have advocated to protect.
Some of the marine sanctuaries most at risk because of this legislation are iconic spots off the coast of California: Monterey Bay, Channel Islands, and the newly created Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, a sanctuary that was decades in the making. First nominated by the Northern Chumash Tribal Council in 2015, the sanctuary became effective on November 30, 2024, after review by Congress and the State of California.
Through this legislation, my constituents and the Chumash Heritage
I and many others here today believe we need secure and reliable telecommunications infrastructure. I understand that the 5-year time limits on permits cause concern for companies looking for long-term certainty. However, I firmly believe that we can find a solution that protects these sanctuary resources and treats all stakeholders fairly.
We can find a win-win solution that supports innovation, continues to support our local economies, and ensures that the American taxpayer gets a fair return for use of our natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, that is why, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment is straightforward: Allow tech companies to have their alternative permitting pathway in sanctuaries but add in a few commonsense guardrails.
First, allow an alternative license or permit, but require that the project be compatible with the purpose of the sanctuary. That means protecting the sensitive areas of the seafloor and avoiding cultural and historic sites.
Second, require public comment as is currently the practice with special use permits.
Third, require these companies to carry liability insurance for the project. We don't want to see another disaster like we saw off the coast of Oregon, a Meta subsidiary dumping drilling fluid and drilling equipment on the seafloor, then leaving the taxpayers on the hook to clean up the mess. Yes, did I say taxpayers? Yes, they are the ones who paid.
Finally, my amendment would maintain the status quo and allow NOAA to collect a fair market fee for the use of these sanctuary resources, just like any other public land management agency does for cables that cross their protected lands.
These are all standard provisions for the use of public resources, and I hope we can bring back a little bit of common sense to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recomit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the article featured behind me found that adversaries like Russia and China are taking disruptive action against undersea cables on a more frequent basis around the world. Here is an article just from yesterday talking about a Chinese cargo ship captain who has been charged with severing a natural gas pipeline and a communication cable in the Baltic Sea.
If we stick to the status quo, we are leaving ourselves more vulnerable to similar threats at our doorstep. Our adversaries are taking an increasingly aggressive posture in targeting critical infrastructure.
Congressman Carter's legislation promotes route diversity, reduces threats to global communication systems, and ensures that the United States wins this global technology race. That is why it is important that we pass this legislation and that we give companies the certainty that they can build these communication lines and diversify where they are locating them so that we can protect our economic security and also our national security.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very selective concern about national security, apparently, because right now, every one of these landings has a publicly available map. The whole world knows where everything is. If my friends were concerned about the national security exposure that that presents, you would think we would be working on some way to make that less of a publicly obvious piece of information. No, we are not hearing about that. We are hearing it raised as a bit of a pretext here to try to run these projects through national marine sanctuaries rent- free and environmental review-free. One of the speakers across the aisle actually said a few moments ago that there is no need for a special use permit, that it is ridiculous to require one because there is no environmental impact to these projects.
We have heard about what happened off the Oregon coast. Certainly, the people of the Oregon coast would differ mightily with the notion that there is no environmental impact. They are still cleaning up the mess, and taxpayers ultimately had to do it.
We also have the example from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary that I referred to earlier. This, of course, is a tough place to work on the seafloor. It is mud. It is sensitive habitat. Fishermen are active in the area. There are national security assets there. There is the Northwest Training and Testing Range, so it is a complicated place to do a project like this.
It is a good thing that NOAA was able to charge market fees when they approved a special use permit that took into account all of these complexities, because those fees ended up being very necessary.
This project had huge issues over the last 25 years. The sea plow that was used to trench across the sanctuary left a 3-meter wide gash across the sea floor that is still recovering. Tell me about no environmental impacts.
The installation company never did post-project monitoring. They left the project without checking that the cables were even buried to the correct depths. NOAA had to come back in with submersible equipment to monitor the cables. It is a good thing they had the resources to do that from those market fees because they found numerous locations where the cable was exposed, floating above the sea floor, putting the fiberoptic infrastructure itself at risk--if we care about national security and telecommunications integrity--and posing a danger to other sanctuary users and their gear. A fishing boat, for example, could have easily gotten snagged on some of these exposed, loose cables, taking down the entire network, destroying equipment, that a small business fishermen had invested in.
To this day the fiberoptic company has to enter that sanctuary regularly in order to repair and rebury the cables that were improperly installed. All of this would have been an even greater mess had this bill been law at the time, had NOAA been unable to put some conditions and some guardrails into the special use permit, had NOAA been unable to charge that fair market fee that has enabled it to follow up and clean up some of this mess.
That is what at risk if we pass a thoughtless corporate giveaway like this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This legislation before us today accomplishes two objectives:
First, it eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit for operating within national marine sanctuaries. Again, undersea cable projects would still need to undergo review under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. None of that permitting is waived in this bill, and I would dare say anybody wanting to run one of these cables would say they are getting to do it and to avoid all environmental laws and protections. I don't think people running these cables want to do that.
Second, it removes the 5-year timeline for any special use permit
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Carter for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, 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.
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. 3617) to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, and for other purposes, offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), 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 214, nays 215, not voting 3, as follows:
Messrs. CRENSHAW, PATRONIS, FINE, WILSON of South Carolina, Ms. BOEBERT, Messrs. ISSA, DUNN of Florida, BRESNAHAN, Mmes. HOUCHIN, MILLER-MEEKS, and Mr. HUIZENGA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. MFUME, CARSON, BELL, and KEATING 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.
Relating to a National Emergency by the President on February 1, 2025
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. 72) relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025, 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 219, nays 211, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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. 261) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), 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.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, nays 216, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, nays 212, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from prohibiting, or requiring any permit or other authorization for, the installation, continued presence, operation,
Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2025
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to commit on the bill (S. 1383) to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access, and for other purposes, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), 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 commit.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, nays 217, not voting 1, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the motion to commit 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.
Authorizing the Use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a Ceremony as Part of the Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 72, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 3370, PROTECT Firefighters Act, and H.R. 1742, Access to Reproductive Care for Servicemembers Act, bills originally introduced by Representative Sherrill of New Jersey, 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 gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the newly appointed Georgia State and Superior Court judges. These judges are all accomplished attorneys and legal professionals who are stepping into vital roles within Georgia's judicial system.
Among those appointed is a native of Brunswick, Georgia, in my district, Steven Blackerby.
Mr. Blackerby, who was a partner at Brown Readdick, will now serve the Superior Court of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit. Mr. Blackerby earned his bachelor of arts in English from Emory University and his juris doctor with honors from the University of Georgia School of Law, where he served on the editorial board of the ``Journal of Intellectual Property Law.'' He was also a member of both the Federalist Society and the Student Bar Association.
