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.
02Continuation of the National Emergency and of the Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Russian- Affiliated Vessels to United States Ports: Message From...
03After Recess
04Adjournment From Thursday, April 16, 2026, to Monday, April 20, 2026
1 member spoke
05Adjournment
1 member spoke
06Oath for Access to Classified Information
07Expeniture Reports Concerning Official Foreign Travel
08Discharge Petitions: Additions and Withdrawals
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
45 public bills, H.R. 8318- 8362; and 8 resolutions, H.J. Res. 156; H. Con. Res. 85; and H. Res. 1182-1187, were introduced.
Pages H2958-60
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran: The House failed to agree to 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 with Iran, by a yea- and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 214 nays with one answering ``present'', Roll No. 114. Consideration began yesterday, April 15th.
Pages H2929-37
Foreign Emissions and Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act
The House passed H.R. 6409, to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, by a yea-and-nay vote of 220 yeas to 208 nays, Roll No. 116. Consideration began yesterday, April 15th.
Pages H2937-38
Rejected the Min motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 215 nays, Roll No. 115.
Pages H2937-38
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 yesterday, April 15th. Reducing and Eliminating Duplicative Environmental Regulations Act: The House passed H.R. 6398, to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation, by a yea-and-nay vote of 222 yeas to 205 nays, Roll No. 118. Consideration began yesterday, April 15th.
Pages H2938-39
Rejected the Grijalva motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 216 nays, Roll No. 117.
Pages H2938-39
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 yesterday, April 15th. Requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status: The House passed H.R. 1689, to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status, by a yea-and-nay vote of 224 yeas to 204 nays, Roll No. 120.
Pages H2939-47
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in section 4 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
Page H2940
H. Res. 965, the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1689) was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 220 yeas to 207 nays, Roll No. 119.
Pages H2939-40
Expressing support for tax policies that support working families
The House agreed to H. Res. 1156, expressing support for tax policies that support working families, by a yea-and-nay vote of 219 yeas to 207 nays, Roll No. 121. Consideration began yesterday, April 15th. 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 yesterday, April 15th.
Pages H2947-48
Recess
The House recessed at 2:32 p.m. and reconvened at 11:22 p.m.
Page H2948
Amending the FISA Amendments Act: Rule for Consideration
The House failed to agree to 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, by a recorded vote of 197 ayes to 228 noes, Roll No. 124, after the previous question was ordered by a yea- and-nay vote of 211 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 122. The House rejected the Austin Scott (GA) amendment by a yea-and-nay vote of 200 yeas to 220 nays, Roll No. 123.
Pages H2948-55
Amending the FISA Amendments Act
The House agreed to discharge from committee and pass H.R. 8322, to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 through April 30, 2026.
Page H2955
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, April 20, 2026 for morning-hour debate.
Page H2955
Presidential Message
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification stating that the national emergency declared in Proclamation 10371 of April 21, 2022, with respect to the Russian Federation and the emergency authority relating to the regulation of the anchorage and movement of Russian-affiliated vessels to United States ports, is to continue in effect beyond April 21, 2026--referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119-149).
Page H2948
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H2948. Quorum Calls--Votes: Ten yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2936-37, H2937-38, H2938, H2938-39, H2939, H2939-40, H2947, H2947-48, H2953, H2953-54 and H2954-55. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 2:10 a.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 95 of 195 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Celebrating the Centennial Anniversary of E.W. Thomas Grocery Store and Dmv
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the centennial anniversary of E.W. Thomas Grocery Store and DMV in Fluvanna County in Virginia's Fifth Congressional District.
Since their founding, this family-owned store has withstood the test of time.
Through generations, E.W. Thomas has served as more than just a grocery store: providing local jobs, supporting families, delivering DMV services in a rural area, and fostering goodwill in the community.
Today, the Thomas name remains a cornerstone of the store and the community it serves.
As E.W. Thomas Grocery Store marks its 100th anniversary, we recognize not just a business, but a living symbol of resilience, service, and the enduring spirit of rural America.
Mr. Speaker, this week marks 3 years of the war in Sudan, and our country has done little to nothing to actually stop it.
Tens of thousands of Sudanese have been killed, and 14 million are displaced in what has become the world's largest displacement crisis.
Mr. Speaker, the Rapid Support Forces, RSF, have engaged in a claim of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Darfur and armed with American weapons provided to them by the United Arab Emirates, and it is shameful. It is shameful that many of my colleagues continue to look away.
We need to move the Stand Up For Sudan Act, the Stand Up For Sudan Act which would cease all U.S. weapons sales to the UAE.
We must put pressure on all nations fueling this war and extend the international arms embargo on Darfur to all of Sudan.
While the Sudanese people face famine, the Trump administration has slashed humanitarian aid that saves lives, and this must be reversed immediately.
We need an immediate cease-fire; but beyond that, we need to support the Sudanese people and their call for freedom, peace, and justice.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are grateful for the safe return of the brave astronauts of the Artemis II space mission, an extraordinary achievement for all mankind.
NASA Astronauts Reed Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, as well as Canadian Space Agency Astronaut Jeremy Hansen demonstrated unparalleled dedication. Through their efforts, humanity traveled nearly 249,000 miles into space, farther than ever before in history.
Their success inspires a future generation of scientists, astronauts, explorers, and engineers across America. President Donald Trump is successful in advancing American dominance in space exploration.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Donald Trump is instituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting and mocking Trump as war criminal Putin facilitates the Chinese Communist Party to provide missiles to Iran to kill Americans through the Black Sea Port of the Republic of Georgia, oppressed by the corrupt, illegitimate regime in Tbilisi.
Our sympathy to Congresswoman Nancy Mace on the death of her father, former Citadel Commandant Emory Mace.
Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the privilege of helping students and staff at the Patrick Henry Middle School by securing $500,000 to renovate the school. Actually, Mr. Speaker, this was an effort led by students, which exemplifies civic duty advocacy on behalf of their school and their community.
While there, I was also able to meet students that helped advocate for this project, including the student council copresidents, Doris Espinoza and Thomas Stevens; the student council vice president, Jade Perez; and the other members of the council: Humayra Chowdhury, Victoria Quinonez, Sadie Metz, Chloe Manning, Mujahidul Islam, Alessa Rodriguez, Emma Van-Eiker, Rosalie McCall-Feighery, Abby Maria- Catalino, and Kylie Cruz, great students that through their advocacy brought a renovation to their school.
I want to acknowledge the principal of the school who has done also a tremendous job, but first and foremost, student-led power, showing that they can do it for their school and their community.
I am proud to have helped secure more than $14 million for my district, and I look forward to helping fund initiatives that will support the needs of New York-13.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true legend, somebody that I am proud to call a friend, as we recognize the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest performances in all of sports, the 1986 Masters.
Jack Nicklaus had been dismissed as past his prime, but he shocked the world when he mounted the greatest charge that Augusta has ever witnessed. The Golden Bear birdied 9, birdied 10, birdied 11, birdied 13. He eagled 15 with a 4-iron that landed 12 feet from the pin, nearly made a hole-in-one on 16, and birdied 17 to take the lead for the first time of the week. When it was all over, he shot a final round of 65 and won his sixth Masters' title, a record that still stands today.
His 18 major championship wins continue to inspire every amateur golfer, every athlete. Anybody who aspires for greatness, he inspires them. Now, 40 years later, what happened in Augusta, Georgia, on April 14, 1986, it is a testament to what is possible when talent, perseverance, and hard work all converge at the right moment.
I ask everyone to join me in recognizing Jack Nicklaus on that anniversary of his incredible win.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Purchase College of the State University of New York system, also known as SUNY Purchase.
Purchase College is a top 10 public college nationally recognized for its arts programs and its rigorous programs in the liberal arts and sciences. As the only 4-year public college in Westchester County, SUNY Purchase College delivers a high-quality, affordable education and supports first-generation student success.
Purchase College harbors graduates who thrive on the world stage as actors, musicians, filmmakers, and artists, and they have meaningful careers as psychologists, nonprofit leaders, doctors, scientists, lawyers, researchers, and educators.
This is a testament to the programs available to the students and the resources provided to alumni long after graduation day. They have just announced a special partnership with Rockland Community College.
I am pleased to recognize SUNY Purchase College for the work they do for their students and the wider community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable and often overlooked chapter in American sports. Thirty-five years ago, on April 14, 1991, the U.S. Women's Eagles won the inaugural Women's Rugby World Cup in Cardiff. They did so without the support or recognition that athletes expect today. They balanced full-time jobs, studies, and families, and paid their own way to compete.
During the tournament, they upset powerhouse New Zealand and beat England 19-6 in the final.
Their legacy is not just a trophy. It is proof that leadership often comes from those willing to challenge the status quo.
Today, women's rugby is one of the fastest growing sports. Across the U.S., women have opportunities to play at the highest levels because of this team's accomplishments.
These women were pioneers, and we owe them our gratitude and continued commitment to the athletes who carry their torch forward.
I am honored that members of the team have joined us in Washington today to celebrate this incredible milestone.
I congratulate the Eagles. America is proud of them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate nine schools in my district that have been honored as California's 2026 Distinguished Schools.
Congratulations to the students, teachers, and staff at California School of the Arts-San Gabriel Valley in Duarte; Edgewood High School in West Covina; El Monte High School in El Monte; Hollencrest Middle School in West Covina; Lone Hill Middle School in San Dimas; Mt. SAC Early College Academy at West Covina; Ramona Middle School in La Verne; Sandburg Middle School in Glendora; and South Hills High School in West Covina.
The California Distinguished Schools recognition program honors public schools that go above and beyond to close education gaps, provide exemplary instruction, and innovate education systems to help create better outcomes for our students.
Our students are our future, and I am so proud to see these inspiring schools receive the recognition they deserve.
The students, teachers, and staff at these distinguished schools are to be commended for their dedication and hard work. I congratulate them on this tremendous achievement.
Mr. Speaker, homes are falling into the ocean along North Carolina's Outer Banks and in communities like Buxton.
Over 30 homes have collapsed since 2020, and coastal erosion is only getting worse.
Nothing truly captures the scale of this devastation other than witnessing it for yourself firsthand.
The Buxton Civic Association and the local community have been speaking up and standing up for coastal and inland communities across eastern North Carolina because doing nothing is not an option.
I urge Congress to pass H.R. 3161, the Preventing Environmental Hazards Act. We must not continue watching livelihoods get washed away now only to pay the higher price of cleanup later.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Catholics and all people of faith who are appalled by President Trump's recent attacks on Pope Leo.
At a moment that demands moral clarity, His Holiness called on the President to remember what the Gospel teaches us: to pray for peace and for the dignity of all people.
How did he respond? With insults, egotism, and images portraying himself as Jesus. It is blasphemous, deranged, and a total desecration of Christ's message. Sadly, we have come to expect these sorts of temper tantrums and outbursts from Donald Trump.
This entire episode, coupled with his threat last week to wipe out an entire civilization, calls into question his mental fitness for office.
His own former White House advisers, military generals, and even his staunchest supporters have called him insane. The Vice President and Cabinet must begin the process of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office. If they fail to act, this House must immediately begin impeachment proceedings. We must act now before he does any more damage to our Nation and the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of April 15, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (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 with Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of April 15, 2026, the concurrent resolution is considered as read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my War Powers Resolution, and I do so today because the Constitution of the United States actually demands it, and so does the conscience of the House of Representatives.
In my view, Donald Trump--and I think that in most of the world's view--has dragged the American people into a war of choice--fact-- launched without congressional authorization.
The President did not discuss or work with any of our allies. There was no coherent strategy. This was an open-ended and undefined military engagement, and that is exactly what the War Powers Resolution was designed to restrain.
However, we are here today to talk about the authority of Congress, whether you agree with the war or not. It is the authority that lies within Congress.
On February 28, the President launched an attack while negotiations between Iran and the United States were actively going on. Diplomacy was going on. Iran's foreign minister had stated just days before that a historic agreement was within reach. There was a path forward that did not require a single American servicemember to be put in harm's way. Instead of pursuing diplomacy, the President started this war, costing the American people billions of dollars, losing 13 American lives, and so many other men, women, and children who were not a party and who were civilians.
The President abandoned the diplomatic path, not because diplomacy failed, but because it was never truly given a chance. As a result of the administration's decisions, the new Iranian regime is more hard- line. The Strait of Hormuz, which was previously open, is now closed. The cost of gas for the American people has skyrocketed, and this fragile cease-fire is one threatening civilization tweet away from failing.
What has this war accomplished?
The administration and Donald Trump himself may be declaring victory, but let's look at the contradictory objectives of this administration which were used to justify the war.
First, it was that Iran posed an imminent threat, but no imminent threat was ever demonstrated. Then it was about nuclear weapons, but the administration itself had declared the nuclear program obliterated. Then it was about ballistic missiles. So you see, Mr. Speaker, the goalposts keep moving because there was never a clear objective in the beginning.
