U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
The House debates Save America Act (S-1383), requiring proof of citizenship and photo IDs for voting, despite bipartisan polling showing 70–90% support—Democrats like McGovern and Sewell call it voter suppression, citing burdens on women with name changes and rural voters, while Republicans dismiss concerns as misinformation. The bill’s rushed timeline clashes with states’ struggles to implement past ID laws, like Real ID, and critics warn it centralizes partisan control over elections. Meanwhile, H.R. 3617 secures critical minerals from China, passing amid disputes over tariffs raising costs for families (e.g., coffee +19.8%, wine sales down 84%), though supporters claim economic growth offsets deficits. Trump’s Section 232 proclamations impose tariffs on semiconductors and vehicles, framing them as national security moves, while Congress grapples with his Epstein accusations and Vance’s overseas diplomacy—highlighting partisan clashes over democracy, trade, and accountability. [Automatically generated summary]
They said it couldn't be done in four years, yet President Trump has done it in one year.
National median rents have fallen to a four-year low, thanks to Donald Trump.
That's why they want to focus on Epstein and our most transparent president in the nation's history.
The murder rate, as I said, has plummeted to a 125-year low thanks to Donald Trump.
For an unprecedented unprecedented nine straight months, there were zero illegal border crossings at the southern border.
unidentified
Our live coverage of Attorney General Pam Bondi's testimony continues on C-SPAN too as we take you live now to the U.S. House here on C-SPAN, where members are considering debate rules covering four bills, including Republican voter ID legislation.
You're watching live coverage of the House here on C-SPAN.
Set your law before us, O God, that the laws made here and the men and women who determine them may find alignment with your will and obedience to your precepts.
And what does your law require but to love you with our whole heart, soul, and mind.
Before we do anything today, may we order our hearts, our emotions, our desires, and our wills to love you.
May we look deep into our souls, the very essence that drives and defines us, and find there a passion to remain in fellowship with your spirit.
And as we use our minds with their capacity for understanding and knowledge, may we commit our thoughts to remain attuned to your own.
Beyond this, while we are not obliged to be of the same will or opinion with each other, we are commanded to show one another love.
In our dealings and discussions, in our composure and our compassion toward each other, may we fulfill the law that is like unto the first, to love one another as we love ourselves.
On these hangs the success of this day, for in seeking your desire for us, we will discover the joy found in obedience to your law.
It is in your sovereign name we pray.
Amen.
Resolution for Consideration00:07:35
unidentified
The chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House the approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause one of Rule 1, the journal stands approved.
The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern.
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.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition?
Resolved that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill, Senate 1383, to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access and for Other Purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-19, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
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 order on the bill as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one.
One hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on house administration or the respective designees and two, one motion to commit.
Section two, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be an order to consider in the House the bill.
H.R. 2189, to modernize federal firearm laws to account for advancement in technology and less than lethal weapons and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-18 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 order on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one.
One hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee ON THE Judiciary, or their respective designees, and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee ON WAYS AND Means, or their respective designees, and two one motion to recommit section three.
Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill H.R. 261 to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence operation maintenance, repair or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a federal or state agency.
All points of order against consideration of Of the bill are waived.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
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 order on the bill as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one.
One hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees, and two, one motion to recommit.
Section four, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill, H.R. 3617, to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
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 order on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one.
One hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective designees and two, one motion to recommit.
Section five, the requirement of clause 6A of Rule 13 for a two-thirds vote to consider a report for the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived.
With respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of February 13th, 2026, relating to a measure continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 2026.
unidentified
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for one hour.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for consideration of four pieces of legislation.
The rule provides for consideration of S 1383, the Save America Act, under a closed rule with one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or the respective designees and provides for one motion to commit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-escalate Act under a closed rule with one hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 under a closed rule with one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committees on natural resources or the respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act under a closed rule with one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or the respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
Further, the rule provides same-day authority under through Friday, February 13th for a rule providing for consideration of a continuing resolution related to the Department of Homeland Security funding.
Mr. Speaker, as the House Representative works to deliver on the critical issues our nation faces, we urge our colleagues today to prioritize the passage of S-1383, the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility Act, or the Save America Act, which builds upon the SAVE Act introduced in previous Congresses that requires states to obtain proof of citizenship for federal elections,
ensuring only U.S. citizens are voting in those elections.
In addition, the Save America Act requires individuals to present a valid photo identification before voting.
Our founders set forth our electoral processes 250 years ago based upon the simple and ultimate principle that only Americans should vote.
But in this age of progressive suicidal empathy, basic concepts such as voter ID and proof of citizenship have been attacked as suppression.
Let's consider the facts.
Fact one, under the previous administration, the Biden, Harris, Mayorkas administration, some 10 million or more illegal aliens poured into communities across our country, adding to an existing foreign-born population, which totals upwards of over 50 million people, or close to 16%.
Fact two, that while only U.S. citizens are legally eligible to vote in federal elections, federal law actually interferes with and prevents states from using federal data to check their voter rolls to ensure that only citizens are voting,
such that we end up in the upside-down situation where a state like Arizona has two different sets of systems, one for state and federal, and one, I mean, one for state and local, and one for federal.
Fact three: this is a recipe for fraud and a recipe for having people vote who shouldn't be voting.
It undermines people's confidence in our electoral system.
And when combined with the fact that several jurisdictions offering driver's license and other benefits to illegal aliens and other foreign nationals, it provides opportunity for non-citizens to register to vote.
Fact four: polling data is overwhelmingly in support of the Save America Act and its principles, that only American citizens should vote and that we should use voter identification when we go to vote.
Polling indicates that over 70% of Democrats across this country, over 90% of Republicans, well over 70% of virtually every ethnicity and ethnic group in the country, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, white Americans, men, women, rural, urban, overwhelmingly support voter identification and ensuring that only citizens vote.
Fact five, we passed the SAVE Act in the previous preceding Congress.
We passed the SAVE Act in this Congress, focusing on citizenship.
We now bring the Save America Act forward that adds voter identification.
Again, overwhelmingly popular.
The SAVE Act passed on a bipartisan basis.
Democrats joined with us in the previous Congress.
Democrats joined with us in this Congress.
In both instances, the House of Representatives affirmed that only U.S. citizens should vote in federal elections.
Let's add voter ID to it.
Let's pass the Save America Act.
Let's send it over to the Senate and let the Senate move this legislation to the President's desk.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have four bills in this rule today.
All of them are completely closed.
You know, no amendments, no debate, completely closed.
I feel like I'm in Russia.
Three of them are from the failed rule last night, which was the third failed rule in this Congress, the seventh under Speaker Johnson, and the tenth of the reigning Republican majority.
That alone demonstrates Republicans' inability to govern.
And then we have the so-called Save America Act.
The gentleman from Texas is going to spend today's debate trying to convince you that this is a common sense, simple bill.
But I want you to remember a very few important facts while he's talking.
First of all, it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections.
Period, full stop.
If non-citizens are voting in federal elections, they should be prosecuted.
We don't disagree on that.
Second, nobody disputes the fact that voters should follow the law and indicate who they are.
We agree on that too.
Nobody's debating that on the floor today.
What we are debating is whether we are going to believe the BS conspiracy theories cooked up by Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans about whether or not elections can be trusted in this country.
And what we're debating is whether, in response to those lies, we're going to require Americans to go down to their county clerk to take the train to City Hall or to drive down to the registrar's office and jump through bureaucratic hoops just to register to vote.
Who asked for more red tape?
Did Jim Crow call?
I mean, that's what this bill is about.
It's not about voter ID.
It's about voter registration and it's about voter suppression.
You know, we always tell people to vote, make their voice heard, participate in our democracy, right?
Those are supposed to be good things.
So why are Republicans passing a bill that makes it as hard as possible to vote?
And I'll let them answer that question.
But I guess it's about what I've come to expect from a party that no longer believes in democracy, though.
Yesterday in the Rules Committee, I asked the chairman of the Committee on House Administration a simple question.
Did Donald Trump win or lose the state of Minnesota in the last three presidential elections?
I mean, not a curveball, not a difficult question.
Of course, anyone living in reality knows the answer to this.
Donald Trump lost Minnesota three times.
But not Donald Trump, he continues denying election results.
He said just last Friday that because of voter fraud, he feels he won Minnesota.
And the Republican chairman of the House Administration Committee, the Congressional Committee which regulates federal election laws, couldn't give me a straight answer.
I couldn't answer that question.
He couldn't tell me if he agreed with Donald Trump.
He wouldn't say who won Minnesota.
He went through all kinds of contortions to avoid answering the question.
I mean, this is a simple question.
I mean, that is shocking, Mr. Speaker.
I mean, you guys want America to trust you to write our election laws?
America can't even trust you to tell us who won the election.
Oh, and then here's another thing.
One of the changes that were made, by the way, this bill didn't go through committee process.
I mean, this is kind of rushed to the floor.
All kinds of major changes have been made in the last week.
But here's one of the major changes.
This bill, if passed, was supposed to take effect in the year 2027.
There's a change in this bill.
It takes place immediately for this election.
I mean, How is that going to happen?
We have elections beginning in a matter of a few weeks.
And you're expecting every state to be able to comply with all these new rules and regulations, like immediately?
You know, this is about sowing chaos and confusion, because my friends on the other side know they're probably going to lose the next election, and they're going to lose big.
And rather than live up to the reality or respect the voters, they're going to try to make up some conspiracy theory that the election was stolen or undocumented migrants came in and voted against them.
And here's the hard truth.
You know, if Republicans want to know why people are losing faith in our elections, they ought to look in the mirror.
They ought to look in the mirror.
People are losing faith because Donald Trump, the election denier-in-chief, can't admit he lost.
People are losing faith because Tulsi Gabrid and Kash Patel's FBI raided an election office based on recycled conspiracy theories in Fulton County, Georgia, and seized 2020 election results, even though it was Donald Trump who asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,780 ballots so that he can win, even though he lost.
And that's on tape.
They're losing faith in our elections because they saw Pam Bondi trying to shake down Minnesota's state government, saying the administration would only withdraw ICE if Minnesota handed over their voter rolls to Trump's DOJ.
And they're losing faith because of bills like this, which force every state in America to give their voter rolls over to DHS Secretary Christy Noam.
Let that sink in.
Probably one of the least trustworthy people in the country right now.
I wouldn't trust Christy Noam to tell me the correct time.
And you're asking states to turn over their voting rolls to her?
Give me a break.
So we don't need any more lectures from Republicans about the sanctity of democracy or why people are losing faith in our democratic institutions.
We know why.
And we know what this bill is.
This is Jim Crow 2.0.
Republicans think when fewer Americans vote, they win.
It's as simple as that.
And I am so sick of the other side just making things up, this widespread voter fraud conspiracy.
It's all part of the same election denialism that goes right up to the Oval Office.
You know, the other side has been making these claims for years now.
We've heard about this for over a decade.
They claim massive numbers of non-citizens are voting, swaying elections, that rampant voter fraud is changing results.
But every single one of those claims, Mr. Speaker, has been investigated and again and again by Republican governors and Republican secretaries of state, by journalists, by academic researchers, by President Trump himself, whose own voter fraud commission was disbanded because he couldn't find enough evidence to warrant the absurd allegations that he was making.
Every time these claims are investigated, they disappear like a mirage.
So this entire bill is fundamentally predicated on a lie.
In fact, when you crunch the numbers, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to successfully impersonate someone at the polls.
Enough already.
The Save America Act is a terrible bill that makes it harder for American citizens to participate in our democracy.
That is it.
America does not want to be saved by a Republican Party that spent a year propping up Trump's tariffs, which have driven costs through the roof.
We don't want to be saved by the people who continue covering up propedophiles in the Epstein files.
And America certainly doesn't want to be saved by the same people who still can't get over losing the 2020 election.
So they're going to try to rig the next one.
Go save somebody else.
But we don't want this garbage, and we will fight like hell to stop you from making it harder for millions of Americans to register to vote.
We know why you're doing this.
It's because you're afraid you're going to lose in November.
Well, too bad.
Too bad.
Either change your crappy policies or face the voters and deal with the consequences of your own action.
Those are the only two options in a democracy.
I reserve my time.
unidentified
The gentleman reserves.
Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president and direct their comments toward the chair.
Well, that was a whole lot of words to say my Democratic colleagues don't want citizens only to vote and don't like voter ID.
With that, I will yield two minutes to my friend from Georgia, Mr. Clyde.
unidentified
Gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in strong support of the Save America Act, which implements common sense measures backed by the vast majority of Americans across party lines to secure our elections and ensure that it is easy to vote but hard to cheat.
As my great state of Georgia knows all too well, we must do more to deliver secure elections.
The survival of our constitutional republic relies on free, fair, and secure elections.
Thankfully, this legislation bolsters election integrity by requiring government photo ID to vote, requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and directing states to remove non-citizens from existing voter roles.
These are not controversial issues.
In fact, left-wing CNN's own recent polling shows that 83% of Americans support voter ID, including the majority of Republicans and Democrats, as well as voters regardless of their race.
So who would oppose such a bill and why?
Unsurprisingly, my Democrat colleagues oppose the Save America Act because it hurts the Democrat Party's ability to cheat in our elections.
Just think of all the things Americans need an ID for, yet face absolutely no backlash from the Democrat Party.
For example, to exercise another constitutional right, the Second Amendment.
An individual must present government-issued photo ID to purchase a firearm from a federal firearms dealer.
Yet requiring identification to vote is somehow portrayed as controversial.
To underscore the Democrats' hypocrisy even further, in funding negotiations, Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are demanding that ICE agents show IDs to arrest illegal aliens.
So they support photo ID to enforce immigration laws, but oppose photo ID to ensure our elections are secure.
This is incredible hypocrisy.
In Proverbs 11, 9, God says the hypocrite with his mouth destroys his neighbor.
That's exactly what Democrats are trying to do, destroy this country with their hypocrisy over voter identification.
Yeah, Mr. Speaker, let me first correct the gentleman from Texas who mischaracterized deliberately my remarks.
I made it very clear in my opening, and I'll read it again to him, that if non-citizens are voting in federal elections, they should be prosecuted.
We all believe it.
So, I mean, he cannot pay attention.
He doesn't have to listen if he doesn't want to, but please don't mischaracterize what I said.
And again, I'm looking over on the other side of the aisle, and I can't help but be stunned by the number of people over there who I remember coming onto this floor and denying the election results in the year 2020 because they didn't like the results.
But in any event, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question.
And if we do, I'll offer an amendment to the rule to make an order amendment number 10 to the Save America Act, which prohibits members of Congress, the President and the Vice President and their spouses and dependents from owning or trading stocks.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
And to discuss our proposal, I'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York, the sponsor of the amendment, and the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, Mr. Morelli.
unidentified
The gentleman from New York is recognized for two minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank my longtime friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, for his vigorous defense of our position and his encouragement that people vote against the so-called Save America Act.
But, Mr. Speaker, the way to enhance Americans' trust in government is by holding ourselves to a higher standard, not by disenfranchising citizens seeking to participate in our democracy.
The vast majority of Americans believe that it is time to end the practice of members of Congress and the President and Vice President from trading stocks, and that's what the Restore Trust in Government Act would do.
But Speaker Johnson has refused to move any bill to ban member stock trading.
I offer this proposal as an amendment to the Save America Act, but it was rejected by the majority.
I also have a discharge petition on stock trading that has over 170 signatures, nearing the 218 signatures needed to pass the House.
If we want Americans to trust us, to trust our government, we need to root out corruption, real corruption, not imaginary voter fraud.
We have an opportunity to do that right here and right now.
That's what the Restore Trust in Government Act would do.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of the moment, to defeat the previous question.
Once we do, the House can finally pass a stock trading ban.
Well, I'm about to yield two minutes to my friend from Arizona.
I would just note, as one of the lead sponsors of the legislation to deal with prohibiting members of Congress from engaging in the act of trading of stocks, we're working on a bipartisan basis.
We have legislation we're going to move.
There'll be a time to do that, and this is a complete substitute.
In other words, this is fake.
That's a bunch of drama because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want voter identification to be used to vote, and they do not want to guarantee that only citizens vote.
It is that simple.
We will deal with stock trading.
I'm one of the lead sponsors of that legislation.
We'll get it done, but not as a substitute for what 80% of the American people want, which is to guarantee only citizens vote and you show up with a voter identification.
I now yield two minutes to my friend from Arizona.
unidentified
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for two minutes.
I thank my friend from Texas, Mr. Roy, for yielding two minutes to me.
And I'll just say this, as this is really humorous to hear the machinations, the twisting and going-ons from our friends across the aisle as they say, we can't, this is too much.
Mr. Schumer said that he denigrated black people and said, basically, said they can't get the IDs.
Kamala Harris said rural folks can't get IDs.
It's just too hard.
That's BS.
They know it's BS.
The American people know it's BS, which is exactly why.
It's exactly why 85% of Americans say we need to do this.
Now, let me just tell you, I come from a state, is the most unique state in the country because we've been doing for years a requirement of proof of citizenship when you go to register for a state ballot.
You've got to do that in Arizona.
And we've had no suppression.
We're the only state that does it because the Supreme Court ruled that way.
But somehow we can't do it for federal ballots.
Think about that.
For an alderman or a legislator in Arizona, you're going to have to show proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Can't do it for the president, though.
How absurd is that?
We've had no problems.
There's been no voter suppression.
But you know what?
They want to make it an issue because they don't want that proof.
And you need to have that proof.
Every American really, every rational American anyway, knows it's not suppression.
It's common sense.
That's why you need to show ID when you vote.
That's popular in Arizona.
It's popular across the country.
You need to show your citizenship when you register to vote.
That's what has to happen in Arizona.
It will work across the country.
There's not a doubt in my mind.
And so I urge passage of this bill, and I yield back to my good friend from Texas, Mr. Roy.
You know, when the gentleman from Texas introduced this bill, the effective date was in 2027.
All of a sudden, because I think somebody, a right-winger on your side, did a tweet that caused all kinds of chaos, you moved it to be immediate, take effect immediately, notwithstanding the fact that we have primaries beginning in some states in a matter of just a few weeks.
And so I would just point out to the gentleman who just spoke, we have this thing called the Real ID.
You know, for 20 years, we've been trying to implement it, spent billions of dollars trying to implement it, and still not everybody has it.
And it's taken 20 years.
And you're pushing all these new changes on states, and they have to do it in a matter of a couple of weeks.
I mean, we all know what this is about.
We all know what this is about.
People see through this.
This is not about protecting our democracy.
It's not about preventing undocumented immigrants from voting.
That's already illegal in this country.
This is about sowing confusion and chaos because you know you're going to lose the next election.
And really, what an underhanded way to deal with elections in our democracy.
What an insult to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from California, Ms. Simon.
unidentified
Gentlelady from California is recognized for two minutes.
I rise today in support of this rule and the Save America Act and am I co-sponsor of this bill.
This essential legislation would require, as we've said, proof of citizenship when registering to vote and the presentation of a valid photo ID one at the ballot box.
Currently, only 13 states do not require any form of voter ID.
Having this requirement should be the standard, not the exception.
My Democratic colleagues claim that requiring a photo ID to vote is too burdensome.
Some say it's too difficult for rural Americans and will lead to voter suppression.
I grew up in rural America.
But the reality is that Americans use photo IDs every day to carry out basic tasks like opening a bank account, boarding a flight, checking into a hotel, renting a car, applying for a business license for younger folks to buy alcohol, tobacco, or any other nicotine products, to sign a lease or a rental agreement, to get a marriage license, purchase firearms or ammunition, check in for jury duty, enroll in a college or university, purchase insurance, donate blood,
all require a photo ID.
I hope that people who don't have a photo ID don't get sick because you need a photo ID to purchase things like SudaFed, NyQuil, Mucin XD.
I hope they don't have to pick up a package at the post office because you have to have a photo ID to pick up a package at the post office.
If we require a photo ID to prevent fraud in these areas, I just mentioned, why are my colleagues so opposed to preventing fraud in elections?
It's hard to argue that a photo ID is too much to ask for voting when Americans already use it routinely for far less important activities.
Protecting election integrity should be a priority.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying Save America Act to secure elections.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from ABC News entitled Election Fact Check: Non-Citizens Can't Vote and Instances Are Vanishingly Rare.
Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from NPR entitled, Despite Grand Claims, a New Report Shows Non-Citizen Voting Hasn't Materialized.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from the Cato Institute entitled Non-Citizens Don't Illegally Vote and Detectable Numbers.
And I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record another piece from the Cato Institute entitled Trump's Claims About Non-Citizens Voting Are False and We Can Prove It.
I ask unanimous consent to insert into record an article from the American Immigration Council entitled Unpacking Myths About Non-Citizen Voting, How Heritage Foundation's Own Data Proves It's Not a Problem.
I also ask unanimous consent to adjourn to the record an excerpt from an academic article from the Journal on Electoral Studies entitled, An Exploration of Donald Trump's Allegations of Massive Voter Fraud in the 2016 Election, which finds, quote, expansive voter fraud concerns espoused by Donald Trump and those allied with him are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 election.
And the final thing I'm going to say before I yield to my next colleague here is that, you know, not too long ago, former Governor Rick Scott claimed erroneously that there were hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants registered to vote in Florida, and he launched this massive investigation and spent all kinds of money investigating it.
And it was a witch hunt, essentially.
And I would just say to my colleagues, do you know how many people were prosecuted in that or convicted of any crime?
One.
One.
So having said that, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Oszewski.
unidentified
Gentleman from Maryland is recognized for two minutes.
I thank the ranking member and the gentleman from Massachusetts.
And I rise, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to this bill.
It is a solution in search of a problem, as the gentleman from Massachusetts just pointed out.
You know, my colleague pointed out earlier some polling numbers.
Let me put another polling number out there.
90% of Americans support universal background checks.
So if that's the standard, let's pass a universal background check right now.
Let's save lives from senseless gun violence.
On this bill, Republicans say we'll stop non-citizens from voting.
But as the ranking member from Rules points out, non-partisan studies, Mr. Speaker, have found that over 24 years and out of hundreds of millions of votes cast, there has been proof of this happening exactly 77 times.
To be clear, voter fraud should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
We welcome conversations to do that, but that's not what this bill does.
Indeed, if my colleagues were serious about election integrity, we would include protections for Americans voting overseas, like the brave men and women of our military.
We would provide free, automatic IDs.
We would allow same-day voter registration for eligible voters.
And we wouldn't force married women to navigate even more bureaucratic obstacles, force states to turn over their voter rolls, actively discourage voting by mail.
So I have a different challenge to my colleagues from the Republican side.
Join me in focusing on what Americans actually need, relief from the crushing cost of living crisis in this country.
Let's stop pretending this bill defends democracy and start helping the people we represent.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule, end on this bill, and I yield back.
Challenging Republican Stance00:10:34
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
Gentleman from Massachusetts Reserves, gentleman from Texas, recognized.
Well, I'm proud that this administration is relieving the devastating cost on the American people by creating economic growth and undoing a lot of the damage of the previous administration.
We're seeing that on a daily basis.