Mr. Blackerby has devoted more than two decades of his career to a wide range of legal matters, with expertise in representing local governments and serving as city attorney for multiple municipalities.
Mr. Blackerby's experience is notable, and he will certainly excel in this new position.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the community service provided by the men and women of the Yonkers-East Yonkers Rotary Club. Every day, they live out their voluntary efforts of the Rotary Four-Plus-One Test, ensuring truth, fairness, good will, benefit, and fun in their activities under the banner of service above self.
Recently, the club raised needed funds for their community service projects, completing a 25-hour-plus marathon filibuster, assisting families in need.
The club is led by President Alan Gray, President-elect Anne Murphy, Vice President Jeffrey Landsman, Immediate Past President George John, and other key officers: Greg Arcaro, Christian Fassetta, Philippe Charles, Matt Koppe, Alix Schnee, and many more.
From the floor of the House of Representatives, we salute the Rotary Club of Yonkers-East Yonkers, and I wish them continued success in all of their good works.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Bailey Little, a 2023 Bellefonte High School graduate.
Bailey recently received an American degree from the Future Farmers of America. Bailey is the first Bellefonte FFA member in nearly two decades to receive an American degree. She has been an active FFA member since her freshman year.
The American degree is the highest FFA honor and is given to members for their dedication to their chapter, leadership, and community involvement.
To receive an American degree, members must receive their State FFA degree, be an active member of their chapter for at least 3 years, and take part in various agricultural education programs.
Bailey's FFA projects included raising beef cattle, dairy cows, goats, poultry, and rabbits. Along with raising livestock, Bailey is a small business owner, selling Western jewelry and clothing. Additionally, Bailey and her fiance raise beef cattle in Centre County.
Mr. Speaker, Bailey should be proud of her accomplishments, and it is a great example for FFA members in our community. I congratulate Bailey on receiving the American degree.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the House just voted on the SAVE America Act, which will make it harder for tens of millions of Americans to vote, not noncitizens. Noncitizens can't vote. They can't register to vote. If they do, they will be deported.
American citizens are being denied their right to vote by requiring, in this bill, all kinds of paperwork to register, all kinds of paperwork to vote.
Three examples: For married women, there are 70 million women with an ID that does not match their birth certificate. It will be harder for them to register to vote. Seniors, especially those who have been voting by mail, it will be harder for them to vote. College students and those who serve our country abroad would have to come home in order to register to vote.
This is a terrible, un-American, undemocratic, honestly insane bill that the Senate should not take up.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sarah Root and express the relief of our community that justice has been delivered to her killer.
In 2016, 21-year-old Sarah Root was driving home from her graduation when an illegal immigrant, who was drunk, driving at three times the legal limit, struck and killed her. Her killer posted bail and vanished from the country, leaving Sarah's family without answers for nearly 10 years.
Sarah should be 31 today. In her memory, I fought to pass Sarah's Law, included in the first bill signed by President Trump.
Her bill is now law, and on February 3, justice finally came for her killer. He was extradited, convicted, and sentenced to more than 20 years in prison.
As a father of two girls, I cannot fathom the pain Michelle and Scott have endured the past 10 years. Sarah's Law is a promise to them and every American family that we will not ignore these tragedies, and we will act to prevent them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great gratitude for my chief of staff, Bradley Solyan, who is departing my office after 12 years of extraordinary service to the people of Palm Beach County and our country.
Brad really has quite a story. He came to Washington having been a teacher in south Florida, and then he joined my office as an intern. He became the legislative correspondent, policy adviser, legislative director, and, ultimately, chief of staff--what a role model for perseverance and dedication.
He has led with vision, patience, and a steady hand. No matter the challenge, he has always been calm, with clarity and focus. Best of all, he comes to the office every day with a very big smile, and he lifts us all.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to miss Brad dearly. I wish him great success, and I ask everybody to join me in wishing Brad great success on his new journey.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Yvonne Fedderson, cofounder of Childhelp, a national organization dedicated to the prevention and treatment of child abuse.
Yvonne lived an amazing, divinely inspired life.
In 1959, Yvonne was in her mid-twenties and in the midst of a successful acting career. She and Sara O'Meara, who became a close friend and cofounder of Childhelp, were on a USO tour in Japan when they found 11 Japanese-American orphans kicked out of their orphanage. Yvonne and Sara responded, finding them shelter and long-term care.
What started as an effort to help these 11 children turned into a lifelong calling. Yvonne and Sara went on to open orphanages in Japan and Vietnam, saving tens of thousands of children.
In the mid-1970s, at the behest of Nancy Reagan, they opened their first iteration of Childhelp in California. They have since created a nationwide network of assistance, including a 24/7 hotline, treatment centers, abuse prevention programs, and awareness campaigns. We are honored that they chose to headquarter Childhelp in Arizona.
On January 23 of this year, at the age of 90, God called Yvonne home. I count it as a tremendous blessing to have known Yvonne and witnessed the profound impact she had on the lives of our most vulnerable, on our community, our State, and our Nation. Her legacy will endure.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Howard Bennett, a Camden City, New Jersey, firefighter who tragically lost his life on the job last week.
He served his community for 26 years, and he will forever be remembered as husband to Fran, father to David and Jenna, a brother, a friend, and a protector.
When it came to the fire boat, Howard's knowledge was second to none. He treated it like an extension of himself, ensuring that it was always ready for action.
His fellow firefighters will remember him for his resourcefulness. When others thought something couldn't be fixed, Howard found a way to make it work.
He was a trusted mentor to young firefighters, always willing to help, simply because that is who he was.
Firefighter Howard Bennett served with integrity, humility, and heart. Today, I honor his service and extend my deepest condolences to his loved ones. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Housing for the 21st Century Act, introduced by Chairman Hill and Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance Chairman Flood, which passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Housing affordability is a supply problem, and for too long, Federal policy has made it slow and expensive to build new homes.
President Trump and Secretary Scott Turner advanced housing reforms that
This legislation builds on that progress by removing Federal barriers so homes can be built faster and economically at scale without new Federal spending.
Today, it can cost over $100,000 before a shovel ever hits the dirt to build a new home, and builders often cannot build a home for less than $250,000. This bill modernizes housing laws, improves coordination between HUD and USDA, expands manufactured housing in rural communities, reduces barriers for veterans, and increases access to small-dollar mortgages.
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the Black Chamber of Commerce of Summit County and cofounders Robert DeJournett and Misty Beasley as Ohio's 13th Congressional District Champions of the Week.
One year ago I had the honor of attending its kick-off event in Akron, and I was truly inspired to see so many people support this catalyst for change.
After an economic study was commissioned, it was determined that Akron's Black population, who represents nearly one-third of the region--yet, the report highlighted through the Elevate Akron report that there was purposeful, intentional, and systemic exclusion from economic growth and job opportunities for Black people in the region.