Meanwhile, as I have stated, the costs keep going up. American servicemembers have been killed, and thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children, have been killed since the beginning of this war. These are not just statistics. These are human beings, and we have a moral duty to acknowledge that reality.
Then there is the impact on gas pumps and grocery stores. This war has disrupted global travel and trade, halted flights in and out of the Middle East, and led to major shipping reroutes. Leading energy analysts warn it could be a long time before prices go down even after the war ends and that we are looking at elevated energy costs well into the end of 2026.
The 2-week cease-fire is set to expire on April 22, and thus far, neither side has indicated what comes next beyond continued blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. We are standing at the edge of a cliff, and Congress must act before the President pushes us off. Every day we delay, we inch closer to a conflict with no exit ramp.
This resolution does not leave America defenseless. It preserves the President's authority to defend the United States and our allies from imminent attack. Actually, it says, plainly and constitutionally, that one person does not have the power to take this Nation to war alone.
Just yesterday, we heard more American troops were being sent to the Middle East. The Constitution ultimately, again, no matter whether you agree with the war or do not agree with the war, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution grants the Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.
Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Even Donald Trump acknowledged this saying: As a war, you are supposed to get approval from Congress.
This is not a skirmish. This is not a military operation. This is a war.
Now, we are not the Iranian Parliament, and we should not be rubberstamps. We are the Article I branch of government, and we serve as a check and balance on Presidential overreach.
This duty is not optional. Today, this body has a choice. We can assert our constitutional authority and demand a return to the only path that leads to lasting security, diplomacy, negotiation, verification, and deterrence. Or we can surrender that authority and let this war grind on without accountability, without strategy, and without an end in sight.
It is oversight, especially on this committee. We should be having witnesses before us so that we can understand and talk and move and ultimately have a vote on this floor to determine whether or not we are going to authorize a war.
I, for example, believe in diplomacy. I also believe in the Constitution, and I choose to defend the principle that war is a last resort and not a first option. Others may disagree with me, but we should still have a vote here on the House floor.
The American people are watching. The camera of history is recording.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whether or not they agree with the war or not, let's do our duty and our responsibility. If they want to vote to declare a war, then vote that way. If they believe, as I do, we should have diplomacy and we should not be at war now, then vote that way. We are all Members of the House of Representatives. Let's protect this institution. Let's vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech that he just gave. It is probably the most hypocritical speech that anybody could give, but I am glad he gave it because the truth is I am well prepared to answer for this.
Let's talk about engagements against Iran and what is going on. This is not the first time that this happened. Joe Biden was engaged against Iran.
Why?
It is because of an imminent threat.
Let's examine the difference between when Joe Biden was engaged and when President Trump was engaged. When Joe Biden engaged, it is because the Houthis, a direct arm of Iran, were attacking the United States of America's ships and merchant marine vessels and doing what they have been doing for decades: picking a fight.
Mr. Biden launched Operation Prosperity Guardian against Iranian- backed Houthis. That went on not for 30 days, not for 60 days, not for 90 days, and not for 6 months. It went on for almost 1 year until January of 2025, from November 2023 until January 2025.
What happened during that period of time?
How many times did my Democratic colleagues or Republicans offer a War Powers resolution to say: Remove all U.S. forces from this fight against Iran?
I have the counter down here. It is zero.
It wasn't like what happened with President Trump. President Trump is defending against an imminent threat.
What was this imminent threat?
It wasn't just vessels being shot. It was, very specifically, not long before that, three Americans killed at a place called Tower 22: Sergeant Rivers, 46 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves; Sergeant Sanders, 24 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves, and Sergeant Moffett, 23 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves. These are real imminent threats. Our bases in Iraq, Syria, and other places were being attacked.
However, before President Trump ever conducted any level of operation, Democrats introduced legislation to direct the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran, a war powers introduced before anything ever happened.
Now, if we go back here to President Biden, there were a couple of pieces of legislation that took place bipartisanly. One of them I brought up many times. It was Republicans and Democrats voting overwhelmingly to tell the President, tell the executive branch, literally: Use any and all means necessary to destroy Iranian nuclear anything. That is what we told the President. That is what we told the executive branch. My colleague voted on it. I voted on it.
It was not war powers, not to say remove all U.S. forces from hostilities, not like Democrats have brought up before this began and then again bringing it up, stopping before a B-2 bomber struck, not again when they introduced it this time, you know, 6/26, 6/27, not on 1/29, not on 2/18. The list goes on and on again and again and again. Today, again, we are doing another war powers.
What changed? What changed from not one war powers from anybody to half a dozen? I guess we are going to do another one next week. Politics. Everything that my colleague just talked about, his hypocritical remarks about we need to do these things, it is all politics.
My Democratic colleagues are not paying attention to national security at all. They refuse to acknowledge the imminent threat that Iran has been: them killing our servicemembers, them attacking us in place after place. They don't acknowledge it.
When Joe Biden was responding to merchant marine vessels being attacked, it was okay, no war powers needed. It went on for about a year. When President Trump responds: War powers, war powers, war powers, war powers, every week that they can do it. They tried doing it last week, as well. That is the hypocrisy.
My colleague brought up some of our servicemembers who were killed. I take that very seriously. I have seen that beautiful flag behind the Speaker draped across caskets far too many times. I take it seriously every time. I personally believe that any time that a servicemember is killed, they should be lying in state, lying in honor here beneath the dome of the U.S. Capitol. I think they earn it more than anybody, anybody killed in action in defense of this country. That is my own personal belief on that.
I want to ask my colleague: Do you know the folks? Do you know the folks who were killed that you mentioned? Do you know their names? You brought up a number. Is that just politics? I know I am supposed to address the Chair, but I am happy to yield a little time to my colleague.
Do you know the members of the military that were killed?
He is sitting there silent, just using it for politics.
My brothers and sisters in arms are not politics. They are out defending the United States of America against the most imminent threat that we have faced for decades, a threat that has killed hundreds of our servicemembers in the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, that, as I already mentioned, killed three of our servicemembers at Tower 22, absolutely was shooting at us and our merchant marine fleet, like what they had nothing to say about when President Biden was conducting attacks against them for over a year, but I am going to tell you who they are, since to my Democratic colleagues, they are just a number for politics.
Army Sergeant Declan Coady, 20 years old, from Des Moines, Iowa; Army Captain Cody Khork, 35 years old; Army Major Jeffrey O'Brien, 45 years old; Army Master Sergeant Noah Tietjens, 45 years old; Army Staff Sergeant Benjamin Pennington; Air Force Major John Klinner; Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marzan, Army; Air Force Master Sergeant Tyler Simmons; Air Force Tech Sergeant Ashley Pruitt; Master Sergeant Nicole Amor; Major Savino; Captain Koval, U.S. Air Force; Captain Angst, KC- 135 pilot.
They are not just numbers. They are not part of an operation that has no
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I remind the gentleman to direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, you know, the gentleman is from Florida, so he knows oranges. I am from New York, the Big Apple. I know apples. The gentleman's argument, clearly, he doesn't know apples from oranges.
Let me just say this: I never challenged the gentleman's patriotism to this country. He better never challenge my patriotism to this country. To think that he has a privilege to do that? No. There is no one that has more patriotism. I have family members who lost their lives for this country. I am here because of my patriotism to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the esteemed Democratic whip.
Mr. Speaker, 6 weeks ago, Democrats brought a War Powers Resolution to this House floor. We called on Republicans to join us and bring this conflict to an end. They refused.
Mike Johnson declared with pride that Donald Trump's mission is nearly accomplished.
Well, 6 weeks later, what are Americans seeing? We are seeing gas prices out of control, grocery prices going up, and a fertilizer shortage that is threatening to drive prices even higher. Americans are seeing hundreds of casualties in a war that no one has given them the respect to explain.
However, one thing is clear: Americans are being asked to foot the bill with the lives of their sons and daughters. With the $2 billion a day that we are spending on this conflict, that could be going to help Americans afford to go see a doctor, help feed our seniors and hungry veterans, help drive down prices and help Americans who are working hard and not making it be able to afford the rising cost of gas and housing and groceries that are being driven ever higher by this conflict.
Before this war, we were in a position of strength. Iran was weakened. The Strait of Hormuz was in no danger of being closed. However, now, Donald Trump and his enablers have marched us into a position of far more weakness.
Our goal now of this conflict is to return to the status quo before this conflict, but who is paying the price? Who is paying the price for this? It is the American people. Don't take my word for it. President Donald Trump told us because of this war: It is not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare. Imagine that. That is an American working family last doctrine.
Mr. Speaker, today, Republicans have a choice. Are you going to continue to enable him and his madness, or are you going to prioritize Americans, the working families of this country, and vote ``yes'' for this resolution?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the gentlewoman who just spoke was the one who said, to directly quote her, Americans are ``leverage.'' I guess that is how they look at our servicemembers, as well, unfortunately. I don't guess. I assess. I assess, as I spoke about already and reaffirm my remarks, they use our servicemembers as leverage, as politics, and it is disgusting.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), chairman of the Europe Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I will address a couple of things that my esteemed colleague across the aisle talked about. Gas prices, do you want to go back to the gas prices under Joe Biden? I think not.
As long as we are talking about 13 dead servicemembers, I want to remind you of how often our colleagues across the aisle refuse to talk about the 13 servicemembers who died in the most disastrous, the most despicable operation in U.S. military history at Abbey Gate. They refuse to talk about and refuse to recognize the 13 dead then.
As long as we are talking about this operation, we tend to forget that President Obama attacked Libya for 7 months, with no authorization from Congress--7 months, with no authorization from Congress.
I have a question for my colleagues across the aisle: Why do you hate U.S. success so much? How can you do that? How can you hate the success that we have had strategically in the last couple of months?
We now control the Venezuelan oil, much of which went to China. We now have cut off the Strait of Hormuz, where much of the oil that went through the Strait of Hormuz went to China. We have done it with no boots on the ground.
There are three priorities of the regime in Iran. One is regime survival. Two is their nuclear program. Three used to be--although it is no longer, because they don't have any proxies left to speak of.
We have taken out their proxies. We have destroyed much of their nuclear program. If we can get the 60 percent uranium, get it under our control, it would be very beneficial, but they no longer have the machines or the people to enrich it to 90 percent, which is weapon- grade uranium.
You asked what we have accomplished in this war. We have neutered Iran, which has been at war with us for 47 years. What have we accomplished? We have accomplished quite a bit.
I ask my colleagues, again, how can you hate U.S. success so much? I have been deployed on three continents with the United States Army, and I will tell you the support of the American people is what sustained you when you are deployed overseas.
I implore my colleagues across the aisle to support our troops who are in harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is our job to determine when our troops should go, and that is what this is about. We all support our troops, but it is our determination in Congress when we should send them, not a king.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs' Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, the President promised the American people no more foreign wars. Then, he dragged the Nation into war with Iran. He has threatened genocide against Iran by calling for the death of a civilization.
This war has caused record inflation, soaring energy prices, and the death of countless civilians, including scores of schoolgirls. Americans didn't endorse any of this.
The so-called imminent threat that was used to justify the war was manufactured. In fact, Iran does not possess any nuclear weapons. They don't have a single ballistic missile capable of reaching the mainland United States of America.
This was all a lie. That lie has cost 13 American servicemembers their lives, and hundreds more have been wounded.
As we speak, President Trump is sending thousands more servicemembers into the region.
What was this war for? The President keeps changing his answer. How much will it cost? He refuses to say. When will it end? No answer.
Has he sent a single official to testify to Congress to explain his decision to go to war? No.
A vote against this resolution is a vote to sideline Congress in the most consequential decision a government can make, whether to go to war.
When we go home, in each of our hometowns, we are confronted with questions about higher grocery bills and why. The answer is this war.
I will tell people that I did not vote for this war. I will tell them that I don't support the war. I will tell them
The resolution before us is a chance to show the American people that this body functions, that it works, that we will not stand aside while a President wages an unauthorized war.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleague who just spoke that Iran, as of yet, does not have a missile that can reach the United States of America that we know about, but they have reached out and affirmatively killed Americans. I just gave a list. Prior to this conflict ever beginning, Sergeant Moffett, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Rivers were killed, killed in action.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).
Mr. Speaker, for 47 years, there has been a war involving Iran. It has been a war against the United States. It started 47 years ago with: ``Death to America.'' When they chanted it, they meant it. It started in 1979, when they took our hostages. In 1983, when Iran killed 241 Americans, including 220 marines, Iran recognized they were at war with us. In 1996, at Khobar Towers, Iran, in their war for death to America, killed 19 more Americans. From 2003 to 2011, Iran, thinking they were at war with America, killed over 600 of our soldiers who were in Iraq. On October 7, 2023, Iran, realizing death to America, war with America, killed 46 Americans who were living in Israel.
