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.
35 public bills, H.R. 8283- 8317; and 6 resolutions, H. Res. 1176-1181, were introduced.
Pages H2923-25
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H. Res. 1174, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6387) to amend the Clean Air Act to require revisions to regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6409) to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1156) expressing support for tax policies that support working families (H. Rept. 119- 609); H. Res. 1175, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8035) to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 through October 20, 2027, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-610); H.R. 7688, to modernize and reauthorize the Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-611); H.R. 5877, to strengthen the authority of the United States Secret Service to investigate various crimes related to digital asset transactions and to counter transnational cyber criminal activity, including unlicensed money transmitting businesses, structured transactions, and fraud against financial institutions, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-612, Part 1); H.R. 5587, to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to waive the requirement for a Federal drilling permit for certain activities, to exempt certain activities from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-613); H.R. 2289, to provide that an eligible facilities request under section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews, with amendments (H. Rept. 119-614, Part 1); H.R. 7386, to amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to reauthorize the First Responder Network Authority, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-615); and H.R. 7022, to provide for the transmission of emergency alerts by satellite, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119- 616).
Page H2923
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Fine to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H2889
Whole Number of the House
The Chair announced to the House that, in light of the resignation of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzales, the whole number of the House is 431.
Page H2889
Order of Business
Agreed by unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 40 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.
Pages H2889-90
Committee Resignation
Read a letter from Representative Yakym wherein he resigned from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Page H2891
Committee Elections
The House agreed to H. Res. 1176, electing Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.
Pages H2891-92
Recess
The House recessed at 11:19 a.m. and reconvened at 1 p.m.
Page H2898
Requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status
The House considered H. Res. 965, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1689) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status. Earlier the House agreed to the Pressley motion to discharge H. Res. 965 by a yea-and-nay vote of 219 yeas to 209 nays, Roll No. 113.
Pages H2899-H2902
Foreign Emissions and Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act
The House considered H.R. 6409, to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States.
Pages H2902-09
H. Res. 1174, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 6387), (H.R. 6398), (H.R. 6409), and the resolution (H. Res. 1156) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 214 ayes to 212 noes, Roll No. 112, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 111.
Pages H2898-99
Reducing and Eliminating Duplicative Environmental Regulations Act
The House considered H.R. 6398, to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation.
Pages H2909-13
H. Res. 1174, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 6387), (H.R. 6398), (H.R. 6409), and the resolution (H. Res. 1156) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 214 ayes to 212 noes, Roll No. 112, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 111.
Pages H2898-99
Expressing support for tax policies that support working families
The House considered H. Res. 1156, expressing support for tax policies that support working families. Pagse H2913-20 H. Res. 1174, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 6387), (H.R. 6398), (H.R. 6409), and the resolution (H. Res. 1156) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 214 ayes to 212 noes, Roll No. 112, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 111.
Pages H2898-99
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, April 16th.
Page H2921
Quorum Calls: Votes
Two yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2898, H2899 and H2899-H2900. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 4:57 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: 153 of 224 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. Speaker, on Easter Sunday, President Donald Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine completed a successful mission to rescue two American airmen in Iran.
Less than 48 hours earlier, an American fighter jet had been shot down with a shoulder-fired missile as part of Operation Epic Fury.
A rescue was launched immediately, locating one pilot within hours. However, the second crewmember landed much further away, complicating recovery efforts.
Despite this challenge, President Donald Trump emphasized the promise that no man is left behind. He correctly described the mission as ``one of the largest, most complex, most harrowing combat rescue searches ever attempted by the military.''
As the grateful father of four sons who have served in the Middle East, I especially appreciate President Donald Trump.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting and mocking Trump as war criminal Putin facilitates the Chinese Communist Party providing shoulder-launched missiles through the Black Sea Port of the Republic of Georgia, collaborating with the illegitimate regime of the rigged elections in Tbilisi to kill American pilots.
Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of H. Con. Res. 40, Directing the President, Pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to Remove United States Armed Forces from Hostilities...
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the urgent need to address the worsening air pollution problem in this country and in my home area of New York.
Like many Americans, I remember the blanket of orange smoke that covered our skies throughout the summer of 2023 as a result of the horrific Canadian wildfires.
Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with students from Columbia University advocating for the creation of clean air centers and air filtration systems for low-income individuals and those with preexisting conditions like congenital heart disease.
We all have a moral duty to protect the well-being of Americans across this country from all forms of pollution, from the East Coast to the West Coast and in between.
From the floor of the House of Representatives, I urge my colleagues to take action to address the growing severity and protect Americans from dangerous air pollution. Vote ``no'' on bills that will make it easier for polluters to pollute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor St. John Evangelical Lutheran Church of Merrill, Wisconsin, on its 150th anniversary.
First organized by families of German immigrants in a meeting on April 24, 1876, services were held in a public schoolhouse in the town of Jenny, Wisconsin, which later became Merrill.
St. John Evangelical has had two subsequent structures within Merrill and, since 1953, has worshipped within a beautiful stone edifice at 1104 East 3rd Street.
During its first years, it shared a pastor with neighboring churches and finally called on its first pastor, Reverend Paul Luecke, on August 5, 1883.
Today, the members of St. John are proud of their continued provision of a daycare facility and an educational resource for their community in a parochial school. During several decades of its existence, German was the church's primary language. With the close of World War I, the congregation had transitioned to holding its services primarily in English.
For continuing its work of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ through 150 years, it is my great pleasure to honor St. John Evangelical Lutheran Church of Merrill today before the United States House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call on the family of the German Prinz zu Salm-Salm about their land holdings in my district.
In Wahkiakum County, Washington, our local hunters and fishermen are being squeezed out of the lands that they have hunted and fished on for generations, but not by wildfire or even by Federal and State regulations this time, but by German royalty who is buying up land and prohibiting public access to places that we have hunted and fished on for generations. It was reported last month that the German royals now control 7.3 percent of Wahkiakum County.
Now, our local economies and way of life are at risk. I have been told by some in my community that frustrations are so high that without resolution there can only be a violent boiling point.
The Pacific Northwest is no stranger to this kind of interference, but at the hands of a management company whose investors are halfway around the world, this shows that something has gone deeply wrong with how we think about and regulate land and local ownership.
This cultural fabric of our community is ours--to live off the land, to invest back into it. Loyalty to place is grounding, a necessary practice in this fractured and polarized world.
I call on the German royal family to engage with my constituents and revise their hunting access regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an often overlooked segment of our Nation's legal profession: rural lawyers.
Across the First District and in communities throughout our State, rural lawyers represent the very best of the profession: selfless service and meaningful local impact.
Today, I recognize the outstanding career of Shane Placek of Fremont. While Shane practices in a range of areas, he has earned particular respect among his peers for his work in domestic law. Shane's skill and tenacity are deeply appreciated by his clients and respected by judges, and even the counsel on the other side appreciates him. His thorough preparation, professionalism, and record of success demonstrate his unwavering dedication to families navigating difficult times.
A proud son of Fremont, Shane returned to his hometown after earning his J.D. from the University of Minnesota, choosing to serve the very community that shaped him.
It is a privilege to recognize Shane's distinguished career, which reflects the hard work, integrity, and grit that define rural lawyers across our State.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply proud to serve not only as an unapologetic Arab-American woman in Congress but to represent one of the largest Arab-American communities in our country.
That is why I am introducing a resolution recognizing April as Arab American Heritage Month. This month, we must recognize the rich history, culture, and achievements of Arab Americans all across our country.
I know it has been an incredibly difficult time for many of our families, especially those with loved ones in Lebanon and Palestine. Even in the midst of pain and uncertainty, let us all continue to show up for each other, speak out against injustices, and care for each other with compassion and solidarity.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that this is the time and month to acknowledge Arab-American contributions, inventions, and support building businesses and showing up for communities and neighbors all across the country.
To all the neighbors in southeastern Michigan and beyond, happy Arab American Heritage Month.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the career of a true patriot. I rise today to recognize and honor a true public servant, Chief Russell Roark, whose life has been defined by dedication, defined by integrity, and defined by exceptional service to the people of Union County and the entire State of South Carolina.
Chief Roark first began his career in public safety in 1962, when he joined the City of Union Fire Department. Just 1 year later, he joined the City of Union Police Department. Through hard work, professionalism, and steady leadership, Chief Roark quickly advanced through the ranks, becoming assistant chief of police in 1975 and then chief of police in 1982.
In 1983, he played a pivotal role in the merger of the City of Union Police and Fire Departments into a single unified agency known as the Union Public Safety Department. He became its first director, and under his leadership, the department earned South Carolina Law Enforcement Accreditation, becoming the first law enforcement agency in Union County to achieve such a distinction.
Chief Roark also made lasting improvements to the community fire service division, emphasizing advanced training and the importance of strong fire prevention efforts.
Thanks to his leadership, the department earned a Class 2 ISO rating, an achievement that enhanced public safety while reducing insurance costs for all the residents and businesses across the county.
In conclusion, Chief Roark is the definition of a true public servant.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Helen Humphreys, affectionately known by so many as the Duchess of Edgely, who passed away on March 28, 2026.
A longtime resident of Hulmeville and Edgely, Helen was a woman whose life was defined by compassion, warmth, and an unmatched devotion to others. She built a successful career in the printing industry, loved her summers in Townsends Inlet, and remained a spirited, vibrant person, even shooting better than her age on the golf course at 85 years old.
More than anything, Mr. Speaker, Helen will be remembered for the home and heart she shared so generously with others. Alongside her beloved husband, Jim, she created a place of comfort, laughter, and belonging for family, friends, and neighbors alike.
Helen touched countless lives with her kindness, her humor, and her open-door spirit. She will be deeply missed, and I am proud to honor her memory here today.
Mr. Speaker, here is how you know that Washington is broken. Instead of voting to end the war, end the tariffs, and lower healthcare costs, what are we doing? Yesterday, we debated 14 bills to rename post offices. This is why people think that Congress sucks.
Our Congress, our House, is supposed to be the envy of the world. Instead, our current leadership is doing everything that they can to make us irrelevant.
Why? Money. The oil companies are making money off the Iran war. The drug companies are making money. The President is getting money for his ballroom.
I wish that more people in Washington would figure out how to spend their time on lawmaking instead of moneymaking.
We need to end this corruption. We need to pass a congressional stock trading ban, get dark money out of elections, and make this city work for the people again so that working Americans can afford to pay their bills.
Mr. Speaker, school breakfasts and lunches are often the most nutritious meal a student eats in a day. That is why so many districts across the country are offering tastier, healthier meals.
With our incredible Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, I visited one such school in Watertown, Massachusetts, as part of my statewide End Hunger Now tour.
We were treated to a tour of the Hosmer Elementary School by two bright second graders and enjoyed a delicious salad for lunch, featuring lettuce grown down the street by the students at Watertown's very own freight farm.
The enthusiasm of the students about their locally grown, nutritious school meals was infectious.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress can help make sure that every single district across the country has first-class school meal programs. We must pass my bill, the Healthy Meals Help Kids Learn Act, to increase funding for school meal programs.
We must also reverse the devastating Trump administration cuts to local and school food programs that improve access to nutritious food.
Together, we can improve nutrition, improve learning outcomes, and end hunger now.
Mr. Speaker, this administration is testing us. They are testing the truth, testing the law, but, most importantly, they are testing our resolve in the Epstein case and whether or not they can continue to lie and commit crimes right in front of our faces.
Yesterday, Pam Bondi was ordered to appear in front of the Oversight and Reform Committee and did not come. Todd Blanche said that he would not release any more files because perhaps they believed that Donald Trump's blanket pardon would excuse them and save their bacon.
So let me be clear: You are breaking the law, and I hope you are getting ready to face contempt.
To the survivors out there who have been through decades of injustice in this case: Know that we are fighting, and while the road to justice may be long, we will not stop until we get it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee reported on a rule, House Resolution 1174, that provides for consideration of four measures.
The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 6387, H.R. 6398, and H.R. 6409, each under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees, and provides for each bill one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 1156, expressing support for tax policies that support working families, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.
The rule before us provides an opportunity for Congress to rein in regulatory overreach, to restore common sense for our environmental policies, and to ensure that American communities are not punished for circumstances beyond their control.
For far too long, States, workers, and job creators have been forced to operate under a system that is overly rigid and increasingly bureaucratic and disconnected from reality. Instead of working with States, Federal regulators have imposed one-size-fits-all policies that drive up costs, delay projects, and make it harder for communities to grow and to prosper.
These measures begin to correct that course and put us on a more practical and more predictable path forward.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act. This legislation addresses a simple but important problem. States are currently being penalized for emissions that they have absolutely no control over. That includes pollution originating from foreign countries like China, as well as natural events such as wildfires beyond our borders. Yet under current policy, those emissions can still count against a State's ability to meet Federal air quality standards.
This is not how this should work, and we have seen the impact firsthand. In my home State of New York, communities across western New York and the southern tier have repeatedly experienced severe air quality impacts from Canadian wildfires.
This has become a reoccurring issue year after year. Smoke from wildfires in Ontario and Quebec have drifted south, triggering air quality alerts across our State. Families have been told to stay indoors. Schools, camps, and outdoor events have been disrupted and canceled. What should be time spent outside during the summer has, instead, meant staying inside because of conditions beyond anyone's control locally.
In parts of New York, we have seen some of the worst air quality readings in the entire country on these days.
This does not affect just families. It affects local economies, as well. Small businesses, outdoor workers, farmers, and manufacturers all feel the impact when air quality restrictions tighten because of pollution they did not create in the first place.
Yet, under the current framework, those same communities can still face consequences--more regulation and more restrictions--for conditions entirely outside of their control. It makes no sense.
The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by making clear that foreign emissions, whether manmade or natural, should not be used to penalize States when determining compliance.
It allows States to account for those emissions earlier in the process instead of forcing them into costly delays, stricter requirements, or potential Federal penalties at the very end because the reality is simple, States like New York should not be punished for smoke coming from wildfires in another country like Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act. Across the country, communities are dealing with the growing threat of wildfires. At the same time, States are taking proactive steps to reduce the risk through prescribed burns, forest management, and other mitigation efforts.
However, under current law, those efforts can count against them when it comes to air quality compliance. Now think about that. States are being penalized for trying to prevent catastrophic wildfires. This isn't just backwards. It creates a system that punishes proactive solutions and rewards inaction.
Part of the problem is how the current system treats those emissions. While naturally occurring wildfires can sometimes be considered exceptional events, the very tools used to prevent those wildfires, like prescribed burns, are often treated the same as emissions from a factory. That is a clear gap in the law, and it leads to confusion, inconsistent decisions, and unnecessary delays for States trying to do the right thing.
The result is a system that discourages mitigation even though we know that proactive land management reduces the severity of wildfires and improves long-term air quality. The consequences are real. When States are discouraged from carrying out these efforts, the risk of larger, more destructive wildfires only increases, leading to worse air quality, greater damage, and higher costs for communities.
The FIRE Act fixes this by ensuring that emissions from wildfire mitigation activities are treated appropriately under the Clean Air Act. It brings consistency on how we treat emissions from wildfires and from the efforts used to prevent them, and it provides States with the clarity and predictability that we need to plan and to act.
It also reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers and local communities while still maintaining strong environmental protections for communities. This is about encouraging smart land management, reducing long-term risk, and recognizing that proactive solutions should not be met with Federal penalties.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act. This measure takes aim at a specific and unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy that continues to slow down projects across the country.
Right now, when a Federal agency completes an environmental impact statement, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to conduct a separate review and publicly comment on that work, even in cases where the EPA has already been involved in developing it.
That second review often covers the exact same ground. It adds time. It adds cost. It adds uncertainty, without meaningfully improving any outcomes.
We do not have to look far to see how duplication and delay affect real projects. In upstate New York, Micron announced a historic investment to bring advanced semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States, an investment expected to support thousands and thousands of good-paying jobs and strengthen our domestic supply chain.
This is exactly the kind of project we should be encouraging and putting a rocket booster on, but like many large-scale projects, it has to navigate a complex and very time-consuming environmental review process across multiple levels of government. That is the broader issue. It is not about identifying new risks. It is about how layers of review can stack on top of one another, adding delay and uncertainty, even when high standards are already being met.
The consequences are real. When projects like this one are delayed, jobs are delayed, investment is delayed, and our ability to compete globally, especially in critical industries like semiconductors, is put at risk at a time when we are trying to onshore these critical industries and strengthen our domestic supply chain. This is exactly what is wrong with this approach.
The reality is that the agencies responsible for these projects already have the expertise and the legal responsibility to conduct thorough environmental reviews. They prepare detailed environmental impact statements. They consult with experts and are accountable for the decisions that they make. The EPA is often already involved in that process as it develops.
What this bill addresses is the additional, duplicative step that comes after the work has already been completed. Nothing in this legislation prevents coordination or input during the review itself. It simply removes a redundant requirement that adds delay without adding value.
Recent Supreme Court precedent has reinforced this approach, recognizing that the agencies responsible for a project are best positioned to evaluate its environmental impacts that the scope of review should remain focused and practical.
The RED Tape Act reflects that reality. It removes the duplicative requirement. It streamlines the process, and it ensures that projects that meet the standard can move forward without unnecessary delay because right now too often projects are not being stopped, they are just being slowed down by process.
Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 1156. Mr. Speaker, today is tax day, and families across the country are sitting down to file their returns and take a closer look at what they owe and what they keep. It is a significant day because it is a direct reminder of how the decisions that we make here in Washington show up in people's lives.
Last year, House Republicans passed and the President signed into law H.R. 1, the Working Families Tax Cut Act, one of the largest tax cuts for working and middle-class Americans in history. The law prevented a $2.6 trillion tax increase on families making less than $400,000 a year, and it continues to deliver real savings to millions of Americans.