Left unaddressed, this gap has threatened innovation and prosperity not just for Black Akronites but for the entire region.
Mr. DeJournett and Ms. Beasley created the Black Chamber of Commerce of Summit County to reverse that trend, enabling Black businessowners to take their rightful place in the economic ecosystem with the right support, connections, and capital to allow Black businesses to survive and thrive.
In the first year, the chamber has counseled dozens of small businesses on finances and website development, helped them compete for natural resources, and connected local leaders to maximize growth.
Congratulations to Robert DeJournett, Misty Beasley, and the entire membership of the Black Chamber of Commerce of Summit County on a successful first year and being named the 13th Congressional District champion of the week.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the Seattle Seahawks Head Coach Mike Macdonald and NBC sportscaster Maria Taylor.
On Sunday, these two graduates from Centennial High School in Roswell, Georgia, which just happens to be in my district, became Super Bowl stars. Mike and Maria also attended the University of Georgia together where they began their respective careers as a football coach and a sports broadcaster.
On Sunday, Mike coached his team to a convincing 29-13 victory, and Maria made history as the first Black woman to ever host the Super Bowl postgame ceremony. These achievements are a testament to their hard work, character, and outstanding education they received at Centennial.
Congratulations to Mike and Maria, and I thank them for making Roswell proud. Go Knights and go Dawgs.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a profound sense of pride and a touch of sadness. After 13 years of service to this body as a chief of staff, Richard Kirk McPike is leaving my office.
Kirk has been the leader of my team since 2012, setting up the office, building LGBTQI+ political infrastructure, helping me earn the Veterans' Affairs' Committee gavel and so much more.
Kirk's proudest accomplishments are not counted in the bills passed or titles held. They are measured in the many people he has led and mentored, from interns to senior staffers. One of his greatest talents is knowing when to let go of great staff, understanding they sometimes need to grow beyond my office. Today, it is my time to do the same.
I will miss my friend Kirk. I will miss his counsel, but I know he will serve the Commonwealth of Virginia as a delegate with the same intelligence and decency he brought to this House. I wish him Godspeed and good luck.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sandra LaPointe, a seventh grade teacher at Westview Hills Middle School in Willowbrook, Illinois.
I recently had the pleasure of surprising Mrs. LaPointe during her social studies class to honor her with our constituent spotlight award. We started making these awards after the last election to try and uplift people who are bringing hope and joy and making us feel good about being Americans because, goodness knows, we need these voices right now.
There is not a person in this Chamber who doesn't owe a debt to the great teachers they had along the way who taught them things, but more importantly, who taught them how to learn, made them excited to learn, who challenged them to ask questions about the world because as James Baldwin said: No society progresses without those kind of teachers around them.
Mrs. LaPointe's nomination came from a former student who said: ``Mrs. LaPoint's class was the one I looked forward to the most each day. Her spunky personality always brought out the best in all of the students.''
From your students and from your Congressman: Thank you, Mrs. LaPointe. You make us all better.
Mr. Speaker, I rise during Black History Month to honor an extraordinary constituent, Mr. James R. Willis, a marine, an attorney, and a true Cleveland legend.
In 1944, Mr. Willis joined the Montford Point Marines, one of nearly 20,000 Black men who volunteered to serve immediately after President Roosevelt integrated the military.
Despite facing racism and segregation, he served his country honorably, and in 2011, the Montford Point Marines were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of their service.
After the war, Mr. Willis built a legal career that has left a lasting mark. For more than 70 years, Mr. Willis has practiced criminal law, becoming a legendary courtroom advocate, a national leader, and a mentor across generations.
He argued four cases before the Supreme Court on protections against unlawful search and seizure, helping to strengthen the rights of all Americans.
Even today, at the age of 100, he continues his lifework. On behalf of a grateful district, I thank Mr. Willis for a lifetime of courage, service, and dedication to justice.
Mr. Speaker, during Black History Month, we honor leaders who shaped our country, and I rise today to recognize extraordinary Black leaders from west Michigan, whose impacts continue to guide our community.
Ingrid Scott-Weekly transformed Grand Rapids by expanding equal opportunity in city government and helping build institutions that still protect fairness and inclusion today.
Reuben Smartt, one of the first African Americans to serve in the United States Marine Corps, went on to dedicate his life to mentoring young people as an educator, coach, and community leader.
Dr. Faite Mack broke barriers as a founding faculty member at Grand Valley State University, shaping generations of educators and extending his work globally to ensure children have access to education.
Roger Wilkins, a civil rights leader and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, led national conversations on justice and equality at the highest levels of government and media.
Helen Claytor advanced civil rights and opportunity for women and families helping establish institutions that continue to promote equity in Grand Rapids and beyond.
These leaders remind us that progress is driven by those willing to serve, to teach, and to lead. Their legacy lives on in west Michigan and across our great Nation. I am proud to honor these contributions during Black History Month.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that right now the housing crisis is real for so many of our families across the country, and I know many of us in this Chamber, especially those on the left, have always said housing is a human right.
To address this crisis, we know that we need action at every level of government, but many local communities need additional assistance and capacity. That is why I am so incredibly grateful that the House passed the Housing Our Communities Act, part of the Housing for the 21st Century Act legislative package.
The Housing Our Communities Act directs the HUD Secretary to establish a competitive grant program to support a wide range of affordable housing planning and implementation activities.
For example, grants can support officials in crafting their housing plans, updating their zoning codes, or increasing capacity to conduct housing inspections so that new developments are completed faster and much more efficiently.
This bill provides civil servants and policymakers with the support they need to make affordable housing a reality for so many of our communities.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation immediately and begin to address the housing crisis that is devastating our country.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the 40th anniversary of the Saka Nakodar massacre where four unarmed Sikh students, Ravinder Singh, Jhilman Singh, Harminder Singh, and Baldhir Singh Multani, were shot and killed while peacefully protesting the desecration of the sacred Scripture of Sikhs.
The killing, which took place in the Punjab region of India on February 4, 1986, was absolutely abhorrent, but the investigation was definitely deplorable.
The victims' bodies were disposed of in secret. No perpetrator was ever brought to justice, and reports, commissions, and other inquiries on the massacre received absolutely no action.
The Saka Nakodar massacre continues to be a dark day for Sikhs in Punjab but also for Sikhs right here in America.
That is why I recognize the Saka Nakodar massacre and the justice that awaits not just for the four students and their families but for the Sikh communities at home and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of a son of eastern North Carolina, Aron Johnson. At just 30 years old, Aron was more than an organizer. He was a bridge builder who believed that our rural communities deserved a seat at every table.
He was a dreamer of big dreams and a fighter of hard fights who proved that we don't need a long life to make a big difference. While he left us far too soon, his legacy of empowerment lives on in many communities across our State.