Iran has not just been at war with us. They have been at war with their own people. We can hear tears for the schoolchildren who died, but we do not hear the tears for the 35,000 Iranians that we know of who they killed in January. We don't hear the cries for the Iranian people because of their war with their own people that has kept the internet off in their country for months now.
We will hear that we should just have more diplomacy. The 47 years of diplomacy are not enough. Make no mistake, Iran uses diplomacy as a weapon to create cover for their nuclear program.
We have to understand what is at stake today as President Trump makes extraordinary steps. For 47 years, as Iran has declared war with us, they have tried to build a nuclear weapon. They have enough material to build a couple.
While we do not believe that they could deliver that nuclear weapon to the United States today, that is their single-minded purpose. Their goal was to create a military infrastructure that created a shield so that they could develop those nuclear weapons and develop that missile.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle might be fine learning that they have that nuclear weapon and they have that missile when one lands right here in the United States of America. Thank God President Trump and the rest of us do not.
This resolution is a terrible idea. We should stand with our President. We should stand with our troops. We must end the 47-year war that Iran has had with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that President Trump is doing that right now. Vote ``no'' on this.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member for this important debate.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to my Republican colleagues, and they will get no argument from me on the notion that we have been at war with Iran for decades. They will get no argument at all.
As Mr. Mast keeps saying, this is a bad and evil regime. Yes, we have been at war, but at no point in those decades have we been so obviously losing that war in any strategic sense.
The Iranian Navy is at the bottom of the ocean. We have broken a bunch of their missile launchers, and I guess the nuclear material is a little more buried than it was when we obliterated it 9 months ago, but let's look at the balance here.
Let's set aside the constitutional issues that the majority has been quite happy to set aside now for a month and a half and let's talk about the regime change which occurred. We changed the regime to a younger, much more vicious regime that is now in power in Iran. We also demonstrated that Iran can sustain the most brutal military attack that we have to offer and that regime can still survive.
We have shown the regime--and this is the key point--that they have a weapon more powerful than any of ours, which is they control the energy markets on the globe right now.
As we speak, each and every one of our constituents is paying about $1.25 more per gallon of gasoline than they did before this ill-advised war.
By the way, we have broken the alliance with Israel. Joe Kent, the former National Counterterrorism Director, is running around saying that we are in this war because of Israel. Now, I wasn't in the Oval Office, but that is not a good thing for that alliance. We have spent billions of dollars for what? Most importantly, there are 13 dead Americans, precious lives given for something where the mission is unclear.
We should support our troops, but our troops deserve a strategy. They deserve a sense of mission. They deserve to know that the people's House debated their life or their death.
Yes, this is a terrible regime, and, yes, we are at war, but you are in the process of losing it. Now is the time for Congress to finally reassert its constitutional authority and give a sense of mission and give a sense of meaning to those young men and women who were deployed.
Mr. Speaker, vote for H. Con. Res. 40 so we can finally do our duty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague should probably stick around for this.
They might be the most vicious regime, but they don't have the teeth that they had before. As he pointed out, we sunk their Navy. We have destroyed their Air Force, their drone manufacturing facilities, their caches of weapons, their mobile launching platforms, and their fixed launching platforms.
We are, as we speak, in the midst of a cease-fire. In the midst of a cease-fire, my colleagues--the words I want to use would probably be taken down, but let's just say, in an ill-advised way--want to say, remove all U.S. Forces in the midst of this cease-fire that we are in. That is crazy.
They talk about wanting diplomacy, but they don't. This goes back to what I opened up with. It is all pure politics for my colleagues.
You have Joe Biden. He is launching attacks against these Iranian forces for almost a year, not one War Power Resolution. President Trump, half a dozen of them, and we will do another one next week.
They want to talk about servicemembers, but they can't tell you who they are because it is just a number to them.
They want to put more support into supporting Ukraine in a conflict where no American has been killed yet. Mind you, I have no love for Russia whatsoever, but when it comes to Iran who has been killing Americans, nothing. Crickets. It is pure politics.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Brian Mast and agree with his assessments.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of the proposed resolution. Appeasement leads to larger war as we learned in 1939.
President Donald Trump has courageously taken decisive action against the regime in Tehran, eliminating Khamenei, the architect of decades of terror, mass murder, repression, and aggression against the United States, Iranian patriots, and our Gulf allies.
The removal of this murderous dictator marks a pivotal moment in history. It is going to be so beneficial for stability, peace, and prosperity for our Gulf allies of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, and Yemen, which we cherish their friendship. Additionally, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq will be fully
Iran has been at war with America and Western civilization for 47 years. President Donald Trump has sent a clear message that those who threaten the United States and our partners will be ultimately held accountable.
I am particularly grateful that four of my sons have served in the Middle East to defeat terrorism overseas and to protect American families at home. Recent events have exposed the dangers by Tehran. As Special Envoy Steve Witkoff learned of the Iranian capability to build nine bombs, President Trump courageously acted to prevent ``death to America, death to Israel,'' with their ballistic missile range into central Europe and India. President Trump has unified our allies from Turkiye to the Arab Gulf States to Saudi Arabia.
As the Iranian people look forward to the future, we can recognize their aspirations for freedom and dignity have been crushed with the murders of 35,000 patriots this year. The United States stands with the Iranian people, not with the tyrants who murder them.
Today, we honor the courage of our American troops, reaffirm our commitment to allies, and recognize President Trump's leadership in confronting one of the most dangerous regimes in the modern era. America remains vigilant, resolute, and committed to defending freedom wherever it is threatened, weakening war criminal Putin as Ukrainians are courageously achieving victory.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Two weeks ago, thousands of San Diego military families got 48-hour deployment notices. That means they need to be ready to drop everything to deploy to the Middle East, get their affairs in order, pack, and say good-bye to their families for a few months or maybe a year.
Don't get me wrong, this is what our servicemembers and their families signed up for, and they are not complaining.
It is our job in Congress, and my job as a Representative of the country's biggest military community, to make sure that we have explored all the contingency plans, exhausted all diplomatic and nonmilitary options, and figured out the objectives, the strategy, and the exit plan before we have asked them to.
We have done none of that. While I will push for oversight and transparency about how we got here, our focus now should be on how we end this war.
Instead, President Trump is escalating. The San Diego-based carrier, the USS Lincoln, is already in the region. San Diego's USS Boxer and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit will be arriving soon, and we are expecting another San Diego-based carrier, the USS Roosevelt, to deploy any day now.
When they get there, they will be prime targets for retaliation and charged with the difficult task of enforcing Donald Trump's cockamamie blockade of Iran's ports and partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which will put a lot of strain on an already fragile cease-fire.
Donald Trump is getting our country further entrenched in another forever war in the Middle East, and the longer we stay, the harder and more expensive it will be to get out.
Yes, we should support our troops. That means doing our jobs and asking these questions before they are asked to sacrifice their lives. That is why Congress needs to do our job or else we will keep paying the cost in terms of lives lost and taxpayer dollars.
Captain Cody Khork, Sergeant 1st Class Noah Tietjens, Sergeant 1st Class Nicole Amor, Sergeant Declan Coady, Major Jeffrey O'Brien, Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marzan, Sergeant Benjamin Pennington, and all of the other servicemembers who have been killed in this war deserve for us to do our job.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents' lives are in our hands and their fate is now up to us. Vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a miscalculation to tell the military to end a war, a conflict, a battle, or anything else. We work to end threats. We work to eliminate imminent threats against the United States of America.
There is a very important difference there to think that this was not thoroughly calculated, the approach at which this goes of destroying surface to air, then bringing in different aircraft, sinking a Navy, destroying drone manufacturing, every single target calculated in very, very specific orders.
Either you believe that about our military, or you don't. I can tell you that I know for a fact that is exactly the way that our military has conducted this operation: in a pinpointed, methodical, pedantic drumbeat of a way to address targets in a very specific order over and over again, only paused because of the ongoing negotiations and cease- fire that my colleagues want to say to remove all forces in the midst of.
That is their demand today: Remove all forces, as they have demanded in the past.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump has illegally and unconstitutionally taken us into an expensive and dangerous war with Iran. The war has cost taxpayers $50 billion already, and the Pentagon will request $200 billion more on top of a record $1.5 trillion budget request.
We have already lost 13 U.S. troops, including Major Ariana Savino from my home State of Washington. We have killed thousands of Iranian and Lebanese civilians and displaced millions more. Gas prices at home are up to $7 in my home State, and families are hurting. Another 10,000 U.S. troops are being sent in to join 50,000 already stationed in the Middle East, with absolutely no strategy, no plan, and no exit.
Meanwhile, the madman in the White House tweets about exterminating an entire civilization, rages at the Pope for calling for peace, and pretends that he is Jesus. We cannot allow this to continue. Let's rein in this President and restore the sole authority of Congress and Congress alone to go to war. Vote ``yes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that we have a President who knows where he is and can find his way on or off of a stage. I know my colleagues had to literally remove their President that they did not ask for any war powers authorities for when he was conducting his attacks against Iran for about 1 year. They didn't ask for that even though it was somebody who they literally removed from the ballot because of senility.
Mr. Speaker, in February, the Trump administration, in conjunction with the Israeli Government, launched an illegal and disastrous war in Iran. They provided no rationale to the American people. They sought no legal authority from Congress, and they have since descended our world and our global economy into chaos.
That was just the beginning. Now, President Trump has threatened to use the United States military to carry out acts of genocide against the Iranian people, who are innocent civilians. Up until today, he has done this on his own as a rogue actor. Yet, today, we vote on whether or not he will do this in the name of the American people.
Congress must vote to exercise our power to stop this chaos or to sanction it. We must vote to restrain it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' and that we end and stop all that is imperiled before us.
Mr. Speaker, I will educate my colleague that the United States of America goes to the greatest lengths to use the most pinpointed weapons, at great expense, precision
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress but as someone who knows the human cost of war, what it takes, what it destroys, and what it never gives back.
We are already seeing thousands of civilians killed and wounded in Iran and in Lebanon, American servicemembers lost, and millions forced from their homes with nowhere to go. This is what war looks like, and it is only the beginning. Yet, this war of choice happened without Congress, without accountability, and without a plan for peace.
The Constitution is clear: The power to declare war belongs to Congress. It is paramount that we act when a President abuses their power. I have seen what happens when the world looks away as violence spirals. We cannot be silent. We cannot be complacent.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I hoped that my colleague who was just speaking would stay for more debate, but I would be curious. The gentlewoman intends to vote to tell the President that all U.S. Forces must be removed from hostilities. Do they feel as though that is a sound strategy to reach the conclusion that they want in the midst of a cease-fire? It sounds like they haven't calculated that.
Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this War Powers Resolution, this debate is making me sick: the lies and colleagues who are so weak that they won't enforce the Constitution to rein in a President who is clearly out of control.
As we sit here, thousands of civilians are dead; 13 servicemembers have been killed; hundreds have been injured with brain injuries, whose lives will never be the same; millions of people have been displaced; and our American bases have been bombed.
For what? Having been led into an illegal war by a madman who is attacking the Pope, threatening war crimes, implicated in the Epstein files, and who can't explain why we were there or what happens the day after, that is why it is time to end this war, to stand with our troops, and to stand with the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass this resolution and end this war now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman is still here. Does she really not know why we are there? She really doesn't know about the American servicemembers who were killed even before this who I mentioned? She doesn't know about the American bases that were struck? Really? You are a Member of Congress who does not know this?
That is crazy. I will leave it at that. I will leave it at that for this moment, but we can get you classified briefings on this. We would be having one today were it not for this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of morally bankrupt politicians who are always saying that there is not enough money for healthcare, there is not enough money for education, and there is not enough money for housing but who are willing to spend more than $1 billion a day on an unnecessary war of choice. It is a war that has taken the lives of 13 American servicemembers and that has taken the lives of over 100 elementary school children, who were bombed in their school. Horrific. It is a war that has raised gas prices, home heating oil prices, and fertilizer prices on the American people.
Now, that may not matter in Mar-a-Lago, where everything looks good. Yet, to the average working American, they don't know why they are being asked to pay for this unnecessary war, and neither do any of us.
The administration has not given us any evidence--and I have gone to every briefing, classified briefings and otherwise--any evidence that Iran was plotting an imminent threat against the United States, an imminent attack, any evidence that they were close to getting a nuclear weapon--none.
This is an unnecessary war, a costly war. We have an opportunity to end it today, and I urge my colleagues to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
Let's not forget that one of the opening acts of this war of choice against Iran was the massacre of scores of school children, little girls committed by our military, in our name.
While the President mumbled futile lies to escape his responsibilities as Commander in Chief, Hegseth did beat poetry about replacing politically correct legality with unhinged lethality.
If that wasn't reckless enough, it was amplified by the President's own social media tirades where millions of people were reduced to targets in an early morning threat to obliterate an entire civilization--a contemptible failure of moral leadership.
Sorry for being PC, but those kids would be alive today if Congress had done our job and restrained the President's lust for power. We have a chance to act before more lives are lost and more damage is done.