But the gentleman is simply incorrect with respect to the amount of evidence that is mounted over people who are voting who should not be.
The record is replete.
Let me give you one example.
ICE arrested criminal legal alien Ian Andre Roberts, who was serving as the Des Moines, Iowa School District Superintendent at the time of his arrest.
After his arrest, it was found that Roberts was a registered voter in Maryland despite his illegal immigration status and long criminal record.
A criminal record filled with narcotics trafficking, with driving vehicles he shouldn't have been driving, with unauthorized possession of a firearm, and other crimes.
Yet we act like this isn't occurring.
And I've got dozens of other examples right here, arrests that have been occurring this year.
And with that, I will yield two minutes to my friend from Georgia.
unidentified
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for two minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for this rule and to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy.
There is no greater advocate for law and order and election integrity than Mr. Roy, and the incredible people of Texas are well served by his leadership and stewardship of our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us enables us to debate and vote on one of the most consequential pieces of legislation concerning election integrity in our country's history.
S-1383, the Save America Act, will require voters to prevent photo identification, to vote in federal elections, and provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
Public opinion overwhelmingly supports this legislation, and it is our duty to adhere to the will of the people and to swiftly pass this rule and send the Save America Act to President Trump's desk for signature.
Mr. Speaker, you know me to be a data-oriented individual, so let us review the numbers before us as we debate this legislation.
83% of Americans favor requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot.
And by party, 95% of Republicans favor requiring photo ID to vote, and 71 percent of Democrats, the party across the aisle, favor requiring photo ID to vote.
Hardly anyone except apparently my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, opposes photo ID requirements before the ballot box.
Another national survey confirms the very same truth.
84 percent of Americans want mandatory voter identification in federal elections.
98 percent of Republicans want voter ID requirements, 67 percent of Democrats likewise, and most importantly, 83 percent of Americans want proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time in our country.
Mr. Speaker, the framers of our Constitution intended for this House of Representatives to be the most accountable to the will of the people.
And the will of the people is clear.
We must pass this rule today and enact the Save America Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield back to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas read a list and I asked him to yield to me, but he didn't want to.
But what he was doing is cherry-picking cases basically to sow distrust in our elections, just like Donald Trump does.
But you want to read a list?
Let me read you a list.
Matt DiPerno, a former Michigan Republican state attorney general candidate, was charged with conspiracy and undue possession of a voting machine.
Former Republican Michigan State Representative Dayer Rendon was also charged with conspiracy to commit undue possession of voting of a voting machine and false pretenses.
What was Mr. Rendon's punishment for this?
The Republican Party promoted her to the chairwoman of the party in her congressional district.
A Republican county clerk in Colorado, Tina Peters, is in prison for a scheme to breach voting systems fueled by 2020 election conspiracy theories.
A Republican official in Georgia was fined for illegally voting multiple times.
A former GOP lawmaker in Arizona pled guilty to attempted election fraud involving Ford signatures.
In North Carolina, four people pled guilty on Monday to misdemeanors for their roles in absentee ballot fraud in rural North Carolina during the 2016 and 2018 elections to help Republican congressional candidates.
You know, and let's not even get into Donald Trump actually being recorded, it's recorded, him asking for 11,800 votes to basically change the results in Georgia during the 2020 election.
I would say to my Republican friends, if you want to talk about voter fraud, look in the mirror.
Look in the mirror.
Maybe that old saying, physician, heal thyself.
At this time, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
unidentified
The leader from Texas is recognized for two minutes.
The Save America Act makes it harder for Americans to vote.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Elections, my responsibility is to protect access at the ballot box, not to restrict it.
That is why I offered several common sense amendments to preserve online voter registration, ensure due process when an eligible citizen is denied the right to vote, mandate that citizenship only needs to be proven once, and allow the use of an expired passport to register to vote.
My amendments sought to limit the harm that this bill would cause and ensure that every citizen has an accessible and secure way to register and cast a ballot.
This seems normal to me.
This isn't about ID.
This is about access.
This is about procedures that will minimize the inconvenience to the United States citizens to cast their ballot.
Despite these facts, Republicans on the Rules Committee unanimously blocked these amendments from even being considered.
That tells you everything you need to know.
This isn't about making it easier for Americans to vote.
It isn't about so-called election integrity.
It's about tilting the playing field.
Republicans are losing support because voters aren't buying their ideas.
And instead of changing their policies, they're trying to silence the American people at the ballot box.
It's not working for the rigged gerrymander districts.
It's not working for this effort to try to preclude people from registering to vote.
If you really cared about people registering to vote, you would have online voter registration.
You would make it to where people didn't have to go to one registrar's office in the middle of a county only during working hours when they're working their own shifts and they're not able to get there.
How are people expected to register to vote under these rules?
If you really cared, you would open it up.
You would make online registration the rule and the law of the land.
It is shameful.
It is undemocratic.
And I urge my colleagues in this chamber to vote no on this bill, and I yield back.
I would note a couple of things that are important for the American people to see is that this administration has driven unemployment down to historic lows.
Economic growth is now back up to close to 4%, we believe, in Q4 when we get those numbers at the end of February.
We're seeing, importantly, a massive surge in employment among American citizens, among native-born American citizens.
The fact is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't care about that.
They don't want to ensure that we're protecting American citizens.
They don't want to have voter identification.
And they don't want to ensure that only citizens vote in American elections.
That's what this is about.
It's pretty simple.
I will now yield up to three minutes to my good friend from Virginia, Mr. Klein.
unidentified
Gentleman from Virginia is recognized for up to three minutes.
I thank the gentleman for yielding time on this important bill.
I rise today in strong support of the Save America Act.
I'm proud to co-sponsor this bill.
Our democratic process depends on free, fair, and secure elections.
When Americans cast their ballots, they have to have full confidence that their voice carries equal weight and that our elections are protected from abuse.
But in recent years, alarming loopholes that allow voting without proper identification, or lengthy time to vote before elections, or time to register when you show up to vote.
These have weakened the confidence in elections in states like mine and the Commonwealth of Virginia, undermined a core principle of our democracy.
The right to vote is one of the most important privileges of American citizenship.
That privilege must be safeguarded.
Allowing individuals to vote without verifying their identity diminishes the voices of lawful voters and opens the door to illegal immigrants influencing our elections.
That's unacceptable.
Illegal immigrants are here in this country.
They came in by the millions over the last four years, and they're in California being given driver's licenses and then using those licenses to register to vote.
It's happening all across the country.
In fact, it's happening in states like Massachusetts.
In fact, I would offer for the record an article from the Boston Herald from February 8th, 2026, entitled Massachusetts Jury Convicts Illegal Immigrant of Identity Theft, Benefits Stealing, and Voter Fraud.
This is an example of the type of voter fraud that's going on right here in our backyard and right in the backyard of the gentleman from Massachusetts.
So I would argue that this legislation is even more necessary now than ever.
When you had a Colombian woman unlawfully residing in Boston, was convicted two days ago following a five-day jury trial in federal court of identity theft offenses, including receiving rental assistance, Social Security, and SNAP benefits, as well as voter fraud under stolen identity, voting in several federal elections, including the 2024 presidential election.
This is a real problem in Massachusetts right now, and I would argue that we need to pass this legislation to actually take action.
The time for delay is over.
I hope we can pass this today.
I hope the Senate will take it up immediately to protect the integrity of our elections and preserve confidence in our democratic processes for generations to come.
I love the fact that all these guys have is statistically insignificant anecdotes that they like to put forward here.
But let me, the gentleman from Texas talked about how wonderful the economy was.
This is an article that just appeared today.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the U.S. employers added 181,000 jobs last year, far fewer than the 1.46 million that were added in 2024.
You may be impressed by that, but I'm not a cheap date when it comes to making sure people have jobs in this country.
And the gentleman from Texas said that we don't want to protect elections.
We do.
We do.
We want to protect them from you.
We want to protect them from Trump.
We want to protect them from all of you who are trying to suppress the vote, who are constantly in denial over the results of our elections.
I mean, I said last night, I mean, we had Republicans come before the Rules Committee and they couldn't even bring themselves to say who won the 2020 election.
They couldn't even say that Donald Trump lost Minnesota.
They're so afraid of being punished by this administration.
It is pathetic.
At this time, I'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Ms. McClellan.
Mr. Speaker, voting rights are sacred, and many members of my family fought tooth and nail to be able to exercise that sacred right.
And history may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
My great-grandfather, at the turn of the 19th century, in the name of making sure that citizens voted and election integrity, had to take a literacy test and find three white men to vouch for his character.
He got all the questions right.
And because his name was on a list of people that the state of Alabama didn't want to register to vote, the registrar said, and I quote, I need more questions because this nigger got them all right.
He got all of them right and he registered to vote.
But my father, my grandfather, had to pay poll taxes to be able to vote in Tennessee.
All of this was done to make sure that local election officials could deny people they didn't want to vote the ability to vote.
And I took my oath of office on the Bible that my father kept his poll tax receipt, which is standing behind me, because he kept it in there because it was sacred right.
And I swore to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, all of it.
That includes the 24th Amendment that banned poll taxes.
And yet the SAVE Act is a modern-day poll tax because every ID that you would have to use to register and to vote, with maybe one exception, costs money.
And the one that is free is a military ID.
Before our military who are overseas are not able to get home to register in person, it's an added burden.
Rural communities, added burden.
People of color, added burden.
The 21 million American citizens that don't have ready access to these documents, it's a burden.
The right to vote is sacred, and I will fight any effort to put more barriers in citizens' way to exercise it, and that's exactly what the SAVE Act does.
Mr. Speaker, I just disagree very strongly with what was just said.
I don't see Trump trying to preserve our elections.
I've been witnessing him trying to undermine trust in our elections and to rig our elections.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a prime example of how awful the process has been under this Republican majority.
The Save America Act was introduced by the gentleman from Texas just 12 days ago, and it included significant changes from its original version, the Save Act.
And after the Save Americas Act initial introduction, the Rules Committee posted a complete rewrite of it on last Friday.
And even after two sweeping rounds of edits, Republicans were not done changing their half-baked bill.
Yesterday, they posted a manager's amendment, which makes more huge changes, including changing when the bill would take effect and which voter IDs would be acceptable.
Now, we've seen three totally different versions of this bill in a dozen days.
And it's important to say that all of these changes were backroom deals.
No hearings, no markups, no regular order.
The chairman of the House Administration Committee didn't even feign a desire to include rank-and-file members in the process.
He actually requested a completely closed rule for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, a bad process is not a rare occurrence around here.
It is a fundamental feature of Republican governance.
And last Congress, Republican leadership made history for running the most closed, unproductive, dysfunctional Congress in modern American history.
And this Congress, Republicans have only doubled down on this shameful record.
84% of measures that Republicans have sent to the House floor have been totally closed.
No amendments, no discussion, no democracy.
Just take it or leave it.
Republican leadership has blocked 82% of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee.
Over 3,300 amendments blocked, including most Republican amendments, over 60% of bipartisan amendments.
And if you're a Democrat, forget it.
I'm not sure they even read what we submit.
This blockade on amendments is leading to some shameful records.
For example, this Republican majority set a record for the fewest House votes cast in the first session of a two-year Congress in over 35 years.
And under Speaker Johnson, the Rules Committee is where democracy goes to die.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, why should we trust Republicans to rewrite voting laws when they are setting records for blocking voting in the people's House?
This Republican Congress is an insult to the American people and a disgrace to our democracy.
I mean, I would note that when the gentleman from Massachusetts tries to dismiss the supposed trivial or anecdotal or quote cherry-picked cases, there are so many that it would take me more time than I have to read through them all.
Of prosecutions for voter fraud and individual instances of voter fraud.
We have one here of Angelica Maria Francisco in Alabama in 2024, an illegal alien charged by federal authorities with nine criminal counts in connection with a fraudulent assumption of the identity of a U.S. citizen, including voter fraud.
We have Alfred Nelson, aka Alfred Samuels in Florida in 2024.
Alfred Nelson was known as Alfred Samuels, among several other aliases charged by Florida's Department of Law Enforcement in Broward County with two felony counts of voting as an unqualified elector.
Nelson, a legal alien, unlawfully voted by mail.
I could go on and on and keep going down the list.
It is real.
And the only thing that we're putting forward is a common sense proposal to ensure that only citizens vote in American elections and that we provide voter ID at the polls.
With that, I will yield two minutes to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Speaker, I'll say to the gentleman from Texas, you know, I appreciate him reading that list, but the reason why we know about them is because those people were caught.
The list that I read of Republican officials who were caught engaged in voter fraud, the reason why we know about them is because they were caught.
So the system is working.
So stop trying to sow division and chaos into our electoral system.
I just wanted to point out that in 2005, 18 of the 21 members of a bipartisan federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of photo ID requirements more stringent than what Indiana had at that time.
Voters in nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card without fear of infringement on their rights, the Commission stated.
In regard to voter registration fraud, just last year, six people were indicted for fraudulent voter registration forms submitted ahead of last year's presidential election.
The allegations of fraud appeared to be motivated by the defendants' desire to make money and to keep their jobs and was not an effort to influence the election results, so said the Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday.
But it really doesn't matter what the motivation is.
What matters is the result.
Fraudulent voter registrations.
Back in 2008, there was an organization called Acorn.
There was an ACORN whistleblower who worked for both it and its project voter registration affiliate from 2005 until 2006.
She said it's ludicrous to say that fake registrations can't become fraudulent voters.
She said, I assure you that if you can get them on the roads, you can get them to vote, especially using absentee ballots.
There were documents that were provided by the whistleblower that indicated that the goal of ACORN's New Mexico affiliate was that only 40% of its submitted registrations had to be valid.
I think fraudulent voter registration is a problem.
I think requiring a valid photo ID, as President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker said, is totally a way to ensure integrity in our elections and is not a burden on the people.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made a number of claims about this legislation.
And with respect to the gentleman's question, I would tell you that what we're talking about with respect to voter identification is simply presentation of voter identification.
36 states already have voter identification requirements.
And to the extent that we're able to get this passed, as I hope we will, and signed into law in the next month or two, we will have the ability, states can immediately be able to implement voter identification.
And with respect to the other claims, there have been claims about the implications for married women.
The fact is that the Save America Act does not, as is alleged, disenfranchise voters, but rather it provides a very specific process for anyone who changes his or her name to register to vote, including by signing an affidavit.
Now, we believe the original form of the SAVE Act would have provided ample ability for states to have taken care of it, but we went ahead and added an additional provision to ensure that the affidavit process was there.
For again, a small fraction of the population for whom it might impact, we wanted to ensure that there was no chance of issue.
Questions were raised about our uniform personnel, our men and women who served this country overseas.
And we believe that our previous version would have made it fine for them to be able to do what they needed to do to register to vote and to vote.
But we made a clarification to ensure that UACAVA governs what happens with our men and women in uniform.
So we have made every attempt to work to ensure that this bill is doing exactly what it's intended to do, which is ensure that only citizens vote and that we present voter ID at the polls.
And with that, I would gentlemen from Georgia like any time?
I would be happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from Georgia.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Thank you.
I appreciate it to my good friend from Texas.
You know, the question I wanted to ask to my Democratic colleagues is that since they have made it abundantly clear that Democrats strongly oppose photo identification in order to vote, you know, that's a First Amendment right.
So am I correct in assuming that Democrats also strongly oppose government-issued photo ID to exercise a person's Second Amendment right?
So therefore, no ID required to buy a firearm.
If they're going to be against the voter ID, then I would assume to exercise a First Amendment right.
Then I would assume also that they would be against voter or photo ID to exercise a Second Amendment right.
But you know, I have not seen any legislation from my Democrat colleagues to do that, so I really don't believe that.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to offer, as I've done already, a number of examples, numerous other examples of individuals committing fraud.
Laura Janet Garza in Texas, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty to two felony charges of voter impersonation and ineligible voting.
Garza stole the identity of her cousin, a U.S. citizen.
Another example of Mario Abdullah Oreana in Texas.
A 57-year-old El Salvadoran national was indicted by the DOJ on federal immigration and voter fraud violations.
Now, I could go down and give more and more examples.
The fact is, yes, these are good examples in which we've been able to intervene and stop this voter fraud and identify the individuals and prosecute those individuals.
But we know that there is significant additional fraud going on that we are not capturing, that we are not catching.
It's a very simple and basic premise of those who have been in the prosecutorial function that you only catch so many people.
And in this case, we have been going after some individuals, but we can certainly prevent any further abuse of our voter elections and making sure that we have integrity in those elections if we make sure we have voter identification and sure that only citizens are voting.
Let me state again for the gentleman from Texas, because he doesn't seem to understand me.
Nobody should vote illegally.
If this is the rampant problem they say it is, maybe he should call Pam Bondi and ask her why she's only secured one or two voter fraud convictions nationwide out of over 155 million votes cast in 2024.
Maybe he should explain to us why his solution to a small handful of voter fraud cases is to punish the 155 million American citizens who did vote by making it harder for them to vote the next time.
Again, Republicans keep insisting there is this massive voter fraud conspiracy.
The onus is on them to prove their absurd claim.
And every time they try, every time this is investigated by states, by commissions, by prosecutors, the result is the same.
No widespread voter fraud conspiracy.
Billions of votes cast over decades and a teeny tiny percentage of fraud.
That is not a crisis, and it's certainly not a justification to rewrite the rules of democracy.
But that is what is happening.
And the Republican lies to erode the trust in our democracy.
And that is why this bill is so toxic.
Again, the Save America Act tells millions of Americans you have to show up in person and jump through hoops just to register to vote.
You can file your taxes online.
You can pay your bills online.
You can get your medical results online.
But if this bill passes, you can't fully register to vote online.
That is nuts.
You have to buy a passport.
That's $130.
Or you have to buy a copy of your birth certificate.
Good luck because you might even have to pick that up in person.
What if a person lives in a rural community and has to drive 100 miles round trip just to get to the clerk's office?
What if they can't afford to take the day off from work just to register to vote?
And who gets punished?
Students, seniors, Americans with disabilities, working parents who can't just leave a shift early to go stand in line at the clerk's office window that closes at five.
And again, we know this isn't really about voter fraud.
It's not about protecting our elections.
This is a smokescreen.
It's a distraction.
If Republicans wanted to protect elections, they would be focused on real threats, cyber attacks, foreign interference, disinformation, intimidation, and violence against election workers.
That's where the real danger is.
And yet this bill does nothing to address those things.
The Save America Act is about denying elections and sowing distrust in our system.
Because according to Donald Trump, it's only fair and square when he wins.
When Democrats win, then it's fraud.
That's their whole argument in a nutshell.
And the most ironic thing of all is that Republican leaders are the ones who seem to commit voter fraud the most.
I saw a Republican county clerk in Colorado is in prison for a scheme to breach voting systems fueled by 2020 election conspiracy theories.
A Republican official in Georgia was fined for illegally voting multiple times.
A former GOP lawmaker in Arizona, Mr. Speaker, this is about voter suppression.
The gentleman from Massachusetts said we are just doing this legislation because, quote, we are afraid of losing this election.
Well, the fact of the matter is, we are not.
We want to ensure that we win this election by getting the votes of American citizens and not non-citizens.
It's pretty simple.
And I would note that the gentleman dismisses as trivial or as the process working that the examples that we have given in the record of countless times where individuals have engaged in voter fraud and they've been caught and prosecuted.
I would like to point out they were caught after they voted.
That's the problem.
The core issue here is a very simple one.
We all agree Americans overwhelmingly believe by polls and by all indication that only American citizens should vote in American elections.
We currently have a problem.
We even have problems where non-citizens sometimes don't know they're doing something wrong.
We should be very clear.
When you register to vote, you're a citizen.
When you show up to vote, you present voter identification.
That is all that we do.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, I will offer an amendment to the rule.
The amendment will make a technical correction to the manager's amendment to reflect the intent.
And I would yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Amendment to House Resolution 1057, offered by Mr. Roy of Texas.
In the first section of the resolution, insert, as modified by the amendment specified in section 6 of this resolution, after accompanying this resolution, add at the end the following, section 6.
The amendment referred to in the first section of this resolution is as follows.
Strike the instruction to page 31, line 4, and insert the following.
Page 31, line 3, strike apply with respect and all that follows through page 31, line 5, and insert.
Take effect on the date of the enactment of this section and shall apply with respect to elections for federal office held on or after such date.
Those favoring vote by the yeas and nays will rise.
A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
Pursuant to clause 9 of Rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution.
If ordered, this is a 15-minute vote.
unidentified
And the House holding two rounds of voting today, the first underway now with a procedural vote on whether to begin debate on four bills.
It includes legislation to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and the use of photo IDs to create, to cast a ballot.
Wait On Us00:03:17
unidentified
The rule would also cover a bill requiring the Energy Department to assess the potential vulnerability of America's supply of critical energy resources.
Another bill would exempt, quote, less than lethal projectile devices from being subject to certain federal firearms legal restrictions.
If this procedural motion is approved, members will proceed to a vote on the rules governing the debate.
And the rules failed to pass in the House yesterday due to the inclusion of a block on any repeal of President Trump's tariffs.
Also underway, live over on C-SPAN 3, you can watch top officials from Homeland Security agencies testifying before lawmakers on the possible impact of a shutdown on DHS on their agencies, including FEMA, the Secret Service, and the Coast Guard.
And live right now before the Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Pam Bondi is fielding questions from House members on the Epstein files, immigration, and other issues.
So while members vote, we'll take you to her testimony underway now.
I want to know at what point did the FBI and the DOJ decide that Lex Wesner was not a co-conspirator?
Because our Epstein Files Transparency Act requires you, please put it back on the screen, please, to release the internal decision about whether to prosecute him or not.
And it's not in the files, and it's not in the files for any of these other men.
I'm submitting an article from the New York Times that the DOJ released nude photos and identifiable pictures of the victims.
I'm submitting a letter from A.G. Barney, the Kash Patel, imploring him to quit keeping the files when you found out that they were keeping files from you.
I want to start by saying I appreciate what you said, Attorney General Bondi, and you said it to me personally, that you take the personal security of every member of Congress seriously and that people can contact you about that.
And in these times, that's a very serious matter.
So I thank you for that.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution is the domestic emoluments clause.
And it says that the President is limited to his salary in office and cannot receive any other money from the federal government while he's in office.
It cannot be increased by $1.
This President is the first president in U.S. history who has repeatedly sued the federal government, sued the federal government, for $230 million for the judicial search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, which was perfectly lawful and was never struck down.
But now he's suing the IRS for $10 billion.
He's suing the IRS for $10 billion, which I think is around 80% of its annual budget, because his tax returns were leaked and they were illegally leaked by a private contractor who actually is in prison now, Charles Littlejohn.
But he wants $10 billion.
Now, I want to ask you the question of whether you think it would violate the domestic emoluments clause for you to settle that $10 billion case or any of the other claims that the president has made against the government.
He himself has remarked, it's interesting because I'm the one that makes the deal, right?
And he says I kind of have to work it out with myself.
Do you think it would violate the domestic emoluments clause for the president to work out a deal from people who are his subordinates under his unitary executive theory to get money in one of these cases?