Today, as families file their taxes, they are seeing the impact of these policies firsthand. For a family of four earning under $73,000, it can mean no Federal income tax at all, and the relief is targeted where it matters the most: no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, tax relief for our senior citizens in their golden years. These are changes that show up directly in what families owe, what they keep, and how they plan for the year ahead.
Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning. In 2026 alone, this law is expected to deliver $191 billion in additional tax relief, putting more money back in the pockets of American families, including roughly $1,000 more in refunds. Taxpayers are projected to take home an additional $91 billion in refunds and keep another $30 billion in their paychecks through reduced withholdings.
The benefits don't stop there. This law locks in lower tax rates; strengthens the standard deduction; expands the child tax credit to $2,200, and indexes it to inflation; and provides continued relief through policy like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and expanded support for childcare, paid leave, and savings. These policies are helping families keep more of what they earn, plan for their future, and build greater financial stability.
This resolution recognizes the impact of H.R. 1 and reaffirms our commitment to making sure working families come first. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, at the end of March, last month, Speaker Johnson gaveled out this Chamber and sent Members of Congress home for a 2-week recess. He did so despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down for 60 days and counting, despite the fact that President Trump had made a reckless and unlawful declaration of war without congressional authorization, despite soaring gas prices and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis stretching from New York, the home of my distinguished colleague, to Colorado, despite the heat, the drought, and the wildfire records being shattered in the Western United States. Despite all of that, Speaker Johnson made the decision to gavel the House out of session and send everybody home.
Now, we are back. The 2-week recess has concluded. What has the Republican majority decided is the most pressing challenge and issue for this august body to debate?
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, it is a resolution commemorating a bill that Republicans passed last year. That is what we are here to debate.
Republicans control the floor. They could put a bill on the floor to address cost-of-living issues. They could put a bill on the floor to address soaring gas prices. They could put a bill on the floor to address rising healthcare costs. Instead, we are here to debate a commemorative resolution. It is absurd.
I have, over the course of the 7 years that I have had the privilege of serving in the United States House, never seen something quite like this. It doesn't
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this resolution is wholly unnecessary. There are better ways to spend our time.
I heard the gentleman from New York's long description of the many reasons why that particular resolution that I referenced merits this body's passage. What I found interesting is that over the last 12 months that I have come down here to the House floor, I have heard Republicans use the same refrain in describing this bill: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is in the law.
For a year, I have heard nothing but tweets, Truth Social posts, and floor speeches extolling the virtues of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. What is fascinating is that I didn't hear those four words this morning. I suspect I am not going to hear them the rest of today because Republicans spent some time and have come up with a new name--a new name, a rebrand.
This bill that President Trump signed into law, which gave tax cuts to the richest Americans among us, is so unpopular that Republicans decided that they had to change the name.
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the rebrand, Mr. Speaker, is going to work. I don't think the name is what the American people were frustrated by. What they are frustrated by is a bill that kicked off 15 million Americans from their healthcare, a bill that amounted to the largest cut in SNAP in the history of our country, a bill that added $5 trillion over the next decade to the Federal debt. That is what they are frustrated about.
They can call this bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act--what is the name now? Maybe the gentleman from New York will indulge me. The working families tax cut, that is what they are calling it now. I suspect, in a few months, they will change the name again because it is not going to change the unpopularity of their policies.
I know this isn't the only resolution that we are debating today, as the gentleman from New York mentioned at great length. We are going to consider three bills from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which seek to amend the Clean Air Act in an effort to scale back regulations that protect air quality from pollutants and polluting industries.
There is no debate that these policies could have wide-ranging implications that would allow large swathes of the United States to be exempt from various rules under the Clean Air Act.
I don't, to be candid, Mr. Speaker, really follow the argument that my friend from New York is making. As I understand it, what he is saying is that there are wide swathes of the country, including in his home State--by the way, this applies to my home State as well--where you have pollution that exceeds the standards that have been set by regulators at the national level. That pollution is causing asthma and respiratory diseases in children.
The solution that they propose is to allow communities that are experiencing this kind of pollution to essentially exempt foreign sources of pollution from those standards so that they don't have to do anything about it.
That is their solution. The air quality is not going to get any better. There will be no prophylactic steps taken by those communities. It is just a way for those communities to no longer have to do anything about pollution. It is absurd, and the American people know it.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say--and I imagine we will have a robust debate about the three bills and the resolution that I referenced. Fundamentally, I suppose if I were to conclude with one overriding sentiment, it is that I am simply asking my Republican colleagues to get serious.
There are a lot of challenges facing the country. It is a difficult time for the families that I represent in northern Colorado and in western Colorado. Times are tough. This House, I believe, could rise to the occasion and actually work together to get some things done for the American people, for the constituents that we all serve. This is not that.
Spare us the commemorative resolutions honoring bills that you all have passed. Let's just skip those, and let's get back to doing the business that the American people expect us to do.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once again, the Democrats are trying to distract from the facts by recycling the same class warfare talking points, even as Americans across the country are sitting down this week to file their taxes and see the reality for themselves. Families are running the numbers. They are looking at what they owe and what they keep. Filing is simpler. For working people, that matters.
Republicans passed this bill without a single Democratic vote. It was signed into law by President Trump, and 91 percent of tax filers now have a simpler tax code. Families pay no Federal income tax on the first $31,000 that they earn. The standard deduction is locked and loaded and expanded, which means less paperwork, less time spent dealing with the IRS, and more money staying in families' budgets.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the biggest beneficiaries of this relief are workers and families making less than $50,000 a year. That is why the rhetoric we keep hearing from Democrats doesn't line up with reality, especially for Americans sitting at their kitchen table filing their taxes right now.
This is relief for the server pulling a double, the factory worker on the line trying to work a few extra hours of overtime, the barber running a small shop, and families trying to get ahead.
Unfortunately, while Republicans fought to ensure that hardworking Americans keep more of their paychecks, because it is their money and not Uncle Sam's, Democrats under President Biden chose a different path. They flooded the post-COVID economy with trillions of dollars in new spending. They overheated the economy and drove inflation to 40- year highs. Working families were left to carry that burden that they still have a hangover on today.
Rather than empowering the American people, Democrats prioritized massive giveaways to political allies through Green New Deal-style programs that layer costly, ineffective regulations. Those policies were not paid for in Washington. They were paid for by families at the gas pump and the grocery store.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump and House Republicans have consistently worked to unleash the full potential of the American economy so that every American who works for a living can benefit.
In stark contrast, Democrats in the last administration chose runaway spending, regulatory access, and leaving everyday Americans to pay the price through skyrocketing costs for basic necessities. Their policies hurt working families. Republican policies have helped working families, and that brings us back to the rule before us today.
This legislation before us makes sure that States are not punished for what they cannot control, supports efforts to prevent disasters before they happen, not after, cuts through red tape that delay jobs and investment, and reinforces policies that help working families keep more of what they earn.
That is what is before the House today. We are hearing concerns that this bill somehow weakens air quality protections or harms public health, but that misses what this legislation actually does. At its core, it is about fairness.
Right now, States can be penalized for emissions that they have absolutely no control over. No one in Buffalo, New York, or western New York, or the southern tier has any impact on Canadian policy on how they manage their forests or why their forests catch on fire every summer. Whether it is pollution coming from those foreign countries or background conditions beyond our control, that is not a system that makes sense.
When that happens, entire regions can fall out of compliance through no fault of their own, making it harder to build new facilities, modernize infrastructure, or bring jobs back to communities that need them the most.
This bill fixes that problem. It ensures that States are judged based on what they can actually control while keeping the same underlying health-based air quality standards fully in place.
Let's be clear: Nothing in this legislation changes those standards. The protections remain. What we are addressing is how those standards are applied in the real world so that communities are not unfairly punished and locked out of economic opportunity. That matters because modernizing facilities here at home means cleaner technology, stronger environmental oversight, and fewer emissions being outsourced overseas.
While there are efforts to frame this as a rollback, it is actually about making the system workable, more predictable, and more grounded in reality. That is what this bill does and that is why it is needed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. First, again, we have heard ad nauseam about the various ways, in the view of my colleagues, that the bill that they passed last year has benefited the American public. I disagree. My constituents disagree, but we are not debating that bill today. We are debating--for those who might be watching this, I encourage everybody to look it up--H. Res. 1156. It is a two-page resolution. It is not particularly long. This resolution does nothing, achieves nothing, and changes nothing. It is a commemorative resolution honoring a law that they passed last year. It is a waste of time.
What are we doing? Seriously. This is how the Republican majority chooses to spend its time?
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do next week? Are you going to introduce a different commemorative resolution that honors maybe this resolution that passes today? Maybe that is what we should count on, I guess.
If this resolution passes today, Mr. Langworthy and I will debate next week a second resolution that honors this resolution.
Give me a break. There are better ways for the House of Representatives to spend its time. These are serious issues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Mr. Speaker, I don't even know if I can dignify a response to the things that I have heard here this morning. Perhaps we will do another showerhead resolution or utilities or something like that. But it is very clear that there is a war in the Middle East, runaway inflation, out-of-control costs, a partial government shutdown, and a madman in the White House. What are our colleagues across the aisle calling us here today to do? They are calling us here to gut the Clean Air Act. Mr. Speaker, this is why I rise in opposition today to all three of these bills and in the strongest defense of the Clean Air Act, which is the bipartisan legislation that has protected the health of the American people and our planet for more than a half-century.
It was passed in 1970 with bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats. It was born out of necessity when smog choked our cities and our communities suffered from unchecked pollution. It has delivered on a promise to the American people that no matter who you are or where you live, you have a fundamental human right to breathe clean air. There is nothing more basic than that right.
It is a promise that has delivered. It has saved millions of lives, prevented countless illnesses, and improved air quality across the country. As we know, it is under a threat not just in this Chamber but by an administration that has rolled back standards, weakened emissions, undermined the authority of the EPA, and gutted our climate commitments.
Now, at a time, especially in the West when we are facing record drought, record heat, and dangerously low snowpack, what are you all doing with your time on the floor? You are trying to further gut the fundamental program that protects our communities and our planet.
That is why I rise today to oppose these bills. This is not permitting reform. This is gutting our right to breathe clean air. The FENCES Act strips the EPA's authority, the FIRE Act manipulates how air pollution is measured, and the RED Tape Act is perhaps the most alarming of all as it would silence communities and allow Federal projects to move forward without consideration to our public health and to the planet.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: The consequences of these bills are not abstract. They are measurable, and they will be measured in lives, in the well-being of our people, and damages to our planet.
The Clean Air Act exists to protect the fundamental right of every American, every human, to breathe clean air. That is why I oppose these bills unequivocally. For the sake of our children, our communities, and our future, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these bills today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want to lecture us on the environment, but let's take a look at their record.
For 4 years in the last administration, they pushed policies that were more about ideology than results. They drove up costs. They added layers of bureaucracy. They made it harder for States and communities to actually manage real environmental challenges.
They created a system that punishes States for factors outside of their control. It discourages proactive solutions and slows down projects with duplicative and unnecessary reviews. That is not environmental leadership. It is regulatory overreach.
Now, under President Trump's leadership, we are taking a more practical approach. We are focusing on policies that actually work by supporting States, encouraging prevention, and cutting through red tape that has held back progress for years. The difference is very clear.
Democrats defend a system that is more complicated, more expensive, and less effective. Republicans are focused on making environmental policy more predictable, more efficient, and more grounded in reality.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the legislation in this rule does. It makes clear that States shouldn't be penalized for emissions they can't control, including pollution from foreign countries and wildfire smoke drifting across our borders. It supports proactive wildfire mitigation instead of punishing States for taking steps to prevent catastrophic fires. It removes duplicative Federal review processes that slow down projects without improving environmental outcomes.
It is not partisan. It is common sense. We have heard a lot from the other side that the EPA already has the tools to deal with wildfire emissions and that this bill is unnecessary. If that were true, we would not be here today.
The reality is, the current system doesn't work. It is broken, and while EPA can exclude certain emissions as exceptional events, the process is complicated, time consuming, and, in many cases, unworkable for States.
Mr. Speaker, here is the real problem. Under the current law, emissions from wildfire can only qualify as exceptional events, but emissions from prescribed burns used to prevent those wildfires do not.
Think about that. States are effectively penalized for taking proactive steps to reduce wildfire risk. That is just totally backward.
As a result, many States don't even attempt to use the existing process because it is too burdensome, too uncertain, and too resource intensive. In fact, for years, States and local agencies were unable to successfully use this process for prescribed burns.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't about creating a loophole. It is about fixing a system that is clearly not working. The FIRE Act removes this barrier. It gives States the certainty that they need to carry out responsible wildfire mitigation without risking noncompliance with Federal air quality standards.
That matters because prescribed burns are not the problem. They are
States should not have to choose between meeting air quality standards and preventing wildfires. This bill makes sure that they don't have to.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I co-chair the Bipartisan Wildfire Caucus. I have worked with my Republican colleagues on a number of wildfire resiliency and forest management bills, proposals, and securing funding. I will not be lectured by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they work to defund the Forest Service, literally, about wildfire resiliency and prescribed burns.
There is no question that, at least with respect to the FIRE Act--I understand we are debating multiple bills with respect to the Clean Air Act, but in terms of the FIRE Act, Mr. Evans' bill, it does nothing. I mean, existing processes within the EPA provide for precisely the type of relief that he is seeking in this bill.
The bill is, again, completely unnecessary. It is also not going anywhere. We, of course, know that to be the case. In any event, I digress.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and thank her for her leadership, I might just say, Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from New York wax very poetically about the importance of the big or not the Big Beautiful Bill Act--whatever they are calling it now--the working families bill or something like that that they have come up with.
There are 218 Republicans in the House of Representatives, give or take. I presume, given the importance of this commemorative resolution, that there perhaps might be some colleagues who are going to join my colleague from New York to talk on this bill?
Mr. Speaker, might I ask you to pose that question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy)? Does he anticipate any colleagues coming to the floor or just him?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The inquiry of which you describe, it is not a proper parliamentary inquiry, but the gentleman from New York will be able to respond during his time.
Mr. Speaker, I hope he does. I suspect the answer is ``no.'' I suspect that Mr. Langworthy is here alone and that he will be the only Republican who has been tasked with arguing in favor of this really important commemorative resolution that we are all so eager to vote on.
Mr. Speaker, in any event, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7417, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed twice now--twice--to fund the law-abiding agencies within DHS.
Mr. Speaker, this is the deal. You know it. I know it. At the end of the day, the compromise legislation that the Senate passed twice was deprived of a vote on this floor by Republicans. Not a single Senator objected to this bill, twice.
The Republican Senate majority leadership authored the motion, but House Republican leadership refuses to take it up. As a result, it is perpetuating the shutdown of DHS by not putting that deal on the floor.
Members who want to end the shutdown ought to join us in defeating the previous question to put this bipartisan compromise on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We are grateful to her for her leadership.
Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Madam Speaker, it has been more than 20 days since the United States Senate reached a unanimous agreement to all but end the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Yet, Republican House leadership refuses to bring the measure up for a vote on the House floor. It would pass overwhelmingly here, without question. Without question.
The White House has only recently decided to start paying workers throughout TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and our cybersecurity agencies after refusing to do so for weeks. They claim they have the authority to do this.
Madam Speaker, if the administration believes that they have the authority to use this money, then every paycheck that a TSA worker was forced to miss was because the White House made an active choice not to pay them.
Imagine. Imagine the turmoil in people's lives due to no paycheck at the end of the week or at the end of 2 weeks. How do you pay your rent? How do you buy groceries? We know the stories of people being evicted, sleeping in their cars, and donating their plasma for money. This is reality.
The White House had the authority to pay them so that they didn't have to go through this. A number of people left their jobs because they were not getting paid. It really defies imagination that people's lives and economic security was being held up for purely political reasons.
Madam Speaker, I will just add that this money will probably run out at some point, and our job and the job of the Appropriations Committee is to make sure that these agencies are funded through the end of the year. That can be done because there is no disagreement on both sides of the aisle on funding Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA, cybersecurity, and the Secret Service.
The issue is what we do in our cities and our towns nationwide with the terror that ICE--and there will be a lengthy debate on dealing with this. That is going to be a lengthy debate about the reforms and the overhaul, as it should be. In the meantime, everyone should continue to be paid. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, they made an agreement.
The public wants to know why you can't get together. I will generally say that we can't get unanimous consent on whether or not the sky is blue in this institution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Madam Speaker, we had unanimous consent not once but twice. I think I read that the Speaker of the House had agreed that this is what they would do, but that was turned around. That was upended.
We know, and I have said a moment ago, that rank and file would support it, as well, if we were allowed to receive a vote. The only people who do not want to reopen this government and this Department are House Republican leadership, who continue to block the bill.
The madness must end, and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Senate bill that passed unanimously so that we can end the shutdown. Let's get back to work for the American people, and I encourage my Republican colleagues to join us in this effort.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I heard the words ``purely political gain,'' and I completely respect the work that the Committee on Appropriations has done this year. Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro did a beautiful job navigating a process that has led us for fiscal year 2026 to get all but one of our appropriations bills passed with bipartisan support.
They had a bipartisan agreement on how to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but it wasn't until the Democrats on the other side of the aisle figured that they had to answer to their political base that they decided to throw the biggest political temper tantrum in the history of the
Let's be honest about who is responsible for the shutdown. Republicans have put forward serious, good-faith efforts to fund the Department of Homeland Security and keep these critical operations running. It is Democrats that chose to walk away time and again, over and over. It is Democrats who chose to play politics with funding for agencies that protect the American people every single day. They did that knowing full well what is at stake: funding for FEMA and disaster response, our Coast Guard operations, and other core Homeland Security functions.
