Tuesday, June 9, 2026

Vol. 172, No. 97 · 119th Congress, 2nd session

House of Representatives

The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McDowell).

Designation of Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Speaker:

Text printed in the Record (164 characters)

June 9, 2026. I hereby appoint the Honorable Addison P. McDowell to act as Speaker pro tempore on this day. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Morning-Hour Debate

Page H3995 · Official text

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Pursuant to the order of the House of January 6, 2026, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.

Remembering Riley O'neil

Page H3995 · Official text

(Mr. Garcia of Illinois was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Riley O'Neil, a dedicated Chicago Department of Transportation worker, who was killed in a tragic accident last week while biking. A graduate of Lane Tech and DePaul University, Riley was a true Chicagoan, passionate about making biking safer, more accessible, and equitable for everyone. He was instrumental in increasing bike infrastructure across Chicago. In his honor, the bike racks he helped install throughout the city will now be called Riley Racks. Through his work, he helped create a city where more people can walk, bike, and travel with confidence and dignity. His legacy is not only found in the projects he worked on, but in the countless lives that will benefit from them for years to come. Every safer intersection, every protected pedestrian walkway, and every improvement that helps people get home safely reflect the commitment to public service. Riley will be remembered for his kindness and ability to connect with people. Our thoughts are with his family and friends during this difficult time.

Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL)

Mr. Speaker, on June 15th we mark the 14th anniversary of the Deferred Action For Child Arrivals program, better known as DACA. DACA has allowed hundreds of thousands of Dreamers to build careers and families in the only country many have ever called home. It has allowed them to make significant economic contributions to our country. DACA recipient households pay approximately $9.5 billion annually in Federal, State, and local taxes. However, the Trump administration is using its racist and anti-immigrant agenda to try and push these young people back into the shadows and out of the country. Since 2025, more than 300 DACA recipients have been detained, and more than 90 have been wrongfully deported. The Trump administration is doing everything it can to make life impossible for people with DACA, including creating massive delays in processing renewals. As a consequence, DACA recipients are losing their jobs and struggling to make ends meet as their work authorizations expire while they wait for an answer, even after submitting their renewal applications well in advance. Communities are losing their teachers, doctors, nurses, small business owners, and restaurant workers. Families are losing their economic and emotional stability. The uncertainty that DACA holders and other immigrants around the country are facing is a direct result of Congress' failure to enact immigration reform. That is why I am proud to have led almost 100 Members in demanding an end to DACA renewal delays. For true relief, we must prioritize passing legislation that would create pathways to citizenship, like the Dream and Promise Act. We cannot allow DACA recipients, who are solid members of our community, to continue living in limbo. Mr. Speaker, I say to all the DACA recipients and their families, we stand with them. We will keep fighting against these attacks and finally build an immigration system that respects their dignity and their humanity.

74th Anniversary of Horn in the West

Pages H3995–H3996 · Official text

(Ms. Foxx of North Carolina was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Virginia Foxx (R-NC)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Horn in the West outdoor drama that is in its 74th season in Boone, North Carolina. Horn in the West tells the story of famous frontiersman Daniel Boone and the settlers of the Blue Ridge Mountains in their struggle to preserve their freedom during the days before and during the war for independence. This drama is inspiring, Mr. Speaker. It helps tell the story of our founding as a nation in dramatic fashion that is enjoyable for people of all ages. Many people are traveling from near and far to visit our Nation's capital in advance of the semiquincentennial, and rightfully so. The city has immense history as it relates to the Revolutionary War and the founding of our Nation. We should also take the time to look around locally, for there are many opportunities to learn about the fundamental components of America's story, like what Horn in the West conveys through drama. Mr. Speaker, I remain in admiration of everyone who has played and continues to play a part in keeping Horn in the West alive and running since it first began in 1952. This outdoor drama kicks off in late June and runs through July. It is always well attended and supported by people from North Carolina and surrounding areas, even by those who may not be from the area. I encourage everyone to learn more about Horn in the West and even consider traveling to Boone to watch it firsthand. You will not be disappointed.

Recognizing Kosovo Liberation Day

Page H3996 · Official text

(Mr. Latimer of New York was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

George Latimer (D-NY)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kosovo Liberation Day. On this day 27 years ago, the Military Technical Agreement was signed and mandated the Yugoslavian and Serbian forces to retreat from Kosovo. Under Serbian oppression for over a year, approximately 13,000 ethnic Albanians were killed. One million Kosovars were displaced, and around 1,600 people are still missing due to the violent conflict. During the Clinton Presidency, NATO stepped in militarily to aid Kosovo in repelling its aggressors and was soon able to claim victory after a year and a half of systematic ethnic cleansing, mass expulsions, and violence against the civilian population. Although it has been decades since the conflict ended, Serbia still does not recognize Kosovo's autonomy. Furthermore, Serbia has never been held accountable for well-supported allegations of ethnic cleansing and sexual violence. Meanwhile, Kosovo's sovereignty has been recognized by over 100 countries worldwide, including the U.S., since its formal declaration of independence in 2008. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this body, during the 250th year of American independence, we honor Kosovo's young democracy. On this important day, Kosovo's values of liberty and justice resonate with our own Declaration of Independence.

George Latimer (D-NY)

Mr. Speaker, let me recognize the exceptional contributions of Bishop Wilbert Preston to the Fairview, Greenburgh, and White Plains communities. The bishop will be leaving his post as the spiritual leader for Christ Temple Church in Fairview later this year. More will be said about that at another time. This past weekend, we celebrated the completion of his tenure as chair of the Greenburgh Housing Authority with a celebratory luncheon. Bishop Preston first joined the housing authority board 26 years ago. During that time, including exemplary service as chairman, he fought for the best interests of those in need of housing in this urban neighborhood. Federal housing resources have never met the demand for housing for the needy, making it difficult for any local housing authority to satisfy the need that they see. Bishop Preston was an articulate spokesperson for those needs and understood the necessity to overcome structural racism and to address poverty and unemployment as elements of effective housing strategy. As he leaves his housing authority post, from the floor of the United States House of Representatives, I salute his moral leadership and managerial skill and his service on the board of the Greenburgh Housing Authority.

George Latimer (D-NY)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize PTSD Awareness Month. Post-traumatic stress disorder can affect anyone, and due to its invisibility, often resulting in getting overlooked, it isn't always properly treated. It is well-documented that servicemembers disproportionately suffer from PTSD, alongside 9/11 survivors and many others. The National Center for PTSD estimates that 23 percent of veterans reliant on the VA for care and treatment have had PTSD at some point in their lives. Despite PTSD's known treatability and the VA's efforts to connect affected individuals to the proper resources, the Trump administration continues to stand in the way of veterans' well-being. Since the inauguration of the President, employees have been forced from the VA in droves, including, of course, hundreds of dedicated mental health staff on the frontlines of tackling the mental health crisis facing our country's servicemen and -women. During this awareness month, I encourage this administration to cease neglecting the needs of our most vulnerable servicemen and veterans, to whom this country owes far more than empty gratitude, and that we recognize all who deal with PTSD in their everyday lives, and we show support for them.

Celebrating Flag Day

Page H3996 · Official text

(Mr. Womack of Arkansas was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Steve Womack (R-AR)

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 14, our Nation will celebrate Flag Day. It was on that date in 1777, by resolution of the Second Continental Congress, that our Nation adopted Old Glory as the flag of the United States. It was, and is, the single-most recognizable symbol of the great American experiment and has endured through our Nation's greatest triumphs and its greatest hardships. From the Revolutionary War to the World Wars, from the age of space exploration to the fight for civil rights, the Stars and Stripes has stood as a symbol of American courage and resolve. It is worn by those who serve their country in uniform, and it has been draped over the coffins of those who sacrificed their lives for what it represents. Yet, Congress, the constitutional body charged with making our Nation's laws, does not have the legal authority to decide how our most sacred symbol, the flag, should be protected. We have seen folks burn and desecrate the flag, an act that shows deep contempt for those who know and understand what this flag symbolizes. But Congress can take the first step to restore its authority and the American people's First Amendment right to demand its protection. That is why I have proposed a constitutional amendment returning to Congress that power to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. This issue was once debated, legislated, and settled through the democratic process, but it has been untouchable for nearly four decades following a decision by the Supreme Court. That decision overturned laws in 48 out of 50 States that protected our flag from desecration. If the American people remain united in their commitment to protect our Nation's flag, Congress should do its part. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic year. It is our Nation's 250th anniversary. I can't think of a better year for Congress to step up in the spirit of self-governance and make an effort to give our flag the protection it deserves. On this Flag Day, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reflect on what the Stars and Stripes means to them and to join me in restoring Congress' constitutional authority to protect it in accordance with the will of the American people.

Recognizing Juneteenth

Pages H3996–H3997 · Official text

(Ms. Brown of Ohio was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Shontel M. Brown (D-OH)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to recognize Juneteenth, a defining moment in our Nation's history. On June 19, 1865, Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, carrying news of liberation. More than 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, enslaved Black Americans gathered to finally learn that they were free. Juneteenth teaches us that freedom delayed is not freedom denied. For Black Americans, unfortunately, freedom has never simply been granted. No, our freedom has been fought for in courtrooms and classrooms, in churches and on picket lines. It has been demanded, defended, marched for, and sacrificed for generation after generation. That struggle did not end on Juneteenth. It continued through the iron grip of Jim Crow and segregation. It continued across that bridge in Selma and through the streets of Birmingham, where children faced firehoses and police dogs while in pursuit of their rights. It continued at the ballot box through the long fight to secure not just the right to vote but the right to have that vote count equally and the right to claim a full and equal voice in American democracy. The story of freedom in America is inseparable from the story of Black political power. The ability to vote, the ability to be heard, and the ability to elect leaders who understand our communities, those rights were not gifts. They were victories won through sacrifice. Today, those victories are under attack. As we celebrate Juneteenth and America's 250th anniversary, we must ask a simple question: What does freedom mean if Black Americans are again denied a meaningful voice in this government? That question is known well in Ohio's 11th Congressional District because of the leadership of one of my predecessors, the late Louis Stokes. Before he became the first Black Member of Congress from Ohio and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Stokes was fighting against efforts to dilute Black representation in northeast Ohio. Louis Stokes understood something that remains true today: You do not have to stop someone from voting to take away their power. You can accomplish the same thing by drawing lines differently. Lou Stokes spent his life proving that freedom requires representation and that democracy requires vigilance. The battles that he fought and that so many fought before him were not supposed to be fought again. The ground that was won through marches and blood, court cases and passed laws, and sacrifice and courage was supposed to be secure. Yet, here we are. Ideological extremists on the Supreme Court have again shattered the very protections that generations of Americans fought to secure. The same Voting Rights Act that Lou Stokes helped to defend, the same law that transformed Black political participation in America, the same law that helped ensure communities could not simply be carved up, divided, and silenced, that same law has been ripped to shreds by a Trump-dominated Supreme Court. Every generation inherits the responsibility to protect what previous generations sacrificed to achieve, and now it is our turn. We cannot retreat. We cannot surrender the gains that were purchased at such a high cost. We must defend the equal representation with the same determination that won it in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I will not watch our rights be taken away--not without a fight. Juneteenth isn't just a celebration. It is a promise, a promise to protect and preserve the freedom we were first denied, especially at a time like this.

Shontel M. Brown (D-OH)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the pride of northeast Ohio, Olympic gold medalist Laila Edwards of Cleveland Heights. Earlier this year, Laila helped lead Team USA to their first gold medal win in women's hockey, playing in all seven games and contributing two goals and six assists. Her performance inspired fans across our Nation, but back home in northeast Ohio, we couldn't be more proud to call Laila one of our own. From learning to skate at the Cleveland Heights Community Center to becoming the first Black woman to represent our country in Olympic hockey, Laila has broken barriers and demonstrated determination without ever forgetting where she came from. This weekend, Cleveland Heights will host a parade in her honor, and I couldn't think of a better way to celebrate her, as children can now look at the ice and see new possibilities. I thank Laila Edwards for representing our country with excellence, lifting up our community with pride, and inspiring the next generations. I congratulate Laila on her Olympic Gold Medal, and I congratulate the Cleveland Heights community for raising such a remarkable champion.

Recognizing Bill Stevens

Pages H3997–H3998 · Official text

(Mr. Baumgartner of Washington was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Washington State University's Bill Stevens as he retires after 21 years of excellence, helping to shape the story of Cougar athletics. Bill held the title of sports information director and senior associate athletic director for strategic communications, and has officially closed a chapter that spanned five athletic directors, seven football coaches, and endless memorable moments in Cougar history. Bill served as one of the chief storytellers of WSU athletics and helped to shape how Cougar student athletes and programs were presented to the world. He graduated from WSU in 1987 and arrived back in Pullman in 2005 after spending 9 years with the Sacramento Kings and 5 years at UC Davis. He later went on to become one of the most respected communications professionals in all of college athletics. Bill was able to quickly adapt to a fast-changing world of social media and evolve WSU communication strategies to what we see today, and some of the challenges Bill faced during his time were significant. Of course, one of Bill's favorite memories came in October 2018, when ESPN's "College GameDay" finally came to Pullman after years of anticipation, fueled by flying the famous Ol' Crimson flag at every game day across the country. Bill was heavily involved in coordinating the media events surrounding this historic event. Bill's efforts led to a national showcase of WSU and were capped by a dramatic victory over the University of Oregon, the fourth consecutive time that Wash. State University beat the University of Oregon Ducks in football. Mr. Speaker, I thank Bill for his decades of hard work with Cougar athletics. The program wouldn't be where it is today without him. Of course, one of the most memorable coaches that Bill Stevens helped work with was the one and only Mike Leach. When Mike and I taught the insurgent warfare and football class together, I saw firsthand Bill's incredible work in communications. That class received a lot of national media attention, and I thought Bill did a wonderful job of not only celebrating the Cougs but allowing Mike Leach to be Mike Leach.

Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of this year's Congressional Award Gold Medal winners, Scarlett Kinville from Spokane, Washington. The Congressional Award is a public-private partnership by Congress to promote and recognize achievement, initiative, and service in America's youth ages 14 to 23. Scarlett completed over 400 hours of public service volunteering as a therapeutic riding assistant, 200 hours of personal development as she managed a youth social enterprise focused on coffee, and 200 hours of physical fitness by increasing stamina through her daily biking routine and a 5-day, 4-night expedition trip, where she led a team storytelling expedition to Portland. Scarlett had this to say about her experience: "The process of gaining the gold medal was fun. I gained the ability to manage my time and participate in meaningful activities in my community. I learned important life skills, such as leadership, teamwork, confidence, and responsibility, and I was able to help the community in ways I wouldn't have strived for otherwise. I believe I am more resilient and have developed a strong determination to grow and succeed personally and as a citizen since starting the Congressional Award process." It is an honor to represent young leaders like Scarlett in Congress. Her achievement is a testament to her hard work, her character, and her commitment to serving others. I congratulate Scarlett on this well-deserved recognition and look forward to all she will accomplish in the years ahead. It is great to have Scarlett visiting Washington, D.C., this week. All of eastern Washington and, indeed, all of Congress and the Nation share in the pride of her accomplishment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The Chair recognizes the Member from Delaware (Representative McBride) for 5 minutes.

Sarah McBride (D-DE)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy and contributions of dedicated volunteers at the CHEER Community Center in Sussex County, Delaware. Recently, CHEER hosted its annual Volunteer Appreciation Awards Ceremony in Georgetown to recognize neighbors who have tirelessly given their time to supporting older adults across the county. CHEER's volunteer base is critical to their ability to provide meals, transportation, activities, companionship, and support services to the thousands of older adults who they serve. Last year alone, over 750 volunteers provided a combined 40,000 vital services that made CHEER's work possible. CHEER's work and services are absolutely critical to the entire State, and especially Sussex County, where one-third of the population is 65 or older. Maggie Smith, who volunteers daily at the Long Neck Center, where she assists with meals and running a weekly nickel poker game, among other responsibilities, was awarded the 2026 CHEER Volunteer of the Year award. Maggie greets each new member by name and ensures those with mobility concerns are able to get their meals. This honor, rightfully earned, represents something that we could all use more of: selfless dedication to the well-being of our neighbors. I congratulate Maggie and all the nominees for the award, and I thank them for all that they do to keep Delaware's communities running and to deliver critical services to our neighbors.

Sarah McBride (D-DE)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the liberation of Delaware from the corrupt and tyrannical yoke of the British Crown and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, 250 years ago, Delawareans stared fate and history in the eyes, picked up the quill, and began to write a new chapter. Our Delawarean forebearers said plainly and with outsized ambition and determination: We can govern ourselves, and our future is ours to make. No tyrant, whether they are in Pennsylvania or England, will have authority over the first and greatest State in the Union. Separation Day is celebrated with overwhelming pride in my State, with my neighbors coming together annually each June in Old New Castle, one of the most historic towns in America, to honor our legacy and mark another year free from the despotism of the past. Of course, Separation Day is about more than the past. It serves as a reminder that democracy is not guaranteed or inherited. It calls on each generation to face challenges with resolve and to take action to secure our liberties. Just as Delawareans have always reminded our fellow Americans, the real heroes of democracy are the ordinary people who believe that a better future is worth fighting for. More importantly, 250 years ago, those patriots understood something that we should all remember today: There are no kings in a democracy. This year, as we mark the semiquincentennial of both the greatest State in the Union and our country, may we recommit ourselves to the unequivocal rejection of tyranny in all of its forms. To my friends from Pennsylvania: You wish you were us. To all of my friends and constituents in Delaware: Happy Separation Day.

Honoring Ruth Patrick Thomas

Page H3998 · Official text

(Mr. Bacon of Nebraska was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Don Bacon (R-NE)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the late Mrs. Ruth Patrick Thomas, an Omaha icon and pioneer for the North Omaha community. Living a wonderful and blessed 105 years, Mrs. Thomas' life is marked by service and love for all, touching the hearts of many in each of the various roles she maintained. Graduating from the University of Nebraska in Lincoln in 1943, Ms. Thomas wed Francis Thomas the same year and joined him in caring for the home and family business, the Thomas Funeral Home. Active in the community, she also devoted her efforts to the League of Women Voters for nearly two decades, directed the YWCA, and focused on cultivating kinship within her neighborhoods. Behind her service to others, Mrs. Thomas championed many milestones, such as being one of the first board members to vote in favor of desegregating Omaha Public Schools, being the first of three women at Zion Baptist Church to be appointed to trustee, and, in 1954, enrolling and graduating from the College of Mortuary Science in St. Louis as the only female and African-American person in her class. Her lifetime of accomplishments has been recognized by the NAACP with the NAACP Freedom Fighter's Award and with a Diamond Award bestowed by the Delta Epsilon Omega Chapter of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., for over 75 years of service. Mr. Speaker, to the family and North Omaha friends of Mrs. Thomas, I offer my deepest condolences on her passing, and I stand with pride to have had such a wholesome and selfless person to be a part of developing our community.

Don Bacon (R-NE)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize a true example of resiliency, generosity, and commitment to serving others, my friend LaVon Stennis Williams from Omaha, Nebraska. LaVon is a woman of many titles: attorney, author, entrepreneur, and mentor. Perhaps her most defining characteristic is her unwavering commitment that our past does not define our future and that history, when preserved, can be a powerful tool for healing. A graduate of Creighton University with her bachelor's and juris doctorate degrees, LaVon has spent her life building bridges. In 2012, drawing from her own personal journey, she founded ReConnect, Incorporated. This nonprofit has served over 500 individuals, helping those currently or formerly incarcerated navigate the difficult transition back into society. Through her Success Prep curriculum, she teaches a philosophy that our communities desperately need: the mindset of being better, not bitter. But LaVon's service to Omaha doesn't stop at professional development. She understands that to move forward, we must also look back. She transformed her private doll collection into a doll museum of African-American history. This museum houses a collection of over 3,000 historic dolls, and it is free for all. Far more than simple artifacts, these figures serve as a unique lens through which people can examine these three centuries of Black history and culture. This museum stands as a testament to her belief that understanding where we have been is essential to determining where we are going. Whether she is writing children's books to honor the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen through her publishing house, TwoBee Publishing, or coaching a client toward a new career path, LaVon Stennis Williams is a builder of dreams. LaVon Stennis Williams has made extraordinary contributions to Nebraska's Second Congressional District, and we are grateful for her tireless work in preserving our Nation's history by empowering its future. I thank LaVon Stennis Williams.

Honoring Jaquie Algee

Pages H3998–H3999 · Official text

(Mrs. Ramirez of Illinois was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Delia C. Ramirez (D-IL)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and celebrate Jaquie Algee, a powerful and loving champion for justice, humanity, and solidarity. As the daughter of civil rights activists from the south who marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jaquie's political education began at home. She was raised on the stories of neighbors fighting side by side to defend their dignity and to realize their collective liberation. Those early lessons shaped her consciousness and became the foundation on which her impressive life's work is built. For decades, Jaquie has organized people to build power, to demonstrate solidarity, and to stand up and fight back against injustice. Whether as the board president and founding member of Chicago's Women's March, her work with the Poor People's Campaign, or her current service as the vice president of external relations for SEIU Healthcare, Jaquie has not only been on the front lines for some of the most significant struggles, but she is the light that has guided our movements with fierceness, joy, authenticity, and powerful love. The work she holds closest to her heart unfolded over two decades ago after the murder of her son and only child, Kenneth. Kenneth was a victim of gun violence. As an assignment of love, Jaquie helped organize one of the biggest marches in the Nation's Capital that the Nation had ever seen: the Million Mom March on Mother's Day of 2000. In front of the White House, she held up Kenneth's picture, honored her son and every single child we have seen lost to gun violence. For Algee, marching is a sacred act. When we march, we resist despair. When we stand up and press on, we demonstrate that we will keep fighting until we are, in fact, victorious. When we lock arms, we remember that we are not alone. That is the gift of Jaquie Algee. For so many of us, she has motivated us to persist, to face the light, to never give up, and to hold out hope because we, in fact, are not alone. Whenever she can be, she is right next to us, arm in arm, marching on. On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my honor to commend Jaquie Algee for her lifelong commitment to building the beloved community, championing civil and worker rights, and practicing solidarity across our intersections, across our identities, and across our issues. I thank Jaquie Algee for being a spiritual mother for me. We know that all power is to the people.

Delia C. Ramirez (D-IL)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life and legacy of Kevin Gonzalez, my 18-year-old constituent who was a U.S. citizen boy who lived his last few weeks of life fighting to be reunited with his parents, showing us all the power of love.

(English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:)

Delia C. Ramirez (D-IL)

Born in Chicago, Kevin was a U.S. citizen whose family was separated after his parents, Isidoro and Norma Anabel, were deported to Mexico. To keep their family together, Kevin moved to Mexico. But during a recent visit to Chicago, he became ill, was diagnosed with terminal colon cancer, and began undergoing treatment. After Kevin stopped responding to treatment, his parents sought permission to travel to the U.S. to see their son. Their visas were denied by DHS. Desperate to reach their son, they tried to return to him the only way they knew: by crossing the border. But instead of being reunited, they were detained by CBP for a month. That is when Kevin showed us the power of love. He fought--even as he lay dying--to be reunited with his parents. He spoke out. And while a community came around him to reunite him with his parents, Kevin's love kept him alive until he could see them one more time. He waited for them. And he passed away less than 24 hours after reuniting with them. Kevin's example invites us to love one another in a way that defies borders and death and authoritarians and all those who would separate our families and seek our destruction. So, on behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my honor to commend Kevin Gonzalez. May we honor his memory by fighting for a more compassionate and just world that honors our shared humanity and dignity. ____ Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life and legacy of Kevin Gonzalez--my 18-year-old constituent, who showed us all the power of love. Kevin, nacido en Chicago, era ciudadano estadounidense; su familia fue separada despues de que sus padres, lsidoro y Norma Anabel, fueran deportados a Mexico. Para mantener a la familia unida, Kevin se mudo a Mexico. Sin embargo, durante una visita reciente a Chicago, enfermo, fue diagnosticado con cancer de colon terminal y comenzo a recibir tratamiento. Cuando Kevin dejo de responder al tratamiento, sus padres solicitaron permiso para viajar a Estados Unidos y ver a su hijo. El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) les nego las visas. Desesperados por llegar hasta el, intentaron reunirse con su hijo de la unica manera que conocian: cruzando la frontera. Pero, en lugar de reencontrarse, fueron detenidos por CBP durante un mes. Fue entonces cuando Kevin nos mostro el poder del amor. Lucho--incluso mientras moria--por reencontrarse con sus padres. Alzo la voz. Y mientras la comunidad se unia para lograr ese reencuentro, el amor de Kevin lo mantuvo con vida hasta que pudo verlos una vez mas. Los espero. Y fallecio menos de 24 horas despues de haberse reunido con ellos. El ejemplo de Kevin nos invita a amarnos unos a otros de una manera que desafia las fronteras, la muerte, a los autoritarios y a todos aquellos que pretenden separar a nuestras familias y buscan nuestra destruccion. Por eso, en nombre del Tercer Distrito Congresional de Illinois, es un honor para mi reconocer a Kevin Gonzalez. Honremos su memoria luchando por un mundo mas compasivo y justo, que respete nuestra humanidad y dignidad compartidas. Descansa en paz.

Delia C. Ramirez (D-IL)

May Kevin rest in power. I thank him for showing us the power of love, the power of a boy who just wanted to be reunited with his parents one last time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schmidt)

The gentlewoman from Illinois will provide the Clerk a translation of her remarks.

Honoring Life and Legacy of Kyle Busch

Pages H3999–H4000 · Official text

(Mr. McDowell of North Carolina was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Addison P. McDowell (R-NC)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Kyle Busch, a fierce competitor, a legendary race car driver, and, most importantly, a great man. Kyle was a husband to Samantha and a father to two beautiful children. He was a brother, a son, a businessman, a driver, an entertainer, and one of the greatest competitors to ever get behind the wheel racing cars. If I sat here and listed every checkered flag that Kyle Busch ever won, my time would expire before I could finish. Kyle Busch was a winner. Kyle won 234 races across the top 3 series in NASCAR, including 63 wins at the cup level, making him the ninth all-time winner on the cup series. Kyle was a fierce competitor. It was like he hated losing more than he loved winning. We all got an inside look at that through listening to his team radio on race days. Kyle had an expectation that if he was behind the wheel of a car, he should win. He had every right to believe that because he was that good. We all remember the Michael Jordan flu game during the 1997 NBA finals. Imagine Michael Jordan playing every game after the All-Star break with the flu and still winning MVP because that is what Kyle Busch did. In February of 2015, Kyle wrecked hard at Daytona and compound fractured his right leg and broke his left foot. After multiple surgeries, by early May, Kyle was back racing in the All-Star race. By November, Kyle Busch was a NASCAR champion. Behind the wheel, Kyle Busch was fast. Truth be told, sometimes he was too fast. Even NASCAR couldn't contain him, and he was regularly penalized for speeding off of pit row. This would infuriate Kyle. But he was so fast that by making him go to the back of the pack, that didn't mean he wouldn't still win. Mr. Speaker, Kyle Busch's story was that of race legends racing with incredible teams. He started in the truck series for Jack Roush and Roush Racing. He spent time with Hendrick Motorsports racing for Rick Hendrick. From 2007 to 2023, Kyle drove the number 18 for Coach Joe Gibbs at Joe Gibbs Racing. Then, in 2023, he joined Richard Childress Racing and welcomed North Carolina, racing in the number 8 car proudly representing my hometown. He also drove for two of the best team presidents in NASCAR with Dave Alpern at Joe Gibbs Racing and Mike Verlander at Richard Childress Racing. Both call the Sixth District of North Carolina their home. Kyle's impact across the NASCAR family was massive. He inspired a generation of drivers who are working their way through the ranks right now. That impact alone is an incredibly strong legacy to leave. But the track is only part of Kyle Busch's story. Alongside his wife, Samantha, they started the Bundle of Joy Fund to advance access to fertility treatments through care and coverage, building awareness and providing support for the many who have struggled to bring children into the world. Because of his efforts on the track, he was able to make an impact on countless families and couples' lives by providing support and to let them know that they were not alone. Most importantly, Kyle was a devoted husband and a loving father. It was obvious that above all of his racing success, all of the trophies that he won, nothing mattered more to him than his precious family. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to shower the Busch family with prayer and as we grieve this loss alongside Kyle's wife, Samantha; his children, Brexton and Lennix; and his entire family, let us remember that Kyle Busch will forever be a legend. There are heroes, and there are legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Kyle Busch was a legend behind the wheel. In that sense, he is immortal.

Commending Charter Oak High School Cheer and Stunt Team

Page H4000 · Official text

(Mr. Cisneros of California was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr. (D-CA)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Charter Oak High School Cheer and STUNT Team for making history by becoming the first San Gabriel Valley school to win a CIF Southern Section STUNT cheer championship. Their hard work and dedication paid off. They should all be very proud of themselves for capturing the Division 2 title. Congratulations to Coach Ashley Garcia for all the time and energy she spent training these talented athletes. An additional shout-out to sophomore Juliette Ramirez for being the top power player and point earner and to senior Kaelynn Quezada who made a triumphant return from injury this season. She came back stronger than ever and scored 249 points in 265 rounds. I'm not really sure what that means, but it sounds incredible. Kaelynn was also named the Valle Vista League MVP, and that I do know is incredible. I congratulate her on that achievement. This was a remarkable season capped by historic victory. I am incredibly proud of the Charter Oak team, and I hope they enjoy their major win.

Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr. (D-CA)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the Edgewood softball team for their impressive victory in the CIF Southern Section championship. Their teamwork, hard work, and devotion to the game paid off with this success, and they should be so proud of their achievements. A special shout-out to junior Alexis Hurtado for her amazing performance. She pitched a complete game, played great defense, and helped guide her team to victory. The entire team demonstrated dedication to athletic excellence and made our district proud with this impressive game. I congratulate them on their accomplishment. They earned it through their hard work and dedication. I wish them good luck in the CIF Southern Section playoffs. I will be rooting for them.

Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr. (D-CA)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pride Month and celebrate the strength, resilience, and diversity of the LGBTQI+ community in California's 31st District and across the country. It was just over a decade ago that the Supreme Court announced their decision to affirm marriage equality as the law of the land. This historic step forward remains a landmark legal victory for LGBTQI+ Americans in the fight for equality, but today that fight continues. There is always more work to be done to make this country a more inclusive and welcoming place for all. This Pride Month is about coming together as a community to celebrate the freedom we all deserve because everyone deserves to love who they love and to live openly and authentically, without fear of discrimination. I also want to take a moment to reaffirm my commitment to fighting for trans equality. I will always defend their right to live as who they are. As a member of the Congressional Equality Caucus and an original cosponsor of the Equality Act, I am proud to champion their fight for equal justice, equal dignity, and equal rights. Happy Pride Month.

Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr. (D-CA)10:45 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gun Violence Awareness Month and to honor the thousands of Americans who lost their lives to gun violence. In 2025, gun homicides killed an estimated 15,000 people. This number represents children taken from their parents, young people with bright futures stolen from them, beloved community members and so many families torn apart by the cruel injustice of an act of violence permitted by our broken policies. I know family and friends who have lost loved ones due to an act of gun violence. For them, it is pain that will live on forever. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. It is time for us all to confront this epidemic head on with long-overdue gun reform. Commonsense gun safety laws are not controversial. In fact, a majority of Americans say it is far too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country. No one should have to bear the trauma of losing a loved one to a preventable incident of gun violence. I promise you that I will fight every day to forge a better tomorrow where everyone is safe from this unconscionable harm of gun violence.

Honoring the Life and Legacy of Bob Tomlinson

Pages H4000–H4001 · Official text

(Mr. Schmidt of Kansas was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Derek Schmidt (R-KS)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a devoted public servant, educator, and proud Kansan, my friend, Bob Tomlinson, who passed away in February 2025 at his home in Kansas. Bob Tomlinson lived a life defined by service to others. Whether in the classroom, the Kansas Statehouse, or around the family dinner table, Bob believed deeply in showing up for people, listening carefully, and leaving every place a little better than he found it. From an early age, Bob demonstrated a passion for public service and civic engagement. In fact, his family recalls that his first campaign began in junior high school when he ran for student council. That sense of responsibility to contribute, to lead, and to serve never left him. As a young man, Bob attended Boys State, worked with Republican U.S. Senator Bob Dole and Democratic State Senator Anthony Hensley, and built a bipartisan spirit that would become a hallmark of his public life. Bob understood that public service was never about headlines or partisanship. It was about people, especially those who felt unheard or overlooked. Bob earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Kansas and later a master's degree from Baker University. He went on to spend nearly two decades working in education, serving as a social studies teacher and counselor at the Shawnee Mission School District alternative education program at Horizons High School. Those who knew Bob understood that he had a special heart for students who needed extra care, extra patience, and someone who believed in them when much of the world often did not. Bob did not simply teach history. He taught young people that their lives mattered and that they could still shape their own futures. Bob's commitment to his community naturally led him into elected office. He served on the Roeland Park City Council before representing Kansas' 24th House District in the Kansas State House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003. During his decade in the legislature, Bob earned respect on both sides of the aisle for his thoughtful approach, his kindness, and his ability to build genuine friendships across political differences. He later served as assistant insurance commissioner for the State of Kansas from 2003 to 2012, continuing a career centered on protecting and serving Kansans. If you knew Bob, you knew there was always a joke. There was always a story. In every situation, he could find a way to lighten the mood and make people feel at ease. He never met a stranger who would not later become a friend. Bob loved Kansas deeply. He traveled to every corner of the State multiple times during his years in public service. He cared about rural communities, small towns, working families, and the people whose voices too often went unheard. He believed government worked best when leaders listened first. However, of all the titles Bob carried, the title he treasured most was "family man." Bob and his beloved wife, Carole, shared 38 years of marriage. Together, they raised two sons, Phillip and Christopher, and later welcomed a granddaughter, Audrey, who brought Bob enormous joy. Family traditions mattered to Bob. Every summer, the Tomlinsons would pack up and travel together to visit historic sites and State capitals across America. Thanks to Bob's love of history and their travel, his sons can say they visited 48 State capitals and our Nation's Capital here in Washington. Those trips reflected Bob's belief that learning never stops and that the best memories are made together. While Bob could discuss history, public policy, or baseball with anyone, his granddaughter, Audrey, may have known him best for yet another talent entirely: his unforgettable Donald Duck impression, which he happily performed for hours just to make her laugh. That was Bob Tomlinson. He was accomplished but humble, serious about service but never about himself, a man whose greatest joy came not from recognition but from bringing joy to others. On behalf of so many people in Kansas and of this U.S. House of Representatives, I extend my deepest condolences to Carole, Phillip, Chris, Megan, Audrey, and the entire Tomlinson family. May they find comfort in knowing that Bob's life made a lasting difference in the lives of so many others. May he rest in peace.

Home- and Community-Based Services Fraud

Page H4001 · Official text

(Mrs. Sykes of Ohio was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Emilia Strong Sykes (D-OH)

Mr. Speaker, the House Oversight Committee's Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses held a hearing last week focused on allegations of home- and community-based services in my State of Ohio. I have some thoughts. First, fraud is wrong. People misusing the system undermines the very purpose of safety net programs. If taxpayer dollars are misused, there must be accountability. Vulnerabilities must be fixed, and oversight should be strengthened. I support that effort. However, what I do not support is using allegations of fraud to mischaracterize an entire program, promote racist and xenophobic ideologies, limit the care of our most vulnerable citizens, or by presenting only part of the story. Unfortunately, that is what happened last week. Before the hearing, my Ohio Democratic colleagues and I were told we would have an opportunity to engage in the hearing as Ohioans and folks who are closest to the issue, but at the last minute, we were shut out. That decision cut off a fuller conversation about both rooting out fraud and protecting services relied on by more than 122,000 Ohioans. Home- and community-based services provide in-home support, including medication assistance, therapy, meals, and personal care that allows older adults and individuals with disabilities to remain at home rather than in institutions. This flexibility allows families to remain close with the added benefit of lower costs and better health outcomes. It is one of the many reasons these programs have long enjoyed bipartisan support. Since the 1980s, Ohio has participated in these home- and community-based waiver programs, including the past 15 years under a State government fully led by Republicans. During that time, these programs have been designed, funded, administered, and repeatedly approved by State and Federal officials. As a former State legislator, I served on the finance committee, and I was the ranking member for the health and human services subcommittee that oversaw the funding and activities toward the home-based and community-based services and Medicaid as an entire agency. The move toward home-based services were led and championed by Governor Kasich, the Republican from Ohio. A feature of the program was to move toward agency-based services and away from independent providers to, you guessed it, combat fraud and abuse. To be clear, Ohio Auditor Keith Faber, who was a witness at last week's hearing, does not currently set Medicaid policy, at least not today. However, as a former State legislator and a former State senate president, he supported expanding HCBS and removing barriers to improve access and reduce costs. While not only just that, he negotiated multiple budgets under his leadership, increasing funding for these programs. However, now, as the State auditor, he enjoys wide discretion to audit programs and State agencies. Why were those oversight concerns not acted on more aggressively? What has been going on in the auditor's office for the past 7\1/2\ years if there is so much fraud, waste, and abuse? Further, why weren't there any notable flags in the HCBS program in the last State audit of the Department of Medicaid? In 2013, Ohio created the Joint Medicaid Oversight Committee to strengthen accountability when the State expanded Medicaid under Republican Governor John Kasich, but that committee was dissolved last year by a Republican supermajority in the legislature and signed by the Republican Governor while it was actively reviewing Medicaid administration, including contracts with major claim processors. If vulnerabilities have existed for years, Ohioans deserve answers as to why stronger safeguards were not implemented and enforced for the last 15 years of Republican-led State of Ohio. Additionally, why was the oversight committee abolished just in December of 2025? During the hearing, we also heard testimony from an investigative reporter of The Daily Wire, whose testimony repeatedly focused on immigrants and ethnic communities in ways that blurred the line between identifying wrongdoing and casting suspicions and, quite frankly, racist suspicions on entire groups of people. Fraud should be investigated wherever it exists, but oversight must be driven by evidence, not rhetoric that casts doubt and blame on entire communities. The hearing also featured testimony from State Representative Mike Dovilla, who described oversight failures and data fragmentation that he argues persisted for years within Ohio's Medicaid system. Again, this is Representative Dovilla's second tour in the statehouse. Where has he been? If those conditions are as longstanding and widespread as described, then Ohioans deserve to know why stronger safeguards were not implemented when State leaders, Republican State leaders, including those who governed and shaped policy decisions over the past 15 years, had and still have the authority to act. The vast majority of caregivers and providers are not engaged in fraud.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Emilia Strong Sykes (D-OH)

They are workers and family members providing essential care every day to our most vulnerable. Fraud must be investigated and prosecuted.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The gentlewoman is no longer recognized.