Okay, so theoretically, you're saying because his privacy rights were violated in that tax case, and they were.
I'm with the President on that.
I mean, his Mar-a-Lago thing is ridiculous, but there's no doubt that his tax returns, despite the fact that he promised to release them, despite the fact that every other president released the tax returns, he suffered embarrassment when it showed that he hadn't paid taxes for several years, and he had a right for that not to happen.
Now, I want to turn back to the Epstein survivors, because President Trump may have been a little bit embarrassed by the release of those tax returns.
How much do you think the claims of these survivors are worth?
As the good congressman from Kentucky just pointed out, there were lots of survivors who had decided, for reasons of their own, never to release their names.
That determination was representative people in Congress, and we built it into our federal law that their names could not be released, and yet you published their names, their phone numbers, their addresses, personally identifying information.
If Donald Trump can get $10 billion theoretically from the Department of Justice, how much should these people get for a far worse violation of their privacy rights and a far greater danger established to them in their lives?
So, and you do that, then we're allowed to say we reclaim our time.
At that point, you have to be quiet.
You have no choice.
You have to be quiet.
So, I hope you understand the rule of this board.
Now, here's what I want to ask you.
You're in law enforcement.
We've seen all kinds of evidence of crimes.
And when we go over to the Department of Justice for the four computers for every member of Congress, we see more evidence of crimes.
Will you create a joint task force of the Department of Justice and governors and state attorney generals and district attorneys across the country to investigate the crimes that have taken place against these victims and more than a thousand like them?
The DOJ is not doing its job.
Will you create a task force with state and local law enforcement to make that happen?
I would remind the committee that last Congress, Secretary Myrkus was here numerous times, and he wouldn't answer our questions, even when we sent them to him ahead of time in writing.
So that's what we've had to deal with.
I think the Attorney General is doing just fine.
We have votes shortly.
I will go to the gentleman from Virginia, and then we will take a break to head to the floor.
And I wanted to thank you for your work at DOJ in restoring the rule of law, encouraging transparency surrounding Jack Smith's partisan investigations into President Trump, declassifying information about the Russia collusion hoax, cracking down on sanctuary jurisdictions, and establishing the National Fraud Enforcement Division.
Let me first go to securing the border and immigration enforcement.
Our new governor has recently rescinded 287G cooperation between the state and ICE.
Can you talk about, have you evaluated the public safety impact, how that would affect safety in Virginia to withdraw that support and what that would do to activity, criminal activity involving illegal immigrants in Virginia?
And as you know, Congressman, one of the top members of MS-13 in the entire country was living in Virginia in a suburb among all of us, living not even probably half an hour away from where we are now.
And the cooperation previously with the governor, with the members, the members of the state of Virginia, helped catch him and take him off our streets.
An illegal MS-13, one of the heads for the entire country, was living in Virginia.
And it's a shame that that's happening now.
And thank you for bringing it, talking about it, because we're going to keep America safe.
And when people feel like they can flee to these cities and states and be safe, they can't.
Because Donald Trump is going to protect Americans.
We're going to protect the citizens there, whether or not the governors, the mayors are going to do it or not.
But President Trump is.
We're going to keep Americans safe from violent gang members like he's been doing this last year.
Would this affect things like long-term care accountability, senior living facilities engaged in Medicaid fraud, including systemic overbilling practices and the misappropriation of taxpayer-funded benefits?
I know that whether it was related to fraud specifically or another subject, that under the Biden administration, there was a sitting member of the Virginia General Assembly under investigation.
I'm going to move on to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
Last year, President Trump signed the one big beautiful bill into law, which included the Hearing Protection Act, part of it that was sponsored by myself and Congressman Clyde.
It reduced the national firearms tax, $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms, to zero.
And while the tax has been eliminated, the NFA's registration and paperwork requirements were made in effect.
And Your DOJ has said that that would, even though the tax was reduced to zero, that the registration requirement is still somehow necessary, even though with regard to Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act, when that mandate was, when that tax penalty was reduced to zero, you decided that the mandate was no longer necessary.
How are you justifying the existence of this registry?
Well, I said it's a good question because he subpoenaed just about every Republican in this town, got half the Congress's phone numbers if you were a Republican.
He has to pay some secret source, a bunch of taxpayer money.
We'd like to know, the committee would like to know how many other sources he paid.
Was it more than $20,000?
Why he had to do those things?
We'd like to know when you can, if you could get that information to the committee.
I think when you think about the guy who was trying to put the President of the United States in prison, ridiculous as that whole thing was, we'd kind of like to know the answer to that, if you could.
And with that, we're going to stand in recess.
We will go as quickly as we can and vote.
We have two quick votes on the floor, and we will be back.
There is actually some lunch if you all need it.
We have for our members, and since you're back here, you can have some.
And taking a break there in the hearing with the head of the DOJ, Pam Bondi, the members on that committee had it here to vote in this first round of the day.
The vote underway now, a procedural vote on whether to begin debate on four bills.
If approved, members will move on with a vote on the rules governing debate, which failed in the House yesterday.
As this vote continues, we'll take you live to a discussion with the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Philip Swagel, on the U.S. economy underway.
And back into the deficit.
And so it's, you know, this is not a spiral.
It's a spiral, I say, it is a spiral that converges.
You know, so it's not, you know, this is not the thing that tips us over and into the crisis by, you know, way far from that.
But the macro feedback is slightly deficit increasing.
It's, you know, $100 billion on the order of $100 billion deficit increasing, and that's arriving at the $4.7 trillion figure.
Thank you.
Can I say one more word, which is that analysis, of course, is specific to the provisions of the 2025 Act.
And, you know, they had many different provisions on the revenue side and the outlay side, health care.
You know, there's lots in it.
And we are now also set up to do the kind of detailed analysis for future legislation.
And it's something that we've worked on.
And if you look at our Economic Advisors Panel agendas, you'll see we've had a series of sessions looking at this, about trying to make it so our analysis is tuned to the details of policy, the distributional impacts, and the changes in labor supply or investment incentives.
And so the mix of the sort of positive dynamic feedback and the deficit increasing dynamic feedback would depend on the details of the policy.
And so a policy that has the term of art is bang for the buck.
So it's very high bang for the buck.
A lot of a big change in growth per increase in the deficit would have more of the deficit reducing dynamic feedback and relatively less of the deficit increasing.
And so the details will matter.
This is not a, CBO says dynamic scoring is no longer the friend of the Congress.
It's just specific to the details of the policy.
No, good.
Thank you.
Yeah, please.
Did you, not in this report, but maybe some secret info we have not seen?
No secret info.
Have you modeled anything like you have these three main ingredients that kind of are awas when combined?
Did you look at if you didn't do tariffs or if you didn't do mass deportation or you didn't do the mega bill?
And what does it mean for growth?
Growth, yeah.
And the deficit.
Right, because the deficit that you know that you can see in chapter five in the changes, and this box five-1 talks about the three developments in detail.
I'm sorry, that's the term of art here, is the three developments.
The three ingredients, no.
If you read about Chinese history, right, their political theory is introduced in groups of threes.
So that's, anyway, it's the three developments.
And so that we have on the fiscal side in detail.
We've done some on the growth impacts.
And so like the question before about the, you know, where does the 25 Act show up in 26 in our projections?
You know, we've done some of that.
You might remember two years ago we had analysis that I discuss here about the impact of the inflation, not inflation, the impact of the immigration surge on GDP and on revenues.
And in some sense, our projections build in like half the reverse of that, right?
The decline in the population relative to our projections from a year ago.
The population at the end of the window is about 5 million, a bit more than 5 million smaller than it was in our January projections.
And then that has an effect on the size of the economy and on revenue.
But we haven't redone that calculation, but it's basically on the order of what we had before, just in reverse and by half.
I'm sorry, one more thing we're doing that I'm hoping we'll have over the coming weeks is analysis on growth, in such a budgetary impacts of stronger growth.
And this gets to the AI question from before.
Well, what if growth turns out to be stronger?
And it could be lots of reasons.
I meant AI could be one.
In our economic advisors panels, we've discussed the Tax Act effect on business investment, changes in capital taxes, the effect on business investment.
We had a session with Josh Rao who's on our advisors panel.
He has a really nice paper with Kevin Hassett and John Hartley that would show stronger effects from the change in taxes on business investment.
So that could be stronger than what we have and so on.
And so we're doing work to quantify that.
That if growth is stronger than we have in our projections, well, what would it mean fiscally?
And it's, you know, it's positives and negatives.
I'm sorry, the phrase here is puts and takes.
I hear that phrase a lot.
It's puts and takes.
So it's the stronger growth would lead, you know, stronger growth would lead to higher revenue and deficit reduction, but it would also lead to higher interest rates, so higher net outlays.
And then there's some spending that's geared to growth, right?
Initial Social Security benefits rise with wages.
And so, if growth is stronger, wages will be stronger, well higher, and therefore Social Security outlays will be larger.
And so, and so on.
So, there are puts and takes from stronger growth, but on net, it's deficit reduction.
And we're working on that to provide members with information.
And this is something that members want.
You say, look, we get your projection.
Members will say to me, I think growth is going to be stronger.
We think you're missing some things.
And that's just a normal part of our work.
We want to support members.
And so we're working on what it would mean for the budget deficit if we had stronger growth.
Yeah, good.
Thank you.
I have another question that I don't want to ask.
Anyone?
Yeah.
No, please go ahead.
Can you talk a little bit more about the Social Security Trust Fund and what its exhaustion in 2032 means for your projection in the back half of the 10-year window?
Yeah, no, no, thank you.
I'm glad you mentioned that.
So we have the exhaustion date moving forward.
It moves forward about six months, but that trips it from 2033 to 2032.
And an important reason for that is actually, if you read Greg Ips' column, I think it was yesterday, he flags that about the changing shares of capital versus labor income in the economy.
That our forecast has the capital share declining a little bit, but not subsiding as much as we had in our previous forecasts.
And so the, you know, sort of our longer-term forecast has, you know, nudges up the capital share and nudges down the labor share of income.
And that has budgetary implications.
There's different tax rates on different sources of income.
And of course, the payroll tax component from wages up to the tax max feeds into the Social Security Trust Fund.
So that's a part of it, a part of the moving forward of the exhaustion date is this change in the nature of the economy.
Thank you.
Yeah, no, you're welcome.
Yeah, good.
Is that driven by the productivity gain of AI or is it?
We're not sure yet.
Yeah, we see it.
We've seen the capital share, the higher capital share sustained.
And we're analyzing why.
We're trying to figure out why, but we don't have a conclusion.
Yeah.
But I mean, are you expecting the productivity gain you're seeing from AI to have employment be lower than that?
Yeah, right.
And that was, I mentioned Greg's column yesterday.
That was kind of where he went with his column.
And we understand the possibility of that, but we're not there yet.
We're still trying to figure out the magnitude of the effect and then how it's distributed.
And it's just hard to know.
It's still early.
But we will.
So it's something that we're certainly watching.
And again, I'll just repeat myself.
It's an important budget issue because the shares of income and the distribution of income feeds into revenue.
Thank You Press Conference00:02:35
unidentified
Good.
Well, no.
Thank you very much.
And we are here.
If anyone has more questions, we have all the CVO experts in the room.
And this first vote of the day is still underway here in the House.
About 30 members left still to vote on whether to begin debate on four bills.
If approved, members will move on with a vote on the rules governing debate, which failed in the House yesterday.
As they continue the vote, we'll show a gathering from earlier today outside the Capitol as the Democratic Women's Caucus came together with family members and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's child abuse to discuss the latest developments on the issue.
Thank you all so much for being here, especially to the incredibly brave survivors who have time and time again stood up to demand accountability.
I want to thank each and every one of you for your courage, for your tenacity, and for your determination to get us the truth.
I also want to thank Lauren and everyone at World Without Exploitation who are working so tirelessly to create change and end human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
And I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are here with us today, Nancy Mace, Sidney Komlager-Dove, Becca Ballant, Grace Meng, who am I missing?
Melanie Stansberry, Adelita Grejalva, who got us to 218 on the discharge position, and all the others that I know are in spirit with us here.
I'm so proud to be on the executive board of the Democratic Women's Caucus, which is hosting this press conference today and has been at the center of the push for justice.
Our amazing chairwoman, Teresa Ledger Fernandez, is at a rules committee meeting, so she's unable to be with us in person, but she is certainly here in spirit.
Yesterday, I spent several hours at the Department of Justice looking through the unredacted files and reading the absolutely horrific and depraved messages that went back and forth between rich and powerful people in every sphere of influence.
These people are at the top of governments, academic institutions, billionaires at giant corporations, cabinet secretaries, and the callous depravity of their messages showed that they absolutely believed that they were above the law, above morals, absolutely immune to any societal norms.
They joked in these emails about pedophiles, about horrific sexual acts with young girls, about creating spaces, entire islands even, where they could do anything they wanted and get away with it because of their wealth, their power, and their connections.
This was a massive global sex trafficking ring with thousands of victims that we know of and thousands more that we probably don't.
So when DOJ says that there is nothing to investigate, we, the American people, must rise up.
We must allow the courage and the determination of the survivors who have spoken out at great risk to themselves to push us to never give up until every single one of these predators and pedophiles and predator protectors is brought to justice.
It is the voices of the survivors ringing through in the darkness of all of this horror that has gotten us this far.
And in speaking to so many of them myself, I know that this effort is not just for them.
They're not doing this just for them.
They're doing it for their girls, for their children, for other people who have been affected, to all the survivors of sexual assault everywhere across the world who are watching to see if we can get accountability right here in the United States of America.
Many rich and powerful people thought over the decades that they got away with this.
They definitely did.
You can see it in the emails.
But as Lauren said to me the other day, the earth is shaking because every single one of them now is becoming known.
And around the world, princes, ambassadors, even prime ministers are being brought down for their participation in this global sex trafficking ring.
And here in America, that needs to happen too.
And until it does, we are here to say we will not stop.
To every survivor who has fought so hard, who has shared painful details, who has been re-traumatized by the continued disrespect, dismissal, and exposure of their own personal details, we won't stop until you have justice and accountability.
I'm going straight from here to the Judiciary Committee as our Representative Komlager Dove, Representative Ballant, where we will have Attorney General Bondi before us.
I intend to get real answers on why the DOJ is not pursuing further action and to get survivors the attention and the answers that they deserve.
This is just the beginning of our journey for justice, led by very powerful women who are using their voices and their power to, yes, shake the earth of its depravity and to demand accountability.
So thank you for all of it, for inspiring us day after day, year after year, and never backing down.
We love you, we appreciate you, and we've got you.
It's now my honor to pass it over to Representative Sidney Komlager-Dove, my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
I also want to recognize Congressman James Wachenshaw and Congressman Jamie Raskin, who have also joined us for this press conference.
My name is Congresswoman Sidney Kamlager-Dove.
I represent Los Angeles, and I want to thank the Democratic Women's Caucus for hosting this press conference and for always centering survivors when talking about the Epstein files.
You know, the entire weight of Donald Trump's government is being used against the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators abuse.
The fact that these survivors have not only come forward but continue to speak out and relive the worst day of their lives every single day is courage.
And it's a kind of courage this administration does not have.
80% of sexual assaults go unreported because time and time again, our broken justice system protects abusers instead of survivors.
When the president and the attorney general repeatedly shield pedophiles, rapists, traffickers from accountability, they send a chilling message to survivors everywhere and discourage others from coming forward.
A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a five-minute vote.
unidentified
And the second and last vote expected in this round, another round of votes will be happening at about 5:15 p.m. Eastern Time.
This one on whether to approve the debate rules of four bills, including legislation involving voter ID, critical mineral resources, and law enforcement device legal restrictions.
If approved, the rule would also authorize the House to consider short-term DHS funding under an expedited process.
The department faces a potential funding lapse if Republicans and Democrats cannot reach an agreement on immigration enforcement reform.
Taken out of the rules for debate, a Republican provision to block any floor votes to repeal President Trump's tariffs after three Republicans joined all Democrats to oppose the provision yesterday.
Democrats are expected to request a repeal of tariffs on Canadian imports, as well as those from Mexico, Brazil, and all the tariffs established on the so-called Liberation Day.
As members vote, we'll take you back to the Democratic Women's Caucus gathering outside the Capitol earlier.
thank you first i want to recognize representative nancy may standing with us today because as we have always said this is a non-partisan issue what What I know, what we know in the sexual violence arena is that there are more sexual abuse, sexual assault, and trafficking victims in the country, in the world, than any other tragedy.
And consistently, those victims and survivors are told one of two things: shut up or move on.
And as I understand it, when we spent time in Republican Judiciary Committee members' offices, they were very compassionate, passionate, caring about this issue.
They support us, they want transparency, they want justice.
And what we've heard is that they've been told to shut up today and not do the hard thing of asking questions about the egregious job done by the Department of Justice and the drop of files.
And we've heard that the American people have been told to move on.
So I'd like to present three options to Republican House Judiciary Committee members.
They can either do the bravest thing they have ever done, ever done in their career, and they can ask the hard questions.
They can do a second thing, which is a really hard thing to do, refuse to be complicit and resign.
Just say, I am making a statement and I'm going to resign from being part of this administration.
And they can do a third thing.
They can yield one minute of their time to Thomas Massey, who happens to be a real bulldog in this issue, and let him speak for them.
That way they are able to hold their position of leadership, but make a stand showing their constituents, who are all victims and survivors too.
I'm Danny Benske, and I am an Epstein Maxwell survivor from 2004 to 2005.
The last time I was in DC, I asked everyone to close their eyes and think of a teenager that was close to you.
I asked you to make it personal.
Thinking of your child, your sibling, your mother, or you even at an early age, I asked you to visualize that teenager at the door of Jeffrey Epstein's mansion, and I asked you if you would let them enter.
Well, now I want you to visualize something else.
I want you to think of that same 14 to 18-year-old.
I want you to imagine that they've since grown up and one day you find their name and all of their identifying information in the Epstein files alongside intimate, horrific details about their lives, sexual abuse, and trafficking.
You look further and maybe you even find a nude picture.
You try to understand who could be responsible for these crimes themselves, or try to find who's responsible for the crimes themselves, only to find that the perpetrators' names have all been redacted.
As you read on and take in all the heinous acts, you begin to see how the system repeatedly failed.
Realizing that it was hard enough to endure the abuse, you begin to understand the endless re-traumatization.
This time, it isn't a monster pedophile who is doing the exploiting, but our very own government.
I dare to say that everyone knows a survivor, a survivor of assault or abuse.
My ask is that you keep this personal.
We are not here as political figures.
We are only human.
Our only agenda is accountability.
We owe it to our former selves.
We owe it to the next generation.
And we also owe it to those of the past.
We need to believe women who bravely stepped forward like Maria Farmer did in 1996.
We need to pass Virginia's law to eliminate the statute of limitations.
We need survivors to be taken seriously.
There should never be a time limit on justice.
And the DOJ needs to do its job.
Give us the rest of the files and start the investigations.
Start the investigations on the things that are in the files right now.
During my time with Jeffrey, I was always amazed that he could make you feel so special, like you were the only one in the room, and then treat you like an absolute piece of trash and throw you away.
We will not be silenced and thrown away this time.
Senate 1383, an act to establish the Veterans Advisory Committee on Equal Access and for other purposes.
unidentified
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-19, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 119-493, modified by the amendment specified in Section 6 of House Resolution 1057, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered red.
The bill, as amended, is debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee of House Administration or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Stahl, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Morrell, each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members shall have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include additional material on the bill.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to move forward with election integrity, to regain the trust of the American people and the way that we operate our elections.
The Save America Act has two key principles, both of which are common sense.
That individuals that want to vote in U.S. elections should be U.S. citizenship, should be U.S. citizens, and we should have a proof of citizenship when individuals register to vote.
The second principle is that individuals, when they vote, should show voter ID.
Both of these are common sense principles.
Now, we know there's some on the other side of the aisle that want non-citizens to vote in our elections.
In fact, we could just look at our nation's capital, which allows non-citizens to vote under current law in municipal elections.
I'm in the view that U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens only, and that we should be proving that citizenship at the point in time that an individual registers to vote.
We should also be showing voter ID when we go and vote.
This is a common sense principle.
The American people know that you need to show a photo identification when you board an airplane, you open a bank account, or you buy a six-pack of beer.
I'm often reminded we had a debate at committee, and I flew home to my home state of Wisconsin.
I went to go buy a six-pack of beer.
The clerk recognized me, said, hi, Brian, said, how you doing?
He said, I need to see your ID.
I handed over my ID, confirmed it, and allowed me to buy the beer.
I think it's nuts that we protect our beer in this country more than our ballots and jurisdictions.
This is our opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to change that, to instill significant election integrity.
But before I close, let me tell you, today during this debate, we're likely to hear all sorts of comments from my colleagues on the left.
They'll make arguments about disenfranchisement.
They'll use terms like Jim Crow 2.0.
I'll remind everyone watching to reflect back on the same language that was used when Georgia instituted election integrity provisions in 2021.
And we can actually look because the state of Georgia operated two significant elections since then.
And voter participation remained high.
And the University of Georgia conducted a significant survey to determine how did people experience the election in the state of Georgia.
found was people had a positive experience of how that election was conducted across all key demographic groups and the survey found statistically 0% of blacks had a poor or negative voting experience in the state of Georgia.
Making sure that it's easy to vote and hard to cheat is a core principle and as we instill election integrity in our system we will see more people participating because they will have faith in our elections.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of S-1383, the Save America Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
I stand here not just in strong opposition to this bill, but in strong opposition to recent efforts by this administration to take over, literally take over, American elections.
But not just any American election, this American election.
The one that is happening now.
Ballots have already been mailed overseas and military voters for several state primaries.
I'm opposed to this bill, to any effort by the President of the United States to nationalize a federal election for partisan purposes because I believe in this country.
I ardently, fiercely believe that the United States, the shining city on a global hill, represents the best humanity has to offer.
I believe the United States should, it must, stand in defense of and on behalf of every single American.
Our republic was founded on the simple yet revolutionary idea that our American government derives its power from the consent of the governed, from the votes of the people.
Yet achieving that idea has required struggle over generations and generations.
With the Reconstruction Amendments, the 19th Amendment, America expanded its right to vote.
Americans have defended this right against efforts to restrict access to the ballot, to pull back from history's progress.
Congress has repeatedly affirmed and defended the ability for every American to participate in our elections, including through the passage of the Historic Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The principle of government with the consent of the governed is why we're all here today.
The principle is what we swore an oath to defend.
But this Republican majority has made a sharp turnaway from that sacred principle.
This bill, which we are considering today, represents a betrayal of every representative principle of this country because passage of this bill, support for it from within this chamber would be a tacit endorsement of a broader, ominous, dangerous agenda.
The Save America Act is not an isolated piece of policy.
It is part of a concerted effort by the Republican Party's leadership and this administration, this president, to centralize partisan power over American elections, to diminish the authority of American states, to once again stoke fear and mistrust of immigrants and in our electoral system, all for the partisan gain of Speaker Johnson and the White House this November.