That was all put at risk because Democrats refused to engage. They made the decision to do that. They were willfully aware that certain parts of the Department, like ICE, were already funded through the end of the year. This wasn't about policy. It was all about political theatrics, and it is all that we have had for the last 40, 50 days.
The consequences are real. Since Democrats shut down DHS, we saw violent attacks at Old Dominion University, the Temple Israel synagogue in Michigan, and in Austin, Texas, and we saw a massive cyberattack on the Stryker Corporation. This is no time to be playing politics with the safety of our homeland. Instead of stepping up, Democrats chose to step back, and now they come to the floor trying to shift the blame, hoping the American people will forget who actually walked away from funding the very agencies responsible for protecting them.
The facts are clear: Republicans are working to fund the government and keep Americans safe. Democrats chose to shut it down.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, a lot of political rhetoric again. I think the American people know the facts. They know that the Senate passed a bill twice on a unanimous basis to fund DHS. It is not complicated. The United States Senate passed the bill. Not a single Senator objected. The United States Senate passed the bill again. Not a single Senator objected. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate, approved of this bill. They sent it here. It is sitting at the Clerk's desk. If we voted on it today, my guess is 90 percent of the House of Representatives would vote for it. The only reason we are not is because the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has decided we are not going to vote on it. That is it.
The rest of it, they can try to confuse the American public and describe to them the play-by-play of the last 65 days. Again, it is not complicated. There is a bill sitting at the Clerk's desk to fund DHS that every Republican Senator, every Democratic Senator, and 90 percent of this body support. The only reason we are not voting on it is politics because Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has decided that he won't allow it. That is it.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am prepared to close, but I will say that I am doing this very begrudgingly because I was hoping that we might be able to have some colloquies with my colleague from New York with his colleagues on H. Res. 1156. I know how important this commemorative resolution is to the Republican Conference, and I would be loath to deprive my colleague from New York with the opportunity to have a fulsome debate on it.
Is there no Republican in the House of Representatives who is willing to come down to the floor to extol the virtues of the big, beautiful bill--or the working families bill that they have renamed? None, Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I think that was the original name on the bill.
Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify something that the Speaker said. That is not the name of the bill. Just to be clear, I encourage anybody who is watching to go online and pull up the bill. It is, I think, about 350 pages. The one phrase that you will not find in the entirety of the bill is ``Working Families Tax Cuts,'' Madam Speaker. It is nowhere.
I checked. I checked yesterday during the Committee on Rules. I checked again before I came to the floor just to be sure, so I don't know where you came up with that name, Madam Speaker. I am not even really sure who has come up with it in the Republican Conference. Somebody, a marketing guru in the Republican Conference I think convinced the Speaker, and I suppose said to him: ``Look, this bill is deeply unpopular. President Trump is deeply unpopular, more unpopular than any President in the modern history of our country. We have got to do something different, and I have got an idea. We will just come up with a new name for the bill; a new name, resolution honoring that new name that will convince them. I am sure that will get the American public on our side.'' Fascinating.
Madam Speaker, week after week, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opted to take up a variety of legislation. The one common thread is that it fails to meet the moment.
Americans sent us here to work on the issues that they care most about, that have the most impact on their everyday lives: the rising affordability crisis, expanding access to affordable healthcare, protecting our environment and public resources; not to gut air pollution standards and pass commemorative resolutions patting themselves on the back. That is not how Congress should be spending its precious time.
The bills before us do nothing to improve the lives of working families in our country. It is why I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I yield myself the balance of my time.
For years, Democrats have told the American people not to believe what they can see with their own eyes. They have defended a system that penalizes States for emissions they don't control, discourages wildfire prevention, and buries job-creating projects under layers of unnecessary bureaucracy.
The legislation under this rule today takes real steps towards fixing those failures--restoring fairness to our air quality standards, supporting proactive wildfire mitigation, cutting red tape that delays jobs and investment, and reaffirming tax relief for working families through H.R. 1.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Neguse is as follows:
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6387, Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 1174) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6387) to amend the Clean Air Act to require revisions to regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6409) to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1156) expressing support for tax policies that support working families, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, nays 211, not voting 8, as follows:
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mrs. McCLAIN DELANEY, and Ms. TOKUDA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, I rise to provide notice of my intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 965.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentlewoman sign the petition?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts calls up a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 965.
The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) will be recognized for 10 minutes and the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a motion to discharge H.R. 1689 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status.
This is a commonsense policy that will save lives and benefit the American public. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort and vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I support this motion, and I urge my colleagues, including the 218 Members from both sides of the aisle who signed this discharge petition, to vote ``yes.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of House Resolution 965.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I missed votes today, due to inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 111, No on Roll Call No. 112, and YEA on Roll Call No. 113.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in unequivocal support of this vote. I am immensely grateful to the Members who supported my discharge petition on both sides of the aisle and the broad, intergenerational and multiracial coalition of justice seekers throughout the country who power this movement, and my indefatigable staff, my A team, who power this work.
I am grateful for labor unions like SEIU, business industry like ABIC, faith leaders like the Conference of Catholic Bishops, civil rights groups like Black Lives Matter Grassroots, IFC, and so many more, who have joined the movement to extend TPS for Haiti.
Now, this issue, Mr. Speaker, is not the most glamorous, and I don't fault anyone at home who perhaps has never heard of this, but for those who know those three letters, TPS, they know it is life-changing.
Temporary protected status is a legal status for 1.3 million immigrants in the United States. The application process is arduous, requiring piles of paperwork, undergoing a background check, spending hundreds of dollars, and coming from one of the few countries on the list, like Haiti or Venezuela.
Technically, the deadline for maintaining Haiti TPS has already passed. That is why this vote is so urgent. That is why I filed the discharge petition, and that is why Democrats, Republicans, and an Independent have come together to take action.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to extend temporary protected status for Haitians who are living in the United States and building a future that will help all of us.
Haitians like Rebecca in my district, the Massachusetts Seventh, who shared her personal story with me. Rebecca moved to the United States in 2010, not by choice, but out of necessity following the catastrophic earthquake that killed more people than any other earthquake in the history of the Western Hemisphere.
She witnessed the rise in gangs and saw her beautiful country overtaken by
Now, in 2026, thanks to her legal status under TPS, Rebecca is a certified nursing assistant. She told me that she cares for her patients with great joy, pride, and dedication.
Mr. Speaker, let the record reflect that 20 percent of Haitians in the United States, that is one in five, work in healthcare, bridging the critical workforce gaps that define our caregiving crisis.
Rebecca is not our enemy, and she should not have to live with shame nor fear of being deported solely because of where she was born. She told me that she cannot return to Haiti, and she has no other place to go.
Mr. Speaker, Rebecca's letter ended with two words that no person wishes they would ever need to use: Please help.
Today, Congress has the ability to do just that for Rebecca in Massachusetts, for the teacher in Ohio, for the entrepreneur in Florida, and the more than 350,000 Haitian TPS holders whose lives hang in the balance.
Congress can help. Congress can do the right thing. There is nothing stopping us. Congress, right now and right here, can vote to save lives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Gillen).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative Pressley, for her leadership on this issue and her yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to advance H.R. 1689, the bipartisan bill extending TPS for Haitians.
I thank my colleague, Representative Pressley, the co-chair of the Haiti Caucus, for her leadership on today's discharge petition. I am grateful for her partnership to protect our Haitian neighbors and friends.
Nassau County is home to one of the largest Haitian populations in the country, and we are incredibly proud of that. Haitian Long Islanders are part of the very fabric of our communities. Haitians work in critical sectors like healthcare, education and caregiving, supporting our elderly and working in local hospitals. Many have built private businesses and enriched our faith community.
Before I came to Congress, I made a promise to the Haitian constituents in my district that I would use my voice and work with anyone in any party to help protect this community and their existing legal status here in the United States.
Removing our neighbors would not just be a humanitarian catastrophe, it would hurt our economy, so as soon as I got to Congress, the very first bill that I introduced was a bipartisan bill to extend TPS for Haitians because protecting our friends and neighbors should be a bipartisan concern.
I was so proud and honored to work with my Republican colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler). I am thankful for his leadership on this issue, as well.
The U.S. State Department claims it is too dangerous for American citizens to go to Haiti because of kidnapping, gang violence, and widespread chaos, but yet the administration has said it is safe for Haitians to return there. How can we say that when the State Department has a ``Level 4: Do not travel'' advisory on its own website?
I have spoken to Haitian families who desperately want to see peace return to their country and would like to return there when it is safe to do so. However, the safety and economic security that they need to rebuild their lives there is nonexistent. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a special thank you to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) for uniting the Caucus and Congress and passing this and getting the signatures.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of all the Haitian Americans in the United States and not just on their behalf, but on behalf of other Americans also who have businesses. I want us to look at this not just from a humanitarian perspective but also the economic damage which will happen to our country if we were, in fact, to expel over 350,000 Haitian Americans on TPS.
Haitian TPS holders contribute nearly $6 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Haitian TPS holders pay taxes. They pay $1.5 billion in Federal taxes, supporting Social Security, Medicare, and public health projects. They are active, compliant contributors to our economy.
Ending TPS would remove hundreds of thousands of workers from the labor force and shrink local economies across the country. Deportation is not fiscally responsible. It is economic sabotage.
There is another way. We can push legislation that would allow a transition, maybe for them to have green cards while we educate Americans to replace these jobs. However, rushing for expulsion or rushing to push them out of the country without an economic plan would only hurt our Nation, our businesses, and us.
Let's look at all the contributions that they have given. We have already stated that Haitian people actually possess more than 20 percent of the jobs in healthcare throughout the Nation, but that is not the end of the story.
Let's look at what they actually do when it comes to the economy in engineering and construction. We all agree that there is a huge housing problem right now. Who is building those homes? Those are our TPS people, who are here and who are working adamantly.
Today, I ask for us to consider this bill and to actually not go forward with expelling all the Haitian TPS recipients because it would only do us harm.
In response, what we should do is be united in thinking of an economic plan to not just create job skills training for Americans, which Americans are asking for direly right now. They want to work. They want to be a part of the economy, and we should give them permanent residency.
Mr. Speaker, let me add my voice to that of those who have thanked both Representative Gillen and, of course, Representative Pressley for their leadership and their stewardship in bringing us to this day.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on this day as just one out of many voices proclaiming that we will not stand idly by as 5,400 Haitian TPS holders in New York City and approximately 345,000 others across America who we have come to call our neighbors, friends, and loved ones are forced back to the same gang violence, exploitation, chaos, and instability that they once narrowly escaped with their lives.
As I stand here, I do so in diametric opposition to this administration, which knows full well of our Haitian neighbors' plight yet does not seek to alleviate their pain. Instead, they hope only to become an active participant in it.
That is because in the twisted, dystopian, political sphere that has been created by the Trump administration and its leadership, these are not innocent families and children struggling for freedom and yearning for any semblance of safety, but instead are nothing more than numbers to fuel their ever-cruel, forever-hungry deportation machine.
Since the moment they arrived in America, Haitian TPS holders have dedicated themselves to contributing to this Nation. They have built businesses, built families, and built up their communities. Through their undeniable strength of character and resilient spirit, they have become an inseparable part of our city and country's social fabric. If anyone would like an example of what it truly means to be a good and decent American, let's look towards Haitian Americans and the families up the street.
My colleagues and I have repeatedly urged the administration to extend protections for our most vulnerable neighbors at this most perilous time. Thus far, our call has gone unanswered.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make the moral decision to pass this necessary humanitarian legislation, protect our Haitian neighbors from certain devastation, and vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of extending temporary protective status for Haitian nationals living in the United States.
I am proud to represent Orlando, Florida, where one of the largest populations of Haitians live in the country. They are facing a humanitarian disaster and crisis, and we are facing a clear humanitarian and policy problem.
Haiti remains in the midst of a severe crisis, unlike anything we can find in the entire world. While hundreds of thousands of Haitian nationals live in the United States, Haiti remains in severe crisis and a horrible humanitarian situation. Hundreds of thousands of Haitian nationals in the United States are living and working under temporary protective status, and now that is at risk.
Conditions in Haiti are not safe to return. Armed groups control parts of the country. Access to food, medical care, and basic security remains deeply unstable. Deporting or forcing families to return under these conditions would be dangerous and unjust.
At the same time, Haitian TPS holders are fully integrated into our communities and societies. They are working, raising families, and contributing to our economy and neighborhoods every day.
The question before us is whether we allow this uncertainty and instability to continue or whether we will act. That is where this discharge petition comes in. The normal legislative process has failed to move this important issue forward, but this discharge petition has succeeded in forcing the House to finally consider legislation to extend TPS for more than 350,000 Haitian nationals. It is important we keep that in mind.
If we fail to move this forward, we are talking about expelling 350,000 of our neighbors to a country that is deeply unstable and dangerous.
By signing this petition, my colleagues have already recognized the urgency of the issue. Now it is time to follow through with action. A vote in favor of this measure provides stability for families, communities, and for critical parts of our workforce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
A vote in favor of this measure provides stability to families for communities and critical parts of our workforce. A vote against it sends people into conditions that we know are unsafe.
This work does not end here. We hope that in the future we can do the same thing for Venezuelan nationals. I am proud to be a part of this fight right now following the leadership of Representative Ayanna Pressley.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. A vote against this resolution is a vote against our country's best interests, plain and simple, but don't just take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Republicans in the executive branch agree.
If you go to the State Department's website, you will see the Trump administration has designated Haiti as a ``Level 4: Do not travel (Code Red)'' because of the multilayered humanitarian crises of natural disasters, gang violence, and political instability impacting the island.
That is why TPS is warranted in this moment, and Secretary Rubio knows that. In fact, when he was in the Senate, it was Rubio who authored the very legislation we are voting on today.
It is not just him who agrees. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, has repeatedly discussed the dire conditions of Haiti and its strategic importance to our national security.
Ambassador Waltz, who was recently a Republican in this very body, believes we should be working to stabilize Haiti. He knows that the international effort to restore order in Port-au-Prince would be undermined if we deported hundreds of thousands of Haitians to the island.
This isn't just about foreign policy. Secretary Kennedy of the Department of Health and Human Services said something families across the country already know too well: America is facing a caregiver crisis. If we were to deport Haitians, we would lose even more nurses, aides, and caregivers that we desperately need. Those jobs can't be replaced by AI. The solution is clear.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to extend TPS because it is the economic thing to do. It is the strategic thing to do. It is the humane thing to do. But most of all, it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question is ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
On April 15, 2026, page H2902, in the second column, the following appeared: The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
The online version has been corrected to read: The previous question is ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6409) to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, 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 1174, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
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 include extraneous material on H.R. 6409.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act, which addresses the need for commonsense reforms on how emissions impact our Nation's ability to support domestic manufacturing and unleash affordable and reliable energy.
For far too long, burdensome regulations have stood in the way, allowing investments to go overseas while Americans are forced to pay higher prices. Many of these costly regulations result from regulatory burdens associated with the Clean Air Act.
The legislation considered today makes targeted and effective reforms that will support American job creators while continuing to protect our environment and the air we breathe.
The legislation produced by my colleague Congressman August Pfluger of Texas ensures that States and local communities are not penalized for foreign air emissions emanating from outside our borders. Across the country, States are being unfairly penalized for pollution that originates from foreign nations, including air emissions from natural events, like the Canadian wildfires.
Currently, the Clean Air Act allows States to adjust their plans when foreign emissions prevent them from meeting Federal standards. However, the guidance from the EPA under the previous administration narrowed that relief, limiting it to only human-caused emissions from abroad.
This bill clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or man-made, are excluded from consideration when determining whether a State meets national air quality standards.
Importantly, the bill allows States to account for foreign emissions earlier in the regulatory process, instead of forcing them to wait until the very end and risk costly delays or Federal sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting these bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.
Access to quality and affordable healthcare is an issue at the top of many Americans' minds right now as they struggle through the ever- worsening Republican affordability crisis. Republicans have demonstrated over the last year that they have no interest in improving healthcare for the American people.
The Republican big, ugly bill cut more than a trillion dollars from Americans' healthcare. Insurance premiums spiked at the beginning of the year for 20 million people because Republicans refused to extend the ACA tax credits. Fifteen million people are predicted to lose their healthcare altogether. Hospitals are closing in record numbers around the country.
There was a media report just yesterday that said 15 hospitals in my State of New Jersey have the potential to close because of the Republican big, ugly bill and the impact on hospitals.
Now, there are reports that Republicans intend to make further cuts and take healthcare away from more people to pay for Trump's reckless war of choice with Iran. In Trump's America, we can't afford healthcare, but apparently, we can spend a billion dollars a day on the war in Iran. In fact, Trump himself said that it is not possible for the Federal Government to pay for Medicaid and Medicare when we are fighting wars.
Republican attacks on Americans' healthcare continue this week here on the House floor by bringing three dirty air bills to the House floor, including this bill, H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; and also H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and, finally, H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act.
These bills are an attack on the public health protections that are a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act. They will ultimately make Americans sicker and increase healthcare costs even more.
The health harms of air pollution are well-documented, being felt by communities across the country. Communities in areas with unsafe levels of air pollution see more diagnoses of diseases like asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer, all of which require long- term treatment and medication.
Air pollution, Mr. Speaker, is also responsible for over 100,000 premature deaths every year. It is ridiculous to even consider these bills when our constituents are demanding action on healthcare affordability.
Whether it is from reducing transparency, to artificially reducing air pollution reporting by ignoring climate change, to giving corporate polluters free passes on Clean Air Act requirements, these bills are evidence that Republicans are more interested in helping their pollution friends than the well-being of Americans.
The bill that we are talking about now, the FENCES Act, would undercut the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, which tells us the amount of air pollution that is safe to breathe.