My heartfelt condolences go out to his mother, Mary, and his family as we celebrate a young leader who gave his all to so many.
Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to join colleagues from both sides of the aisle this week in the House vote that was overwhelming in bipartisan fashion to end the damaging Trump tariff regime on Canada. The Senate had already taken the same action three times before the House measure was even brought up.
Canada is our neighbor, our ally, and our friend. They have fought at our side in every war for nearly two centuries.
Our Great Lakes region and its economy is the third largest in the world. It is like no other with its industrial and agricultural bounty, blessed for generations by the largest body of freshwater on Earth. Ours is the longest U.S. coastline with numerous ports, energy resources, cultural endowments, and unrivaled natural beauty.
The American and Canadian economies are totally intertwined. Robust supply chains on both sides of our northern border make, grow, and transport everything from autos to lumber to soil to energy to food and even to hockey teams.
This damaging trade war with Canada has caused prices to rise, led to more job losses, disrupted trade, and caused tourism to drop 31 percent. These are no victories.
Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that I voted to end this upside-down trade mess today. Let's strengthen our economy and make life affordable again.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my good friend, former Fort Worth city council member and mayor pro tem, Gyna Bivens, who was a beloved member of our community who lost her life on February 9 at the age of 71 to pancreatic cancer.
Gyna was born in Fort Worth, and she was a proud graduate of Dunbar High School and later went on to graduate from the University of North Texas. She majored in journalism and communications and did an amazing job.
Before she was on the city council, she had a background on some of our local radio stations and television stations. A lot of people in the community proudly remember her from Soul730 KKDA-AM. She will also be known for that amazing voice that she had.
Then God gave her a calling, and she decided that she wanted to be in politics. She ran for our city council, and she served with distinction from 2013 until 2025. She fought for housing. I know that she was very proud of her work along East Rosedale with Cavile Place and Hughes House. She worked very hard to make sure that we received funding for that. She also worked very hard in transportation and made lots of great improvements along a major corridor in District 5 which was along Lancaster Avenue.
She was a woman of deep, deep faith. Her father was a very prominent minister in the Fort Worth area.
Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to pray for her family. Her mom, her sisters, and her brother are still with us. Gyna is always going to be known for her hard work and just everything that she has done throughout her career and her brave battle against cancer.
We are going to keep that family lifted up in prayer. We will always remember Gyna for the amazing achievements that she made while she was here on Earth.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary southern Arizonan, Rose Taulton, recently named Volunteer of the Year by Southern Arizona Volunteer Management Association.
Rose is truly the heart of volunteerism in Tucson. In 2025 alone, she logged more than 1,000 hours of service, positively impacting over 5,000 people across our community.
There are few people I see more often at community events than Rose. Whether it is helping organize the annual Tucson Juneteenth Festival or volunteering at a neighborhood food bank, she is always there, quietly, consistently, and with joy.
From mentoring youth and distributing books to supporting families facing food insecurity, Rose shows up, not for recognition but because she believes in the power of community.
Southern Arizona is stronger because of people like Rose. Her determination, compassion, and service embody the very best of us.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Rose for everything she does for Tucson. We are grateful beyond words. I congratulate her on her new grandbaby.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true son of the Bronx and a shining example of the American Dream: Mr. Haji Dukuray.
In 1988, Haji arrived from The Gambia with little more than hope and determination. He built a life rooted in faith, family, and unwavering service. A devoted husband, father of four, proud grandfather, and tireless community advocate, he has served in leadership at the Bronx Islamic Cultural Center and dedicated decades to lifting others up. For him, serving the community has always been a sacred moral obligation.
Then came unimaginable tragedy. In January of 2022, the Twin Parks North West fire stole 17 lives, including five cherished members of Haji's own family. Yet in his darkest hour, Haji chose hope over despair. He united grieving families, clergy, and leaders to seek justice and foster healing.
Haji Dukuray embodies resilience. His life teaches us that even amid profound loss, community and service can mend broken hearts and strengthen us all.
The Bronx is stronger because of him. I thank Haji for his service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Cheryl Marie DeWitt, known to all as Ms. Dee, a true Bronx treasure and champion of our children.
Born to a young, single mother and raised by loving foster parents, Ms. Dee learned early that caring adults can change a child's life forever. Inspired by that gift, she has dedicated her life to giving the same opportunity to others.
For more than 20 years, as executive director of the Williamsbridge NAACP Early Childhood Education Center, she has provided nurturing, high-quality care to Bronx families facing hardship, never wavering through every challenge.
A proud CSA member since 1994 and the Bronx borough chair for center- based directors, plus an active leader in the NAACP Williamsbridge branch, Ms. Dee fights tirelessly for early education, equity, and community strength.
Ms. Dee shows us that service starts with compassion. Her life proves the love we receive can become the love we give. I thank Ms. Dee. May her work continue shaping brighter futures for generations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Dr. Johnnie Ruth Goff, a tireless educator, visionary leader, and true pillar of the North Bronx community.
Born in Georgetown, South Carolina, Dr. Goff poured more than three decades of her life into our public schools as a teacher and administrator. She lived the conviction that education unlocks opportunity for every child, regardless of their ZIP Code or circumstance.
Beyond the classroom, her legacy shines through innovative programs like ``Feed the Body, Feed the Mind,'' launched in 1998. With her beloved Food Ranger character, she taught generations that good nutrition fuels sharp minds and stronger futures.
As founder of the JADE Multi Family Circle Center and a dedicated activist, she created internships, mentoring, tutoring, and service opportunities that opened doors for our youth. Guided by faith and compassion, she turned concern into action, supporting families, serving on boards, and building solutions where others saw only challenges.
Dr. Goff reminds us that one person's unwavering dedication can transform a community and inspire generations.
I thank Dr. Johnnie Ruth Goff for her extraordinary service and enduring legacy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true champion of the Bronx, Nilka Martell.
A proud Puerto Rican daughter of our borough, Nilka turned her lifelong love for her community into action. Since 2011, as founder and director of Loving The Bronx, she has built a powerful grassroots movement that puts residents at the heart of the fight for justice-- social, environmental, and economic.
She chairs the Bronx River Alliance, leads Friends of Pelham Bay Park, and serves on the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality, always amplifying local voices in decisions that determine our air, our parks, and our health.
Nilka delivers real wins: Securing over $10 million to rebuild Virginia Park and Hugh J. Grant Circle, and boldly leading the charge to cap the Cross Bronx Expressway--reducing deadly pollution, healing neighborhoods divided by Robert Moses, and creating new green spaces for our children.
Nilka Martell shows us what is possible when community leadership meets unwavering determination. She is building a healthier, more connected, more just Bronx for all of us. I thank Nilka.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a true pillar of the Northwest Bronx, Bob Bender.