Celebrating 100 Years of Rotary Club of Fernandina Beach, Florida

Pages H4001–H4002 · Official text

CELEBRATING 100 YEARS OF ROTARY CLUB OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA (Mr. Bean of Florida was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Aaron Bean (R-FL)

Mr. Speaker, I want to take you back 100 years. The year is 1926. Calvin Coolidge was President. We only had 48 States. Silent films were all the rage, and Americans were just beginning to discover the joy of the family road trip. It was a year of optimism, growth, and community spirit. It was also the year the Rotary Club of Fernandina Beach, Florida, was founded. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of this remarkable organization for a century of service and fellowship. Mr. Speaker, for me, it is personal. I have had the honor of being a member of this club, joining in 1990, and even serving as its club president. One of my most memorable moments of my Rotary journey was swearing in my own son, Bradley Bean, as president not too long ago. For 100 years, the Rotary Club of Fernandina Beach has strengthened our community by supporting local students, advancing literacy, leading humanitarian projects, both locally, nationally, and even internationally, and living out the values that has defined Rotary since its founding in 1905 by Paul Harris. Mr. Speaker, you may ask, is there going to be a party? The answer is: Yes, there will be. There will be a gathering of both current and former members to celebrate the milestone, as well as all the accomplishments in 100 years. They will honor every member who has given their talent, their time, and their heart to make Fernandina Beach and the world a better place. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Rotary Club of Fernandina Beach on 100 amazing years of "Service Above Self." I wish them another century of impact, leadership, and community.

Mourning the Loss of Nancy Oda

Page H4002 · Official text

(Ms. Rivas of California was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Luz M. Rivas (D-CA)

Mr. Speaker, the San Fernando Valley mourns the loss of Nancy Oda. Nancy was born in the Tule Lake Segregation Center during World War II, where her family was persecuted for their Japanese heritage. Her family's hope was that she would bring harmony into the world and overcome the challenges and discrimination they were facing at the time. Nancy did what she could to bring that harmony by choosing a life of service to her community. She spent 32 years with the L.A. Unified School District, first as a teacher, then retiring as an elementary school principal. Nancy's work didn't stop in the classroom. She served as president of the San Fernando Valley Japanese American Community Center and the Tuna Canyon Detention Station Coalition, where she worked tirelessly to preserve the history of Japanese-American incarceration and ensure that future generations would understand its impact. Nancy believed that preserving history was not simply about remembering the past; it was about protecting the future. She used her voice to advocate for immigrant communities and ensure that they can live their lives with dignity. Nancy will be remembered for her commitment to education, her devotion to community, and her unwavering belief in justice throughout the San Fernando Valley. Her memory will live on through the students whom she taught, the history she preserved, and the communities she strengthened. We were all fortunate to have met Nancy. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence in her honor.

Luz M. Rivas (D-CA)

Mr. Speaker, today, we celebrate the life and service of Salvador Torres from Pacoima. Salvador was born and raised in Pacoima with his 12 siblings. After serving our country in Vietnam, Salvador came back to the valley where he worked at General Motors as a line worker to support his wife and three children, Marco, Fabiola, and Flor. According to Marco, Salvador's love and kindness can be seen and felt in everyone that he knew. Salvador was able to form a bond with anyone, whether it be over stories from military service or their shared love of the L.A. Dodgers. This was evident at his memorial service, where over 400 people attended to pay their respects and celebrate a beloved neighbor, veteran, and leader. Salvador's legacy lives on in his family, friends, and the community that he loved so dearly. He will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence in honor of Salvador.

Juhie Parikh Commemorates America's 250th Anniversary

Pages H4002–H4003 · Official text

(Mr. Bera of California was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)

Ami Bera (D-CA)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Juhie Parikh, a student at Inderkum High School in Sacramento, for winning my office's essay contest commemorating America's 250th anniversary. As our Nation prepares to celebrate 250 years of independence, students across my district were invited to reflect on what America means to them. Juhie's essay stood out for its thoughtful reflection on community, belonging, and unity. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share her essay in her own words:

Text printed in the Record (2,860 characters)

As I look out onto my street in a Sacramento suburb, I see a lovely Chinese family with two daughters achieving their dreams in college, a Black family with two daughters in high school with me, a Mexican family with three children that love playing soccer, college students renting a house, three generations of a White family and their cute dog named Liesel who pass out homemade cinnamon rolls every Christmas to each house, and my own Indian immigrant family. This isn't just a show of diversity, but unity. To me, America is this street. It is easy to look at a country and only see its fractures and divisions. America might have many imperfections, but that is not all it is. What I see from my window tells a different story, one that feels personal to me. What strikes me most about my neighborhood isn't our differences. It is that we don't care about how different we are. The kids kick their soccer ball into the street, and everyone navigates around it without complaint. The college students wave. Liesel trots over to anyone who will scratch her ears, noticing their kindness first before their backgrounds. At Christmas, cinnamon rolls arrive at every door, not just ones that look familiar. These little details, repeated daily, are what a culture is actually made of. My dad came to America first, alone, for his job, building the foundation to raise a family here. My mom followed him, leaving behind everything familiar to join him in a country still new to both of them. This risk is not unique to us. Nearly every family on my street has their own version: a sacrifice made, a life turned upside down, a bet placed on this country. And somewhere along the way, all of those separate stories merged into one shared street. This shared life revealed itself most clearly on the day Liesel passed away. I had once been small enough that the Great Dane and I were nearly the same size, the two of us growing up together. She had belonged to one family, but in truth, she belonged to all of us. When she was gone, every family came to the door. Some brought food, some simply came to honor her memory. An entire street grieved together, and I understood that what we had built was not just proximity. It was genuine care. This care is the truest thing I know about America. We are so defined by our differences, our backgrounds, our languages, or our histories. But on my street, those things are only the beginning of the story, not the end of it. Similarly, America's story is not finished either. To me, America means possibility, the possibility that people from every corner of the world can land on the same street and become part of each other's lives. It is not a perfect country. But it keeps producing diverse streets like mine. And that is enough to believe in. Recognizing 20th Anniversary of Citrus Heights Police Department

Ami Bera (D-CA)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 20th anniversary of the Citrus Heights Police Department. For two decades, the men and women of the department have served the Citrus Heights community with dedication, professionalism, and an unwavering commitment to public safety. Every day, they work to keep families safe, respond in moments of crisis, and strengthen trust across the community. I was proud to help secure $540,000 in Federal funding for the department's emergency communication enhancements project to upgrade emergency communications to ensure first responders can communicate reliably during emergencies, coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, and keep Citrus Heights residents safe when every second counts. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chief Alexander Turcotte and every officer, dispatcher, and staff member for their service and sacrifice. Their work reflects the very best of public service and dedication to our community.

Recess

Page H4003 · Official text

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong)

Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.

Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 7 minutes a.m.), the House stood in recess.

After Recess

Page H4003 · Official text

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Wittman) at noon.

Prayer

Page H4003 · Official text

The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Lord God, bless the work we do today. Bless all of it, not just the issues we individually have invested in, but bless the work we do together to address the concerns each of us brings to the table. Use our everyday tasks, even those that seem mundane and routine, to Your glory. Whether it is a meeting with constituents who come with a myriad of concerns, a review of every line of a bill in markup, another phone call, or another media interview, may our approach to each task reflect our faithful service, not just to our communities and to our country, but ultimately to You. In this, may we commit ourselves to doing not just the minimum but our best. May we acknowledge that the responsibilities You have entrusted to us far exceed our intentions for this day and deserve our full attention. May we do all that we do with a heart for You, giving of our whole selves to You and to the duties You have set before us. Let us offer our work and our words as a psalm of praise to Your name, that each day we may live what we profess: our faith in You. In the promise of Your name, we pray. Amen.

The Journal

Page H4003 · Official text

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House the approval thereof. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule I, the Journal stands approved.

Pledge of Allegiance

Page H4003 · Official text

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Will the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mrs. GRIJALVA led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

Text printed in the Record (174 characters)

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Pages H4004–H4011 · Official text

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1345 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,603 characters)

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8312) to establish fraud prevention and program integrity functions and data sharing authorities within the Department of Treasury and a permanent governmentwide Inspector General for Fraud, Accountability, and Recovery, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8464) to amend title 31, United States Code, to authorize pausing and segmenting payments, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1335) condemning actors seeking to defraud the United States Government, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that governmentwide fraud and improper payment prevention reforms will meaningfully improve the financial prosperity of the United States, and that Federal program eligibility should be verified before payment. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees. Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 33. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 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.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1345 provides consideration for four measures. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8312, H.R. 8464, and H. Res. 1335 under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate each equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their designees, and provides one motion to recommit for H.R. 8312 and H.R. 8464. The rule also provides for consideration of S. 2 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, or their designees, and provides for one motion to commit. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. The rule before us provides for consideration of four measures that address two of the Federal Government's most fundamental responsibilities: Safeguarding taxpayer dollars and protecting the American people. At a time when Americans are demanding greater accountability from Washington, these measures represent commonsense steps to ensure that government is carrying out the basic responsibilities that taxpayers expect it to perform. Mr. Speaker, every year, Washington loses hundreds of billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, to fraud, improper payments, and abuse. Every year, Americans are told the same exact thing: Nothing can be done about it. Well, if you don't try, nothing can be done about it. Taxpayer dollars go out the door, fraudsters cash the checks, government bureaucrats write reports about what happens after the fact, and taxpayers are left holding the bill. Americans are, frankly, tired of it. They are tired of watching Washington lose track of billions of dollars while hardworking families are expected to just pay the tab and not worry about it. Nowhere has this failure been more visible than in the State of Minnesota. Americans watched as massive fraud schemes ripped off taxpayers and exposed just how vulnerable government programs become when oversight disappears and accountability takes a back seat. The lesson should be obvious: When government fails to verify eligibility, fraudsters take advantage. Republicans believe that taxpayers deserve better than that. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8464, the Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act. The idea behind the legislation is very simple. If government officials identify warning signs that a payment may be fraudulent, why should taxpayers be forced to send that money out the door anyway? Why? No family should knowingly write a check to someone they believe may be trying to scam them, yet that is effectively what Washington has allowed to happen time and again for years. H.R. 8464 helps put an end to that government mentality. Instead of waiting for taxpayer dollars to disappear, and then attempting to chase them down after the fact, this bill focuses on preventing fraud before it occurs. It allows agencies to pause, segment, or stop payments that present elevated fraud risks before taxpayer dollars are lost. That is simple common sense. The Federal Government should not knowingly send money to fraudsters and hope everything works out on the back end. Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 8312, the Fraud Prevention and Accountability Act. The COVID pandemic exposed serious weaknesses in the Federal Government's ability to protect taxpayer dollars. In the rush to move money out the door, fraudsters saw a cash register. Billions of taxpayer dollars were stolen. Criminals exploited gaps in oversight, and Americans were left wondering how can so much money disappear with so little level of accountability. H.R. 8312 helps ensure that the Federal Government never again starts from scratch when confronting large-scale fraud. The bill establishes a permanent, governmentwide antifraud capability, preserves the successful oversight tools developed in response to taxpayer spending and scamming, and strengthens the ability for inspectors general and watchdogs to identify fraud before billions more taxpayer dollars disappear. Fraudsters are constantly adapting, and government oversight should not remain stuck in the distant past. This legislation ensures future administrations have the tools necessary to protect taxpayers when the next emergency inevitably arrives. Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 1335. At its core, this resolution recognizes a simple truth: Fraud is not a victimless crime. It says fraud should be condemned. It says Congress should stand on the side of the taxpayers rather than fraudsters trying to exploit the system. Taken together, these measures represent a clear change in approach by government. Instead of chasing taxpayer dollars after they disappear, Republicans are focused on preventing fraud before it happens. Instead of looking the other way when billions of dollars are lost and stolen, Republicans are demanding accountability. Mr. Speaker, whether it is protecting taxpayer dollars from fraud or protecting communities from criminals, cartels, traffickers, and dangerous narcotics, the principle is exactly the same: Government has a responsibility to do the job that the American people expect it to do. That brings me to the importance of fully funding Customs and Border Protection and immigration enforcement. Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of S. 2, the Secure America Act. One of the most significant success stories in the last year-and-a-half has been the dramatic improvement in security at our southern border. The border crisis that President Trump inherited was not by accident. It was the direct result of deliberate--deliberate--policy decisions made by the Biden administration. For 4 years, Americans watched the cameras at the southern border as the Federal Government abandoned proven enforcement policies, weakened deterrence, and expanded catch and release practices and allowed millions and millions of illegal immigrants to enter the country. It was nothing short of an invasion. Human traffickers profited, and fentanyl flowed into our communities across the country. Border Patrol agents were forced to process migrants instead of securing our border. The result was one of the worst border crises in our Nation's history. Under President Trump, we have reversed the course. It started instantly. The border was closed. Since taking office, illegal crossings have fallen dramatically. Border encounters have plummeted, and law enforcement officers have once again been empowered to enforce the laws already on the books. No new laws have been passed. We are enforcing the laws on the books. The results speak for themselves. In April, southern border apprehensions were 94 percent lower than the monthly average experienced under the Biden administration. At the same time, CBP has seized significantly more dangerous narcotics attempting to enter our country, helping keep deadly drugs out of our backyards, our American communities. Those improvements did not happen by accident. They are the result of stronger enforcement, better policies, and President Trump's commitment to restoring the rule of law at our border. However, success doesn't mean the mission is complete. The cartels, they haven't disappeared. Human traffickers have not disappeared. Criminal smuggling networks continue to operate every single day. That is why the funding provided in this legislation remains necessary. Mr. Speaker, Customs and Border Protection serves as one of the most important first lines of defense for our Nation and for our homeland security. Whether securing our borders, facilitating lawful trade and travel, or stopping dangerous narcotics before they reach American communities, CBP plays a critical role in both our national security and our economy. I represent a district in western New York that shares a border with Canada. In my district, the border plays a part of everyday life. It supports jobs, commerce, tourism, agriculture, and cross-border trade through western New York and the southern tier. In districts like mine, border security and economic security go hand in hand. The same officers helping lawful travelers and commerce move efficiently through our ports of entry are also stopping dangerous narcotics, criminal activity, and other threats before they reach our communities. If we expect CBP to continue delivering results that we have seen over the last year and a half, Congress must ensure the agency has the support necessary to sustain those efforts. Mr. Speaker, the legislation also provides critical funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Too often, people hear the name ICE and think only about immigration enforcement, but ICE's mission extends far beyond that. Every day, ICE agents combat human trafficking. They investigate gang activity. They dismantle narcotics trafficking organizations. They protect children from exploitation. They also work alongside State and local law enforcement to keep dangerous individuals off of our streets. Much of this work happens outside of the spotlight, but it directly impacts Americans every single day. My district recently saw an example, a clear example of why this work matters. Just last week, a violent stabbing occurred in Cattaraugus County involving an illegal immigrant. Thanks to cooperation between the Cattaraugus County Sheriff's Office and ICE personnel in Buffalo, law enforcement uncovered additional violations and ultimately took a dangerous individual into Federal custody. Keeping communities safe requires cooperation between local, State, and Federal law enforcement. Criminal organizations do not care about county lines, State lines, or international borders. Law enforcement must be able to coordinate, share information, and work together to ensure that dangerous individuals do not fall through the cracks. Mr. Speaker, whether it is protecting taxpayer dollars from fraud or protecting communities from dangerous criminals, traffickers, cartels, and drug smugglers, Americans expect government to carry out its most basic responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)12:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bills. At its core, this Republican reconciliation budget bill is a statement about priorities, and the priorities reflected in this bill could not be more out of step with the needs and values of the American people. Families across this country are struggling to afford housing, groceries, childcare, and healthcare. Americans are dealing with rising costs, economic uncertainty, and the consequences of another unending war in the Middle East. Americans were promised lower prices and stability, but instead, they are watching gas prices climb back up to $5 a gallon while inflation continues to rise and squeeze household budgets. Against that backdrop, Republicans have decided that what the country really needs is to spend another $70 billion on ICE and Border Patrol. This is on top of the roughly $140 billion Republicans already provided to those agencies last year, much of which remains unspent. Taken together, Republicans are proposing to spend nearly a quarter trillion dollars, all deficit spending, to expand detention camps, fund mass deportation, increase surveillance, and accelerate an immigration crackdown that has already caused enormous harm across our country. Republicans are doing this while simultaneously claiming that America cannot afford investments in schools, housing, nutrition assistance, or healthcare. Let's be honest about what this reconciliation bill represents. Republicans spent years pretending to be deeply concerned about deficits and debt, claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility. They have attacked virtually every Democratic proposal to help working Americans and families, saying that those measures are fiscally irresponsible, but they have used their control of Congress and the White House to add trillions with a t, trillions of dollars, to the debt by giving tax cuts to their wealthy friends and corporate donors. Now, Republicans are adding hundreds of billions more in debt to put more masked and armed ICE agents on our streets and to build out a nationwide network of corporate detention camps. Apparently, deficits only matter when tax dollars are used to help everyday Americans instead of Trump's billionaire buddies. Mr. Speaker, it is also telling that Republicans are using a completely partisan process to ram through this S. 2 legislation. Once again, they are using the partisan reconciliation process to pass a budget because they have refused to negotiate through the normal appropriations process. Specifically, they have refused to enact any reforms to address the lawless behavior of ICE and Customs and Border Protection under the Trump administration. Democrats proposed bipartisan funding solutions for DHS. We proposed reforms, accountability measures, and guardrails after repeated abuses by ICE and CBP resulted in chaos and death on American streets. We asked for basic transparency and oversight after the killings by Federal agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, American citizens. We asked that ICE and CBP be held to the same standards as every other responsible law enforcement agency in this country. Republicans said no. They said no to everything. There is not a single provision in this bill to rein in these rogue agents at DHS. The Senate rejected amendment after amendment that would have imposed even minimal constraints on these agencies. The House bypassed committee consideration altogether. Why? It is because Republicans know the American people do not support the chaos that this administration is inflicting. They know Americans don't want masked and armed Federal agents rampaging through their neighborhoods, at their kids' schools and soccer games, and in shopping malls and workplaces. They know Americans are alarmed when lawful residents, law-abiding community members, and even citizens, are roughed up or detained by ICE. They know people are questioning why the Federal Government is building expensive detention camps across the country, capable of imprisoning tens of thousands of people, while Americans can't find housing and their kids don't get enough to eat. The reports of what is happening in those detention camps are increasingly horrifying. In the past year, there have been unprecedented numbers of deaths and suicides; reports of inedible and inadequate food; hunger strikes; lack of medical care leading to serious injury and death; and children, babies, suffering extreme mental and physical illness. Republicans know that Americans are increasingly recognizing that this administration is not arresting and deporting these so-called worst of the worst. Instead, it is using immigration enforcement as a political weapon to distract and scare people so they don't see how this administration is selling our future to the highest corporate bidders. This bill isn't just about funding levels. It is about whether our Republican colleagues are willing to place any limits, any limits whatsoever, on immigration agencies that, under this administration, have repeatedly demonstrated contempt for our Constitution, for basic American values like fairness and decency, and for the dignity and humanity of immigrants, even those who are in this country legally. The administration's record here should concern every American regardless of party. We have seen our government target protesters and political opponents. We have seen our government spy on citizens opposing its unlawful tactics. We have seen people with no criminal record deported to dangerous countries that they have never lived in, based on hearsay or lies. We have seen the expansion of child and family detention, despite decades of evidence that it permanently injures children. We have seen Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to object to these cruel and unlawful policies. We have seen them be falsely labeled as domestic terrorists. We have seen government agents invade our homes and arrest citizens with no warrants. Of course, we have seen those agents detain and even kill American citizens with no due process in the most grotesque violation of our fundamental liberties and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Congressional Republicans appear okay with this chaos, so today, they plan to give ICE another $70 billion to supercharge these abuses without making any reforms to the agencies that have inflicted them. Paired with this awful reconciliation bill is a package of so-called anti-fraud bills. For the last 1\1/2\ years, Republicans have lectured the country about waste, fraud, and abuse while doing nothing to address the real fraud that plagues government programs and turning a blind eye to blatant corruption coming from this White House, or whatever is left of it. Even if we only look at DHS, ICE, and CBP, the scale of fraud and abuse is staggering and should require close examination by Congress before dumping another $70 billion on those agencies. Of the $140 billion given to ICE and CBP last year in the big, ugly bill, over $100 billion remains unspent. We are supposed to believe that it is a good use of taxpayer dollars to give these agencies another $70 billion when they already have more money than most standing armies in other countries and more than they apparently can responsibly use. At a minimum, Congress needs to look at where that money is going. That is because, as the gentleman from New York suggested, when the government spends that amount of money, the fraudsters take note. The scale of money involved in this legislation and last summer in the big, ugly bill is staggering. A great deal of it already has and will, inevitably, flow to politically connected contractors and private prison corporations that have spent years cultivating influence within the Republican Party. Perhaps that is why our Republican colleagues have no interest in oversight of the beneficiaries of their quarter-trillion-dollar spending spree. Companies like GEO Group and CoreCivic, both major donors to Trump's Presidential campaign and congressional Republicans, have received multibillion-dollar no-bid contracts to operate ICE detention facilities, building a massive private prison camp system across our Nation. GEO alone has reported an 800-percent increase in its profits. Just last week, a watchdog group reported that GEO had made a quarter-million-dollar dark money contribution to a super-PAC aligned with Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, one of the bill's biggest boosters. In addition, DHS has purchased dozens of warehouses to be used as detention camps, with the government paying grossly inflated prices, in some cases, several times over the assessed market value of the property by hundreds of millions of dollars, and paying this to investors with direct financial ties to the President and his administration. Furthermore, most of those facilities were not designed to house people, leading to additional taxpayer costs to renovate them and imposing massive burdens on local infrastructure, governments, and services. Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and her special adviser, Corey Lewandowski, awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to their friends and associates through costly contracts, including a $200 million ad campaign funneled to their friends, tens of thousands of dollars spent on hairstylists and makeup, $20,000 to rent a horse, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on multiple luxury jets. While we agree with our Republican colleagues that we should all be concerned about and investigate fraudulent government spending, we wonder whether they will ever acknowledge that fraud and corruption are the defining features of the Trump administration and whether they are going to leave Americans holding the bill. This administration has increasingly erased the line between public policy and political patronage. Americans see it in the contracting process. They see it in Trump's pardons to donors and allies, including corporate criminals who stole taxpayer dollars and seniors' investment funds. They see it in the President's proposed slush fund to give himself and the election deniers and rioters who attacked this Capitol on January 6 $1.8 billion. He wants to give $1.8 billion to cop-beaters and conspiracists, Proud Boys, pedophiles, insurrectionists, election deniers, and even the MyPillow guy. Republicans may argue that Trump has backed off this plan, but we know this is a charade. Once this reconciliation bill passes, I guarantee you the President will revive his fund. Just 2 days ago, the President doubled down on his support for his slush fund. You would be naive to think it is dead. Mr. Speaker, the White House and congressional Republicans are openly using government power to punish and divide people and to enrich themselves and their friends. Republicans have shown no real interest in solving the problems facing Americans at their kitchen tables and in the real world or in combating fraud, waste, and abuse by the most corrupt administration in our Nation's history. People want affordable housing. They want stable jobs and good wages. They want functioning schools and safe communities. They want competent government and a basic sense that their elected officials are trying to improve their lives, not pad their own pockets. The scale of spending here can't be ignored. It is nearly a quarter trillion dollars. That amount of money could transform entire sectors of American life if it were directed toward public needs instead of ideological crusades. Congress could dramatically expand affordable housing. We could stabilize struggling hospitals and community health centers. We could strengthen public schools, modernize infrastructure, reduce child poverty, provide affordable childcare, or lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

We could even reduce the deficit that our Republican colleagues claim to care so deeply about. At some point, Americans are entitled to ask a very simple question: When does this administration actually start improving people's lives? Mr. Speaker, the country deserves better than this. We deserve leadership focused on solving problems instead of manufacturing fear and diverting taxpayer dollars. We deserve a Congress that lowers costs instead of inflaming divisions. We deserve immigration policies rooted in law, accountability, and humanity, not political theater and authoritarian tactics. We deserve fiscal responsibility. This reconciliation bill fails every one of those tests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, reject this reconciliation bill, and reject this dangerous vision for our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)12:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman fails to recognize the reason that we have to advance this funding. It is because their party time and again has obstructed and shut down our government instead of paying the employees of this government, all in the name of their politics. It is their last gasp in attempting to take us back to the era of a borderless country where we didn't defend our country from invasion. They did this. When are we going to help improve Americans' lives? Well, I have to ask: How about the parents of Laken Riley who don't have a daughter because she was stolen. Her life was extinguished by an illegal immigrant that came here and killed her. This is what this funding is here to do, to protect Americans. We need to advance multiple years of funding so that those employees actually get paid and they don't get held hostage in the political games of the Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), my distinguished colleague.

David Schweikert (R-AZ)12:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I first came up here to talk about three of the bills, which were in waste and fraud, but I will make a simple point being from a border State. The chaos that was allowed to happen in my State and other border States for functionally 4 years, millions and millions and millions and millions, you didn't think there was ever going to be a societal cost, a government cost? We have done entire presentations here on data from the Joint Economic Committee. Take a look at the Social Security actuary report of the suppression of working people's wages because of the importation of low-skill populations. If you care about people and economics and wage growth, take some responsibility for the chaos you brought to my State and so much of this country. Mr. Speaker, we are on a battle right now trying to explain the term so many of us all use, which is "waste and fraud." We have got three bills on this. It is wonderful. Now, we need to actually add some of the definitions and the mechanics of how we are going to take it on. Those of us on the Joint Economic Committee have been producing some reports that basically say that we have access to technology today so that the fraudulent checks never ever go out the door. I will argue that the model we use today is perverse. Pay someone and then let's hire lots of auditors, lots of lawyers, lots of law enforcement, and let's chase it down. How often does someone ever go to prison? How often do we ever get any of the money back? Mr. Speaker, my first request is, as we move forward on this agenda of taking on waste and fraud--this shouldn't be partisan, but it is technology. We need to take that on. The second thing--and this one I have an absolute passion for because it is a level of immorality that the criminals are producing all over the world. There are headlines and stories. Have you read the stories of basically the enslavement of thousands of people in these scam farms where they are basically locked up and their job is to scam the elderly in the United States, to scam working people all over the Western world? This is an article from just a couple days ago. We have the technology. Mr. Speaker, the Joint Economic Committee, Republican and Democrat, sent a letter to the big telephone companies, the ISP providers, saying: Moving forward, are you providing us with the technology that would stop the scam farms from being able to call grandma and do the evil of stealing billions and billions and billions? This is a bipartisan approach, and it exists. If you have actually seen some of the videos of the misery these fraudsters and these criminal organizations are doing to people, being collected off the streets all over the South Pacific region and being locked up in scam farms in Cambodia--

The SPEAKER pro tempore12:40 p.m.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)12:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.

David Schweikert (R-AZ)12:40 p.m.

I am trying to talk fast. I had a lot of coffee. This is the hardest part here. When we say waste and fraud, the waste is often the way we have designed programs where the rent seekers, whether it be in Medicare Advantage, whether it be in Medicare, whether it be the stories of the hospice fraud of New York where the visitation is actually the fastest growing job production in New York City over the last 5 years. We are going to have to also take on pieces of legislation that we have passed and stop the scammers from scamming us on that.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)12:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that my colleague from Arizona brought up the impact of immigration on our Social Security system. The fact that immigrants pay into our Social Security system but are not eligible to take benefits out has actually acted to extend the life of that system and is a very important component of keeping that system working, in addition to all the benefits that immigrants bring to our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon).

Lateefah Simon (D-CA)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern and Ms. Scanlon for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the dangerous Republican reconciliation bill. One of my colleagues just talked about taking us back. One of the things that I think folks can agree with all over this country is that the Republican Party is, indeed, taking us back to a Jim Crow America and to a space where sworn officers are taking folks off the streets who are American citizens and detaining them without due process. The majority wants an egregious $40 billion more for the Trump immigration enforcement machine. Let's not forget how we got here. People have been murdered, and communities have been traumatized. The priorities are clear. Instead of demanding accountability for the murder of two American citizens in Minnesota, Republicans are rushing to hand these agencies a blank check. Instead of working across the aisle to govern responsibly, my colleagues are pushing through billions of dollars to unaccountable agencies while cutting access to your healthcare. Instead of addressing affordability and investing in the well-being of our families, our children--

The SPEAKER pro tempore12:50 p.m.

The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Lateefah Simon (D-CA)12:50 p.m.

Republicans would rather separate these families. Instead of investing in and revitalizing communities, Republicans would rather invest in racist lawlessness.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos).

Mike Haridopolos (R-FL)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, Laken Riley, 22 years old; Jocelyn Nungaray, 12 years old; Rachel Morin, a mom of five--all preventable tragedies. Every person in this room knows the pain when you lose a son or daughter, and that is what we are talking about today. The most fundamental responsibility of a government is to protect life and property. For 4 years, too many bad people were allowed to enter this country illegally. We are having a great struggle today rounding up rapists and murderers who committed crimes against these innocent Americans. That is not to mention human trafficking. That is not the right word. The word is sexual slavery. These are what these animals were doing who are transporting young boys and girls across the border. Since January, when we had a deal, by the way, with the Democrats to fund this, they have played politics with people's lives. The fundamental of every society is trust. Where fraud is permitted to flourish, that foundation will crumble. That is where we are at right now. To put a dollar amount on a person's life, I find it unacceptable. I keep hearing these allusions to how things were better a few years ago. I serve on the Financial Services Committee. I asked the chairman of the Fed Board, who the other side of the aisle champions every day. I asked him a simple question. It is all on the record. Why do we have such inflation, meaning higher gas, rent, and food prices? He said it: The government spent too much money. Now, we have to spend more money because, for 4 years, the other side was derelict in their responsibility to actually defend the border and allow these animals who committed the crimes against the individuals I speak of today to come into this country. When they didn't allow local law enforcement, because 40 percent of the country is surrounded by sanctuary cities, we brought in ICE agents because they wouldn't do their job. Mr. Speaker, I am here to stand up for Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, and Rachel Morin. I am glad we are finally passing legislation to secure our border.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Ruben Ray Martinez are all American citizens killed by Federal agents in our names, and our colleagues are unwilling to stand up and do anything to prevent that kind of senseless death in the future. Instead, they try to get sympathy, which naturally should be provided to anyone who has suffered a family member's loss, but they can't lecture us that this is about human trafficking when DHS and the Department of Justice have pulled the resources from human and drug trafficking prevention and corporate crime prosecution. They have pulled those resources to direct them toward their massive deportation and detention effort. Eighty percent of the people they are detaining have no criminal records. It is all distract and divide. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. This rule reflects the utter failure of this Congress to do its job, to listen to the voices of the people of the United States, and to bring them to this Chamber to address their concerns and needs. For months, people who live in my district have been calling my office every day, deeply concerned about the actions of ICE and CBP. They are calling for reforms, accountability, and the United States Congress to recognize the American citizens who have been killed at the hands of ICE and CBP agents this year, and the thousands and thousands of families living in this country whose lives have been torn apart and are living in fear because of the immigration policies and practices, the lawlessness, of this administration. None of that has happened here. Instead, this Congress has willfully refused to even discuss those calls to action on this floor or anywhere else debates are supposed to take place.

The SPEAKER pro tempore12:50 p.m.

The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX)12:50 p.m.

Through this bill and others like it, this Congress has increased ICE and CBP's authority and decreased their accountability to the Congress and to the citizens of this country. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I am voting "no," and I urge all Members who believe that the people should have a say here to do the same.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).

Zachary Nunn (R-IA)12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the last Members of Congress still serving in the Reserves, as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force. I have spent the last two decades serving in the intelligence community and the national security community. It doesn't take an intel expert to let us all know what we see before us. This bill is important for the safety of our country. It does one simple thing: It funds the men and women who defend our country and help secure our border. That is it: clean funding for the agencies that stop fentanyl, clean funding for those who check the ports, clean funding for those who help immigration claims, and clean funding for those who remove criminals from our communities. For months, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to join us in funding law enforcement. Those officers who are keeping our Nation safe and who are keeping our mothers, daughters, and children from being killed, what we have seen too tragically here in the last 4 years. Now, we are ready to pass a clean bill, but my friends are lining up on that side to say no. That tells you the objectives were never about the details. They were about our mission: border apprehensions are down 94 percent; 12 consecutive months of zero releases at the border, the securest border in America's history; over 100 million lethal doses of fentanyl seized this year. It is the number one killer of kids my children's age up to my age, and we are stopping it. Let's move forward. The other side is lined up against these policies, and these policies are delivering results. Let us fund law enforcement on the frontline. It is the same story on the other side, on fraud. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office estimates that the Federal Government loses up to $500 billion a year to fraud. That is money being bled out of the country that hurts America's families. I encourage everyone watching to pay close attention to those who vote to close loopholes like we are doing and stop the bleed out of tax dollars, and those who are voting for the status quo of fraudsters taking your hard-earned dollars. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people and pass the Secure America Act.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)1:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to hear my colleague from Iowa express support for the safety of our law enforcement officers, and I would like to offer him and the whole caucus the opportunity to live up to that sentiment. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to allow the House to take an up-or-down vote on an amendment to S. 2 authored by Ranking Member Raskin, which would prohibit anyone who was convicted of or pleaded guilty to assaulting a law enforcement officer on January 6, 2021, from receiving a settlement payment from the Department of Justice. This taxpayer-funded slush fund to compensate insurrectionists and Trump allies is a disgrace. Even though the DOJ has paused this effort, the President on Sunday said he loves the idea and doesn't know what is going to happen to it. Since my Republican colleagues seem unwilling to kill this slush fund outright, maybe they will at least accept some restrictions on who can get legal settlement money from the Federal Government and from taxpayers. This next vote is very simple. Democrats want to vote to enshrine the following language into law: "The Department of Justice may not use taxpayer funds to make settlement payments to individuals convicted of or who pled guilty to assaulting law enforcement officers at or around the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021." These individuals beat and injured dozens of law enforcement officers with bats, bike racks, fire extinguishers, and flag poles on January 6. They should not receive taxpayer-funded payouts. If there are just a few Republicans who agree and are willing to join us in defeating the previous question, we could fix this right now. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore1:00 p.m.

Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)1:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, to discuss our proposal.

James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, we have given Republicans several chances to defeat the previous question so we can kill Trump's insurrectionist slush fund. They have refused time and time again. We are giving them another chance. Let's defeat the previous question so we can consider Ranking Member Raskin's amendment to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used as a payout for anyone who assaulted a police officer on January 6. Trump wants to turn convicted cop beaters into MAGA millionaires. It is disgusting. These aren't people who supposedly got caught up in the crowd and somehow found themselves in the Capitol. They are people who assaulted police officers, seriously injuring many of them. They pled guilty or were convicted. Donald Trump not only pardoned them, but now he wants to give them your taxpayer money, America. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to corruption coming out of this administration: a super pardon for Trump and his family, bribes to pardon well-connected fraudsters, crypto schemes, pump-and-dump stock purchases, weaponizing the Department of Justice to go after his political opponents and a sexual assault survivor, handing out massive contracts to his wealthy friends, appointing unqualified lackeys to important National Security and Department of Justice jobs, and the list goes on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed at what Republicans have done to this House of Representatives. We are not debating issues on affordability. We are not debating lowering gas prices, controlling healthcare costs, or anything that matters to people. Instead, they have turned the Committee on Rules into the Protect Donald Trump Committee. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I offered three amendments to go after this slush fund, $1.8 billion. I offered three amendments, and every single Republican, including the gentleman from New York, voted "no." They voted "no" to allow us on the House floor to have a debate and to vote on this matter. This is a pattern that Republicans have. Remember the Epstein files? Do you know how we ended up getting a vote on the Epstein files? It wasn't because Republicans wanted one. Democrats offered a gazillion amendments in the Committee on Rules to bring a bill to the floor to release the Epstein files, and the gentleman from New York and every Republican on the Committee on Rules voted "no." It wasn't until we had a discharge petition and we forced a vote that all the sudden Republicans saw the light, and they came down here, and they voted with us. It wasn't until we had a supermajority where the President couldn't veto it that the President signed it into law, but here we are, the President still isn't releasing the files, and there is silence from the other side. People are sick and tired of this President's corruption and his lying. They are sick and tired of Republicans going along to get along. We are talking about $1.8 billion going to cop beaters. I hope my Republican friends will vote with us and defeat the previous question and do the right thing for a change.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stutzman)1:00 p.m.

Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)1:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).

Julie Fedorchak (R-ND)1:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule providing for consideration of the Secure America Act. After 4 years of chaos at our southern border under President Biden, House Republicans and President Trump have restored order and delivered the most secure border in history. Illegal crossings have plummeted. Cartel activity has been disrupted, and law enforcement finally has an administration who is willing to enforce the law again. Maintaining that progress requires more than strong leadership. It requires resources, and it requires certainty. This bill does both. More importantly, it sends a huge message that Congress stands with the men and women who serve on the front lines every single day. ICE and Border Patrol agents put themselves in harm's way to stop fentanyl trafficking, to dismantle human trafficking networks, to remove criminals and terrorists from our country, and to protect American families. These officers deserve to know that Congress has their back. Unfortunately, the only reason we are here today is because of congressional Democrats. They don't want now--and apparently never did want--a serious agreement to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. We made good-faith efforts to negotiate reasonable reforms and funding solutions: body cams, more training, and the like, but Democrats refused. Instead of working toward a compromise, they dragged out negotiations for political purposes. At the same time, frontline officers and employees were left with long-term uncertainty. Time and again families have been left wondering whether they would get paid. That is irresponsible. Border security--our national security--should not be partisan. Protecting our homeland should not be a partisan issue. The Secure America Act fully funds ICE and Customs and Border Protection through fiscal year 2029. It gives these agencies the tools they need to continue securing our border and protecting our communities. It modernizes border technology, strengthens operational support, and prevents future Democrat obstruction efforts that put national security at risk. This bill sends a simple message: Republicans stand with law enforcement. We stand with border security, and we stand with the American people. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support final passage of the Secure America Act.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)1:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)1:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore).

Barry Moore (R-AL)1:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, for 4 years the Biden administration opened the door to illegal immigration, drug trafficking, cartel activity, and violent crime. American families paid the price while Washington looked the other way. President Trump changed that on day one. He restored the will to enforce the law and put law enforcement back in the fight. Now Congress has a simple choice: to fund the mission or stand in the way of those carrying it out. A sovereign nation must be willing to enforce its own laws. Border security is not optional. It is a fundamental responsibility of government. Alabama may not sit on the Rio Grande, but the consequences of an open border reach every corner of our State. In my hometown of Enterprise, Angel and Jeremy Seay, a newlywed couple I knew personally, were killed when an illegal alien driving under the influence crashed into their motorcycle. Their lives were cut short by a tragedy that never should have happened. We also have seen cartel-linked fentanyl trafficking reach Alabama communities. Families in Birmingham, Mobile, Huntsville, Dothan, and across our State deserve a government that puts their safety first. Fentanyl does not stop at the border, and neither do the criminal networks bringing it into our country. S. 2 backs ICE, Border Patrol, and local law enforcement officers who have been left to deal with the consequences of Washington's failures. These men and women do not need more speeches. They need the resources, technology, and support necessary to do their jobs. The cartels do not fear press releases. They fear consequences. I choose law and order. I choose secure borders. I choose families in Alabama who are tired of being put last. President Trump set the mission. S. 2 helps fund it. Vote "yes" on S. 2, back law enforcement, secure the border, and protect American families.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)1:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, underneath all the rhetoric we have heard today, this debate comes down to a very simple question about what kind of country we want to be and what we believe government should do for the people it serves. As Americans struggle with rising costs, economic uncertainty, and the consequences of this reckless and expensive war in Iran, Republicans have chosen to spend nearly $210 billion in taxpayer dollars on ICE and CBP. At every turn, this Republican majority says that there is no money for housing, for schools, for healthcare, for SNAP, for WIC, or for food for infants and children. Yet, somehow, there is always enough to fight forever wars, to give tax cuts to the wealthy, and to drive chaos and division into our communities. The tragedy is that Congress could choose a different path. We could invest in our communities instead of detention camps. We could lower costs for working families instead of enriching lobbyists, consultants, and private prison companies. We could protect constitutional rights and strengthen public trust instead of rewarding agencies that have repeatedly abused both. We could implement humane and sensible immigration policies that support, rather than suppress, our economy and economic development, and that don't scare away foreign visitors, whether from Niagara Falls in the Buffalo area or from Independence Hall in my district, where we are seeing the direct impact of bad immigration policy on visitors for our 250th anniversary and for the World Cup. These are the choices before this House. This legislation is not a serious attempt to solve problems. It is an ideological project built around fear, division, and the concentration of executive power. Think about what this bill will do. Republicans are about to spend exorbitant sums to put more masked agents on our streets, to spy on their political opponents, and to build a sprawling network of detention camps, private corporate detention camps, capable of imprisoning tens of thousands of who? Political enemies? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where this authoritarian project is going. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the previous question and demonstrate their support for law enforcement by denying payments from the President's slush fund to the people who attacked law enforcement officers here at the Capitol on January 6, and I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous waste of taxpayer money. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)1:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, for years, Americans have watched as Washington tolerated waste, fraud, and abuse while millions of illegal immigrants crossed our border and dangerous criminals exploited weaknesses throughout our system. The American people knew better. They lived with the consequences, and they voted for a President and a Congress committed to restoring accountability, enforcing the law, and putting taxpayers first. Fulfilling that promise means preventing fraud before taxpayer dollars disappear, securing our border, and ensuring government carries out the basic responsibilities the American people expect it to perform. I strongly support the rule before us today. The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 1345 Offered by Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania

Text printed in the Record (2,165 characters)

Strike section 4 insert the following: Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 33. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees; (2) the amendment specified in section 5 of this resolution, if offered by Representative Raskin of Maryland or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to commit. Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as follows: Insert, at the appropriate place, the following: SEC.__. PROHIBITION ON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FROM USING TAXPAYER FUNDS TO MAKE SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON JANUARY 6, 2021. The Department of Justice may not use taxpayer funds to make settlement payments to individuals convicted of or who pled guilty to assaulting law enforcement officers at or around the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

Recess

Page H4011 · Official text

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess.

After Recess

Page H4011 · Official text

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bost) at 1 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Pages H4011–H4012 · Official text

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1345; and Adoption of House Resolution 1345, if ordered. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.

Providing for Consideration of H.r. 8312, Fraud Prevention and Accountability Act; Providing for Consideration of H.r. 8464, Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act; Providing for Consideration of H. Res...

Pages H4012–H4013 · Official text

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 1345) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8312) to establish fraud prevention and program integrity functions and data sharing authorities within the Department of Treasury and a permanent governmentwide Inspector General for Fraud, Accountability, and Recovery, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8464) to amend title 31, United States Code, to authorize pausing and segmenting payments, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H. Res. 1335) condemning actors seeking to defraud the United States Government, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that governmentwide fraud and improper payment prevention reforms will meaningfully improve the financial prosperity of the United States, and that Federal program eligibility should be verified before payment; and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 33, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The question is on ordering the previous question.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, nays 211, not voting 5, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,723 characters)

Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Dunn (FL) Kean Mace McDonald Rivet Norman

Mr. THANEDAR, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. MAGAZINER and CARSON changed their vote from "yea" to "nay." Mrs. LUNA changed her vote from "nay" to "yea." So the previous question was ordered. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The SPEAKER pro tempore2:05 p.m.

The question is on the resolution.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)2:05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore2:05 p.m.

This is a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, noes 211, not voting 6, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,724 characters)

Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Dunn (FL) Kean Mace McDonald Rivet Norman Self

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Notice of Intention to Offer Motion to Discharge Committee on Rules from Further Consideration of House Resolution 1140

Pages H4013–H4017 · Official text

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER MOTION TO DISCHARGE COMMITTEE ON RULES FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 1140

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, I rise to provide notice of my intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of House Resolution 1140.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Did the gentleman sign the petition?

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)

I did.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey to offer the motion just noticed. Does the gentleman offer the motion to discharge?

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)

I do, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The gentleman from New Jersey calls up a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 1140.

The Clerk will report the title of the resolution. The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) will be recognized for 10 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a motion to discharge H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act. I urge my colleagues to vote "yes," and I reserve the balance of my time.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)

Mr. Speaker, the Faster Labor Contracts Act creates a fair and reliable time frame for workers and employers to reach their first contract. Workers in this country are guaranteed the right to organize and collectively bargain. Together, by passing this bipartisan bill, we can close one of the biggest loopholes undermining their ability to get an actual contract. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

All time for debate has expired. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 1140.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

This is a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, nays 199, not voting 11, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,724 characters)

Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Bacon Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Bresnahan Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fitzpatrick Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi LaLota Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lawler Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Miller (OH) Min Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Van Drew Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood Langworthy Latta Lee (FL) Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smucker Spartz Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke Baumgartner Dunn (FL) Graves Houchin Joyce (OH) Kean Mace McDonald Rivet Norman Palmer Strong

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. So the motion to discharge was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated against:

Gary J. Palmer (R-AL)2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 212.

Sam Graves (R-MO)2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I missed a series of votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 212.

The SPEAKER pro tempore2:50 p.m.

The Clerk will report the resolution.

The Clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (991 characters)

Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 5408) to accelerate workplace time-to-contract under the National Labor Relations Act. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5408. Sec. 3. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message that the House has passed H.R. 5408 no later than three calendar days after passage.

The SPEAKER pro tempore2:50 p.m.

The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 1 hour.

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I am a union electrician by trade and a proud member of IBEW Local 351. I have spent my entire life fighting for workers to get a fair shake from their employers. I am proud to rise in support of what would be the most impactful protection for workers' rights in nearly 100 years, my Faster Labor Contracts Act. Whether it is safer working conditions, better pay, or even something as simple as getting the weekend off from work, unions have been making people's lives better for generations. They do so by helping workers get a seat at the table with companies that control the purse strings. One of the most important tools a union has to get that seat is the right to collectively bargain. Workers' right to negotiate their contracts together has been the law of the land for almost a century. Yet, for that entire time, there has been a glaring loophole in the system that allows employers to prevent unions from ever securing their first contract. Simply put, workers have no real option if their bosses hold out in negotiations indefinitely. That is exactly what employers have done. They have run out the clock. It can already take 1 year for workers to win and certify an election and to actually be unionized, and that is when the start of the clock begins. It takes an average of 458 days for an employer to agree with a union to get their first contract. That is just the average. Roughly one-third of all those workers are forced to wait over 3 years before they can sign on the dotted line. Companies have every incentive to drag out this waiting game. For starters, delaying a new contract ensures that their profits don't have to be shared with their workers. Employers also know that if they can hold up negotiations long enough, there is a chance their employees might get frustrated and decide this process simply is too long. For some of the largest corporations, making collective bargaining as painful as possible might just prevent their other branches from trying to unionize in their workplace. Let's be clear: Union-busting is illegal and wrong, and it has been for generations. With the dirty tactics of indefinite delays, many employers are working relentlessly to kill their employees' unions. If you live in America, Mr. Speaker, you have likely crossed paths with many of those workers who were hurt by their employer's waiting games. Let's talk about the father in the Amazon delivery van dropping off home goods in an ice storm. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the young woman at Starbucks who knows your coffee order by heart, or the kind senior bagging your groceries at Trader Joe's, or the hiking expert going that extra mile for you at REI. Those workers are getting screwed, plain and simple. Many of them are also getting screwed by bosses like Jeff Bezos, who in a short time has accumulated more wealth than any human in the history of the world. At Amazon, the company Bezos helped found, there are currently over 5,000 warehouse workers in Staten Island who voted to form a union in 2022. For 4 years, they have been waiting. They have been waiting for Amazon to negotiate in good faith, and they are still waiting. Mr. Speaker, if your partner gave you an engagement ring but didn't show up for 4 years at the altar, you would think there is a problem. Well, folks, we do have a problem. I believe workers deserve to hold their employers to those same standards. My Faster Labor Contracts Act offers a simple, three-step solution to turn endless negotiation delays into fair contracts for workers. First, following the certification of a union election, it would require employers to begin contract negotiations with their new union within 10 days. Second, if a new agreement is not reached after 90 days, my bill would give workers or their employers a choice to refer the negotiations to an independent mediation. Finally, if mediation takes longer than 1 month, workers or the employer could ask for an arbitration panel to render a decision on a first contract. This three-step plan would give both parties multiple opportunities to advance stalled contract discussions if they choose to. That is because right now there are no opportunities if the other stops negotiating in good faith. My bill's clear timeline for contract negotiations would ensure workers can start benefiting from their new union contract in months, not years. I am also confident that not every negotiation will require outside help because hundreds of employers already do this process the right way each day. Problem employers will be forced to sit down at the table when they know they are not allowed to run out the clock. Unions fight for American workers of all political stripes. That is why my Faster Labor Contracts Act has attracted bipartisan support. Especially during this nasty era of politics, I am grateful for Members on both sides of the aisle who are willing to stand up with workers together. Mr. Speaker, I am also grateful to my friends in the broader labor movement for long calling out bad-faith negotiations by employers. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record letters by several of these partners in support of the Faster Labor Contracts Act, including the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, IBEW, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, United Steelworkers, and International Association of Machinists.

The SPEAKER pro tempore3:00 p.m.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Text printed in the Record (11,991 characters)

Washington, DC, June 5, 2026. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the Teamsters Union, I urge you to vote "YES" on H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act and H. Res 1140 providing for consideration of the bill. Under current law, workers have the right to establish a collective bargaining agreement after they elect to form their union. Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is full of loopholes that allow companies to drag out the negotiation process for years. On average, it takes 458 days after a successful union election to secure a first contract. The Faster Labor Contracts Act establishes a fair and reliable first contract bargaining timeframe of approximately 130 days. The bill provides both mediation and arbitration mechanisms to employers and employees if a first contract cannot be established after a certain period. I want to be very clear on the following points: The provisions of the bill only apply to first contract negotiation. At any point in the established process both parties may elect together to forgo mediation or arbitration and continue to bargain in good faith. If a first contract is reached under the terms of this bill via binding arbitration, that contract will be in effect for a term of no more than two years. The Faster Labor Contracts Act represents good faith negotiation and compromise between political parties and issue stakeholders. Ironically, the frenzied and disingenuous opposition to H.R. 5408 by corporate special interest groups exists precisely because the Faster Labor Contracts Act is good policy. Unlike the thousands of messaging bills introduced every year in Congress to elicit rage and conflagration, H.R. 5408 provides a fair and thoughtful solution to a real problem. It is a good bill that can become law. All over this country, every year, hundreds of thousands of men and women elect to form a union with their co-workers for the first time. It isn't easy to win a union election. Standing in solidarity with your co-workers to demand the true worth of your labor from your employer is not without risk. When workers take that step together, they do it for the protection, wages and benefits, safety and respect granted by a union collective bargaining agreement. The Faster Labor Contracts Act levels the playing field by addressing inequity in current law which grants favor in first contract negotiations to the party with unlimited time, resources and appetite for litigation. As General President of the Teamsters Union, my priority has been to dispense with preconceptions about what is politically possible; build unexpected coalitions; and find common sense bipartisan solutions to fixable problems. The Faster Labor Contracts Act is a product of that mission. I urge you to stand with Teamster members and workers across the country in their fight to invest in and provide for themselves, their families and their community by voting "YES" when H.R. 5408 comes to the floor. Sincerely, Sean M. O'Brien, General President. ____ June 5, 2026. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 15 million workers and 65 affiliate unions of the AFL-CIO, we urge you to vote YES to pass the Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R. 5408), the bipartisan legislation led by Representatives Donald Norcross and Pete Stauber. American workers are being squeezed. Real wages of working people are not keeping up with rising costs, and labor's share of GDP relative to profits has reached a record low, not because there is no room for wages to grow, but because too many workers have been denied the ability to organize and bargain collectively. More than 50 million workers say they would join a union if they could. Union contracts close race and gender wage gaps, build the middle class, and lift wages across entire industries. Unions help ensure safety on the job, win working families access to high quality, affordable health care, and set the standard for a secure and dignified retirement. For all the obvious benefits that union contracts confer on workplaces and the economy as a whole, the law should make it easier, not harder, for workers to exercise their rights to form unions and collectively bargain. Yet even when workers successfully win union representation, victory is too often followed by years of bad-faith delay. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) imposes no time limit on reaching a first contract, and employers exploit that gap to stall negotiations, with first contracts currently averaging 458 days according to Bloomberg Law. The same companies that make deals for multibillion-dollar mergers in a matter of weeks can take months to offer a counterproposal on the simplest labor provision. This is not an accident; it is a strategy. H.R. 5408 closes that loophole. The bill amends Section 8(d) of the NLRA to require employers to begin negotiating within 10 days of a union election. If no agreement is reached after 90 days, the dispute goes to mediation. If mediation fails after 30 days, it moves to binding arbitration. Evidence from comparable frameworks shows arbitration is rarely invoked; the possibility of a binding decision from an arbitration is itself a powerful incentive for good-faith bargaining. Passing H.R. 5408 is an important first step toward the broader and needed labor law reforms contained in the full PRO Act. In the meantime, this bill will make an immediate difference for workers fighting to make their lives better and will help end the dilatory tactics of union busters. Please vote YES on H.R. 5408, including all procedural votes necessary to bring it to the floor. Sincerely, Jody Calemine, Director, Government Affairs. ____ Washington, DC, June 5, 2026. To: All Members of the United States of House of Representatives Re Vote Yes on H.R. 5408, The Faster Labor Contracts Act. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 887,058 active and retired members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), I am writing in support of H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act. A successful House vote on the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act would be an important first step to reform the broken federal labor law system. Research shows that, on average, it takes 465 days to sign a first union contract after a union wins an election. The Faster Labor Contracts Act would amend Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), to require that: After workers vote to form a union, employers must begin negotiating with the new union within 10 days If no agreement is reached after 90 days, the dispute will be referred to mediation If mediation fails after 30 days, or additional periods agreed upon by both parties, the dispute will be referred to a binding three-member arbitration panel to secure an initial contract The Government Accountability Office (GA) commission a report on average workplace time-to-contract one year after enactment When workers vote to form a union, they should not have to wait years, or even months, to get a fair contract while employers stall. It is why the IBEW is requesting you to vote yes on H.R. 5408, an important labor law reform that is long overdue. Because of the critical impact this legislation will have on IBEW members, it will be included on the IBEW scorecard. Sincerely yours, Kenneth W. Cooper, International President. ____ International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Washington, DC, June 9, 2026. Dear Representative: As the executive officers of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), a labor union representing upwards of 90,000 employees in North America, including over 30,000 workers covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), we urge you to vote today to pass the Faster Labor Contracts Act, H.R. 5408. We also request that you vote in favor of H. Res. 1140, the resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 5408. The bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act will help repair a broken process for negotiating first contracts after workers have successfully voted to form a union in the private sector. Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relations Education Research Director Kate Bronfenbrenner testified before the House Committee on Education and Workforce in 2022 that a random sample of 753 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election wins showed that 36 percent of unions and employers had a first contract within one year, 22 percent more reached contracts within two years, leaving 44 percent of first contract negotiations dragging past 2 years or longer. Sadly, the data lines up with too many workers' experiences in organizing and bargaining first contracts, including IFPTE members. America's existing private sector labor laws do not effectively prohibit employers from using a variety of delaying tactics throughout the union election and negotiation process. While the IFPTE-endorsed Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act remains the comprehensive legislative approach to reforming the NLM, the Faster Labor Contracts Act would meaningfully stop untimely and bad faith delays in first contract negotiations that undermine the purpose of unionizing. By requiring first contract bargaining to commence within 10 days of a request from a newly certified union, guaranteeing mediation after 90 days if either party requests it, and binding arbitration if needed, the Faster Labor Contracts Act would help workers and employers secure an initial agreement within a reasonable timeframe--in weeks and months, not years. When working Americans won the legal right to form unions, join together to bargain with their employers, and have a voice at work through the passage of the NLRA in 1935, they created the conditions for expanding the middle class, increasing benefits, creating labor peace, and building the economic power of the nation. Today, union households have greater wealth and stability, higher rates of homeownership, and stronger long-term economic security. Strong union density also lifts standards across entire industries, raising wages and improving conditions even for nonunion workers. Therefore, we urge you to strengthen and restore workers' ability to effectively exercise their right to bargain a first union contract by signing on to the discharge petition for the Faster Labor Contracts Act and committing to voting to pass this necessary legislation. Thank you for considering our request. Sincerely, Matthew S. Biggs, IFPTE President. Gay Henson, IFPTE Secretary-Treasurer. ____ Pittsburgh, PA, June 8, 2026. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Re United Steelworkers urges you to vote YES on H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, when it comes to the floor. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 members of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), I urge you to vote YES on H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, when it comes to the floor. As you likely know, late last month H.R. 5408 was successfully discharged to the floor on a bipartisan basis. This is the second time in six months that a pro-worker bill has been discharged to the floor, underscoring the bipartisan support for such legislation. We urge you to meet the moment by voting YES on the bill. A worker's right to form a union and collectively bargain is a bedrock principle of our modern economic system, dating all the way back to the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However, in the more than 90 years since that bill's original passage, subsequent labor law ossification and changing precedent has only served to weaken American workers' ability to freely and fully exercise their basic labor rights. One perfect example of our broken system relates to a new union's ability to bargain a first contract.

Text printed in the Record (6,211 characters)

To take a step back though, it's worth reminding ourselves the immense challenges that workers face in even forming a union in the first place. Employers will often engage in both legal anti-union tactics (e.g. holding captive audience meetings) as well as illegal actions (e.g., threatening, coercing, or even firing workers who try to organize a union). On this latter front, studies have found that employers violate labor law in more than 40 percent of all elections. Now even putting aside the massively imbalanced playing field workers face when they try to form a union, the situation does not get any better once they win an election. Companies will deliberately drag out first contract negotiations in an attempt to break the union. An analysis from Bloomberg Law found that the average length of time for a union to win a first contract was 465 days, or nearly 16 months after their election was certified. That same study showed that in 53 percent of cases, a union did not have a first contract after a year from their election win. Why? Simply put, current labor law lacks any meaningful incentives to push employers toward making a deal. The NLRA does not allow for any financial penalties to be assessed on employers who break the law. Furthermore, companies are actually incentivized to wait at least one year because after the year mark, they can officially try to bring a decertification petition: killing the new union before it even gets a first contract. From an employer's perspective, undermining the new union by showing they cannot even obtain a first contract is very useful in mounting a decertification campaign. The bipartisan H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, addresses this imbalance by establishing a clearer timeline for reaching a first collective bargaining agreement after a union is certified. Specifically, the measure would require bargaining to begin within 10 days of a certified union election, move stalled negotiations into mediation after 90 days, and send unresolved disputes to binding arbitration after 30 days in mediation. In closing, we strongly support H.R. 5408, and are calling on all members of the House of Representatives to vote YES when it comes to the floor Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Roxanne D. Brown, International President. ____ Upper Marlboro, MD, June 8, 2026. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 600,000 active and retired members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM Union), I write to again urge you to support H.R. 5408, the bipartisan "Faster Labor Contracts Act." it will be brought to a vote on Tuesday, June 9, 2026. Championed by Representative Donald Norcross (D-NJ), it is an urgently-needed piece of labor reform that will end unfair delays in reaching a first contract for new unions, thereby ensuring that when workers exercise their legally protected right to vote to form a union, a collective bargaining agreement follows in a timely manner. Collective bargaining is a fundamental right guaranteed to most private-sector workers in the United States through the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The right of workers to form a union and collectively bargain is central to improving their wages, hours, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of employment. Once workers vote to form a union, they begin negotiating an initial contract with their employer. But the process of negotiating this first contract does not have any timeframe under the law--so employers can unduly delay the process and leave workers fighting for years to obtain this first agreement. This makes workers lose faith in the legal process that is supposed to enfranchise their rights to be heard by their employers. The IAM has seen the results of these delay tactics first-hand: workers grow frustrated and believe that their voice and choice to form a union is being ignored. That is why the Faster Labor Contracts Act is so important. It will amend the Act to include timelines for meetings to begin negotiations, mediating if the parties are stuck, and have a binding arbitration panel to ensure a first contract is secured. We urge you to support this critical piece of labor reform legislation and vote for its passage on Tuesday. This will ensure that workers' voices are heard at a critical juncture in their legally protected path towards representation in the workplace. While more reforms are needed, this is a very needed first step in the right direction to protecting workers' rights. Sincerely, Brian Bryant, IAM International President. ____ Washington, DC, April 20, 2026. Re Cosponsor and sign discharge petition for Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R. 5408). Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 165,000 members of the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), I am writing to encourage you to support H.R. 5408--the Faster Labor Contracts Act. This important legislation would ensure that once workers have voted to form a union, they can benefit from a union contract as quickly as possible. Private sector workers in the U.S. have a right to join a union and to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. However, exercising this right is incredibly difficult and it is far too easy for bad actors to delay, stymie, or outright ignore workers? attempts to form a union. Even after workers have successfully voted to join a union, employers can refuse to bargain a contract--a bad faith tactic that, while nominally illegal, is far too common. The Faster Labor Contracts Act would establish an expedited process for workers to achieve their first contract after organizing a union. The bill would establish a fair process for binding arbitration to quickly settle labor disputes and allow workers to access the full benefits of joining a union. This important change is long overdue. The TWU urges you to cosponsor H.R. 5408 and to sign the discharge petition for this bill now open on the House floor. American workers deserve more than a notional right to form a union, they deserve the opportunity to collectively bargain for a better future. Sincerely, John Samuelsen, International President.

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)3:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the coalition we have built behind the Faster Labor Contracts Act bridges political parties, blue-collar and white-collar industries, young and old, and all walks of life. Our bill reaffirms that collective bargaining is a fundamental right even the richest billionaires must comply with. By advancing this legislation, Congress can send a clear message that workers deserve a level playing field. I urge all my colleagues to vote "yes." Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore3:00 p.m.

The question is on the resolution.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)3:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore3:00 p.m.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Secure America Act

Pages H4017–H4029 · Official text

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1345, I call up the bill (S. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 33, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Van Duyne)

Pursuant to House Resolution 1345, the bill is considered read.

The text of the bill is as follows:

Text printed in the Record (11,107 characters)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the "Secure America Act". (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. TITLE I--COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Sec. 101. U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel. Sec. 102. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sec. 103. Border security, technology, and screening. Sec. 104. Additional Department of Homeland Security appropriations. Sec. 201. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Sec. 202. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sec. 203. Additional Department of Homeland Security appropriations. TITLE I--COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SEC. 101. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PERSONNEL. (a) Personnel.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for fiscal year 2026, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $9,550,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2029, to hire, pay, train, and equip Border Patrol agents and Border Patrol support personnel to conduct functions other than immigration enforcement and customs functions. (b) Restriction.--None of the funds made available by subsection (a) may be used to recruit, hire, or train personnel for the duties of processing coordinators after October 31, 2028. SEC. 102. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for fiscal year 2026, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $7,450,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2029, to hire, pay, train, and equip Homeland Security Investigations agents and support personnel and to provide other necessary expenses for Homeland Security Investigations' mission support and operations and maintenance, of which $108,500,000 shall be used to hire, pay, and equip additional child exploitation investigators and forensics analysts at the Victim Identification Laboratory of the Child Exploitation Investigations Unit of Homeland Security Investigations and at the Homeland Security Investigations offices of the Special Agent in Charge to support the identification and rescue of victims of child sexual exploitation and abuse, and to train such personnel and State and local law enforcement regarding identifying victims of child sexual exploitation and abuse within the Homeland Security Investigations Cyber Crimes Center, except that funds provided in this section shall be used for functions other than those related to Homeland Security Investigations' immigration enforcement and customs enforcement missions. SEC. 103. BORDER SECURITY, TECHNOLOGY, AND SCREENING. (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for fiscal year 2026, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to remain available until September 30, 2029, $3,450,000,000 for the following: (1) Procurement and integration of new nonintrusive inspection equipment and associated civil works, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other innovative technologies, as well as other mission support, to combat the entry or exit of illicit narcotics at ports of entry and along the southwest, northern, and maritime borders. (2) Air and Marine operations' upgrading and procurement of new platforms for rapid air and marine response capabilities. (3) Upgrades and procurement of border surveillance technologies along the southwest, northern, and maritime borders. (4) Necessary expenses, including the deployment of technology, relating to the biometric entry and exit system under section 7208 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b). (5) Enhancing border security by combating drug trafficking, including fentanyl and its precursor chemicals, at the southwest, northern, and maritime borders. (6) Necessary expenses for U.S. Customs and Border Protection's mission support and operations and maintenance for functions other than those related to its immigration enforcement and customs missions. (b) Restrictions.--None of the funds made available under subsection (a) may be used for the procurement or deployment of surveillance towers along the southwest border and northern border that have not been tested and accepted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to deliver autonomous capabilities. (c) Definition of Autonomous.--In this section, with respect to capabilities, the term "autonomous" means a system designed to apply artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer vision, or other algorithms to accurately detect, identify, classify, and track items of interest in real time such that the system can make operational adjustments without the active engagement of personnel or continuous human command or control. SEC. 104. ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS. In addition to amounts otherwise available, there are appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2026, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,500,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2029, for the purposes provided in this title. SEC. 201. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION. In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for fiscal year 2026, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $13,020,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2029, for hiring, paying, training, and equipping U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, and the necessary support staff, and to provide other necessary expenses for U.S. Customs and Border Protection mission support and operations and maintenance, in order to carry out immigration enforcement activities. SEC. 202. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for fiscal year 2026, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $31,075,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2029, for the following purposes: (1) Hiring, paying, and training.--Hiring, paying, training, and equipping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel and the personnel for all its directorates, including officers, agents, investigators, attorneys and support staff, to carry out immigration enforcement activities. (2) Transportation.--Funding for transportation costs and related costs associated with alien departure or removal operations. (3) Information technology.--Funding for information technology maintenance and sustainment to support enforcement and removal operations, including improvements to fee collections and body-worn cameras. (4) Facility maintenance and sustainment.--Funding for facility maintenance and sustainment to support enforcement and removal operations. (5) Fleet maintenance and sustainment.--Funding for fleet maintenance and sustainment to support enforcement and removal operations. (6) 287(g) agreements.--Supporting coordination with state and local authorities by expanding, facilitating, and implementing agreements under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)). (7) Office of the principal legal advisor.--Hiring and paying attorneys and the necessary support staff within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to represent the Department in immigration enforcement and removal proceedings. (8) Operation and maintenance.--Necessary expenses for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's mission support, including awards, and operations and maintenance for its immigration enforcement functions. (9) Operations by u.s. immigration and customs enforcement to arrest released covered unlawful aliens.-- (A) In general.--Not less than $350,000,000 for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for necessary expenses, in accordance with existing law, of detainer management, detainer issuance, custodial transfer, release monitoring, transportation, and arrests of covered unlawful aliens encountered in jurisdictions that are not qualified cooperating jurisdictions, except that no Indian tribal government shall be treated as a jurisdiction that is not a qualified cooperating jurisdiction for purposes of this subparagraph. (B) Qualified cooperating jurisdiction defined.--In this paragraph, the term "qualified cooperating jurisdiction" means a State or political subdivision of a State that, as of the date of the enactment of this Act-- (i) is party to a written agreement in effect under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)); or (ii) has in effect, and has filed with the Secretary in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe, a certification that such State or political subdivision is in compliance with section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373) and section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1644). (C) Limitation on use of funds.--None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this paragraph may be used, except as required by existing law, to release, parole, place on alternatives to detention, transport for purposes of release, or otherwise facilitate the release into the community of any covered unlawful alien encountered. (D) Covered unlawful alien defined.--In this paragraph, the term "covered unlawful alien" means an adult alien who-- (i) is described in section 236(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)); (ii) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)); (iii) is deportable under section 237(a)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)); (iv) following an arrest, charge, booking, or conviction for a criminal offense under Federal, State, or local law, other than a minor traffic offense, is the subject of an immigration detainer, notice request, or custody-transfer request issued by the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to section 236, 241(a), or 287 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226, 1231(a), or 1357); or (v) has been charged with or convicted of an offense described in section 275 or 276 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1325 or 1326). SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS. In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2026, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,500,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2029, for the purposes provided in this title or in paragraph (3) or (7) of section 100051 of Public Law 119-21.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, or their respective designees. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if Republicans today were not willing to use budget reconciliation and depart from appropriations in order to pass a funding bill that would restore funding to ICE and CBP, then what would happen is my Democrat colleagues would be able to achieve what many of them have held for a long time as their objective, and have publicly stated was their objective, and that is to defund immigration enforcement, border enforcement, and abolish ICE. That is effectively what would happen if Republicans didn't act using budget reconciliation to fund ICE and CBP. That would send us back to the Dark Ages, to the 4 years of open borders and the unprecedented lawlessness and chaos and crime with people, crime, gangs, and drugs pouring into our communities, into our States throughout our entire country, jeopardizing the safety of the American people. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone at this point in this country that that is the stated or unstated goal of some of my colleagues. Certainly, it is the well-articulated and cited objective of the left. Quite frankly, a lot of this shutdown and a lot of this obstruction is really the Democratic Party pandering to the left. But what would happen is the same thing that happened for 4 years when we had a Commander in Chief who refused to uphold his sacred oath to enforce the laws. He refused, with Democrat control of Congress and the White House, to enforce the laws and secure our southern border. Basically, he surrendered our sovereignty and safety to the paramilitary terrorist drug cartels on the other side of the border who were glad to make more money off of trafficking people than they did drugs. As a result, we had a complete meltdown in States like Texas who spent billions of dollars and were completely overwhelmed. It is almost unfathomable today to think about it, Madam Speaker, because we have a daily apprehension number at about 196, but the average illegal crossing or apprehension under the Biden-Harris administration was over 5,000. I assure you, we would repeat that and it would be disastrous if we didn't do the right thing, if we didn't govern our great country, if we didn't open up the people's government and fund the important offices of ICE and CBP. For 76 days, our Democrat colleagues held hostage the American people's safety and security. They held hostage the hardworking people at the Department of Homeland Security. It wasn't just ICE and CBP. We were completely dark at Homeland Security. We didn't have the safety protocols being administered by TSA. We didn't have our Coast Guardsmen keeping watch to prevent a terrorist attack at our ports. We didn't have CISA agents preventing an attack on our critical infrastructure, and, of course, we didn't have ICE and CBP functioning to enforce laws and to secure our border. That is the dysfunction we have been dealing with, and we just said enough is enough. We were sent here by the American people who gave President Trump an overwhelming victory. Every swing State, the popular vote, the electoral vote, gave us unified Republican leadership in Congress. The number one reason they did that was to restore the rule of law and to put the American people's safety and security first. That is exactly what we are doing today, in spite of the obstruction. Listen, your granddad and my granddad taught us the same thing: If somebody tells you what they want to do and who they are, believe them. For years, we have been hearing this incendiary and dangerous rhetoric that ICE needed to be defunded. Governor Tim Walz said that ICE officers are an actual threat. These are the people risking their lives to defend us and to protect us in our communities. He said that ICE was a threat to the public. Governor Pritzker said ICE was turning the country into Nazi, Germany. Chuck Schumer said ICE doesn't belong in our neighborhoods. Senator John Hickenlooper said that ICE was a reign of terror. All this while the risks have increased because of the shutdown. We have an 8,000-percent increase in threats to the lives of our ICE agents and Border Patrol agents and a 1,300-percent increase in assaults. These are the dangerous games that Democrats are playing: to obstruct the President, so they can go brag as they pander to the left. Again, the reality is: It is a de facto defunding of law enforcement and abolishing of ICE. We will prevent that today, because I am confident that my friends in the Republican Conference will do the right thing and put the American people and their safety first. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Those are my opening remarks.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:10 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will start by reminding the American people that last year Republicans passed reconciliation 1.0, which President Trump and my Republican colleagues proudly boasted at the time was the big, beautiful bill. Notice, you don't hear much about it anymore. Why? Because the American people figured out what was in it. The bill became one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation to pass Congress in decades, with disapproval more than 2-1 over approval. The reason is simple: because it hurts America's families. The bill cut healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare costs for millions more. It made the largest cuts to food assistance in American history. It added trillions of dollars to the national debt and all to help pay for the largest tax breaks for billionaires in our Nation's history. That is the Republican record. They cut healthcare. They cut food assistance. They raised costs on working families. They exploded the debt, and then they handed the biggest benefits to billionaires. At the same time, this administration has failed miserably on the economy. We all remember Donald Trump campaigning in my home State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and across this country, promising the American people he would "lower prices on day one." Well, here we are, just past day 500, and costs are higher than ever. President Trump's reckless tariff taxes have driven up costs for families and businesses. As if that wasn't bad enough, his choice of war in Iran has helped send gas prices soaring, a more than 50-percent increase in just a matter of months. Families are paying more at the pump, they are paying more at the grocery store, and they are paying more for healthcare. With that, you would think that, in reconciliation 2.0, the Republican majority might actually want to do something to fix that situation, to fix the mess they created, but no. This bill does not include one dime to help American families pay for the crushing costs that they bear. On top of all of that, we have the President who is continuing to openly say he wants to give billions of taxpayer money to January 6 insurrectionists. Even though a vast majority of American people oppose that obnoxious notion, there is nothing in this bill to prevent that from happening. Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better than a bill that does nothing to lower costs, nothing to help families, and nothing to stop Donald Trump from rewarding violent criminals who attacked our Capitol. We deserve better. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)3:10 p.m.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have the greatest respect for my friend from Pennsylvania, but that is about as good of Washington obfuscation as I have ever heard. We are talking about funding ICE and CBP. If we don't do it today, ICE and CBP doesn't exist, criminals are running around in our streets, and we don't make good on the promises the American people sent us here to do. They want to talk about tax policy. By the way, they are the party that didn't lift a finger when the tax cuts were going to expire and cause over a $1,000 tax hike for every family in this country. It would have been a 22-percent tax hike--this, on the heels of a cost-of-living crisis that they created by their failed economic policies and their unbridled spending, the likes of which we haven't seen in one half a century. We can go through tax policy and the consequences of the American people having more money in their pockets because of no tax on tips and overtime, seniors getting a double deduction who are on a fixed income, and people who have suffered from Joe Biden's unaffordability crisis. I am happy to go down the line on that. People have more money in their pockets. The economy is growing. Inflation is down. Interest rates are down. The American people were paying $1,000 a month more in their mortgage as a result of the failed policies of my Democratic colleagues. Today, this isn't the debate. The debate is the safety of the American people and resourcing our brave, hardworking law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), our Judiciary Committee chairman.