The bill would have us ignore bad air quality in areas that experience any pollution beyond the jurisdiction of a State or city's borders. It removes the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to impose fees or sanctions on States that fail to make progress toward cleaning up the air.
Let me just explain this. If my hometown of Long Branch or my county of Monmouth or my State of New Jersey was getting pollution from outside that particular jurisdiction, it wouldn't count. They wouldn't have to account for that in terms of dealing with air pollution and trying to reduce it. To me, that is patently ridiculous because we know that air pollution travels across cities, across States, and even across countries. Giving States that are not even trying to improve air quality a free pass for pollution without any incentive to fix the problem is not the right way to proceed, and that is what this bill does.
If signed into law, this bill would require EPA to cook the books on air pollution in favor of industry, removing all accountability for States to clean up air pollution and leaving millions of Americans to breathe unhealthy air. The only winners here are corporate polluters who would get to save a few dollars in compliance costs.
Now Republican attempts to undermine the NAAQS aren't new. Every time the EPA strengthens an air quality standard, opponents complain that stronger public health standards will limit economic growth, but that has never been true, Mr. Speaker. Every time, industry has innovated better pollution control measures to meet the new standards.
Republicans also claim that the FENCES Act is part of their permitting reform effort, but this bill would not speed up any permitting. In fact, it
House Republicans are trying to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with poor air quality appear much better to benefit corporate polluters at the expense of the health of Americans across the country. Pushing the FENCES Act at a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to afford their utilities, their groceries, and healthcare, in my opinion, is unconscionable.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to me to hear my Democratic colleagues talk about where Republicans are on healthcare when, in fact, it was Republicans who initiated the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund that every Democrat voted against.
As a matter of fact, just this year, the State of New Jersey is going to get $147,250,806 from the Rural Health Transformation Fund. I think that is a pretty good investment in trying to improve healthcare for people all over the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Foreign Emissions and Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act, also known as the FENCES Act.
States and communities are being pushed into nonattainment because of pollution that they don't control and they can't prevent. As was just mentioned by my colleague from New Jersey who said that we can't control pollution across borders, that is right. That is why we have to come up with this bill.
Smoke from Canadian wildfires, emissions drifting across our southern border, and other foreign sources can overwhelm local air quality readings even when the States are fully compliant and acting in good faith.
Congress has long recognized this reality. That is why the Clean Air Act allows States to account for foreign emissions when those emissions interfere with attainment, but that balance was disrupted when EPA guidance under the Biden administration sharply narrowed what counts as foreign emissions, limiting relief to certain human-caused sources while excluding events like wildfires. That distinction was arbitrary and unworkable. States cannot regulate another country, and they certainly cannot regulate natural disasters.
The FENCES Act corrects that mistake. In fact, let me change that phrasing. The FENCES Act corrects that overreach by the previous administration. It clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or human caused, must be excluded when the EPA makes nonattainment determinations or reviews new source permits. Just as important, the bill allows States to raise these issues earlier in the process rather than years after the planning and investment have happened when the consequences are most severe.
Those consequences are significant. Nonattainment designations impose substantial regulatory burdens on States, communities, energy producers, and manufacturers. They trigger stricter permitting requirements, delay infrastructure projects, and raise the costs for businesses trying to expand or hire. For energy producers, it means slower approvals for drilling and processing. For manufacturers, it means uncertainty around whether a project will even move forward. For local communities, it means fewer jobs and less investment, even when they have done everything right to comply with the law.
The issue is not theoretical. In my area, the Permian Basin, we saw how even the possibility, the threatening of a nonattainment designation can create uncertainty. That uncertainty affects permitting timelines, capital planning, and long-term investment decisions for both producers and local communities. Companies begin to question whether new jobs will face delays or additional requirements, and local leaders are left planning around an unclear regulatory future. When the stakes are that high, EPA needs to get the analysis right. That is the way the law was written, and this bill gets us back to that intent.
It was said that this bill favors the dirty production in manufacturing and lowers the air quality. No, it actually holds our communities accountable. It holds them accountable, the communities that we care about domestically that should be held accountable, but shouldn't be penalized for cities in Mexico or wildfires that are happening in Canada or other foreign sources that they don't control. That is what this bill does.
When the Supreme Court decided on the Loper Bright case, that is the Chevron deference case, this is the decision they had in mind because the Biden administration overreached so often and so critically.
This bill is a targeted, commonsense measure that does not change air quality standards. In fact, it actually enforces them more accurately within our local communities, and it makes a narrow adjustment to ensure that compliance determinations are fair by excluding foreign emissions from EPA nonattainment designations.
American workers and businesses should not face regulatory penalties for pollution originating outside our borders or for uncontrollable natural events. I urge my colleagues to think about a commonsense solution and to get back to the intent of the law, which is exactly what the FENCES Act does.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, when we debated this bill in committee, I was reminded of the environmental history of the Adirondack Mountains, which are located just to the north of my district in upstate New York. The Adirondacks are known for their beauty as well as the ecological damage they suffered from acid rain.
That acid rain was caused by polluting power plants in the Midwest, and that pollution didn't stop in upstate New York. It also harmed people and the environment in eastern Canada. The international pressure brought by the Canadian Government helped motivate the Bush administration and Congress to enact the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, which included a program to control sources of acid rain pollution.
In that case, American industries were the polluters, but it demonstrates how international cooperation in pursuit of our common environmental goals is, indeed, possible.
States and counties burdened by foreign pollution sources should be able to rely upon their Federal Government to address these issues through bilateral discussions with the polluting country. We should be able to have a bipartisan consensus in Congress that we would like our environmental and diplomatic efforts to prioritize these issues in our international relations.
Of course, it should be a national imperative that we collectively demand polluters in Mexico, China, or any other country that may be proven to be contributing to an area's nonattainment of a Clean Air Act standard, to do something to control their pollution.
I understand that States and counties may be frustrated by pollution sources from outside their jurisdiction, but the lungs of the people living and working in those areas don't care from whence that pollution originated. It affects their health all the same.
I don't think the answer can be to simply ignore the problem of Americans breathing unsafe levels of air pollution. States and local air agencies should continue to work with EPA to find ways to better protect people by also allowing for opportunities to prove when emissions originate from outside their borders.
Thankfully, that is already how the Clean Air Act works, making this bill unnecessary. Section 179B of the Clean Air Act currently gives States that opportunity to prove emissions came from an international source and provides regulatory relief when an area would have otherwise achieved the National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Instead, this bill allows States to completely ignore international pollution in their State implementation plans, and it provides free passes on pollution that comes from outside the area, from exceptional events, and from mobile-source pollution.
The bill blocks EPA's ability to impose sanctions on States that fail to make progress toward reducing air pollution, including States that are not even trying to improve air quality.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should be working to better protect our constituents from having to breathe pollution from foreign sources, but pretending that pollution doesn't exist simply cannot be the answer.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the FENCES Act, a commonsense bill that brings fairness and clarity to how we evaluate air quality in the United States.
In California, our communities are already working hard to meet some of the most stringent environmental standards in the country. Yet, too often, they are penalized for factors completely outside of their control, like pollution or wildfire smoke that comes from outside our borders.
The FENCES Act clarifies that emissions coming from other countries, whether caused by human activity or natural events, cannot be used to determine whether a State is meeting Federal air quality standards. The bill also strengthens existing law under the Clean Air Act by allowing States to account for foreign emissions earlier in the process rather than waiting until final stages of their State implementation plans. For California, wherein nonattainment designations can have serious economic consequences, reliability is important.
Right now, businesses across Central Valley and across our State face significant permitting delays and regulatory uncertainty. I hear from small businesses all the time who want to invest and hire in our region, but they are stuck navigating a system that doesn't reflect today's global realities.
In some cases, these challenges actually push investment overseas to countries with much weaker environmental standards, which ultimately undermines the very goal that we are trying to achieve here in the United States. I think we can all agree that we want our communities to be healthy while also providing opportunities for economic investment.
The FENCES Act helps to provide a level playing field by providing regulatory clarity, streamlining the permitting process, and giving States like California a fair shot at compliance, while still maintaining our commitment to clean air.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which strikes the balance between reasonable environmental standards and allowing industry to invest in America to help build our economy and create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, America is in the middle of a healthcare crisis. More and more Americans can't afford their healthcare. They just can't pay for it. Hospitals are cutting back services. Many of them are closing their doors.
Then, Trump and congressional Republicans made things much worse when they spent trillions of dollars on tax cuts that mostly benefited the wealthy. To pay for it, they kicked about 15 million Americans off of their health insurance, a cut of approximately $1 trillion to healthcare for tax cuts for the wealthy.
Then, they refused to give 24 million Americans a break on buying healthcare, and now this. This week, congressional Republicans are bringing three bills to the floor that will make it harder for people to breathe.
One of those bills, the so-called FENCES Act, directs the EPA to use accounting gimmicks that will allow industries to pollute our air without consequences. It is an air pollution bill.
This bill will make Americans sicker while Trump and congressional Republicans have cut healthcare for millions of Americans. Congress should be focused entirely on expanding healthcare and protecting our air and water. Fortunately, the Senate won't take these bills up, and they are not going anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about Republican positions on healthcare. I will remind them again that, in particular, the State of Ohio received $202,030,262 from the Rural Health Transformation Fund that every Democrat voted against. I remind my colleagues that the Republicans have made a major investment in healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama for yielding, and I appreciate his hard work going into the Rural Transformation Healthcare Fund that was in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The gentleman originated the idea, and we certainly appreciate his hard work on that.
Today, I rise to support H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act.
These three bills are an essential part of the committee's broader efforts on permitting reform and aligned with the White House permitting priorities, which include modernizing the Clean Air Act.
A lot has changed since 1990, the last time that the Clean Air Act got a substantial overhaul. Some parts of the law have become outdated, contributing to the regulatory gridlock that is stifling American growth and innovation.
A lot has changed since 1990, the last time the Clean Air Act got a substantial overhaul, and some parts of the law have become outdated, contributing also to more gridlock.
These bills are foundational to our permitting reform efforts because they illustrate ways that we protect public health and the environment while removing outdated provisions that are slowing energy production and manufacturing, ultimately preventing job creation.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has held multiple hearings this Congress on the process for establishing and implementing national air quality standards and improving the preconstruction permitting program without sacrificing environmental protections. Some of the most expensive and significant barriers in the permitting process are the result of the law's outdated provisions.
What is worse, these burdensome requirements fail to address the most significant sources of pollution and create disincentives for companies to invest in cost-efficient and effective technology that would actually improve air quality.
In the U.S., it takes 80 percent longer to permit projects than elsewhere in the world. America's outdated permitting system costs manufacturers in the U.S. approximately $7.9 billion each year. While a reasonable level of permitting is, of course, needed, without commonsense reforms, our Nation risks falling behind our adversaries, like China.
Notably, over 70 percent of projects require Clean Air Act permits, which have the most burdensome approval process of any permitting requirement. Notably, over 70 percent of projects require these permits, and these three bills remove regulatory uncertainty and bureaucratic hoops that impact what and where job creators build new businesses, but they do not change the underlying environmental protections in the law.
The FENCES Act introduced by Congressman Pfluger ensures that States and local communities are not penalized for foreign air emissions emanating from outside of the U.S. The FENCES Act clarifies that all foreign emissions, whether natural or manmade, are not considered when determining whether a State meets national air quality standards.
The FENCES Act protects manufacturers and communities from unnecessary compliance burdens caused by events beyond their control, such as pollution from China, foreign wildfires,
The RED Tape Act, introduced by Congressman Joyce, eliminates a duplicative environmental review for projects already subject to NEPA environmental review. The duplicative process leads to additional delays and costs in the NEPA process.
The FIRE Act, introduced by Congressman Gabe Evans and co-led by Congressman Adam Gray, updates the Clean Air Act to address the biggest threat in air pollution that this country faces today: wildfires. Bipartisan legislation ensures that States are not punished for prescribed burns or emissions that they cannot control.
Prescribed burns are the most effective tool to decrease the severity of wildfires and public health problems associated with wildfire smoke. Despite the widespread acceptance of benefits of prescribed burns, they are underutilized across the U.S. due to perverse regulatory burdens under current air quality laws.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act. These bills provide commonsense solutions and long-needed updates to the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Pallone for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the FENCES Act.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about protecting public health and the environment and without sacrificing environmental protection in this country, but I want to point out that it is this administration currently in office that has eviscerated the EPA. Time after time, we have seen these bills filed that are intended to weaken our environmental protection.
Let me be clear about what the FENCES Act actually does. It weakens the Clean Air Act. It removes the EPA's ability to hold States accountable when they fail to reduce air pollution, and it gives polluters a free pass in communities that can least afford it.
I represent Houston, Texas. In my district, environmental justice is not a talking point; it is a reality that people wake up to each and every day.
We have communities that have some of the highest concentrations of industrial pollution in the entire country: communities with more than five polluting facilities in a 2-mile radius, cancer clusters, high rates of lung disease and heart disease, lower life expectancies, children and seniors breathing in some of the most contaminated air in America.
These communities don't need us here in Washington making it worse. I know firsthand what happens when you take the pressure off of State environmental regulators.
Before I came to Congress, I served as the chief legal officer for Harris County, the largest county in Texas. I watched the State's environmental regulators look the other way when pollution ran rampant in underserved communities.
They sat on cancer clusters. They let polluting facilities concentrate in neighborhoods that had no political power to fight back, and they handed passes to industry while residents got sick. I had to sue them to get them to act, but that is not how our government should work.
The Federal Government has to hold these folks accountable when they put industry over people and put our communities' health at risk, but this bill would add yet another obstacle to holding those in power accountable.
Here is what the FENCES Act actually does. Under current law, States already get credit when pollution blows in from other countries or from out of State. They are not penalized for pollution that they cannot control. That protection exists today.
This bill doesn't fix a gap. It tears open a new one. It expands that exemption so broadly that States can point to foreign pollution as a reason to stop making progress on air quality altogether.
It removes the EPA's ability to hold them accountable. It is a built- in excuse to look the other way. State regulators and polluters both know exactly how to exploit it, and they will.
That is why I tried to change this bill by submitting an amendment. It said one simple thing: that before this law takes effect, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must certify that the impacts will not harm children and the elderly. That is it. Prove that this is safe for our kids and our seniors before it takes effect.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked it. They would not allow that vote. They couldn't say yes to that because this bill was never about clean air. It is about giving corporate polluters cover while the people in our districts pay with their health.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Over 100 million Americans already live in counties with unhealthy air quality. Air pollution contributes to more than 100,000 premature deaths in this country each and every year. The people in our communities are not abstractions. They are already on the wrong side of these numbers.
This body lets pollution run rampant as our communities see poison in the wind that blows and wonder ``Where did all the blue skies go?''
We should be standing up to make sure that every single person in our communities has clean land, clean air, and clean water, regardless of their ZIP Code or socioeconomic status.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the FENCES Act.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the situation that people in rural America find themselves in. What we tried to do with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with the Rural Health Transformation Fund was meet a lot of those needs. The State of Texas got more money than any other State, $281,319,361, to try to improve healthcare opportunities for people who live in disadvantaged areas. What we are also trying to do is improve those conditions, to give people an opportunity to have a better job, to have better options in food, and have better healthcare options, as well. That is a big part of what we are trying to do with the modernization of the Clean Air Act and these bills that we bring before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Palmer for yielding me time to speak in support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.
This commonsense legislation ensures that American communities and manufacturers are not penalized for pollution that they cannot control. Emissions from foreign countries, wildfires, and dust storms should not determine whether our States meet Federal air quality standards.
The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by clarifying that foreign emissions, whether natural or man-made, are excluded from compliance determinations and permitting decisions. It also allows States to account for these emissions earlier in the regulatory process, providing certainty and preventing costly delays.
For border communities like those that I represent in southern Arizona, this is about fairness. Our districts should not face economic penalties for pollution originating beyond our own borders.
The FENCES Act strengthens regulatory certainty, supports American jobs, and upholds our Nation's environmental standards. It is also widely supported by the business community and will ensure we are creating an environment in which industry can thrive.
I strongly believe that when we manufacture here in America, we do it better and cleaner than anywhere else in the world, and this legislation is essential in supporting American innovation and excellence across a wide variety of sectors, from mining to chips manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and vehement opposition to these bills, specifically the FENCES Act, that gut the Clean Air Act's core public health protections.
Before the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, pollution choked American cities. It blanketed entire communities in a toxic haze so thick that residents were reported to believe they were under chemical attack.
In Los Angeles, people had smog-burned eyes and seared lungs. In my hometown of Portland, an industrial hub, smokestacks filled the skies with black plumes. Children walked to school clutching handkerchiefs over their faces. Drivers crashed on the highway because they couldn't see more than a few feet ahead. Families were scared. They were sick, and they were desperate for change.
That is the reality my Republican colleagues are now trying to drag us back to. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are one of the most important tools we have to protect health. They set limits on dangerous pollution and ensure communities know when the air they breathe is unsafe. These bills would undermine those standards, allowing States to sidestep them and leave the public in the dark about real health risks.
As a lung doctor, I know exactly what that means. It means more asthma attacks, more heart attacks, more strokes, more cancer diagnoses, and more children in the ER.
We have seen this play out time and time again, and today, I cannot help but wonder when are we going to learn our lesson.
In places like Cancer Alley, families wake up every day knowing the air they breathe is making them sick. Communities are living with higher rates of cancer, respiratory illness, and premature death--real people, real families bearing the cost of decisions made right here.
It is not just one place. Across the country, in communities living near the major sources of pollution, we see the same pattern. When standards are weakened and accountability disappears, people pay with their health.