For more than 20 years, Bob has served with unwavering dedication on Community Board 8. For 13 of those years, he chaired the Parks Committee, turning vision into action. In 2007, when veterans raised the alarm about the crumbling Memorial Grove in Van Cortlandt Park, Bob didn't hesitate. He secured the grant, rallied support, and restored it as a dignified place of remembrance.
But his work went deeper. He brought naturalists and schoolchildren together to study and safeguard the park's natural treasures. He championed the forgotten history of enslaved people who once labored on the Van Cortlandt estate, ensuring their story is now permanently honored and displayed in the Van Cortlandt Museum for generations to learn from.
Long before the board, Bob was always giving back--feeding and clothing the homeless, coaching Little League, showing up when the community needed him most. Today, he still volunteers in the park, week after week, and fights tirelessly for a Hudson River greenway.
A proud Bronx native, devoted husband, and loving father, Bob Bender reminds us that our borough is built and sustained by people who never stop giving. I thank Bob.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate a remarkable son of the Bronx, Mr. Clinton A. Myke.
Born and raised here in Community Board 12, educated in our neighborhood schools, and now raising his own family in the same street he loves, Clinton is a Bronxite in every sense of the word.
For 25 years he served with honor and distinction in the Department of Correction, rising to the rank of captain through sheer integrity, discipline, and unwavering commitment to public service.
But retirement never dimmed his passion. Instead, he turned his energy toward his community, joining Bronx Community Board 12 and devoting the past decade to making it better. Today, as proud chair of that board, he amplifies local voices, strengthens participation, and fights every day so that our neighborhoods thrive.
Clinton Myke embodies selfless leadership. Because of him, the Bronx is stronger, more connected, and more hopeful. It is my honor to recognize this true public servant. I thank Clinton, and may he continue to lead us forward.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true son of the Bronx, Tomas Ramos, a first generation Dominican American whose life embodies resilience, justice, and an unbreakable community spirit.
Born in Washington Heights amid the crack epidemic, Tomas faced displacement, poverty, and the devastating grip of mass incarceration and the war on drugs. Yet he transformed personal hardship into powerful purpose. He has dedicated himself to uplifting our youth, championing small businesses, advancing restorative justice, and expanding access to healthcare, food security, and real opportunity for all.
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck and too many were left behind, Tomas acted without hesitation. He mobilized donations to expand ICU capacity, delivered critical PPE to overburdened hospitals, and stood firmly for the Bronx when it needed him most.
From that crisis emerged the Oyate Group, a nonprofit powerhouse he founded to educate, resource, and build sustainable solutions that break cycles of generational poverty. Through innovative programs in youth development, gun violence prevention, and community empowerment, Tomas has become a blessing and a beacon for the underserved neighborhoods of the Bronx and beyond.
Because of Tomas Ramos, our community stands stronger, more connected, and more hopeful. He reminds us every day that dignity is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right. I thank Tomas for his tireless leadership and his heart for the people of the Bronx. We in the Bronx are proud to call him one of our own.
Mr. Speaker, for more than 20 years, Chauncy Young has poured his heart into our Bronx, building bridges between education, justice, and environmental equity.
He began in Highbridge, empowering neighbors through mindfulness, meditation, and self-care at the Community Collaborative. Since 2016, as the director of the New Settlement Parent Action Committee, he has led the Healing-Centered Schools Working Group, bringing trauma- informed, healing approaches into classrooms so that our students and teachers can thrive, not simply survive.
Yet Chauncy's vision stretches beyond school walls. Since founding the Harlem River Coalition in 2009, he has coordinated tireless efforts alongside residents, organizations, and officials to reclaim our waterfront, clean our river, and weave an interconnected greenway system that will one day let every Bronx family walk, bike, and breathe beside the water.
A proud Highbridge resident, devoted husband, and father, Chauncy doesn't just advocate for green spaces. He explores them with his own family, turning his work into lived joy.
Because of Chauncy Young, our borough is greener, healthier, and more hopeful for the next generation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chauncy for his unwavering devotion to the Bronx we all call home.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to celebrate a true beacon of hope in the south Bronx, Reverend John Udo-Okon.
In one of our Nation's toughest neighborhoods, marked by deep poverty, hunger, and hardship, Reverend Udo-Okon has turned faith into action. As senior pastor of Word of Life Christian Fellowship International, he leads one of the Bronx's largest food pantries, serving thousands every month.
Through weekly distributions, hot meals, and unwavering support, he ensures seniors, veterans, working families, and children never go hungry or feel forgotten.
During the darkest days of COVID-19, when fear gripped our communities, he opened his church doors as a lifeline, distributing food, promoting vaccinations, and standing strong even after his own family battled the virus.
His compassion extends further: advocating for justice, offering guidance to those drowning in debt, and fighting for the right to help those who need it most.
Reverend Udo-Okon embodies the power of service, resilience, and love. The Bronx is stronger, more connected, and more resilient because of him.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor this extraordinary leader today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a true daughter of the Bronx, a leader whose life has lifted generations: Shirley Fearon.
Born and raised right here in our borough, Shirley embodies the heart and resilience of the northeast Bronx.
A lifelong educator, she dedicated her career to our children, teaching in general and special education, believing deeply that every young person deserves the chance to succeed.
Her passion for learning didn't stop at the classroom door. It spread throughout our neighborhoods, inspiring countless lives.
Shirley's commitment to service runs deep. As president of her NAACP chapter, a dedicated district leader for the 83rd Assembly District, and a proud member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, she has championed justice, empowerment, and civic engagement for decades.
Perhaps her most transformative legacy is the state-of-the-art Northeast Bronx YMCA, a facility she fought for tirelessly over many years as the co-chair of the Northeast Bronx Community Coalition. When it opened in 2021, it became a vital beacon, a place for youth programs, fitness, community gatherings, and hope.
After 70 years without such a resource in her neighborhood, Shirley helped make it a reality. Guided by faith, family, and the timeless truth that to whom much is given, much is required, she has strengthened our community as a devoted parishioner, mother, and grandmother.
Shirley Fearon's unwavering dedication reminds us what true leadership looks like: persistent, compassionate, and rooted in service. Because of her, the Bronx is stronger, brighter, and more united.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Shirley for showing us the way. The northeast Bronx and all of us are forever grateful.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a remarkable public servant whose life exemplifies faith, dedication, and selfless service: Reverend Dr. Gloria Bradshaw-Brannigan.
A Bronx native and the youngest daughter of the late Reverend Robert Bradshaw and Mrs. Janie Bradshaw, Reverend Bradshaw carries forward a powerful family legacy of ministry. As senior pastor of Mt. Bethel Baptist Church, she leads a congregation with deep roots, serving Harlem's community for 84 years before relocating in 2015 to continue its vital outreach in the Bronx.