Jim Jordan (R-OH)3:10 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we have to use reconciliation because Democrats won't pay the guys who enforce the law. We should have had this done 110 days ago when they shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Then they said: Oh, we will fund that, but we are not going to fund ICE and CBP. This is all part of their scheme, their systematic, multi-step plan. First, they let in 10 million migrants under the Biden administration. Open border--let in 10 million. Second, they create sanctuary jurisdictions, which makes it difficult to remove those migrants when they commit another crime. Third, they say we are not going to pay the guys that do the removing. We are not going to fund ICE. That is their plan. They are systematically executing that plan. Let in 10 million with an open border, create sanctuary jurisdictions--which, by the way, I always remind folks of this: What is sanctuary jurisdiction? Politicians telling local law enforcement: Don't work with law enforcement when it comes to enforcing the law. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but that is going on in almost a third of the country: 18 cities, 11 States, and 3 counties in the District of Columbia. Third, of course, don't fund ICE. It is not enough to have all the leftwing crazies out on the street doxing them, tracking them, spitting on them, yelling at them, swearing at them, and assaulting them. Now they are saying: We are not going to pay you. That is their plan. Frankly, you could add a fourth step. We had this hearing in our committee a couple weeks ago. You can add a fourth step. Some of these prosecutors in these sanctuary jurisdictions, like right over in Virginia in Fairfax County--some of these prosecutors actually take into account the immigration status of someone who has committed a crime when they decide what they are going to charge them with and what kind of plea agreement they are going to have. Mr. Descano's policy is: If an American citizen commits a crime and an illegal migrant commits the same crime, the illegal migrant gets a better deal. That is just crazy. Again, they will go to any length to execute this plan. Let in 10 million. Create sanctuary jurisdictions. Don't pay the guys who do the removing, and don't prosecute the people who commit crimes. They shut down the government 42 days last fall, 70 days of Homeland Security this spring, and now upwards of 100 days for ICE and CBP. I thank the great budget chairman for the work his committee has done. This is the right bill to do. It is unfortunate we have to do it this way, but this is the only way to pay the guys who actually enforce the laws that the Congress of the United States passes. I would urge a "yes" vote.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:20 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce Committee and also a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)3:20 p.m.

Madam Speaker, once again, while working families struggle with high costs caused by this administration, Republicans' only focus is on spending more money on their lawless immigration enforcement agenda, even as ICE continues to abuse its authority and without any assurance that they will begin obeying the law by obtaining warrants before they go into people's homes, stop deporting citizens, and stop using excessive force. While Americans face increased costs, the President seems only interested in building his ballroom, rewarding violent insurrectionists, and putting his face on passports and $250 bills. This reconciliation bill does nothing to block these initiatives. It also does nothing to reduce gas prices, improve healthcare, preserve the Department of Education, or create jobs. Let's not forget, this bill also increases the deficit after the first bill last year increased the deficit by trillions of dollars. That is not a surprise because every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left for the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited, and every Republican administration since Nixon has left for the Democrats a worse deficit situation, all without exception. We need to be focused on a fiscally responsible solution that will actually do something to bring down costs for American families. This bill doesn't do that. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this legislation.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)3:20 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, Madam Speaker, you are going to hear gas prices, tax policy, healthcare, ballrooms. You are not going to hear anything about what is happening as a result of my Democrats not supporting us funding ICE and CBP, because defunding ICE and CBP after the 4 years of chaos and lawlessness is just completely indefensible. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA)3:20 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today infuriated by my Democratic colleagues who have put the safety and the security of American citizens last. First, they opened the border to millions of unvetted, illegal immigrants. Now, they have repeatedly refused to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents, failing in the number one responsibility of elected officials: keeping our citizens safe. The consequences have been devastating for families. For instance, in my district, Linda Davis, a beloved special education teacher at Hesse K-8 School in Savannah, was killed by an illegal immigrant who rammed into her while fleeing law enforcement. Danny Sharpe, a husband, a father, a son, he was killed by an illegal immigrant who was driving under the influence and without a license in Effingham County. Then, of course, in the State of Georgia, Laken Riley, a bright nursing student, was murdered while out for what should have been a pleasant jog in Athens. Linda Davis, Danny Sharpe, Laken Riley, these are real people, real people who should be with us today. Their families have experienced unimaginable pain because of these reckless politics. It is time for Democrats to do the right thing.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:20 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader of the House.

Hakeem S. Jeffries (D-NY)3:20 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague Representative Brendan Boyle from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for yielding and for his leadership. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this Republican scheme to waste $70 billion in taxpayer money to give a blank check to ICE without any guardrails, any oversight, or any accountability. Immigration enforcement in this country should be fair, it should be just, and it should be humane. That is not what is going on right now as it relates to Donald Trump's violent mass deportation machine. Donald Trump promised America that he would target violent felons who are here illegally. Instead, taxpayer dollars are being used by ICE and his violent mass deportation machine to target and brutalize American citizens--in some cases, killing them, as was the case in Minneapolis with Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti--or to violently target law-abiding immigrant families, children, and in some cases, veterans who have served this country. As Democrats, we believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for the American people as opposed to what the one big, ugly bill represented and continues to represent in this Congress. Republicans are making a decision to rip away healthcare and nutritional assistance from the American people: the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, alongside the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history. They are literally stealing food from the mouths of hungry children, veterans, and seniors, in order, through the one big, ugly bill, to give ICE and Donald Trump's violent mass deportation machine a $140 billion blank check. As if that wasn't enough--ripping healthcare and nutritional assistance away from vulnerable Americans, hardworking Americans, taxpayers, working-class Americans, middle-class Americans, and those who aspire to be part of the middle class--as if ripping away healthcare and nutritional assistance in the one big, ugly bill wasn't enough, Republicans have now come back for more: to give ICE and Donald Trump's violent mass deportation machine another $70 billion blank check with no oversight, no accountability, and no guardrails. We believe immigration enforcement should be fair, just, and humane. But ICE needs to be brought under control, and ICE needs to conduct itself like every other cop, every other police officer, and every other law enforcement agency in this country. Instead, Republicans have decided to continue to waste taxpayer dollars to jam Donald Trump's extreme, rightwing ideology down the throats of the American people. As Democrats, we rise in strong opposition to this Republican scheme: waste of taxpayer dollars. Donald Trump promised that the cost of living, Madam Speaker, would go down on day one. Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one, but costs in the United States of America haven't gone down. They have gone up. The cost of living is totally out of control. Why? Because of Republican policies: First, the Trump tariffs raised costs on everyday Americans by thousands of dollars per year. Second, in the one big, ugly bill, in order to fund the Republican violent mass deportation machine, they ripped away healthcare and nutritional assistance from the American people at a time when health insurance costs are already out of control and grocery prices are through the roof. Third, Donald Trump and Republicans have gotten this country into a reckless and costly war of choice that has skyrocketed gas prices through the roof, burdening everyday Americans who are already struggling to survive, who certainly can't thrive, are living paycheck to paycheck with high rent, high groceries, high gas prices, and high health insurance costs. When I look at the Republican scheme that this budget represents, there is not a single sentence about making life more affordable for the American people. Republicans want to cut healthcare and nutritional assistance, send us to a reckless and costly war of choice, impose tariffs that are raising prices on everyday Americans by thousands of dollars per year, and then use taxpayer dollars to give a $70 billion blank check to ICE so that the Republican violent, mass-deportation machine can continue to brutalize or kill American citizens, like Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good, or to violently target law-abiding immigrant families. Democrats here are not simply a "no." We are a "hell no" on this legislation, and we are going to continue to fight to make life better for the American people. We believe that America is far too expensive. We believe that far too many people are working hard, playing by the rules, can't thrive, and can barely survive. We believe that in this great country, when you are doing the right thing, when you are working hard, you should be able to live an affordable life. That is not happening right now. A comfortable life is not happening right now for far too many people. You should be able to live a good life with a good-paying job, good housing, good healthcare, good education for your children, and a good retirement, which, by the way, means we will always defend Social Security and Medicare. As a warning to the American people, the Speaker of the House recently said, in part, as a result of what Republicans have done to skyrocket the debt and the deficit by trillions of dollars in order to give your MAGA donors massive tax breaks that they don't need and do not deserve, the Republicans are coming next for the Social Security and for the Medicare of the American people. Madam Speaker, the Republican majority has failed. This Congress has failed. Life hasn't gotten better over the last 18 months. Life has gotten worse and more expensive because of policy choices that the Republicans have made to inflict policy violence and cruelty on the American people. This toxic piece of legislation is just another example of how Republicans have failed the American people, so we will be voting "no" against this Republican scheme. We will continue to fight to drive down the high cost of living, fight to lower and fix our broken healthcare system, fight to get ICE under control, fight to end Donald Trump's reckless and costly war of choice, and fight for an America where everyone can afford a high-quality life for themselves and for their families. That is not the America that we have right now because of Republican policy failures and continued schemes like this Republican budget reconciliation bill to waste another $70 billion on their extreme immigration policies that have failed America.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)3:30 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority leader of the people's House.

Steve Scalise (R-LA)3:30 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague and friend from Texas, for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. Madam Speaker, we should all be here today to express our strong support for this important piece of legislation to properly and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, including, yes, the people who actually are tasked with carrying out our immigration laws. That is the job of ICE and CBP. These are the laws that we all pass. I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would love to go back to open borders, but they are not, fortunately, going to go back to open borders because we won't let them. Madam Speaker, we worked with President Trump to secure the border. In fact, it was the number one issue in the 2024 election. The American people spoke loud and clear, and, yes, that was on the ballot. Everybody knew where each side was. You would think, now that that issue is resolved, that we could be here in Congress to work together to properly make sure that we fund the Department of Homeland Security. Sadly, that is not what has happened. You have seen the Democrats, time and time again, shut this Department down, the Department of Homeland Security, formed out of September 11. You would think some people on the other side of the aisle are acting like it is still September 10, like we don't have threats on our homeland. Yet, we have threats coming from more places than ever because the other side let millions of people into our country. Millions of people illegally come into our country, including many violent criminals. They want you to think, Madam Speaker, that it is just everybody coming in to seek the American Dream. We have a legal method for that to happen. Every country does, by the way. The United States is the most generous nation in the world in terms of our legal process to come to America--yes, legal. That means you have to follow the rules to be a part of this great American Dream. If somebody doesn't want to follow those rules, including the prior President, then what it does is wreak havoc. What kind of havoc? I know the other side just likes to attack law enforcement every single day, the party that tried to defund the police. Yes, they are still at it. This vote today, make no mistake, if you are voting "yes," you are not only voting to secure America's border. You are voting to fund law enforcement. If you vote "no," you are voting to defund the police. Those are the people, the law enforcement officers, who are risking their lives to keep our communities safe. I think, Madam Speaker, that it is important to ask safe from whom? Let's walk a little bit down memory lane and talk about some of the American citizens who are no longer with us today because of people who came into this country illegally because of Joe Biden's open border, because of the policies that the Democratic Party on the other side, Madam Speaker, wants us to go back to. They want open borders. That is why they are voting "no." Make no mistake about it, this vote is about opening the border again. This vote is about defunding the police. We cannot let that happen. Why? Let's remember Laken Riley. Did some on the other side already forget who Laken Riley is? She was a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed while jogging near the University of Georgia campus in February 2024. The man convicted of her murder was, yes, a man from Venezuela who entered into the United States illegally. Let's talk about Sheridan Gorman, Madam Speaker. She was an 18-year-old Loyola University Chicago freshman who was shot and killed in March 2026. The suspect: Jose Medina-Medina, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela. Stephanie Minter, a Virginia mother, was fatally stabbed at a Fairfax County bus stop in February of this year. Yes, anybody who votes "no" is voting against the people who are stopping criminal illegals who are murdering American citizens still to this day. Yet, they are going to cast that "no" vote, Madam Speaker. Stephanie Minter, who was murdered, her suspect, Abdul Jalloh, came here illegally, an immigrant from Sierra Leone with over 30 police arrests, 30 times arrested, over and over again, until finally he murdered somebody. Look at these sanctuary cities. By the way, go look at who is running these sanctuary cities. When these Democrats are coming up here, saying that they want to grab more power, asking you to give them power again, look at what they do with power. They install sanctuary city policies. They let murderers get out of prison over and over again until they murder innocent citizens. You can just go look at the leadership of every Democratic-run city in America right now. Most of the States have major losses of population because of their policies. Now, where are they going? Mostly to red States, States that are run by Republicans who want to lower taxes, who want to have commonsense policy, to get away from the crazy policies that we are seeing over and over again in these Democrat-run States. In fact, the policies are so bad that you can look at the city of Chicago and know you will no longer be able to go to the city of Chicago to see the Chicago Bears play football. Illinois ran the Chicago Bears out of the State of Illinois, out of the city of Chicago over to Indiana because they are so antibusiness. Because they are so antiworker, and because they won't stand up and protect their own citizens. Mr. Speaker, you listen to the people that get up here, day in and day out, and attack President Trump over and over again. What they don't tell you is that because President Trump focused on border security and protecting the American citizens, we now have the lowest murder rate in the United States in over 100 years because President Trump cares about people and their communities. Look at some of these Democrat-run cities where they let illegals out over and over again. Go back to the suspect who murdered Stephanie Minter in Virginia. He was in prison and let out over 30 times. Let's talk about Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old Maryland woman strangled to death in 2022 by a known MS-13 gang member from El Salvador. Rachel Morin, a Maryland mother of five, was murdered while exercising on a hiking trail in 2023. Yes, it was someone who came here illegally, who murdered her, who was finally later convicted of that crime. Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old Houston girl, was sexually assaulted and then murdered in June of 2024, Mr. Speaker. Two Venezuelans who entered the United States illegally were charged in that case. Keep in mind, every one of these I am reading, we are about to have a vote to say: Should we have people working for ICE, working for CBP, protecting us from these violent criminals, who are coming into our country illegally to kill our citizens? And you are going to be able to vote yes or no. And if you vote no, you are saying you want these people to keep coming in. Mr. Speaker, you are voting to defund the law enforcement officers who are going to stop these criminals from coming into our communities. It is not like some hypothetical. It has happened over and over and over again. Sadly, there are more. Luis Jocsan Nanez Lopez, a 15-year-old, was shot and killed while trying to protect his mother from an attempted rape by an illegal in Kentucky. The killer was a Mexican national. Hallie Helgeson and Brady Heiling, 18- and 19-year-olds, were killed in a car crash by a Honduran national who was driving intoxicated in the wrong direction on a highway. This took place in a sanctuary jurisdiction in Wisconsin. They act like they are doing you a favor by looking the other way and not at the laws, except their own citizens are dying. Megan Bos was killed by a Mexican in Illinois in 2025. After the killer's court appearance, a sanctuary city judge freed him onto the streets of Chicago. There that is again. Fortunately, it was ICE who rearrested that murderer. And they want to make ICE out to be the enemy? They are defending the murderers. Over and over again they want to defund law enforcement, to stand up for criminals who are wreaking havoc in our communities all across this country. Thank God, we have a President in Donald Trump who is willing to stand up for the American people and protect us, to keep us safe in our homeland. That is the whole purpose of the Department of Homeland Security. It is why it needs to be fully funded. We need to pass this bill. It should have been done months ago. And it should not be partisan. Everybody should vote for it. But when that board lights up, you are going to see who is standing with the American people to keep us safe in our home and who is going to defend the criminals. Mr. Speaker, I stand with the American people and say, let's keep our communities safe. Let's pass this bill. Let's fund this department.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of words there. What I didn't hear, though, was even one word, just one, about what this reconciliation bill would do to lower costs for the American people. I didn't hear one word for the 15 million Americans about to be kicked off their healthcare. I didn't hear one word about those who are paying 50 percent more for gas than what they were paying just a couple months ago because of this President's reckless war of choice. There are no words, no plans, nothing in their bill whatsoever to bring down costs for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Jimmy Panetta (D-CA)3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' reconciliation bill gives a blank check again to ICE and Border Patrol. Instead of reining in and reforming these two agencies that brought chaos and controversy to so many communities across our country, this bill instead provides $70 billion more to ICE and CBP without any guardrails or safeguards for the American public. Now, in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, you already injected $140 billion into these two agencies. Money was used to rush agents through training, push them into the streets, to troll big-box store parking lots and target immigrants well beyond gang members and felons. They called themselves law enforcement. What we saw from many agents is they were acting like a lawless mob with impunity and with a disregard for our humanity. Now, I support a secure border. But before I give one more cent to ICE and Border Patrol, all we are asking for are commonsensical reforms, such as taking off the masks, turning on the cameras, identifying themselves, having independent investigations, staying away from polling places, and obtaining a warrant before going into our homes. Instead, your bill ignores bipartisanship reforms, ignores high prices, ignores the war in Iran, and hands over billions more to ICE and CBP without any guidance on how to spend it and without any way to pay for it. By voting for this reconciliation bill, you are not only giving a blank check to ICE and CBP. You are giving in to Donald Trump, and you are giving up on your responsibility to the stability of our economy, the debt of our country, and the safety of American communities.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), my friend from the Keystone State and vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

Lloyd Smucker (R-PA)3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is like the Democrats have developed amnesia. They talk about high prices, but inflation went to 9 percent, triple what it is today, during the Biden years. It averaged more than double what it is today. Speaking about working-class Americans, by voting against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they voted for what would have been the largest tax increase on working families in history, had Republicans not voted to pass that bill. The Democrats then held hostage $14 million in wages from working Americans by shutting down the government, and it cost the American economy $11 billion. Despite their efforts, though, to undermine the success of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, we are still seeing strong job numbers and a resilient economy as a result of Republican policies. But let's talk about the border for just a second. Maybe it is not amnesia. Maybe they want the thousands of people pouring across the border.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia)3:40 p.m.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Lloyd Smucker (R-PA)3:40 p.m.

Maybe they want the thousands of people, the caravans that came across the border during the Biden years. President Trump was right. It just takes a President to make that change and to secure the border. The American people deserve a secure border. They want a secure border. They deserve a functioning immigration system, and they deserve a government that is focused on them, not these partisan games. Today, by passing this bill, we stand ready to finish the job of funding border security, restoring immigration enforcement, and putting the safety and interests of American citizens first. I urge support for this legislation.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Becca Balint (D-VT)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican reconciliation bill. While American families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and groceries, Republicans are proposing to spend more than $150 billion on immigration enforcement, roughly $59 billion for detention and deportation operations. Working families right now can't afford a doctor's visit, and Republicans are worried about multiplying our budget for detention facilities--not lowering healthcare costs, not giving relief to families who are struggling with obscenely high insurance premiums, but instead giving even more money to ICE and Border Patrol. This bill says that while American families pay nearly $27,000 a year for health insurance costs, Congress should prioritize spending even more on ICE detention beds. Healthcare costs are rising faster than wages for many Americans, and this is what we are focused on? It is incredibly screwed up. This administration wants you to believe that people who don't look like you or don't sound like you are the source of your financial struggles. Trump and his allies do this so you don't see that their policies benefit billionaires and greedy corporations that have hollowed out the middle class in this country. Don't believe them, not for a minute. We should be lowering healthcare costs. We should be investing in the working families in our communities across this country.

The SPEAKER pro tempore3:50 p.m.

Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Vermont.

Becca Balint (D-VT)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, we should be lowering costs and investing in the working families and communities across this country, not weaponizing our government to go after the most vulnerable.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend, who is also a Budget Committee member.

Tom McClintock (R-CA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, Democrats actively encouraged the largest illegal mass migration in history, including the most vicious criminals in the world. For the last year, these same Democrats have done everything they can to obstruct, impede, and even attack Federal officers who are trying to enforce our immigration laws. Without CBP and ICE enforcing our immigration laws, we have no borders, which means we have no country. That is the effect, if not the design, of the Democrats' refusal to fund these agencies. This bill breaks the Democrats' stranglehold over ICE and CBP funding. Reconciliation is specifically designed to bring mandatory spending in line with limits set by the budget resolution. Instead, we have no choice but to use it to restore the security of our Nation. We will have one more shot at reconciliation for the coming fiscal year, and it must be used to fulfill our responsibility to future generations who are already drowning in our debt.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, gas prices have almost doubled since Trump came in and started his illegal Iran war. Groceries, housing, and healthcare are all unaffordable. Republicans would have you believe that there is no money to help working families. Trump himself said that he does not "think about Americans' financial situation," and he said that it is "not possible" for the government to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and childcare. Just last week, Republicans slashed $141 million for food for pregnant women and children, but now, magically, Republicans have found another $70 billion for ICE and CBP, even though those agencies still have $100 billion left from the $140 billion that Republicans gave them in the big, bad, betrayal bill. Meanwhile, Trump's masked ICE agents are killing U.S. citizens in broad daylight, kidnapping and disappearing parents in front of their children's schools, and ramming down doors without warrants. Private, for-profit prison operators are laughing all the way to the bank as they rake in billions in profits by incarcerating over 60,000 immigrants of all immigration statuses every single night, refusing to uphold basic standards or give medical care to people in custody.

The SPEAKER pro tempore3:50 p.m.

The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, since Trump came back into office, as ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, I get notified every time there is a death in detention, and there have been 50 unprecedented deaths in detention since Trump came into office. This bill has zero guardrails and throws another $70 billion to ICE and CBP. Vote "no." It is a sham.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), my friend and a member of the Budget Committee.

Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Secure America Act to fund ICE and CBP. ICE and CBP agents risk their lives daily to keep bad actors out and protect our Nation's citizens. With the strong leadership of Secretary Mullin, CBP reached a milestone by seizing more than 100 million lethal doses of fentanyl along the southwest border since October. ICE agents also have made progress toward making American cities safe again, with over 1,400 arrests of known or suspected terrorists. These Federal agents don't just protect our borders. They defend and protect American families across the country, especially as the U.S. hosts the World Cup starting this week. I stand in strong opposition to the Democrats who wish to put American lives at risk by refusing to fund these two agencies. Start supporting the American citizens and not illegals. I encourage all my colleagues to support the funding for the vital work of ICE and CBP.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Judy Chu (D-CA)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, once again, Republicans are showing the American people exactly where their priorities lie. They claim there is no money for healthcare, no money for affordable housing, no money for childcare, and no money for gas, which costs an arm and a leg. Yet, today, Republicans are demanding another $70 billion to supercharge Trump's mass deportation agenda, plus ICE already got $170 billion from Republicans' big, ugly bill, making them our highest funded law enforcement agency. The message couldn't be clearer. There is always money to target immigrants but never enough for working families? Let's be clear what Republicans are asking taxpayers for. These agencies have failed to produce meaningful accountability, transparency, or reform, even after killing two U.S. citizens. At the same time, detainees are dying in ICE custody at record rates. Last week, I visited Adelanto ICE Detention Center in southern California. I spoke directly with detainees, who described inhumane conditions like dirty drinking water, inedible food, and nonexistent medical care. Some have even watched their neighbors die. This is what this administration wants another $70 billion for. At a time when Americans are desperate for relief, Republicans are choosing to invest billions in a system that fails to uphold basic standards of safety, dignity, and accountability. I am voting "no."

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill), my friend, who is also a proud member of the Budget Committee.

Brandon Gill (R-TX)3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the party of defund the police is the party that also votes to defund Border Patrol for 70 days. It is no surprise that the party who runs a Senate candidate in Texas who wants a welcome mat on the southern border is the party that will vote to defund ICE. This is the same party that for 4 years intentionally flooded our country with millions of illegal aliens, and we hear questions like: How does this make life better for the American people? Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that deporting criminals, murderers, rapists, and thugs out of our country makes our communities safer. Deporting illegal aliens who are clogging up our schools and our hospitals, on welfare, and using our social services makes life in America better for our people. Mr. Speaker, I would ask: When will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle finally put the interests of our people, the people we represent, ahead of the interests of illegal aliens? I am waiting. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it is a great bill.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Paul Tonko (D-NY)4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent my career fighting to improve mental health care in our schools and communities. I believe that every single child should grow up in an environment built around love, learning, and safety, which is why I am so disgusted by the actions of this administration that are terrorizing an entire generation of children. These are children who are seeing their friends and teachers taken by ICE, children who are being held at gunpoint by masked agents, children who are living in fear that their parents will be picked up by ICE, children who are being detained for months on end, and children who are being used as bait so ICE can detain their family members. Those experiences do not fade easily. Our government is inflicting trauma on our kids. We should all be ashamed of these actions, yet instead of stopping ICE's reign of terror, Republicans are pushing legislation that provides this out-of-control agency with tens of billions more in funding, billions of taxpayer dollars to terrorize our children and our neighbors instead of supporting our schools, our hospitals, or our communities. My choice is clear. I urge my colleagues to join me and reject this cruel bill. Our children and their families demand it.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if anybody is living in fear, it is because of the fear-mongering that we continue to hear from our Democratic colleagues, and it is no wonder. It starts at the top. The nominee, or the anointed Presidential nominee of the Democrats in the last Presidential election, Ms. Kamala Harris, compared ICE to the KKK. We heard references to the Gestapo, and a reign of terror is what we just heard. It is no wonder that there are people in the streets obstructing and putting at risk the lives of our law enforcement officers who are trying to clean up our neighborhoods from the deluge of gangbangers and criminals who have flooded cities and towns all across this great Nation. It is a travesty to hear such denigrating terms and to see my colleagues in the United States House Chamber vilifying people who wear the uniform on behalf of all of us and our families. As I said, assaults are up by 1,300 percent, death threats by 8,000 percent. It is a wonder more law enforcement officials and ICE agents haven't been hurt. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, who is going to get hurt: lots of people across this land if ICE and CBP were defunded on account of not having willing Republicans to fund them fully, not just for 1 year but for 3 years, so we never end up here again being held hostage by shutdowns and defunding of our law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Ms. Lee).

Laurel M. Lee (R-FL)4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Secure America Act, legislation that will secure our border, provide critical resources to law enforcement, and make our communities safer. I want to highlight a provision of this bill that I have spent years fighting to advance, along with the Tim Tebow Foundation and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the bipartisan Renewed Hope Act. Today, more than 89,000 children depicted in child sex abuse material remain unidentified. That means there are 89,000 children who have not yet been found, not yet rescued, and not yet safe. The Renewed Hope Act will give Homeland Security Investigations the analysts, forensic specialists, technology, and training that are needed to identify those children, rescue them, bring them home, and bring their predators to justice. For every child still waiting to be found, this is renewed hope. Every vote for this bill is a vote to find these children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to do the right thing: Fight for these children and support this legislation.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)4:00 p.m.

This bill should really be known as the big slush. It is a slush fund to enrich our corrupt President and a slush fund for ICE to continue abusing communities across America. Grocery prices soar and gas prices surge, and to the Trump regime, it is really just "peanuts," peanuts of the type perhaps that are served on that luxury jet that Kristi Noem purchased and wasted taxpayer funds on so she could ride in style to support her ICE agents terrorizing too many Americans. After filing a $10 billion bogus lawsuit against his own administration, Trump incredibly reached a sordid deal with his personal criminal defense attorney, whom he has appointed Acting Attorney General, to stop tax evasion audits of Trump, his family, and all the Trump enterprises, special treatment that has been estimated to save him over $100 million. On top of that, he gets to control a taxpayer-funded $1.8 billion slush fund that can be used to reward the rioters who were here on January 6, who assaulted police, and other Trump pals and criminals. Law-abiding neighbors face ICE cruelty while convicted criminals get a check at our expense. What we need is a genuine check on the Trump regime, but there is no rule of law and no checks and balances. Trump knows that a compliant Republican Congress will let him get away with anything. This bill doesn't secure America. It secures Trump's stranglehold on the Republicans.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rulli)4:00 p.m.

Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, we are attempting here in a Republican-only exercise to fund ICE and CBP at last year's operating budget plus inflation. That is all we are talking about. Their position is that they want to zero it out. In fact, they already have. They refuse to fund ICE and CBP. They would effectively abolish it. This is not a slush fund unless you are calling what is the normal and regular operating budget of our immigration enforcement and Border Patrol officers a slush fund. It is regular, normal funding, and we are going to do it not for 1 year but for 3 years, so that we don't end up here again. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Gooden), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Lance Gooden (R-TX)4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today from Democrats is Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. They are obsessed. They won't talk about the bill. They are talking about the President because they are ashamed, and they know they should be, of their record when they were in charge. When President Biden was President, the border was wide open. Americans were getting killed, and Democrats wouldn't acknowledge it. That is why we have the majority now. That is why President Trump is in the White House. It is because he promised to clean it up, and he has. This bill continues that. For 76 days, Democrats blocked funding for the entire Department of Homeland Security, and they are continuing to stand against this today. They won't actually come out and say what we know they mean, and that is that they want an open border. Instead, they want to talk about Trump. The Secure America Act ensures that that border is never open again. By fully funding ICE and CBP through President Trump's term, this bill gives our homeland defenders the resources they need to strengthen deportation operations, dismantle criminal networks, and stop fentanyl before it reaches our communities. While my colleagues across the aisle continue suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, I urge passage, and I thank the Republican majority and President Trump for leading on this.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I have been participating and listening to this entire debate. Actually, the President's name that has come up the most is President Biden. I think they actually miss him because they would like someone to blame other than the man who is in the White House right now. The American people make it clear with some of the worst approval ratings on the economy in 20-plus years by a 3-1 margin, that they disapprove of this President's handling of the economy--72 percent disapprove. Again, these are the worst numbers since the Great Recession. They need someone else to blame because they know just how poorly things are going right now under this President and Republican leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Morgan McGarvey (D-KY)4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, we have to stop saying this is about $70 billion for ICE. This is about $240 billion for ICE. Republicans gave ICE $170 billion last July, and in less than 1 year, they want to give them $70 billion more. That is more for ICE this year than Russia is spending on its military, and they are currently at war. $240 billion for honest to God storm troopers, masked, armed agents kidnapping people off the street, murdering U.S. citizens, separating families, and detaining children. We shouldn't give them another dollar. We cannot give them another $70 billion, but if you are so willing to spend it, imagine the good we could do with that kind of money. We could make people's lives better by giving free school breakfast and lunch for every kid in America or free childcare for every American family with a kid under 5. We could bring back the healthcare tax credits that Republicans killed because they were too expensive for 3 more years, but since feeding kids and fixing healthcare apparently aren't your thing, maybe we can agree on veterans. You guys say you care about our veterans, then let's do something about it. For $70 billion, we could end veteran homelessness forever, probably seven times over. In fact, I offered an amendment to this bill that does just that. Actually, with $70 billion, we could end homelessness in America. That is just one example. There is so much good we could do with this money and just about anything would be better than giving it to ICE. Vote "no."

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that budgets are statements of our priorities and our values. Repeatedly, President Biden would propose cuts to the Department of Homeland Security. The last year he was in office, in fact, Homeland Security was cut by 3.5 percent. Remember, this is all while we had record numbers of illegal immigrants flooding into this country, record numbers of immigrants who were on the terrorist watch list, record numbers of criminals, record numbers of drugs killing Americans at record levels, about a plane load of Americans dying a week. Meanwhile, my Democrat colleagues found time to give $800 billion in tax subsidies to green energy corporations. Think about that: Tax cuts for the rich, rich green energy corporations. Tens of billions of dollars with a cell phone and a pen by Joe Biden, those moneys were given to illegal immigrants for healthcare that hardworking U.S. taxpayers funded. According to NumbersUSA, we are spending about $9,000 per illegal immigrant in this country. Mr. Speaker, that is more than we spend on our most vulnerable U.S. citizens for Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), who is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Russell Fry (R-SC)4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, the Mexican cartels have never had better lobbyists than the Democrat politicians across the aisle who insisted that nothing was wrong for years. As our communities were flooded, Democrats told the American people not to believe their own eyes, not to see the rising crime and the melees and the fracturing and the problems in every community across this country. When the border was overwhelmed, they said it was secure. In fact, they told us that we were imagining a border crisis. When communities demanded action, they offered excuses. When law enforcement came forward and said we need resources, they were lectured by the ivory tower that Democrats sit in about compassion. Their immigration policy boiled down to three simple words: deny, deflect, and delay. Their strategy was overwhelmingly rejected thankfully at the ballot box in the last Presidential cycle, but they refused to accept it. They refused to accept the reality. The American people are done being put last at the expense of themselves and put in last place behind illegal immigrants. They are tired of being treated as if nothing is wrong. Something has been fundamentally wrong with our border for a long time. When we want to come and fix it and listen to the people who sent us to Washington to fix the most fundamental thing about a country, it is borders. We are told all types of unimaginable things. We are here on immigration and a border bill, and we are told we are dealing with the economy on their end. This is about the border and securing the most fundamentally sacred thing in our country, which is our border. I think this is basic stuff. Fund law enforcement and don't defund them. Let them enforce the law and do their job. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Ilhan Omar (D-MN)4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this reconciliation bill. Last year, Republicans handed ICE and CBP an $85 billion slush fund. Today, they want $70 billion more with no reforms and no accountability for the crimes they have committed. This is at a time when Americans are barely making ends meet. Let me tell you what the money could mean for working families. It could provide free childcare for over 1 million children for 2 years. We could expand and extend the ACA premium tax credit for at least a year. We could cancel the Medicare debt of a third of Americans. Instead, congressional Republicans want to hand more money to the same rogue agents that have kidnapped and killed Americans across the country. We know who is really paying for this. When Federal agents flooded Minneapolis, our cities suffered $200 million in economic damages, at least. Workers stayed home. Small businesses shuttered, and tens of thousands of residents were suddenly thrown into food and housing insecurity. This is why I will be introducing a bill to redirect ICE's slush fund to the very communities that the agencies have terrorized and harmed. This is who this money should be going to, everyday Americans who are just trying to survive in Trump's disastrous economy. Mr. Speaker, I won't support another dollar for ICE, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is true. We did put tens of billions of dollars in the first reconciliation bill because the Democrats' open-border policies absolutely wreaked havoc on the current system. It overwhelmed us. My State spent $14 billion to do the job the Federal Government wouldn't do. We didn't have the infrastructure. We didn't have the boots on the ground. We didn't have the judicial process set up to take on the millions of people, over 10 million people, over 5 million of them released, not apprehended and held accountable, caught and released, so the system was overwhelmed. We needed to infuse some capital to boost the infrastructure so we could seamlessly work through that. We are talking about regular operating budgets now and not what we had to put in for the system that was overwhelmed by the record numbers of illegal immigrants. We are talking about last year's budget plus inflation. The bottom line is, my Democrat colleagues stand on the position of defunding immigration enforcement and effectively abolishing ICE. I think that is an untenable position in this country. Only a few radicals hold that position. Most people know what we are up against and what these hardworking, brave people do for us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs), who is on the Homeland Security Committee here in the House.

Sheri Biggs (R-SC)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the Secure America Act gives Border Patrol and ICE the resources they need to keep doing what is working. Southwest border apprehensions are down 94 percent compared to the Biden administration. For this fiscal year's totals, CBP encounters are already 13 percent lower than April 2024 alone, and CBP has seized 61 percent more drugs this fiscal year than during the same period last year. That means fewer illegal crossings, more fentanyl stops, and stronger enforcement. This bill invests in agents, officers, technology, and the tools needed to dismantle cartels, stop human trafficking, and remove criminal illegal aliens from our communities. President Trump has proven that a secure border is possible. Now, Congress needs to back him up. South Carolina families deserve safety, sovereignty, and a government that puts America first. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Secure America Act.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

The SPEAKER pro tempore4:20 p.m.