I have never been more embarrassed for my Republican friends in Congress who have alternated between total silence and cheering on this madness. It is long past time for us to grow a brain, grow a spine, and stand up for the true interests of the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would let my colleague that was just speaking know that almost all Democrats and Republicans literally gave the President the direction, voted, to include the top Democrat that is walking up right now, to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is literally what they voted for, gave the direction: use any and all means necessary.
I have said it many times. I am saying it again. It is exactly what they voted for. The difference today is politics. The difference today is it is not Joe Biden, who can't find his way off a stage. It is President Trump. That is why there were zero war powers resolutions under Joe Biden and half a dozen or more at this point for President Trump--pure politics.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the great State of New York (Mr. Meeks), the once and future chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, for yielding and for his leadership, for his courage, his character, his conviction, and his patriotism. How dare anyone on this floor question the patriotism of Greg Meeks or any Member on our side of the aisle.
What often happens with my Republican colleagues is they can't defend the merits of a particular situation. They can't defend the fact that Donald Trump, as candidate, promised not to start any wars, but to stop them--his words, not ours. You can't defend the fact that billions of dollars are being spent every day to drop bombs in the Middle East, but Republicans are unwilling to spend a dime to make life
There are patriots on both side of this conflict and this issue. As a matter of fact, we know there are combat veterans on the Republican side and combat veterans on the Democratic side who may share different views about the nature of this conflict. Jason Crow is a combat veteran. He opposes this reckless war of choice. Are you going to question his patriotism? Pat Ryan is a combat veteran who opposes this reckless war of choice. Do you question his patriotism? Mike Thompson, who served in Vietnam, a combat veteran, opposes this reckless war of choice. Do you question his patriotism, as well?
Why don't you just argue the merits of your position as opposed to attacking the patriotism of people on the Democratic side of the aisle, when as far as I am concerned, the most patriotic thing we can do is stand up to ensure that our men and women in uniform aren't being recklessly sent into a costly war of choice, more than 12 of whom have already lost their lives and hundreds of whom have been seriously injured.
Let's just argue the merits of Donald Trump's reckless and costly war of choice and stop the ad hominem attacks, which aren't a sign of strength. It is just a sign of Republican weakness in terms of your ability to persuade the American people as to why Republicans are on the right side of this unpopular war.
Now, this war of choice, this reckless and costly war, was entered into without any plan, any objective, any exit strategy, any public support, and any approval of the United States Congress. Those are five different objective reasons to have a problem about what is going on in the Middle East right now. In fact, we are just trying to help Donald Trump bring to life his own words that, as President, he wasn't going to start wars in the Middle East. He was going to stop them--Donald Trump's own words. Do you question his patriotism?
The reality is this war is costing the American people, taxpayers billions of dollars a day at the same time when Republicans are ripping healthcare away from the American people. This reckless war of choice is costing the American people billions of dollars a day at the same time when costs are going up because of the Trump tariffs, thousands of dollars a year in additional expense that everyday Americans are paying. This reckless war of choice is costing the American people billions of dollars a day when at the same time Republicans aren't willing to spend a dime to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. This reckless war of choice is costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars a day at the same period of time when grocery bills in this country are out of control. Far too many people are working hard. They are playing by the rules, but they are struggling to live paycheck to paycheck, can't thrive, and can barely survive.
We are standing up for the American taxpayer in expressing support for this War Powers Resolution so we can put an end to this costly and reckless war of choice.
These are just some of the reasons why we oppose what is taking place right now. In fact, there are many who are now arguing in the public domain that as a result of what Donald Trump and Republicans have done over in the Middle East, Iran, in some instances, is stronger now than they were before. They have effective control of the Strait of Hormuz. They didn't have that before, but now they do.
As a result, Americans are paying increased gas prices that are soaring to more than $4 a gallon, the largest, in fact, monthly increase in gas prices from March to April that the country has seen in more than six decades. That is just another reason to have a problem with Donald Trump's reckless war of choice.
I ask my Republican colleagues to debate us on the merits. Enough with the ad hominem attacks. It is a sign of weakness, not strength. Take your position. We take our position.
We feel very comfortable that we are standing on the side of the American people, standing on the side of the Constitution, and standing on the side of the principle that if we are going to spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, it should actually be spent to make life more affordable for the American people, not plunge us into a reckless and costly war of choice that is actually making life more expensive for the American people in provable and tangible ways.
Vote ``yes'' on the Meeks resolution so we can stop this reckless and costly war of choice and actually get back to doing the business of the American people, making their lives better, not worse.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the minority leader.
When my Democrat colleagues come down here and just lie, they are deserving of ad hominem attacks. When they come down here and try to say something about servicemembers killed but didn't take the time to learn a thing about them, learn their names, where they are from, but just want a number, you are deserving of an ad hominem attack.
When the minority leader comes to the floor and tries to say--even though he has had various Gang of Eight meetings and things like that; more classified briefings than even I have had--and tries to pretend that he doesn't know the intelligence, what General Caine is doing, the methodical approach to what is going on here, the very slim number of Iranian ordnance that are making it past our defenses, the commitments of our allies, or the threats of them obtaining a nuclear weapon or what they would do with it, like the way Russia threatens the rest of world, he is deserving of an ad hominem attack, and so is everybody else.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I support 100 percent our troops, but I strongly disagree with anyone who would say to trust, just simply trust, the President of the United States. That is not patriotism. That is not why we are here. That is why we have separate but equal branches of government. Otherwise, it is just: Trust the king.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his courageous leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.
We are the House of Representatives. Article I of the Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress of the United States. Why? Because we are the Representatives of the people of the United States, and it is important for the people of the United States to understand the reason why, the purpose, the strategy of it all, and also to approve of the use of force.
Of course, the President did not do that. For some reason, there are those in this body who are willing to abdicate the power of the House of Representatives and the Congress of the United States to declare war.
The greatest cost, of course, of this war is not just that the American people have not had the explanation, by way of the Congress having that explanation. The gravest cost is human. Thirteen brave American servicemembers have lost their lives, and hundreds more have been injured. More than a thousand civilians in the region have perished.
We all agree, of course, the cost is in the billions. The President said we can't do childcare because we have to spend money on war. We don't have to spend money on war.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that they cannot have a nuclear weapon. President Obama did that diplomatically. The current President threw that out and decided to go to war without a plan, without a strategy, without an exit plan, and, really, without even explaining his purpose to the American people.
I urge our colleagues to respect who they are, Members of Congress with the power to declare war, and insist on voting on this motion put forth by the distinguished, soon-to-be-chairman-again of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A quote from Abraham Lincoln: ``Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.''
Donald Trump thinks he is a king. As I said, I support the troops, but I don't trust the President of the United States just by his saying that he knows what he is doing. Let's see what he has actually done.
March 3, Trump says the Navy will escort tankers, no matter what, and guarantee the free flow of energy to the world.
March 9, he says he is thinking about taking over the Strait of Hormuz.
March 15, he says it is someone else's problem, questions whether the U.S. should even be there, and notes we have a lot of oil, seemingly not understanding that the price of oil is based on global prices.
March 21, he threatens to bomb Iran's power plants within 48 hours if they don't open the strait.
March 26, he announces a cease-fire and says Iran has agreed to open the strait.
That same week, CENTCOM announces it is sending ships to clear mines from the strait that Iran supposedly agreed to open.
This past Sunday, April 12, he says the Navy is going to blockade the blockade and interdict ships in the strait.
The man says something one day and then something else. We had some signs up earlier of what this man has said. We had young people in here, and some of the words he used on Easter Sunday. He is supposed to be the leader of the free world, and then he puts out a picture of himself and tells you who he thinks he is. He thinks he is Jesus. He thinks he can do whatever he wants to do because he is Donald Trump. He thinks that his word is what governs.
This is a constitutional democracy, and people died to create this Congress, to make sure that this Congress is a separate but equal branch of government, and that this Congress, if you are a patriot, would stand up in oversight of a President.
Yes, that is what the people of the United States will do, and the people of the United States do not want to continue this war with this individual who says he is a king.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the President for all the work he has done working to end an imminent threat against the United States of America.
My Democrat colleagues used to agree that it was an imminent threat. They did. They wisely agreed that it was an imminent threat. They voted, as I have said many times, literally to say--my colleague over there, the one who was just speaking--``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' They voted on it.
They voted on it numerous times to say the existential threat that Iran is against us. They just don't believe it when the name is President Trump.
When it is Joe Biden, no War Powers Resolutions. When it is President Trump, do them every week, do them every day. No longer do they believe that they are an imminent threat. No longer do they believe use any and all means necessary.
I think my Democratic colleagues really want America to lose. I think they want America to lose. That is why in the midst of this cease-fire that is going on, they are literally offering a resolution to say: Remove any and all U.S. forces from hostilities in or within Iran. I believe that is out of a desire to lose.
It is really sad. They are over there laughing as we speak. As I levy an accusation that they want America to lose, they are over here chuckling and laughing. That is sad. I can see them mouth: He said that I am sad.
I am sad. I am sad that my colleagues talk about the numbers of servicemembers killed, but they don't know a thing about them. That is sad.
He is waving his hand.
I am sad that my colleagues want the United States to lose, and they sit there and laugh about it.
That is sad.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has the only time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution will be followed by 5-minute votes on:
The motion to recommit on H.R. 6409;
Passage of H.R. 6409, if ordered;
The motion to recommit on H.R. 6398;
Passage of H.R. 6398, if ordered; and
Adoption of House Resolution 965.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, nays 214, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 3, as follows:
Ms. MALOY, Messrs. CARTER of Georgia, JOHNSON of South Dakota, ALFORD, THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, CRAWFORD, ELLZEY, NEWHOUSE, and TURNER of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SUOZZI, JOHNSON of Georgia, HOYER, NEAL, Ms. SCANLON, and Mr. LYNCH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the concurrent resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Foreign Emissions and Nonattainment Clarification for Economic Stability Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 6409) to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of the United States, and for other purposes, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Min), on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, nays 215, not voting 3, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Reducing and Eliminating Duplicative Environmental Regulations Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 6398) to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation, offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva), on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, nays 216, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1689, Designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote adoption of the resolution (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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, nays 207, not voting 4, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
Messrs. MIN and GARCIA of Illinois changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted incorrectly on the sixth vote today. My intention was to vote NAY on H. Res. 965, Roll Call No. 119.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House.
Designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the House will proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill (H.R. 1689) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status, which the Clerk will report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in section 4 of that resolution, shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debated for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees.
The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1689.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, our Nation suffered the largest illegal, mass migration in history at the hands of the Democrats. The cost to our country is immense: hospitals overrun with illegals demanding care; food pantries and homeless shelters overwhelmed; classrooms packed with non-English speaking students; rampant child, sex, and labor trafficking; hundreds of thousands of Americans dead from fentanyl overdoses; suppressed wages for working families; billions in welfare costs to support this population; and, worst of all, the introduction of the most violent criminals and criminal gangs and cartels in the world into our communities.
President Trump reversed these ruinous policies simply by enforcing our existing immigration laws. Illegal border crossings immediately plunged more
One aspect of this deliberately engineered nightmare was the abuse of so-called temporary protected status. It proved Ronald Reagan's maxim that there is nothing more permanent on this Earth than a temporary government program.
Now, as its name implies, temporary protected status is supposed to provide temporary residency to legal aliens who happened to be visiting here when a disaster in their own country temporarily prevented their safe return. The Democrats turned this temporary program into an open- ended and unconditional invitation for aliens to illegally enter our country and then remain indefinitely.
Under Biden, the number of TPS beneficiaries nearly quadrupled in just 4 years as aliens illegally entered our country in order to claim this status.
The Immigration and Nationality Act not only gives the President the power to extend temporary status as Biden did, it also gives the President the power to withdraw that status when it is no longer applicable or in the interests of our country, as this President has done.
Barack Obama granted temporary protected status to Haitian nationals in this country when Haiti suffered an earthquake in 2010. For 16 years, this status has persisted in different iterations, including multiple designations, redesignations, and extensions.
During the Trump administrations, the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to end this temporary status for Haiti, noting that allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to reside in our country indefinitely is counter to our national interests. The vast majority of these TPS beneficiaries under Biden did not enter the country legally only to find themselves stranded by unfortunate events, rather they entered our country illegally to claim such status, encouraged, aided, and abetted by the Democrats in power.
Indeed, as the House Judiciary Committee documented in a report early last year, of the roughly 340,000 Haitian TPS holders, 312,000, 91 percent, came to the United States illegally. Their reward for committing this crime was a work permit and indefinite protection from deportation; and, yes, illegal entry into this country is a Federal crime.
Abuses like these allowed the TPS program to balloon from roughly 410,000 when Biden took office to nearly 1.5 million aliens from 16 different countries by the day he left office.