Just days ago, President Trump publicly called on Republicans to take over to nationalize voting across the country.
This is not hyperbole.
It's not hysteria.
These are his words.
So it should not surprise anyone that the Save America Act would require states to provide sensitive personal voter data to Christy Noam's Department of Homeland Security, to send your personal data directly to the federal government, to directly invade your privacy, your family's privacy.
And why does the president want to send your information to DHS?
Why does he want to take over this election?
Why would he advocate for Republican control of federal elections, a direct affront to the United States Constitution?
Because he knows that without such drastic action, Republicans will lose the midterm elections in nine months.
Just look at recent election results in Virginia.
I know the president has.
Look at them in New Jersey.
Look at them in Texas.
Americans know that everything in this country has gotten more expensive under this administration.
So it should be no surprise that this bill would make voting more expensive.
Because passports, which millions of Americans don't have but would need to register to vote, cost $130.
But beyond the cost, these Republican efforts to nationalize how we vote have nothing to do to safeguard our elections.
Instead, they threaten the very fabric of American self-government.
Now, ensuring the integrity of elections is not only legitimate, it is American.
But integrity is achieved through the rule of law, through adherence to our Constitution, through trust in the American people of the electorate.
The security of our elections is not advanced, however, by a Department of Justice under Attorney General Bondi that sends an extraordinary, extortionate letter to Minnesota officials.
She suggested violence by federal agents in the Twin Cities would only end if Minnesota just turned over sensitive voter data to the federal government, violating your privacy, demanding your information at the barrel of a border patrol rifle.
The same data, the Save America Act, would force every state in this nation to surrender.
This letter, the President's rhetoric, their push for Americans' personal voter data, none of this can be divorced from the legislative push we see here today.
And we all know why.
The Save America Act is part of a comprehensive Republican strategy to cement power this year.
Speaker Johnson wants to make it harder for Americans to vote, easier for Washington Republicans to control how elections are run.
But let us not forget that elections in this country are administered by clerks, by secretaries of state, and by commissions and bipartisan boards chosen by citizens in every single community in America.
They are not run out of the Oval Office.
They are not dictated to by partisan interests.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Save America Act.
I implore them to reject efforts that would centralize control in the hands of Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, or Christy Noam over how Americans vote, over who is allowed to vote.
And most of all, I urge this chamber to reaffirm its commitment to the fundamental democratic principles that all eligible citizens should have the opportunity to participate in free, fair, and secure elections without unnecessary burdens and without partisan interference.
I strongly urge the defeat of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
unidentified
Gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelli Reserves, and gentlemen from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, leader on this legislation, a member of the Committee on House Administration, Ms. Miller, to speak for three minutes.
I'd ask Ms. Miller, do 80% of Americans want the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to have your personal private information and data?
I think not.
With that, I'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Alabama and a member of the House Administration Committee, my friend Ms. Sewell.
I rise in strong opposition to Trump's voter suppression bill.
In recent months, President Trump's attempt to interfere in the midterm elections have become more brazing and alarming day by day.
We've seen state legislators redraw maps to benefit Republicans.
We've seen the FBI raid an election office and seize ballots in Georgia.
And most recently, President Trump threatened a federal takeover of our election in clear violation of the Constitution.
This week, Trump's efforts to rig the elections have made their way to Congress, where Republicans are pushing this piece of legislation, which will block millions of voters from casting their ballots.
Let us be clear.
This is not a voter ID bill.
It is a voter suppression bill, plain and simple.
This bill is so extreme that even driver's license would be insufficient to register to vote.
Instead, Americans will be required to present their birth certificate or their passport.
The reality is that half of Americans do not have a passport.
And get this, this bill also requires states to turn over personal identifiable information to the Department of Homeland Security, the same department whose rogue agents are responsible for the deaths of two American citizens in Minnesota.
Here's the truth.
Under this bill, tens of millions of eligible Americans will be blocked from casting their ballot.
It's simply unacceptable and un-American.
The ability of voters to choose their leaders is foundational to our freedom.
It is a freedom that generations of Americans have fought, bled, marched for.
Many in my hometown of Selma, Alabama.
We know that it is so important that we safeguard these important truths.
Our freedom is under assault.
Make no mistake, Republicans know that their policies are failing, that prices are going up, that jobs are going away, that health care is being slashed, and that American people are struggling to make ends meet.
Republicans know that they cannot win on the merits.
So rather than change their policies, they're seeking to change the rules.
John Lewis was not bludgeoned on a bridge in my hometown for the Republicans and Donald Trump to take these freedoms away from us.
This is a blatant power grab, and Democrats will not stand for it.
Vote no on this disastrous legislation.
unidentified
The gentleman from New York Reserves, the gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
The Save America Act will block illegal immigrants and non-citizens from voting.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation out there being spread by the media and my friends across the aisle.
House Republicans and President Trump want to protect the ballot box and ensure integrity in our elections across this great country.
Only U.S. citizens should participate in the election process.
The laws we create in Congress affect all Americans, and Americans should be the ones who select their leaders.
The Save America Act puts in place safeguards, Mr. Speaker, to prevent non-citizens from abusing our democratic process.
United States citizens should be the people choosing our elected leaders, not illegal immigrants.
Now, look, I'm not a drinker.
Everybody knows that, but I know if I go to Waggles in Knoxville, Tennessee, down on the corner of Emery Road and Taswell Pike, and if I go in there to buy a six-pack or a can of skull or a scratch-off, that government, I got to produce an ID.
When you purchase a firearm, when you board a plane, when you open a bank account, if I put $100 in the bank and then write then and ask for 20 of it back, guess what?
I got to show a dadgum ID.
Why can't you vote for an elected official without one, Mr. Speaker?
This legislation codifies President Trump's executive action to secure our voter registration process, which has been a key platform of President Trump this term.
Democrats are lying, Mr. Speaker, saying this bill prevents minorities from registering to vote.
It protects their vote.
It protects every American citizen's vote.
And it disgusts me, and frankly, I find it racist to assume that minorities cannot obtain an ID.
We need to have the guts to stand up and protect our dadgum elections, Mr. Speaker, and that means we need to pass the Save America Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
unidentified
The gentleman from Wisconsin Reserves, the gentleman from New York, is recognized.
I have great respect from the gentleman from Tennessee, but I do want to inform him it's actually current federal law prevents non-citizens from voting in federal elections.
So he may want to look that up.
With that, I will yield two minutes to my great friend, a gentlelady from California and a member of the Committee on House Administration, Ms. Torres.
Mr. Speaker, let's stop pretending the Save America Act is about election security because it is not.
This bill is about power and silencing Americans.
Republicans don't want voting.
Thousands of Americans are protesting, demonstrating against the policies of this administration.
Republicans know that they will lose the midterms.
The president asked them to cancel the election, and guess what?
This bill is the next best thing to that.
This is a show your papers mandate to disqualify Americans who oppose their evil agenda.
Americans would have to appear in person and present a passport or birth certificate just to register.
And again, every single time they update their registration every time you move, if you get married, if you get divorced, blah, blah, blah.
Here's who it will hurt.
More than 140 million Americans don't have a passport, including Republicans, by the way.
As many as 69 million women who follow the traditional practice of changing their name after marriage do not have a birth certificate that matches their legal name.
Republicans know this and want to use that misinformation to block them from voting.
This bill would eliminate the voter registration methods over 90% of Americans rely on, including online mail-in and DMV registration.
In rural areas, Americans would be forced to drive seven or eight hours round trip just to show documents, and they would have to do it every single time they move.
When Kansas tried a similar law, 32,000 eligible citizens were blocked from registering.
Zero non-citizens were found because election officials had already verified their eligibility.
Republicans call this voter ID.
This is voter suppression.
When they can't win on ideas, they try to win by blocking the ballot and taxing your right to vote.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this attack on our democracy, and I yield back to the ranking member.
My colleagues are spending a lot of time lecturing the American people on how this is going to require you to show your papers.
But last time I checked, during COVID, they demanded that if you simply wanted to go to a funeral, be with your loved ones while they were dying, or get married, you had to show your papers.
In fact, in New York City, they were literally asking you for your COVID passport.
Yet the Save America Act, a common sense piece of legislation that requires two things, voter ID plus proof of citizenship, is being labeled by people in the Senate and people in this very chamber as Jim Crow era laws.
Well, let me remind the American people of history, it was a Democrat party that championed the Jim Crow era laws.
And this is the farthest thing from it.
In fact, if you're doing that, you're insulting over 70% of your voters, Democrats, who believe that voter ID is the best way to secure an election.
Then we have the argument that you have from Blue and On saying that Trump is trying to steal the election and orange man bad and this is somehow going to fix the midterms.
But the fact is that if we are going to play that game, then you would want voter ID and you would want to secure the elections.
So please support this legislation.
I do not believe that Barack Obama in showing his voter ID was engaging in Jim Crow era law or pushing that type of perspective.
And for the same people that are advocating saying that Christy, Noam, and ICE will demand your personal information and you will be under surveillance, let I remind them that they actually all authorized the reauthorization of FISA, unreformed, that violated your constitutional rights.
So this is pretty simple.
If you are not an American, you do not get to vote in our elections.
This is not a free-for-all country.
A majority of Americans support this.
A majority of the world has voter ID in place.
It is not racist.
I appreciate my colleagues and the House admin for doing this, and I support all of my colleagues and urge them to vote for this piece of legislation.
I yield my time.
unidentified
The gentleman from Wisconsin Reserves, the gentleman from New York, is recognized.
You know, many of my colleagues have said that this bill, the Save America Act, and the constant attempts by Republicans to clamp down on voter fraud solve a problem that doesn't exist, and I couldn't disagree more.
The problem is that Republicans are losing at the ballot box.
They are losing young voters, voters of color, and women.
So there is a problem that no one is buying into the Republican ideals and policies, and the only solution is for Republicans to engage in a coordinated effort to silence the American people.
They want to stop from exercising their most fundamental constitutional right, the right to vote.
And the Save America Act doesn't save anything.
Instead, it continues to restrict access to the ballot box, imposing a modern-day poll tax and a dangerous show your papers mandate.
Under this bill, Americans would be required to appear in person or by mail, just hoping that the election clerk accepts their documentation and present either a passport or a birth certificate to register to vote, and every single time they want to cast a ballot.
A passport costs $150 and a copy of the birth certificate can cost up to $60.
Many Americans just simply can't afford to purchase these documents.
Those constitute a poll tax.
The reality is that half of Americans, more than 140 million citizens, don't have a valid passport.
And as many as 69 million women who have taken their spouses' names do not have a birth certificate matching their legal name.
Because this legislation requires, has a requirement to show documents, this legislation would eliminate online voter registration.
I want to be very clear.
This is how people give up.
They quit trying to register to vote, and that results in them not voting and their voices not being heard.
That is the intent of what is going on here.
None of this is about election integrity or protecting the ballot box.
And Republicans come to this floor to talk in front of the cameras.
They say it's about this.
But it is blatantly lying to the American people.
Our job in Congress is to make it easy for people to participate in our democracy, to make it easy for people to vote and not make it harder.
The bottom line is simple.
The Save America Act and the countless numbers of other efforts Republicans are pushing will deny millions of Americans their right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Tenney, who's the founder and chair of the Election Integrity Caucus.
unidentified
The gentlewoman from New York is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to first address a comment by the ranking member, Mr. Relly, we both have from New York.
He's a dear friend.
But I just wanted to point out something.
New York City Democrats actually put up a bill to allow non-citizens to vote in their elections.
Our far-left-leaning, and I think you can argue that very easily, Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, actually turned that down and said, no, only citizens can vote in our elections.
That's New York state law, and that's our national law.
And I just want to make sure that that was your response to Mr. Burchett, to make sure you understood that we've addressed this in New York and we have established that only citizens can vote.
And we want to make sure we secure the ballot and know that citizenship in this country has value.
There is nothing more profound or important for the preservation of our constitutional republic and the keep the power in we the people than the sacred right to vote.
Democrats have continuously undermined election integrity, sowing the seeds of mistrust with mail-in ballots, failing to provide ID, not proving that there is indeed one citizen, one vote.
This bill merely requires that you prove that you're a citizen and that we secure the ballot by knowing that there's one citizen one vote.
Consider this situation.
And as the co-founder and the chair of the Election Integrity Caucus, I would love to see every legal citizen vote in every election.
I know I have as a proud American citizen.
Consider this situation.
If you had discovered that you had won the lottery only to find out that a cartel member had perfectly replicated your winning lottery ticket and it was worth, let's just say, $200 million, maybe even $50 million, and you went to go turn in your ticket, but somebody else without a valid ID stole your identity and took your money, you would probably argue that we should have a valid voter ID.
And I only wish that Americans would value their right to vote, as simple as it is, and to recognize that important act of voting as important to preserving our country, our republic, and keeping power again in we the people.
I just urge all of my colleagues to join the Election Integrity Caucus and stand for election integrity and make sure that every citizen eligible to vote votes in every election.
And so now he's peddling claims of fraud as a pretext to take over our elections and disenfranchise millions.
He tried to extort Minnesota into handing over their voter files, raided Fulton County.
He sued Wisconsin and other states for their voter data.
And this bill would provide Christy Noam access to all the voter files in every state and upend the authority and the independence of states and counties.
Why?
So they can rig the elections and save Republicans.
We have to reject the so-called Save America Act and save our free and fair elections and save our democracies.
And with that, I would yield back.
unidentified
Gentlelady yields back.
Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president.
The gentlelady from New York, Reserves, gentleman from Wisconsin, is recognized.
Sometimes in this room, I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.
We are hearing that the world is going to end, and Americans need to understand that this bill does two and only two things.
By the way, things that we already do in Florida today, and we don't have issues with our elections.
Number one, it says that you have to show a photo ID in order to vote.
This is something that people overwhelmingly support because we have to do it in every aspect of our lives.
And second, it says you should have to prove you're a citizen in order to register.
Now, the argument that's made against these things is it is somehow racist to require them.
What I find repulsive about that argument is it is racist to imply that minority communities somehow don't have the ability to go and get a photo ID, somehow don't have documentation to prove that they're an American.
I have talked to my constituents about this, and they're aghast at the idea that anyone would make this claim.
Now, look, this is a real issue.
In Florida, I worked on a bill when I was in the legislature where people would call who had been accidentally put on jury duty and said, Hey, I don't know how I got registered to vote, but I'm not an American.
And we had to take them off jury duty.
And Democrats opposed our efforts even there to clean up the rolls.
There's nothing we have more important to do here than to make sure that Americans are confident in our elections and the results that they achieve, particularly with the kind of heated rhetoric that we say here.
But why do they oppose it?
There's one simple reason, because they want to cheat.
We pass this bill, we clean up our elections, and we make sure that Americans can have confidence in not only what we do here, but in the elections that we're going to have this November.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields back.
Gentleman from Wisconsin Reserves, the gentleman from New York, is recognized.
I do want to say my distinguished colleague from Florida conveniently left out one part of what this bill does, which is to share your personal private data with the Department of Homeland Security.
From this point forward, if this bill were to become law, every single person when they register to vote, all their data will be sent to the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Elections, not some other department that has control over the election process.
The Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, whose people have now killed American citizens on American streets.
If that's what Americans want, and I'm pretty sure they do not, but somehow the gentleman forgot to mention that that's what this bill does.
With that, let me yield a minute to the distinguished gentleman from California, my friend, Mr. Correa.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Chairman Style.
I rise in strong support of the Save America Act because nothing matters more than securing our elections.
Our republic depends on it.
Free, fair, and honest elections, unmarred by fraud or suspicion, are fundamental to our constitutional republic.
The right of citizens to have their votes properly counted without illegal dilution is vital to determining the rightful winner.
This legislation is straightforward.
It requires proof of citizenship for voter registration and voter ID for federal elections.
It ensures only American citizens participate in American elections and provides states with tools to determine and verify the citizenship and maintain accurate voter roles.
There is only one reason not to pass this, and we all know what that is.
Some in this chamber oppose anything that interferes with their effort to control elections and consolidate power.
Congressional Democrats sat silent as the Biden administration allowed millions of illegal immigrants into the United States.
I fear the intention was to garner votes.
But my colleagues across the aisle now have an opportunity to prove me wrong by supporting this widely popular legislation.
The Save America Act reinforces that voting is a right only of citizens, not just anyone within our borders.
Opposition to this act makes sense in that context, but that is precisely why we must pass it.
We have a duty to the American people to preserve their voice, protect their vote, and secure their sovereignty, and we must save the Republic from forces that would undermine our most sacred Democrat institution.
I urge my colleagues to pass the Save America Act.
I do think the only people in America are confused about American citizens being the only people voting in federal elections are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
I think most Americans get that, which is why we see no evidence of the widespread fraud that they keep talking about, talking about a solution desperately in search of a problem.
With that, I'd like to yield a minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. Williams.
unidentified
The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, the SAVE Act is back before the House today, and right along with it is yet another attempt at voter suppression.
It is no coincidence that this is happening right before the midterm elections.
In January, the FBI raided the Fulton County Election Office, my home county, where I'm a voter.
That raid was a bold attempt to intimidate voters in the fighting fifth.
The Save America Act is just another part of a scheme by House Republicans in the Trump administration to take over our elections.
Atlanta civil rights leaders like my predecessor, the late Congressman John Lewis, faced one of the bloodiest battles he ever faced over our right to vote.
The SAVE Act would make it harder for millions of Americans to get registered to vote by requiring in-person registration at elections offices, government offices with government hours, y'all.
This is a burden for caregivers and any hardworking American with a nine-to-five job.
Y'all, the SAVE Act is an unfunded mandate to silence voters.
The goal of this bill is voter suppression, plain and simple.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this terrible bill.
Laissez-Les Bonte-Brule, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding and especially thank him and Chip Roy for bringing the Save America Act to the House floor.
This is a bill that's critically important to one of the most precious franchises in America, and that is that sacred right to vote, the right that so many gave their lives to preserve, to allow, to pass on to our next generation.
And the importance of that vote is even more underscored when you recognize that, yes, there have been times where people have stolen your vote, Mr. Speaker.
That veteran that was talked about that deserves the right to vote.
Well, if somebody votes illegally, Mr. Speaker, they are stealing that veteran's vote.
They're stealing your vote.
They're stealing everybody's vote if we allow people that aren't legally eligible to vote to participate in elections.
And so how can you best preserve that?
One way is that when you're registering to vote, you have to prove citizenship.
It's in this bill.
Another is when you go vote, you just have to show your ID.
This is not some convoluted idea, Mr. Speaker, but you hear the other side talking about it's the end of the world.
Their own leaders have referred to it as Jim Crow.
It's not the first time that they've used that phrase.
They used that when the state of Georgia put an ID requirement on voting.
They said it was going to be horrible.
It was going to take away people's rights.
It was going to disenfranchise minority voters, Mr. Speaker.
That's what they said.
But then what happened?
We've actually got history to go look at.
After Georgia passed that law that was called every ridiculous name in the book, what we saw was record participation in elections.
You actually had the University of Georgia that went and asked voters after that election.
And a whopping 0%, Mr. Speaker, of black voters said that they had a poor experience.
Go on to the ballot.
Over 72% said they had an excellent experience at the ballot.
But then you can go further.
You can ask American people, who, by the way, the American people get this.
They understand that there is examples of voter fraud.
I come from a state where our elections commissioner went to jail, yes, went to federal prison for stealing elections.
And we cleaned up our election system in our state.
And we've seen an increase in voter participation.
Why?
Again, they would tell you if you actually increase the integrity of elections by requiring picture ID, that somehow it's going to suppress vote.
The opposite happens, Mr. Speaker.
Because what really does happen is voters now have confidence in the sanctity of elections.
More people will participate because they know that somebody's not going to be stealing their vote by showing up when they're not supposed to be there, just by requiring a picture ID.
But Americans have been asked about this.
And overwhelming, 83% of Americans are in favor of requiring a photo ID to vote.
83%, that's not Republicans.
That's all across the spectrum.
Over 70% of Democrats support Picture ID.
82% of Hispanic Americans support Picture ID to vote.
76% of black Americans support a Picture ID to vote.
But if they still want to lie to people on the other side, Mr. Speaker, if they still want to try to scare people and talk about Jim Crow, then you might want to ask those same people why did the Democrat Party at their convention just in 2024 require a photo ID to get in?
You couldn't get into the Democrat convention without showing a photo ID.
So if they want to call it Jim Crow, they need to look in the mirror, Mr. Speaker.
But if you want to ensure the sanctity of the vote, the Save America Act does that.
You will see higher participation because Americans across all spectrums, black, white, Hispanic, Republican, Democrat, Independent, will know that there is a higher likelihood that nobody there is showing up illegally to steal your vote if you've got the right to vote.
One person, one vote.
That's the mantra that we all ought to embrace.
The Save America Act gets us back to that great franchise of American democracy, and that is the right to vote.
I would urge everybody to pass this bill over to the Senate and then the Senate to get it to President Trump's desk so we can strengthen American democracy.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to just comment and remark that, you know, we have heard repeatedly one person who's a non-U.S. citizen voting is too many, and I agree.
We have laws to prevent it.
But how many people is it okay to deny U.S. citizens who want to participate the right?
To me, that would be the greater evil.
We have 80 million, 80 million Americans, voter-eligible U.S. citizens who didn't vote in the last presidential election.
Isn't that astonishing?
It's a big number, so it's hard to get your head around.
80 million Americans didn't participate.
I'm not saying that's anyone's fault, but I am saying this.
We should be, our committee and our House should be focused on how do we increase voter participation?
How do we make it so that more people feel as though they should engage?
That's the only way we'll get to the true promise of American democracy when all 244 million Americans who are U.S. citizens participate in our election.
We should be doing everything we can to make that as easy for those people to do.
It is their God-given right.
It is an inalienable right, as we often say.
With that, I'd like to yield a minute to the gentlelady from Illinois, Mr. Ramirez.
Look, as I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what I hear is the same racist, misogynistic trash, different decade.
Republicans are invoking historical policies intended, let's be clear, to disenfranchise Americans, especially working people, women, students, Indigenous people, and anyone who can't afford the burdens of a new bill.
The Save America Act is yet another Republican attempt to intimidate and suppress the votes of anyone, anyone who threatens their extremist white supremacist agenda.
Don't take my word for it.
Just look for the threats that surround the polls with gun-wielding masked men, and it will become clear to you that Trump and Republicans want to control who votes so they can remain in power.
That's not democracy.
That is destroying free, fair elections.
It's just another page from the authoritarian playbook, and we must have the moral clarity in this place to stand against it, just like our ancestors did.
I want to urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and to vote with moral clarity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and unapologetic support of the Save America Act, legislation that defends the integrity of our elections and makes one principle perfectly clear: U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens only.
This is not extreme.
It's common sense.
Citizenship matters.
Sovereignty matters.
And Americans alone must decide America's future.
Yet radical Democrats have abandoned this standard.
New York City has allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections.
Washington, D.C. has done the same, granting political power to foreign nationals in the capital of our nation.
Georgia's own senator, John Osoff, who once said that voter ID was right and appropriate, now supports his party, is reframing it as voter suppression.