The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Gabe Amo (D-RI)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when I first heard the bill's name, I thought somebody said: less Secure America Act. After reading it, I realize that is what it is. Republicans already handed Trump's immigration machine a massive windfall in their big, ugly law as they cut your healthcare. Now, they are back for more. This latest scheme is about pouring $70 billion into ICE and CBP while leaving untouched Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund for his political allies and January 6 cop beaters. It does nothing to lower costs, nothing to stop corruption, and nothing to help working families. Think about that. If you are worried about your grocery costs or your utility bills, Republicans have nothing for you. If you are worried about your healthcare costs, Republicans have nothing for you. If you are worried about affording childcare, Republicans have nothing for you. If you are Donald Trump, looking for billions more to expand ICE and bankroll more abuses of power, Republicans are happy to write the check with your money. This bill isn't about security. It is about cruelty, corruption, and misplaced priorities. You deserve better than this latest, devious deception. The American people deserve lower costs, safer communities, and a government that works for them, not another blank check for Trump's chaos. Mr. Speaker, I urge a "no" vote on Republicans' latest betrayal.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Jamie Raskin (D-MD)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why our colleagues talking about deranged Trump syndrome don't want us talking about the actual President himself. He just said, "I don't think about Americans' financial situation," and, "not even a little bit." Well, no kidding. Our let-them-eat-crypto President, who has pocketed a cool $5 billion since he was inaugurated, spends a lot of time thinking about his own financial security and the bankrolling of his MAGA foot soldiers, whom he pardoned en masse and released from jail last year. He wants you to pay for not only a $1 billion golden ballroom because he bulldozed the White House, but a $1.776 billion political slush fund, under his exclusive control, to pay out to his favorite convicted criminals, anti-democracy rioters, and cop-beating insurrectionists, 96 of whom have already committed new crimes since he let them out of jail, including child sexual assault, domestic violence, home invasion, and first degree criminal assault. He wants to turn this street-fighting mob into a permanent private militia of MAGA millionaires. His Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, cooked up a collusive plan with the plaintiff President to cancel out all criminal, civil, and tax liability for himself and the rest of the Trump family and their businesses for all time--in all caps, they wrote "forever"--for any crimes they have committed up until this point. Nothing like this has ever happened before in American history. Now, they want to hand DHS another $70 billion after the $170 billion they got last year--The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. RASKIN.--despite the fact that DHS still has $100 billion sitting around unspent, and despite the fact they have done nothing, zero, to reform the King Kong police practices that left two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, dead, lying in their own blood in the streets of Minneapolis. Vote "no."

The SPEAKER pro tempore4:20 p.m.

Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President, and their comments should be directed to the Chair.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

The SPEAKER pro tempore4:20 p.m.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is notable that not once has any reference been made by my Democrat colleagues to the victims of crimes perpetrated by criminal aliens on them and the loss, pain, and suffering of their families--not one time. No, not once, have we heard, Mr. Speaker, any reference with respect, with honor and dignity, to the law enforcement officers who wear the uniform, who fight the fight to keep us safe, risking their lives to rid this country of the threats to our neighborhoods and our families--not one time. We heard reign of terror. We heard gestapo. We hear all these things. Not one time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with my Democratic colleagues in strong opposition to this bill. This bill is yet another attempt by MAGA-controlled Republicans to give billions of dollars to the violent, lawless, and unconstitutional Trump administration. In last year's big, ugly bill, Republicans starved working families and stripped healthcare from millions of Americans to fund DHS' immigration crackdown without any guardrails. DHS used these funds to break into homes without warrants, surveil and lock up nonviolent protesters, deport sick children with cancer, and kill two American citizens who were lawfully exercising their First Amendment and Second Amendment rights. This bill, just like the last one, does not prohibit any agent from wearing a mask. It does not require officers to get judicial warrants. This bill does not prohibit racial profiling or surveilling databases of unlawful protesters. It does not stop raids at daycares, churches, or even hospitals. This bill does not prevent the Justice Department from creating a slush fund to pay Donald Trump's insurrectionists who assaulted law enforcement. Instead, this bill gives the Trump regime a blank check to execute more out-of-control, unaccountable crackdowns on migrants and the American citizens supporting them. Americans know the difference.

The SPEAKER pro tempore4:20 p.m.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS)4:20 p.m.

Americans know the difference between a government that works for them and one that works only for Donald Trump. We must oppose this awful bill.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, we debated a horrific piece of Republican legislation that cut more than a trillion dollars from healthcare and nearly $200 billion in food assistance for hungry families, all so billionaires could get another tax cut. That same bill handed over $170 billion to DHS for immigration enforcement--money used to supercharge ICE and CBP as they terrorized immigrant communities, trampled the Constitution, brutalized and killed American citizens in the streets. Since then, life has only gotten more unaffordable. What is the Republican answer? Their answer is another $70 billion for immigration enforcement that is already out of control. It is a slap in the face to every American struggling to get by. It is a slap in the face to every small business in this country that is struggling. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote "no."

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), the assistant Democratic leader.

Joe Neguse (D-CO)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget for his leadership. I don't serve on the Committee on the Budget, but my understanding of the Committee on the Budget, perhaps a naive understanding, was that the committee would try to build a responsible budget, to live within its means. I must say, with deep regret, Mr. Speaker, I have respect for my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, but every time he comes to the floor, it ends up costing us all more money. This bill is going to increase the deficit by $70 billion, $70 billion with a b. That is how much the Republican Committee on the Budget proposes that we spend, that we impair our national deficit. For all of the Freedom Caucus members, for all of the Republicans who have come to the floor to shed crocodile tears about the fiscal health of our country, understand that in half an hour, you will be voting in favor of a bill that increases the deficit by $70 billion. Mr. Speaker, we ought to reject it.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about last year's budget, plus inflation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton), member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Greg Stanton (D-AZ)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this extreme Republican budget bill, an additional $40 billion to ICE, an agency that has already received an unprecedented amount of taxpayer funds with zero reforms, zero accountability, not a single dollar in this bill to lower the cost of living, nothing for families drowning under Trump's tariffs, nothing for skyrocketing grocery bills, nothing for the gas prices that have been driven up by a failing war of choice in Iran. This budget shows the American people where the MAGA Republicans' priorities lie. They will roll over to Trump every single time, while their own citizens struggle to make ends meet.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will point out, as I said in the beginning, that this bill does absolutely nothing to prevent Donald Trump from handing taxpayer dollars to the violent criminals who attacked police officers here on January 6. We know that this is not hypothetical. The President has said repeatedly that he wants to compensate January 6 rioters. Just this past weekend, he refused to rule out payments even for those who assaulted law enforcement officers at the Capitol. Mr. Speaker, let's remember what these criminals did. Rioters trapped Officer Daniel Hodges in a doorway and ripped away his gas mask as he was crushed and assaulted. Officer Michael Fanone was beaten, tased again and again, dragged into the crowd, and suffered a heart attack. Other officers were attacked with flag poles and pepper sprayed. These rioters were not tourists. They were violent thugs who attempted to overturn an election by force. Now, let's not forget, this President has already pardoned them. He already gave them a free pass. Now he wants to reward them again with our taxpayer money. What a disgrace. For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to commit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would make clear that not one penny of taxpayer money may be used to create, administer, or pay for any slush fund, settlement payment, or any other payout to January 6 insurrectionists. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of this amendment immediately prior to the motion to commit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood)4:30 p.m.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to commit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as the good book says: Where your treasure is, there your heart is also. Our treasure as Republicans and our hearts, as the American people have reflected in this last and most historic election, is with the law-abiding citizens of this great Nation and the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend it every day. This is regular budget, normal budgets, and this is the least we can do to support those folks who stand on that thin line to defend our sovereign borders and our safety. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democrat colleagues do not defund the ICE and Border Patrol.

The SPEAKER pro tempore4:30 p.m.

All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 1345, the previous question is ordered on the bill. The question is on the third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

The SPEAKER pro tempore4:30 p.m.

The Clerk will report the motion to commit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Text printed in the Record (87 characters)

Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania moves to commit the bill S. 2 to the Committee on the Budget.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania is as follows:

Text printed in the Record (619 characters)

Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania moves to commit the bill S. 2 to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment: At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FROM USING TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON JANUARY 6, 2021. The Department of Justice may not use taxpayer funds to make settlement payments to individuals convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers at or around the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The SPEAKER pro tempore4:30 p.m.

Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the previous question is ordered on the motion to commit. The question is on the motion to commit.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore4:30 p.m.

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to commit will be followed by 5-minute votes on: Passage of the bill, if ordered; and Adoption of House Resolution 1140.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, nays 215, not voting 4, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,724 characters)

Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke Kean Mace McDonald Rivet Norman

Messrs. MURPHY and McDOWELL changed their vote from "yea" to "nay." Messrs. SCHNEIDER, OLSZEWSKI, and BEYER changed their vote from "nay" to "yea." So the motion to commit was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The SPEAKER pro tempore5:10 p.m.

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.

Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA)5:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore5:10 p.m.

This is a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, noes 212, not voting 4, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,725 characters)

Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Kiley (CA) Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Kean Mace McDonald Rivet Norman

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Providing for Consideration of H.r. 5408, Faster Labor Contracts Act

Pages H4029–H4037 · Official text

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5408, FASTER LABOR CONTRACTS ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 1140) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5408) to accelerate workplace time-to-contract under the National Labor Relations Act, 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 221, nays 201, not voting 8, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,723 characters)

Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Bacon Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Bresnahan Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fitzpatrick Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Joyce (OH) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi LaLota Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lawler Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Miller (OH) Min Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Van Drew Van Orden Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Baird Balderson Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood Langworthy Latta Lee (FL) Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smucker Spartz Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Duyne Van Epps Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke Barr Haridopolos Kean Mace Mast McDonald Rivet Moulton Norman

So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of North Carolina)5:30 p.m.

Pursuant to House Resolution 1140, the House will proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5408, which the Clerk will report by title.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore5:30 p.m.

Pursuant to House Resolution 1140, the bill is considered read.

The text of the bill is as follows:

Text printed in the Record (6,392 characters)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Faster Labor Contracts Act". SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) Employees in the United States have a right to organize collectively in order to secure higher wages and other benefits, and regularly exercise that right by voting to be represented by a labor organization in their workplaces. (2) A successful vote in favor of representation by a labor organization does not immediately lead to an agreement between the parties. Often the negotiation process is difficult and protracted, taking a year or longer. (3) Research indicates that these contracting delays are increasing over time. A Bloomberg Law study from 2021 found that the average number of days between a vote in favor of representation by a labor organization and a contract entered into between the parties was 465 days. (4) Delays in the processing of collective bargaining contracts primarily benefit employers opposed to representation by the labor organization. The employers can use those delays to sap labor organization resolve and secure more favorable terms for the employer. (5) In order for employees in the United States to fully enjoy the benefits guaranteed to them by Federal labor law, those employees must be able to promptly secure a first contract following the legal recognition or certification of a labor organization, and Federal labor law ought to facilitate this expediency. SEC. 3. FACILITATING INITIAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended-- (1) in subsection (d)-- (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively; (B) by striking "For the purposes of this section" and inserting "(1) For the purposes of this section"; (C) by inserting "(and to maintain current wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment pending an agreement)" after "arising thereunder"; (D) by inserting ": Provided, That an employer's duty to collectively bargain shall continue absent decertification of the representative following an election conducted pursuant to section 9" after "making of a concession"; (E) by inserting "further" before ", That where there is in effect"; (F) by striking "The duties imposed" and inserting "(2) The duties imposed"; (G) by striking "by paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)" and inserting "by subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of paragraph (1)"; (H) by striking "section 8(d)(1)" and inserting "paragraph (1)(A)"; (I) by striking "section 8(d)(3)" each place it appears and inserting "paragraph (1)(C)"; (J) by striking "section 8(d)(4)" and inserting "paragraph (1)(D)"; and (K) by adding at the end the following: "(3) Whenever collective bargaining is for the purpose of establishing an initial collective bargaining agreement following certification or recognition of an individual or labor organization as a representative as provided under section 9(a), the following shall apply: "(A) Not later than 10 days after receiving a written request for collective bargaining from an individual or labor organization that has been newly recognized or certified as a representative as provided under section 9(a), or within such further period as the parties agree upon, the parties shall meet and begin bargaining collectively, and shall make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective bargaining agreement. "(B) If after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which bargaining is commenced, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the parties have failed to reach an agreement, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service that a dispute exists, and may request mediation. Whenever such a request is received, the Service shall promptly communicate with the parties and use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to secure an agreement. "(C) If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made under subparagraph (B), or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, the Service is not able to bring the parties to agreement by conciliation, the Service shall refer the dispute to a 3-person arbitration panel established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service, with one member selected by the individual or labor organization, one member selected by the employer, and one neutral member mutually agreed to by the parties. The individual or labor organization and the employer must each select the members of the 3-person arbitration panel within 14 days of the Service's referral; if the individual or labor organization or the employer fail to do so, the Service shall designate any members not selected by the individual or labor organization or by the employer. A majority of the 3-person arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties. Such decision shall be based on-- "(i) the employer's financial status and prospects; "(ii) the size and type of the employer's operations and business; "(iii) the employees' cost of living; "(iv) the employees' ability to sustain themselves, their families, and their dependents on the wages and benefits they earn from the employer; and "(v) the wages and benefits other employers in the same business provide their employees."; and (2) in subsection (g), by striking "clause (B) of the last sentence of section 8(d) of this Act" and inserting "subsection (d)(2)(B)". SEC. 4. GAO REPORT EXAMINING AVERAGE WORKPLACE TIME-TO- CONTRACT. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report examining the average number of days between-- (1) the date on which an individual or labor organization is certified or recognized as the representative of employees under section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)), following the date of enactment of this Act; and (2) the date on which the parties enter into an initial collective bargaining agreement.

The SPEAKER pro tempore5:30 p.m.

The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, or their respective designees. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) will each control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Tim Walberg (R-MI)5:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5408.

The SPEAKER pro tempore5:30 p.m.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)5:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5408, the so-called Faster Labor Contracts Act. I will give credit to whoever named this bill because it certainly accomplishes two things faster: It fast-tracks government intrusion into private workplaces, and it erodes workers' rights faster than we have ever seen before. Under the FLCA, if the private parties involved do not reach a first contract on an accelerated timeline, a government-appointed arbitration panel steps in and imposes one. The panel does not merely recommend contract provisions or serve as a neutral entity while parties work to reach an agreement. Instead, it imposes a contract on employers and employees for at least 2 years without their consent. Let's call this bill what it really is: a massive expansion of Washington's power over American workers and job creators. It is the latest attempt to put workers under the thumb of Federal bureaucrats. Under the bill, government bureaucrats can parachute into workplaces they have never set foot in, override the voice of the workers and industries they know little about, and leave them with contracts that may not serve their interests. Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill assure businesses and workers that it is about worker empowerment and efficiency. I may be misremembering the definition of empowerment, but I can guarantee it does not mean taking away a worker's right to vote on his or her own contract and giving that power to a Washington bureaucrat with no stake in the outcome. As for efficiency, this bill inserts the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, FMCS, an agency that President Trump rightly sought to eliminate for its corruption into the bargaining process. Reports came out last year about the agency's alleged mismanagement of funds and other fraudulent activities. Now we are expected to give this agency a role in deciding workers' wages, benefits, scheduling rules, disciplinary procedures, and working conditions whenever contract negotiations extend beyond an arbitrary time frame. I really doubt this agency will be able to do much, if anything, efficiently. If the bill supporters truly care about efficiency--and I believe they do--this is a strange way to show it. For more than 90 years, Federal labor law has required employers and unions to bargain in good faith. Despite what supporters of this bill seem to suggest, that system is still working today. Whether it is the Teamsters, UPS, or United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers, countless agreements across the country have been reached because both sides negotiated compromise and arrived at terms that made sense for their unique workplaces. Under this bill, small businesses, in particular, could be forced into long-term, expensive, one-size-fits-all contracts written by bureaucrats. Those contracts could mandate spending that small employers cannot sustain, threaten jobs, kill growth, and in some cases, shut businesses down entirely. Mr. Speaker, simply put, the FLCA is not proworker. It is an ideological Trojan horse that harms the very people it claims to help, empowers bureaucrats over workers, and undermines the collaborative process that has long-defined American labor relations. Ultimately, workers value having a voice in workplace decisions. The Trump administration has prioritized putting America's workers first and strengthening the Nation's workforce. This bill goes directly against the President's vision for America: to have the most capable and competitive workforce in the world. It takes decisions out of the hands of workers and job creators and places them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, we do not need government-imposed contracts. We do not need bureaucrats writing workplace rules. We certainly do not need a bill that claims to champion workers while stripping them of their ability to approve contracts that govern their livelihoods, whether they understand that or not. If Congress truly wants to support American workers, we should strengthen workplace democracy, protect workers' rights, and encourage honest bargaining--not replace negotiation with government mandates. The FLCA is wrong for workers, wrong for businesses, wrong for the economy, and wrong for the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which ensures that workers can quickly and efficiently reach a first contract between a union and their employer. It is also one of the many important provisions of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, which critically bolsters working people's ability to organize and form a union while holding union-busting employers accountable. This bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to begin negotiations with a newly certified union within 10 days. This bill further provides that if no agreement is reached after 90 days, either party may request mediation from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. If mediation fails after 30 days, the dispute will be referred to an arbitration panel selected by the union and employer to secure an initial contract. For too many workers, the hard work doesn't end when they vote to form a union. It just begins. Reaching a first contract to form a union can take months, even years. In some cases, it never happens at all. It is not unusual for workers to sit through endless delays and other dilatory tactics by employers, including shifting proposals and stalled negotiations. Workers endure all of this while trying to balance their jobs, their families, and their livelihoods. When workers choose to organize, they are choosing a unified voice to negotiate for their rights with management. Without a first contract, that voice can be effectively silenced. Dragging out negotiations gives corporations a long chance to break up a union. The Faster Labor Contracts Act brings accountability to this process. It sets up reasonable timelines and ensures that both sides engage in serious, good-faith negotiations. It helps prevent delay tactics and keeps the focus where it belongs--on reaching an agreement that works for everyone. This bill is about making the right to organize real, not theoretical. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Norcross for his leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Virginia Foxx (R-NC)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Faster Labor Contracts Act. Republicans should always be proworker, and we are always proworker; but being proworker does not mean handing more power to Washington, and it certainly does not mean taking decisions away from the workers themselves. Yet, that is exactly what this bill does. For nearly 90 years, Federal labor policy has been guided by a simple principle: workers and employers should determine the terms of employment through voluntary, good-faith bargaining. That framework, established under the National Labor Relations Act, has governed labor relations for generations. The Faster Labor Contracts Act turns that principle on its head. If negotiations fail to conclude within a federally prescribed timeline, government-appointed arbitrators are empowered to impose wages, benefits, schedules, and workplace rules for years to come. In other words, this bill replaces negotiation with compulsion and substitutes private agreements with Federal mandates. Most concerning, workers themselves may be bound by contracts they never approved. Under the FLCA, employees would lose one of the most fundamental rights they have today: the ability to vote on the terms and conditions governing their own employment. This is not proworker. It is progovernment, and Congress should not be in the business of silencing workers or stripping them of their voice. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce and the sponsor of the bill.

Donald Norcross (D-NJ)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scott for yielding. Mr. Speaker, when a union wins more fair pay and better working conditions for its members, it sets the bar higher for everyone. Even if you are not part of the union yourself, you can still thank organized labor for negotiating some of what is in your contract. For millions of workers, the first contract can take years to negotiate if an employer decides to play the waiting game. Some negotiations collapse before the contract ever becomes law. In fact, that is exactly what many corporations are banking on. If we can't count on billionaires negotiating ethically, and we can't count on existing rules to stop employers from running out the clock, what can we count on? We can count on ourselves to fight back. My Faster Labor Contracts Act is what an unprecedented coalition of lawmakers, labor leaders, and workers across this great Nation are now fighting back with. We are proposing that workers get a choice. If an employer won't meaningfully come to the table, my legislation would give workers and employers the option to invoke hard deadlines. It is an option. It is not mandatory. If the bill offers a clear path to a first contract, and it doesn't pass, this has an end to it. It is a really simple change. Yet, by leveling the playing field, the Faster Labor Contracts Act would be the most significant new protection for workers since before World War II. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Bobby Scott and my friends on both sides of the aisle for helping get this Faster Labor Contracts Act to this point. Let's pass it out of the House, get it over to the Senate, and send it to the White House to be signed.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my good friend and colleague from New Jersey, the sponsor of this bill, and his desire to move processes forward. I just have a significant concern that it is short-sighted to think that government intrusion into this process will ever work in the end and what would be considered optional wouldn't eventually become mandatory in the fact that the workers themselves aren't making these decisions, that the best interests of the union leadership may be carried on, but not the workers'. That is my concern. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a man who knows what it means to be involved in negotiations from both sides.

Rick W. Allen (R-GA)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act. Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of this House majority and the Trump administration, we are working to deliver a 21st century economy that benefits the working class. We are putting workers first and giving them the freedom to champion their own future and achieve the American Dream. This legislation before us today, to put it simply, is a significant step backward. There is a reason this bill is opposed by hundreds of organizations and stakeholder groups, including H.R. professionals, franchise businesses, retailers, and more. The Faster Labor Contracts Act would allow government-appointed arbitrators to impose a union contract on workers and employers if the two sides cannot reach an agreement on their own. At its core, H.R. 5408 rips power away from workers and job creators and lays it in the lap of the Federal Government. I can tell you firsthand that the hardworking Georgians I represent want no part of this. Georgia has been named the number one State to do business for 12 consecutive years. We are a right-to-work State. One reason for that is that we have great State-level leadership that rejects destructive policies like this. Current law already requires employers and unions to bargain in good faith and provides remedies for parties that refuse to do so. The goal of this body should be to fuel growth for Main Street, not force employees and employers into union contracts without their consent. The Faster Labor Contracts Act is bad for our economy, bad for American workers, and I strongly urge a vote in opposition.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Steven Horsford (D-NV)5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a son of the labor movement and co-chair of the Congressional Labor Caucus in strong support of the Faster Labor Contracts Act. When workers come together to form a union, they are not asking for a handout. They are asking and fighting for what they have already earned: better wages, safer working conditions, stronger benefits, and the dignity of having a voice on the job. Collective bargaining is a fundamental right, guaranteed under Federal law, and it is one of the most powerful tools working people have. Mr. Speaker, winning the union election is supposed to be the end of the fight. Instead, for far too many workers, it is just the beginning. It is just the beginning because current law provides no meaningful timeline for reaching a first contract. Employers who want to stall can stall for months, even years, all while workers wait. Here is the number that should outrage every Member of this body: 458 days. On average, it takes 458 days to reach a first contract after workers have already voted. Think about that. More than 1 year after workers have spoken clearly with their vote, they are still waiting. They are still waiting for the wages that they organized to win. They are still waiting for the benefits that their families need. They are still waiting for basic dignity on the job. Too often, that delay is not an accident. It is a strategy to wear workers down and to preserve the status quo. The Faster Labor Contracts Act, introduced by my friend and fellow co-chair of the Labor Caucus, Representative Norcross, closes that loophole. It does not guarantee any particular outcome at the bargaining table. It simply ensures that both parties show up and negotiate in good faith on a reasonable timeline. A right delayed is a right denied. Workers cannot wait. Families cannot wait. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Faster Labor Contracts Act and to bring this PRO Act to the floor for its full approval.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we talked about efficiency and moving the issue forward 400-some days, but this bill is being rushed. It is being rushed in other ways. It requires a report from the Government Accountability Office, examining the length of time between recognition of a union in the workplace and the initial collective bargaining agreement. However, that report will not be issued until 1 year after enactment of the bill. We are passing a bill that could impact millions of employers and employees, only then to request a report to understand the alleged issue that this bill aims to address. I think back to the 2010 ObamaCare vote, when Members of this body were told to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. We face a similar question today. Why must we vote on a proposed solution before we even know the problem? Instead, let us do the reasonable thing before this bill goes to a vote. That is just something we ought to consider, especially when we have the opportunity to do that, as opposed to pushing this directly to the floor without even having a GAO study beforehand. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), a great member of our Education and Workforce Committee.

Mary E. Miller (R-IL)5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I join the majority of my Republican colleagues in voicing strong opposition to H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act. This bill puts the selfish needs of the union bosses above the welfare of American workers. It would force employers to begin bargaining with new unions within 10 days of certification. It would force Federal mediation to intervene if no contract is signed. It would force the arbitrated contracts to last 2 years, and they cannot be appealed. Let me be clear. Employers and unions already meet at the negotiating table. There is no need to use government overreach to force labor negotiations. The Faster Labor Contracts Act is bad for employers, bad for employees, and bad for the economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and vote "no."

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL)5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, and I salute Mr. Norcross and Mr. Scott for their outstanding leadership on this bill. Across America, workers exercise one of the most fundamental rights protected under our labor laws--namely, the right to organize and bargain collectively. Yet, far too often, after workers vote to form a union, they are forced to wait months and even years before seeing the benefits of that decision. In fact, the average time to secure a first contract exceeds 450 days. During that time, workers can face uncertainty, delays, and frustration while negotiations drag on with no clear path to resolution. There are countless examples. A few years ago, in my home State of Illinois, Teamsters drivers at XPO Logistics in Aurora voted to form a union. Yet, more than 1 year after they voted, they were still fighting simply to get the company to come to the bargaining table. Those workers had exercised their legal right to organize, but they remained without a first contract and without the certainty that they voted for. The Faster Labor Contracts Act addresses this problem with a straightforward and commonsense framework. It requires newly certified unions and employers to begin bargaining promptly. If negotiations stall, the bill provides mediation and, if necessary, a neutral arbitration process to help both sides reach an initial agreement. This bill ensures that when workers make their voices heard through a lawful election, that decision is respected. Workers deserve to know that their vote to organize will not be rendered meaningless by endless delays. That is what this bill provides. It is practical, bipartisan, and strengthens confidence in our labor system, supporting working families and helping to create more stable workplaces. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Faster Labor Contracts Act.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), another great member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Robert F. Onder, Jr. (R-MO)5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Members from both sides of the aisle will head to the field for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. It is a great tradition in Washington, reminding us that no matter how intensely we disagree, we believe in the basic American principle of fair play. I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation that completely upends the rules of fair play for Americans, the Faster Labor Contracts Act. To understand why this bill is so dangerous for our workforce, let's stick with the baseball analogy for a second. Imagine a tie game, the bottom of the ninth, a close play at the plate, and the call is challenged. In Major League Baseball, we know how the replay review works. It goes to a centralized room in New York filled with veteran umpires who have spent decades in the field. Both teams accept the final decision because they trust the expertise of the people making the call. Now, imagine if the MLB suddenly changed that rule. Imagine replay reviews were handed over to a rushed, three-person panel, with one reviewer picked by the home team and one picked by the away team. A third tie-breaking member is chosen at random from the stadium's front-office staff. They are then given a 2-minute clock to issue a final, unappealable ruling. None of us would accept it. The fans would protest, and the integrity of the game would be destroyed. Yet, remarkably, that is exactly the framework this legislation wants to force upon collective bargaining in the American workplace. The Faster Labor Contracts Act invites Federal bureaucrats directly into private negotiations and empowers them to dictate contracts between employers and employees. Under the text of this bill, once the union is certified, negotiations must begin within 10 days. The parties are then given a rigid window of just 90 days to reach a first contract. If they cannot reach a deal in that brief window, the bill forces them into mediation, but it only gives the process 30 days. If the mediation doesn't resolve every single issue in those few weeks, a government-imposed, binding arbitration automatically kicks in. Just like that hypothetical baseball panel, a three-person arbitration board takes over. The employer picks one, the union picks one, and a third so-called neutral arbitrator is selected. If the parties cannot agree on those selections within 14 days, the Federal mediation conciliation panel steps in and chooses all three arbitrators for them. This panel is given sweeping, unprecedented power to dictate wages, benefits, safety procedures, leave policies, and virtually every term of employment. Then comes the worst part of all. These three-person panel votes, and that contract becomes legally binding for a full 2 years. What about the rank-and-file workers, the men and women on the factory floor and on the construction sites? They are completely shut out of the process. Under this bill, the workers are denied the right to vote on the very contract that governs their work lives. There is no ratification vote, and there is no right of appeal. Think about that. The moral argument for labor unions is to give workers a collective voice, but this bill strips them of that voice and hands it over to a panel of outside lawyers and bureaucrats. Last spring at a Senate hearing, an International Association of Machinists shop steward testified on this point. He warned that removing the right of workers to ratify their own contract removes democracy from the workplace. He said: Giving the worker a say is the whole point of a union. If we value the voices of working people, we should not support a bill that silences them. Our government already furnishes help and protection through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which employers, employees, and unions can voluntarily utilize to resolve disputes. We do not need a heavy-handed law that prioritizes speed over fairness, centralization over consent, and government control over workplace democracy. Let's keep the Federal Government out of the dugout, and let's let American workers and businesses call the balls and strikes themselves.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of Teachers.

Text printed in the Record (4,861 characters)

Washington DC, June 9, 2026. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFT's more than 1.8 million members working in education, healthcare and public services, I write to strongly encourage you to vote yes on the Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R. 5408). We believe that workers, no matter where they work, whether in the private sector or the public sector, deserve labor laws that meaningfully protect them and preserve their ability to join a union and collectively bargain. While the majority of AFT members work in the public sector, the AFT is the second-largest nurses' union in the country and represents more than 75,000 educators in charter schools who are considered private sector employees. For many years, we have strongly supported the robust and comprehensive labor law reforms in both the Protecting the Right to Organize Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, and we have urged Congress to pass both bills. The National Labor Relations Act, originally enacted in 1935, has never significantly been reformed; the need to do so is undeniable. As unionization rates across the U.S. economy have declined, from over 30 percent in 1954 to 11 percent in 2024, our country has seen income inequality skyrocket. A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute shows that more than 60 million Americans would join a union if given the choice. Yet, despite the popularity of unions, too many workers face insurmountable barriers when trying to organize a union, a direct result of the failure to reform American labor laws. Workers trying to form a union are faced with firings, harassment and captive audience meetings. And if workers prevail and the majority vote to form a union, many employers simply refuse to bargain a first contract. The Faster Labor Contracts Act would require employers to bargain a first collective bargaining agreement in good faith. If no agreement is reached after three months, the employer and the union would enter mediation, and if mediation fails within 30 days, they move to binding arbitration. Absent congressional action on the PRO Act or PSFNA in the short term, we believe that individual provisions of either bill that have bipartisan support, such as the Faster Labor Contracts Act, should move forward. For this reason, we call on all members of the House to vote for the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R. 5408). It is far from being a complete set of labor reforms, but it is an incredibly important step in the right direction. Unions enable working people to have a voice on the job and the power to act collectively. Whether it is a decent wage or safety on the job, workers have a better shot at better working conditions when they can form a union and collectively bargain. By standing together, union members earn higher wages and are more likely to have employer-provided healthcare, pensions and benefits such as paid sick and family leave. Data shows that the average median union worker is paid approximately 20 percent more than the median nonunion worker. Under current law, for far too many workers, including many who seek to join the AFT, organizing a union is marked by employer anti-union campaigns that include pressure tactics and a refusal to negotiate a first contract after workers have voted to unionize. Over the last few years, healthcare professionals organizing the AFT in Oregon have encountered yearslong delays from their employer when they tried to bargain a first contract in good faith. In K-12 charter schools, we have repeatedly experienced employers who, in the face of resounding pro-union elections, turn their energies toward wearing down a new union by refusing to negotiate a first contract. We have seen an unwillingness to come to the bargaining table in Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Yearslong delays or outright refusals to bargain are meant to send a message to workers that their voice and their vote do not matter and that there is no point in forming a union. We believe that ultimately the package of reforms contained in both the PRO Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act are critical for working families in this country and their communities, and we will continue to fight for these reforms. However, we recognize that progress is often achieved in incremental steps; making progress in one area while continuing to organize and work for additional gains in other areas is often how meaningful change is achieved. All workers, no matter where they are employed, deserve a voice on the job and should have the freedom to join together and bargain with their employer. We look forward to working with lawmakers, no matter their political party, to advance labor law reforms for all workers. Sincerely, Randi Weingarten, President, AFT.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:00 p.m.

The letter says, in part: "For this reason, we call on all Members of the House to vote for the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act. It is far from being a complete set of labor reforms, but it is an incredibly important step in the right direction." The letter goes on to say: "Under current law, for far too many workers, including many who seek to join the AFT, organizing a union is marked by employer anti-union campaigns that include pressure tactics and a refusal to negotiate a first contract after workers have voted to unionize." Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Val T. Hoyle (D-OR)6:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard enough to form a union, and in this building and in States across the country, we see efforts every day to make it even more difficult. We are seeing yet another strategy to delay and deny union representation from workers who have overcome every hurdle to vote to belong to a union. The average time between forming a union and a contract being signed is 458 days, and it is 548 days for nonprofits. Workers should not have to wait years after forming a union to get a contract, and employers should not be able to move the goalposts after the decision has been made to form a union. My friend Representative Norcross brought forward the Faster Labor Contracts Act to address this issue, and I am proud to speak in favor of this bill. Being proworker does not mean being antibusiness. Being probusiness shouldn't mean being antiworker. When workers do well and have a clear path to the middle class, have access to family-wage jobs, and safe working conditions, our economy thrives and our businesses do better. I am a Member of Congress as a third-generation union member. Because my father and grandfather fought for or won better wages, hours, and working conditions with their unions, I am able to be here today. This bill corrects a loophole and gives a timeline to negotiate a contract. That is what it does. This is a proworker bill, and should not be a partisan issue, and it is not. We have Republicans who have stood up for workers as well. Either you stand with workers or you don't. Today, I am proud to stand with the workers of this country and support this very good bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge a "yes" vote.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)6:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine), one who stands up for workers and is a great participant in the Education and Workforce Committee as well.

Randy Fine (R-FL)6:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called Faster Labor Contracts Act. I used to run businesses. That is what I was good at, and I understand the importance of collective bargaining, but I also know that the process shouldn't be rushed. Labor contracts are not minor administrative details. These are life-changing agreements. But this legislation imposes rigid timelines and artificial deadlines that could actually hurt both parties. Negotiations take time because real compromise takes time. Workers deserve the opportunity to organize, consult with representatives, and review proposals carefully. The current law provides the right incentives for good-faith bargaining, but the Faster Labor Contracts Act does not do that. It does not even promise a quicker turnaround for labor contracts. It just promises that a third party will step in sooner. The bill gives union workers and employees 90 days to reach an agreement before being referred to mediation and then 30 additional days before going to arbitration. But there is no time limit on the arbitration, which could last for months or even years. Think about that. The only participants who do not face a deadline under the bill are the arbitrators the government is forcing employers and employees to submit to. Despite the name of the bill, there is no guarantee the process will actually become faster. There is only a guarantee that workers and businesses may have no say in the final product. This bill doesn't promise higher wages. It doesn't improve workplace safety. It doesn't strengthen retirement security. It does not protect healthcare benefits. What it does do is place private negotiations on an accelerated timetable that increases pressure on workers to settle before they have fully fought for what they deserve. This is a bad idea, and I hope that we vote it down today.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Christian D. Menefee (D-TX)6:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Faster Labor Contracts Act. Mr. Speaker, I am just astonished to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that this bill was rushed when they failed to take it up in committee, when we all know that under their leadership, the committee has focused on attacking unions and attacking trans kids. Maybe if they focused more on education and workforce, we would see more bills like this come to the floor through a proper process that actually helps unions. I represent Houston and the longshoremen on the Ship Channel, like my grandfather; freight drivers; steelworkers; and electricians. These are folks that without them, this country would come to a screeching halt. Right now, when those workers vote to form a union, what the law requires is that the employer bargain in good faith. That is exactly what the law requires, but we all know that is not what happens in real life. In reality, employers stall. They run out the clock. That is why the average time between a union vote and the first contract is over a year, a year when the bosses hold all of the cards. That is a loophole that lets employers act in bad faith. All this bill does is close it. It sets clear deadlines; a fair process; mediation, if needed; arbitration as a backstop; and it only applies to first contracts. It is focused, and it is reasonable. When workers follow the rules, the rules have to work for them. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to spend better time when they are managing their committees.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)6:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a former union steelworker, I certainly understand the value that unions play in the workplace. I also understand the value that employers play in the workplace. I sometimes have my concerns about union officials and where they put their greatest agenda items at and the greatest concerns. Unions can only force workers to pay dues or fees if there is a signed contract in effect. This means that between the time a union is certified and when a first contract is signed, the union is not getting paid to represent workers. Once the dues spigot is open, nearly all unions funnel that money to opposing President Trump and the Republican Party goals to lower taxes and make the American Dream affordable. For decades, unions have increasingly spent more of their money on political campaigns--it is part of the record--and fringe social issues with a paltry sum spent on actually representing their members at the bargaining table and fighting for their rights. From 1990 to 2010, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, was the second largest political donor on record, but spent 98 percent of its dollars on the other party, Democrats. President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of dollars of union dues from unions like the SEIU, United Electrical Workers Union, and United Auto Workers are going to a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel agenda. President Trump has fought to get DEI initiatives out of our schools, workplaces, and government agencies. Union money has been propping up that agenda for more than a decade. These are hard truths. President Trump supports a pro-life policy, but union money flows into Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations. Union-funded House Democrats have not spent their time fighting for workers like they promise. Instead, they have spent their time undermining President Trump's agenda and trying to get him removed from office. These are hard truths. The Faster Labor Contracts Act is just the latest attempt to undermine the President and his proworker agenda. It will go to union leadership. They will still be pulling it in while the bureaucrats make decisions for the employees. I urge colleagues to vote "no" on H.R. 5408, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Greg Casar (D-TX)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for us to pass the Faster Labor Contracts Act tonight in the U.S. House to uphold the fundamental right for all American workers, the right to bargain collectively for a fair contract. American workers marched, bled, and died for the right to form a union. They marched, bled, and died for the right to join together and bargain for fair wages and working conditions. However, for far too many Americans, that right exists in name only because far too often employers drag out contract negotiations for weeks, months, and then years. On average, it takes more than 465 days to secure a first union contract. That is 465 days that workers go without fair wages, benefits, and the protections that they have earned. That is unacceptable. Today, we say: When you exercise your fundamental rights to organize a union, you deserve a contract without needless delay. After we do our job in the House, the Senate should pass this bill without delay. I am very grateful to the ranking member and to Mr. Norcross for this effort. I also want to say a word about how the bill came to the floor. The bill itself is critically important, but today's vote is about more than any one bill. After the Speaker refused to bring the bill to the floor, working people got to work and organized 218 signatures needed to force this vote. This vote sends a clear message that when working people stand together, we can win under the most difficult of circumstances. It is happening more and more. Just this Congress, we have stood together to demand a vote on collective bargaining for Federal workers, the right to form a union, affordable healthcare, defense for the people of Ukraine, and the rights of those with temporary protected status. The vote sends a message that the Speaker may hold the gavel, but in the United States of America, working people are still in charge.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), a great member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Glenn Grothman (R-WI)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for fighting this onerous bill. I will add in addition to all the other things he pointed out, the candidates that the unions back usually are in favor of big welfare. I think part of that is because people, I am sure, on welfare are more likely to vote Democratic, so they like a lot of people taking advantage of that system. When I look at this bill, I wonder which planet the drafters were from. I love to get around my district and talk to my employers, the factories, and the warehouses. Again and again, I find happy and well-paid people. This bill was drafted by somebody who wants as many businesses, I think, to be in a confrontational mode of using the government to negotiate an arbitration on this contract or that contract or how we are going to be able to run the factory, which is a primary way that you can make American business less competitive. You also see, as other speakers have pointed out, that we have a situation here in which government officials are going to impose a contract. In other words, government officials are going to determine how a factory is run. I can't think of a way to make American business less competitive. I encourage my colleagues to tour a nonunion factory sometime over the weekend.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time is remaining on both sides.