Under her guidance, the church remains a beacon of hope, providing spiritual guidance, practical support, and unwavering love to countless residents.
Yet, her calling knows no borders. Reverend Dr. Bradshaw has carried the Gospel internationally, preaching at the Exodus Christian center in Uganda, touching lives far beyond our borough.
Her credentials reflect a lifetime of disciplined study and commitment: a
These accomplishments are not mere titles. They fuel her passionate vision for God's kingdom and for the flourishing of every person she serves.
Mr. Speaker, in Reverend Dr. Gloria Bradshaw-Brannigan, we see what true community leadership looks like: rooted in faith, driven by compassion, and tireless in action.
The Bronx is stronger, more hopeful, and more faith-driven because of her work. She stands as an inspiring example for anyone who aspires to serve both their neighbors and their God.
Let us celebrate and emulate her extraordinary contributions. The future is brighter because of leaders like her.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary life and enduring legacy of Alonzo de Castro, a true pillar of the Bronx and a devoted public servant who has embodied the very best of American ideals.
Born in 1926 on Tortola in the British Virgin Islands, 1 of 13 children, Mr. de Castro arrived in New York City in 1946 after serving honorably in the United States Army.
Like countless immigrants before and since, he arrived with determination and built a life of dignity through hard work and service. He began his career at the Veterans Administration and rose through the ranks of the U.S. Postal Service, eventually becoming a director of 13 postal stations in Manhattan, a testament to his reliability, leadership, and commitment to excellence.
Mr. Speaker, in 1965 he chose the Bronx as his home and poured his heart into its civic life. He served as a State committeeman, district leader, and dedicated staff member to a former assemblyman.
He helped found the East of Laconia Community Association, which has proudly awarded over 200 scholarships to deserving Bronx students, opening doors to brighter futures.
Through St. Luke's Episcopal Church, he raised vital funds for education and community needs, always putting people first.
His vision and persistence helped lay the foundation for the Northeast Bronx YMCA, a transformative community resource dedicated in 2021.
As co-chair of the Northeast Bronx Community Coalition, he championed this long-awaited center, ensuring generations of residents would have access to programs that built strength, opportunity, and connection.
Mr. Speaker, Alonzo de Castro, affectionately known as Uncle Al, symbolizes the promise of America: Service, sacrifice, perseverance, and unbreakable community spirit. His legacy lives on in every young person who earned a scholarship, every family strengthened by the YMCA, and every corridor of the northeast Bronx lifted by his tireless efforts.
The Bronx is forever grateful for this remarkable man who has shown us what it means to give back. May we all strive to follow his inspiring footsteps.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Julio Pabon, a visionary, a fighter, and the heartbeat of the South Bronx for over five decades.
Born in Puerto Rico and raised in our resilient borough, Julio never waited for change. He built it. He founded the Coalition in Defense of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Rights, the South Bronx Community Association, the South Bronx Congress, and Discovery for Justice, turning voices into power.
A pioneer in bilingual media, he launched ``La Hora Deportiva,'' one of the first Spanish-English sports talk shows. He created Latino Sports, establishing the prestigious LatinoMVP award, now embraced by Major League Baseball, to celebrate Latino excellence when it was far too often overlooked.
In a place too often defined by struggle, Julio chose to define the South Bronx by its potential. His legacy of vision, perseverance, and fierce cultural pride will inspire us always, and we thank him.
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 Tennessee?
Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to honor Derrick Bonham of the Weakley County, Tennessee, Sheriff's Office, who was tragically killed in the line of duty.
On January 30, just after 3 a.m., Deputy Bonham responded to a shots- fired call in Martin, Tennessee. This is nothing new. Derrick Bonham had always answered these calls without hesitation and whenever he was needed.
When Deputy Bonham arrived on the scene to assess the situation, he was violently ambushed and fatally wounded. Indeed, Derrick Bonham's death has been felt across Weakley County and across West Tennessee, in fact, the entire State of Tennessee.
In the days that followed, thousands lined the streets in a sea of blue to honor his sacrifice. Law enforcement officers from across the region stood alongside families and neighbors in West Tennessee to show their respect and support for a brave man and a brave family.
That tribute reflected the trust that Derrick Bonham earned and also the impact that he had among his law enforcement comrades.
After the shooting, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with Weakley County Sheriff, Terry McDade. Sheriff McDade told me Deputy Bonham--and I am going to read this exactly the way he told me: ``Deputy Bonham was the guy that all sheriffs want to hire. He was a good, even-keeled law enforcement officer who lived his life in a Godly way.''
Mr. Speaker, Derrick Bonham lived a life defined by devotion to service. He took pride in his work and in what it meant to wear that uniform.
We all know that law enforcement in our Nation is a dangerous profession. Every time an officer reports for duty, they put their lives on the line for all of us. We are deeply grateful for the men and women in law enforcement who put that uniform on each and every day to serve their neighbors, often without recognition.
Deputy Bonham was a loving husband to his wife, Nicole; and a devoted father to three children: Harper, Hayden, and Hudson.
He was an Army veteran who served our Nation and later became a deputy who served his country and his neighbors. Indeed, Derrick Bonham understood that public service is a calling, one that demands courage and a willingness to put others first.
Roberta and I continue to keep the Bonham family and the Weakley County Sheriff's Office in our prayers. Deputy Derrick Bonham's legacy will live on through the lives that he touched, the men and women with whom he worked, and the example that he set for the Weakley County community.
Mr. Speaker, give me a moment here to get set up. Sometimes, we are just scrambling because we had a whole speech lined up. We were going to do something just simple and pleasant for everyone. We were going to walk through Medicare financing for a while, and they wouldn't give me 3 hours or 4 hours to do it, so you are stuck with me for a half an hour.
Then, earlier today, CBO actually did their update. Okay. Let's see if I can make this make sense.
When I come behind these microphones, I am trying to explain sort of a unified theory that, so often, the political class behind these microphones say: We can do this.
Okay. That may be wonderful, but you have to understand that it all works together: our demographics, our tax system, the fact of the matter is this incentive for this to grow, this incentive here, and the adoption of technology. I need people to start thinking about the interaction that there is not a simple solution to a country that, right now, is functionally borrowing about $74,000 every second so far this fiscal year.
Sorry. Let me rephrase. Over the last 12 months. If you do just fiscal year, it is higher.
A few hours ago, the CBO put out a report. Look, the report is actually like this. I just cheated. I just grabbed the executive summary because I didn't need the whole binder out here.
It is going to take me 3 days or 4 days to read through everything, but I have some of the highlights for you--this is important--and then it is going to tie into what we are spending.
Your country is an insurance company with an army. That is both funny and it happens to be mathematically true. In about 33 months, over half of the Federal spending will go to those who are 65 and up. Actually, in 33 months, I will be one of them.