As the number of aliens with TPS skyrocketed, American communities such as Logansport, Indiana; Springfield, Illinois; and Charleroi, Pennsylvania, cried out for help. Charleroi's population of 4,000 swelled to 7,000 almost overnight as a flood of Haitian nationals took up residence.
The little town was forced to spend $400,000 for English language instructors and $1 million overall just to support the influx of students. This was all taken from the resources that would otherwise have been available to their own students.
Our Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee took testimony last year from a local official there, who told us of severe strains on housing, medical care, education, emergency services, law enforcement services, and other social services. He testified to a dramatic increase in traffic collisions and citizens of this peaceful, small town now afraid to walk the streets.
The Trump administration has heeded the cries of the American people. Since taking office, the President has moved to withdraw TPS status for foreign nationals whose conditions no longer warrant such status. In other cases, the Trump administration has determined that these TPS designations are simply not in our Nation's self-interest.
These decisions are clearly provided for under the Immigration and Nationality Act, but today my Democratic colleagues argue that we should ignore all of this, that we should return to the Biden administration's immigration policies, starting with Haitian TPS. If this bill passes, I think we can expect TPS status to be extended to the millions more who wish to exploit our country and its taxpayers.
Americans will not soon forget the image of thousands of illegal aliens from Haiti pouring across the southwest border and crowding under the bridge in Del Rio, Texas. Put simply, this bill would serve as de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens from Haiti who illegally poured across our southern border. America does not need to relive that nightmare, and that is a choice.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1689 to designate Haiti for temporary protected status, or TPS, and I thank Representatives Pressley and Gillen for their incredible tenacity and leadership in building the bipartisan coalition needed to get this bill to the floor. This is a hopeful moment for so many across the country to take a positive step forward on immigration policy in America after so much darkness.
TPS was established with broad, bipartisan support in 1990 to provide people who are already in the United States a safe haven when their home countries are devastated by armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. TPS is built on the simple idea that America should not force people back to deadly and life-threatening conditions, a principle that has guided both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades.
Today, the Trump administration is dismantling this longstanding commitment to our core values, attempting to end TPS for countries where the conditions are still incredibly dangerous.
One country with which the President has seemed obsessed since his first term is Haiti. The President has called Haiti a S-hole country and cruelly attempted to end its TPS designation during his first term. Luckily, that was stopped by the lower courts, but the threat remains.
In less than 2 weeks, the ability of the Trump administration to end TPS for Haiti will be heard by the Supreme Court. Today, over 350,000 Haitians have TPS. It would be unconscionable to send them back to Haiti, an action that would lead to people's deaths. That goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for.
For years, Haiti has been dealing with significant political turmoil that has resulted in instability all over the country. Our own State Department has issued a Level 4: Do Not Travel advisory for Haiti. They say that individuals should not travel to Haiti due to ``kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited healthcare.'' The country has been in a state of emergency since March of 2024. Terminating TPS means the United States of America is forcing people to return to real and imminent harm, even death.
However, this isn't just about what is right and wrong for Haitians or for other TPS holders, Mr. Speaker. It is also about what benefits Americans. Despite all the lies and misinformation spread by this administration and its rightwing echo chamber, TPS broadly, and Haitian TPS holders specifically, are good for our communities and our economy.
TPS has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to work legally and to contribute to our economy. Haitian TPS recipients, in particular, regularly work in industries that are currently experiencing severe labor shortages, like construction and hospitality and healthcare.
In healthcare alone, Haitians are the sixth largest group of workers, making up one in five nursing assistants, personal care aides, and home health aides. These workers keep our economy running, helping businesses that struggle to fill jobs. They pay taxes, support local businesses, and contribute billions of dollars to our economy every single year.
Each year, TPS holders from Haiti who reside in the U.S. earn $3.9 billion in total household income. They pay a total of $983.9 million in taxes, including $600.8 million in Federal taxes and $383.1 million in State and local taxes, and they hold $2.9 billion in spending power.
Many Haitian TPS holders have lived in the United States for many years. They have followed our laws, paid their taxes, and demonstrated their commitment to this country. Instead of stripping them of legal status and sending them back to dangerous conditions, we should be providing them with a path to long-term stability.
Donald Trump ran on a false promise, that he would get rid of the ``worst of the worst,'' but instead his administration has been moving forward their real goal: Ending all legal immigration to this country. Just a few days ago, the conservative CATO Institute published a report showing that Trump has cut legal immigration by 2.5 times as much as undocumented immigration since coming into office this term.
Unlawful immigration had already fallen substantially, even before Trump took office, because the Biden administration expanded the legal pathways that people had to be here with legal presence, work and contribute. However, instead of maintaining that, Trump and Stephen Miller have done everything possible to destroy all legal immigration to this country, including eliminating TPS.
H.R. 1689 provides a glimmer of hope to immigrant communities across the country, starting with Haitians. It tells them that we value their work and contributions to our country. It tells them that we won't send them to their deaths. It tells them that America still welcomes the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman tells us that Haitian TPS recipients contribute to our society. Well, no doubt some do. Overall, though, nearly 53 percent of Haitian households are on at least one major welfare program. Let me repeat that so that it sinks in. More than half of Haitian households are on welfare. That means they are taking from our society, not contributing to it.
Indeed, an exhaustive study in 2017 estimated that the average illegal immigrant costs taxpayers between $87,000 and $110,000 to support over a lifetime. That is a net drain after you account for the taxes that they pay. That is a minimum $27 billion cost to American taxpayers to maintain this population.
We are told many Haitian nationals fill healthcare jobs. Well, yes, they take healthcare jobs that would otherwise be filled by Americans. If Americans aren't taking those jobs, it is because cheap, migrant labor is suppressing wages in those sectors. That is why working families lost ground under the Biden administration.
As our immigration laws are enforced, wages for working families are again beginning to rise. This bill takes us a giant step backward for Americans, and that shouldn't surprise anyone who saw the Democrats' reaction on this floor when President Trump suggested that the first responsibility of this government should be to help Americans, not illegal immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, I am now honored and pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee for the great work he does on this issue and a host of others.
Mr. Speaker, understand the Democrats' plan. It is as straightforward as you can imagine. First, let in 10 million illegal immigrants during the Biden administration. Then, create sanctuary jurisdictions where it becomes difficult to do any removal of those illegal immigrants who commit other crimes. Then, defund ICE, the guys who actually do the removal. Now, today, make temporary permanent. There are 300,000 people who entered temporary protected status. Make that permanent.
Why would they do all of this? Well, frankly, they told us. Secretary Clinton told us several years ago. They don't want a border. Remember what she said? We need a borderless hemisphere. That is what they want. That is the plan they are executing. I don't think the American people want that. I think that was the big issue in the 2024 election.
Here is the result. When you allow that to happen, here is the result, from 2 weeks ago: ``Haitian Illegal Alien Violently Kills Innocent Mother By Repeatedly Hitting Her With a Hammer Outside Gas Station in Fort Myers,'' in Florida. Guess what. This Haitian was here on temporary protected status. I haven't read the full story, but my guess is this guy probably had done some other crime and may have, in fact, been in a sanctuary area. Who knows.
Mr. Speaker, that is the result of this policy. It is systematic. It is intentional. Let 10 million in, create sanctuary jurisdictions where you can't remove them or it is difficult to remove them, defund the guys who actually do the removing, and make temporary permanent.
That is their plan. That is why this bill is wrong. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 1689, to extend TPS for Haitians.
I thank all of my colleagues who voted to bring this bill to a vote today--Democrat, Republican, and Independent. I thank Representative Pressley, co-chair of the Haiti Caucus, for her leadership on the discharge petition that helped make this vote possible. I am grateful for our partnership in the fight to protect our Haitian neighbors.
My district in Nassau County is home to one of the largest Haitian populations in the country. We are incredibly proud of that. Haitian Long Islanders are part of the very fabric of our community. They work in critical sectors like healthcare, education, caregiving, and supporting our elderly, and they work in our local hospitals. Many have built thriving businesses and have enriched our faith community.
Before I came to Congress, I made a promise to the Haitian community in my district that I would use my voice to work with anyone from any party to help protect this community and their existing legal status here in the United States.
Let's be very clear. These are people who came in through the front door legally and are paying taxes and contributing to our community. Removing these folks would not just be a humanitarian catastrophe. It would hurt our economy.
As soon as I got to Congress, the first bill I introduced was this bipartisan bill to extend TPS for Haiti. I felt that saving these people from imminent danger should not be partisan, and it was important to get support from the other side of the aisle. I was thrilled that my Republican colleague, Representative Mike Lawler, joined and was an original cosponsor of this bill. This is how Congress should be working, both sides working together.
For more than a year, we have been pushing back against the administration and trying to do what is right and reverse this cruel, misguided decision to force Haitians to return to Haiti when they have come here lawfully.
The suggestion that the situation has improved in Haiti is belied by the U.S. Department of State. The Department of State website explains it is too dangerous for American citizens to travel to Haiti because of kidnapping, rampant crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited healthcare. How then could we say it is perfectly safe to force Haitians to go back there and that everything is okay?
Armed gangs control 90 percent of the capital. More than 1.4 million innocent civilians, half of them children, have been forced from their homes. It is cruel to expect Haitians to be forced to return to these deadly conditions. I have spoken to many Haitian families who desperately want to see peace return to their country and would like to go home once it is safe to do so.
I held a roundtable in my district and spoke to people. One speaker recently traveled to Haiti and said she could not even go to Port-au- Prince because it is so overrun by gangs. She shared that there is only one small part of Haiti that is safe for people to go to, but
I met a young man, a TPS recipient, who has been in the United States for a number of years. He has worked hard and graduated from college. Now, he is giving back to his community. He is helping those who could face the same fate as him if he loses this protection. He is dedicated to selflessly using the opportunity that he has been given to come here and using his voice to give back to his community. He encapsulates the heart of the Haitian community and the true humanity of the people we are trying to protect.
I am proud that, with the partnership of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, we advance this discharge petition today and are voting on my legislation. It shows the bipartisan nature of this issue. It affects communities, red and blue.
I look forward to passing the very first bill that I introduced into Congress and delivering on the promise I made to my district. This is an important milestone for our hardworking, law-abiding, taxpaying Haitian friends and neighbors across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation to protect their lives. I also say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I ran on immigration reform. I am 1 of 10 original Democratic cosponsors, along with 10 Republican cosponsors, of the Dignity Act, which would transform our immigration system, secure our border, and create a legal pathway to citizenship. I urge my colleagues to take up immigration reform.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said that Haitian TPS holders all entered this country through the front door legally. That is simply untrue. Yes, about 9 percent entered legally on visas; 91 percent entered illegally.
She tells us that Haiti is a dangerous place, and, therefore, our country must accept every Haitian who can illegally enter our country and then stay indefinitely.
Haiti isn't the only dangerous country in the world. Do the Democrats seriously argue that this is grounds for TPS for the hundreds of millions of people around the world who live in dangerous environments? This is absurd.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill).
Mr. Speaker, I vehemently oppose this backdoor amnesty bill that would allow hundreds of thousands of Haitians who entered our country illegally to be given de facto amnesty.
Temporary protected status, as its name implies, was originally designed to be just that, temporary. Yet, it has metastasized into what is effectively a permanent amnesty program for unvetted foreigners all over the globe. That is exactly what this bill extends.
Who are these people that this bill applies to? There are roughly 350,000 Haitians covered under temporary protected status in the United States. Of those, an estimated 91 percent entered this country illegally. An estimated 69 percent came in under the Biden administration.
In other words, what this bill does is codify the open borders of the previous administration that the American people overwhelmingly rejected in the last election cycle.
Mr. Speaker, no serious country tolerates virtually unlimited numbers of foreigners breaking and entering. Yet, that is what this bill does.
More fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our immigration system is to benefit our people. It is for the benefit of Americans. We have no obligation to allow anybody from any part of the globe to come into America. When they do, they come in on our terms, for our benefit.
Let's ask ourselves: Does mass migration from Haiti benefit the American people? The answer is obviously no. Sixty-five percent of nonimmigrant Haitian-headed households are on welfare. Does that make America stronger, more prosperous, or more wealthy in any way? Of course, it doesn't.
Yet, we are being asked to give them amnesty and make these absolutely horrendous years of open borders effectively permanent.
Mr. Speaker, the central thesis of the last election cycle was the American people rejecting mass migration. That is why they gave the President the popular vote. That is why Republicans have a trifecta, and we ought to listen to them.
The American people want their country back. The American people are tired of sending their kids to school where an unlimited number of children are speaking foreign languages or schools that are flooded with fentanyl because of open borders.
Mr. Speaker, we want to live in America. That is why I reject this bill, and I hope my colleagues will, as well.
Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleagues across the aisle prove that they have no idea who or what actually makes this country great. It seems you don't know who the brilliant and effective educators in our classrooms are, or the owners of the restaurants that might provide your favorite meal, or even more, the healthcare provider, the home healthcare provider that is taking care of your aging loved one in a hospital or a nursing home.