The SPEAKER pro tempore6:10 p.m.

Yes, sir. The minority side has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining. I believe the majority side has 7 minutes remaining.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, could you say that again.

The SPEAKER pro tempore6:10 p.m.

Your side has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, sir.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).

Frank J. Mrvan (D-IN)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Scott and Representative Norcross for bringing this to our attention. The men and women who pour our steel and power our grid built the middle class with a union card in their pocket. This bill makes sure the next generation of workers can earn one without waiting to be heard for months, years, or decades. I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act. My good friend, the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, mentioned this administration and how much they like the working public, working men and women. It was in March and on Labor Day that they stripped collective bargaining in the greatest historical moment in stripping collective bargaining from the workforce of Federal employees to the tune of 445,000 Federal workers. Therefore, when we talk about union workers and working men and women, this administration made history by stripping collective bargaining from almost half a million people. Throughout my career as a public servant, I have been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with all members of organized labor because working families are worth fighting for. They are the foundation of the strength of our communities, our workforce, and our economy. It is because of decades of their efforts and their advocacy that they have built not just our infrastructure--our roads and bridges and waterways--but they have built our middle class through promoting safe working conditions, affordable healthcare options, and a sound retirement. When workers vote in the affirmative to form a union, the government should ensure that businesses immediately acknowledge and respect their voice. I applaud the leadership of Representative Norcross in this bipartisan process. There are Republicans who crossed over to vote for this.

The SPEAKER pro tempore6:10 p.m.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana.

Frank J. Mrvan (D-IN)6:10 p.m.

There were Republicans who crossed over to allow this bill to come to the floor--again, in a bipartisan process to bring this matter to a vote because working men and women matter. In northwest Indiana, they are worth fighting for. I encourage all my colleagues to support this important measure. Again, this administration made history by cutting collective bargaining to over half a million Federal employees and did that on Labor Day.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)6:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, through you to my friend from the region where we both grew up, Hammond, South Side of Chicago, Calumet City, steel area and all the rest, I just make one point: Our President is clearly for private sector workers, very much so. When he dealt with the Federal Government, it follows the pattern of trying to reduce the cost, the size, the scope of the Federal Government. In fact, that is what we are talking about here, of expanding the scope of the Federal Government to come in and force on employees and employers contracts that in many cases they will not have voted on. I just remind my good friend of that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Al Green (D-TX)6:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend from Virginia for allowing me the time. I shall return some of it to the gentleman. First, an acknowledgment: I am a dues check-off member of AFSCME. I am proud to have been a member of this union for more than 20 years, and I rise to say that I support the legislation. More importantly, I rise to say that we should not engage in insidious prevarications to solicit the support of legislation. It is not true, and I defend all the unions, especially SEIU and AFSCME. It is not true that any of those unions support Hamas. That is below the belt. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that any of the unions support Hamas. When I heard that, it really touched a nerve. We can debate these issues without the prevarications that can become incitive. This is about whether we should have collective bargaining, that it should be fair, and that the industry and labor should compromise and work together. I can support compromise, but I cannot support language indicating that labor unions are supporting Hamas. It is not true.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)6:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, just to bring clarity, my exact words were: President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of dollars of union dues from unions like SEIU, the United Electrical Workers, and the United Auto Workers are going to support a pro-Hamas, anti-Israel agenda. I stand by that. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when workers vote to form a union, they don't want their first contract to come in years after endless stalling by an employer negotiating in bad faith. They want a voice in the workplace. The Faster Labor Contracts Act helps prevent these delay tactics and smooths the transition to an organized workplace. As the saying goes, forming a union should be a right, not a fight. This legislation is an important first step toward ensuring that workers can more easily form a union and negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces. Unions are critical to leveling the playing field and addressing rising economic inequality. This bill will help achieve these goals, but we cannot stop here. We must also pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act, to comprehensively advance workers' rights. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)6:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill asks us to believe that workers are empowered when their right to vote on a contract is taken away and handed to a government-appointed arbitrator. That is not empowerment. That is Washington deciding it knows better in the end than people actually doing the job. For decades, employers and unions have negotiated contracts through good faith bargaining. Certainly, it is not always easy, but it works because the people closest to the workplace are the ones making the decisions. This bill replaces that process with Federal intervention and a one-size-fits-all mandate. Congress is being asked to make these sweeping changes without the scrutiny they deserve--no committee process, no serious examination of the costs, and no opportunity to fully consider the consequences. Workers deserve a voice. Businesses deserve certainty. The American people deserve better than rushed legislation that puts bureaucrats in charge and leaves everyone else with the bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will include a letter at a later time raising concerns about H.R. 5408 from G. Roger King, senior labor and employment counsel at CHRO Association, and Alex McDonald, co-chair of the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crank)6:20 p.m.

All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 1140, the previous question is ordered on the bill. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The question is on passage of the bill. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)6:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, nays 193, not voting 7, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (3,723 characters)

Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Bacon Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Bresnahan Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carey Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fitzpatrick Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garbarino Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Joyce (OH) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Krishnamoorthi LaLota Landsman Langworthy Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lawler Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Malliotakis Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Miller (OH) Min Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Rulli Ryan Salazar Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stauber Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Turner (OH) Underwood Van Drew Van Orden Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Gill (TX) Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood Latta Lee (FL) Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mackenzie Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rutherford Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smucker Spartz Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Valadao Van Duyne Van Epps Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke Carter (GA) Dunn (FL) Kean Khanna Mace McDonald Rivet Norman

Messrs. SMUCKER, WITTMAN, FITZGERALD, COMER, and RUTHERFORD changed their vote from "yea" to "nay." Mr. MEEKS changed his vote from "nay" to "yea." So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Resignation as Member of Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Page H4037 · Official text

RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following resignation as a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Text printed in the Record (191 characters)

Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Johnson: I hereby resign my position on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sincerely,

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Without objection, the resignation is accepted.

There was no objection.

Electing Members to Certain Standing Committees of the House of Representatives

Page H4037 · Official text

Ted Lieu (D-CA)

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (461 characters)

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives: Committee on Foreign Affairs: Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Bell. Committee on the Judiciary: Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Mr. Menefee, to rank immediately after Mr. Walkinshaw. Committee on Small Business: Ms. Mejia. Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Ms. Goodlander.

Mr. LIEU (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Moment of Silence for Pulse Nightclub Victims

Page H4037 · Official text

(Mr. SOTO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Darren Soto (D-FL)

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago this Friday, our happy little town of Orlando was the subject of the deadliest mass shooting in history at that time. It happened at the Pulse nightclub, an LGBTQ+ nightclub, during Latin night. We lost 49 of our brothers and sisters, and 53 others were wounded. Tonight, we rise to remember them, the first responders, their families, and our community as we continue to heal after this terrible tragedy, and I ask for a moment of silence.

No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026

Pages H4037–H4044 · Official text

Tim Walberg (R-MI)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1333, I call up the bill (H.R. 7892) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require to the Secretary of Education to use an identity fraud detection system to review each FAFSA to determine whether the FAFSA presents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kennedy of Utah)

Pursuant to House Resolution 1333, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-31 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.

The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

Text printed in the Record (5,841 characters)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026". SEC. 2. IDENTITY FRAUD DETECTION SYSTEM. (a) Identity Fraud Detection System.--Section 483 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1090) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(e) Identity Fraud Detection System.-- "(1) In general.--In addition to, or in conjunction with, other verification processes carried out under this title, the Secretary shall-- "(A) use an identity fraud detection system to screen and assess each application submitted under this section on or after October 1, 2026, to determine whether the application presents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud based on one or more indicators associated with suspected fraud risk; and "(B) carry out notifications in accordance with paragraph (2). "(2) Notification of reasonable suspicion of identity fraud.--If the Secretary determines that an application submitted under this section presents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud, the Secretary shall-- "(A) provide the applicant with notice-- "(i) of such determination; "(ii) that the information described in subparagraph (B) will be transmitted to each institution of higher education designated by the applicant in the application; and "(iii) that the applicant is subject to additional identity verification requirements in accordance with section 487(a)(15)(B); and "(B) transmit to each institution designated by the applicant in the application, a notice-- "(i) that such application presents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud; and "(ii) that the applicant is subject to additional identity verification requirements to be carried out by the institution in accordance with section 487(a)(15)(B), before the institution may disburse Federal financial aid under this title to such applicant. "(3) Congressional notices and report.-- "(A) Notices.--The Secretary shall submit to the authorizing committees-- "(i) not later than November 1, 2026, a written description of the identity fraud detection system required under this subsection; and "(ii) not later than 30 days after implementing any substantial change to such system, a written description and rationale for such change. "(B) Annual evaluation and report.--Not later than October 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the identity fraud detection system carried out under this subsection, and submit to the authorizing committees a report on the use and effectiveness of such system. "(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the Secretary from meeting the requirements of paragraph (1), in whole or in part, through a capability or system used by the Secretary on or before the date of enactment of the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026.". (b) Additional Verification Requirements.-- (1) Amendments.--Section 487(a)(15) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(15)) is amended-- (A) by striking "(15) The institution acknowledges" and inserting "(15)(A) The institution acknowledges"; and (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(B) Beginning on October 1, 2026, the institution will not disburse Federal financial aid under this title to an applicant with an application under section 483 that presents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud under section 483(e), unless the institution, directly or through a contracted third-party service provider and in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary-- "(i) before the disbursement of such aid-- "(I) determines that a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud is not present by confirming the identity of such applicant using-- "(aa) in-person identity verification; "(bb) live, synchronous audiovisual identity verification; "(cc) identity verification compliant with National Institute of Standards and Technology Identity Assurance Level 2 (NIST IAL2), or an equivalent successor; "(dd) any additional identity verification method approved by the Secretary that provides a level of identity assurance that is equal to or greater than the level of assurance provided by an identify verification method described in items (aa) through (cc); or "(ee) a combination of two or more of the verification methods described in items (aa) through (dd); and "(II) notifies the Secretary that the identity of the applicant has been verified; and "(ii) maintains a record of such identity verification.". (2) Guidelines on institutional verification procedures.--Not later than October 1, 2026, the Secretary of Education shall establish guidelines with respect to identity verification procedures to be carried out by institutions of higher education under subparagraph (B) of section 487(a)(15) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(15)), as amended by paragraph (1). SEC. 3. PROGRAM REVIEW PRIORITY CATEGORY. Section 498A(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099c-1(a)(2)) is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking "and" at the end; (2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following: "(F) institutions that have demonstrated a pattern of disbursing, on or after October 1, 2026, Federal financial aid under this title for an award year to students with an application under section 483 for such award year that presented a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud under section 483(e), except that the Secretary shall exclude any institution that demonstrates to the Secretary that the institution is in compliance with the requirements of section 487(a)(15)(B); and".

The SPEAKER pro tempore

The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, or their respective designees. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Tim Walberg (R-MI)7:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 7892.

The SPEAKER pro tempore7:10 p.m.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)7:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026, a simple and commonsense piece of legislation to fight fraud in our Federal student aid system. This legislation, authored by Representative Burgess Owens, also includes key provisions from Representative Glenn "GT" Thompson's H.R. 7891, the Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026, which further strengthens this important bill. Student aid should go to real students. This is simple but somehow contested, an idea that Republicans are committed to protecting. Over the past few years, it has become increasingly apparent that fraudsters are exploiting Federal programs at every level. Instead of helping children get meals or supporting students' educations, Americans' tax dollars have been lining criminals' pockets, helping fraudsters get rich while Americans suffer the consequences. At the Committee on Education and Workforce, Mr. Speaker, we have been examining this issue closely and working hard to expose the rampant fraud in our Federal assistance programs. While childcare and hospice care have dominated the headlines in recent months, our Federal student aid programs have also fallen victim to fraud. The most pressing threat comes from ghost students, fraudsters who use stolen or synthetic identities to submit the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, and steal student aid dollars. These fraudsters commonly operate in foreign or domestic crime rings, submitting large numbers of FAFSAs to net huge amounts of cash. Until recently, these schemes were far too often successful. This was largely possible because the Biden-Harris administration removed critical, commonsense guardrails during the COVID-19 pandemic that weakened fraud prevention measures and made it easier than ever to loot our Federal student aid programs. Those foolish policies didn't help students. In fact, they did the opposite by creating more opportunities for fraudsters and criminals to endlessly exploit Federal student aid assistance programs and steal from taxpayers. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that under Education Secretary Linda McMahon's leadership, the Department of Education has made great strides in combating this fraud, restoring key safeguards, increasing identity screenings, and strengthening verification requirements. As a result, the Department blocked more than $1 billion in attempted fraud in 2025. Those efforts, while effective, are not guaranteed to remain in place under future administrations, as we saw under the Biden administration. That is why committee Republicans are advancing legislation that not only builds on the Trump administration's efforts to stop fraud but also puts effective fraud prevention measures where they belong, in the law. I know we all want to help students pursue an education and obtain a degree if they choose to do so. Unfortunately, that opportunity is stolen from students and borrowers when we allow fraud to continue unchecked. H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026, creates an invaluable opportunity to stop this kind of incessant fraud and protect access to higher education. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7892, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7892, the so-called No Aid for Ghost Students Act. Let me say at the outset that protecting taxpayer dollars and preventing fraud in our student Federal aid program is always a good idea. As stewards of public funds, we should all agree that fraud should be identified, investigated, and stopped, but this bill is not about a thoughtful, evidence-based solution as its supporters claim. The bill would direct the Department of Education to create an identity fraud detection system within the Free Application for Federal Student Aid process and authorize the Department to open accelerated program reviews against colleges. Mr. Speaker, I have got to point out that the Department of Education just recently, this past April, launched a new identity fraud detection system as part of the FAFSA process. That system is still being tested, and Congress has not seen any meaningful evidence about its effectiveness or its impact upon students. Yet, this legislation would rush to codify requirements and penalties before we know whether the Department's current efforts are even working. Federal student aid helps nearly 13 million students every year who are pursuing higher education and economic opportunity. However, the bill's creation of vague enforcement standards and punitive mandates, without clear guidance for students and institutions, risk making it harder for legitimate students to access the aid they need to attend colleges. For example, we don't have evaluations on the effect this bill may have on legitimate students who are incorrectly flagged as suspicious. The bill prohibits colleges from distributing funds to those students until the suspicion is cleared up. These students could face hardships obtaining housing, transportation, or even buying books for who knows how long. Mr. Speaker, we should allow the Department's new antifraud system to operate and wait for the Department to evaluate the results. The Department should work with colleges, financial aid administrators, and fraud experts to determine what additional tools and guardrails may be necessary. Codifying this new system without assessing its effectiveness just doesn't make any sense. Moreover, H.R. 7892 could reasonably be viewed as part of a broader strategy to weaponize student aid. The Trump administration has issued numerous threats and made efforts to withhold title IV funding as a weapon to enforce ideological control over educational institutions. Already, this administration has rewritten the accreditation handbook, threatened funding to select institutions that violate its legally dubious executive orders, and embedded ideological conditions into annual participation agreements. The bill would give the administration another tool to further target colleges by allowing the Department to initiate and conduct program reviews based on little evidence. In fact, during the committee's debate on the bill, the committee Democrats sought to have a clear definition of what "reasonable suspicion of identity fraud" actually means in the legislation. Regrettably, the bill has made its way to the floor without addressing this concern. As a result, the vague language in the bill would enable the Trump administration and future administrations to weaponize fraud investigations to target certain colleges or States. Fraud prevention and student access to affordable college education are not competing goals. We can achieve both. Unfortunately, this bill does not strike that balance. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote "no," and I reserve the balance of my time.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)7:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, colleague, and ranking member's comments. I am a bit surprised because I had hoped that he could support this bill since in committee he supported this bill. In fact, one of the two bills in this bill that has been combined was unanimous in support by my Democratic colleagues. In response to weaponization that this bill could provide, the bill does not single out any State, student, or institution. The bill's identity fraud detection system simply screens and assesses each FAFSA submission, which is working now, for indicators of fraud risk. When an application is flagged for identity verification, it is based on real fraud risk, not political agenda. Further, the bill's program review priority categories applies only to institutions that display a pattern of disbursing aid to flagged applications, and only after giving those schools an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the bill's reasonable, commonsense identity verification requirements. In other words, the bill simply requires institutions to do their part in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are going to real students, not fraudsters. Additionally, the bill promotes transparency. It requires the Department to provide Congress with a written description of the system, notice of substantial changes, and annual reports on the system's use and effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, bottom line, this bill keeps the focus where it belongs: on stopping fraud and protecting legitimate students. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the vice chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee and the sponsor of this legislation.

Burgess Owens (R-UT)7:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, in a speech given by Frederick Douglass in 1894, he said: "Education . . . [is] the light only by which men can be free. To deny education . . . is one of the greatest crimes against human nature [because] it is to deny them the means of freedom and the rightful pursuit of happiness." Mr. Speaker, this is why the issue of fraud in our financial aid system is so pernicious. Taxpayer dollars are finite, and each dollar that is defrauded represents another lost opportunity for the students who need it the most. Ghost student fraud is a growing problem in higher education. Bad actors use fake or stolen IDs to enroll in classes, collect the refundable portion of the student aid, and then disappear, leaving taxpayers on the hook and denying real students an education. Students and taxpayers deserve a student aid system that supports opportunity, not fraud. This bill builds on the good work already done by the Trump administration to protect taxpayer dollars and help safeguard the integrity of the student aid system by ensuring Federal aid goes to real students. The No Aid for Ghost Students Act takes a straightforward approach: identify suspicious student aid applications and ensure these applicants are who they say they are before dollars go out the door. The bill requires the Department of Education to use an identity fraud detection system to screen and assess each FAFSA application for fraud risk. Just as importantly, the bill requires schools to verify the student's identity for applications flagged by the Department of Education for identity fraud risk before disbursing Federal student aid. This is a commonsense safeguard to ensure taxpayer dollars are kept out of the hands of fraudsters. The verification methods in the bill are practical. Institutions may verify identity through in-person verification or a variety of other secure methods and must keep a record of each successful verification. The legislation also requires the Department to establish guidelines for verification procedures, helping ensure schools have a consistent framework for carrying out these straightforward processes. Since taking office, the Trump administration has made significant progress in combating student aid fraud. Last year, the Department blocked more than $1 billion in attempted fraud. In April, the Department implemented a new identity fraud detection tool directly into the FAFSA form, which blocked $60 million in the first 2 weeks. However, these safeguards, while effective, are not guaranteed to remain in place. Under the Biden administration, we saw verification safeguards rolled back under false pretenses of equity and fairness, opening the door for fraudsters. This legislation addresses that vulnerability by putting fraud protections where they should be--in law. Finally, the bill also promotes transparency and oversight. It requires the Department to provide Congress with a written description of the fraud detection system, notify Congress of substantial changes, and provide annual reports on the system's use and effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Christian D. Menefee (D-TX)7:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 7892, the so-called No Aid for Ghost Students Act. Think about a first-generation student who is applying with a FAFSA for the first time. It is already one of the most confusing processes out there, but all this bill does is make it worse. This bill would require the government to run every single financial aid application through a fraud detection algorithm, and if you get flagged, the college that you have been admitted to cannot release a single dollar until you jump through hoops to prove who you are. When a student gets flagged, there is no timeline, no appeals process, no accuracy standards. For a kid who does not know the system, that could mean a missed enrollment deadline. It could mean lost housing. It could mean the end of a dream before it even starts. I know that as a first-generation college grad. However, I want to be very clear about how this bill will impact folks. We heard earlier that this only applies when there is a real fraud risk, but that is a misnomer. Study after study on identification verification programs and fraud detection algorithms consistently show a higher false positive for Black and Hispanic users. Who are the students who are going to get flagged the most here? I bet they are going to be disproportionately Black. I bet they are going to be disproportionately Latino. I bet they are going to be lower income, those experiencing homelessness, eligible noncitizens, working adults who cannot afford to take a day off to drive to the financial aid office. My colleague on the other side of the aisle said it best, and I completely agree: Taxpayer dollars are finite. Therefore, why is this body supporting the President and his war of choice? Why is this body supporting the President's creation of a ballroom? Why is this body supporting a President who is creating a fund for folks who stormed the Capitol? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle could have targeted the fraud where it actually exists in higher education, but they didn't. Instead, they are locking in a brand-new unevaluated system into law with zero guardrails. That does not protect taxpayers. It just gives this administration unchecked power to delay aid to the students who need it the most. If even one student in this country is denied financial aid wrongly because this algorithm did not work out properly because we rushed the process and didn't have accuracy standards, that would be an absolute travesty to the people that we serve. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)7:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Texas' concern about students and not missing one. We certainly don't want to do that. However, we have been doing that for years until the reforms that have taken place in FAFSA, and we know they are working now. It has come down to days as opposed to weeks and months before in getting feedback. Now, in fact, most recently it has gotten down to immediate feedback in most cases. We are seeing it work, and we have no evidence that it is unjustly pulling out certain groups or certain individuals. Again, we don't want that to take place, but we do not want fraudsters and ghost students, and that is what we are dealing with. FAFSA finally, finally is working, and people--parents and students--are calling my office, and I bet other offices, as well. Mr. Speaker, with great appreciation, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), the chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)7:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, I am very glad that it passed our committee with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I look forward to it receiving bipartisan support on the floor. Our experience in California has demonstrated the need for this legislation. California community colleges were victimized by a staggering amount of fraud. We learned there were 1.2 million fraudulent applicants. One-third of the applicants were fake. I talked to my local community college, and they said they noticed something odd going on where they saw this huge spike in applications, three times as many as we normally get. They said:

Text printed in the Record (113 characters)

We know we are doing a good job, but maybe not that good of a job that the number of applicants suddenly triples.

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)7:30 p.m.

They actually were on top of things and managed to root out the fraud, but not every community college has the wherewithal and the resources to do that. The State has been, frankly, kind of missing in action. So myself and some of my colleagues, one of which was Representative Kim, from California, asked the Secretary of Education to institute new identity verification requirements, and this has largely solved the problem. This bill is simply going to codify those best practices to prevent fraud going forward. This is important because it will save our taxpayers millions of dollars, but also because it will assure that the aid goes where it is really needed. What these fraudsters were doing was they basically submit fake applications, then get the financial aid and then pocket that portion of the financial aid that was above and beyond room and board for discretionary use by the student. When these funds are going to fraudsters and scam artists, they are not going to the students who really need the aid in our community colleges. Our community colleges are vital ladders of economic opportunity. They are vitally important to our workforce, and so we need to assure that they do not continue to be victimized by scam artists and fraudsters at the expense of the students who use them as ladders of opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for introducing the measure. I am proud to cosponsor it, and I urge an "aye" vote.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the bill from the American Federation of Teachers.

Text printed in the Record (3,356 characters)

June 3, 2026. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the AFT's 1.8 million members working in education, healthcare and public services. Our members decry fraud; we fight for federal funding for the work we do, and none of us wants that funding diverted for corrupt or fraudulent purposes. We write in opposition to three bills on the House floor this week because they are about weaponizing the federal government against states and institutions of higher education the Trump administration views as political enemies. The AFT supports efforts to address fraud where it exists, but these bills do not do that. Instead, they would harm marginalized households, create significant administrative barriers, and discourage eligible people from seeking assistance. H.R. 7726, the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026; H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026; and H.R. 8872, the Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act simply give additional authority to an administration that makes a habit of weaponizing charges of fraud in federal healthcare, childcare and higher education programs by cutting research grants, targeting free speech and restricting classroom materials. For example, H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, is seemingly about cracking down on the real concern about fraud in the federal financial aid system. However, according to the secretary of education's own recent congressional testimony, that fraud is already being successfully addressed with existing tools at the Department of Education's disposal. The main impact of this bill would be to provide the secretary with a wide-ranging authority to subject colleges to additional review for failing to meet vague and ill-defined metrics around "suspected fraud." Similarly, H.R. 7726, the Stop Child Care Scams Act, and H.R. 8872, the Preventing Waste, Fraud and Abuse in TANF Act, would add additional layers of red tape to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and childcare programs in states, while granting sweeping powers to administration officials to withhold that funding, without meaningfully addressing fraud. We've seen this administration's playbook in Minnesota, Maine, California and elsewhere; fraud is simply a smokescreen to attack Americans who are not politically aligned with the president. These bills would further empower the administration to use accusations of fraud to attack perceived political enemies. The Trump administration has already withheld federal funding for "blue" states on allegations of fraud--ironically at the same time it has pardoned those convicted of stealing billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid and wiped out the imposed penalities on Mississippi for criminal TANF fund. Meanwhile, Americans across the country are struggling to pay their bills, and everyday costs continue to rise. Congress should be focused on helping Americans access affordable food and healthcare, not make the childcare affordability crisis worse or use access to Pell grants as a political cudgel. Congress must reject these bills that aim to weaponize federal funds and should instead turn its focus to helping students and families afford life's necessities. Thank you for considering our views on this matter. Sincerely, Randi Weingarten, President, AFT.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:30 p.m.

It says, in part: "H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, is seemingly about cracking down on the real concern about fraud in the Federal financial aid system. However, according to the Secretary of Education's own recent congressional testimony, that fraud is already being successfully addressed with existing tools at the Department of Education's disposal. The main impact of this bill would be to provide the Secretary with a wide-ranging authority to subject colleges to additional review for failing to meet vague and ill-defined metrics around `suspected fraud.' " Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to another article titled: "The Hidden Power Grab in `Fraud Prevention'--and the Students Who Will Pay," from the Alliance for Higher Education and The Hope Center: https://hope.temple.edu/newsroom/hope-blog/hidden-power-grab-fraud-prevention-students-who-will-pay. It says, in part, "The bill's operative trigger . . . `reasonable suspicion of identify fraud,' is a broad legalistic term with little history in Federal financial aid policy. This term has typically been used only when referring potential matters to the Department's inspector general, where facts and evidence could be carefully gathered by career employees with experience in fraud investigations. This bill radically expands the agency's powers to make the Secretary the judge, jury, and executioner." It goes on further to say that the reasonable suspicion standard "should require articulable, credible grounds to believe fraud has occurred, not an unexamined `hunch.' It is also critical that such powers cannot be weaponized against perceived political enemies--perhaps a State or college that isn't politically aligned with the administration." Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record another article that is titled: "Stop Fraud, Not Students: A Balancing Act for Financial Aid Offices and Administrators," from the Institute for College Access and Success. Stop Fraud, Not Students: A Balancing Act for Financial Aid Offices and Administrators

Text printed in the Record (8,473 characters)

AI-driven application fraud is rising fast, but without adequate staffing and resources, prevention efforts risk blocking the very students aid is meant to serve. Applying for financial aid is one of the most critical actions a low-income student can take to make their postsecondary education a reality. Completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) unlocks federal, state, and institutional resources that can bring the coAts of college within reach. Each year, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) selects millions of student applications for a taxpayer safeguard and compliance process known as verification. Financial aid verification is split into three main categories--V1, V4, and V5--all of which are used to confirm that the income, household size, and identity information reported by a student on their FAFSA is accurate. This process can involve submitting tax records, identification documents, or other materials to resolve potential discrepancies. While the goal is to ensure that limited financial aid resources are distributed appropriately, verification creates a real tension: trying to safeguard public taxpayer dollars without introducing delays, confusion, or additional barriers that disproportionately impact the students who can least afford them, and potentially pushing them out of the educational pipeline. Across the nation, college and financial aid administrators have warned that the rate of financial aid fraud has surpassed anything they've seen in the past, with "ghost students" emerging as a major concern. These bad actors are using stolen or synthetic identities to apply for aid and enroll in colleges with no intent to attend, instead seeking to collect financial aid and then disappear. Community colleges, which often have more open-access admissions and higher volumes of aid applicants, have been disproportionately affected by this trend. While this problem has long existed, the use of advancing technology to scale fraudulent aid applications has surged as it facilitates mass enrollment and can even generate coursework that can appear legitimate. This is not isolated to one or even a few states. In Minnesota, colleges flagged more than 7,000 fraudulent or suspicious applications in a single year. In Nevada, one college reported over $7 million lost in a single semester due to fraudulent enrollments. And nationally, federal investigators have examined more than $350 million in ghost student fraud cases over the past five years. Unfortunately, the most staggering numbers are coming out of California, where colleges have reported roughly 900,000 fraudulent college applications in 2024 and more than $11 million lost in aid. While the total money lost remains very small compared to total aid, the rise in this activity is swamping limited aid administration capacity and can undermine trust in the program for key stakeholders, including policymakers who allocate the funds for aid. In response, both states and institutions are acting. Colleges are deploying AI-powered detection tools, implementing stricter identity verification, or front-loading identity verification through their application process, amongst other measures. At the federal level, the Department is reinstating fraud detection protocols, including identity screenings and cross-agency data checks. Even Congress has begun to respond through the recent introduction of the Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026 (H.R. 7891), the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026 (H.R. 7892), and the FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act (H.R. 7893). Taken together, these efforts signal a growing recognition that fraud prevention must be strengthened. But how it's done matters for students. A lot. For the past few years, the California Community Colleges (CCC) have been fighting an uphill battle against ghost students who are getting their hands on federal, state, and even institutional aid by taking advantage of the community college mission to provide open access to all students no matter when they start their educational journey. TICAS has learned from financial aid administrators that the AI tools they are using to combat this problem are getting better and increasing detection. Online verification platforms and methods have replaced paper-based systems, allowing students to more easily submit required documents rather than coming in person. And staff at many colleges are proactive in their student outreach to offer support in navigating this process, even with limited resources. Compliance and protective measures taken by California's colleges, no matter how thoughtfully designed and implemented, are just one side of this equation. On the other side, we need to track and center the experiences of students with the processes--especially as the Department is stepping in by expanding V4/V5 verification rates. For undocumented students, students from mixed-status families, formerly incarcerated students, foster youth, and others who already navigate institutions with caution, being told "show me your ID" or "come into the office to prove you're real and that you are as poor as you reported" can feel threatening. Without careful communication, these processes can feel punitive, invasive, and in today's reality, connected to immigration enforcement or federal data sharing that students fear. This fear is not hypothetical, and addressing it will take time, intentionality, and both fiscal and human resources. Yet, across California, financial aid offices are being asked to do more with less. Adding identity verification on top of their normal duties of helping students file a FAFSA or CADAA or navigate processes like Satisfactory Academic Progress and professional judgement requests are heavy lifts. The CCC system and its financial aid administrators cannot sufficiently carry out increased, more complex, and student-centered verification practices along with their other work without sufficient resources. If California wants to protect taxpayer dollars as well as students' access to an affordable education, the state must adequately fund financial aid offices to do both well and in an equitable way. Widely supported budget requests reflect this reality, such as an existing ask for an additional $10 million ongoing CA Proposition 98 funds to support the Student Financial Aid Administration (SFAA), which many advocates support and the Chancellor's Office has uplifted. Alternatively, California could implement a reoccurring cost-of-living adjustment to the SFAA base or ensure they earmark a portion of any Student Support Block Grant investments for this purpose. Regardless of the approach, California has the opportunity to create a national model for balancing program integrity with student access. To do so, it must begin with a sustained state investment in financial aid offices to augment resources that support vital counseling and advising, clear communication, and secure technology. As policymakers and institutions respond across the country, it's critical that they all intentionally balance program integrity with student access. TICAS offers the following high-level principles to help guide decision-makers grappling with how to address this issue: Ensure all verification processes are clear, transparent, and student-centered, with strong communication to all affected parties about why verification is happening. Center the experiences of students--particularly those from vulnerable populations--who may experience verification as confusing, intimidating, or even unsafe. Prepare multilingual outreach materials for students and families whom English is a second language to clearly explain the reasons for verification, next steps, and other supports. Avoid unnecessarily expanding verification requirements beyond the student applying for aid--especially towards dependents or family members. Protect student privacy and data security, especially as new technologies like AI are introduced and used to mine or filter sensitive data. Provide adequate funding and staffing so financial aid offices can have training to understand these processes and implement them effectively. If colleges choose to build systems that front-load documentation and identity verification through their applications, invest in that infrastructure early and test it thoroughly to ensure it is as simple and easy as possible to complete.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:30 p.m.