The law didn't change.
Public opinion didn't change.
What changed was he and other Democrat politicians like him realized that illegal immigrants could no longer vote to keep Democrats in office.
They oppose this bill because it chips away at their voting base, plain and simple.
For years, conservatives warned that this was a radical left's goal and we were mocked for it.
But that's exactly what Democrats are doing right now, fighting to allow illegal aliens to vote.
This is not only grotesquely unjust, but it waters down the meaning of American citizenship.
By passing this bill, we reaffirm a simple but sacred truth: American elections belong to Americans.
No loopholes, no exceptions, no apologies.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back.
unidentified
Gentleman yields back.
Gentleman from Wisconsin Reserves, gentlemen from New York is recognized.
I'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Bell.
unidentified
Gentleman from Missouri is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, we're debating this bill because Donald Trump is still trying to overturn an election that he lost six years ago, and some in this body are helping him do it.
The Save America Act is built on a lie, the lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
That lie has been investigated, litigated, audited, and debunked over and over again.
But instead of accepting reality, the authors of this bill are using that lie as an excuse to take control of our elections.
This is not on the level.
And let's be honest about where this is coming from.
From the president himself, we're being asked to trust Donald Trump and his allies about elections while he is actively trying to subvert them.
That is dangerous, and Congress should not be a willing partner in it.
Our democracy does not need a takeover.
It needs truth, and this bill has none of it.
I yield my time.
Gentleman yields back.
Gentleman from New York, Reserves, gentlemen from Wisconsin is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Ranking Member.
I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Save America Act.
The supporters of this bill claim that undocumented immigrants are overrunning our elections and voting in droves, but I'll give you an example of the reality.
We actually did a study in Virginia of all the election irregularities over 20 years.
How many instances of non-citizens voting do you think we found?
And another study in analyzing Heritage Foundation data found that this is pretty much non-existent between 1999 and 2023 in the United States.
They are solving a problem that does not exist.
And what this bill does do is make other problems and make it harder to vote.
It undermines our democracy.
It makes it harder for military voters who move a lot, harder for families impacted by natural disasters who lose documents, and harder for the nearly 70 million women who have changed their name after marriage and have birth certificates that no longer match their photo IDs, and harder for the half of Americans who don't have passports.
The president claims that this is just an attempt to secure our elections, but let's be real.
This is just another attempt to tilt the electoral deck in his favor.
And if you want to make elections safer, we should stop threatening to nationalize elections, stop threatening to have ICE at voting locations.
So why don't we save America from this bill and vote no?
I yield back.
unidentified
Gentleman yields back.
Gentleman from New York Reserves, gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
I think my dear friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Speaker, there's not a better example of political expediency than my Democrat colleagues opposing a voter ID law on the grounds of states' rights.
First, the Constitution's clear rules for running elections have been delegated to the states.
But in that same provision, the Constitution says Congress may at any time alter the process.
Certainly, I think our founding fathers would support strengthening the integrity of our elections.
Democrats know this, Mr. Speaker.
They must think the American people, though, have forgotten about their quote for the politicians act in the 117th Congress, where they basically codified a COVID-era fraud-ridden election law that included, ironically, prohibiting voter ID, essentially.
Also, ballot harvesting, promoting mass voting by mail, and to take taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns.
Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker.
Democrats believe Congress has the power to ban voter ID, but not the power to require it.
This shouldn't be controversial.
Requiring proof of citizenship to register and a valid voter ID is as common sense as it gets.
American elections are for American citizens, Mr. Speaker.
And I urge a yes vote on the Save America Act, and I yield back.
unidentified
Kimmy yields back, gentleman from Wisconsin Reserves.
We understand what the Constitution says, but what I'm really concerned about is people's rights.
Every American should understand this.
I want to say this again.
The Save America Act requires states to surrender you, the people, your entire information on the voter rolls, private personal voter information to DHS.
Save America is a clear attempt to nationalize elections by involving Christy Noam and the Department of Homeland Security, the rogue department, into our elections.
Go up and down your streets, knock on doors, ask how many of your neighbors think that that's a good idea.
And with that, let me please yield two and a half minutes to the single gentlelady, the Democratic whip from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
unidentified
Gentlelady is recognized for two and a half minutes.
Republicans aren't worried about non-citizens voting.
They're afraid of actual American citizens voting.
Why?
Because they're losing.
Among women, they're losing by 10 points in the upcoming midterms.
Because losing is what happens when you tell people you're going to tackle the high cost of living and you turn around and hike their health care premiums.
You hike their grocery costs.
Also, billionaires can weasel out of paying their fair share.
They're trying to say this is a voter ID bill.
That's not what's happening here.
Let's just look at a typical mom.
You guys must know some working mothers.
The ones that I hear from across my district and across this country, they are struggling to put food on the table for their kids, working two jobs to try and make ends meet, trying to juggle getting their kids to school, maybe catching an occasional game, fearing they're never going to be able to find childcare they can afford, and praying nobody in the family gets sick because they can't afford a doctor either.
And now you're going to say to those women, because they got married and changed their names, they have to go down to a clerk and prove their citizens, sign affidavits, do this in person.
This is a minefield of red tape that you have put in front of women and American citizens and their right to vote.
And thanks to the gentlewoman from South Carolina, the so-called champion of women and safe places, this bill will now go into effect immediately, which means primaries that are weeks from now, All of these people are going to be met with the fact they didn't have time or know they had to prove their citizenship.
Good luck voting, ladies.
And as a kicker, the bill mandates that every state turn over their voter rolls to DHS and Christy Noam.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is an outrage.
This is election rigging.
This is voter suppression.
The American people aren't going to stand for it, and nobody should vote for it.
I yield back.
unidentified
Gentlelady yields back.
Gentleman from New York, Reserves, gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
I rise today in strong support of set-up filed or S 1383, the Save America Act, which I am proud to co-sponsor and hope will pass the House floor today.
I'd also note that I think that it is shockingly racist and sexist for my colleagues on the other side to believe that we are not smart enough to figure out how to get IDs.
I can assure you that we are, even if we get married.
The Save America Act requires individuals to provide documented proof of U.S. citizenship, along with a valid photo ID when registering to vote.
This common sense legislation strengthens election integrity through practical measures, including voter ID requirements and safeguards to prevent non-citizens from voting.
The Save America Act is particularly important as we continue to address the consequences of the Biden-Harris border crisis, which led to millions of individuals entering the country unlawfully.
Secure elections are fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our democratic process.
The state of Wyoming has already taken steps to implement many of the reforms outlined in this bill, demonstrating that securing our elections must be a national priority.
I thank the bill's sponsors, Representative Roy and Senator Lee, as well as Chairman Stile, for their leadership on this critical issue.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of the Save America Act.
I appreciate the gentlelady from Wyoming, but I guarantee you, American women are smart, and we believe that.
And they will be smart enough to see that the legal hurdles and burdens being put in place of them in front of them by this legislation are not only unnecessary, but incredibly burdensome and attempt to make their lives so much more difficult.
I do want to just make a comment, too, Mr. Speaker.
Late last night, the Republicans offered a manager's amendment that would move up several of the effective dates of this bill, which were supposed to take effect in 2027.
I think it bears noting that if this bill becomes law, they will now be effective immediately.
This amendment was offered initially by our colleague, Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
Chairman Stile took the mantle of it.
I'm sure the members of this committee know Arkansas, Texas, Illinois, Mississippi, and North Carolina all have March primaries.
In fact, many of the UACAVA ballots for these primaries have already been mailed to Americans overseas.
So how are election administrators in these states supposed to even begin to comply with a new federal law that takes effect in the middle of voting?
This is quite frankly election malpractice.
It shouldn't be before us.
And yesterday, the Committee on House Administration heard from a former executive director of North Carolina voting who called this effective date unworkable.
I think that sums it up well.
This is a mistake.
It's a mistake in so many different ways.
The other thing I would just say, because I've heard a lot about this now, there's not one person on this side of the aisle who thinks non-U.S. citizens should be participating in American elections.
Not one.
Not one has said it, despite the repeated allegations that that's the case.
But I do want to ask: are congressional Republicans okay with masked federal agents hiding their faces, hiding their badge numbers from the American public, but want to force American citizens to turn over their addresses to Christy Noam's Department of Homeland Security?
Now, I've heard, Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the aisle in this very debate, it's already illegal to cast a ballot when you're not eligible to vote.
I would note, and it's been a vigorous debate, and I continue to argue that this bill, in the strongest terms, should not be passed.
I do want to just note, particularly from members who spoke here today, that, for instance, in my dear friend, Chairman Stiles' district, 165,000 women in his district have a different name on their birth certificate than their current photo ID, and 346,000 residents of Wisconsin's 1st District lack a passport, and it would cost them nearly $45 million for those people to purchase a passport.
For Ms. Miller, 150,000 women in her district, 414,000 residents lack in her district passport, cost them $53 million.
Mr. Burchett, 176,000 women.
390,000 residents don't have a passport, which would cost them $50.8 million.
Ms. Luna has 170,000 women who have different names on birth certificate and photo ID.
319,000 of her residents lack a passport.
$41 million would be needed to purchase that for all of them.
Ms. Tenney, 145,000 women in her district.
420,000 residents without a passport cost them $54 million.
Mr. Speaker, you have an estimated 170,000 women.
397,000 residents lack a passport.
The list goes on and on.
That's the impact of this.
But look, here's the truth, Mr. Speaker.
President Trump wants to take over American elections this November to maintain his tenuous grip on power.
So Republicans have a singular purpose in supporting the Save America Act, helping the President get what he wants.
That's what they are always about, helping the President get what he wants, not the American people.
Republicans are falling over each other to help Donald Trump nationalize the 2026 midterm elections.
You don't have to take my word for it.
This is what the President is trying to do.
He says it.
He always says the quiet part out loud.
He said, we, meaning the Republicans, we want to take over.
We should take over the voting in at least 15 places.
The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.
That's what the President said.
That's why this bill forces states to surrender your personal private information to the Department of Homeland Security, to the department that has unleashed ICE brutality on the streets of America against American citizens.
The bill is so extreme.
Even a Republican senator said this week she opposed it, calling it a federal overreach.
In response, in just a moment, I will offer a motion to commit.
This motion to commit would send this bill to committee with an instruction to strip the provision that gives your address, your personal information to the Department of Homeland Security.
I warn Republicans that a vote against this motion to commit is a vote to send American citizens' data to the Department of Homeland Security.
A vote against this MTC is a vote to put Christy Noam and Donald Trump and ICE and the Department of Justice in charge of the midterm elections this fall.
So I urge you all vote yes on the motion to commit, because Christy Noam should not control our elections.
Donald Trump should not control our elections.
We, we, the American people, the people of the United States, we control our elections.
With that, I urge defeat of the main motion, support of the motion to commit, and I yield back my time.
The question before members of the House of Representatives is very clear.
One, do you think individuals should be U.S. citizens and prove that when they register to vote?
Yes or no.
Two, Should individuals going to vote need to present voter ID upon arrival at the polls?
Yes or no.
If you believe like I do in a common sense proposal to make sure that only U.S. citizens are registering to vote and that people are who they say they are when they go to the polls, you should vote yes.
The answer to this is easy.
It's common sense.
That's why it's popular.
Let's make sure we reinstall integrity in our elections.
But for the record, let me just clear up a few misconceptions that our colleagues on the left have tried time and time again to bring.
First, are non-citizens voting in U.S. elections?
We know what the Democratic's playbook is, and we only have to look here at our nation's capital, where non-citizens under current law are allowed to vote in municipal elections.
We know our Democratic colleagues want non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections.
It's why making sure that we're ensuring individuals who are registering to vote, in particular for federal elections, are U.S. citizens.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle bring up the married woman argument.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I'm engaged, going to be married in a few weeks from now.
My fiancé is planning to change her name and move to the great state of Wisconsin and register to vote.
Her and countless of other individuals will have no problem registering under this bill.
You can bring forward your identification.
You could sign an attestation if you don't have the documentation.
We want to make sure that it's easy to vote and hard to cheat.
We could look at our committee hearing that we had just this week where we brought in the Secretary of State of the state of Wyoming that has strong election integrity provisions.
We asked the gentleman on the record, the Secretary of State.
Wyoming has delivered and shown the American people that you can implement citizenship verification and photo identification without the problems, without the hyperbole that we continue to hear on the left.
We heard hyperbole as it relates to information being shared with DHS saved database.
They only offer the first part, that it goes to DHS.
But why?
Read the bill to actually check if individuals who are on the voter rolls in states across the country are citizens of the United States.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to check the voter rolls to determine if an individual is a citizen of the United States.
It should leave you a great question as to why they're concerned.
We should be checking and cleaning up the voter rolls and removing individuals who are not eligible to vote because every citizen deserves the right to vote.
One individual who's ineligible to vote is one too many because it casts out the vote of a legal United States citizen.
And finally, we hear arguments against voter ID.
This is a core common sense principle.
My colleague Mr. Bean brought up the example, it's illegal for an underage individual to purchase a beer.
But as you go in and buy a beer, you get asked for your ID.
As I said earlier, I think it's absolutely nuts that we protect our beer more than our ballots in jurisdictions across this country.
If you're like me and think that we should have voter ID, you vote yes on the Save America Act.
This is our opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to take a major step forward in election integrity, making sure that U.S. elections are for U.S. citizens only and making sure that people are who they say they are by checking voter ID when individuals go to vote.
It's a common sense proposal.
The American people will get to see where their member stands, and I encourage every member of this chamber to vote yes on the Save America Act.
Union Calendar No. 224, H.R. 3617, a bill to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, and for other purposes.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce printed in the bill is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read.
The bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber.
I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 3617.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3617, the Securing American Critical Minerals Supply Act, introduced by Representative John James, my colleague and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee from Michigan's 10th congressional district.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation enhances the Department of Energy's ability to assess, to identify, as well as address vulnerabilities in the supply chain for energy resources that are absolutely essential to the economic and national security of these United States of America.
When the Department of Energy was organized in 1977, Mr. Speaker, the American people were suffering from the energy security fallout of OPEC's oil embargoes.
You may remember prices went up, gas lines formed, and our nation's economy was threatened because adversarial nations took advantage of U.S. reliance on energy imports for their own interest, Mr. Speaker.
Ultimately, the answer to energy security concerns was advancing United States production and unleashing American energy dominance.
Now, the United States is the premier oil-producing nation on this planet.
Today, we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, in a similar disadvantaged position.
An adversarial nation controls the access to key resources as well as retains the ability to restrict American imports at will, threatening to bring the American economy to its knees.
But instead of oil, it's critical minerals, its rare earth elements, and its energy resources that are essential to the daily lives of the hardworking Americans, as well as a linchpin to the next generation economy.
These resources, Mr. Speaker, are absolutely required in virtually everything we need to compete, as well as defend our country from foreign threats, semiconductors, nuclear reactors, oil and gas infrastructure, the transmission system, and military weaponry, just to name a few.
Make no mistake about it.
Communist China knows this and is taking advantage of it.
The numbers are absolutely staggering.
Communist China produces 60% of the world's rare earths and 90% of their respective processing capacity, along with 80% of the processing capacity for critical minerals and the vast majority of production for at least 15 more critical minerals.
The Chinese will this authority through export controls to disrupt supply chains as well as in market manipulation tactics to ensure that no investments flow into these job-creating industries.
Almost 50 years later, the answer to this problem lies in our ability to reshore essential energy production as well as refining facilities that can absolutely compete with our adversaries.
Importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has prioritized opportunities to combat undue influence from those same adversaries.
For instance, last week, the United States and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding on strengthening cooperation between the countries on critical minerals supply chains and working to develop their critical mineral accessibility away from China.
In addition, the Department of Energy's recent organizational realignment established the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation to fortify American supply chains that are essential to a reliable, affordable, and resilient energy industry.
H.R. 3617, Mr. Speaker, will absolutely enhance the work being done by the Trump administration by leveraging the expertise of the Department of Energy to secure our supplies of critical energy resources.
We know what is at stake with the next generation economy.
Cutting-edge technologies like AI and advanced manufacturing hold tremendous promise to lift up communities across the country with stable, good-paying jobs while lowering costs for hardworking families.
Mr. Speaker, the Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act takes an important step towards solidifying the U.S. position as a global leader in economies and technologies of the future.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and Mr. Speaker, I preserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when American families are struggling to make ends meet as costs for health care, energy, housing, education, and groceries are skyrocketing, House Republicans are once again wasting floor time on a bill that does absolutely nothing to provide any relief.
To make matters worse, this bill does not help Americans address the critical mineral supply.
It just props up polluting fossil fuels at the expense of cheaper and cleaner energy technologies.
Critical minerals are a critical component of many modern technologies, from our cell phones to solar panels to electric vehicles.
The demand for these minerals will only increase as the world continues in transition to clean energy.
And we must strengthen our domestic production, processing, and recycling capabilities, as well as cement relationships with our allies to access new critical mineral supplies.
Democrats were in the process of doing exactly this with the bipartisan infrastructure law that included $3 billion for battery manufacturing and recycling to build out a circular and sufficient supply chain that reuses critical minerals instead of letting them waste away in landfills.
But instead of building on this important work, Republicans took a sledgehammer to these investments.
Their big, ugly bill repealed vital clean energy tax credits and programs and canceled billions of dollars in projects that would have helped with critical mineral supply.
The Trump administration also shut down the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, the office Congress created to lead a lot of the clean energy and critical mineral supply chain work.
The administration also canceled more than $700 million in battery and manufacturing grants that that office had issued.
Now, this is extremely harmful to our economy and to families' monthly power bills because the rest of the world, particularly China, is making the necessary investments in the clean energy transition.
In 2022 alone, China installed roughly as much solar capacity as the rest of the world combined.
China controls more than 70 percent of the world's battery manufacturing capacity.
Today, we rely on imports of minerals such as cobalt, lithium, and graphite that are integral components of clean energy technology.
And China controls around 80 percent of the world's processing capacity for these critical minerals, posing serious national economic and energy security risks.
So, we should all be concerned about securing domestic critical mineral supply chains, but this bill does not solve the problem.
In fact, it will only risk diluting and diverting resources away from critical mineral supply chains and toward fossil fuels.
The only mention of critical minerals in this bill starts and ends with its title.
Instead, it focuses on critical energy resources, which is defined as any energy resource that is essential to the energy sector.
Now, this overly broad language will inevitably result in additional resources spent on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas at the expense of actual critical mineral and clean energy supply chains.
With this bill, Republicans are handing the Trump administration yet another tool to prop up polluting fossil fuels at the expense of cheaper and cleaner energy technologies.
And if Republicans truly want to be competitive with China, canceling clean energy projects that drive market demand is not the solution.
Under Trump's watch, we have lost more than $30 billion in American manufacturing investments.
Mr. Speaker, electricity prices are rising across the country, including in my state of New Jersey.
Americans are going into debt to heat their homes this winter.
President Trump has failed on his day one promise to bring down prices for American families.
Instead, his big, ugly bill is projected to increase electricity prices by an additional 61 percent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hear from my constituents every day that affordability is their top concern.
Yet today we are here debating yet another Republican energy bill that will do nothing to lower prices for Americans.
And frankly, I think it's a shame.
My concern is that with this bill, Republicans can continue to ignore the affordability crisis while they give the Department of Energy new authority, which they will use to secure more support for their oil and gas buddies.
So I urge my colleagues to vote no, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
And I thank the gentleman from Texas, whose devastating good looks are only exceeded by his patriotism and sense of humor.
I rise today to advance a transformative vision for our nation's energy future through my bill, Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act.
This legislation is a bold and necessary step to ensure that the United States leads the world in energy innovation, security, and independence.
At a time when global supply chains are increasingly weaponized and controlled by foreign adversaries, America cannot afford complacency.
The Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act redefines the term critical energy resource to provide the Department of Energy with a clear and unmistakable mandate.
Secure the minerals essential to powering our energy sector and lowering costs for Americans.
This first step ensures the Department remains squarely focused on protecting and strengthening our nation's critical energy resources while making sure that Americans are able to put more money in their pockets.
Mr. Speaker, this bill could not come at a more important time.
Today, China controls more than 90% of the global rare earth refining capacity.
Russia maintains roughly 44% of the world's uranium enrichment capacity and supplies a significant share of nuclear fuel imports to the United States.
These are not just economic statistics, they are strategic vulnerabilities.
If we are serious about an all-of-the-above energy strategy, then we must secure the minerals that make those technologies possible.
And, Mr. Speaker, this is where Michigan comes into focus.
Michigan's geology is rich with opportunity.
The Upper Peninsula, in particular, holds significant deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt, and platinum group metals, minerals essential for defense technologies and next-generation energy systems.
For more than a century, the UP helped power America's industrial rise, and today it still possesses the potential to power America's energy future.
Researchers at Western Michigan University and the Michigan Geological Survey are actively working to map and evaluate Michigan's critical mineral potential, preserving and analyzing decades of geological data to better understand what resources lie beneath our soil.
Their work demonstrates that Michigan is not just a part of the conversation.
We are the solution, and we will continue to lead.
Mr. Speaker, strengthening domestic critical mineral production is not just about national security.
It's about economic revival.
By unlocking responsible, responsible development of critical minerals in the UP, we can create good paying jobs, attract investment back to Michigan, strengthen local supply chains, and bring new life to communities that have long contributed to America's prosperity.
Boosting domestic mineral production means boosting Michigan's economy, supporting miners, engineers, small businesses, and families across our state.
My legislation directs the Department of Energy to conduct ongoing assessments of supply chain vulnerabilities, develop strategies to strengthen domestic production, and invest in innovative technologies that expand American mineral independence.
It equips our nation to counter anti-competitive tactics and human rights abuses in global markets while ensuring that our own energy systems are resilient, secure, and self-reliant.
This is about unleashing American energy.
This is about reassuring and reindustrializing American manufacturing.
This is about reducing dependence on foreign dictators and despots.
And for Michigan, it's about harnessing the full economic potential of both of our great and strong peninsulas.
The Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act is a cornerstone for building an energy-independent America, one powered by American workers, American resources, American ingenuity, and Michigan grit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in unleashing the full potential of America's energy might.
Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Ranking Member for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3617.
I wish we were here discussing how we lower the cost of living.
Or I wish here in the Energy and Commerce Committee where we're controlling the time, we could discuss a bill that will lower electricity prices for our neighbors back home.
Or even as the title of this bill suggests, it's related to critical minerals.
But when you read the bill, the text of the bill, there's nothing related to critical minerals.
It's kind of a sneaky little bill.
Actually, if we pass this bill, it's quite likely that energy bills, electricity bills are going to go up.
It's likely that this will lead to higher costs across the entire economy.
And electric bills are already sky high.
You know, American families last year were suffering through, on average, about 13 percent increases in their electric bills, much higher in many places across the country.
In Florida, they passed along a $6 billion rate increase.
They were calling it the largest rate increase, the highest rate increase in the history of the country.
And what have we seen out of this administration?
Just sabotage of affordable, reliable, clean, cheaper energy coming onto the grid.