I know firsthand how important our Haitian neighbors are to our communities, to civic life, to culture, to workforce, and to our economy.
During my mother's cancer battle, may she rest in peace and power, a battle of CLL, leukemia, that she ultimately lost, as her only child and her medical proxy in her final days, I was working daily to extend her life and to center her dignity. She spent her final moments in a hospital room in bed. The room was cold, but the Haitian nurses who cared for her provided much-needed warmth and compassion, oiling her scalp, braiding her hair, and going above and beyond to comfort my mother. I am eternally grateful to those women for their kindness, their competence, and their empathy.
I will not stand idly by while our Haitian neighbors are denigrated, dehumanized, criticized, or forced to live in fear of deportation. The unique care provided to my mother and millions of people cannot be replaced by AI.
Haitian TPS holders are not the problem. Quite the contrary, they are part of the solution. They are not our enemies. They do not exploit our Nation. They enhance it.
Secretary Kennedy himself has said that we are in a caregiving crisis. One in four of our long-term healthcare workers are Haitian, and one in five of our healthcare workers are Haitian.
The caregiving crisis impacts families throughout America. Our seniors need care to age with dignity and community. It is Haitian TPS holders who disproportionately serve as caregivers and home health aides, who during the pandemic, risked their lives to care for the sick and the ailing.
Further, with the lack of affordable housing leading to an increase in evictions and a decrease in homeownership, it is Haitian TPS holders who are part of the solution as construction workers helping to build our housing supply.
Republicans have selective amnesia or are simply in denial about who and what actually makes this country great. They are the beneficiaries of their contributions. Haitian TPS holders are not the problem. They support our families, our economy, and our country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
They are our neighbors, our educators, our congregants, people we work and worship with, and they are our friends. That is why I support my bipartisan legislation to extend Haiti TPS, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I have heard now that having these Haitians in our country is good for our community, will lead to people's deaths if we send them home, and that we have selective amnesia.
Mr. Speaker, I will help with that amnesia problem by talking about three people from my State of Florida.
In 2022, Terry and Brenda Aultman were riding their bikes home when a Haitian in this country on TPS, which, by the way, is temporary, were killed. Their necks were slashed by someone who never should have been in this country. When do we care about their deaths?
Just a few weeks ago, Yasmin Easmin was murdered, again by a Haitian here on TPS, who didn't even use a knife but a hammer to crush her skull. When do we care about her?
This whole thing is a scam. It was created for people who were protected because there was an earthquake 16 years ago. Now 350,000 people have been able to stay in our country for 16 years, the majority of whom are on welfare and have created an entire generation of birthright citizens who can't be sent home now because they have children who are Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this is an effort to undermine our country with people who have killed three people in my State. I did not come here to protect Haitians. I came here to protect for the good of our country. The only discharge petition I will support is the one that discharges all of these people back to Haiti.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure to restore protections for our Haitian-American neighbors, and I am grateful for Congresswoman Pressley and Congresswoman Gillen's leadership on this issue.
Haiti is in collapse. That is not in doubt. Gangs control 90 percent of the capital. Millions are internally displaced, and most of the population needs emergency food and medicine.
The U.S. supports a peacekeeping force in Haiti, so it is hard to argue that it is dangerous enough to send in the military, yet safe enough to send civilians back to.
Haitian TPS recipients are vetted for any criminal history and came here to flee the same violence at home. TPS holders are on work permits, pay taxes, pay into Medicare and Social Security, and get nothing in return.
It helps no one to take 200,000 people out of the workforce, while taxpayers foot the bill for detaining and deporting people who haven't committed a crime.
This is an economic disaster with the enormous taxpayer and moral cost of deporting hardworking people into chaos when they pose no threat.
Every dollar we spend to rip apart law-abiding families with legal status--and I know that is a fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge because TPS is a legal status--every dollar taken is a dollar not spent to go after real criminals.
I visited the Everglades detention camp last week, and the horrors I saw strengthened my resolve. We can't stuff law-abiding people into cages for months with no trial and then send them to unsafe conditions.
This week, I was proud to lead an amicus brief with Ms. Pressley and 185 congressional Democrats to urge the Supreme Court to reject Trump's illegal termination of TPS for Haitians.
My Haitian neighbors in Florida are an indispensable part of our community, economy, and culture. It infuriates me that President Trump shamelessly peddles lies about Haitians to promote racist, collective punishment. Haitian Americans deserve better. We all deserve better than an administration more concerned about hitting Stephen Miller's ICE quotas than bringing down costs.
If we care about our seniors, our parents, our aunties, and our grandmothers; if we care about the patients in hospitals and nursing homes; and if we care about making sure that our economy is strengthened by incredible Haitian workers who are part of the backbone of it, then we will vote ``yes'' to save jobs in your community, ensure that hospitals have nurses, ensure that elderly parents can access care, and to stand up for our Nation's values.
Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that we are here debating TPS for Haiti today? It is interesting because the t in TPS stands for ``temporary.'' It has never been intended as a rolling, multigenerational amnesty program. Yet, that is exactly what it has become: an amnesty program.
In fact, during the 4 years of the Biden-Harris administration, this tool was used to extend de facto amnesty to more than 1 million aliens who entered this country without a visa. If this bill is passed, which was originally declared by President Obama in 2010, it will be extended yet again, this time through the end of the decade.
That is 20 years. That does not sound temporary.
Yet, it isn't just Haiti. Every Democrat administration has abused TPS. There are currently 1.5 million aliens from a dozen countries present in the United States under TPS designations, some of which began decades ago.
Somalia's TPS was first extended during the administration of George H.W. Bush in 1991, back when Paula Abdul and Bryan Adams topped the Billboard Top 40 charts. It remains in place yet today, thanks to an activist judge.
President Clinton gave TPS to Hondurans in 1999, when Microsoft had just replaced General Electric as America's most valuable company and gas was 92 cents a gallon. That designation lasted more than a quarter century and was only terminated last year after a lengthy court battle.
President Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, granted TPS to nationals of El Salvador in 2001, a full year before the BlackBerry smartphone would hit store shelves. That designation also continues, despite the fact that El Salvador's tourism ministry openly promotes posh, all-inclusive, luxury resorts and boasts one of the lowest homicide rates in our hemisphere. This is absurd.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, TPS was never intended to be the Hotel California that allows illegal aliens to enter any time but they may never leave. It is time to put the t back in TPS and close this permanent administrative amnesty loophole.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Representative Gillen's bill to extend temporary protective status for Haitians until 2029. In fact, to me, it is outrageous that it actually took Representative Pressley's bipartisan discharge petition to force this consequential vote.
It seems to me that the administration and the Speaker should have acted, but they failed to. Today, we have a chance to make this right.
I thank my Republican colleagues who signed the motion to discharge and worked in a bipartisan way to make this happen because the American people recognize that our Haitian neighbors, whether they are from Miami, whether they are from Boston, whether they are in Westchester, New York, or whether they are in Queens, New York, are not strangers, but they are integral parts of our communities, our churches, and our families.
The American people recognize that the conditions in Haiti don't just meet, but they surpass the threshold for TPS. We are talking about one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, where armed gangs control 90 percent of the capital, a public health system that is nearing collapse, a justice system which is almost nonexistent, and 1.4 million people who are internally displaced by fleeing from violence and hunger.
You don't have to take my word for it. Look at the United States Department of State's own travel advisory issued under this administration. It says plainly to not travel to Haiti due to kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest, and limited healthcare.
We must do everything in our power to prevent further harm during this humanitarian crisis, and we can start today. We can start by passing this bill.
When I think about this country being established, it was people from other parts of the world--in the beginning, especially from Europe--who were trying to find a place to come to in order to get away from dangerous conditions. That is the reason that the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty read: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.''
It is because America is the strongest when we stand for humanity here at home.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman tells us that we have no choice as a
That is simply not true. Bill Melugin of FOX News was at the border in 2021 when 15,000 Haitians bum-rushed our border. He just tweeted out his recollection of the events, and let me read them to you:
``Many of them later discarded their IDs and paperwork showing they had been living and working in South American countries for years (mostly Chile) as they prepared to make fraudulent asylum claims. Their documents were all over the ground. We collected many of them.''
They are not seeking refuge in the United States because they had already found refuge in other countries. They came here to exploit our system, an exploitation that the Democrats insist on aiding, abetting, and encouraging.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would note the starting place here. In 2010, Haitians were granted temporary status--temporary--after a severe earthquake struck their country. Since then, thousands of foreign nationals from Haiti have remained in the United States due to the renewal of this flawed program. Over and over again, that which was supposed to be temporary has become, effectively, permanent.
I have heard a lot of numbers flying around here talking about the number of Haitians, 350,000, on TPS who will be taken out of healthcare. It is a fraction of that number that is actually in healthcare. Let's be honest.
My friend from Texas (Mr. Gill) noted earlier that 65 percent of the population is on welfare.
Mr. Speaker, 65 percent of the population that came in here under a temporary status is now living off of the taxpayer dollars of American taxpayers because we continue this flawed program.
Let's also talk about the reality that we have 91 percent of all Haiti TPS holders enter the country illegally, deliberately violating our immigration laws, and are now using TPS status to stay in the United States. This is not what this program was designed to do.
Now, I heard one of my colleagues a minute ago talk about Haitians fleeing danger. You know who else was fleeing danger? A mom, an innocent mom in Florida, just last week, who was brutally bludgeoned to death with a hammer outside a convenience store when her car was being beat up by a Haitian here because of Biden and on TPS. That woman, that mother, she was fleeing danger, the danger of a Haitian migrant here using this flawed TPS program that we are now going to allow to be made effectively permanent, undermining what the President is doing to try to stop the abuse of this program to continue to flood the United States with people that are living on the back of American taxpayers and endanger the American people.
How many more Americans do we need to see get murdered? How many more young girls on a subway in Charlotte? How many moms, like this mom in Florida, need to get bludgeoned to death because we refuse to do our job to ensure that the people that are coming to this country are coming here to become a part of our society, to follow our laws, to be a part of the melting pot that we so revere, rather than come here, trying to turn America into something that it is not, and exploit our goodwill to endanger the American people?
This is a flawed bill. It should not be supported by anyone in either party.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the economic damage.
I support this bill because, at the end of the day, we have to recognize that the Haitian people who actually have come to the United States, they did go through a vigorous vetting process in order for them to get the TPS status that they have.
Second of all, if we are looking at the economic damage that will come to actually pushing out more than 350,000 TPS recipients, we know that is going to be devastating to our market. There is a better way.
We should be contemplating not just extending TPS in this bill to 2029, but also figuring out how we can actually transition. While these TPS recipients hold over 100,000 jobs in healthcare, which is actually a fact, why don't we put together some kind of continuing education program for Americans so they can replace them. What is the rush to kick them out of the country and to leave all of these positions open with no one to refill them?
Let's talk about more how we can protect and make sure that our hospitality industry in South Florida, where we have more than a thousand Haitian TPS workers who work in the airports in Miami, the airports in Broward County, and also in hospitality, if we kick them out willy-nilly, just everybody goes out in one day, how are we going to sustain the economy in South Florida, in a State that everybody loves to visit?
What I am asking for is cool minds to actually come together and think about how we can actually have a transition process that will protect the American people, help our economy, but not rushing toward this mass exodus which is going to leave the American people in the industry.
One of the things we have to realize also is that the American people did ask for job skills training. They did ask for a transition. They are not looking for chaos and just to push people out.
The truth is, I keep hearing this fact about 61 percent of Haitian people are on welfare. My district is full of Haitian people. My family is from Haiti. I don't know anybody who is on welfare. What we are saying is that we are not arguing that it should be temporary. In fact, the bill says until 2029. What we are arguing is that we sit together, come together, and have a plan of transition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
What I would propose is that we actually pass this bill and then come together and think of a transition where we can now train Americans so they can get those jobs, give them a green card until that time comes, and protect our economy.
I would say it one more time. If we just move forward like this, what we would be doing is economic sabotage. Look at all of the Haitian workers and what they uphold. Think of every elderly person who has a nurse. Think of the vulnerable.
My heart hurts for anybody who was hurt. I do not like women being abused. I think it is terrible when we have criminals, but let's have cool minds come together and have a plan that benefits both sides and this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, temporary protected status was created to ensure that our country is never forced to send someone back to harm's way. So long as dangerous conditions exist in someone's country of origin, TPS is meant to authorize them to remain here until that danger has passed.
Our government recognizes the real and present dangers right now in Haiti. Nonessential personnel have been evacuated from the country, and the State Department continues to tell Americans not to travel to Haiti. The government instructs people who must go to Haiti to establish ``a proof of life protocol'' with their family members, to
Yet that same government expects us to believe that it is safer for Haitians to return to Haiti. They warn us about the imminent risk of death that comes with traveling to Haiti but have no qualms of sending 350,000 people who have been living in this country and contributing to their communities right here at home.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments later this month on whether the administration's termination of TPS was lawful. With the bill before us today, we can send a strong bipartisan message to the court that this body recognizes the reality that Haiti remains deeply unsafe, is in no way prepared to accept hundreds of thousands of people returning, and that the TPS designation for Haiti should remain in effect.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said on this floor today. I haven't challenged every single thing, but what I want the American people to know is there is a lot of misinformation being spread about Haitian TPS holders, about TPS holders in general, and about immigrants.