It says, in part: "While the goal is to ensure that limited financial aid resources are distributed appropriately, verification creates a real tension: trying to safeguard public taxpayer dollars without introducing delays, confusion, or additional barriers that disproportionately impact the students who can least afford them, and potentially pushing them out of the educational pipeline." Mr. Speaker, finally, I include in the Record an article from StateScoop with a letter from Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, outlining many issues involved in identity verification done by artificial intelligence. New York lawmaker questions state's use of identity-verification vendor

Text printed in the Record (11,890 characters)

In a letter to the state chief information officer, New York state Sen. Jeremy Cooney raises concerns with the state's use of AI-powered software from the identity-verification firm Socure. The company says many of the claims are false. In a letter penned this month to Dru Rai, New York state's chief information officer, state Sen. Jeremy Cooney raised concerns regarding Socure, a fraud prevention and identity verification firm used by the state, citing the vendor's data practices and how it uses artificial intelligence. The letter from Cooney, dated July 10, asks Rai how the state's Office of Information Technology Services has vetted Socure, which in addition to more than 20 state government agencies and multiple federal agencies, provides New York state with identity verification services. In an interview with StateScoop, though, Socure executives said many of Cooney's claims are simply false and that he misunderstands how the company's technology works. Socure's technology relies on AI and machine learning to analyze several thousand data points to predict fraudulent identity activity. For governments, it predicts fraud for resident services, such as by scanning benefits applications. Fraud is a growing concern for state agencies, which since the COVID-19 pandemic have seen heightened levels of fraud across many government functions. Cooney, who also chairs the Senate Procurement and Contracts Committee, said how Socure obtains and uses those data points--many of which would be considered personally identifiable data--is concerning. Referring to the company as a data broker, Cooney said the company "collects, purchases and stores billions of data points, including sensitive personal identifiable information, on New Yorkers without their consent to confirm their identities." While noting that identity verification "is critical for ensuring equitable access to public services," Cooney said that the potential risks associated with using AI include preventing people from accessing critical government services. "Innovation should never come at the cost of good governance and transparency," Cooney wrote in an email to StateScoop. "Given the widespread concerns around Socure's business practices and the growing recognition of AI's risks, it is important to scrutinize any work they are doing for New York state agencies. I deeply appreciate the hard work and ongoing efforts of the State CIO's office to make sure our state's digital systems grant every New Yorker secure, equitable access to state services and uphold personal privacy." In the letter, Cooney also asked Rai whether the state requires that Socure include a human review of algorithmic output to ensure it's accurate and not discriminatory, and whether the state has tested Socure's fraud prediction models for bias. "Has the state confirmed whether Socure's practices fully comply with NY state privacy law, specifically related to its mass collection of sensitive PII, partnership with data brokers, and use of social media data?" Cooney asked in the letter. Jordan Burris, vice president of public sector strategy for Socure and the former chief of staff in the White House's Office of the Federal CIO, told StateScoop that portions of the letter fundamentally misunderstand what the company does, noting that Socure is not a data broker. Additionally, New York state has yet to pass a comprehensive data privacy law that would legally define within the state what constitutes a data broker. Its data privacy act is still in committee for the second year in a row. "We do not sell data to third parties, we do not use it for marketing. We do not use it to run a marketplace, offering online discounts for e-commerce, like other companies in the space," Burris told StateScoop. "We are only focused on verifying identity and rooting out fraud, and ultimately, under looking at what is exactly New York State law today, we are not a data broker, and to suggest otherwise is simply false." Cooney's letter follows at least two other instances this year in which New York state leaders have levied concerns regarding Socure and its data practices. Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., in February wrote a letter to Socure CEO Johnny Ayers over concerns that his company's digital identity verification software might lead to discrimination. "You claim your product, `fuses personal identifiable information (PID validated by thousands of data sources' in order to prevent fraud," Torres' letter read. "Companies' abuse of private data can also lead to the unwanted tracking and sale of people's sensitive health data, genetic information, religious participation, and location. Given the lack of transparency around your services, constituents in my district have expressed legitimate privacy concerns and demand to know how you source their data, how it is used, and whether it is equitable for all American communities." While Cooney's recent letter claims Torres' letter went unanswered, Socure told StateScoop it met with Torres' office to review some of its complaints. StateScoop contacted Torres' office for comment, but did not hear back before publication. In March, Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, wrote a letter to New York State Attorney General Letitia James citing concerns with Socure's lack of transparency regarding the types of data it uses to perform identity verification. "Socure also collects data from thousands of data sources, including personally identifiable information (PII), without providing any meaningful transparency regarding how that data is acquired, stored, and used," Sharpton's letter read. "Socure scrapes social media, utilizes geolocation technology, and deploys artificial intelligence technology to conduct its business. They have no help line, and people have no recourse should their identity be denied mistakenly. These practices have historically and consistently hurt marginalized communities." When asked how Socure obtains data to perform identity verification, Burris said the company buys and otherwise obtains data from a variety of public and private sources to "bring in house." These sources include public records, mobile network operators--like Verizon and AT&T--and higher education institutions, Burris said. He added that Socure's data scientists evaluate the "authoritativeness of that data." "I'm not looking to buy data for data's sake. I'm looking at data for the purpose of what we can do with it," Burris said. "The only purpose for us having it is to help with identity verification in particular. . . . And then we even have a proprietary database that we've built of known fraudulent identity identities that we've identified over our 12-year existence." As far as concerns of effects on marginalized communities, Burris said the company is "pressure testing" its AI models by testing for bias across demographics like age, race, gender and other protected classes. On the topic of human review in the identity verification process, Burris said "humans are involved all throughout the process." "The question of are human reviewers evaluating every identity decision fundamentally misunderstands the challenges that exist with verifying identity today," Burris said. "We are going backwards if we heavily rely on human reviews to verify identity. The cost is long wait times, backlogs and good people who ultimately will continue to be underserved." In an email, a spokesperson for the New York Office of Information Technology Services said: "We take our responsibility to protect the privacy of every single resident accessing state programs or services very seriously, and have implemented the strongest possible security measures to ensure it." ____ Hon. Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Hon. Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Hon. Tammy Duckworth, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Hon. Mazie K. Hirono, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear Senators Warren, Blumenthal, Duckworth, and Hirono: I write in strong support of your May 4, 2026 letters to the heads of Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion regarding how Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) data is being incorporated into Americans' credit files. In your letters, you correctly observed that the credit reporting industry has been "very secretive about its scoring models" and that credit reporting companies "are also now performing the functions of data harvesters themselves." The integration of a BNPL credit vendor like Qlarifi into a massive data aggregator and harvester like Socure, presents a new and dangerous threat to consumer data and fairness. I write to urge you to expand the scope of this inquiry to include Socure and Qlarifi, given that Socure is quietly building what amounts to a fourth credit bureau, one that sits entirely outside the regulatory perimeter you are working to hold to account. In December 2025, Socure acquired Qlarifi and announced the creation of what it called "the First Real-Time BNPL Credit System." Socure, via Qlarifi, now aggregates loan-level BNPL data on millions of American consumers, runs it through blackbox AI risk-scoring models, and sells the resulting credit determinations back into the lending ecosystem. It does this without the consumer notice, dispute, accuracy, or fairness obligations that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) imposes on Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. It is concerning for many consumers, particularly consumers of color, that a fourth consumer rating agency is being constructed in plain sight. Socure's business effectively provides the same function as a credit rating agency, coupled with an absence of accountability, along with a business model built on the very data harvesting practices your letters identified as a core consumer protection problem. This matters profoundly for the communities I represent. BNPL is concentrated among consumers who already face structural barriers in the financial system. Black consumers are over twice as likely than White consumers to use BNPL products, and Hispanic consumers are about 91 percent more likely. As you note in your letters, even one misreported missed payment can ripple through a consumer's credit score and limit their access to a mortgage, an auto loan, an apartment, or even a checking account. When the data feeding those decisions flows through an unregulated AI scoring layer at Socure before it ever reaches a traditional bureau, or worse, when lenders bypass the bureaus entirely and rely on Socure's scores directly, the risk of digital redlining is no longer theoretical. It is being engineered into the architecture of consumer credit. Your letters also flag a related dynamic that deserves to be drawn out more fully. As you observe, "alternative data" such as bank account cash flow is increasingly being collected on consumers, "particularly for consumers with limited credit histories, which tend to be lower-income consumers." That observation cannot be separated from race. The CFPB has long documented that Black and Hispanic Americans are significantly overrepresented among the so-called "credit invisible" and consumers with limited credit files, the very population on which alternative data and AI-driven scoring are most aggressively deployed. The result is a two-tier system in which the consumers with the least margin for error are the ones whose creditworthiness is most likely to be determined by experimental, opaque, AI-driven inputs assembled from commercial data sources--the inputs Socure aggregates and sells. The Senators' question about alternative data is, in practice, also a question about racial equity in credit. That brings me to the broader concern about racial bias inherent in AI and algorithmic decision-making systems, the kind often inherent in BNPL credit scoring, and of the kind Socure builds and sells.

Text printed in the Record (4,445 characters)

AI-driven risk models are only as fair as the data on which they are trained, and the commercial and alternative data underlying these systems systematically underrepresent and misrepresent communities of color. Independent researchers at Northeastern University have found that data broker records on White non-Hispanic Americans were 25 percent more likely to be accurate than records on Hispanic Americans, and that only 32 percent of Hispanic individuals under age 26 were correctly represented in those records at all. Because vendors like Socure, who are now providing credit scoring for BNPL companies, train their models on this same commercial data, those structural gaps are not corrected by the algorithm, they are encoded into it. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has likewise documented disparities in credit underwriting and pricing outcomes for Black and Hispanic applicants, and has warned that algorithmic models present a serious challenge in identifying "variables that may be proxies for prohibited bases" of discrimination. Your letters to the bureaus end with Question 7, which asks whether each bureau has studied the impact of BNPL data on consumer credit scores. The more urgent question, and the one I respectfully urge you to add, is whether anyone, at any of these companies or at Socure, has studied the impact of BNPL credit reporting and alternative data inputs on consumers by race, ethnicity, age, and income. Socure also collects data from thousands of sources, including personally identifiable information, social media activity, and geolocation data, without providing meaningful transparency about how that data is acquired, stored, combined, or used. Consumers have no recourse if they are wrongfully scored, flagged, or denied because of an inaccurate or biased record buried inside Socure's models. For a family already living paycheck to paycheck, a single algorithmic misclassification can be the difference between keeping the lights on and falling into crisis. A massive data aggregator must not be permitted to function as de facto credit reporting infrastructure without the corresponding obligations and oversight. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to: Add Socure, the new owners of Qlarifi to the scope of your inquiry. Send a parallel information request to Socure regarding its acquisition of Qlarifi, the categories of consumer data it collects and aggregates, the BNPL providers and lenders that consume its scores, and whether and how it considers itself subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Press Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion specifically on Socure and Qlarifi. Ask each bureau whether it receives data from, sells data to, or competes with Socure's real-time BNPL credit product, and whether Qlarifi-sourced data is incorporated, directly or indirectly, into their tradelines or scoring inputs. Examine whether Socure's real-time BNPL scoring product meets the statutory definition of a "consumer reporting agency" under the FCRA, and whether Qlarifi's pre-acquisition operations should have been regulated as such. If existing law does not clearly reach this conduct, that gap is itself a finding worth surfacing. Expand Question 7 in your follow-up engagement with the bureaus to require demographic impact analysis. Ask whether the bureaus, FICO, VantageScore, or their BNPL data partners have tested how the incorporation of BNPL data affects credit scores by race, ethnicity, age, and income, and request that any such analyses be produced. Request that Socure disclose any independent demographic audits of its risk-scoring products, and explain how its AI and machine-learning models are tested for disparate impact, the same standard the CFPB has urged on the rest of the credit ecosystem. The fight against predatory lending has always been, at its core, a civil rights fight. Your letters of May 4 are exactly the kind of oversight this moment requires, and I am grateful for your leadership. I urge you to follow the data where it leads, past the three traditional bureaus and into the unregulated scoring layer being built around them. The American consumer cannot afford a fourth credit bureau that operates in the dark. Thank you for your continued commitment to protecting American consumers and to ensuring that the financial system works fairly for every community. Sincerely,

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)7:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was caught with the first entity that was mentioned, AFT, the American Federation of Teachers', concern about higher education. They have messed up our K-12 education and the pipeline going into higher education. I don't see them as any voice that we ought to be listening to, especially dealing with fraud, waste, and abuse. It is important to recognize the progress the Department has made, Mr. Speaker, in addressing ghost student fraud. In just its first 2 weeks, the Department's new real-time identity fraud detention tool blocked over $60 million in ghost student fraud. That is real money for students. That is real success, and it is exactly why this bill is drafted this way. The bill makes clear that the Department may satisfy the bill's identity fraud detection requirement, in whole or in part, through a system already in use, while also giving the Department room to adapt its system to evolving threats. The trouble is that without this bill, strong safeguards against fraud are not guaranteed, as we said, to remain in place and could change from administration to administration. Especially if the AFT is pushing, we know that push is real because of the Biden administration's failures. If we agree the current safeguards are working, we should make sure they remain in place to protect students and taxpayers alike, not just for now, but far into the future. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Young Kim (R-CA)7:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to add my voice in strong support of H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act. In California, 34 percent of community college applicants have been flagged as likely fraudulent. That is more than one in three applicants. These so-called AI ghost students are scammers using fake identities to enroll in classes, pocket taxpayer dollars, and disappear without ever setting foot in a classroom. Between April of 2024 and April of 2025, criminals stole more than $10 million from California's community colleges, robbing taxpayers and hurting real students who depend on that aid. That is why I sent a letter to the Department of Education demanding an investigation and stronger safeguards to stop this fraud before taxpayer dollars go out the door. This bill builds on those efforts by strengthening application verification requirements and ensuring future administrations cannot weaken them. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Burgess Owens for introducing this very commonsense legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)7:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), who is a working member of our Committee on Education and Workforce.

Glenn Grothman (R-WI)7:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, in our Committee on Education and Workforce, as in so many other committees, we have discovered rampant fraud, in this case, in Federal financial aid programs as ghost students have been submitting applications for aid, getting the aid, and then the money just disappears because there is no real student. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. The first lesson we can take out of this is the programs here now are not going to get rid of it. Anybody who thinks we are going to institute a Federal program and there is not going to be fraud in it is nuts. This is one more example of out-of-control things. We believe we found $350 million of ghost student fraud uncovered since 2019. In any event, Burgess Owens has the answer here. In part, we are going to work to identify these fraudsters before the money goes out the door. If we identify them before the money goes out the door, we will dramatically decrease the amount of money that disappears. Mr. Speaker, I thank Burgess Owens for doing this, and I hope the rest of the body will remember what was done with these Federal aid programs. Again and again, it doesn't go for the purposes designed. It goes to fraudsters who take advantage of the situation.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about whether or not fraud should be stopped. Everybody agrees with that, like when Trump University paid $25 million to settle their fraud investigation. We shouldn't be debating whether or not fraud should be stopped. We should be debating the provisions of the bill, not the merits of the title. The question before us is not whether or not we should try to reduce fraud, but whether or not Congress should codify into law a process that has barely begun to operate and whose effectiveness has not been evaluated, especially as it affects students who are incorrectly flagged under the bill. It doesn't add anything to what is already being done. It only codifies what is being done before the program can be evaluated. We should not substitute politics for due diligence. We should wait for that evaluation. As I said in committee, I was willing to work in good faith to improve the legislation. Regrettably, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose not to consider the fixes needed to support students and colleges while also addressing the responsibility to defer fraud. This bill circumvents deliberative processes, imposes new punitive requirements before we have the facts, and risks creating new barriers for students seeking an education. We should pursue smart enforcement, be flexible when honest mistakes occur, and be informed by evidence rather than assumptions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Tim Walberg (R-MI)7:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, fraud has no place in America. I think we can all agree with that, at least in word. Unfortunately, fraud has spiraled out of control and allowed criminals to steal billions from American students and taxpayers. H.R. 7892, No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026, is a powerful opportunity to put a stop to fraud in our Federal student aid programs and expand the dream of higher education for the next generation of Americans. While Democrats and the Biden-era administration allowed fraudsters to steal from students and taxpayers, Republicans and the Trump administration are committed to righting that wrong and ensuring Federal student aid goes to the people who are meant to receive it: students. As lawmakers, it is imperative we do everything in our power to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent correctly. That means stopping fraud and putting an end to the parade of criminals who have exploited our Federal student assistance programs. It makes sense to me. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7892, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore7:40 p.m.

All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 1333, 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 tempore7:40 p.m.

The question is on passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA)7:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore7:40 p.m.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

Honoring Laura Garza

Page H4044 · Official text

(Mrs. RAMIREZ asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Delia C. Ramirez (D-IL)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Laura Garza, an immigrant leader who has dedicated her career to remind us that workers' rights are immigrant rights. Born in Monterrey, Mexico, Laura Garza has made Chicago, where she has organized and built coalitions for over 30 years, her home. From leading organizations like Arise Chicago and SEIU Local 1, to founding the SEIU International Latino Caucus, Laura has fought to uplift all workers and their families no matter their ZIP Code, no matter their background, or citizenship status. Her advocacy and leadership helped realize the Deferred Action For Labor Enforcement program, delivering temporary protection, stability, and opportunities for over 1,000 immigrant workers. As immigrant workers across the country are under attack, Laura reminds us that worker solidarity will, in fact, protect us. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my honor to commend Laura Garza for blazing trails, leading with intersectional solidarity, and building worker power for all of us. Congratulations, Laura.

Remembering the Mass Shooting at the Pulse Nightclub

Pages H4044–H4045 · Official text

(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Soto of Florida was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.)

Darren Soto (D-FL)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

The SPEAKER pro tempore

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

There was no objection.

Darren Soto (D-FL)

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 10 years ago this Friday that our happy little town of Orlando was forever changed. I remember getting text messages at 4 a.m., 5 a.m. on June 12, 2016, and wondering what people could possibly be reaching out to me about that early in the morning. I received 10, 12, 15 different texts and calls. I remember waking up around 4:30 a.m. and realizing that our world had changed, that our happy little town of Orlando was the site of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history at that time. It was at the Pulse Nightclub, an LGBTQ nightclub, one that allies and the LGBTQ community alike got to attend. It was a safe place. It was Latin night, and what we saw was a domestic terrorist kill 49 angels who were just trying to have a good time and hang out with their friends that night and enjoy fellowship. Fifty-three other central Floridians were injured during that mass shooting. We also saw law enforcement and firefighters step up to help. We know so many EMTs, doctors, and nurses helped those who were injured and saved their lives. We know that, to this day, it has left a scar, one that we will always remember, along with the families who lost loved ones, along with friends who lost loved ones, and along with our community who lost our fellow neighbors. That next day, I remember going to the blood bank on John Young because the one in downtown Orlando had so many people going to it that the line went around the block and down several blocks. People came out with different snacks and drinks and food to make sure that those who were in line to donate blood were able to stay there all day. I was at the blood bank off of John Young in our district, and I remember helping organize the lines. Everybody wanted to do something, even as we felt helpless. We all just wanted to do something that might help out a little bit during that tragedy. The very next night in front of our art center, we saw a makeshift memorial begin to take shape with flowers, posters, and people congregating. Over those next 2 days, it became the site of a massive vigil, and people started coming in from across the Nation where memorials and well wishes, cards, and condolences were sent from areas across both the Nation and the world. We each had artists come in to help express what had hurt us so much in that community, and then we had our final vigil a week later in Lake Eola. I had never seen that many people in downtown. We know it was unnecessary and deadly gun violence. We know it was an attack on the LGBTQ+ community. We know it was an attack on Latin night during Pride Month. Over the years, we have tried to memorialize both what happened, so we will never forget those we lost, but also to talk about how our community responded and came together during this tragic time. I was proud to introduce, in June 2019, 3 years later, the first National Pulse Memorial resolution. That very next year, in the 116th Congress, we were able to pass H.R. 3094 out of the House to make it the National Pulse Memorial, because literally every State across the Nation mourned and had vigils from what had transpired on June 12, 2016. Unfortunately, during that term, it didn't pass. However, the very next term, during the 117th Congress, we filed it again, introduced as H.R. 49, to designate the National Pulse Memorial. Just a few months later, in May 2021, almost 5 years after the attack, it passed the House. Eventually, we had Senator Scott sponsor it in the Senate, and President Joe Biden signed it into law in June 2021. In December, 2 years later, the city acquired the land where the Pulse nightclub sat. We have been through a long process to help make sure we could hear from families, hear from friends, and hear from our community. Although that was a difficult process, it was one that I want to applaud the city for helping lead to get to a final plan, which we are in the process of putting together, for a final National Pulse Memorial. In March of this year, the building was torn down to create this space, a memorial honoring the 49 lives lost. The permanent memorial, I am proud to say, is now about 60 percent complete. When we were before the Natural Resources Committee, talking about why this needed to be a national memorial, I was able to point out that we saw vigils in every State, including the States of all the Members of the Natural Resources Committee who were on that panel. Some of our colleagues that I remember on the panel were from Utah, New York, and other States. It was an amazing moment to show how, in just about every major city across America, we saw folks standing in solidarity. So, today, it is with a heavy heart and with a sad remembrance that we mark the approaching 10th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, I am joined here tonight by a dear friend, a neighbor, a young man who had just graduated from high school a little before the attack. He went to school in our district, we are proud to say. From an early age, he took on the issue of gun violence, served as a student representative on our school board in Osceola County, and has continued to play a big role ever since in gun safety. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Maxwell Frost (D-FL)7:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today, in my home district, in Orlando, a man walked into Pulse nightclub, opened fire, and killed 49 innocent angels. The pain from that day still hasn't subsided in our community. I still feel the same despair, anger, and fear that I felt that day, the day this tragedy happened. I remember getting the call. I wasn't home at the time. I knew the area very well because, in high school, I got an internship to be a techie at a music venue in downtown Orlando, so I knew a lot of the people who worked at a lot of the clubs. I was in Fort Myers, working my first campaign, when I got the call that this had happened. I was actually about to perform with the local symphony there for the first time, but I got in my car and drove back home. At the time, Pulse was the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. Since then, there have been over 4,500 more shootings across this Nation. It is 10 years later, and absolutely nothing has changed. It is still too easy to acquire a gun. Congress has failed to pass commonsense laws, like universal background checks, or to pass an assault weapons ban. If you are outraged by hearing this, you should be. I am outraged that I have spent about the last 15 years of my life fighting for gun violence prevention, and we are still in the same place. I don't want to live in a country or in an America where people can walk into schools, grocery stores, churches, concerts, nightclubs, and immediately look for the nearest exit. I will always remember the first time I had an elementary school come visit me here from my district when I first got into Congress, my first year. I was really excited. I stayed up really late, practicing what questions I would ask them to inspire them to learn more about government. One of the questions I asked was: If you were a Congressperson, what law would you pass? I was excited to hear ice cream for dinner, no homework, and soda in the water fountain. I picked this little girl. I think she was 7 or 8 years old. She told me: I would ban assault weapons so I don't get shot in school. Today, I hold the victims of Pulse and their loved ones in my heart. Pulse was more than just a nightclub. It was a place of joy, community, and belonging for Orlando's LGBTQ+ community. On that night, as people gathered for Latin night, the attack also devastated Orlando's Latino community, as well. We will continue the fight because I do believe that the best way to honor their lives is to honor their lives with action. I remember when I first got involved in this, I always had this sticker on my driver's license that a lot of young people put on their license at this point. It said that if I die due to gun violence, politicize my death to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else ever again. So, after every shooting, I will always speak out because true justice is more than words. It is ensuring that we do not live in a country where the leading cause of death for a child is a bullet, because that is the reality of the United States of America in 2026. We honor their lives. We don't just remember how they died, but how they lived. We remember the fact that it was a preventable death and that this body has done nothing to ensure it never happens again. There is a lot more work to do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my community in Orlando to continue to speak out and to keep fighting and remembering, and we will do the same.

Darren Soto (D-FL)7:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Robin L. Kelly (D-IL)7:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the 49 lives killed and the 58 people injured in a hateful mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub ten years ago. Today, I stand to speak, but I remember when I sat on this House floor for over 24 hours in protest. Ten days after a shooting that should have shook Congress awake, Republican leadership decided to do nothing to pass gun safety laws. So instead, I led a sit-in with Congressman John Lewis and our colleagues to show the American people that we do in fact care and hear their demands for action--not just in response to the mass shooting at Pulse, but for the gun violence that forever changes lives every single day. Over 120 Americans die every single day due to gun violence. Empty thoughts and prayers will never be enough to end gun violence. We need true action: Background checks. Red flag laws. Assault weapons ban. Accountability for the gun industry with too much blood on its hands. We also need to disarm hate. Ten years ago on June 12, the LGBTQ+ and Latino community in Orlando were dancing and celebrating Pride. Pride in who they are. Pride in who they love. So many lives changed forever that night because someone was armed with a semi-automatic rifle. No one should live in fear of being shot for celebrating such a beautiful thing as Pride. We all deserve to live safely and happily as we are.

The Future of Appropriations

Pages H4045–H4048 · Official text

(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Kiley of California was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.)

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)

Mr. Speaker, I will say a brief word about the passage of today's reconciliation bill. At a time when Congress is more polarized than ever, today's vote is likely to make things worse. The House is giving away its most important power--to make appropriations on an annual basis and assure funds are spent in a way that carries out the intent of Congress while reflecting the will of the American people. This precedent also threatens a last vestige of bipartisanship in Washington, turning appropriations into a party-line exercise. The issue of interior immigration enforcement, in particular the tragic events in Minnesota, have deeply divided the country. Congress needed to come together with bipartisan reforms to restore trust and focus the mission of our immigration agencies. Reforms like body cameras, training, identification, warrants, and nonenforcement zones near schools are supported by the vast majority of Americans and would receive strong majority support in the House. I made it clear for months that I would not consider voting for a party-line reconciliation bill absent these policy changes. There is no national security imperative for additional immediate funding when last year's reconciliation bill provided $170 billion for immigration enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to vote for what is best for my district, irrespective of partisanship, and will fight for commonsense solutions to the challenges facing our country.

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)

Mr. Speaker, as part of the California Congressional District Three Police Honor Roll and in recognition of National Police Week 2026, I wish to honor Detective Austin Alvarez, a dedicated member of the Folsom Police Department, for his exceptional dedication to public service. Throughout his distinguished career, Detective Alvarez has exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and courage in service to the communities of Sacramento County. With 7 years of experience in law enforcement, he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to protecting public safety and fostering meaningful community engagement. During his ongoing tenure, Detective Alvarez has served in roles such as officer and detective, earning the respect and admiration of colleagues and constituents alike. He has been recognized with the Folsom Police Department Lifesaving Award and Unit Citation Award, reflecting his commitment to excellence and a record of exemplary service. Detective Alvarez is known by others for his compassion, exceptional investigative skills, and unwavering commitment to justice. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, he has been working on highly sensitive and emotionally difficult cases during his assignment to the Sacramento County Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force. In this role, his primary mission has been investigating internet crimes against children and identifying those who exploit and prey upon some of the most vulnerable members of our community. His efforts have directly contributed to the identification, arrest, and prosecution of offenders involved in the exploitation of children, while also helping safeguard victims from further harm. The nature of these crimes often requires long hours, extensive follow-up, and exposure to deeply disturbing material. Regardless of these challenges, Detective Alvarez is regarded by his colleagues and leadership for his ability to continue to perform at the highest levels while representing both the task force and his department with distinction. He also stands out for his ability to build strong working relationships with partner agencies and prosecutors at the State and Federal level, enhancing regional collaboration in combating crimes against the most vulnerable members of our community. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to recognize Detective Alvarez of the Folsom Police Department as part of this year's District Three Police Honor Roll.

Text printed in the Record (61 characters)

Recognizing the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office Strike Team

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)

Mr. Speaker, as part of the California Congressional District Three Police Honor Roll and in recognition of National Police Week 2026, I wish to honor seven dedicated members of the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office for their exceptional dedication to public service, including Sergeant Blake Alvarez, Deputy Josh Stillman, Deputy Craig Reimche, Deputy Vincent Durant, Deputy Griffin O'Camb, Detective Zachariah Kraus, and Deputy Tyler Costere. Throughout their distinguished careers, this team has exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and courage in service to the El Dorado County community. Within their many years of experience in law enforcement, they have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to protecting public safety and fostering meaningful community engagement. They have earned the respect and admiration of colleagues and constituents alike. Their commitment to excellence and exemplary public service is commendable. This team stands out for their heroic actions during an officer-involved shooting in the town of Camino earlier this year. After they had received a report that a man had shot and wounded a PG&E contract worker and was barricaded in his home, these El Dorado County Sheriff's deputies arrived on the scene, formed a perimeter, evacuated neighboring homes, and attempted numerous ways to establish contact with the suspect to resolve the situation safely. After their efforts to contact the suspect were unsuccessful, the El Dorado County Sheriff's SWAT team was summoned to take over the scene and work toward the safe surrender of the suspect. As they were establishing their presence on the scene, the suspect abruptly exited his home and ran up to an elevated nearby bank embankment that offered tree cover and limited visibility for officers. The suspect began shooting at the deputies below him. Deputy Reimche was shot in the lower leg, causing him to fall to the ground. Deputy Stillman was struck on the upper thigh and went down. Their fellow deputies moved them to safety and administered aid, even breaking cover and risking their own safety to do so. As the shooting began, Deputies Durant and Costere maneuvered toward the suspect, bounding from tree to tree, until they were able to restrain the suspect and take him into custody, also providing the suspect with a medical assessment and treatment, as well as transfer to a nearby hospital. This event illustrates the core foundation of selfless sacrifice and service that embodies the men and women who swear an oath to protect our communities every day as peace officers. They remained calm under fire, even after being wounded, addressed the suspect as he fired on deputies, pulled deputies to safety under fire, applied lifesaving intervention care, and transported the wounded to medics. Their decisive actions and effective teamwork made a meaningful difference toward stopping the threat of a suspect and resolving the incident. It is an honor to represent exemplary individuals like these officers in Congress. On behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I extend my sincerest gratitude to this team in the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office for their continued dedication to safeguarding and serving our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these officers and all those who serve in law enforcement during National Police Week.

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)

Mr. Speaker, as part of the California Congressional District Three Police Honor Roll and in recognition of National Police Week 2026, I wish to honor Officer Phillip Brooks, a dedicated member of the Nevada City Police Department, for his exceptional dedication to public service. Throughout his distinguished career, Officer Brooks has exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and courage in service to the Nevada City community. Within his 16 years of experience in law enforcement--2 in law enforcement and 14 in probation--he has demonstrated an unwavering devotion to protecting public safety and fostering meaningful community engagement. He has earned the respect and admiration of colleagues and constituents alike, and his commitment to excellence and record of exemplary service is commendable. Officer Brooks stands out for his dedication to servant-oriented policing and to building strong relationships with the public. He represents his city with distinction and to a level that is highly regarded by his community, colleagues, and leadership. He is known for the great number of written compliments that he receives. In fact, it is not uncommon for his department to see a new compliment submitted every week recognizing Officer Brooks for his outstanding service. It is an honor to represent remarkable individuals, like Officer Brooks in Congress. On behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I extend my sincere gratitude to Officer Brooks for his continued dedication to safeguarding and serving our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Officer Phillip Brooks and all those who serve in law enforcement during National Police Week.

Text printed in the Record (57 characters)

Recognizing Placer County Sheriff's Office Cold Case Unit

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)8:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the California Congressional District Three Police Honor Roll, and in recognition of National Police Week 2026, I wish to honor the Placer County Cold Case Unit with the Placer County Sheriff's Office for their exceptional dedication to public service. This specialized team of investigators focuses on unsolved cases, utilizing advanced DNA technology and genetic genealogy to secure breakthroughs in decades-old murders, including the recent arrest of James Lawhead, Jr., in the 1991 case of Cindy Wanner. For 34 years, investigators continued pursuing answers in relation to Cindy Wanner's murder, never allowing the case to be forgotten. After detectives identified Lawhead as the suspect, they collaborated with other law enforcement agencies and used facial-recognition technology to locate him under his new identity. Their steadfast efforts in cases such as these represent a meaningful step toward justice for victims, some of whom have waited decades for answers. The investigators of the Placer County Cold Case Unit have exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and courage in service to the Placer County community. With decades of experience in law enforcement between them, they have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to protecting public safety and fostering meaningful community engagement. This team has earned the respect and admiration of colleagues and constituents alike. Their commitment to excellence and record of exemplary service are commendable. It is an honor to represent exemplary individuals like the investigators of the Placer County Cold Case Unit here in Congress. On behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I extend my sincere gratitude to the Placer County Cold Case Unit for their continued dedication to safeguarding and serving our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Placer County Cold Case Unit and all of those who serve in law enforcement.

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)8:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the California Congressional District Three Police Honor Roll, and in recognition of National Police Week 2026, I wish to honor Lieutenant Greg Jensen, a dedicated member of the Rocklin Police Department, for his exceptional dedication to public service. Throughout his distinguished career, Lieutenant Jensen has exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and courage in service to the Rocklin community. With more than 19 years of experience in law enforcement, he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to protecting public safety and fostering meaningful community engagement. Lieutenant Jensen has earned the respect and admiration of colleagues and constituents alike. His dedication to excellence and record of exemplary service are commendable. Lieutenant Jensen is widely regarded by others for his devotion to community safety, visionary leadership, and results-driven policing. He stands out for his reliability, strong work ethic, and innovative approaches. His contributions have made a meaningful impact on the Rocklin Police Department, resulting in measurable improvements in investigative outcomes, operational coordination, community engagement, and organizational performance. His willingness to take on demanding assignments in addition to his primary duties demonstrates a commitment to his role that far exceeds expectations. Lieutenant Jensen oversees some of the most complex and high-impact operations within the Rocklin Police Department and performs with distinction in this role. His leadership is defined by strategic direction and an ability to translate extensive experience into quantifiable outcomes that strengthen organizational effectiveness and reinforce public trust. He fosters an environment rooted in accountability, mentorship, and collaboration, ensuring that team members are supported, empowered, and held to the highest professional standards. Last year, he supervised a team comprised of four detectives and a sergeant in the investigations unit that delivered truly outstanding results for the department. This team was responsible for 193 criminal investigations and achieved an exceptional clearance rate of 89 percent. Lieutenant Jensen's leadership was instrumental in guiding this highly skilled team of detectives to solve numerous high-profile, multijurisdictional cases. In one notable organized retail burglary investigation, approximately nine suspects used a stolen vehicle to forcibly enter a business and steal nearly $100,000 in merchandise. Working collaboratively across multiple jurisdictions, including agencies in Oakland, Santa Rosa, Campbell, and Berkeley, Lieutenant Jensen and his investigative team coordinated a complex and far-reaching effort. Through the team's diligent investigative work, detectives identified stolen property being sold online, secured search warrants, and ultimately recovered more than 1,200 stolen items. This marks just one of the many cases successfully led by Lieutenant Jensen. Beyond his operational accomplishments, Lieutenant Jensen has demonstrated initiative in developing programs that strengthen community relationships and invest in the future of the law enforcement profession, including the administration of justice dual-enrollment program with Sierra College and the Rocklin Unified School District. Additionally, he played a key role in implementing the Blue Envelope Program in the department, enhancing communication, safety, and trust during law enforcement interactions, particularly for individuals with specific communication needs. My district team and I have had the pleasure of working with Lieutenant Jensen in his support of our district office. He has played a key role in ensuring the safety of my team and visitors, preserving our ability to provide constituent services. We have been touched by his positive and proactive approach to public safety. It is an honor to represent remarkable individuals like Lieutenant Greg Jensen in Congress. Therefore, on behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I extend my sincere gratitude to Lieutenant Jensen for his continued dedication to safeguarding and serving our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lieutenant Greg Jensen and all of those who serve in law enforcement during this National Police Week.

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)8:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the California Congressional District Three Police Honor Roll, and in recognition of National Police Week 2026, I wish to honor Investigator Alana Gruchow, a dedicated member of the Placer County District Attorney's Office, for her exceptional dedication to public service. Throughout her distinguished career, Investigator Gruchow has exemplified the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and courage in service to the Placer County community. With 14 years of experience in law enforcement, she has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to protecting public safety and fostering meaningful community engagement. During her ongoing tenure, Investigator Gruchow has served in roles such as deputy for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office, officer for the Roseville Police Department, detective for the Roseville Police Department, and investigator for the Placer County District Attorney's Office, earning the respect and admiration of colleagues and constituents alike within these roles. She has been recognized with the 2019 Elks Lodge Roseville Police Officer of the Year and numerous other accolades from coworkers, supervisors, and citizens, reflecting her commitment to excellence and a record of exemplary service. Investigator Gruchow is widely regarded by others for her strong work ethic, her unmatched positive attitude, and her unwavering support for victims. She stands out for her tenacious approach to investigations and commitment to faithfully supporting her colleagues and serving her community. Investigator Gruchow began her career in the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office, where she worked as a deputy. She later moved to the Roseville Police Department in 2015 and has been an integral part of Placer County's law enforcement team since that time. In 2023, Investigator Gruchow lateraled to the Placer County District Attorney's Office as an investigator, where she handles the child abuse and sexual assault caseload. In navigating these difficult cases, Investigator Gruchow meets and exceeds expectations through her dedication to the fine details of a case and willingness to exhaust all leads. She has handled at least 400 cases in the past 4 years, guided victims through trying court processes, and played a crucial part in keeping dangerous criminal offenders off the streets. In addition to the management of her caseload, Investigator Gruchow proactively brings her peers and law enforcement partners together in meaningful ways. For example, she leads a team comprised of law enforcement representatives from Placer County for the Baker to Vegas Annual Relay Race that spans from Baker, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada. It is the world's largest law enforcement sporting event, which hosts over 10,000 participants each year. With Investigator Gruchow's leadership, the Placer Regional law enforcement team has finished at the top of its category for the past 2 years, bringing home a coveted mug. This success, enforcing regional comradery and helping to improve morale across agencies, could not happen without the tireless devotion of Investigator Gruchow. It is an honor to represent remarkable individuals like Investigator Gruchow in Congress. Therefore, on behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I extend my sincere congratulations and gratitude to Investigator Gruchow for her continued dedication to safeguarding and serving our communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in offering Investigator Gruchow and all those who serve in law enforcement their gratitude, as well in honoring these amazing individuals and public servants during this National Police Week.

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)8:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize school librarians across California's Third Congressional District as part of National School Librarian Day, which was on April 4, 2026. School librarians play a critical role in a student's educational journey, from collaborating with both students and teachers to enable the access of educational resources in a wide variety of formats, to guiding them in how to acquire, evaluate, and use new information. In doing so, they promote curiosity and learning experience by introducing young scholars to new literature and other types of resources. As such, it is my privilege to honor a select group of outstanding school librarians from California's Third Congressional District for their dedication to supporting the education of our country's future leaders and workforce. But there is one librarian who received the highest number of nominations across my district, that being Bobbi Gagnon of Orangevale Open Elementary School in the San Juan Unified School District. This outpouring of support from students, parents, colleagues, and community members alike is an inspiring testament to the impact she makes every day. I will say, I happened to get the chance to see her read a book to her students, and I can understand why she is so popular and has such a great impact on students there. Therefore, I am proud to name Bobbi Gagnon as the 2026 School Librarian of the Year for California's Third Congressional District. Through her role as school librarian, she has enriched her school and the Orangevale-Fair Oaks community, making a meaningful and positive difference in the lives of all those she serves. She is known for her kindness, compassion, care, and commitment to student access. Bobbi opens the library doors before school and during lunch to provide a welcoming place for students to come and finds unique ways to connect with each individual student in the school. In doing so, she fosters a love of learning and an environment of support that motivates students to grow. It is an honor to represent exemplary individuals like Bobbi Gagnon in the United States House of Representatives. Therefore, on behalf of California's Third Congressional District and in celebration of National School Librarian Day, it is my privilege to recognize Bobbi for her tireless efforts and devotion to the students and families of the Orangevale-Fair Oaks community. I thank and congratulate her.