It is demographics. We have gone about 30 years or 40 years with dramatically fewer children than we expected. I have done a series of presentations here on the floor where I have shown that we actually have the same number of 18-year-olds as we had 20 years ago, but double the number of those who are 65 and up.
Is that Republican or Democrat? Look, there is policies that have been engaged in by Democrats that helped to create this, but the fact of the matter is that these are people. It is our reality. We have our obligations on Medicare, on Social Security, and some that will be dual eligible because they are poor and retired, and we have some things that are terrifying.
In 6\1/2\ years, the Medicare trust fund is empty. Your hospital will take an 11 percent cut. Medicare Advantage programs will actually take something much larger. It is just the way the Medicare part A trust fund works.
In 6\1/2\ years, the Social Security trust fund is empty. No one stole your money. We just don't have enough workers. It was a Pay-As- You-Go system. It is math. The fact of the matter is that, yes, the money has been loaned to the Treasury. Treasury actually pays interest on that money, so that twice a year, there is actually a fairly large dividend given to the trust fund. It is demographics. We had the baby boomers.
In 6\1/2\ years, if we followed the law, there is a 24 percent cut coming to Social Security recipients, which will double the poverty of seniors in America. Our math is that it will double the number of baby boomers who are homeless. It is absolutely immoral, but we are not allowed to talk about it except for idiots like me who get up and say week after week: Please, my brothers and sisters here, there are things that we can do.
The Democrats say that we will just tax rich people. Then you show that the math is nothing like that. It doesn't work.
Here is the CBO report. In here, it makes it absolutely clear, and I have been telling you for 1 year, but the scorekeepers have finally caught up with my Joint Economic Committee economists. Remember, I chair the Joint Economic Committee. I chair Oversight Subcommittee in the Ways and Means Committee, so I am blessed. I have a freaky smart staff.
In 2032, the trust funds are empty. In 2033, the first year where they are completely empty, if you said that we are just going to pay for everything out of the general fund, okay, we can do that.
My estimates come in at about $638 billion in 2033 just to make up the shortfall of the Social Security trust fund being gone and the Medicare trust fund being gone. That is, what, 60 percent of today's defense budget.
Why is math such an anathema to this place?
Let's walk through a couple of other things here. I have only had time to produce a couple of boards from the new CBO report, and then we will try to tie these into what else is going on.
This year, we are basically going to spend 3.3 percent of the entire economy on interest--interest. Once again, this interest number is just the interest to publicly sold debt.
Remember how I was just talking about the debt? That we borrow the Social Security money, and then the trust fund gets IOUs from the Treasury, and we pay it interest? Then when the Social Security needs money--which they do every month--because the tax receipts come in from your FICA taxes and there is a shortfall, so they cash that in every month?
If you add up all of the money and interest paid from the trust funds, I think this year is going to look more like $1.2 trillion in interest. Why that is important: What is the number one spend in America? The number one spend of your Federal Government is Social Security. It is going to come in at about $1.6 trillion this year.
Interest is your number two. It is going to come in at about $1.2 trillion.
Medicare is going to come in at about $1.1 trillion this year, maybe a little more.
Medicaid and ACA, ObamaCare subsidies, are going to come in at $900 billion.
Those are your top four.
Number five is the defense. The thing that is actually in the United States Constitution is actually number five in hierarchy of spending.
One of the things that CBO was trying to point out is that their estimate is for 9 budget years--so 9 budget years is 2036 from now-- that we will go from $1 trillion of interest to $2.1 trillion of interest. In 2036, so 9 budget years from now, the annual deficit will be about $3.1 trillion. Structural deficit is $1 trillion, and $2.1 trillion will just be interest. The majority of future deficits are actually interest.
Interest and healthcare are the primary drivers of U.S. sovereign debt. Will the bond market continue to finance this?
What happens when one of your greatest solutions is: Can we actually have honest conversations about healthcare costs? Are we willing to legalize the very technologies and the methodologies of helping our brothers and sisters stay healthier and, therefore, use dramatically less healthcare?
I have been coming behind this mike for over a decade with presentation after presentation of technologies, new pharmaceuticals, and new methodologies to crash the price of healthcare. I get the crap kicked out of me because armies of lobbyists don't like it when we talk about changing their business model.
Remember, several months ago, I came here to the floor and showed that we came up with a math experiment of, in America, how many duplicative MRI scans, ultrasounds, X-rays, and CTs are there? The top end was looking like $36 billion in a single year.
Why wouldn't you do something crazy? You get an MRI, attach it to this crazy supercomputer that you put in your pocket, and then when you go to your next doctor, you put it up, and it is up on their screens, and you don't get another one.
Now it turns out that you get some folks who make money on the duplicative scans. They get very angry, but $35 billion over 10 years, $350 billion, and that is just one of dozens of things. Why is it so hard? Are we that afraid of the lobbyists? Are we that afraid of trying to explain to the folks at home that we don't have a choice?
In 6\1/2\ years--let's say it again--the Medicare trust fund is empty. If you want to extend the life of the trust fund, let's have a revolution on the actual cost of delivering healthcare.
There are a couple of other things that are highlights in the CBO report. They estimate that in 10 years, we will have 5.3 million fewer people in America. That is mostly from reduction in immigration and the fact that our fertility rates continue to fall, but think of this.
That missing 5.3 million people is $500 billion over that timeframe in lost tax receipts. When I use the term ``demographics'' on our debt, it is a function. Our debt is a function of the fact that our society has gotten older. We have substantially fewer children. We are going to have fewer workers, and there are actually whole charts I have here that actually talk about it.
Look, they are hard charts. This one is absolutely inappropriately designed to use on the floor, but it is trying to explain what happens in a society when we have substantially fewer young
It is just life, but we have to be prepared for what it means when the majority of Federal spending will be going to those 65 and up in just a couple of years.
Are we prepared for this? Of course, we are not. So many folks still have a mind frame that is decades out of date with what we are demographically. This is happening over the entire industrialized world, but in our society here, if I can raise wages and productivity of those who are in the workforce, I have resources to cover the promised benefits, because we made a deal. We have a societal deal that we are going to cover Medicare and Social Security.
Something I want to touch on--and I didn't bring the chart on this. There are a lot of folks who think that Medicare itself is paid for by your payroll tax. It is actually about 38 percent of that. As a medical enrollee, you pay--the total cost, depending if you are in Medicare Advantage, which is--what?--55 percent of the population. The others are maybe in part A, part A and part B.
Fifteen percent is sort of paid by the enrollee. Thirty-eight-some percent is paid by the FICA tax, so today's workers paying for today's retirees. The rest is borrowed out of the general fund.
You have to understand that a huge portion of our debt is actually paying for the healthcare.