And now this.
Now, this is an important topic, and I've gained a little bit of knowledge not just from the Energy and Commerce Committee, but I serve on the bipartisan select committee to counter the Chinese Communist Party.
And with my colleague, Republican Rob Whitman, we led a critical minerals working group the last Congress.
It is clear the United States is way too reliant on China.
Beijing has weaponized the critical mineral supply chain.
That's why Democrats leaned into it and passed important policies in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to spur domestic manufacturing and policies that enabled us to work with our partners and allies across the globe to counter China.
We didn't do anything like threaten Greenland or insult Canada.
We thought it was important to work together to counter all of the coercion of the Chinese Communist Party.
Major investments in domestic critical mineral supply chains, breaking the dependence on China, because the United States energy sector relies on a broad portfolio of critical minerals.
So we have to have a resilient supply chain for the advanced technologies and innovation in energy generation, in storage, and in transmission.
The International Energy Agency estimates that mineral demand for clean energy technology will almost triple by 2030 and quadruple by 2040.
Therefore, a diverse, resilient, and sustainable critical mineral supply chain free from Chinese Communist Party influence will be fundamental.
But this bill just doesn't do it.
As I said before, it's a sneaky, sneaky little bill.
It was introduced last Congress.
It hasn't gone anywhere because it doesn't solve any problem.
It doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
If you look at what they want to do, they say we're going to amend the Department of Energy's mission to include securing the supply of critical energy resources, not minerals, and it directs DOE to conduct ongoing assessments to develop strategies to strengthen critical energy resource supply chains, not minerals again.
This vague definition risks diverting resources away from critical minerals, actually, and towards, and here's, we're going to yank the curtain back on what this really is about.
It is about everything that this administration has done to serve the fossil fuel, the dirty fuel industry, from canceling clean energy projects that would help lower electric bills, that would bring cleaner, cheaper resources onto the grid, projects like offshore wind that's fully permitted and ready to go and provide resources you can rely on during winter storms.
This administration has canceled large-scale transmission projects to help bring the additional load we need onto the transmission system just to make the grid more resilient in America as we suffer through these extreme weather events.
We cannot afford the Republicans continuing to sabotage cleaner, cheaper energy in America.
This kind of sneaky maneuver reminds me of what they've done on tariffs this entire Congress that we finally overcame.
So everyone kind of understands now that you're paying more at the grocery store because of the President's arbitrary tariffs.
I know he likes to say, oh, other countries are going to pay these tariffs, but all of the experts, everyone knows prices are higher because of these import taxes.
In fact, tariffs are at their highest level in about 100 years.
That's how high they are.
The Yale Budget Lab says on average, households paying probably $1,700 more than you would have without these crazy tariffs that the President wields like a tool of retribution and fear.
And that's not how you, you've got to keep the American people and their pocketbooks central rather than you're threatening Greenland.
He has to have Greenland.
He's going to insult Canada and tariffs on Canada.
Well, thankfully, later this afternoon, we're going to debate and try to remove some of these arbitrary added taxes on the American people and lower the cost of living.
But that's why your shoes, your clothes, and yes, electric equipment and metals are costing more right now.
It's costing everybody way too much.
So here's what they did here in the House of Representatives.
They actually said we're not going to be able to debate a removal of tariffs in the House of Representatives, the people's House, and they were able to get away with it for a year, almost a year after the President's Liberation Day.
They snuck it into a rule so we wouldn't have any debate on the high cost of living driven by these import taxes.
Well, last night, late last night, while you were probably watching ice skating in the Olympics, the House of Representatives, because three brave Republicans crossed over and joined all of the Democrats, we're going to have that debate.
And we're going to have that vote.
Because what is central to people's lives right now is their pocketbook.
They're just being hammered, not just by their electric bills, but also their grocery bills and everything they buy.
We have a responsibility in this House to look out for the people back home rather than serve this special interest.
This Congress has been all about serving the special interests, and that includes the folks who really are pushing this bill.
It's not about critical minerals.
If it was, then it would actually be in the text of the bill.
But it's not.
It's about, again, giving a gift to political supporters, the polluters who are running the show and the agencies that have all too much influence here in the halls of Congress.
While electricity prices are up well over 13 percent and 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their electric bills, I say Americans deserve a whole lot better.
They deserve a whole lot better than what they're getting from this Congress.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat this sneaky little bill and let's get on to the debate about how we lower the cost of living and serve the people who sent us here.
That means that the remaining 12% came from hydroelectric or solar or wind.
What's interesting about this is they make it seem as though China is just dominating the world in renewable energy production.
That's approximately about the same amount of renewable energy production as the United States.
It doesn't sound like the model.
I also wanted to point out, because they keep talking about higher energy costs, the increase in energy costs has occurred in the states with the most stringent requirements for renewable energy.
California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut.
That's where energy costs have gone up the most.
That's where people are struggling the most to pay their energy bills.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak in support of H.R. 3617, introduced by my friend and colleague, the great representative from Michigan, Mr. James.
If the United States hasn't learned anything else from the war in Ukraine, it should be this.
This is a fundamental principle.
No nation, let alone America, should be reliant on adversarial nations for energy and refined materials, critical minerals, rare earth elements that would threaten our economy and threaten our national security.
But that's where we find ourselves and where we put ourselves in in terms of access to critical minerals, processed and refined critical minerals.
H.R. 3617 addresses this.
It's a crucial challenge facing the United States today.
How to decouple and de-risk ourselves from China and other foreign adversaries and build resilient, secure domestic energy and critical mineral supply chains.
Our country is blessed with an abundance of energy and critical mineral resources that are a linchpin to our economy.
They're a linchpin to our national security and a linchpin to the new and emerging energy technologies that we're trying to develop here.
Yet we're stuck under the thumb of Communist China who exerts their dominance over energy supply chains, critical mineral supply chains to undermine U.S. interests.
This is not a new issue, but one that's grown over the last several decades.
The United States used to be a leading producer and refiner of many critical minerals and rare earth elements.
We developed the technology to refine rare earth elements, to produce magnets that are critical in our economy and to our national security.
By the late 1990s, most of that industry, especially refining, went overseas.
This trend has led us to where we are today.
The United States is now almost 100 percent import-reliant on a dozen critical minerals and heavily reliant on imports for more than half of all critical minerals.
The challenge we face today is exacerbated by burdensome permitting processes and regulations, uncertainty in commodity pricing, and market manipulation by Communist China.
A few years ago, I launched the Western Hemisphere Prosperity and Security Alliance as a soft power alternative to China.
The Western Hemisphere Prosperity and Security Alliance could help us shed our dependence on Communist China when it comes to these critical resources.
H.R. 3617 directs the Secretary of Energy to coordinate with industry and relevant stakeholders to identify ways to diversify domestic critical energy resources and supply chains.
As part of that assessment, the DOE Secretary will assess how federal regulations may be affecting domestic production of critical energy resources and minerals and how adversarial nations seek to exploit those markets to undermine investment in the United States.
Solving this issue is paramount, and we must address it before we are too late.
Critical minerals and the supply chains are vital.
We cannot allow the prosperity of future generations to be dictated by adversarial nations.
I urge my colleagues to keep America at the forefront of the next generation's economy and support H.R. 3617.
America has become unaffordable for so many Americans, and many families, if not most families, are now struggling to pay their bills, including their electric bills.
Congress should be focused entirely on lowering costs.
The bill does not do that, unfortunately, and it's not about securing critical minerals.
It gives the Department of Energy broad, open-ended authority that this administration has already used to roll back environmental protections, cancel energy projects, and drive costs up.
The bill would be a win for coal and natural gas, not American ratepayers.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
If the House rules permitted, I would have offered that motion with an important amendment.
My amendment is straightforward.
The bill would not take effect until at least the Secretary of Energy certifies that the tariffs imposed after January 20th are not increasing costs and not disrupting the supply chain for critical minerals, while unfortunately they, of course, are doing both those things.
I ask for unanimous consent to insert into the text of this amendment, the text of this amendment, into the record.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, and I yield back.
Instead of trying to score political points, the Democrats should support our efforts to address supply chain vulnerabilities that communist China actively exploits to the detriment of these American people that we serve.
Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is for the Department of Energy to take a holistic view of resources that are critical to the economic as well as the national security of the United States, regardless of the application.
Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes DOE's overarching responsibility for security of the supply chains of the energy sector.
When the Department of Energy was organized in 1977, energy security was a core concern as a result of the oil crisis in the 70s.
I was a teenager back then.
I remember waiting in lines to get gasoline.
Now we face similar threats amidst the development of next generation industries like AI and as well as advanced manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, after decades of degrowth policies that drove energy production and refining abroad, our adversaries have exploited vulnerabilities and left American families susceptible to actions from places like Communist China.
We've already seen Communist China take steps to limit exports of minerals such as antimony that are essential to defense manufacturing for things like, I don't know, how about radar systems?
Energy and commerce Republicans are focused on all critical energy resources, and yes, including critical minerals.
Similarly, the Trump administration has announced substantial funding opportunities for critical mineral development touching every part of the supply chain, including mapping, mining, refining, and even recycling.
This bill mirrors the administration's momentum on critical mineral policy and will further focus the Department of Energy on developing that very sector.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3617.
I think it's important to provide a little perspective here.
At a time when Americans are struggling to afford their electricity bills, we're wasting floor time debating a bill that will not even meaningfully improve our critical mineral supply chains.
In fact, this bill is just a retread from last Congress.
That's right.
The Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act, so-called, was included in House Republicans' Polluters Over People Act last Congress.
And that was a bill that sold the American people out to corporate polluters.
And here we are again debating the same old bill because Republicans have no new ideas.
H.R. 3617 is merely a distraction from the fact that they have no real plans to address issues that are important to Americans, like their increasingly unaffordable electricity bills.
My Republican colleagues need to start taking the affordability crisis facing the American people seriously.
80 million Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills.
Electricity prices are rising more than twice as fast as inflation across the country.
Families are having to choose between paying for housing, medicine, food, or keeping their lights on.
And it's just unacceptable.
As elected officials, we have a responsibility to address this issue.
We must address this because hardworking Americans are in desperate need of relief.
Yet, to President Trump and his Republican accomplices, the affordability crisis is just a made-up scam.
That's what the President says.
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating.
Republicans' big ugly bill will raise electricity prices by a staggering 61 percent, and the American people are hurting because of President Trump's policies.
We should be focused on advancing bipartisan legislation to end this affordability crisis, not a bill that seeks to provide additional support for the fossil fuel industry under the guise of supporting critical minerals.
Republicans would rather spend precious floor time on a bill to support their fossil fuel friends instead of supporting the American people.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time and I urge opposition to the legislation.
You know, Mr. Speaker, in closing, H.R. 3617 is important.
You can't make this stuff up what they're saying across the aisle.
But listen, H.R. 3617 is important to securing our critical energy resource supply chains and limiting our dependence on foreign adversaries like we've been talking about, communist Red China.
This bill takes a holistic approach, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring vulnerable supply chains impacting every absolutely single corner of the United States energy sector are addressed by the Department of Energy, and its passage is vital to their success.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3016 and vote yes.
A bill to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the supply of critical energy resources, including critical minerals and other materials, and for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House, February 10, 2026, I call up House Joint Resolution 72 and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Pursuant to order of the House of February 10th, 2026, the joint resolution is considered as read.
The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mass, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
We're about to have a debate, apparently, for about an hour, and we're going to have that debate for one reason and one reason alone.
Democrats in the House and in the Senate as well, they refuse to recognize that there is a crisis because of fentanyl entering the United States of America on our northern border, on our southern border, through the Caribbean, other places.
They refuse to recognize that threat anywhere.
But specific to debate today, they would like to end an executive order relating to the crisis of fentanyl coming across our northern border.
Democrats don't recognize that there is a crisis, that it's killing thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, each and every year.
And they're trying to literally end that executive order that identifies the national emergency, an emergency that is literally agreed upon by our northern neighbor, Canada.
Even Canada acknowledges that they have this as a national emergency.
In that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Well, I think I've heard that story before that it's all about drugs.
If I don't recall correctly, the former president of Honduras, he probably put more drugs in the United States than Canada has combined.
But the President of the United States didn't say that was an emergency.
He pardoned them.
I heard it before.
It's all about drugs.
That was the case.
What is the case, what is the fact is that in the last year, tariffs has cost American families nearly $1,700.
And that cost is expected to increase in 2026.
That's the case.
And since these tariffs were imposed, U.S. exports to Canada have fallen by more than 21%.
When I go home, my constituents aren't telling me that they have an extra $1,700 to spare.
They're asking me to lower grocery prices, lower the price of health care, and make life more affordable.
That's what this is about.
It's about the American people and making things affordable for them.
So, today's vote is simple.
Very simple.
Will you vote to lower the cost of living for the American families?
Or will you keep prices high out of loyalty to one person, Donald J. Trump?
That's what this vote is.
That's why we pressed for this vote today.
That's why a day is a day.
And we finally get our chance to have the members of the House vote their conscience.
Do they vote for the president and his ways?
Or do they vote for their people, their constituencies?
So let's be clear about this so-called emergency Donald Trump declared on Canada and so many other countries where no emergency exists.
You know, for over 50 years, emergency authorities have been declared, let's see, what have they been?
Civil wars?
Yes.
Pandemics?
I think that's an emergency.
Massive human rights crises?
That could be an emergency.
But none of those things is Canada.
Canada isn't a threat.
Canada is our friend.
Canada is our ally.
Canadians have fought alongside Americans, whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan, where 165 Canadians gave their lives after our country were attacked.
There is no national emergency.
There is no national security threat underpinning these threats.
In an interview just last night, Donald J. Trump admitted he placed tariffs on Switzerland.
Why?
I'll tell you why, simply because he didn't like the way its leaders spoke to him.
So he put tariffs on Switzerland.
That's not a strategy.
That's impulse.
That's a person who's just trying to say that he's a king.
And guess what?
For that impulse, who's going to pay the price for it?
Who's going to pay the price for that impulse?
I'll tell you who.
It's the American people.
Your morning coffee, your kids' chocolate, life-saving medical devices.
Guess what?
Those are the Canadian goods that are being hit by 35% tariffs.
Americans are paying more for health care and their daily essentials during an affordability crisis.
Why?
Because of a manufactured emergency and one person's ego.
And the damage doesn't stop there.
American products.
What about them?
Well, guess what?
They are being boycotted across Canada.
Now, don't believe me.
Just look at the president's social media post from just two days ago where he said, quote, Ontario won't even put the U.S. spirits, beverages, or other alcoholic products on their shelves.
Tourism from Canada is down 30%.
People in the hospitality industry, Las Vegas, my home state of New York, Chairman's home state of Florida, are losing their jobs because Canadians do not want to come to the United States of America.
And what are the American people getting in return?
I'll tell you what they're getting.
Higher electricity costs than one of the coldest winters in modern history.
Tell you what else they're getting.
Higher food prices, higher costs for industrial goods and health care.
Tariffs are bad for American workers, bad for businesses, bad for working families.
And instead of addressing the affordability crises, which the president has called a hoax, Republicans have spent a year blocking this vote to protect Donald Trump rather than doing the job to help the American people and what the American people did send us here to do to lower costs.
Mr. Speaker, there's a lot to correct from that diatribe that I just heard.
And so I'm going to start to go through some of that.
Number one, who will pay the price?
That was a question begged by my colleague.
Who will pay the price?
And it's a very sad thing to have asked by this colleague of mine.
Can I see that board here?
Because it's important to remember what is this resolution?
This resolution ends an emergency related to fentanyl.
The gentleman over here, 5,000 people a year die in his state alone from fentanyl.
So if he wants to beg the question of who's going to pay the price of him trying to end an emergency that actually for the first time has Canada dealing with fentanyl because of the pressure being put on them, who's going to pay the price?
It's going to be 5,000 more of his state's residents.
That's who's going to pay the price.
I think he mentioned as well the gentleman next to me, when he goes home, this is what he sees when he goes home.
When he goes home each and every year because they don't want to address fentanyl, they're going to see 5,000 less faces because they don't want to deal with fentanyl.
He said it himself.
I see no emergency.
The so-called emergency were the exact words that were used.
The so-called emergency.
There is no emergency that exists, to quote my colleague.
If 5,000 people were dying in my state every single year from one thing and one thing alone, I think that's an emergency.
And his people are going to pay the price.
So let's be clear again about what this resolution is and what it's not.
It's not a debate about tariffs.
You can talk about those, but that's not really what it is.
This is Democrats trying to ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis.
Again, they just ignored it.
They just literally said it doesn't exist.
I will read again directly from the bill.
The national emergency declared by President Trump February 1, 2025 in Executive Order 14193 is hereby terminated.
That is their language.
They are terminating the executive order, and it is an EO on the fentanyl crisis at the northern border.
It matters to talk about that it's the northern border.
Why?
Because my Democrat colleagues don't believe there's a crisis there.
But my Democrat colleagues, they don't believe there's a fentanyl crisis under any circumstance, any fentanyl that flows into the country.
They don't see any of it as a national emergency.
We've yet to find a place where they say drugs are a national emergency.
They made it clear that there's not one single circumstance where they see the deaths of millions of Americans due to fentanyl as a crisis.
They don't see that anywhere.
So let's look again at my colleague's own state.
Last report.
This is reports.
Almost 5,000 deaths.
Just under that.
Or we can talk about the largest fentanyl lab found in Canada.
Where was that found in Canada that was recently shut down because of the pressure President Trump is putting on Canada?
30 miles from the New York border.
They didn't close it down two years ago, three years ago.
Why not?
Because they didn't, Canada, they didn't have the pressure put on them to do so.
That's not a coincidence.
But again, you know who's going to pay the price for taking the pressure off Canada?
It's going to be the constituents of my colleague, where 5,000 people die a year from fentanyl overdose.
If I were him, I would think that's a pretty big emergency.
I lost 2,500 brothers and sisters in Afghanistan over the course of 20 years.
Our country took that extremely seriously for every single one of them.
Mr. Meeks, his state is losing double that from fentanyl every single year.
And he says, I see no emergency.
That's sad for the people of New York.
The administration is doing everything that they can to defeat fentanyl, while my Democrat colleagues are willing to do everything that they can to have those deaths continue.
They don't support striking drug boats.
We know that much.
They don't support removing cartel leaders.
We know that.
And apparently, they don't support tariffing a country that acknowledges they have a drug trafficking crisis, but they weren't doing anything to fix it.
So I'm going to suspect that my colleague over here doesn't know this as well.
Last year, Justin Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, himself addressed the fentanyl problem and said it needed to be eradicated.
That's the Prime Minister of Canada, former Prime Minister.
It was so bad that Canada created a fentanyl czar who admitted they underestimated.
I'm quoting now.
Canada underestimated the toll of the fentanyl crisis and what it had taken.
And they called it, literally, again to quote the Canada fentanyl czar, a national security threat.
So the northern border for whom this emergency exists is acknowledging there's an emergency, a national security threat.
But my colleagues, I guess they think they know better.
Or take the Chinese-run fentanyl lab that I mentioned being shut down, one of them being shut down of many.
Over 800 pounds of fentanyl confiscated.
Why is it being shut down now and not before?
It is being shut down now because the administration had the stones to put economic pressure on them.
But my colleagues, they want to take that pressure off because they don't worry about their people dying in their state.
It's simple.
Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you care about the U.S. government responding to millions of Americans killed by fentanyl, this is the policy that addresses that.
And even our northern partner acknowledges that.
The truth is, Canada hasn't wanted to put effort into cracking down on drugs.
They didn't want to close the Chinese fentanyl labs.
They didn't want to increase their spending on border patrols.
But they have to do it because President Trump is putting pressure on them.
Tariffs get more attention than strongly worded letters.
And millions of Americans' lives are being saved because President Trump has declared this national emergency and is actively forcing our neighbors like Canada to act.
It is saving lives.
My colleague wants to make sure that that no longer happens because he doesn't see an emergency, even though 5,000 people from his state dying every single year.
Mr. Speaker, we've had some time from the last time we were on this floor.
And if we're so serious about drugs, I had asked the chairman previously why would the President of the United States pardon one of the biggest drug dealers killing Americans, Juan Orlando Hernandez.
Last time he said he hadn't spoken to the president.
He doesn't know why.
Well, if he's so interested in stopping drugs, maybe he could have and should have had a conversation.
Let me just tell you something.
The drugs, how much drugs are coming in from Canada?
Because that's what this is about.
And as a former special narcotics prosecutor, that's me.
I know a little bit about that.
And saying that you're going to focus and stop certain things coming across the border of Canada as if it's coming close in a cluster, like it is an emergency, is just an out-and-out lie.
Fact of the matter is, if you look at the federal prosecution, and this just came out not too long ago for narcotics in the United States of America, it was just came out that under the Trump administration, that federal drug prosecutions fall to the lowest level in decades.
And it talked about the federal drug prosecution dropped 10% in 2025 as agents changed their focus to immigration, that the number of new cases being filed is the lowest in decades, according to Evuta's analysis, and high-priority drug investigations have stalled since Donald Trump took office.
So it doesn't sound like the President of the United States is really concerned about drug prosecution.
And with that, it is my honor and my privilege to yield one minute and 30 seconds to an individual who really knows about taxes and tariffs, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Richard Neal.
And just note for the record, again, ample opportunities have been given for my colleague who represents New York to just say 5,000 fentanyl-related deaths in New York is an emergency.
Silence.
Crickets.
No response.
Because the death of 5,000 of his statesmen apparently means nothing to him.
I yield my time to as much time as may be needed to Mr. Issa.
It kills thousands in Canada and thousands in Mexico.
And those numbers are staggering.
But those numbers are a small part of the tragedy to families.
For every fentanyl in our countries, there are families who are suffering.
For every fentanyl death, there's somebody that goes to the hospital multiple times.
For every fentanyl death, there's three or four people who are living homeless, drug-addicted, and their families are suffering.
For every death, there is, in fact, a broken relationship somewhere.
That's not 100,000 in America.
That's millions in America.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know of an American that you talk to about fentanyl that won't tell you that they know someone whose family, their health, their child has been destroyed by fentanyl, many of them being destroyed as we speak.
There's about 1,900 miles of Mexican border between us and the United States and Mexico.
I represent about 80 of those miles right there outside of San Diego.
I've seen the border closed as best it possibly could in an amazing way.
I've seen submarines still coming in the Pacific to try to circumvent it.
I know we will never get to zero.
All the President has asked Canada to do is show the kind of effort they can afford as a First World country.
And that effort should be far greater at all of their borders than Mexico, who is a relatively poor country.
That effort should be shown.
And if it's shown, the President's made it clear these tariffs will immediately go away.
So this isn't a tariff that is just because you don't like someone.
It's a tariff that says this behavior, this leverage is being used for one purpose, to get you to live up to a standard that is in your own best interest.
And by the way, the 5,500 miles of land border between the U.S. and Canada is our longest by far.
The thousands of miles of sea border that Canada needs to also patrol is huge.
And this president stands with Canada to help them do it, to help in technical ways and every other way.