Kevin Kiley (I-CA)8:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate James Berardi on his retirement from the Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District earlier this year. Throughout his career in education, Mr. Berardi was known for his creative thinking, positive energy, and his commitment to students, families, and staff. Mr. Berardi had the unique experience of retiring from the school district where he not only worked as a teacher, principal, and superintendent but where he was also a student. Mr. Berardi was born and raised in Downieville, California, and attended the local high school. After high school, he joined the U.S. Merchant Marines and then went on to start his teaching career at Lindhurst High School. He then returned to Sierra County as a teaching principal, later serving as both the principal and superintendent of the Twin Ridges Elementary School District. He then went on to serve as the Sierra County superintendent of schools while simultaneously working as teacher, principal, and superintendent. Not only did Mr. Berardi wear many hats during his career, but he also navigated through unique challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic, and he developed innovative solutions to continue to support students in their academic journeys through these difficult times. Deeply valued by his community, Mr. Berardi is seen as a pillar of inspiration to his peers, students, and family. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to join the community in celebrating Mr. James Berardi's successful career and service to the communities of the Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District and to wish him the very best in his retirement. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Effect of Waste and Fraud

Pages H4048–H4051 · Official text

(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Schweikert of Arizona was recognized for 30 minutes.)

David Schweikert (R-AZ)

Mr. Speaker, I know it has been a long day for everyone, but I have a couple things to walk through. One of the themes we have had the last couple weeks is waste and fraud. I thought it would be important to actually come here and sort of show what we calculate the math to be, where it comes from, and then something huge. Today was also the issuance of the annual Social Security actuarial report. I have not read the whole thing. I have just gone to the basic tables. I promise you I will read it over the next couple of weeks. I am going to make some commentary. Some of it is going to be based on last year's report, but we also have the CBO analysis and some of the outside groups and where the math doesn't match. But I need all of us to grow up and understand some of the realities out there. This last weekend, I had the joy--I am traveling around the State, running for Governor, because I am leaving this insane--excuse me--this fine place. Some of the folks will come up to you and say things like: Well, if you just got rid of the waste and fraud. Look, it is huge, but I am going to show you some of the charts of what the reality is on the percentage of our spending. From joint economists, our best estimate right now is we are going to borrow $2 trillion this year. My personal number--I am the outlier--is we are going to borrow about $2.2 trillion, but then I am a little more pessimistic. Remember, when we went into this year, we were going to borrow $1.7 trillion or $1.6 trillion. There are some games we play in that, for those who are keeping score, like: Hey, here are student loans. We are going to credit that back because we are not writing them off. Does that actually go on the books as a credit even though there is no cash that comes with it? These are the sorts of things, if you really want to understand government accounting, that will drive you insane. Let's first actually do some stuff on waste and fraud. This is the full kit and caboodle, or whatever colloquialism I can come up with, that estimating government fraud would cover 71 days of borrowing. Now, remember, that is on the assumption that we are borrowing about 7-some-billion dollars a day. Take the high and the low, but this is everything. These are the bad actors from other parts of the world that have figured out how to steal from unemployment by fraud. These are the corporations that found leakage that have actually been able to designate people as sicker than they actually are so they get the risk premiums in some of the programs. It is a stunning amount of money. But if we borrow $2.2 trillion this year, it actually covers about a quarter of our borrowing. But when you start to think about that, it is 71 days if you actually do the mean here. It is a big deal, but it doesn't solve our problems. My frustration is, this place has a habit of saying: We are against waste and fraud. Let's do a piece of legislation. Let's do another analysis of waste and fraud. Let's actually say we condemn fraudsters. Damn it. How many years have some of us worked on just simple concepts? There are these things--what do you call them, Mr. Speaker? Oh, yeah, computers and data. If someone is billing and you have a dozen different organizations billing the same P.O. box, maybe you have hospice fraud. If you have a Social Security number being used over and over and over, maybe there is a problem. If you have data that says: Hey, this person is saying they made $24,000 a year last year so they deserve these credits as our society, but we have data that shows their consumption was $88,000, maybe we should look at this. We have the systems today that we could have stopped the $2.8 billion of sober living home fraud that basically punished Native Americans in my State with a simple data system. Is that Republican or Democrat? It is just dragging this government into maybe this century of technology instead of doing another resolution. It is like the absurdity of--absolutely, we all vote for it--let's do a balanced budget. Great. Tell me how. I will tell you how to do it. You won't like it, but there is a path to do it. We actually have some math that says if you told me I can balance the budget next year, I can do it. We have to cut almost half of all Federal spending because of the economic effects. Why is it so hard for us to tell the truth about math? Let's actually get ourselves in some real trouble here. All right. This is using the most optimistic number saying, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be able to stomp out every bit of fraud, waste, misalignment, and exploitation in this government. We are going to spend--estimated government fraud is almost 7.8 percent of the outlays for this year. That is a remarkable amount of money. It is remarkable. Do you really think we are going to get all of it? How about if we could get half of it? How about if we could get a third of it? Our economists think we can nail down a third of this waste and fraud if you just take some of the legislation we have worked on for years of the use of data, matching benefits, matching Social Security numbers, matching addresses, matching codes coming out of CMS, matching these things. Why is it so scary? I will tell you, some of the lobbyists marching down the hallways hate this stuff. How many times have I come behind this microphone and say, you know, let me give you an easy, intellectual one to process? We did some analysis almost a year ago--you are a doctor. An MRI scan, an ultrasound, a CT, an x-ray. We think there could have been $25 to $35 billion last year in duplication. You know, you bust up your knee on the ski slope, and you get an MRI. They patch you up, you go home, and a week later before the ortho is about to work, you do it again--why do it again when you can attach that scan to a simple app right here? You put it up on the screen. If it isn't good enough, then redo it. Something as simple as that, that is $350 billion on the outside over 10 years. Why is that scary around here? However, it is. Does it annoy some of the lobbyists? Does it annoy some of the real estate investment trusts that have been putting up MRI centers? Does it annoy the equipment sales? Look, I am sure they are all wonderful people, but if you and I were operating in the real world and not in government, we would be insisting on these things that say we are not taking away benefits, we are using technology. In many ways, I would argue it makes people's lives better, faster, cheaper to stop these duplications. That is in this number we are calling waste and fraud. Understand, when you get the politician in front of you saying: We are going to stomp out waste and fraud, and then they make it sound like it is someone from the other side of the world stealing from us, that is some of it. However, the vast majority that is in these numbers is how we have designed benefits, how we have designed healthcare reimbursements, how we have designed these programs. How do we work with our States, our vendors, all the bureaucracy to actually say let's just do the things that technology now allows us to do to stop the American taxpayers from being bled, being scammed. Now, the number of times I have come behind this microphone and said Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, a little over 6 years, and I have actually had debates--as a matter of fact, we had some sparring today--where I spoke for a couple moments, and the Democrat who was speaking said: Yes, but illegals pay into Social Security. Yes, but if you actually read the Social Security actuary report, it would have shown you, yes, they are paying into fake Social Security numbers--okay, that is a little money--but the suppression of wages that happen from the millions and millions and millions and millions of people that came across the border in the Biden years is greater than. It is in the tables. I know, it would require reading the Social Security actuary report and maybe pulling out a calculator and doing some math. One of the things that is going on in our country right now, particularly as we arrogantly often say: the lower quartiles of education and labor. Why are they getting poorer? Have you looked at the wage growth numbers of our working class brothers and sisters, particularly those without high skills, where they sell their labor? They are out hanging drywall, and now they are competing with how many potentially millions of people that came across the border during those years that are competing with them selling their labor. That was the great cruelty. I know I am trying to think like an economist. I am just wired that way. I would argue, the morality of prosperity is what we as conservatives believe in, and trying to explain all the horrible things policy wise, our inability to fixate on making people's lives better. We talk about affordability. The fastest way you get affordability is wage growth because to magically start to make prices come down, you have to change systems and supply chains, legalize automation of ports, all the things that the unions and everyone else is going to come lobby and scream at us. Let's actually walk through a couple things that were out there in that Social Security actuary report today and from last year so there is an understanding. I got up here last summer and said my math, my Joint Economic economists on the Republican side, we were guessing about sometime in late, mid-2032. We nailed it. We got the number right. The only controversy right now is the Social Security actuary report that came out today said it is a 22 percent cut in 6 years. CBO said it was a 24 percent cut. My folks say 24 percent cut. Both are miserable, both will double senior poverty 7 years from now. We will double the number of baby boomers who live on the street 7 years from now. How many times have you seen people come behind the microphones today--because the report is out--and actually say, yeah, this is immoral, maybe we should actually hold hands, get the crap kicked out of us because we are telling the truth about the math? Instead, in this place--and God knows I have gone through it election after election after election--where the Democrat consultants say: Oh, Schweikert used the words "Social Security," he used the word "Medicare," let's beat the crap out of him. Then you wonder why Members here are scared to death to actually save these trust funds, save our brothers and sisters who are seniors from poverty. It is because we are not allowed to talk about it. Then you will get some idiot who says: Well, we will just raise the taxes, that covers it. It doesn't. I have done presentation after presentation after presentation showing just even raising the cap doesn't come close to covering, 2033, Mr. Speaker, the money needed to cover the Social Security shortfall and the Medicare shortfall--because, remember, the Medicare trust fund is also empty at the same time. This was our calculation from last year. We actually haven't had time to recalculate. We believe it is more now with $638 billion in a single year. There is this misunderstanding. Let's just call it a misunderstanding. I would never say people just make crap up around here. Let's take a look, just to understand how fast the Social Security trust fund is eroding. In 2026, we have got $2 trillion in there, and it is loans to the general fund. It is paid interest. It is actually paid a pretty darn good interest rate. When people say: They stole the money. No, no, no. Just like you might have bought a note, a T-bill, a bond from the Federal government, and the Federal Government every 6 months pays you interest, and then at the end you get your money back, that is the exact same thing the trust funds did. Here is the problem: Then next year, there is $1.9 trillion in the fund, and then you get over here, and, boom, in 2031 there is nothing left in the trust fund.

Then you start to walk into 2032, and it is empty. The debate now is: What month in 2032 is it gone? What is happening here? The checks going out the door are bigger than the tax receipts coming in from payroll taxes. Every month, Social Security says that we hold all these, let's call them magic Social Security T bills. They call the Treasury and say: Hey, guys, I have to make my monthly Social Security checks. Please send us some cash. Treasury goes and says that, this month, they have some tax collection. They send a check from that. This month, they don't have enough, so they sell some debt. If you ever look at the Treasury statement, Mr. Speaker, they explain how they finance it. It is called the Treasury management system. That is how fast the numbers are eroding, and it is basically because of baby boomers. I am one of them. What is it? There are 67 million of us born during that time, and now we are down to the last few years of them moving into their benefits. This is what happened. We functionally have a country without enough children, and we haven't had enough children starting 40 years ago. Now, we are going to pay the price for it. You start to look at some of these, Mr. Speaker, and the reason I put this one up, and I will tell you, this is done by my economists and some of the others. I actually believe the numbers are a little more dour, but the math is the math. Social Security, Medicare, and net interest account for 81 percent of the spending growth over the next 10 years. In 9 budget years from now, we calculate--and this is before the rise of interest rates that have happened the last 4 months. CBO calculated that in 2036, the annual debt will be $3.1 trillion, $2.1 trillion of it just being interest and the $1 trillion being the baseline deficit. Heaven forbid, if interest rates go up, these numbers get much, much uglier. I am trying to help folks understand. Once we cover Social Security, once we cover Medicare, then we have to pay the interest bill. That is the majority of the spending growth. The rest of the spending growth, 19 percent, is everything else, and if interest is a little bigger, it is actually almost all the spending growth. It is uncomfortable to talk about, but it is demographics. Mr. Speaker, there is a dataset out there that says that next year we are functioning at the same or fewer children than we had 20 years ago, but double the number 65 and up. That is not Republican. It is not Democrat. It is just demographics. Now, I would argue it is caused by a number of social policies and then other things that the Democrats promoted, but now some of us have to figure out a way to manage this and tell the truth on how we are going to keep our promises to seniors. Every day we wait, we make it a bit harder for ourselves. Let's walk through a little bit of this. In 2026, old-age and survivors account with Social Security, annual balances are much worse than previously predicted. This is what we had in 2025. It was up here. This is population. Now, we are starting to believe our population falls further. The problem is if you actually go and look at the Census Bureau numbers, Mr. Speaker, CBO numbers, they are actually way down here. They are actually much worse than the numbers the Social Security actuaries are using. The head of Social Security is going to be in front of Ways and Means in the next couple of weeks, and we need to ask him why the other demographers are actually saying that fertility calculations in future years are much worse than Social Security is using. This should scare the hell out of us because it means these numbers that are dour are actually worse. I know some of this is geeky, but it is important. This is millions and millions of people who were planning for their retirement. How many of them are prepared for a 22- or 24-percent cut just a few years from now? Where is the morality of this place? All I am trying to do is show on this, this is the trustee calculation in future years. This is everyone else's calculation that we trust. Mr. Speaker, that is one hell of a gap. We need to come up with a way to either say that when we produce the Social Security actuary report, we as policymakers should actually be reading it and doing something instead of hiding from it, and maybe also add in there saying we are going to also other academic demographers, and we are also going to add maybe the Census Bureau, which has had, historically, the most accurate numbers of fertility rates. As a matter of fact, I think there is a new number that came out that the United States is now down to 1.57 births per thousand. You realize our fertility rates are now under many countries in Europe now, Mr. Speaker, and we thought they were crashing and burning. We are. Let's do a couple more of these. All I am trying to do is make this make sense. The trustee population projections are significantly more optimistic than other sources, Census Bureau, and Congressional Budget Office. I am saying it again another way. These gaps, because they are calculating, suddenly we are going to actually have fertility rates going up. That is wonderful. Please, Social Security actuaries, I look forward to the explanation of how you came up with that because no one else has that number. Understand what these numbers mean, Mr. Speaker. The national effects of Social Security insolvency is basically the depletion of the trust fund in what, 6 years, 3 months on recipients, 24, 27 percent benefit cuts over those years. The Social Security actuary report said 22. Everyone else will say 24. I will give them 22. I think my 24 percent number is more correct. Monthly cuts exceed $500, so in 29 States, basically they are adding up how much of the population's average income they paid into Social Security. Remember, a number of people don't understand, Mr. Speaker, Social Security is means-adjusted. High-income earners get less back of the taxes they paid in. Low-income earners actually often get much more than the FICA taxes they paid in. Mr. Speaker, if you are a poor senior, are you ready for a $500-a-month cut? Let's take a look at my State, Arizona. Insolvency of Social Security, what does it mean to my recipients, my folks who receive a Social Security check in Arizona? There will be estimated monthly cuts of $511, and this starts in 6 years. That will affect $8.2 billion in benefits lost a year, and 18.3 percent of the residents are affected in my State. Mr. Speaker, this is an avalanche coming at us. It is really hard to fix. It is really expensive to fix. Every day that we wait, we make it worse. The ugliest part of this punch line: The Medicare trust fund is empty almost at the same time, so hospitals are going to take about a 12-percent cut, the Medicare part A trust fund. Yet, the political class, because they either are good at math or they are terrified to tell the voters the truth, on Social Security, you functionally get, for the average couple, the money you put in plus a tiny bit. It is a horrible rate of return. If 25 years ago we had done what President Bush and others had talked about saying--just a little bit of your Social Security money going into side accounts--the retiring population today would be so much more prosperous. Democrats and unions crushed that. It is on them. They should be the ones standing up and saying: We apologize. We are going to create a wave of poverty, but, hey, we are just going to tax the hell out of people who are still working. At least they could admit what they did. The hardest part is also showing chart after chart after chart--it is Medicare that is actually the biggest contributor to U.S. sovereign debt. The average couple, the dollars they put in, they are going to get about $6 back. That is a pretty good rate of return. That is because we, as a body, have been terrified to fix the cost of delivering healthcare. We know there is waste and fraud. Mr. Speaker, do you remember the couple of charts we started with? When the MedPAC report comes to us and says that it is like $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion of not fraud, because it is--well, partially it is fraud. What would that be worth if we just fixed the misalignment in Medicare Advantage, let alone all the durable medical equipment and all the things that are now happening with Medicaid, whether it be the scams we found in New York, where you hire family members to be the visitor. In New York City over the last 5 years, it is the number one job creator. For every 1,000 people 65 and up in New York City, they have--what was the number? It was like 141 signed up for this program. Even the Democrat Governor of New York says this is pretty much a scam. Why is it so hard for us to step up and fix these things? The first time I gave a presentation on this a couple months ago, it was fascinating. All of a sudden there were articles popping up on the internet, I think written by AI, beating the crap out of me. It turns out they have their own lobbyists for the fraud. That is how perverse this society has become. The fraudsters now have lobbyists. Mr. Speaker, I am fixated on debt, deficits, and demographics because I am going to argue that we have a country that about every 13\1/2\ seconds we are borrowing a million dollars. Yet today even, we have debates around here and we are arguing about saving a couple million dollars. That is great, but we borrowed more money during the debate than the debate actually would save if it became law. That is how screwed up we are. Mr. Speaker, I beg of you and anyone out there that is listening, can we do something real? I have a 3-year-old and a 10-year-old that we have adopted. The data says that we will need a 104 percent of little Matthew's lifetime earnings just to pay the pensions of this Federal Government. That means every dime he will make plus 4 percent. We as a society have decided the next generation will be poorer than we are. Welcome to the morality of the modern Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Publication of Budgetary Material

Page H4051 · Official text

The Speaker announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate of the following title:

Text printed in the Record (83 characters)

S. 2--An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 33.

Adjournment

Page H4051 · Official text

David Schweikert (R-AZ)

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Executive Communications, Etc.

Pages H4051–H4052 · Official text

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

Text printed in the Record (7,013 characters)

EC-3771. A letter from the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness, Department of War, transmitting a letter authorizing Major General Keith D. Reventlow, United States Marine Corps, to wear the insignia of the grade of lieutenant general, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777a(b)(4); Public Law 111-383, Sec. 505(a)(1); (124 Stat. 4209); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3772. A letter from the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness, Department of War, transmitting a letter authorizing Major General George B. Rowell IV, United States Marine Corps, to wear the insignia of the grade of lieutenant general, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777a(b)(4); Public Law 111-383, Sec. 505(a)(1); (124 Stat. 4209); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3773. A letter from the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, transmitting the Office's 2025 Annual Report on the Preservation and Promotion of Minority-Owned National Banks and Federal Savings Associations, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1463 note; Public Law 101-73, Sec. 308 (as amended by Public Law 111-203, Sec. 367(4)(B)); (124 Stat. 1556); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-3774. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; South Coast Air Quality Management District; Oil and Gas Production; Volatile Organic Compounds [EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0175; FRL-11888.1-01-R9] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3775. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Withdrawal of Title V Emergency Affirmative Defense Rule [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0186; FRL-8961.1-02-OAR] (RIN: 2060-AX05) received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3776. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- South Carolina; Approval of State Plan for Control of Emissions from Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units [EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0258; FRL-9526-02-R4] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3777. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Hawaii; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period [EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0152; FRL-12584-02-R9] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3778. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (25-2.5e) [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0314; FRL-12931-02-OCSPP] (RIN: 2070-AB27) received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3779. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans (Negative Declarations) for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; District of Columbia [EPA-R03-OAR-2025-1746; FRL-13006-02-R3] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3780. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Repeal of Existing Stationary Source Regulations [EPA-R03-OAR-2025-0226; FRL-13007-02-R3] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3781. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Clean Data Determination for the Baltimore, MD Nonattainment Area for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards [EPA-R03-OAR-2025-2532; FRL-13045-02-R3] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3782. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; ID; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference [EPA-R10-OAR-2026-0498; FRL-13207-01-R10] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3783. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1B.34.1, Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1B.61.1, and Adiantum trapeziforme var. braziliense IPD083Cb Proteins; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0089; EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0099; EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0100; FRL-13294-01-OCSPP] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3784. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Michigan; Technical Amendment [EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0004; FRL-13336-01-R5] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3785. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Regulatory Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Propylene Oxide; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0158; FRL-13382-01-OCSPP] received May 29, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3786. A letter from the Associate Administrator for Legislative and Governmental Affairs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting the Administration's Fair Inventory Executive Summaries, presenting the FY 2023 Full Time Equivalent data by FAIR Function Code Category; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions

Page H4052 · Official text

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (605 characters)

Mr. WESTERMAN: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 1501. A bill to amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities as a covered project, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 119-691). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. WESTERMAN: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 5929. A bill to adjust the treatment of certain actions under Presidential Determination 2022-11 for Federal permitting improvement, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 119-692). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Public Bills and Resolutions

Pages H4052–H4054 · Official text

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (11,972 characters)

By Mr. CRAWFORD: H.R. 9209. A bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to provide the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community with law enforcement authority, and for other purposes; to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. RASKIN: H.R. 9210. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to establish certain requirements for compromise settlements between the President and the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. GOLDMAN of New York (for himself, Mr. Lawler, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Moskowitz, Ms. Salazar, Ms. Meng, Mr. Yakym, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Veasey, Mr. McCaul, Ms. Stevens, Ms. Malliotakis, Ms. Gillen, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Auchincloss, Mr. Meuser, Mr. Lieu, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Schneider, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, Mr. Landsman, Mr. Kustoff, Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida, Mr. Ciscomani, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Weber of Texas, Ms. McDonald Rivet, and Mr. Moolenaar): H.R. 9211. A bill to strengthen Federal efforts to counter antisemitism in the United States and protect the Jewish community; to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. ALFORD (for himself, Mrs. Kim, and Mr. Neguse): H.R. 9212. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to reimburse veterans for the cost of emergency medical transportation to a Federal facility, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. By Mr. BEYER (for himself, Mr. Moulton, and Ms. Norton): H.R. 9213. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration to study the implementation of rail electrification across the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. By Mr. BOST (for himself, Mrs. Bice, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Crawford, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Ezell, Mr. Guest, Mr. Hurd of Colorado, Mr. Issa, Ms. King- Hinds, Mr. McGuire, Mr. Moore of West Virginia, Mr. Ogles, Mrs. Radewagen, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Van Orden, and Mrs. Wagner): H.R. 9214. A bill to provide for the electronic transfer of amounts from Thrift Savings Fund accounts to qualified retirement plans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. By Mr. BURCHETT: H.R. 9215. A bill to limit stock buybacks, shareholder dividends, and executive compensation for certain underperforming contractors as determined by the Secretary of Defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. CASAR (for himself, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Horsford, Ms. Ansari, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Simon, Ms. Randall, Ms. Titus, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania, Ms. Chu, Mrs. Ramirez, Ms. McBride, and Mr. Deluzio): H.R. 9216. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to adjust the rate employers pay for overtime hours from one and one-half to two times the regular rate; to the Committee on Education and Workforce. By Mr. GARBARINO (for himself and Ms. Houlahan): H.R. 9217. A bill to amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to provide for high-priority research and extension grants for natural climate solutions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture. By Mr. GOTTHEIMER (for himself and Mr. Bacon): H.R. 9218. A bill to direct local educational agencies that receive certain Federal funds to require students in grades 9 through 12 to receive an electrocardiogram and an echocardiogram prior to participating in an athletic contest for the first time, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Workforce. By Mr. HUNT: H.R. 9219. A bill to direct the Secretary of Defense to assess and address risks to fuel supply infrastructure supporting military installations in California and to improve the resilience of fuel supply chains critical to national defense; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Ms. JACOBS: H.R. 9220. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the treatment of nondisclosure agreements with respect to privatized military housing and to expand protection from retaliation against tenants of such housing, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. KENNEDY of Utah: H.R. 9221. A bill to ensure access to certain public land, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. LANDSMAN (for himself and Mr. Riley of New York): H.R. 9222. A bill to ban stock trading and prediction market participation for the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, suspend pay for Members of Congress during shutdowns, establish term limits for Congress, establish term limits and ethics rules for the Supreme Court, reform the presidential pardon power, revoke the statute of limitations for the President and Vice President, strengthen the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses, overturn Citizens United, ban dark money, corporate PACS, and partisan gerrymandering, end voter suppression, and restrict government pensions for felony convictions and lawsuits by the President, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, House Administration, Ways and Means, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Ms. LETLOW: H.R. 9223. A bill to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to authorize the Secretary of Education to extend paperwork reduction waivers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Workforce. By Mr. MACKENZIE (for himself, Ms. McDonald Rivet, Mrs. Hinson, and Ms. Lee of Nevada): H.R. 9224. A bill to amend the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to reauthorize and update the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. MANN (for himself, Mr. Magaziner, and Mr. Estes): H.R. 9225. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct a study to assess whether certain aircraft certified under part 23 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, may be used in operations conducted under part 121 of such title, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. By Mr. McGOVERN (for himself, Mr. Neal, Ms. Balint, Mr. Courtney, Ms. Goodlander, and Mrs. Hayes): H.R. 9226. A bill to direct restoration and protection efforts of the 5-State Connecticut River Watershed region, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. MOOLENAAR (for himself and Mr. Khanna): H.R. 9227. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to incentivize the domestic production and use of permanent magnets, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. ONDER: H.R. 9228. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure plan fiduciaries have access to de-identified information relating to health claims, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Workforce. By Mr. PATRONIS (for himself and Mr. Haridopolos): H.R. 9229. A bill to protect seaports from unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. ROY: H.R. 9230. A bill to prohibit a Member of Congress from serving as chair or ranking minority member of a committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate after 12 years of service in the House or the Senate, and for other purposes; to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Norton, Ms. Barragan, Ms. Pingree, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Garcia of Illinois): H.R. 9231. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem certain substances to be unsafe for use as food contact substances, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. By Mr. VAN EPPS: H.R. 9232. A bill to grant authority to use counter-unmanned aircraft system technologies to private owners of critical infrastructure facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. By Mr. VARGAS: H.R. 9233. A bill to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, as the "Armando Rodriguez Post Office"; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. By Mr. VASQUEZ (for himself and Ms. Houlahan): H.R. 9234. A bill to establish a W nonimmigrant visa program for careworkers; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. WHITESIDES (for himself, Mr. Obernolte, and Mr. Neguse): H.R. 9235. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to require an identification of natural disaster vulnerability in certain transportation plans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. By Ms. SALAZAR (for herself, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania): H. Con. Res. 109. Concurrent resolution allowing Emancipation Hall to be used for a ceremony to dedicate the Semiquincentennial Congressional Time Capsule on Wednesday, June 24, 2026; to the Committee on House Administration. By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. Suozzi): H. Res. 1350. A resolution expressing support of the goal of celebrating a "National Day of Honor and Respect" in conjunction with "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day"; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CLYDE (for himself, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Ogles, Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina, Mr. Harris of Maryland, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Carter of Texas, Ms. Boebert, Mr. Rutherford, Mr.

Text printed in the Record (1,309 characters)

Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Babin, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Self, Mr. Crane, and Mr. Biggs of Arizona): H. Res. 1351. A resolution impeaching Eleanor Louise Ross, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for high crimes and misdemeanors; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. LIEU: H. Res. 1352. A resolution electing Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives; considered and agreed to. By Mr. STEUBE (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina, Mr. Bost, Mr. Mills, Mr. Harrigan, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Fine, Mr. Miller of Ohio, and Mr. Crane): H. Res. 1353. A resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives supporting the Department of State's efforts to prevent the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from embedding themselves within the Iranian National Football Delegation during the 2026 FIFA World Cup and to limit the delegation's presence in the United States to the minimum time necessary for scheduled match play; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. STEUBE: H. Res. 1354. A resolution impeaching John McConnell, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, for high crimes and misdemeanors; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Constitutional Authority Statement

Page H4054 · Official text

Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution.

Additional Sponsors

Pages H4054–H4055 · Official text

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

Text printed in the Record (6,813 characters)

H.R. 40: Mr. Fields. H.R. 210: Ms. Davids of Kansas and Ms. Scholten. H.R. 601: Mr. Donalds. H.R. 869: Ms. Johnson of Texas. H.R. 999: Mr. Riley of New York. H.R. 1065: Mr. Huizenga. H.R. 1111: Mr. Espaillat. H.R. 1163: Mr. Sessions. H.R. 1193: Mr. Rutherford and Ms. Goodlander. H.R. 1241: Mr. Crank. H.R. 1277: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Ms. Salinas. H.R. 1421: Mr. Roy. H.R. 1502: Ms. Davids of Kansas, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Luttrell, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Grothman, and Mrs. Fischbach. H.R. 1510: Mr. Cohen. H.R. 1529: Mr. Hurd of Colorado. H.R. 1628: Mr. Reschenthaler, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Harris of North Carolina, Mr. Miller of Ohio, Mr. Crank, Mr. Haridopolos, Mr. Van Epps, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Valadao, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Wittman, Mr. Smucker, Mr. Baird, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Collins, Mrs. Luna, Mr. Shreve, Mr. Moylan, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Gooden, and Mr. Moore of Utah. H.R. 1735: Ms. Pettersen. H.R. 1757: Mr. Gottheimer. H.R. 1855: Mr. Hernandez. H.R. 2028: Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. H.R. 2048: Ms. Balint, Mr. Vasquez, Mr. Fine, and Mr. Whitesides. H.R. 2086: Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania, Ms. Craig, and Mr. Soto. H.R. 2231: Mr. Carson. H.R. 2477: Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. H.R. 2527: Ms. Wilson of Florida and Mr. Green of Texas. H.R. 2548: Ms. Barragan. H.R. 2598: Ms. Omar and Mrs. Miller of West Virginia. H.R. 2741: Mr. Torres of New York. H.R. 2767: Mr. Norcross. H.R. 2790: Mr. Courtney and Mr. Tran. H.R. 2883: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia. H.R. 3070: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania. H.R. 3104: Mr. Menendez. H.R. 3144: Ms. Stansbury. H.R. 3151: Mr. Huizenga. H.R. 3178: Mr. Sherman. H.R. 3184: Ms. Mejia. H.R. 3368: Ms. Davids of Kansas. H.R. 3415: Ms. Randall. H.R. 3443: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia. H.R. 3505: Mr. Krishnamoorthi. H.R. 3564: Mr. Khanna. H.R. 3683: Mr. Levin. H.R. 3811: Ms. Kamlager-Dove. H.R. 3826: Mr. Fitzpatrick. H.R. 4382: Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Levin, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Mann, Ms. Morrison, Ms. Sewell, Ms. Dexter, Mr. DesJarlais, Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Krishnamoorthi. H.R. 4418: Mr. Huffman. H.R. 4582: Ms. Schrier, Mr. Fields, Ms. Scholten, Mrs. Foushee, Ms. Lee of Nevada, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Golden of Maine, Mr. Smith of Washington, and Mr. Thanedar. H.R. 4583: Ms. Schrier, Mr. Fields, Ms. Scholten, Mrs. Foushee, Ms. Lee of Nevada, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Golden of Maine, Mr. Smith of Washington, and Mr. Thanedar. H.R. 4606: Ms. Jayapal and Mr. Loudermilk. H.R. 4665: Ms. Goodlander. H.R. 4712: Mr. Bergman. H.R. 4717: Ms. Randall. H.R. 4721: Mr. Norcross. H.R. 4733: Ms. Pingree and Mr. Casten. H.R. 4763: Mr. Latimer. H.R. 4771: Ms. Goodlander. H.R. 4950: Mr. Rose. H.R. 4954: Ms. Brownley and Mr. Soto. H.R. 4989: Ms. Schrier. H.R. 5068: Ms. Stansbury. H.R. 5123: Mr. Norcross. H.R. 5168: Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Frost, Mr. Huffman, and Ms. Sewell. H.R. 5269: Mr. McCormick. H.R. 5408: Ms. DeLauro and Mr. Cisneros. H.R. 5434: Mr. Himes, Ms. Castor of Florida, and Ms. Pettersen. H.R. 5605: Mr. Latimer. H.R. 5772: Mr. Van Drew. H.R. 5791: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina and Mr. Ryan. H.R. 5835: Ms. Barragan. H.R. 5894: Ms. Brownley. H.R. 5993: Mr. Zinke. H.R. 6213: Mr. Crank, Mr. Gill of Texas, and Mr. Moore of North Carolina. H.R. 6245: Ms. Brown. H.R. 6440: Mr. Krishnamoorthi. H.R. 6475: Ms. Lee of Florida. H.R. 6597: Mr. Beyer. H.R. 6670: Mr. Lawler. H.R. 6682: Ms. Omar. H.R. 6718: Mr. Sorensen. H.R. 6809: Mr. McGuire, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lawler, and Mr. Whitesides. H.R. 6856: Mr. Menendez. H.R. 6890: Mr. Menendez and Ms. Johnson of Texas. H.R. 6976: Mr. Rose and Ms. Lofgren. H.R. 7100: Mr. Subramanyam. H.R. 7333: Ms. Omar. H.R. 7336: Ms. Pettersen. H.R. 7409: Mr. Amodei of Nevada. H.R. 7460: Mr. Norcross. H.R. 7464: Ms. Castor of Florida. H.R. 7479: Mr. Cohen. H.R. 7546: Ms. Norton. H.R. 7711: Ms. Craig. H.R. 7732: Mr. Veasey. H.R. 7733: Ms. Velazquez. H.R. 7834: Mr. McGuire. H.R. 7905: Mr. Peters. H.R. 7961: Mr. Van Drew. H.R. 7966: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. H.R. 7968: Mr. Lieu. H.R. 7987: Mr. Joyce of Ohio. H.R. 8019: Mr. Menendez. H.R. 8041: Mr. Sorensen. H.R. 8056: Mr. Lawler. H.R. 8101: Mr. Pfluger. H.R. 8240: Mr. Gill of Texas. H.R. 8272: Mr. Grothman. H.R. 8347: Mr. Grothman. H.R. 8415: Mr. Flood. H.R. 8421: Ms. Kamlager-Dove. H.R. 8460: Mr. Gill of Texas. H.R. 8476: Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. H.R. 8487: Ms. Davids of Kansas and Ms. Balint. H.R. 8532: Mr. James. H.R. 8554: Mr. James. H.R. 8563: Ms. Craig and Mr. Mannion. H.R. 8582: Mr. Latimer and Mr. Pappas. H.R. 8611: Mr. Pfluger and Mr. Moore of Alabama. H.R. 8612: Mrs. Ramirez and Mr. Davis of Illinois. H.R. 8666: Ms. DeGette. H.R. 8707: Mr. Garamendi. H.R. 8734: Mr. Walkinshaw, Mr. Takano, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Moulton, and Ms. Simon. H.R. 8780: Mr. Alford and Mr. Moore of Alabama. H.R. 8781: Mr. Davidson. H.R. 8787: Mr. Davidson. H.R. 8802: Ms. Stevens, Mr. Quigley, and Mr. DeSaulnier. H.R. 8827: Mr. Gill of Texas. H.R. 8831: Mr. Landsman and Mr. Espaillat. H.R. 8914: Ms. Schrier, Ms. Meng, Ms. Morrison, Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania, Mr. Latimer, Mr. Beyer, Ms. Friedman, Ms. Jayapal, Mrs. Hayes, Ms. Randall, and Ms. Escobar. H.R. 8964: Ms. Norton. H.R. 8967: Mr. Hurd of Colorado. H.R. 8996: Mr. Latimer. H.R. 9000: Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi. H.R. 9003: Mr. DeSaulnier. H.R. 9005: Mr. Fulcher and Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania. H.R. 9016: Ms. Norton, Ms. Pingree, Mrs. Watson Coleman, and Mr. Fleischmann. H.R. 9043: Mr. James. H.R. 9048: Mr. Latimer. H.R. 9062: Mr. Lawler. H.R. 9072: Mr. Gottheimer. H.R. 9079: Mr. Harrigan. H.R. 9097: Mr. Latimer. H.R. 9099: Ms. Barragan, Mrs. McIver, and Ms. Johnson of Texas. H.R. 9106: Mr. Crank. H.R. 9113: Ms. McClellan and Ms. Johnson of Texas. H.R. 9131: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina and Mr. Harris of Maryland. H.R. 9132: Mr. Harris of Maryland. H.R. 9147: Mr. Stauber. H.R. 9160: Mrs. Luna and Mr. Fulcher. H.R. 9184: Mr. Fulcher. H.R. 9199: Mr. Harris of Maryland, Mr. Self, and Mr. Hunt. H.R. 9200: Mr. Harris of Maryland and Mr. Self. H.R. 9204: Mrs. Foushee. H.R. 9205: Mrs. Foushee. H.J. Res. 187: Ms. Jayapal. H.J. Res. 189: Mr. Quigley and Mr. Krishnamoorthi. H.J. Res. 192: Mr. Stauber. H.J. Res. 193: Mr. Stauber. H. Con. Res. 93: Mr. Tran. H. Res. 317: Ms. Brownley. H. Res. 1106: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Latimer, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Garcia of California, Mr. Pocan, and Mr. Sorensen. H. Res. 1248: Mr. Levin and Mr. Pocan. H. Res. 1314: Mrs. Miller of Illinois. H. Res. 1326: Mr. Huffman. H. Res. 1335: Mr. Palmer. H. Res. 1339: Mr. Bacon, Mr. Brecheen, and Mrs. Luna.