Sorry. My 3-year-old is trying to call me. Yes, I have a 3-year-old and a 10-year-old, so you know I am optimistic.
When we talk about Medicare financing, most folks don't understand it is one of the key drivers of our debt.
Let's actually walk through something. Several months ago, we gathered all the MedPAC reports, all the other reports on Medicare Advantage. It is Medicare part C. I love a capitated model. A properly designed capitated model, which is Medicare Advantage, is designed so you have sort of a gatekeeper. That may be the insurance company or that may be the group of doctors. Their mission needs to be helping you be healthier.
We do this in my State's Medicaid system. We call it AHCCCS in Arizona. I actually, at one point, did the budgets for that.
The concept behind this is to align the incentives. The incentives aren't to keep trying to find the highest reimbursement to charge things to the healthcare system. It is the incentive that we are going to help our brothers and sisters be healthier.
If you are the insurer, you make a profit because you lower utilization because you had your enrollees, your patients, your members, get healthier. That is not what has been happening in Medicare Advantage if you read the actual auditing reports.
We actually did a piece of legislation several months ago that said instead of having this world where there is the risk scoring and--if you see, there are actually now criminal investigations going on at the Department of Justice because of people being scored as being much sicker, needing much more, and they are actually not sick. There are multiple criminal investigations going on at the Department of Justice.
I keep approaching the Medicare Advantage companies, saying to work with us. Could we get rid of the way we do risk scoring, the way we do these star ratings, where you use those things to pump up your compensation, and actually do it from enrolling? Let's get the actual models right. We will build a shock absorber if someone gets really sick. We will share the risk.
Then, the incentive is to help the population get healthier and healthier because we have technology. We have wearables. We have GLP-1. We have other things you can do to help our brothers and sisters get healthier.
We have lots of data right now, when we are starting to see math showing, in 2025, almost $84 billion of new risk model implementation basically saying this is excess spending. If you look at the MedPAC report, it is almost coming in at a couple of hundred billion dollars a year.
We run around here saying waste and fraud, but this technically might not be fraud because it is the design of the system.
When ObamaCare was passed 18 years ago, it actually had a series of things in there that created many of these incentives to game the system.
Now, the administration is talking about saying we are just going to do a cap. I want to try to sell this concept, saying why don't we align the incentives, both the government incentives as the payer and the patient incentives to the doctor, so we are all doing the same thing. We are lowering the expense by creating a healthier population.
The fact of the matter is, if you look at the MedPAC reports--and I know they get mocked, but no one else seems to produce the actual data--it is almost $2 trillion a year. Remember, the MedPAC report comes in and says, Medicare Advantage, when you do the risk adjustment, it comes in at 120 percent of fee-for-service. That is a 25 percent gap. In the original design, in 2005, the Medicare part C was supposed to come in at 95 percent.
I know it is geeky, but this is a stunning amount of money. We will spend hours here arguing about millions of dollars. These are billions and billions, and over 10 years, it is in the trillions.
Why is it so hard for this place to want to take on the things that actually would affect the crushing debt that CBO just told you is coming screaming at you?
Remember, the CBO report here basically says in this 9-year budget window, 10-year budget window, your country goes over 120 percent debt to GDP, surpassing World War II.
Are we going to fix it by little incremental things, or are we going to do it by a major reconciliation bill that actually takes on big issues, complex issues, real math? Or will we just continue to pander and not tell the truth about the scale of what is coming at us?
Medicare Advantage overpayments, we believe, this last year, just the overpayment portion, was $84 billion. You start to see a chart like this. Add it up, I actually have a trillion dollars here for you. Align the incentives, and I can get you another few hundred billion dollars of alignment incentives by changing utilization, by helping our brothers and sisters be healthier. Turns out that is real money.
I have lots of charts here, but I want to actually go--I am going to skip around a little bit--to contributions to the proposed Medicare Advantage payment update. If there happens to be a lobbyist out there representing Medicare Advantage, come talk to me. This is what I think CMS is actually proposing to you, saying we are going to change the compensation. We are going to change your risk scoring. You are basically getting zero movement.
This is what you get by not working with us in aligning the incentives, where you can make a profit by fixing the incentives within the system or you can basically get a cramdown. Which one do you want to do? Do you want to prove that you are a free market manager, that a free market system actually can deliver healthcare and do it better, faster, more efficiently, and more morally because you give a darn about your patients?
Or we can basically say we are just going to pay you less, and then you figure out how you are going to put that through the system. This is the proposal coming at you. You didn't want to talk to me about trying to fix the incentives in Medicare Advantage, so now you are going to get this.
I will argue, come talk to us about our piece of legislation. It has been out there for several months. You have had chances. We have had multiple Ph.D. economists score it. We have a preliminary score from CBO, saying it is probably about $1.84 trillion in savings over 10 years, making it the single largest savings bill in U.S. history.
I am in a 50/50 district, and I am doing bills like this because I can do math.
Mr. Speaker, instead of me walking through all this, did you see the job growth numbers today? They are actually pretty good. Did you see the punch line in the job growth numbers?
The U.S. economy added approximately 140,000 jobs; the market added 181,000. It is absolutely terrific. A dominance of the new jobs that were created are in healthcare. The majority of spending in healthcare comes
We have a structural problem. Remember, today your government is going to borrow 6 to $7 billion. This was supposed to be a year with the tariff receipts and with everything else we were supposed to really start to pay down the deficit. The problem is interest, healthcare costs have exceeded our models. We are still probably heading to a 1.9, $2 trillion borrow.
It turns out now CBO is catching up with the numbers I have been bringing behind this microphone for the last year. If we do not start to take this seriously, Mr. Speaker, we will have made the decision that the bond market, not as in Congress, not the White House, will run this country.
Remember, we have to bring about 10 to $11 trillion of debt to market this year for refinancing, and we are going to issue probably $2 trillion of new debt.
When the United States sells a 10-year bond and Greece sells a 10- year bond today, Greece has a lower interest rate than the United States. When the debt markets think Greece is more creditworthy than the United States--I don't know how to make it more simple. Why is it so hard to tell the truth about the math?
Mr. Speaker, there is a way to stabilize this. We are not going to pay it off. The demographic headwinds make that almost impossible, but you can stabilize the debt. You just have to do complex big boy things to do it.
One of the reasons I am leaving Congress is I am tired of smashing my head over and over here on blunt objects as people just stare back at you and say, David, I would have to try to explain that. David, you are not allowed to use the words ``Social Security'' and ``Medicare.'' It will upset people. What will upset people is when these trust funds run out and they are seeing their benefits cut because we were too intellectually vacuous to step up and tell the truth even though we have known this for decades.
Mr. Speaker, I am actually going to drink more coffee and do more reading.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 12, 2026, at 9 a.m.