But we cannot allow millions of Americans and countless other Canadians and Mexicans to continue to suffer without us having the real empathy to do something about it.
The chairman said, what about the 5,000?
And we got this answer, well, how do you know that they came from Canada?
I'm sorry, but every time we have a major bust on the Mexican border, my agents tell me that we're getting maybe 10%, maybe 20% in certain areas.
We're never getting 80 or 90%.
So the reality is that those are indications of a small amount of what is getting in through Buffalo and other borders into the United States.
Now, although the gentleman from New York is from a fairly populous country or state, he is not from a state without a large rural border, one that you can simply walk across with impunity normally, that has been used to smuggle drugs successfully.
So the point I make here today, and I thank the chairman for the time, is every life matters.
And if the President of the United States cares about his 5,000 or 500 or 50 or 1 enough to use the power of the executive office to get the right thing out of our neighbors to the north and the south, then I want to stand with him.
And I would never take away a tool being used to, in fact, save even one life, much less hundreds of thousands of lives and millions of families.
Mr. Speaker, you know, Canada plays virtually no role in the United States fentanyl influx, especially compared to other countries targeted by the Trump administration.
Canada contributes less than 1% to its southern neighbor's border of street fentanyl.
Less than 1%.
Not according to me, because I don't know where he gets his facts, but that's according to the DEA, as well as the Canadian government.
1%.
And I would wonder, we do a lot of trade with Canada.
And in Florida's 21st district, the chairman's district, exports to Canada supports 1,650 jobs.
Many of them will begin to lose their jobs because this is about affordability.
This is about job creation and the economy.
I wonder what he's going to say to those 1,650 people in Florida's 21st district.
And now I'll proudly yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from California, member of the Ways and Means Committee, the Honorable Linda Sanchez.
Gentleman from California is recognized for two minutes.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in support of this resolution rejecting President Trump's illegal tariffs on Canada, our friend, our neighbor, and our ally.
The truth of the matter is the arguments on the other side of the aisle are to distract.
The vast majority of fentanyl that comes into the United States comes from China and comes in via boats in our ports of entry.
They want to distract to take away from the real issue, which is that the Constitution is very clear.
The power to levy tariffs and regulate trade belongs to the Congress, not to the President.
And yet too many in this body are willing to give up that authority because President Trump demands blind loyalty from them.
The fact is, we already have a trade agreement with Canada.
President Trump negotiated it, and this body ratified it.
And there is a lawful review process that goes into effect next year to find ways to improve it.
That is how responsible governments handle trade disputes by following the law, not through weird social media tantrums about bridges and hockey trophies, or through childish threats to annex a sovereign nation and make it the 51st state.
His daily barrage against Canada does not make him look tough.
It's certainly not strategic.
It's just reckless and frankly, it's bizarre.
But we're now seeing the consequences of allowing the president's unhinged behavior to go unchecked.
American families, small businesses, and farmers are paying the price for these endless trade wars.
Trump's tariff tantrums have cost households more than $1,600 a year in higher prices.
Families in the United States are paying more for groceries, cars, housing, utilities, the basic necessities.
What about the deaths from families that are struggling from food insecurity?
Do those not matter?
And it's pushing our allies closer to our adversaries.
Last month, Canada announced it was lowering its 100 percent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.
Those tariffs were imposed in coordination with the United States during the leadership of the Biden administration.
That cooperation strengthened our position against China.
And now, because of this administration's chaotic trade policies, that progress is unraveling.
Rather than target the real bad actors, the president is picking fights with our friends.
And instead of standing up for their constituents and defending Congress's constitutional authority over trade, most Republicans in this chamber are surrendering it to the president, choosing blind allegiance to him over the people that they are supposed to represent.
I commend the few Republicans who have the courage to break with the president and join with Democrats to force this vote.
Reasserting our constitutional authority over trade should never have been a partisan issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Let's resort sanity and stability to our American trade policy.
And I would let my colleague know that just one, because he said Canada plays almost no role in fentanyl deaths.
One 70-pound bust of fentanyl alone was enough to kill every single person in New York City.
But again, my colleague is unwilling to acknowledge that this is about fentanyl, because that's literally what the executive order says, and unwilling to acknowledge that 5,000 deaths in his state is an emergency, certainly in one year.
I'm happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the chair of the budget committee, Mr. Arrington.
I think my friend, the gentleman from Florida, today on this floor, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats fought Republicans to require a voter ID to protect the integrity of our elections, the cornerstone of our Democratic Republic.
Now, they stand here today on the floor of the People's House fighting the President in his effort to protect the lives of the American people against what is the most imminent threat and the number one cause of accidental deaths and drug overdoses.
We know where their drugs are coming, pouring into our country and our communities, killing our friends, killing our families.
I can't think of a greater security concern than this.
The president, by the way, has effectively and appropriately promoted and defended America's economic and security interest by the use of tariffs.
Today, Mr. Speaker, as a result, we have a lower trade deficit than we've had since 2009.
By the way, the top 20 economies in the world that we do business with had twice the tariffs on our products, three times the tariffs when you measure agriculture products, and the deficit is going down, quadruple revenue to strengthen America's balance sheet, pay down the tax on our children, which is the deficit, gone from 6.3 percent to 5.9, and exports are at an all-time high.
Now, what's the issue here?
It's not about 301 unfair trade practices, although there are plenty of grievances against our northern neighbor in that regard.
This isn't about USMCA.
The USMCA products flowing from Canada to the United States are exempt.
85% of the products, we're not talking about that.
It's not about 232.
This is about one particular authority that this Congress empowered our Commander-in-Chief with to deal with unusual threats outside of the U.S. that would impact our national security, our foreign policy, and our economy.
Now, I can't think of anything more unusual.
And I can't think of a bigger threat than a chemical warfare waged against the United States of America.
And any president worth his soul, any commander-in-chief, would be derelict in their duty if they didn't use every tool at their disposal to stop it.
And for my president to expect our neighbor from the north to have the same vigilance and the same urgency as he has because of the American people's mandate to stop this madness and protect our children.
God bless him.
God bless him.
And for my colleagues to run to the floor, to raise their hands and to scream afoul that this president is somehow using tariffs in a way that has nothing to do with our interests.
To talk about food security, we could go down the list.
We wouldn't have food insecurity if we didn't have a cost of living crisis where the fuse was lit by unbridled spending.
We could go down the list.
And yes, we're doing something about that.
We're bringing interest rates down.
We're bringing real wages up.
And we're also preserving food stamps so they're not being defrauded or being spent on people here illegally.
So I would love to keep debating all day long, Mr. Chairman.
You know, the talk time is soon over because what I'm hearing from the other side, basically what this is about is the American people having a chance to see where their members are.
Whether they want to, they will judge ultimately, believe that this is an emergency From what they hear and know of the president, or whether they're concerned about their cost of living, whether they're concerned about that hot chocolate, whether they're concerned about that coffee, whether they're concerned about life-saving medical devices.
And what this will do, which has been blocked for almost a year, is simply to have a vote on the House floor so the American people can see.
Because then ultimately, we will know which way is the right way for them.
We're here to represent the United States of American citizens, not a president.
And we soon, and that's what's going to happen, a vote, which is what I've been asking for for over a year.
If you think this is an emergency, if you believe the president, you're going to vote that way.
But if you think this is going to be accountable to the American people, if you think that the American people will say that the cost of living, the cost of electricity, the cost of food, every day that they go to the market is of concern to them, they will be watching how you vote on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose President Trump's disastrous tariffs and shine a light on the real harm they're causing families and businesses in my district.
My district is home to some of the best wineries in the world, and Canada is our single largest foreign market.
But after Trump imposed his tariffs, Canada responded with their own tariffs that lasted for months.
Many Canadians continue to boycott our products, all while our growers and producers pay the price.
They're facing higher costs, shrinking export opportunities, and real economic pain for real families.
In October, wine sales to Canada were down 84 percent when compared to last year.
If we fail to act, this Congress will be complicit in enabling President Trump to destroy the hard-fought relationships my community has brokered.
Wineries in my district built their relationships across the border over decades, and in one day, President Trump destroyed them.
These tariffs hurt American farmers and American consumers alike.
We must act and protect the American people from the volatile whims of a petulant president.
One thing that I will say, yeah, the economy is booming.
If you're a billionaire, the economy is booming.
But when I go home and I talk to my constituents, what they tell me is that the price of beef has risen 16.4% over the last year.
The price of coffee is up a whopping 19.8%.
The price of lettuce is up 7.3%.
Frozen fish is up 8.6%.
So for them, it's not booming.
And as I said, this is just about a vote.
Just about a vote.
I wish we could have had this vote a year ago.
If, in fact, they believe this is a real emergency, I don't know why it was held up for a year and tried to be prevented again.
It's a vote.
Let the American people know where you stand.
They will see it with your vote.
Do you stand with them trying to fix the affordability crises?
Or do you stand with Donald Trump and my Republican colleagues who's just taking care of those that the economy is booming for, the billionaires of our country?
I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative Seth McNzina.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump's tariffs are raising costs on working people.
And just like everything else that Donald Trump does, his tariffs are all about helping himself and his rich friends at the expense of everyday people.
The big tech companies and the big oil companies have been donating millions of dollars to Trump's ballroom and lavishing him with gifts like a golden iPhone.
And wouldn't you know it, he exempted them from the tariffs.
But who is not exempt?
The small businesses, the farmers, the restaurants, the small manufacturers who can't afford to go to Mar-a-Lago to ask for special deals.
The builders who are paying thousands of dollars more for materials to buy new homes and everyday people who are stuck with higher costs working themselves to the bone who can't keep up with their bills.
You see, in Donald Trump's America, the rich and connected are always taken care of and everyone else struggles.
And for what?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report that came out today, we lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs last year.
End these tariffs, stop this madness, lower costs for working people.
I rise today in opposition to this resolution, which would terminate the President's national emergency in response to the flow of fentanyl across the northern border.
As an Arizonan, I'm all too familiar with the destruction these weaponized opioids have caused.
I fully support President Trump's mission to rid our nation of this poison.
Under the previous administration, fentanyl claimed the lives of approximately 73,000 Americans per year and became the leading cause of death among those aged 18 to 45.
President Trump was elected in part to confront this catastrophic crisis.
Fentanyl affects constituents of every member of this body, regardless of political affiliation.
As someone who has met with individuals devastated by this deadly substance, maintaining our momentum to stop the fentanyl must remain a top priority.
Over the past year, the Trump administration urged Canada to work in coordination with our law enforcement partners to help stem the flow of dangerous narcotics.
Unfortunately, our neighbors to the north have failed to adequately respond, prompting the administration to use leverage to bring them to the table.
Now Democrats are on the House floor attempting to end the President's declaration, which would undermine efforts to prevent fentanyl-related deaths.
It would be very unwise to tie the President's hands and remove this critical tool during an ongoing public health and national security crisis.
I'm grateful for the leadership of Chairman Mast, and I applaud the administration's commitment to preventing addiction and overdoses.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of HJ Res 72, the resolution to terminate President Trump's tariffs on Canada.
Families in San Antonio and across this country are already struggling with the rising cost of living.
The price of everything is going up.
Groceries, housing, childcare, rent.
When you go to the grocery store, beef prices are up 16%.
Coffee is up nearly 20%.
Instead of lowering costs, the President imposed tariffs on Canada, which is nothing more than a tax on American families, and started a trade war with one of our closest allies.
Those tariffs don't just hurt American families.
They threaten jobs in places like my hometown of San Antonio.
Nearly half, 48% of San Antonio's exports go to Canada, the highest share of any major city in the country.
Our economy is deeply tied to North American supply chains.
Thousands of San Antonians work in aerospace, automotive manufacturing, energy machinery, semiconductors, and medical devices, exactly the high-paying industries we want to be growing here in the United States.
These companies chose San Antonio because we're highly integrated into trade networks with Canada and Mexico.
When tariffs go up, local businesses pay the price.
When Canada retaliates, it becomes harder for our workers to sell their products abroad.
This trade war is making life more expensive, creating uncertainty, and putting good jobs at risk, all while the world continues to move around us.
Congress has constitutional authority over tariffs.
We must use it here and now.
Let's lower costs for American families, protect jobs in San Antonio and across America, and end this reckless trade war.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back.
Americans across the country agree the unmitigated flow of fentanyl under the Biden administration now constitutes an emergency.
Let's discuss some facts.
In 2023 alone, this crisis contributed to the deaths of 70,000 Americans.
Just one year, 2023, a number that only worsened the following year when the amount of fentanyl that crossed our border with Canada was actually enough to kill 9.5 million people, given that potential.
Given this context, it is no surprise that between 2024 and 2025, under President Trump, fentanyl seizures at the northern border nearly doubled.
As the supply of fentanyl is so tied to trade through the movement of precursor chemicals, the President has utilized trade policy to spur progress.
While today's resolution is meant to debate the merits of the emergency created by the flow of fentanyl, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will use this as a venue to debate trade policy.
I've been watching.
I certainly welcome my Democrats' interest, a relatively new interest in the trade policy following what I would say was four years of neglect on trade policy under President Biden.
However, if we're serious about engaging in real reform, I believe that my colleagues would not just resort to political maneuvers.
I'm not a fan of tariffs.
That's no secret.
I am in favor, however, of robust engagement with our trade partners.
Let me be very clear.
In trade, there is no stagnation.
If we are not gaining ground, I think we're losing ground, and data would show that.
And during the Biden administration, the President and this body were way too passive on our trade agenda.
Right now, President Trump obviously is taking a new aggressive approach in order to level the playing field and address supply chains that have put Americans at risk.
Beyond the gains made in addressing the fentanyl crisis and outside of the scope of this emergency, the President's engagement has led to significant gains for fairness throughout the global trading system.
While Canada is one of our most important allies and trading partners and a friend, there have been a number of irritants in our economic relationship.
Under President Trump's leadership, we have seen this change most recently when Canada removed its discriminatory digital services tax.
These productive, and I will say, oftentimes uncomfortable, conversations must continue, though, as we strengthen and extend USMCA during this 2026 joint review.
The President has at every turn reaffirmed his commitment to use tariffs as the means to drive these conversations, and Congress has delegated a number of tariff authorities to the executive.
While we are ultimately debating the merits of the emergency, let me be clear, this approach will not change the President's tariff strategy, just the conditions.
This body works best when engaging with the full context of the policy environment.
As we await the Supreme Court's decision on whether tariffs lie within the authority of IEPA, today's politically motivated vote, I believe, is premature.
If my colleagues have full confidence there is no risk of fentanyl imports at the northern border, then they have more faith than I do.
But if this resolution is instead driven by a newfound tariff skepticism, I urge them to allow the Supreme Court to first make its decision.
To overlook the very basis of the emergency in the hopes of removing tariffs for which the President has other authorities to pursue only increases uncertainty in the short term.
With that, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution.
President Trump's repeated bullying of Canada and its eloquent Prime Minister Kearney is both embarrassing and alarming.
Our country could not have a better neighbor or trading partner than Canada.
Declaring emergencies where none exist, Trump delights in these executive decrees for tariffs.
He can act like a king, and he's enabled to be a king-like figure on this issue by his Republican enablers, even though it's costing American families thousands of dollars.
76,000 American manufacturing jobs lost amidst Trump chaos.
Small businesses losing out if they don't have a lobbyist who can go to Mar-a-Lago and bargain with Trump.
This vote is about affirming no king, no rule by decree from the president when he has no authority to do this, and recognizing that our Constitution places responsibility for trade and tariffs where it should be right here in this Congress.
Ranking Member Meeks, thanks for your great leadership on this critical issue.
It's time to end Trump's illegal tariffs on Canada, his tariffs on the United States' biggest trading partner, Mexico, and the so-called Liberation Day tariff.
Congress has the power of the purse, not the president.
It's time that we take our power back from an executive who is out of control.
Trump's tariffs have been a massive tax on the American people, costing an average household $1,000 per household just in the last year.
These tariffs have led to slower job growth, a declining manufacturing industry, less investment.
They've hurt our farmers, increased food costs, and these tariffs have inflicted real damage on our relationship with Canada.
Canada isn't just our neighbor.
It's historically been one of our strongest military allies and biggest trading partners.
Trump's constant insults, threats, and these punishing tariffs have turned one of our best friends away from us and towards the People's Republic of China.
Enough is enough.
It is time that we end this.
I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, send Trump a clear message that he can't unilaterally wage a trade war against one of our strongest allies and biggest trading partners.
Because Trump's tariffs are unpopular, and the majority of Americans know it.
And the majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to be on a record.
Well, we're going to be on a record.
We know that more than 60% of Americans disapprove of these tariffs.
They know that the foreign governments don't pay these tariffs.
They know that American families do.
The farmers feel it.
Small businesses feel it.
Moms and dads feel it every time that they see the prices at the grocery store.
So what this is, is, you know, we can go back and forth, but the American people are watching.
They're the ultimate judges.
They can see, they can hear.
They know our friends.
They know how Canada and Canadians are friendly to us in the United States of America.
Closest partners.
Many Canadians given their lives for us.
So the American people can watch.
And what this simply does, this resolution, we'll see.
If you think that there's a crisis with Canada, then vote.
Silk, the Constitution says it is the House of Representatives in the United States Congress.
It is within our authority.
Don't punt.
Don't just hide behind somebody else.
That's what this will do.
If you believe that this is an emergency, vote that way, if that's what you really believe.
But if you go to the grocery stores, if you see the price of beef, if you look at the price of coffee, if you feel that the economy is suffering as a result of these tariffs, if you think the economy for the average everyday American is as good as those billionaire friends that the president has, then you vote with the president.
Give up, but don't give up your authority as a member of this House to vote.
So the first fight here was the power to vote on this issue, which was blocked for one year.
I choose not to give up that power.
Whether I agree or disagree, I want to vote on it.
That was prevented for over a year.
Today, we will vote on it.
And I want to thank some of my colleagues on the other side who have had the courage to stand up and say, let's vote.
Let's vote on this and let the American people know how we stand.
Let's vote on this to see if we believe that tariffs cause an affordability issue.
Let's vote on this if we believe that Canada is not our friend.
If Canada is an adversary and you feel that they, you know, we should block a bridge like the president's talking about now, a bridge that Canadians paid for right across, block it, make them the 51st Street, insult them.
If that's what you want to do, do it.
But if you want to stand and bring down prices, if you want the average everyday American to be able to raise their children and live an American dream, if you want to make sure that families can afford to pay their rent, can afford to buy food, can afford to have health care,
They ultimately will tell us what is in their best interest.
I have confidence in the American people.
That's why I wanted to vote on this bill.
I didn't want to play the funny rules that were being played and was attempted to play last night.
And unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side did not want to play that game anymore either.
So those rules and those games that was played to prevent a vote on the floor of the United States Congress are over.
That's what this is about.
So the American people can see what we stand for.
Do we stand for just going blindly with the President of the United States?
Or do we stand for the American people and making sure that their cost of living is cheaper and affordable so they can simply send their kids to school and be able to put a good meal on the table and a roof over the heads of their families?
Mr. Speaker, I'm the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
My colleague over here is the ranking member, the top Democrat.
It is important that when we use our voice, when we speak, we speak accurately.
Number one, they refuse to speak about the fact that this bill is about ending an emergency relating to a fentanyl crisis.
And number two, every single item that they like to talk about about tariffs in Canada are literally items that are exempt from tariffs in Canada.
It's very important, certainly as one of 435 in the House of Representatives, that you know what you're talking about.
It is especially important as the number two person in the Foreign Affairs Committee that you know what you're talking about when you talk about tariffs.
There are not Canada beef tariffs, not Canada potash tariffs or dairy or food or grain or fertilizer tariffs, and the list goes on and on.
They mentioned coffee, I don't know how many times.
The only thing that there are tariffs on are things that are coming in from third-party countries into Canada and then coming into the United States of America.
But if it's grown in Canada, there's not a tariff on it.
It's very important that my colleagues know that and recognize that and speak accurately in the positions that they're in.
But I want to go back to what this is about.
My colleagues say there's no emergency.
In fact, to quote my colleague, Mr. Meeks, if you think there is a crisis, if you think this is an emergency, then vote.
I think the only person on that side that might be able to change the mind of Democrats is my colleague, Mr. Meeks, who is again unwilling to acknowledge that the death of 5,000 people in his state from fentanyl alone in one year is an emergency.
Unwilling to acknowledge it.
So I'm going to take the remainder of my time here, about a minute.
I'm going to give my colleague the opportunity, one last minute, to correct the record for his New Yorkers and say, the American people are the judges.
A bill to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring random authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a National Marine Sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a federal or state agency.
unidentified
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources printed in the bill is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided, and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman, will control 30 minutes.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 261.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 261, sponsored by Congressman Buddy Carter of Georgia.
Undersea cables play a crucial role in the global economy.
These cables are roughly one to two inches in diameter, yet they crisscross the globe and carry approximately 95% of global internet traffic, facilitating trillions of dollars in global financial transaction.
The Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act as a condition to route these projects through a National Marine Sanctuary.
Undersea cables are and will continue to be subject to numerous environmental statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnus and Stevens Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
And these are just statues in the Committee on Natural Resources jurisdiction.
Many of these laws are implemented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.
We will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that this bill hinders NOAA's ability to conduct an environmental review of these projects.
That's simply not true.
What is true, however, is that the special use permit, which under current law only lasts five years, has caused the National Marine Sanctuaries to effectively become no-go zones for undersea cables.
This means reduced route diversity, consolidation of cable landing zones, and an increased threat to our national security.
Notably, this dynamic does not just cause stress on the physical infrastructure of these projects.
Many of us are aware of the stories from around the world of underseas cables being severed, with recent examples of this occurring in both Taiwan and the Baltic.
In the United States, as these cables have a limited number of landing areas, our adversaries would have the ability to cut off an increasing portion of communications, internet activity, and financial transactions by attacking just a few points.
Combine this looming threat with the increasing number of cables required in the coming years to keep pace with demand and their growing role as critical infrastructure in our daily lives and failure to support the continued development of these projects could pose a grave national security risk.
Removing the requirement for special use permit advances the objectives of House Republicans and the administration to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage American competitiveness, an objective that President Trump emphasized when he signed Executive Order 14267, reducing anti-competitive regulatory barriers.
Advancing this legislation will allow for the deployment of undersea cables while providing appropriate protection of our marine resources.
So I think we've figured out the rhythm, the prime directive here for Republican governance these days.
First, they slash the services that working families actually depend on, and then they turn around and hand the savings over to their billionaire friends.
They do it time and again: rents, lather, and repeat.
And so, what do we have on the floor this week?
You guessed it?
It is another corporate handout this time to the biggest tech oligarchs in the world.
These folks have shown that if you've got enough money, if you're willing to bend the knee, you can pretty much get anything you want these days under mega-Republican governance.
And so, every time we try to add protections and regulations to their platforms that would keep users and children safe, they stop it.
Every time we try to do something about the disinformation they allow to run rampant in order to appease the White House and cater to extremists, they stop it.
And now, they have schmoozed their way into getting Republicans to add another huge giveaway to this long favor list of theirs, millions of dollars in savings so that they can run cables through our national marine sanctuaries for free.