This is not what the people of Oregon sent me here to do. They sent me here to fight for healthy communities, for clean air, for safe water, and a better future for our children.
I will not sit silently while this body rolls back lifesaving protections that have put polluters on watch. I urge my colleagues to reject these bills. Our children are watching. History is watching, and the air we breathe is on the line.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.
Washington has ignored a simple fact that every Arizonan knows firsthand. Eighty percent of the air pollution in Maricopa County, Arizona's largest county, with a population of approximately 5.5 million people, is caused by natural phenomena or international transport.
Wildfire smoke from California, Canada, and Mexico, dust storms across the desert, and emissions drifting in from China and Mexico are all outside our control. Yet Arizona was penalized with stricter Federal mandates, threatening jobs and growth in one of the fastest growing regions in America.
That makes no sense because Arizona--and Maricopa County specifically--is home to economic and technological development that will better the lives of Arizonans and Americans nationwide.
From semiconductor manufacturing to aerospace and national defense facilities, Arizona is building the industries that keep America competitive.
These employers depend on fair, predictable permitting, not rules that punish us for pollution blowing in from another country.
Arizona's leaders have invested in real outreach and compliance tools that have cut controllable emissions by 50 percent since 2000, but no State should be forced to impose more regulations on families and small businesses for pollution that they did not cause nor can they remedy. That is exactly where the FENCES Act is necessary.
The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by making clear that all foreign emissions, natural or man-made, are excluded when EPA conducts air quality reviews.
Democrats would continue to penalize States like Arizona for these uncontrollable sources. Democrats want to continue to impose costly delays, Federal sanctions, and unnecessary burdens on manufacturers, communities, and States.
Earlier this year, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recognized the impact of these onerous rules and stopped their negative effects in Maricopa County, but no State should have to rely on the unpredictability and capriciousness of any administration.
Congress must act so that no future EPA can arbitrarily punish Arizona or any State for emissions beyond our borders.
The FENCES Act is grounded in sound science and common sense. It protects jobs, supports investment, and ensures environmental rules focus on what States can actually control.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the FENCES Act. Let's pass it today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act, which would gut the Clean Air Act.
For over 60 years, the Clean Air Act has stood as our Nation's landmark air pollution law, serving as our most effective tool to try to keep the air that our children and families breathe safe and to hold polluters accountable.
Despite this achievement, we still have more than 100,000 people prematurely dying in the United States every year because of air pollution. That is simply unacceptable.
We should be building on the progress of the Clean Air Act, not gutting it. We should be decarbonizing transportation, regulating carbon emissions, acknowledging that climate change is happening and that the science is real, and trying to improve air quality and reduce the climate trends that we are seeing that are so alarming. Instead, we are debating another bill that would give yet another free pass to corporations and billionaires at the expense of working families.
I understand my colleagues across the aisle are debating right now, and will introduce later today, a bill to rename the big, ugly bill to something maybe more palatable to the masses. They are doing that because the big, ugly bill is so unpopular right now that they are trying to run away from it as fast as possible.
I have a news flash for y'all. It is not the name that is the problem. It is the substance of the bill that helps, again, the Epstein elites that y'all are protecting so hard. It does so at the expense of the working class--in this case, with the FENCES Act gutting the Clean Air Act and polluting our air and water.
The bill before us today is yet another attack on the Clean Air Act that we cannot afford. The FENCES Act would pave the way for States to avoid their responsibility to improve air quality and protect public health by claiming air pollution in their State as a foreign source.
This bill is completely unnecessary because, under current law, States are not penalized for pollution they can't control, such as from foreign sources or other States. This is a solution in search of a problem.
It is important to remember that air pollution doesn't vanish when we don't see it. It moves across national borders and has deadly impacts on Americans here at home.
As a reminder, not too long ago, in the 1960s and 1970s, Los Angeles, just up the 405 from where I live in Orange County, was one of the most polluted cities in the world, with smog so pervasive that people reported burning eyes and extremely low visibility.
Because of landmark laws like the Clean Air Act and efforts by State and local governments, air pollution in Los Angeles has been significantly reduced, driving down chronic health impacts and having notable and statistically proven quality-of-life improvements for millions of Californians in southern California.
For these reasons, at the appropriate time, I plan to offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would ensure that this bill does not go into effect until the EPA and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee certify that the act will not increase health harms or the costs associated with treating those harms.
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 recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I don't think we want to follow the California model for America's economic future, with their high energy prices, the highest poverty rate in the country, and destructive economic policies driving businesses out of the State.
I think with Republicans' policies, it is very clear that we have the best interests of the people at heart.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act. I thank my good friend from Alabama for holding this debate.
You may not think of my home State of Idaho as a border State when you start thinking about border States, but Idaho is a border State. We share an international border with Canada in the northern panhandle of the State of Idaho.
There is a lot of timber on both sides of that borderline. Especially in a dry year like this--and this is going to be a dry year for us--it is not uncommon to have wildfire break out on one side or the other. It has happened many times before. Unfortunately, it will probably happen again, where, on the Canadian side, a wildfire breaks out.
Oftentimes, that smoke, those pollutants, blow right over the border, and there is absolutely nothing that the State of Idaho can do with that. Sometimes, we share some firefighting resources, but the bottom line is that it didn't break out in our forest.
It is true that the Clean Air Act has a provision to address that. What is not being brought up, at least consistently, is that there is also a conflict with that through the EPA. The EPA guidance, largely enforced with the previous administration, conflicts with the Clean Air Act provision allowing States to adjust their emission plans. Every time one of those fires breaks out, we become at risk of falling out of our emissions standards.
Mr. Speaker, this is really a pretty simple bill. All it does is ensure a fair and consistent ability for these air quality designations to be put in place.
I stand in strong support of that. That is just one example. There are many other examples that some of my colleagues have brought up already.
It is not fair for States to be penalized for something that is out of their control. This simply takes steps in order to put fair and consistent air quality designations in place. That is it.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 6409, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The FENCES Act, Mr. Speaker, is a bad faith attempt by Republicans to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with bad air quality appear safe at the expense of our communities.
I hear from my Republican colleagues all the time that the Federal Government should be more transparent, but the literal and figurative smog that would be created by the FENCES Act will only make Americans sicker.
The FENCES Act goes an extra step to waive sanctions and fees for States, not just for international pollution but also pollution from mobile sources, exceptional events, and even from a different district within the same State.
In other words, the FENCES Act removes all incentives for States to work toward NAAQS attainment. This is a bad deal for the American people.
Every year, over 100,000 Americans die prematurely as a result of air pollution. Doctors and scientists widely consider foreign particulate matter to be one of the most toxic air pollutants, as it can cause asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.
We can't just ignore air pollution and the very real health consequences that result from it to make permitting for industry easier. We shouldn't ignore the broader political landscape in which we are considering this bill, either.
Earlier this year, the EPA announced that it will no longer consider the benefits of protecting public health when developing new rules for fine particulate matter and ozone pollution. Instead, the EPA will only consider the compliance costs for industry.
This decision is entirely antithetical to the EPA's core mission to protect public health and the environment. The American people are asking us to lower healthcare costs, and our responsibility should be to them, not to the industry.
However, our Republican colleagues seem to only answer to their corporate polluter friends who are asking for regulatory rollbacks to save a few dollars. The DEFENSE Act is a gift to industry that would come at the expense of the American people.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DEFENSE Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that no one wants polluted air and polluted water. We have made tremendous advances in pollution control. As a matter of fact, I worked for two international engineering companies, one of which was in environmental systems. We built the pollution control equipment that has made our air demonstrably cleaner. We built flue gas scrubbers. We built electrostatic precipitators and baghouses.
The technology has improved dramatically since I left my work in the field of engineering. Since 1980, we have reduced pollution from the six criteria gases monitored by the EPA by 78 percent. That is despite the fact that the economy has grown over 240 percent. That is $2.9 trillion to an economy of $30.6 trillion adjusted for inflation.
Vehicles miles driven are up 113 percent, and the population is up over 50 percent, yet we have seen remarkable improvements in air quality.
What we are trying to do with this long overdue effort to modernize the Clean Air Act is to not only continue to keep our air clean and our water clean, but to improve economic opportunity to people, particularly people who are disadvantaged such as I was growing up.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support this commonsense legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1174, I call up the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation, 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 1174, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6398.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act, which would address burdensome regulations in the Clean Air Act and provide the permitting reform needed to support American innovation.
The legislation, which was introduced by my friend Congressman John Joyce of Pennsylvania eliminates the duplicative requirement in the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to assess and provide feedback on environmental impact statements other agencies prepare under NEPA.
The primary agency preparing an environmental impact statement already possesses the expertise and resources necessary to evaluate the impacts of a project on our environment, and the EPA is often already involved in the NEPA review process as a cooperating agency. Requiring them to provide a secondary review under section 309 is unnecessary, duplicative, and inefficient, leading to more delays and higher costs for American job creators.
This legislation is an important step to streamline permitting, and it removes burdensome inefficiencies in the current NEPA process. This bill is an essential component in the committee's permitting reform efforts.
The Clean Air Act is long overdue for an update to eliminate outdated provisions that are holding back American manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the RED Tape Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6398, the so-called RED Tape Act. This bill deletes a section of the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to review major Federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. As a result, major Federal projects and regulations will be exempt from any scrutiny of their impacts on air quality and public health from EPA experts.
The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by removing the requirements that EPA comments be made available to the public and, therefore, communities would be kept in the dark.
Ignoring the consequences of major actions won't make them go away, but that is exactly what the RED Tape Act would do. For the communities who live near these major projects, turning a blind eye to problems won't protect their families from potentially toxic exposures.
Worse yet, the RED Tape Act is billed as permitting reform when in reality it is a bill to let polluters run amok out of sight from the public and without proper safety and commonsense guardrails.
Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds. They court the make America healthy again community, but then they move a bill forward that will take away the public's ability to simply know the potential toxic risks of large Federal projects. They then tout the importance of permitting reform but bring false permitting solutions to the floor instead of real proposals to make cleaner and cheaper energy sources more readily available to combat rising costs for Americans.
This hypocrisy is just one of the many problems we have to confront as the House is set to vote on these blatant attempts to gut the Clean Air Act, one of the most successful environmental and public health laws ever enacted by Congress. House Republicans are working overtime to further the Trump administration's efforts to silence the scientific, medical, and public health experts at EPA from being able to alert other agencies about how their projects might cause harm to the health of our constituents and our neighbors. That is the type of critical assessment that EPA's expertise alone could offer and would be missing as a result of this bill.
Contrary to the rhetoric of my Republican colleagues, they haven't offered any proof that these reviews were slowing or stopping projects. In fact, the EPA reviews thousands of environmental impact statements each year, with most other agencies taking their recommendations.
Unfortunately, by removing the EPA from the overall process, we are losing out on the expertise of the scientists tasked with protecting public health and the environment. However, to the Republican majority, if you can turn a blind eye to the consequences, they will disappear. Well, they don't disappear just because you turn a blind eye, Mr. Speaker.
That is not how toxic pollution works for countless communities in your district and mine. They deserve to know how large Federal projects might impact their water, air, and soil, and they deserve to have the best and brightest EPA scientists analyze these projects and make comments for the public to scrutinize and to hold the government accountable. Any attempts to remove this simple level of government accountability is an attempt to
I don't have a problem with making government more efficient, but this bill is simply removing the voice of an important agency whose viewpoint Republicans happen to dislike. This ongoing attack on the EPA, on science and transparency cannot stand, so I urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposition to this misguided bill.
One of the most important things that we have in Congress and that I try to achieve, and I think Democrats all try to achieve, is the right to know. If people know what is going on, then they can voice their opinion. They can go out and speak. They can protest. They can do what they have to do to protect their communities.
However, by eliminating the right to know, we are making it impossible for people to actually express their opinion, which is a fundamental right, in my opinion, under our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. I rise today in support of my legislation, the RED Tape Act.
The RED Tape Act removes an unnecessary and duplicative environmental review that the EPA currently conducts under the Clean Air Act.
As it stands, the relevant department or agency prepares an environmental impact statement as part of the permitting of a new Federal project, a process in which the EPA is often already involved. After completion of that review, EPA is then asked to go back and provide additional comments on those same findings; hence, the redundant and duplicative nature of the process.
This secondary review of an already-completed environmental impact statement only serves to slow down the critical projects, especially projects in the energy industry.
This bill is about getting projects permitted and getting projects completed, projects that will help us compete with our adversaries in industries like AI and advanced manufacturing.
This bill is not, as has been alleged, an attempt to undermine environmental review. The environmental impact statement must still be completed by the primary agency. This is a process that agencies already have the necessary expertise and capacity to carry out efficiently. In many cases, EPA will still have the opportunity to comment during the initial process as a cooperating agency.
As the name implies, the RED Tape Act simply removes bureaucratic, redundant red tape. Projects will still need to comply with all applicable environmental laws. This is in no way giving a pass to polluters. It is ensuring that economic growth is not stifled by overly burdensome Federal regulations.
Understand what this legislation will do. This is a commonsense bill that leaves basic environmental protections in place while eliminating artificial barriers. I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage on the floor later this week.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. It is worth reiterating just how effective the Clean Air Act has been at protecting our public health.
In the past 50-plus years, the Clean Air Act has proven time and time again that environmental protections and economic growth can, indeed, go hand in hand.
Between 1970 and 2022, major air pollutants dropped by 78 percent, while the U.S. gross domestic product nearly quadrupled. However, despite this progress, there is still much more work to do to ensure that all Americans can breathe healthy air.
More than 156 million Americans are living in places with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution, and that air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States each and every year. I find it disheartening that the majority continues to advance bills that would make the Clean Air Act less effective at protecting people from dangerous pollution.
The RED Tape Act is the latest Republican effort to claim that the rules are too burdensome on industry. This bill amends section 309 of the Clean Air Act to eliminate the requirement for EPA to review and provide written comments on major Federal construction projects and actions in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
This could allow major Federal projects and actions to be approved without proper consideration of their impacts on air quality and public health.
The bill also removes the ability for the public to be informed of potential public health concerns stemming from these projects.
I really do not think Americans are opposed to the Federal Government considering the potential health, economic, and environmental impacts of major decisions before they are made. Yet, this bill would limit that consideration while making it harder for the public to understand the consequences of major projects.
I know some Members will claim this review is duplicative of NEPA, but many of these same Members are also pushing parallel efforts to gut NEPA, claiming that NEPA isn't necessary because our underlying environmental laws will sufficiently protect public health and the environment.
You can have it both ways. You cannot end both parts of a supposedly duplicative process unless the goal of this effort is to severely limit environmental reviews of projects entirely. That is not about cutting red tape. That is about ending decades-old public health protections so that industry doesn't need to worry about how pollution mitigation might cut into their profits.
The bottom line is that the EPA is our Nation's foremost expert at assessing projects' impacts on air quality and is responsible for protecting the air that we breathe and the water that we drink. I cannot support efforts to undermine EPA's expertise and eliminate the agency's efforts to carry out reasonable environmental reviews, and so I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Alabama, for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act. Under current law, as we have heard here today, the EPA is required to review and comment on the environmental impacts of Federal projects from other Federal agencies.
Perhaps this would make sense if the EPA wasn't already involved in the initial environmental review and development of the environmental impact statement for Federal projects. What we have here is another, as we said, duplicative and inefficient government process that for decades has delayed development, slowed economic growth, and only hurt American families and businesses in making it more unaffordable for the American people.
Furthermore, in the 30 years since Congress enacted section 309 of the Clean Air Act, agencies have developed their own expertise in preparing environmental impact statements. That is why the Supreme Court ruled that EPA's separate review and comment on broader environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions are no longer appropriate.
I come from the construction industry. I understand how unpredictable timelines and Federal red tape can increase costs and negatively impact job creators. Let me be clear: The RED Tape Act in no way undercuts the environmental review of Federal projects. In no way does it remove EPA's expertise from the process.
It simply streamlines the Federal review process by eliminating duplicative requirements. It seems that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just fundamentally opposed to efficiency and a sense of urgency.
This legislation is a commonsense solution that benefits job creators and the communities we represent. It makes life more affordable for the American people, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6398.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so- called RED Tape Act.
This bill clearly harms our communities. Right now, when the Federal Government approves a major construction project, like a highway or a Federal facility, the EPA has the legal authority to review it and to flag public health concerns. It can say that this project will harm air quality in this community. It can put that on the record, and regulators can act on it.
This bill eliminates that EPA review entirely. The one agency whose job it is to protect human health and air quality gets cut out of the process--no EPA air quality check, no independent public health voice at the table, major Federal projects approved with zero input from the people whose mission it is to protect the air we breathe.
That is not cutting red tape. That is cutting public health protection.
This bill hits different for my district back in Houston. I remember walking through a neighborhood in my district that for years had been fighting a cancer cluster as a result of environmental contamination. The woman who lived there told me: ``In that house, two grandparents passed away. In that house, it was a child. In that house, it was a mother.'' She said it matter-of-factly, the way people do when grief becomes routine.
I later walked that same neighborhood with the EPA Administrator under President Biden. I showed him what I had seen. EPA under that leadership showed up. They did the work, and they provided a line of protection for the community that they never had before.
The Trump administration and my Republican colleagues are now rolling all of that back. They have already fired thousands of EPA employees, roughly one in four people in the agency. They shut down the Office of Environmental Justice. They took down the EPA's environmental justice mapping tool that communities and local governments were beginning to rely on. One in three EPA staffers who were there on Inauguration Day will be gone by the time this is all over. That is not reform. That is demolition.
Today, the air quality in Houston is unhealthy for sensitive groups. The experts routinely tell us to reduce our time spent outside. It just happened this morning. Houston already ranks among the worst cities in the entire country for toxic air pollutants: ethylene oxide, benzene, and fine particulate matter from petrochemical plants and heavy traffic.