Someone earlier talked about how the American people don't want immigrants in this country. That is absolutely not true. There is a record-high support for legal pathways and a general belief that immigration is good for this country. A record high 79 percent of Americans now say that immigration is a good thing for the United States, and only 30 percent of Americans actually want to see decreased levels of demand. That is in part because this administration promised to deport only the worst of the worst and then went out and kidnapped and disappeared people, incarcerates children, and is committing cruelty, including murdering U.S. citizens in the streets.
The reality is that Haitians are contributing to communities across this country: 21 percent of Haitians in healthcare, 19 percent in retail, 15 percent in education and social services, 15,000 Haitians in agriculture, and 14.5 percent of Haitians are small business owners who are generating over $1.5 billion in revenue.
We love to take all of the services that immigrants provide to this country and then establish a level of cruelty toward those same immigrants. That is not right.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the very few naturalized citizens to serve in this country, it is difficult for me to constantly listen to the anti- immigrant rhetoric that comes from the other side, the cruelty that comes from this administration, when I myself know what this process is. I have been through it.
The reality is immigrants are contributing. Haitian immigrants who are here are working in their communities. It is why there is also a record level of support for continuing Haitian TPS. The public polling on TPS for Haitians: 90 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents, and almost half of Republicans support that.
I am grateful to the Republicans who came forward to sign the discharge petition to bring this bill to the floor. I am grateful for any Republicans who vote today for this bill because what the American people want is to respect the contributions of immigrants across this country who are helping to build our communities. That is what Haitians are doing for us right now, and it is exactly why I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this bipartisan, critically important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, the Democrats tell us that Haiti is a dangerous place, and I have news for them: Most of the world's population lives in dangerous places.
Do the Democrats seriously argue that Americans are obligated to admit hundreds of millions of people living in those dangerous places into the United States and then support them?
That appears to be their policy, and that certainly is what we have seen from them whenever they have taken power. It is what happens when governments become corrupt and refuse to protect innocent citizens from violent predators who roam the streets.
This should come as no surprise to Americans living in blue cities where leftist DAs refuse to prosecute dangerous criminals and prefer to release dangerous, criminal illegal aliens back onto our streets rather than turn them over to ICE to be removed from our country.
That is what comes when you allow hundreds of thousands of unvetted illegal aliens into our country from violent and lawless societies like Haiti.
Yes, many of these people are fleeing these conditions. Many others are creating them. Why would you allow the latter into our country to create the same violence and lawlessness?
That is why we have immigration laws: to separate out the good from the bad. There are good and bad in every community, but we need to keep the bad out. That is what the Democrats seek constantly to undermine.
This argument not only flies in the face of common sense, but it makes a mockery of the entire temporary protected status provisions of our immigration law. The law was designed to ensure that foreign nationals legally in our country, who are prevented from returning home because of temporary conditions, could remain here until those conditions have abated.
That law was never envisioned to allow aliens fleeing those conditions to seek permanent residence in America by illegally entering our country. Yet, that is precisely what the Democrats are turning this program into with this bill today.
If we don't enforce our immigration laws, we have no immigration laws. If we have no immigration laws, we have no border. If we have no border, then we have no country.
This bill makes a mockery of a program meant to provide temporary refuge for legal residents. This temporary status for Haitians has now gone on for 16 years. Ninety-one percent of these TPS holders are not legal visitors temporarily stranded in our country. Rather, they are illegal aliens who broke our laws specifically to benefit from TPS status.
The vast majority entered illegally during the Biden era of open borders. They overwhelmed local communities. Among this population came violent criminals who we can only count as they commit heinous atrocities like the one we saw in Fort Myers just 9 days ago.
When the President asked the Democrats to stand if they agreed that the first duty of the American Government is to protect the American people and not illegal aliens, not one of them stood. It shouldn't surprise us that they now bring this bill as the first step toward returning to the open-border policies of the Biden administration.
America, take heed. As this debate has once again made painfully clear, if the Democrats return to power, their first order of business will be to reopen our borders and allow the illegal mass migration into this country to continue. We can expect temporary protected status to become permanent protected status for every nationality the Democrats favor on the thinnest of pretexts. They have repeatedly made their intentions clear: to continue the ruinous open-border policies of the Biden administration.
I, for one, reject that bleak, lawless, impoverished, and violent future. I ask the House to reject it as well by rejecting this, the first in a long line of Democrat open-border bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 965, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote on adoption of H. Res. 1156.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, nays 204, not voting 3, as follows:
Messrs. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, EMMER, SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida, Ms. BOEBERT, Messrs. LUTTRELL and McCAUL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. KAPTUR, Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, NEAL, and RUIZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Expressing Support for Tax Policies That Support Working Families
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption 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 the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, nays 207, not voting 5, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1175, providing for consideration of H.R. 8035, to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title VII of
The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on H.R. 8035, which would extend FISA 702. Currently, it faces expiration on April 20, 2026.
Let me be clear at the outset. We cannot allow section 702 to lapse, not at a moment when our adversaries are expanding their capabilities, accelerating their operations, and exploiting every gap in our intelligence posture. Allowing this authority to expire would leave the United States blind to threats that move at the speed of modern conflict.
As many here know, FISA 702 was first authorized in 2008 and has since been reauthorized three times, with broad bipartisan support each of those times. Each time, Congress recognized the same truth we face today. This authority is indispensable to protect the homeland from the threats that we face. This extension should be no different.
Section 702 allows the United States Government to collect intelligence on foreign nationals located overseas--I repeat, foreign nationals located overseas who are reasonably believed to possess foreign intelligence information.
The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about terrorism and narcoterrorism.
Section 702 cannot be used to target any U.S. person at home or abroad. That prohibition is explicit and reinforced by multiple layers of oversight.
I am not saying the 2008 legislation was perfect. It required modifications and reforms. To account for the needed reforms, Congress passed RISAA, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act in 2024, the largest FBI and FISA reform in decades. This law mandated 56 different reforms, including strict limitations on FBI queries involving U.S. persons and a severe reduction in the number of FBI personnel with access to 702 data, from 10,000 to only 3 percent in the Bureau.
Additionally, to address concerns of FBI's compliance on U.S. person queries, RISAA required the Bureau to provide an annual report detailing any noncompliant query and what accountability measures were imposed on each FBI personnel that were determined to have conducted a noncompliant query. This has led to 100 percent of queries on U.S. persons being reviewed by National Security Division and the FBI's Office of Internal Auditing.
These reforms were not symbolic. They were structural, enforceable, and designed to ensure that section 702 remains both effective and accountable. A quick example of effectiveness can be seen when comparing 2021 FBI inquiries, which numbered 2.9 million, to 2025 inquiries, which numbered 7,413.
As effective as RISAA was, over the last few days, it has been clear that this body feels like more reforms are needed before section 702 can be extended again.
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will self-execute an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-25.
The changes being made include: changing the reauthorization period from 18 months to 5 years; enhancing criminal penalties on individuals who unlawfully use or disclose 702 information on a U.S. person or conduct unauthorized queries; ensuring Members of Congress and certain staff may have access to proceedings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; ensuring only FBI attorneys can authorize U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI; implementing probable cause requirements for U.S. person targeting; requiring a GAO audit of targeting procedures; and requiring ODNI review of FBI queries of U.S. persons.
The legislative process has worked here, Mr. Speaker. It is time for the House to move this legislation.
Today, our adversaries, state and nonstate actors alike, are investing heavily in cyber operations, covert influence, terrorism networks, and advanced weapons systems. They are moving faster, hiding deeper, and coordinating across borders with unprecedented sophistication. FISA section 702 is one of the few tools that allows us to detect and disrupt these threats before they reach our shores.
Our purpose here today is to give law enforcement the ability to operate in a timely manner to stop terrorist attacks on United States soil. That is it.
Failing to reauthorize this authority would be a massive setback and one that our adversaries would exploit immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of legislation and urge passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place? A 5-year reauthorization--5 years--and Republicans threw it together on the back of a napkin in the back room in the middle of the night.
There have been real bipartisan discussions about adding civil liberties and safeguards. Some Members support them, and some oppose them. Just about everyone agrees that this is serious stuff, the kind of debate that Congress ought to have in the open. Instead, Republican leadership just jammed us.
Does anybody actually know what the hell is in this thing? It is 11:30 at night. The bill was changed just minutes ago--just minutes ago--and they had to post a corrected version already. That is how sloppy all of this is.
Let me be crystal clear to my colleagues across the aisle. This is too damn important to do it this way, way too important--no hearings, no markups, no real process, no transparency, no time to read it, no time to vet it. Yet, we are told that there are major reforms in this bill. There is no real explanation, no real accountability, and basically no time for anybody to figure out what the hell is going on.
Now, we are all supposed to act like this is normal. Give me a break. We will have to live with this for 5 years. The American people have to live with this for 5 years. Democrats and, quite frankly, a whole lot of Republicans, too, have barely had enough time to read the text, let alone understand any of its implications.
I bumped into a handful of Republicans on the way up here. They asked me: What is going on? What changes have been made? What is in this bill? Your own Members don't know what the hell you are doing.
This mess did not come out of nowhere. Republicans knew for months that the April 20 FISA deadline was coming. They knew they had a vote problem before the Easter recess. Instead of staying here and doing their jobs, or spending the district work period trying to work it out, they kicked the can down the road and made this mess even worse.
Now, everybody can see the chaos. It is out in the open. They barely got a rule out of the Rules Committee. Three Republican Members in the Rules Committee had to skip the vote just so the rule could be reported out. That is how divided this Republican Conference is.
Donald Trump had to jump in and tell Republicans to ``unify'' just to drag this thing forward. That is how pathetic this has all gotten.
We are standing here more than 36 hours after we were supposed to debate this rule--36 hours--with a bill dumped on the House and the American public in the middle of the night as the deadline looms.
I have to tell you that this is not leadership. This is not legislating. This is not governing. This is not a functioning majority. This is a disaster. This is incompetence. This is incompetence.
After all the chaos and all the delays and all the backroom dealing, we are still left with the same question: What the hell is going on here?
Mr. Speaker, this process is embarrassing. This majority is incompetent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want the American citizens to know we have had an honest debate over the balance between security and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Sometimes that debate takes a little longer than we wish it would. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would read this document, the United States Constitution, just as we as Republicans read it and take it seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chair of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding time, and I thank him for the yeoman's work that he does as a member of the Rules Committee, a member of the Agriculture Committee, and a member of the Intelligence Committee. He knows what he is talking about here tonight because of the work that he has done over the years, particularly on the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody in this country can deny that we are living in a very dangerous world. We are dealing with terrorism and narcoterrorism constantly.
I want to compliment all the segments of our Conference. Many people don't realize the range of ideas and talents that we have in the Republican Conference. It does sometimes take us a while to consider all the ideas that Members have, but we have some very strong people in our Conference whose reason for being here is to protect the American people. It takes a while sometimes for the Conference parts to come together to do what we are elected to do: use the agencies of the Federal Government to protect the American people.
The people's House is doing its job tonight by reauthorizing FISA 702 with the excellent reforms that my colleague has outlined.
This is not incompetence. It is responsible legislating, Mr. Speaker. FISA 702 expires on Monday night, April 20, at 12:01. We must pass a reauthorization of that so it can go to the Senate, be passed by the Senate, and signed by the President before it expires.
We are doing our job, Mr. Speaker, as the people's House. I commend my colleague from Georgia for the work that he and all of my colleagues who came together have done to come up with a very good bill that we are going to pass later tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for the rule and to vote for the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, this process stinks. She thanks all of her colleagues for coming together to try to work out this deal. As far as I can tell, it is a handful of people in a back room somewhere who put this together. Some of this is handwritten. This was not the result of everybody participating in an open and transparent process. This is a backroom deal.
It is 11:40, and people are going to see this for the very first time. Some of us, myself included, were hoping that we would have a serious warrant requirement in section 702. I talked to a lot of my very conservative Republican colleagues, and they agree with me that that was something that they thought was important.
This so-called warrant requirement in this draft that you just gave us has nothing to do with section 702. It is already the law that if the FBI has probable cause, they can go to court and seek a warrant.
What we are trying to solve is a different problem. Section 702 takes in a massive amount of U.S. person information, and nothing in this bill stops the government from searching it or requires them to go to a judge.
The gentleman from Georgia, who the chairwoman says knows everything about everything, let me ask: Is there anything new in this bill that requires a warrant to query U.S. persons in section 702?
That is a question.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield for an answer.