So, I have to ask: you know, what is the end game here?
Where does it stop?
Are we systematically privatizing every piece of America's natural heritage for the richest and most powerful corporations in the world?
Because that's exactly where H.R. 261 seems to be taking us.
It rigs the game so that, for example, family fishing operations, dive boat captains, whale watching guides, the other businesses that operate in marine sanctuaries have to navigate regulations.
They have to play by the rules and pay fees, but not the big tech oligarchs.
These conglomerates worth hundreds of billions of dollars get special treatment and exemptions.
Our National Marine Sanctuaries encompass over half a million square miles of America's most precious underwater ecosystems.
They are economic engines generating billions in tourism revenue, sustaining entire coastal economies.
They're living laboratories also, where families snorkel with sea turtles, divers explore historic shipwrecks, scientists unlock climate secrets.
But this legislation would let tech moguls bulldoze right through these waters with industrial-scale operations, massive drill rigs, heavy machinery, construction fleets, all without the environmental review that everyone else would have to undergo.
The sponsors insist that these undersea cables are just little needles in a haystack, and they'll probably hold up a little segment of one of these cables to try to suggest these are just needles in a haystack.
And it is true that the fiber optic lines themselves are thin, but the installation process is anything but delicate.
We are talking about seafloor excavation projects that can obliterate coral reefs and hurt marine mammals across vast swaths of the ocean.
And what could go wrong when these projects are happening on the seafloor?
Well, we can look at what Meta tried to do off of the Pacific Northwest Coast.
Their drilling operation collapsed, scattered pipes and toxic fluids and heavy equipment across the seafloor like an underwater junkyard.
And then the company just wrote a tiny check and left town.
Nowhere near the cost of the actual damage that was incurred.
And the marine habitat there is still trashed.
So look, my district is home to one of our nation's iconic marine sanctuaries.
I can say without hesitation that my constituents don't want to see these industrial activities rip through our sensitive kelp forests that support fisheries and tourism.
No project in these places should happen without very careful study, without mitigation, and most importantly, without paying their fair share.
And this bill would let tech executives treat these national treasures off our coast like some kind of an industrial sacrifice zone without even paying a cent for the use of these resources.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act is the only statute requiring compatibility with the conservation objectives of each sanctuary.
If you strip that away, as this bill would do, you have created a regulatory sacrifice zone.
And House Republicans can't even identify which licenses and permits would qualify in this bill in lieu of the special use permit process that would ordinarily apply.
Mr. Speaker, how can we look the American people in the eye and assure them that no environmental safeguards are going away when we don't even have that very basic information?
The truth is, for many in the majority, the details just don't matter.
Meta and Amazon is what matters, and they want this legislation.
The majority is willing to take it at face value.
Just pass this along, no questions asked, give the oligarchs what they want.
Democrats have proposed amendments to this legislation, common sense protections, a mandatory insurance coverage requirement, for example, off-limit zones for very sensitive habitats, standard user fees, like these oligarchs pay whenever they run one of these projects on land.
Our amendment would have allowed the basics of H.R. 261 to move forward, allowing an alternative process to the current special use permit while preserving some of these basic operational guardrails to ensure the protection of these very special and fragile places.
And the majority shot down every one of these proposals.
This is not about efficiency.
It's about preferential treatment for oligarchs like Meta and Amazon.
Now consider this.
When telecom companies want to access our national forests for one of these projects, they pay rent.
When they cross national parks, they pay fees.
But somehow marine sanctuaries are supposed to be free.
That's nothing more than a corporate giveaway and a terrible precedent that won't stop with our marine sanctuaries.
The sponsors wrap this handout in national security rhetoric.
We've already heard some of it from the chairman.
They claim that there is an urgent telecommunications crisis.
And it's important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that these are multi-billion dollar projects spanning years and thousands of miles.
They make their maps public.
Everyone knows where these projects are taking place.
And the cost of environmental assessments is pocket change for these operations.
But it could mean the difference between healthy habitats and destroyed resources in our national marine sanctuaries.
So here's what really stinks about this bill.
While working American families are facing an affordability crisis, our Republican friends prioritize special favors like this for the wealthiest corporations on the planet, companies that could easily afford to just follow the rules and just pay a fair market rate for access to these places.
This sets a terrible precedent.
We're witnessing the wholesale commercialization of America's natural inheritance, one sweetheart deal at a time.
Today it's cables in sanctuaries.
Tomorrow it's mining in a national monument.
Next week, drilling in national seashores.
Where does this corporate favoritism end?
If my colleagues want to modernize telecommunications, we can do that the right way.
Let's invest in broadband infrastructure.
Let's address transmission issues.
We can incentivize clean, local, renewable energy.
We can end President Trump's crazy war on clean energy.
And sure, maybe we can have a few fiber optic cables running through marine sanctuaries, but let's do it through proper analysis and siting.
Let's be careful in these very special places.
We don't need this bill to enable any of these shared objectives to move forward.
Let us not create sacrifice zones in America's National Marine Sanctuaries.
I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless corporate giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.
unidentified
General Reserve, gentlemen from Arkansas, is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we understand exactly what's going on here.
And if you look at this map, and this is an example along the California coast, these pink areas are National Marine Sanctuaries.
And you have this one zone down here by Morrow Bay and Grover Beach where cables can actually leave the shore.
And you can see the concentration of all the existing cables in this area.
Now, it's possible to put a cable across a marine sanctuary right now.
There was a law, a rule passed in 2002, I believe, that fed up this special use permit.
The problem is it gave a five-year special use permit, and these are 25-plus-year projects when you put one of these cables in.
Now, NOAA had the assignment to come up with what the least cost would be to put these cables across a marine sanctuary.
And in all of NOAA's infinite wisdom, they came up with a price tag of $40,000 to $100,000 per mile, subject to inflation.
So nobody's gotten one of these permits.
Nobody's put a cable across because this rule by the federal government has disincentivized all of these companies from being able to run cables, which seems to be what the purpose of the rule was in the first place, just to keep cables out of the marine sanctuaries.
Now, if somebody were to put a cable through a marine sanctuary, they would still have to go through the NEPA process.
They would have to go through the entire regulatory process to get a permit to put the cable across the sanctuary.
So it's not like you're throwing away all environmental oversight and all environmental guidelines to be able to bury one of these cables, or not bury it, but run along the ocean floor.
And again, they're one to two inches in diameter.
Now, if you just looked at one mile at, say, four inches in diameter, that strip of land at a rate of $40,000 per mile would be the equivalent of a yearly rent of about $1 million per acre every year.
So the whole rule and the law was stacked against doing anything, and that's exactly what's happened.
We want to open this up where American companies can invest in American fiber cables so that we can communicate across the ocean.
We can get away from all this consolidation in one area where it's easy to target.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the lead sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Buddy Carter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025.
Undersea fiber optic cables carry roughly 95% of all intercontinental Internet traffic and nearly all transoceanic digital communications.
Trillions of dollars in financial transactions, trillions.
Global trade data, cloud computing, and secure government communications depend on these cables every single day.
They are critical infrastructure, just as essential as ports, as pipelines, or power grids.
Yet, despite their importance, the United States has allowed over-regulation and duplicate permitting to stand in the way of deploying and maintaining this infrastructure, especially on the West Coast, where permitting delays and overlapping approvals have made it effectively impossible to lay new cables in certain areas for decades.
The Chairman just described what we're talking about here.
These projects weren't stopped because they failed environmental review.
They were stopped because of bureaucracy.
That's the problem H.R. 261 is designed to fix.
Today, even when an undersea cable project has already received full authorization from a federal or state agency, it can still be forced through an additional duplicate permitting process within national marine sanctuaries.
That extra layer adds years of delay, drives up costs, and discourages investment without providing meaningful environmental protection.
H.R. 261 clarifies that once a project has been lawfully approved at the state and federal levels, it should not be required to obtain an additional permit for the same activity.
And let me be clear, this bill does not weaken environmental protections.
All existing environmental laws, reviews, and interagency coordination requirements remain fully intact.
This is about eliminating redundancy, not eliminating oversight.
This matters for states like Georgia.
Georgia's economy depends on global connectivity, from the Port of Savannah and our logistics and supply chain networks to manufacturing and defense contractors, data centers, and a growing technology sector.
Reliable undersea cable infrastructure supports jobs, it supports trade and economic growth across the country.
There is also a serious national security component to this.
Undersea cables carry sensitive government and military communications.
Delays in installing, repairing, or maintaining this infrastructure create real vulnerability to our national security.
Even today, our adversaries, like China, are actively targeting global communication networks, especially cutting undersea cables that connect us to our allies like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
It's a little bit rich to suggest that if this became law, we would lose no environmental protections.
This bill eliminates the special use permit under which the folks who protect our national marine sanctuaries make sure that there is proper siting and proper environmental review and proper mitigation and proper accountability for when things go wrong and things do go wrong.
So the one example I can hold out is in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary because that is something that went through the special use permit process, one of these undersea cable landings, and things got very complicated.
Thankfully, the National Park Service was able to charge market rent for the rights to go through this area, and it turns out that was a good thing because there were all sorts of complications.
In fact, there's still all types of ongoing repair and monitoring areas where things weren't installed properly, where there was all sorts of damage that wasn't foreseen on the front end.
So, you know, having that fair market value paid in the first place and then retained by the federal agency that may need to follow up and make sure that these special places are protected is very, very important.
Now, Mr. Westerman has suggested that the existing special use permit sets a fair market value that's just so prohibitive that none of these landings will ever happen in marine sanctuaries.
The estimates from lobbyists are that without this bill, two 20-mile segments through a California sanctuary would cost these huge tech companies between $2.8 million and $7 million per year.
And to just put that in perspective, in the time that we have been arguing, these companies have made more than that.
This is pocket change to these companies.
They can afford to pay fair market value in order to go through our national marine sanctuaries.
And as Mr. Westerman, I'm sure, would not disagree if they were proposing to run these things through a national park in Hot Springs, Arkansas, for example.
It's a good thing they would have to get a special permit to do that and that they would have to pay fair market value and that the funds they pay would be available to that unit of the national park system to make sure things were done right and to make sure that there was accountability and mitigation going forward.
We're just asking for the same thing for our national marine sanctuaries.
And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
unidentified
Gentleman Reserves, gentlemen from Arkansas is recognized.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act.
Undersea cables are the backbone of our modern economy.
These cables are no bigger than a garden hose, but support over $10 trillion in international commerce on a daily basis.
You'd think that this clear significance would prompt us to make sure that it's easy to build these things, but no.
The United States is one of the most difficult countries in the world to lay and operate undersea cables.
This is a national security liability.
There is simply no reason to require a special use permit for an undersea cable because there is absolutely zero, and I say zero, environmental impact.
It is time for Congress to pay more attention to the critical infrastructure that surrounds us in this country.
That is why I introduced the Neptune Act to make sure that the Navy maintains its undersea cable laying and repair capabilities.
And that's also why I intend to vote for this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you to my friend Buddy Carter from the National Resources Committee for leading this effort.
I yield five minutes to the gentleman from the Central Coast of California, Mr. Carbahal.
unidentified
Gentlemen's Reichenash.
I thank the Chair and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in firm opposition to H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025.
On its face, this legislation may seem like a narrow procedural change, as streamlining permitting for undersea fiber optic cables.
But in reality, it strips away critical environmental and economic safeguards that we and the communities we represent depend on to help power our nation's blue economy.
We know that four of the five national marine sanctuaries in California generate more than $114 million a year and support over 18,000 jobs in commercial fishing alone.
H.R. 261 is a giveaway to mega-corporations at the expense of the American taxpayer, the oceans, and Great Lakes we have advocated to protect.
And some of the marine sanctuaries most at risk because of this legislation are iconic spots off the coast of California, Monterey Bay, Channel Islands, and the newly created Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, a designation that was decades in the making.
First nominated by the Northern Chumash Tribe Council in 2015, the sanctuary became effective on November 30, 2024, after review by Congress and the state of California.
And now, through this legislation, my constituents and the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary will lose big.
Waiving the future fees on cables from industry would cost between $2.7 and $7 million per every 20 miles each year.
While there is a two-year exception for the newly designated Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, current law requires operators and installers of deep-sea fiber optic cables to obtain a permit from NOAA and pay fair market fees for use of these areas.
I and many others here today believe we need secure, reliable telecommunications infrastructure.
And I understand that the five-year time limits on permits cause concern for companies looking for long-term certainty.
However, I firmly believe that we can find a solution that protects these sanctuary resources and treats all stakeholders fairly.
We can find a win-win solution that supports innovation, continues to support our local economies, and ensure the American taxpayer gets a fair return for use of our natural resources.
That is why, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment is straightforward: allow tech companies to have their alternative permitting pathway in sanctuaries, but add in a few common sense guardrails.
First, allow an alternative license or permit, but require that the project be compatible with the purpose of the sanctuary.
That means protecting the sensitive areas of the seafloor and avoiding cultural and historic sites.
Second, require public comment, as is currently the practice, with special use permits.
Third, require these companies to carry liability insurance for the project.
We don't want to see another disaster like we saw off the coast of Oregon.
A meta-subsidiary dumping drilling fluid and drilling equipment on the sea floor, then leaving the taxpayers on the hook to clean up the mess.
Yes, did I say taxpayers?
Yes, they're the ones that paid.
Finally, my amendment would maintain the status quo and allow NOAA to collect a fair market fee for the use of these sanctuary resources, just like any other public land management agency does for cables that cross their protected lands.
These are all standard provisions for the use of public resources, and I hope we can bring back a little bit of common sense to this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment.
I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for the motion to recommit and protect our marine sanctuaries for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, the article featured behind me found that adversaries like Russia and China are taking disruptive action against undersea cables on a more frequent basis around the world.
Here's an article just from yesterday talking about a Chinese cargo ship captain who's been charged with severing a natural gas pipeline and a communication cable in the Baltic Sea.
If we stick to the status quo, we're leaving ourselves more vulnerable to similar threats at our doorstep.
Our adversaries are taking an increasingly aggressive posture in targeting critical infrastructure.
Congressman Carter's legislation promotes route diversity, it reduces threats to global communication systems, and it ensures that the United States wins the global technology race.
It's why it's important that we pass this legislation and we give companies the certainty that they can build these transmission or these communication lines and diversify where they're locating them so that we can protect our economic security and also our national security.
I have no further request for time.
I'm prepared to close and I reserve the balance of my time.
It's a very selective concern about national security, apparently, because right now every one of these landings has a publicly available map.
The whole world knows where everything is.
If my friends were concerned about the national security exposure that that presents, you'd think we'd be working on some way to make that less of a publicly obvious piece of information.
But no, we're not hearing about that.
We're hearing it raised as a bit of a pretext here to try to run these projects through National Marine Sanctuaries rent-free and environmental review-free.
Now, one of the speakers across the aisle actually said a few moments ago that there's no need for a special use permit.
In fact, it's ridiculous to require one because there's no environmental impact to these projects.
We've heard about what happened off the Oregon coast.
Certainly, the people of the Oregon Coast would differ mightily with the notion that there's no environmental impact.
They're still cleaning up the mess, and taxpayers ultimately had to do it.
But we also have the example from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary that I referred to earlier.
This, of course, is a tough place to work on the seafloor.
It is mud.
It's sensitive habitat.
Fishermen are active in the area.
And there are national security assets there.
There's the Northwest Training and Testing Range.
So it's a complicated place to do a project like this.
And it's a good thing that NOAA was able to charge market fees when they approved a special use permit that took into account all of these complexities because those fees ended up being very, very necessary.
This project had huge issues over the last 25 years.
The sea plow that was used to trench across the sanctuary left a three-meter-wide gash across the seafloor that is still recovering.
So tell me about no environmental impacts.
The installation company never did post-project monitoring, and so they left the project without checking that the cables were even buried to the correct depths.
And NOAA had to come back in with submersible equipment to monitor the cables.
And it's a good thing they had the resources to do that from those market fees because they found numerous locations where the cable was exposed, floating above the seafloor, putting the fiber optic infrastructure itself at risk if we care about national security and telecommunications integrity, and posing a danger to other sanctuary users and their gear.
A fishing boat, for example, could have easily gotten snagged on some of these exposed loose cables, taking down the entire network, destroying equipment that a small business fisherman had invested in.
To this day, the fiber optic company has to enter that sanctuary regularly in order to repair and rebury the cables that were improperly installed.
So all of this would have been an even greater mess had this bill been law at the time, had NOAA been unable to put some conditions and some guardrails into the special use permit, had NOAA been unable to charge that fair market fee that has enabled it to follow up and clean up some of this mess.
That is what is at risk if we pass a thoughtless corporate giveaway like this.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation and I yield back.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us today accomplishes two objectives.
First, it eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit for operating within National Marine Sanctuaries.
Again, undersea cable projects would still need to undergo review under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnus and Stevens Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
None of that permitting is waived in this bill, and I would dare say anybody wanting to run one of these cables would say they're getting to do it and to avoid all environmental laws and protections, and I don't think people running these cables want to do that.
Second, it removes the five-year timeline for any special use permit within a national marine sanctuary.
Together, these reforms reduce regulatory burdens, they protect our national security, and they ensure that America can lead the way in deploying undersea cables while protecting our marine environments.
I want to thank Congressman Carter for his leadership on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
A bill to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have been previously authorized by a federal or state agency.
To the Congress of the United States, consistent with applicable law, including Section 232C2 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, 19, United States Code 1862C2, Section 232, I am providing notice of the reasons why I have decided to take action to adjust imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products, PCMDPs,
so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
On October 24th, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary, in accordance with Section 232, transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effects of imports of PCMDPs on the national security of the United States.
Based on the facts considered in that investigation, the Secretary found and advised me of his opinion that PCMDPs are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
In Proclamation 11001 of January 4th, 2026, adjusting imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products into the United States.
Proclamation, after considering the Secretary's report, the factors in Section 232D, 19 United States Code 1862D, and other relevant factors and information, I concurred with the Secretary's findings that PCMDPs are being imported into the United States in quantities and under circumstances that threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
In my judgment, and in light of the Secretary's report, the factors in Section 232D and other relevant factors and information, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to direct negotiations of agreements to address the national security threat.
In the proclamation, I have also noted that depending on the status of or outcome of those negotiations, I may take other measures to adjust the imports of PCMDPs to address the national security threat.
I am enclosing a copy of the proclamation that I have issued.
The proclamation further explains the circumstances underlying the threat to impair the national security of the United States posed by imports of PCMDPs and the actions taken in the proclamation to eliminate that threat.
Signed sincerely, Donald J. Trump, the White House, February 11th, 2026.
Consistent with applicable law, including Section 232C2 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 as amended, 19 United States Code 1862C2, Section 232, I am providing notice of the reasons why I have decided to take action to adjust imports of medium and heavy-duty vehicles, MHDVs, and medium and heavy-duty vehicles parts, MHDVPS,
and buses so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
In September 2025, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary, in accordance with Section 232, transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effects of imports of MHDVSs and MHDVPs and buses on the national security of the United States.
Based on the facts considered in that investigation, the Secretary found and advised me of his opinion that MHDVs, MHDVPs, and buses are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
In Proclamation 10984 of October 17, 2025, adjusting imports of medium and heavy-duty vehicles, medium and heavy-duty vehicle parts and buses into the United States.
Proclamation.
After considering the Secretary's report, the factors in Section 232D, 19 United States Code 1862D, and other relevant factors and information, I concur with the Secretary's findings that MHDVs and MHDVPs and buses are being imported into the United States in quantities and under circumstances that threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
In my judgment and in light of the Secretary's report, the factors in Section 232D and other relevant factors and information, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to impose tariffs and other certain imports of MHDVs and MHDVPs and buses.
And I am enclosing a copy of the proclamation that I have issued.
The proclamation further explains the circumstances underlying the threat to impair the national security of the United States posed by imports of MHDVs, MHDVPs, and buses and the actions taken in the proclamation to eliminate that threat.
Signed sincerely, Donald J. Trump, the White House, February 11, 2026.
unidentified
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered printed.
To the Congress of the United States, consistent with applicable law, including Section 232C2 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 as amended, 19 United States Code, 1862C2,
Section 232, I am providing notice of the reasons why I have decided to take action to adjust imports of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
On December 22, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary, in accordance with Section 232, transmitted to me a report on his investigation into the effects of imports of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products on the national security of the United States.
Based on the facts considered in that investigation, the Secretary found and advised me of his opinion that semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
In Proclamation 11002 of January 14, 2026, adjusting imports of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products into the United States, Proclamation,
after considering the Secretary's report, the factors in Section 232D, 19 United States Code 1862D, and other relevant factors and information, among other things, I concurred with the Secretary's findings that semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative and their derivatives are being imported into the United States in quantities and under such circumstances that threaten to impair the national security of the United States.
In my judgment and in light of the Secretary's report, the factors in Section 232D and other relevant factors and information, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to direct negotiations of agreements to address the national security threat.
In the proclamation, I also noted that depending on the status or resolution of those negotiations, I may take other measures to adjust the imports of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivatives to address the national security threat.
I also determined that it is necessary and appropriate to impose an immediate avalorium duty rate on the import of certain advanced computing chips and certain derivative products to address the national security threat found in the proclamation.
I am enclosing a copy of the proclamation that I have issued.
The proclamation further explains the circumstances underlying the threat to impair the national security of the United States posed by imports of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products, and the actions taken in the proclamation to eliminate that threat.
Signed sincerely, serely, Donald J. Trump, the White House, February 11, 2026.
unidentified
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered printed.
Pursuant to Clause 12A of Rule 1, the chair now declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The U.S. House today taking up Republican legislation to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to cast a ballot.
Members also approved a provision authorizing the House to consider short-term DHS funding under an expedited process.
C-SPAN Coverage00:04:12
unidentified
The department faces a potential funding lapse this coming Friday if Republicans and Democrats can't reach an agreement on immigration enforcement reform.
Also on the agenda in the House today, a resolution to repeal President Trump's tariffs on Canadian imports.
When House lawmakers return, follow our live coverage here on C-SPAN.
Earlier today, Attorney General Pam Bondi faced questions on the Justice Department's release of the Epstein investigation files during an oversight hearing of the DOJ.
Beginning this week, members of Congress were able to review the unredacted files.
Watch the hearing tonight, starting at 9 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app and online at c-span.org.
I saw you interviewed the other night.
I watched it about 2 o'clock in the morning.
There was a little thing called C-SPAN, which I don't know how many people were watching.
If you watch on C-SPAN, you're going to see me physically across the aisle every day, just trying to build relationships and try to understand their perspective and find common ground.
Mike said before I happened to listen to him, he was on C-SPAN 1.
unidentified
That's a big upgrade, right?
C-SPAN.
Democracy unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Ongoing Talks with Iran00:00:44
unidentified
Vice President JD Vance is returning to Washington after spending the last few days overseas with stops in Italy, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.
Ahead of his departure, he answered questions from reporters about his trip, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and ongoing talks with Iran to secure a nuclear agreement.