Black and Brown communities in Houston are more than twice as likely as White residents to live in neighborhoods that fail on multiple pollution metrics.
Those are the communities that this bill will hurt. Those are the communities that need EPA review of major Federal projects, not less of that, but more.
People across this country are dying and having horrible health outcomes because of hyperconcentration of pollution in their communities. This body's response is to present a bill that removes the one Federal agency charged with protecting public health and the environment from the room entirely.
Before I came to Congress, I stood up to the Trump administration in court when they tried to roll back environmental protections, and I plan to do the exact same thing in the Halls of Congress, as well. We owe it to our communities to make sure they have access to clean air, clean land, and clean water, regardless of where in this country they live.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act.
In my home State of Idaho, we have more than 34 million acres of federally controlled land. I just want to put that in perspective for a minute. My good friend on the other side of the aisle is from the great State of New Jersey. You can put more than six New Jerseys just within the Federal land mass in the State of Idaho. That is how big it is.
Why is that pertinent here? It is pertinent because, with that much land mass, you have a seemingly endless flow of processes going on from departments or agencies for approvals for one thing or another: energy impact statements, the NEPA process. Everything ongoing all the time takes years each time.
We had a recent situation with a wind farm project in my home State. Regardless of what you think about wind farms, this was just an actual occurrence. There was a long process of approval where an EIS, an environmental impact statement, was required, and the EPA was a part of that statement every step of the way, running in parallel as part of that EIS. As soon as that was completed by mandate, the EPA had to go back and publicly comment on the process it just went through itself.
That is just one example, Mr. Speaker, of the duplicative situation that we have. This is really problematic when you have a lot of these projects going on. In my home State, that is a prime example.
All the RED Tape Act does is eliminates that duplicative mandate. There is still the process. We are still going through all the areas of concern. It just eliminates the duplication of it.
Mr. Speaker, I would just add, as I close, that this is potentially even more important now than ever before, to make this easier to deal with, because our energy needs as a country are taking a hockey stick in the demand curve. It is only going one way.
So much of the energy needs have to go through these processes. A lot of it is coming right out of my home State. We see this as a real problem. Again, I rise in support of H.R. 6398, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for yielding to me and for his continued leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee, especially on environmental justice.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Republicans' RED Tape Act because it guts the Clean Air Act and strips the EPA's ability to inform the public of potential health concerns that they will face because of Federal projects.
The Clean Air Act makes sure that the EPA considers the health and environmental impacts of communities before a project begins. It has helped communities like mine in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles breathe cleaner air.
My district has some of the highest asthma rates in the country because of generations of poor land-use decisions. These decisions have placed freeways, landfills, and warehouses next to homes, schools, and parks.
I know that my community is not alone. Over 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy levels of pollution. In particular, children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color are disproportionately at risk for serious health conditions.
Air pollution is already associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in our country every year. Trump and Republicans will make this problem worse by ignoring the needs of environmental justice communities across the country. Trump and Republicans are prioritizing the profits of their billionaire and corporate interest friends over the health of our communities.
The RED Tape Act allows polluters to contaminate the air that we breathe without regard for the lives or livelihoods of communities that would be impacted the most.
There is a reason that all Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee voted against the RED Tape Act, and that is because it is a harmful bill for everyone, except for Donald Trump and Republicans' billionaire friends.
This bill will increase levels of air pollution and send more people to the hospital at a time when Republicans have already gutted working families' healthcare. This bill does not make life safer or more affordable for working families in my district.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the RED Tape Act and to stand up for environmental justice communities.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the RED Tape Act is a blatant sacrifice of human health for corporate profits. It will allow major Federal projects to move forward without any consideration for impact on air quality or public health. This is a clear attempt to hide the truth about the health impacts of pollution.
I will make this crystal clear: Our constituents do not want to increase the risks of their children developing asthma or cancer so that billionaires can fast-track polluting projects. This notion is obscene. As a parent, I can tell you, we will not stand for putting polluters over our children's right to breathe in clean air. Not now, not ever.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment. My amendment would ensure that section 309 reviews still occur for major Federal projects or actions that may increase public exposure to mercury, lead compounds, asbestos, or any other hazardous air pollutants.
Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States each year. These are not just numbers. They are people taken from families far too soon. There must be no sidestepping protections for human health.
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 recommit, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Arizona?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the RED Tape Act would exempt major Federal projects and regulations from any scrutiny of their impacts on air quality and public health from EPA experts.
The bill would also make the permitting process less transparent by removing the requirement that EPA comments be made available to the public.
Now, clean, safe air is a fundamental human right, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. The Clean Air Act exists to protect that right. Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States every year, and particulate matter is among the most dangerous forms of air pollution. Air pollution presents serious health risks to our communities every day.
Over 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution with children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color being disproportionately at risk.
You won't hear my colleagues focus on the transparency part of the RED Tape Act, but I will talk about that a little bit today as we conclude.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA's analysis and comments on major Federal projects and potential impacts must be made public. This transparency is a key feature to hold the government accountable and is the reason why most agencies take EPA's suggestions.
If a major Federal project could expose the public to asbestos, lead, or PFAS under this bill, EPA would not be required to look at that project and provide scientific and public health-focused feedback and suggestions for making it safer.
Equally as important, EPA's comments and suggestions on those risks and exposure would not be made available to the public. That only serves to shield Republican corporate polluters from any scrutiny and would do nothing to ensure Americans' health is protected.
What I said before when we were talking about the FENCES Act, I will say it now on the RED Tape Act. The right to know is one of the most important things that we need to protect around here because then the public can look and see what the dangers are of pollution coming from a particular project and then they can act accordingly.
A healthy America includes healthy air, water, and soil. The EPA is integral to achieving that goal.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to protect transparency and the public health and vote ``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I will point out is in 2025, the Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, ruled that upstream-downstream impacts of Federal action fall outside the scope of the environmental impact statement under NEPA. In light of this decision, the EPA's separate review and comment on broader environmental impacts of proposed Federal action are no longer appropriate.
It is really insulting to the American people to have my colleagues make outrageous statements in regard to what our intent is with this. We have the means to make sure that our air is clean. We are working on that. We do not want, in any form or fashion, to compromise the quality of life that we have here in this country.
It really is stunning to hear fellow Americans want to deny economic justice to whole communities throughout the country. I pointed out several times what each one of their States was receiving in funding from the Rural Health Transformation Fund, a historic effort to improve healthcare in rural areas where so many disadvantaged people live, that every one of my Democratic colleagues voted against.
We want to give people economic opportunity, not deny them. We want to dramatically improve the healthcare of people who have been denied the opportunity to have a good-paying job with good benefits. As one who grew up with few opportunities, I understand how important it is to have a job that allows people to live in better housing, to have access to better food, better healthcare, and to have something left over to save to meet future needs and eventually retirement.
My colleagues who oppose this bill literally oppose the economic opportunities that could lift millions of disadvantaged Americans into a much brighter future.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that we recognize that we have a host of Federal regulations that need to be reviewed, to be modernized, not to compromise anyone's healthcare, not to compromise environmental quality, but to improve these to make them work better for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this excellent legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 1147, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1156) expressing support for tax policies that support working families, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1156 and the working families tax cuts, which have led to this year's historic tax refund season.
Today, April 15, is tax day. The IRS typically receives around 24 percent of tax returns in April. What millions of Americans are finding out today is that their tax refund is significantly larger than it has been in the past, thanks to the working families tax cuts.
Refunds this tax season have increased by 11 percent, with the average refund over $3,400. Much of that relief is thanks to the policies championed by President Trump. Over 6 million Americans have claimed no tax on tips, 25 million Americans have claimed no tax on overtime, and 30 million taxpayers claimed the Social Security deduction. Over 1 million Americans claimed the no tax on auto loan interest.
Who are the folks claiming these deductions? It is working-class Americans. It is not millionaires. It is not billionaires. Overall, nearly half of all tax filers this season claimed at least one of those key provisions.
Under this tax relief, tipped workers get, on average, a $1,300 tax cut. Hourly workers get, on average, a $1,400 tax cut from no tax on overtime. A $12,000 deduction for a married couple on Social Security means a more secure retirement.
When Republicans enacted the working families tax cuts, we made America's workers, families, farmers, and small businesses our top priority.
An inconvenient fact that the Democrats don't talk about is that the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent actually went up from 37 percent to 40 percent. The very rich are paying a higher share of taxes today than they were before passage of this bill. Why? It is because the other 99 percent of Americans saw the share of their taxes go down, from 63 percent to 60 percent.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to the stories of everyday Americans, like Raymond Huff from Colorado, who testified before the Ways and Means Committee that the working families tax cuts will help him grow his small business and hire more workers; Nancy Overman from Nevada, who testified that she will be able to afford basic necessities without draining her retirement savings, thanks to the no tax on Social Security; Sharon Simmons, a DoorDash driver--who showed up at the White House yesterday, in fact--originally from my home State of Missouri, who testified to how no tax on tips will help her better afford her husband's medical treatments and travel to Missouri to see her family more often; or the waitress in my district who told me that she got a $10,000 tax refund, thanks to the no tax on tips, the expanded child tax credit, and other provisions. She told me, Mr. Speaker, that because of that provision, she will be able to pay for her rent for an entire year and a lot of food for her family.
That makes a huge impact on everyday Americans. Families have more
When they controlled Washington, Democrats spent $10 trillion, and they created a cost-of-living crisis where inflation went up almost 21 percent.
Under Republican tax relief, we expanded 529 accounts to cover K-12 education expenses and trade schools. We expanded health savings accounts so that another 10 million Americans can better manage healthcare costs. For those who are looking to adopt, they have more access to the adoption tax credit, with $5,000 of that cost being refundable.
Under Trump Accounts, newborn U.S. citizens in America get a $1,000 investment to start building a more secure financial future. It does not matter if they live on a city block or on a county road. They qualify.
Due to the working families tax cuts, Americans have more money to buy school supplies and put food on their tables. Family farmers and small businesses have more certainty and resources to invest, to grow, and to hire. These are the results of Republican tax relief that puts America's working families first.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I understand why my Republican colleagues are trying to rename this bill the working families tax act because, while this bill may be big--to the tune of $4.2 trillion that it adds to our national debt--it is certainly not beautiful and certainly not for working families.
In fact, on this tax day, this tells the real story. This is nothing more than a betrayal of the American people. Families were promised relief. Instead, they have been left to foot the bill.
No matter how my Republican friends try to spin it, Americans are hurting. Costs are up across the board. At the pump, gas prices surged over 21 percent in just 1 month, the largest increase in nearly 60 years.
At the grocery store, families are paying more for the basics. Healthcare costs are rising, and this bill guts nearly $1 trillion from our healthcare system, putting hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and clinics at risk, and threatening the coverage for millions of Americans. When those cuts are finally realized, families will lose their healthcare, and communities will lose their hospitals, their clinics, and their skilled nursing facilities.
What did working families get in return? Yes, as the chairman pointed out, some taxpayers got larger refunds this year. As a matter of fact, the numbers are that, notwithstanding the fact that the President and the Republicans promised the Americans that they would get a $1,000 additional tax return, it is $346 more than last year. They were promised bigger refunds. Instead, those refunds fell 65 percent short of what was advertised, and they failed to cover the high costs that most families are facing.
To put it in simple terms, given that this is my friend Mr. Kelly's bill, a prominent auto dealer in Pennsylvania, taxpayers were promised an Escalade, but they instead got a go-kart. The gas for that go-kart is going to be a heck of a lot more expensive this year than it was last year. That is not relief. That is a broken promise anyway you cut it.
Let's be clear about who this bill actually helps. It is not workers. It is the ultrawealthy, the corporations, the venture capitalists, all the people who didn't need a tax cut in this environment. Millionaires are getting tax cuts tens of thousands of dollars larger than what working families receive. Meanwhile, families making under $50,000 have been left with the scraps.
Democrats have a different vision. We believe in using the tax code to actually help the middle- and working-class families of our great country.
We want to provide tax relief for home buyers, for renters, and affordable housing developers so families can finally afford a place to live.
We want to expand the child tax credit and the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit so parents can afford to raise a family. We did that in the last Congress with our child tax credit measure, which cut childhood poverty in half. Our Republican friends allowed that to expire.
We want to support family caregivers who sacrifice so much for their loved ones, and we want to restore the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits to lower healthcare costs for working families.
We want to allow union workers to deduct their dues, and we want to lower energy bills and strengthen our grid by investing in clean energy, which is affordable energy.
That is what it looks like to put working families first, not rebranding, not gimmicks--real relief.
Mr. Speaker, now, for the first time, families across the country are seeing the working families tax cuts show up where it matters: in their paychecks and in refunds.
When this law was written, the goal was straightforward--to reward work, support families, and prevent a massive tax increase from taking place.
Today, the data shows it is doing just that. Across America, more than 53 million filers claimed at least one of the new deductions. Over 25 million taxpayers claimed the overtime deduction. More than 6 million Americans claimed the deduction on tipped income. More than 30 million seniors paid no taxes on their Social Security benefits. More than 1 million Americans claimed the no tax on car loan interest deduction.
That is real relief tied directly to how Americans earn a living, and you can see it in the results. The average tax refund is now over $3,400. That is an 11 percent increase from last year. Families are getting to keep more of their own hard-earned money.
More than 34 million families have claimed the enhanced, doubled, and permanent child tax credit. Five million Trump accounts have been opened. Think about what that means for the next generation. The working families tax cuts provides families and children a foundation to save, invest, and pursue their version of the American Dream.
Now, let's talk about Main Street. Before serving in Congress, I spent my career in the private sector as a car dealership owner. I know what it is like to try and manage your business and meet payroll while making sure Washington gets its share, as well.
My district is home to one of the highest concentrations of small manufacturers. These manufacturers are aiding President Trump in his goal of employing American workers, producing right here at home, and buying American.
Revitalizing the industrial might of the United States cannot happen without the working families tax cuts restoring immediate expensing for equipment and research and development.
The working families tax cuts also made the 20 percent small business deduction permanent, providing certainty and stability for the mom-and- pop shops who form the backbone of our communities.
In total, more than 12 million small business owners will see an average of $7,000 in tax relief.
There were times when our family business would have enough money to make payroll, but not enough money to pay ourselves. That is the reality so many businesses face. Small business owners go through that more than anybody else realizes. These are the real dollars that can be reinvested into workers, equipment, or expansion.
From employers to employees, from children to seniors, this law is reaching across the entire country and the entire economy.
People who do not ask for special treatment but only ask for fairness, this law reflects that expectation. It aligns the tax code with how Americans actually earn a living. It prevented a tax increase. It guarantees stability and certainty, and it gave
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that in my friend Mr. Kelly's district, 27,000 of his constituents will face nutrition cuts, 24,000 will lose their health insurance, and 795 jobs will be lost due to canceling clean energy tax credits that were in that big, ugly H.R. 1.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. Speaker, the big, ugly bill or, as it has been renamed, the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, is not working for families in my district. In fact, on this tax day, I cannot believe that my Republican colleagues are on the floor today celebrating a bill that is exploding the deficit by $4.2 trillion, deepening income inequality, stripping healthcare from working families, and taking food off the tables of needy children.
Mr. Speaker, every day I hear from my constituents around Alabama's Seventh Congressional District. They are talking about the fact that nothing seems affordable anymore. What do I say to the single mother in my district who is losing Medicaid coverage for her child because of this bill? What do I say to the elderly neighbor who no longer qualifies for SNAP or to the rural communities I represent who will lose their only hospital because of this bill?
I am deeply saddened because Republicans could have chosen another path. Instead of slashing $1 trillion from Medicaid, instead of slashing $500 billion from Medicare, they could have worked with Democrats to renew the fully refundable child tax credit that cut child poverty in half and expanded economic prosperity for communities across the Nation when Democrats were in the majority.
If my Republican colleagues wanted to help working families, they could stand up to President Trump and stop his reckless trade war that has created an affordability crisis.
Mr. Speaker, on this tax day, the American people are seeing exactly what happens when Republicans are in charge. We are seeing tariff wars. We are seeing real wars in the Middle East, tax giveaways for the wealthy, exploding deficits, and an attack on our essential healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
On this tax day, my constituents say enough is enough. This tax bill has been a devastation to the people that I represent, and on this tax day, I stand before you to say that working families tax cuts is a cut for working families and not a cut to the wealthy.
Mr. Speaker, today is tax day. Taxpayers across Iowa are seeing real relief through bigger refunds and higher take-home pay delivered by the historic working families tax cuts bill.
Let me be clear. This is real money back in the pockets of hardworking families, small business owners, and farmers.
We have heard the numbers today, and they are historic--the largest refund season in our Nation's history, with Iowans seeing an average tax cut of over $3,000.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you the rest of the story. I am hearing from family farmers who now have the certainty that their operation will stay in their family for generations to come because this bill includes my provision to permanently double the death tax exemption.
I am hearing from hardworking parents excited to have access to family medical leave, have double child tax credit, and a $1,000 downpayment for children through Trump's tax accounts.
I am hearing from manufacturers and agricultural producers who are finally seeing a path forward with affordable access to credit, immediate expensing, and a permanent small-business deduction, giving them the certainty they need to invest, grow, and create new jobs in our communities.
I am hearing from waitresses, delivery drivers, tradesmen, and millions of Americans who will finally keep more of what they earned because we delivered no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, this is what an economic revival looks like. Through the leadership of President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, we are restoring opportunity, rewarding work, and strengthening the backbone of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out that my friend from Iowa is facing a situation in his district where 12,000 of his constituents will face nutrition cuts. Mr. Speaker, 24,000 will lose health insurance, and 494 jobs will be lost due to canceling clean energy tax credits. All of this is because of H.R. 1.