Let me answer it since I am not getting an answer from the people in charge. The answer is no. The answer is no.
If anybody here is voting for this because they think that this issue has been resolved, please know it hasn't. If you vote for it, you are a cheap date because it doesn't solve the problem that we have had many discussions about.
We found this out in the 50 minutes that we had to read the text. Again, we just got this bill. Who knows what else we will find in a day or a week when experts have a chance to analyze it? Again, this is an important matter.
The privacy of American citizens is an important matter. The national security of our country is an important matter, and you are just piecing this together in a couple of minutes and saying: Take it. Trust us. We just pieced this together in a back room, just take it.
Well, we are not. This is a lousy process. This reflects the incompetence of the leadership of this House. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, please forgive me because I didn't even have 15 minutes to read it. I had to drive down from Maryland's beautiful Eighth District, so I have had about 90 seconds to review this product that we were supposed to have been working on for the last several months.
Let me do my best to try to analyze for people what is happening because already the machinery of propaganda and disinformation has set in, and people are talking about a magic warrant requirement which has appeared in here, which is complete and utter nonsense.
Let me start by echoing the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee that this is an appalling Kafkaesque process leading to an absurd Orwellian result. This is much worse than what was being offered before of the clean 2-year reauthorization. The substance of this proposal is utterly appalling.
They say you shouldn't look to see how the sausage gets made. This isn't even sausage. This is scrapple. It is scrapple with dogfood mixed inside of it.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to try to read through it to understand what they are doing.
Let's start with this: Originally, they proposed an 18-month clean reauthorization, and the Democrats and some members of the Freedom Caucus were very skeptical of the enterprise. They said: 18 months? That is not like any short-term extension we know around here. Usually, we talk about 72 hours or 1 week or 2 weeks. Eighteen months? That is a huge, massive expansion.
Then they went into some kind of compromise session with the White House. None of us were invited, so we don't know who was there or what was spoken, but they went from 18 months to 5 years. They went from a clean 2-year reauthorization to a 5-year dirty deal. The saving grace of it is supposed to be a so-called warrant requirement--which I will investigate in a second--which doesn't kick in for another 2 years.
We have 2 years without their illusory Band-Aid that they are putting on this process, this fake warrant requirement, so the Trump administration can do whatever they want even without this mythical, inscrutable warrant requirement, and then we get 5 more years of this.
This is the compromise that they worked out behind our backs, and all we could rely on was the goodwill of the handful of members of the Freedom Caucus who were standing up for the Constitution and the civil liberties and civil rights of the people.
I don't think that our friends in the Freedom Caucus have done the American people any favors if they are signing off on this.
The first thing that they do is they change the terms of the length of the legislation, a 5-year authorization with the fraudulent warrant requirement not kicking in for 2 years.
Let's look at the much-vaunted warrant requirement, which appears on page 3. Let's start with this in trying to understand the gobbledygook here. ``The Federal Bureau of Investigation may not ingest unminimized information acquired under this section into its analytic repositories unless the targeted person is relevant to an existing, open, predicated full national security investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the subject of such predicated, full national security investigation is a United States person, for purposes of this paragraph, the investigation must be supported by probable cause.''
This is supposed to be the big concession to the people who were saying that the Constitution governs and the Fourth Amendment is still alive, right?
Well, what is the first thing that I notice as someone who spent 25 years as a constitutional law professor? Well, the operative part of it is the last eight words there: ``the investigation must be supported by probable cause.''
It doesn't say it has to be supported by a search warrant, much less does it say it has to be supported by a search warrant or probable cause determined by a judge, by a court. That is not in there.
Who is going to figure out whether it is supported by probable cause? We are not talking about evidence of a crime. We are talking about a predicated, national security investigation. If you flip the page, you find out that the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall jointly establish procedures and standards for officers and employees of the United States Government to determine the existence of probable cause. Well, there goes the requirement, the constitutional requirement of an independent magistrate issuing a warrant. The FBI will be the judge of its own warrant. In other words, we are right back to the problem that got us here in the first place. Mr. Speaker, look above there. We are told, ``Pursuant to subsection (b), no officer or employee of the United States Government may intentionally target for acquisition the communications of a United States person pursuant to an authorization issued under subsection (a). Pursuant to other provisions of this Act and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government may seek a warrant or other appropriate order supported by a probable cause showing to target for collection the communications of a United States person if there exists probable cause that the United States person . . . is a foreign power,'' et cetera, et cetera. May.
Suddenly, we go from the Constitution's imposition of a mandatory requirement for a warrant, right, that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause and there must be a warrant for a search unless there is a specific exception to it. But this simply says they may seek a warrant. They don't have to. They may seek a warrant.
In other words, this provision, too, is meaningless. It just returns us to exactly where we were.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
It says that the Attorney General, that would be Todd Blanche, or the Acting Attorney General, and the Director of DNI, shall establish the procedures for determining if there is probable cause. I thought that James Madison and George Mason had taken care of that. I thought the Constitution established the meaning of probable cause.
Now, it is being delegated to the Acting Attorney General. It doesn't even say the acting but whoever the Attorney General might be. Perhaps acting is imported through this language. Who knows?
Do we really want Pam Bondi or Kash Patel or Todd Blanche figuring out what our Fourth Amendment rights are and then they get to decide for themselves without going to a court? At the very least, even if we are not going to have an actual warrant, there must be an independent judge, a magistrate, involved in defining whether or not there is probable cause to search American citizens. That is the bottom line here.
Everybody knows and understands our Constitution and, yes, our Constitution applies in peacetime. It applies in wartime. It applies to American citizens in America. It applies to American citizens abroad.
Mr. Speaker, we are very willing to sit down to try to figure out some way we can deal with this thorny area of the law, but sneaky meetings at the White House behind everybody's back and then votes at 2:30 in the morning are not going to do it for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Raskin is a very good courtroom lawyer, and I mean that. If I needed a defense lawyer, the gentleman would be one of the first I would hire. I don't need a defense lawyer, thankfully.
I do want to point out a couple of things that did not get mentioned. It is on page 5: ``Any information concerning a United States person acquired under section 702 may not be used in evidence against that United States person pursuant to paragraph (1) in any criminal proceeding if such information was acquired in violation of subsection (o) of such section.''
Now, when you go to subsection (o), warrant requirement for certain targeting--
One of the other changes that they have not mentioned is that any query against a United States person by the FBI--and this is a new accountability measure--must be reported to the Civil Liberties Protection Officer within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Any query that the FBI does on a United States person must be reported with a justification for the query, not to the Justice Department but to the Civil Liberties Protection Officer within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this about 702. First of all, 702 is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool. It is designed to protect Americans in this country from terrorists. That is what it is designed for.
The FBI is actually prohibited from querying 702 data for evidence of a crime. It is an intelligence tool and not a criminal tool. The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security investigation. We are talking about terrorism and narcoterrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continued discussion on the rule. I thank my colleague, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Rick Crawford, for the work that he has done on it. Many people on our side have worked diligently to accommodate people and to make sure that we are doing the things that we need to do to protect Americans and to protect their civil liberties.
Mr. Speaker, this is all so damned frustrating because, basically, what the gentleman has done is kind of restated current law. The big reform that he is bragging about is that the administration has to report something to the administration. I mean, give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
If you go to subsection (o), it says: ``Pursuant to subsection (b), no officer or employee of the United States Government may intentionally target for acquisition the communications of a United States person. . . . ''
That is precisely the law today. This is a restatement of what is already the law.
FISA is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It is all about the surveillance of people abroad. It is not about surveilling the people here.
If somebody were deliberately targeted, every judge in the land, even those most faithfully reporting to Donald Trump, would say: I am sorry. You can't target U.S. citizens on that under FISA.
This is all about the collection of incidental data. I thought that everybody understood that that was the premise of our whole legislative discussion here, that this is about the collection of incidental data affecting hundreds of thousands of American citizens. That is what we are talking about.
The passage that the gentleman just read is a restatement of what the law is today, which is that if they set out to go after American citizens here, of course, the exclusionary rule operates at that point. It would be prohibited. The question is, what happens if they incidentally collected. Under this new language, nothing happens unless somebody permissively decides that they want to adopt a rule over at the Department of Justice making it a problem.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 702 is the intelligence tool that has been reauthorized in a bipartisan manner under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is an intelligence tool that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know must be reauthorized to protect the citizens of the United States of America.
This bill coming before us today has additional protections over and above the 56 protections that we adopted, again, in a bipartisan manner, in the RISAA legislation just a few years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passage of this rule. I look forward to the passage of the legislation. People on our side have worked in good faith to make sure that we do anything and everything that we can to protect the United States citizens without violating their constitutional rights. That is why the additional provisions have been added in here.
Mr. Speaker, again, I will go back to this provision that I read to you, where if any information is obtained against a United States person, none of that information can be used to prosecute a United States person unless a warrant has been obtained first.
Mr. Speaker, 702 is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool. It is an intelligence tool that has been properly designed to protect the United States and its citizens from people who want to destroy us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is no accident that at midnight we are debating this. This is intentional. Again, this bill was kind of pieced together in a back room somewhere here in the Capitol Building with a handful of people. Here we are, and no one knows what the hell is in it.
I mean, the gentleman from Georgia is basically reading talking points that, quite frankly, are a restatement of current law that don't address any of the issues that many of us had with this legislation that we were trying to work out in a bipartisan way. We have been debating some of these issues for years.
When the gentleman says that his side has been working in good faith with us, this is good faith? We just got the text of this minutes ago. We were told to be on the floor at 11:30, and let's begin this debate with major changes in the text.
That is good faith? Boy, you and I have a different idea of what good faith is. I think good faith was some of the conversations that were ongoing leading up to this moment. You tossed that out the window like it doesn't matter.
Again, this process stinks. This is not the way you should be bringing important legislation to the floor.
Let me just say to my friends on the Freedom Caucus: I don't know. You know, I disagree with you on most things, but every once in a while, we find areas of agreement, oftentimes on issues of privacy protection and protecting and upholding civil liberties.
I appreciate when we can come together on that. I thought that that is what we were doing. That is what we were trying to get to. I am looking for some of my Freedom Caucus friends to defend this, so maybe there is something here that I don't see, but they are not here defending this.
The bottom line is there is nothing new in here to protect people in section 702. There is no warrant requirement that you need to go get a warrant from a judge in section 702. That is what we were asking for. That is what we were fighting for. That is not in this. Don't try to sell a bill of goods that somehow this legislation does something it does not. It fails in that regard. It fails in that regard.
You control everything, so you can bring bills up at midnight and have these debates and say whatever you want to say, but you should be ashamed of this process.
Again, this is not a sense of Congress resolution. This is an important matter. It is important not just for our national security, it is important for the privacy of American citizens to make sure that information gathered on them is not misused.
Unfortunately, most of the American public at this point is asleep, so they are not even paying attention to any of the things that we are saying here today because, again, it is midnight when you are bringing this up.
I would just close by saying this is a lousy way to run a Congress. My friends on the other side of the aisle who are trying to defend the indefensible, quite frankly, should be ashamed of themselves. People should vote against this rule, certainly. This is not the way we should bring legislation to the floor, and they should vote against the underlying bill.
Every time I think I can't get more disappointed with the way Republicans are running this place, you come out with something like this. Again, the gall and the incompetence is stunning. Again, shame on my Republican friends.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, 702 is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool that is designed to protect the citizens of the United States of America.
There are additional constitutional protections in here. The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant to an existing, open, and predicated full national security investigation. That is currently the law. That is currently the law.
We are talking about terrorism, and we are talking about narcoterrorism. The FBI is currently prohibited from querying for evidence of a crime. It is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool. It is an intelligence tool that has been very effective for our intelligence community, our Department of Defense, and the others that are here to protect the United States of America.
Additional protections that we have added--and, again, they didn't read this. I want to read it to you again, though. Page 5, ``United States Persons,'' line 10: ``Any information concerning a United States person acquired under section 702 may not be used in evidence against that United States person pursuant to paragraph (1) in any criminal proceeding if such
Mr. Speaker, this week the House can advance H.R. 8035 and extend FISA 702 under this rule.
This extension, supported by the President, reflects the urgency and importance of FISA.
Since 2008, Congress has always reauthorized section 702 with bipartisan support. When reforms were previously needed, Congress delivered them with RISAA, 56 reforms in a bipartisan manner.
Thanks to the work of many, additional reforms will be voted on tonight in the amendment.
Letting section 702 expire would be a setback. It would be irresponsible. It would put Americans at risk. It would provide an immediate advantage to our adversaries who seek to harm the United States. This authority is vital, and it is time the House finishes this work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5- minute votes on:
Adoption of the amendment, if ordered; and
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, nays 210, not voting 10, as follows:
Mrs. FOUSHEE changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COMER 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 adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 8322) to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 through April 30, 2026, 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. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 10 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, April 20, 2026, at noon for morning-hour debate.