I find it hard to believe that farmers are jumping for joy. Because of this legislation, tariffs, and an unauthorized war in the Middle East, fertilizer prices for farmers are going through the roof. Fuel prices for farmers are going through the roof, and farmers who are trying to ship their products to other ports are being absolutely devastated because the Strait of Hormuz has been closed. This bill also added $4.2 trillion to the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), a great and distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Speaker, on this tax day, working families are not feeling the relief they were promised. They are struggling to pay rent, to get the healthcare they need, and to fill up the car with gas.
Here is why. Last year, Republicans passed their big, ugly bill, the single largest transfer of wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest in history. This reverse Robin Hood fails to make life more affordable for working families.
Because this legislation has become so resented by the American people, Republicans chose to put forward this meaningless resolution that is an empty rebranding exercise.
Here is what they are trying to hide. Under their big, ugly bill, the top 0.1 percent of earners, who make about $11 million a year, receive an average tax cut of $244,000 each. Compare that to what 40 million of the lowest income households receive, just $10 a year, not even enough for a meal.
This resolution even dares to say that their big, ugly law helped to control healthcare costs. In reality, this bill kicks 15 million people off their health insurance, off their Medicaid, and off their Affordable Care Act insurance. This is the largest takeaway of healthcare in history.
When Republicans say this is about helping working families, we must ask: Which families? The data clearly shows that this law greatly benefits those least in need while offering only minimal, symbolic relief to those who are struggling the most.
On tax day, Republicans are spending time patting themselves on the back for one of the most regressive and hurtful tax bills in modern history, completely ignoring the real crises facing millions of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, lies, lies, lies. Sometimes you have just got to deal with common sense.
Who gets overtime? When we cut the tax on overtime, the CEO of the pharmaceutical company who makes $12 million a year, does he get overtime? As a matter of fact, most white-collar people don't get overtime. Overtime is for the workingman. When we cut taxes on overtime, it is obviously designed to benefit the workingman.
Who gets tips? The workingman and the workingwoman, that is who is getting tips. When we cut taxes on tips, of course, we are aiming at the average guy.
We have a special cut for seniors. Our seniors--wealthy people, not normally--if you look at the special tax cut for seniors, we didn't include the super-wealthy seniors. We were aiming at the average guy.
Wherever you look on your tax return, I beg America to look at how much they paid in taxes a year ago and
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and a strong voice for working people and struggling families.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
I will tell you, I have never celebrated tax day until today because I have the distinguished opportunity to comment on the one big, ugly billionaire's bill. It is the gift that keeps on giving because I get to talk about how much this tax bill fails to deliver on its promises.
Most glaringly, Republicans have promised that the average tax refund would increase by over $1,000. Not so much. In fact, refunds are 65 percent less than promised. Refunds are nowhere near enough to cover the additional costs that Americans are facing because of other failed Republican policies.
Even considering the crumbs from the American table that Republicans have tossed to working families, this pales in comparison to the increased costs of healthcare, food, utilities, gasoline, and almost every product.
Then, on top of all of this, Americans are facing the $1.2 trillion cuts in Medicaid. They see their hospitals in urban areas and rural areas closing because of it. Food assistance has been cut by $187 billion.
As we mark tax day this year, one thing is really clear: Republicans have oversold their legislative accomplishment and riddled it with gimmicks for working-class Americans while brandishing massive giveaways to millionaires and billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans gave millionaires a tax cut that is 390 times the size of what they gave to workers and families making less than $50,000.
What about the no tax on tips and no tax on overtime, they say? Number one, it is a temporary benefit that is going to expire as soon as you reelect them. Secondly, it is a gimmick because it is not a total exemption. It phases out, and there are much smaller redemptions in tax liability than people are expecting.
Let's be clear. The people who benefited most from the Republican tax bill do not get tips. The one big, beautiful bill for billionaires made the benefits for billionaires permanent and made no tax on tips temporary.
Republicans are so well known to be good at messaging, but this time, they can't message their way out of reality. American families are feeling the pain every single day.
Mr. Speaker, tax day is usually a very painful reminder of how much of one's hard-earned money goes out the door. Today would have been no different from the past if Democrats had gotten their way and if Republicans had failed to pass the Working Families Tax Cuts Act.
Take my district, for example, where a typical family of four's taxes would have increased by 26 percent, costing them more than $1,300 a year. For most families, $1,300 is not chump change. It is rent, a home improvement project, or even about 7 weeks' worth of groceries. However, today is different. The more thoughtful approach Republicans took prevailed.
This year, Americans are seeing bigger paychecks, larger refunds, and more opportunities for them and their families to build long-term financial security.
Now, the same family of four with two kids earning up to $73,000 a year who would have seen a 26 percent increase will have no Federal income tax liability and will have their child tax credit permanently increased to $2,200 per child. The relief does not stop there, with the average tax refund being nearly $3,500 and an additional $6,000 standard deduction for America's seniors.
We also strengthened America's agriculture industry by permanently doubling death tax relief and allowing producers to fully deduct new equipment costs, helping family operations innovate and continue for generations to come.
This is what real tax relief looks like, and it is exactly what Republicans will continue fighting for here in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the gentleman from Nebraska that 9,000 of his constituents will face nutrition cuts because of this bill. Mr. Speaker, 19,000 will lose their health insurance, and 3,098 jobs will be lost due to the cancellation of the clean energy tax credits. His constituents will share in the money that has been added to the national debt, $4.2 trillion added to the national debt by this bill so billionaires, multimillionaires, and corporations can get huge tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), who is the former leader of the Nevada legislature and a leader and strong voice for the workers of our country and his district, especially the culinary and the hospitality workers.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader for yielding me time.
Republicans first called this the big, beautiful bill. Now they are calling it tax cuts for working families. Let's be clear, there is nothing beautiful about promising relief and failing to deliver it. That is the betrayal.
They told tipped workers that help was coming, but they refused to make it permanent and left the subminimum wage stuck at $2.13 an hour. They said they were fighting for overtime pay, but millions of workers who rely on overtime still see no relief.
In Nevada, this bill does something even worse. It harms our gaming economy. Instead of protecting workers and supporting one of our State's key industries, they changed the wagering loss deduction, creating uncertainty and penalizing the legitimate gaming industry.
That is not helping working people. That is hurting Nevada.
So let's call this what it is. This is not permanent where it should be, it is not fair where it must be, and it does not deliver what was promised.
Now, I didn't just come here to point out the problem. I came with solutions. My TIP Improvement Act makes tax relief for tipped workers permanent and fair. My No Tax on Overtime for All Workers Act ensures every worker who earns overtime qualifies, not just a select few. My FULL HOUSE Act fixes the gaming deduction once and for all, protecting Nevada jobs and businesses.
Instead of voting on a self-glorifying resolution, let's bring forward real solutions, bills that actually deliver for working families and fix what this bill gets wrong.
Let's fix what is broken. Let's deliver what is promised, and let's turn around this betrayal of a bill that is hurting the American family, not making it successful.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that for years, Members in this body have tried to implement no tax on tips. Never before did it ever become law until we passed it within the Big Beautiful Bill Act. It delivered for a lot of tipped employees. In fact, 6 million tipped employees used it this tax filing season.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
Mr. Speaker, wouldn't it be fun if we actually did these sorts of discussions and debates sort of like we do term papers where you actually have to give the footnote of where the numbers come from. That is because I hear numbers from my brothers and sisters on the left, and I say: Where did that come from?
So the first number I am going to give you today, Mr. Speaker, from the Joint Economic Committee, tomorrow is the first day that you actually work for yourself, meaning the first 3\1/2\ months you have been working to pay taxes, whether it be your property taxes, State income taxes, or Federal taxes, Mr. Speaker. This is for the middle income of our brothers and sisters.
Welcome to Tax Freedom Day, which technically might be actually tomorrow.
The rest of the numbers I will give you, Mr. Speaker--if you want to go on to the Senate Finance Committee's website, you will actually find the facts and the numbers. I would love
For Arizona, we were one of the epicenters of inflation. Our brothers and sisters in our State, after the Biden years of inflation, their wages are just now starting to catch up. Our brothers and sisters were poorer.
One of the things we did in the tax bill last summer is we actually found a way to use the tax system to raise wages, whether it be because of paying less taxes or some of the economic growth.
So let's actually walk through some of the numbers. For a couple, there is a $6,800 real wage increase. You can find that on the Senate's website, Mr. Speaker, $7,400 to $10,600 real take-home pay increase for the average Arizona family. Remember, Mr. Speaker, this is a State that was crushed. I think when the Biden inflation years were over, we came in number two in the country.
Our brothers and sisters in that hardworking middle class are still poorer today because we are just now starting to catch up.
I am actually taking a look at small business. I have 514,000 small businesses that now have the 20 percent deduction locked in. Mr. Speaker, tell me that isn't stability, when you start to walk through things like the $6,000 bonus deduction for seniors in that middle realm of income.
These things are remarkably important to growth, stability, and actually having to deal with the fact that inflation is the biggest tax in the last 40 years, those years of the Biden inflation. Inflation is a tax.
In many ways what we did here in tax reform, we are just trying to make things a little more even for those working brothers and sisters.
I have 822,000 families in Arizona who got an increase in the child deduction of $2,200. I thought that was something the left actually liked.
When you start to walk through our work, Mr. Speaker, to try to make life better for my brothers and sisters in Arizona, that is why this was so important.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the gentleman from Arizona that 10,000 of his constituents will face nutrition cuts and 26,000 will lose their healthcare. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, $4.2 trillion will be added to the national debt in part because of his vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Brooklyn, New York, (Mr. Jeffries), who is the distinguished Democratic leader of the United States House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of California, Representative Mike Thompson, for yielding and for his leadership.
We are here on the House floor debating this resolution that Republicans have introduced on tax day to celebrate themselves. This is an extraordinary thing. I have seen a lot during my time here in the United States Congress for more than 10 years. I have never seen a resolution introduced by Members of Congress, let alone a party, the Republican Party, to celebrate themselves for a bill that has damaged the American people.
However, if you are around this town long enough, I guess you see it all.
I am confused with H. Res. 1156 because the first clause says: Whereas, on July 4, 2025, the President signed Public Law 119-21, commonly known as the ``Working Families Tax Cuts.'' It is commonly known to whom?
Let's be clear with the American people: Republicans have made up that name. Why? It is because the bill, the actual name of the bill in Public Law 119-21 is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is deeply unpopular with the American people, who know it has been a disaster.
Now, I have respect for the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He recently just called it the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. I am not sure he is allowed to do that because Donald Trump has made clear: Walk away from that name that he gave to the bill himself. Why? It is because the American people understand it has been a disaster.
The American people know that this resolution is not worth the paper that it is written on. It does nothing. It doesn't have the force of law and does nothing to keep the promises that Donald Trump made to the American people that on day one of his Presidency, he was going to lower costs.
However, here in America, Mr. Speaker, costs haven't gone down, costs have gone up because of decisions that Donald Trump and Republicans have made to hurt the American people.
The Trump tariffs have cost everyday Americans thousands of dollars in additional expense per year. That is an affirmative decision to hurt the American people.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have refused to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. As a result of that very decision, more than 20 million Americans are experiencing dramatically increased health insurance premiums, in some cases costs having increased by over $1,000 per month. That is an affirmative decision that Republicans have made to increase costs.
Now, there is a reckless war of choice that has been raging in the Middle East. More than a dozen brave American heroes have already lost their lives. Hundreds have been seriously injured. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent per day to drop bombs in the Middle East, and yet Republicans are unwilling to spend a dime to make life more affordable for the American people.
In fact, this reckless war of choice, this Trump Republican war over in the Middle East has skyrocketed gas prices. All across America, more than $4 a gallon, largest increase in gas prices on a monthly basis in more than 60 years. Republicans have done that to the American people.
In the face of such policy failure and the one big, ugly bill being such a disaster, we have this resolution in front of us, not worth the paper that it is written on. It doesn't even reference the name of the bill that was passed. Why is that? Because Republicans are trying to hide what has been done to the American people.
Let me just briefly talk about five different things that are in the one big, ugly bill that have caused real harm. One, the one big, ugly bill contained the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, almost a trillion dollar cut to Medicaid. As a result of that, almost 14 million Americans are at risk of losing their health insurance because of the bill that Republicans are celebrating on the floor here today.
As a result of that Medicaid cut, the largest in history, hospitals, nursing homes, and community-based health centers are at a risk of closing all across the country, including in rural America, as a result of the legislation that Republicans are celebrating here on the floor today, though they are running away from the name of the bill because it is such a disaster.
The second problem with the legislation that Republicans are celebrating on the floor today is in that one big, ugly bill, they cut $186 billion, Mr. Speaker, Republicans cut $186 billion in nutritional assistance, the largest cut to SNAP in American history, literally ripping food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans in this one big, ugly bill. Now my Republican colleagues have the nerve to come on the floor today with this resolution and celebrate that?
The third problem with the bill, amongst many, is that after cutting Medicaid, ripping healthcare away from the American people, stealing food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans, $75 billion in taxpayer money was set aside in a slush fund so that ICE can brutalize and in some cases kill American citizens. There is a $75 billion slush fund for ICE in this one big, ugly bill that Republicans are on the floor celebrating today, with active harm being done to the American people, including resulting in the deaths, the cold-blooded killing of two American citizens, Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti.
The fourth problem with this bill on tax day is who the beneficiaries of this legislation include. Every economist who has studied this legislation knows that it overwhelmingly and disproportionately benefits the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected. In
The bottom line is, Medicaid was cut. Nutritional assistance was cut. ICE was given this slush fund of $75 billion; and billionaire donors to the Republican Party were given massive tax breaks that they did not need and do not deserve in an environment where working families, everyday Americans, middle-class Americans, working-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet, can't thrive, and can barely survive.
Yet, what was done in this one big, ugly bill that Republicans are celebrating on the floor today? Massive tax breaks to Republican billionaire donors, not making life more affordable to the American people, because the American people know that life has become more expensive, not less under Donald Trump's Presidency and failed Republican policies.
The fifth problem, amongst many, is that for years Republicans have portrayed themselves, Mr. Speaker, as the party of fiscal responsibility. This is one of the most fiscally irresponsible bills being celebrated on the floor today by Republicans ever to pass the United States Congress, going all the way back to 1789.
It is legislation that increased the debt by more than $4 trillion to give ICE a $75 billion slush fund to cut Medicaid, to rip food from the mouths of children, and to subsidize the life-styles of the rich and shameless. This is nothing to celebrate here on the floor today.
I am thankful to Mike Thompson, my colleague, and distinguished members of the Ways and Means Committee for communicating to the American people the truth. We will be opposing this resolution, a resolution not worth the paper that it is written on, something that doesn't even have the force of law, because as Democrats we are committed to actually solving problems for the American people, for making life more affordable for the American people, for ending this reckless war of choice in the Middle East that has skyrocketed gas prices, to fix our broken healthcare system, reverse these Medicaid cuts that are part of this one big, ugly bill. Extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits and actually commit to doing things, legislating-- not pontificating--legislating in ways that make life better for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, because of the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, also known as the working families tax cuts, the folks in Brooklyn, New York, will actually face an average tax cut of $3,341. That is the area that the minority leader represents. I am happy that Republicans could deliver tax relief for the folks in Brooklyn, even though their Representative could not do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear some of the falsehoods that Democrats are saying about this bill and some of the contradictions they are making.
I just heard the Democrat leader say that Republicans are running from this bill, but then, in the next sentence, he said we are on the floor celebrating the bill. Which is it? Are we celebrating the bill, or are we running from it?
You hear a lot of talk about the name of the bill. Naming is a funny thing here. I get it. The American people don't care what it is named. They want to know what it does for them.
What I have to tell you is that my constituents, my taxpayers, those who have filed taxes in my district, think it is a beautiful bill, and they know it is a Working Families Tax Cut Act because they have experienced it. They have more money back in their pockets after filing their taxes this year. Families are averaging $3,500 in tax cuts. Refunds are up nearly 11 percent.
One of the other things we heard from the Democrats today was talking about specific provisions in the bill. No tax on tips, they have railed against that. Yet, we had a Democrat Member just come to the floor and say he wants to make that permanent. So which is it: do you like it, or don't you like it? In fact, we could have made it permanent had we had any Democrat support when we passed this bill in the first place. Instead, every Democrat voted against no tax on tips, which is very important to people in the hospitality industry in my district and other industries, as well.
Every Democrat speaking today voted against this bill, which prevented what would have been the largest tax increase for working families all across my district and all across the State.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Every Democrat voted against no tax on overtime, which 20 million Americans have taken advantage of.
Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds I have left, I want to address one additional thing we have heard from the Democrat side, that this is regressive. Untrue. Look at the facts.
We already, of all developed nations around the world, have the most progressive taxation system, which means the wealthy pay more than they do in other countries, and it becomes even more progressive after this bill is passed. This year, the wealthy are paying a higher percentage of total taxes than they were in the previous year due to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill for the American people. People in my district know that. I don't understand what the Democrats are saying, but certainly, people believe this is a great bill for them.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out for the gentleman from Pennsylvania that 15,000 people in his district will face nutrition cuts because of this bill, 18,000 will lose their healthcare, and his constituents are going to be on the hook for part of that $4.2 trillion that this bill added to the national debt.
I thank him for reminding us that this bill is regressive. I don't think anybody on our side has mentioned that, so I thank him very much for the reminder that this is, in fact, a regressive bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take a second to talk a little bit about the horrific cuts to healthcare that are in this big, beautiful, big, ugly, H.R. 1, whatever you want to call it. This bill cut $1 trillion from the Medicaid budget. You can't take a trillion dollars out of healthcare without seeing that ripple across, in a negative way, every community across our country, every congressional district across our great country.
Hospitals will close. Clinics will close. Skilled nursing facilities will close. The ones that are able to stay open are going to have to make big cuts. They are going to have to lay people off. They are going to have to forgo everything from remodeling and improvements in equipment to seismic retrofits.
All of this is truncating people's access to quality healthcare in their district. It is going to be for everybody, not just people who are on Medicaid. If you have all the money in the world, or if you have the best insurance policy in the world, if you become ill or injured and go to the hospital to get help, to get your life saved, and that hospital is still open or that clinic is still open, it means they made drastic cuts to keep it open. You better hope that the person you need to save your life isn't the person they fired to keep the doors open.
Rural America, districts such as mine, is really going to be hurt. We were told that we did a $50 billion rural slush fund to help those areas, but they cut $136 billion from rural healthcare funding. I may be from a rural area, but they taught math good enough that I know that $50 billion doesn't make up for a $136 billion loss.
Yes, every Democrat voted against it. How could they not? This devastates healthcare in all of our districts and all of your districts. I want to remind you that it also adds $4.2 trillion to the national debt. Future generations will be saddled with this debt, saddled with a debt that right now I think is $37 trillion, saddled with a debt that was grown by $4.2 trillion just to be able to
Mr. Speaker, today, millions of Americans across the country are benefiting from the working families tax cuts that President Trump and Republicans have passed.
The reality is that when you speak to people in my district-- teachers, firefighters, police officers, homeowners, small business owners, senior citizens, parents--they are seeing tremendous savings. They are either paying less in Federal taxes or are receiving a substantial refund, starting with the $40,000 SALT deduction, which was quadrupled. That is benefiting homeowners.
The leader, a fellow Representative from New York City, should know the reason we needed the State and local tax deduction was because our mayor and our Governor kept hammering us to death.
We are providing the relief that they so desperately need. Eighty- eight percent of seniors across the country, 52 million seniors will benefit from the provision of Social Security tax being refunded to them. The standard deduction nearly tripled from where it was in 2016. The $2,200 child tax credit has been extended. The no tax on tips provisions will bring in $1,300 in relief for an average waitress in our district.
Permanently lowering those tax rates was a significant win not for the wealthy but for, perhaps a first time in a long time, the middle class, the working class, and the senior citizen that relies on Social Security.
Let me also remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we have seen tax revenue increase. Since President Trump first enacted those tax cuts in 2017, we have seen tax revenue go up, despite there being these tax cuts. It went up from $3.3 trillion to $5.6 trillion in fiscal year 2026 and even further after this bill was enacted.
The GDP at the same period grew from $18 trillion to $31 trillion because these were tax cuts that helped our economy grow, expand, and create jobs.
While the Democrats all voted ``no,'' they all wanted to see your taxes increase 22 percent, today, on average, Americans are seeing 11 percent in savings, and it is because of President Donald Trump and this Republican Congress that did what we said we are going to do. A lot of politicians talk about cutting taxes. We actually did.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out that in the gentlewoman's district in New York 30,000 of her constituents will face nutrition cuts. Mr. Speaker, 40,000 will lose their healthcare. Mr. Speaker, 123 jobs will be lost due to canceling clean energy tax cuts, and, again, $4.2 trillion will be added to the national debt because of that vote.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues say this Republican tax law has winners and losers, and they are right. The winners are millionaires taking home over $90,000 a year in tax breaks. That must be nice. However, for everyone else, working families, seniors, the so-called nongilded class, this bill is a loss. Any meager tax relief they might see is wiped out by the reality of this economy: $4.2 trillion added to our national debt, $1,700 a year in tariff tax hitting every American household, rising grocery prices that families feel every single week, skyrocketing healthcare premiums, hundreds of billions spent on a cruel immigration crackdown, and another endless war in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: This isn't a tax cut for working families. It is a windfall for the wealthy paid for by everyone else.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that 86,800 individuals in the district of the ranking member of the Tax Subcommittee, who was speaking before me, because of passage of this bill, those 86,800 families in California will not have $1,000 child tax credit, they will have a $2,200 tax credit. Those are the people that are benefiting in this bill that he voted against.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on tax day to celebrate a generational victory for American workers, families, and small businesses.
The working families tax cut signed into law last July Fourth was a game-changing event for Americans and especially people in my district in upstate New York, the highest tax State in the Nation, even higher than Mr. Thompson's district now as the Democrats in these two States continue to compete to raise our taxes.
This tax season, though, is really good news. I have heard from countless constituents and their families about the money they have saved already from President Trump's tax cuts. We doubled the standard deduction, increased the child tax credit to $2,200 per child. These are now permanent.
What does this mean in practice? A family of three welcoming a new baby into their lives can expect a tax refund of over $4,000, plus a $1,000 Trump Account deposit to jump start that child's financial future.
That is real money for food, diapers, clothes, and a future nest egg for that child. That is government working for families, not against them.
For nearly 90 percent of Americans who claim the standard deduction, this law delivers over $205 billion in new tax relief on top of what we already did in the Trump tax cuts in 2017.
I spent many years of my life managing and operating our family's small business. I know firsthand what it is like to struggle to make payroll and the stress that small business owners face every single day, especially in States like New York. This is why making the section 199A Qualified Business Deduction now permanent is a certainty for millions of Main Street businesses, small businesses, including sole proprietors, independent contractors, and tradesmen. It means these entrepreneurs can invest in their workers, plan for their future, and compete in a more dynamic marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, I thank President Trump, Speaker Johnson, and our great Chairman Smith for spearheading this effort to build on the successes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and deliver the most significant tax relief for American workers and families in a generation. This has been a godsend for people in New York against the Democrats who are continuing to raise our taxes in the State of New York. I thank them for the relief.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out that in that New York congressional district we just heard about, 19,000 of her constituents will face nutrition cuts. Mr. Speaker, 27,000 will lose health insurance. Mr. Speaker, 4,263 jobs will be lost due to the canceling of the clean energy tax credits, and her constituents will share in that liability-- $4.2 trillion added to our national debt.
I will just circle back to the child tax credit issue that the chairman, my friend, referenced. I think it is important to point out that in 2021 in the Democrats' American Rescue Plan, we provided greater child tax credit benefits to folks across the country than was pointed out in this bill: $3,000 for kids aged 6 to 17 and $3,600 for children under the age of 6. It was fully refundable.
I think it is also important to point out that the beauty of writing tax law, and that is what we do in the Ways and Means Committee, the most significant committee in the United States Congress established by the Constitution of the United States of America, it is that important, the beauty of our responsibility for writing tax law is that we can actually target communities, populations that need it the most. We can do a child tax credit without having to do a huge windfall for the richest people in the country, and that is what we should be doing.
Mr. Speaker, we all remember that famous iconic final scene in the movie ``Thelma and Louise,'' two women in a red convertible, pedal down, driving straight off the edge of a cliff.
For working Americans, that is exactly what many saw coming, a $4 trillion tax hike that would have put families in the passenger seat while the left drove full speed toward the edge. No brakes, no plan, and no way out of impending disaster.
Mr. Speaker, this tax day, House Republicans refuse to let that be the ending.
With the Working Families Tax Cut Act, we turned the wheel. We changed the direction, and we put working people back in control of their own hard-earned money.
No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, a new deduction for Social Security benefits, a new deduction for auto loan interest on American- made vehicles, a new higher standard deduction, a stronger tax credit, all of these mean the same thing, Mr. Speaker: More take-home pay, more breathing room, and more opportunities for the families who make this country work and the families who pay the bills.
The Working Families Tax Cut Act is real relief for real people: parents juggling rising costs, workers picking up extra shifts, and seniors who spent a lifetime paying in and deserve to keep a little bit more of what they have earned.
Mr. Speaker, instead of driving off of the cliff, Republicans have written a happy ending, one where hardworking American taxpayers keep more of what they earn and drive forward with confidence and certainty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, talk about driving off of the cliff. That Florida district where my friend represents is going to drive off of the cliff.
Mr. Speaker, 22,000 people in his district will face nutrition cuts, 91,000 people will lose their health coverage, and 486 jobs are going to be lost due to canceling clean energy credits.
If that is not a steep enough cliff to drive off of, try this one: $4.2 trillion added to our national debt. Those constituents in Florida have some responsibility for that debt, just like the rest of our constituents do.
As far as the tax credit for the children that my friend talked about, it is permanent. It is permanent for rich kids. Poor kids won't get the whole credit because it isn't fully refundable.
Mr. Speaker, for Californians who are losing more and more of their paychecks to taxes, taxes that too often fund Gavin Newsom's endless boondoggles, real relief isn't just welcome. It is overdue.
Thanks to President Trump, Chairman Smith, and House Republicans, that relief is here. On July 4, 2025, we delivered the largest working families tax cut in American history. The result is no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, the child tax credit boosted to $2,200 per child and made permanent, taxes on Social Security slashed, and a $1,000 Trump tax account for every newborn American.
It also means expanding opportunity through the Federal education tax credit scholarship program so that parents can choose the best education for their child.
There is relief for farmers, small businesses, and manufacturers.
There is now more investment happening in California. We are already seeing the results.
Thanks to this historic legislation, average tax refunds are nearing $4,000 this year, over 15 percent higher than 2024. That is real money that families can use for gas, groceries, or invest in their child's future.
At the end of the day, it is simple: You earned your money. You deserve to keep it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this debate comes down to a simple question: Who is this resolution really for? It is not for the families in my district and not for the workingmen and -women who are paying more at the pump, more at the grocery store, and more for healthcare. It is not for the workers who were promised relief and got far less than what was advertised. It is not for the folks across all of our districts who are going to pay $1,700 more in tariff taxes this year.
It is for those at the very top, and it adds $4.2 trillion to our national debt. That is $4.2 trillion to our national debt.
Democrats believe that the tax code should work for working people, not just the wealthy or the well-connected. This resolution fails that test.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the working families tax cuts were written for the working families of this country by the working families of this country.
After I became chairman, the first hearing that the Ways and Means Committee held was not here in Washington. It was at a lumberyard in Petersburg, West Virginia, ``The State of the American Economy: Appalachia.''
We then traveled across the country, listening to workers and job creators and families in Yukon, Oklahoma; in Peachtree City, Georgia; and in Erie, Pennsylvania. We heard directly from waiters and waitresses, factory workers, retirees, welders, and small business owners about how tax relief would benefit them.
Under this bill, a family of four who makes less than $73,000 a year will have zero in Federal tax liability. This is tax relief for Americans who need it the most.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the previous question is ordered on the resolution and the preamble.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
On April 15, 2026, page H2920, in the third column, the following appeared: The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the previous question is ordered on the resolution and the preamble. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 1174, the previous question is ordered on the resolution and the preamble. The question is on adoption of the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life, legacy, and service of J. Mason Davis, an attorney from Alabama, a towering figure in Alabama's legal community, and a steadfast advocate for justice, equality, and human dignity.
Mr. Davis passed away on April 4, 2026, at the age of 90, a profound loss for Alabama and for all who believe in the power of law to advance fairness and opportunity.
Mr. Davis pursued his education with distinction and determination, graduating from Talladega College and later earning his law degree from Howard University School of Law.
Mr. Davis then returned to Alabama. He entered a legal landscape defined by segregation and entrenched inequality. Rather than accept those conditions, he challenged them. He became one of the first Black attorneys to practice in Birmingham's courts, and he used his skill, courage, and conviction to represent individuals and communities who had long been denied a voice.
Beyond the courtroom, Mr. Davis was a mentor, a teacher, and a bridge-builder. He served in leadership roles at one
Alabama is a better place because J. Mason Davis lived, worked, and served there. The legal profession is better because he insisted that it live up to its highest ideals. Our Nation is better because he never stopped believing in the possibility of a more just and inclusive society.
To his family, friends, colleagues, and all he shaped by his wisdom and generosity, we extend our deepest condolences. May they find comfort in knowing that his legacy endures in the laws that he changed, in the lives that he touched, and in the generation he led.
I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary life and legacy of J. Mason Davis, an Alabama icon and a national treasure.
I rise today to honor the extraordinary life, legacy, and service of Attorney J. Mason Davis, a towering figure in Alabama's legal community and a steadfast advocate for justice, equality, and human dignity. Mr. Davis passed away on April 4, 2026, at the age of 90, a profound loss for Alabama and for all who believe in the power of the law to advance fairness and opportunity.
J. Mason Davis was born in Birmingham, Alabama in 1932, at a time when the promise of equal justice under law was far from reality. Yet, from a young age, he believed deeply in that promise. He pursued education with determination, graduating from Talladega College and later earning his law degree from Howard University School of Law in Washington D.C.
When J. Mason Davis returned to Alabama, he entered a legal landscape defined by segregation and entrenched inequality. Rather than accept those conditions, he challenged them. He became one of the first Black attorneys to practice in Birmingham's courts, and he used his skill, courage, and conviction to represent individuals and communities who had long been denied a voice.
Throughout the Civil Rights Movement, he worked on cases that helped dismantle discrimination and expand opportunities for African Americans in the state.
He never sought the spotlight. He sought justice. And he pursued it with a quiet strength that earned him the respect of colleagues, judges, and community leaders spanning several generations.
Beyond the courtroom, J. Mason Davis was a mentor, a teacher, and a bridge-builder. He served in leadership roles at one of Alabama's most respected law firms, helping open doors of opportunity for young attorneys to follow in his footsteps. He chaired numerous organizations, including the Birmingham Regional Chamber of Commerce, the United Way of Central Alabama, and the Talladega College Board of Trustees, and served as a member of many legal and corporate boards throughout the state.
His contributions were recognized widely. In 2013, he received the NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award for Human and Civil Rights, and in 2016, J. Mason Davis was officially inducted into the Birmingham Business Hall of Fame.
Perhaps his greatest legacy is the example he set--an example of integrity, perseverance, and unwavering dedication to the ideals of equality and justice.
Alabama is a better place because J. Mason Davis lived, worked, and served there. The legal profession is better because he insisted that it live up to its highest ideals. And our nation is better because he never stopped believing in the possibility of a more just and inclusive society.
To his family, friends, colleagues, and all who were shaped by his wisdom and generosity, we extend our deepest condolences. May they find comfort in knowing that his legacy endures--in the laws he helped change, in the lives he touched, and in the generations of leaders he inspired.
I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary life and legacy of J. Mason Davis, not only for what he accomplished, but for what he made possible.
May his legacy continue to guide Alabama and our Nation for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor an American giant and second lieutenant, the Honorable Jackie Robinson.
On this Jackie Robinson Day, we remember that when he stepped onto Ebbets Field on April 15, 1947, he broke not only the color barrier, he broke racial segregation in the hierarchy of sports.
He forced this Nation to confront its conscience. His courage, discipline, and unshakeable dignity changed baseball forever. More importantly, it changed America for the better.
That is why it is disgusting when the Pentagon, under our current leadership, removed mention of Jackie Robinson's military service. Mr. Speaker, you cannot honor American history by erasing the very people who made it: Mr. O'Malley, the owner and Jackie Robinson, the player.
Jackie Robinson's legacy is not a DEI to be thrown away. It is patriotism. It is service to the country, and it is sacrifice. It is the truth.
Mr. Jackie Robinson was court-martialed for refusing to sit in the back of a segregated bus. You cannot understand American history, Mr. Speaker, without understanding the whole truth.
Jackie Robinson proved: Diversity is not a weakness in this country but is one of our greatest strengths.
Equity dismantles barriers allowing excellence to rise.
Inclusion expands opportunity, so we as a country become stronger.
Mr. Speaker, as we tell the full story of America, not a sanitized story, not an edited story, but the full story, we give the next generation the courage to keep pushing forward, to keep breaking barriers, and to speak the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not merely to remember a man, but to summon a truth--one that this Nation has long struggled to face, and longer still to accept. We gather in the shadow and the light of Jackie Robinson, a man who did not simply step onto a baseball field, but stepped into the raging storm of America's conscience.
On April 15th, 1947, when he walked onto Ebbets Field, he carried more than a glove and a bat. He carried the weight of a people who had been told, for generations, to wait--to be patient--to accept less. And yet, he did not wait. He did not bow. He did not break. In his silence, there was thunder. In his restraint, there was revolution.
Jackie Robinson did not just change baseball. He exposed the lie at the heart of this country--that freedom could be partial, that dignity could be selective, that citizenship could be rationed. And in doing so, he forced America to see itself, perhaps for the first time, as it truly was.
And so it is a grave and troubling thing--though not, I must confess, a surprising one--that there are those even now who would dare to diminish his legacy. To erase his service. To tidy up history into something more palatable, more convenient, more false. There is nothing new in this impulse. America has always had talent for forgetting the very people who made it possible.
But you cannot honor this country by amputating its memory. You cannot claim patriotism while discarding truth. Jackie Robinson's life was not an accessory to history--it was a reckoning with it.
He proved something that this Nation has resisted understanding: that what we call diversity is not a threat, but a revelation; that what we call equity is not charity, but justice; that what we call inclusion is not concession, but the expansion of the American promise itself.
For the story of America, if it is to mean anything at all, must be told in full. Not the softened story, not the convenient story, but the whole, difficult, luminous truth.
Because only in that truth can we find the courage to continue--to insist that the barriers before us are not permanent, that the limits imposed upon us are not final.
Today, we honor Jackie Robinson not only as a ballplayer, but as a witness--as a man who testified, with his life, to the possibility of a more honest Nation. A more just one.
And if we are worthy of that testimony, we will remember this: that America is not measured by how well it protects the powerful, but by how fiercely it defends the dignity of all who step forward--against the odds, against the noise, against history itself--to claim their place at the plate.
