Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5408) to accelerate workplace time-to-contract under the National Labor Relations Act.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, if Republicans today were not willing to use budget reconciliation and depart from appropriations in order to pass a funding bill that would restore funding to ICE and CBP, then what would happen is my Democrat colleagues would be able to achieve what many of them have held for a long time as their objective, and have publicly stated was their objective, and that is to defund immigration enforcement, border enforcement, and abolish ICE. That is effectively what would happen if Republicans didn't act using budget reconciliation to fund ICE and CBP.

That would send us back to the Dark Ages, to the 4 years of open borders and the unprecedented lawlessness and chaos and crime with people, crime, gangs, and drugs pouring into our communities, into our States throughout our entire country, jeopardizing the safety of the American people.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone at this point in this country that that is the stated or unstated goal of some of my colleagues. Certainly, it is the well-articulated and cited objective of the left.

Quite frankly, a lot of this shutdown and a lot of this obstruction is really the Democratic Party pandering to the left. But what would happen is the same thing that happened for 4 years when we had a Commander in Chief who refused to uphold his sacred oath to enforce the laws. He refused, with Democrat control of Congress and the White House, to enforce the laws and secure our southern border. Basically, he surrendered our sovereignty and safety to the paramilitary terrorist drug cartels on the other side of the border who were glad to make more money off of trafficking people than they did drugs. As a result, we had a complete meltdown in States like Texas who spent billions of dollars and were completely overwhelmed.

It is almost unfathomable today to think about it, Madam Speaker, because we have a daily apprehension number at about 196, but the average illegal crossing or apprehension under the Biden-Harris administration was over 5,000. I assure you, we would repeat that and it would be disastrous if we didn't do the right thing, if we didn't govern our great country, if we didn't open up the people's government and fund the important offices of ICE and CBP.

For 76 days, our Democrat colleagues held hostage the American people's safety and security. They held hostage the hardworking people at the Department of Homeland Security. It wasn't just ICE and CBP. We were completely dark at Homeland Security. We didn't have the safety protocols being administered by TSA. We didn't have our Coast Guardsmen keeping watch to prevent a terrorist attack at our ports. We didn't have CISA agents preventing an attack on our critical infrastructure, and, of course, we didn't have ICE and CBP functioning to enforce laws and to secure our border.

That is the dysfunction we have been dealing with, and we just said enough is enough.

We were sent here by the American people who gave President Trump an overwhelming victory. Every swing State, the popular vote, the electoral vote, gave us unified Republican leadership in Congress. The number one reason they did that was to restore the rule of law and to put the American people's safety and security first. That is exactly what we are doing today, in spite of the obstruction.

Listen, your granddad and my granddad taught us the same thing: If somebody tells you what they want to do and who they are, believe them.

For years, we have been hearing this incendiary and dangerous rhetoric that ICE needed to be defunded. Governor Tim Walz said that ICE officers are an actual threat. These are the people risking their lives to defend us and to protect us in our communities. He said that ICE was a threat to the public. Governor Pritzker said ICE was turning the country into Nazi, Germany. Chuck Schumer said ICE doesn't belong in our neighborhoods. Senator John Hickenlooper said that ICE was a reign of terror.

All this while the risks have increased because of the shutdown. We have an 8,000-percent increase in threats to the lives of our ICE agents and Border Patrol agents and a 1,300-percent increase in assaults. These are the dangerous games that Democrats are playing: to obstruct the President, so they can go brag as they pander to the left. Again, the reality is: It is a de facto defunding of law enforcement and abolishing of ICE.

We will prevent that today, because I am confident that my friends in the Republican Conference will do the right thing and put the American people and their safety first.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Those are my opening remarks.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have the greatest respect for my friend from Pennsylvania, but that is about as good of Washington obfuscation as I have ever heard.

We are talking about funding ICE and CBP. If we don't do it today, ICE and CBP doesn't exist, criminals are running around in our streets, and we don't make good on the promises the American people sent us here to do.

They want to talk about tax policy. By the way, they are the party that didn't lift a finger when the tax cuts were going to expire and cause over a $1,000 tax hike for every family in this country. It would have been a 22-percent tax hike--this, on the heels of a cost-of-living crisis that they created by their failed economic policies and their unbridled spending, the likes of which we haven't seen in one half a century.

We can go through tax policy and the consequences of the American people having more money in their pockets because of no tax on tips and overtime, seniors getting a double deduction who are on a fixed income, and people who have suffered from Joe Biden's unaffordability crisis. I am happy to go down the line on that. People have more money in their pockets. The economy is growing. Inflation is down. Interest rates are down. The American people were paying $1,000 a month more in their mortgage as a result of the failed policies of my Democratic colleagues.

Today, this isn't the debate. The debate is the safety of the American people and resourcing our brave, hardworking law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to keep us safe.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), our Judiciary Committee chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, Madam Speaker, you are going to hear gas prices, tax policy, healthcare, ballrooms. You are not going to hear anything about what is happening as a result of my Democrats not supporting us funding ICE and CBP, because defunding ICE and CBP after the 4 years of chaos and lawlessness is just completely indefensible.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody is living in fear, it is because of the fear- mongering that we continue to hear from our Democratic colleagues, and it is no wonder. It starts at the top. The nominee, or the anointed Presidential nominee of the Democrats in the last Presidential election, Ms. Kamala Harris, compared ICE to the KKK. We heard references to the Gestapo, and a reign of terror is what we just heard. It is no wonder that there are people in the streets obstructing and putting at risk the lives of our law enforcement officers who are trying to clean up our neighborhoods from the deluge of gangbangers and criminals who have flooded cities and towns all across this great Nation.

It is a travesty to hear such denigrating terms and to see my colleagues in the United States House Chamber vilifying people who wear the uniform on behalf of all of us and our families.

As I said, assaults are up by 1,300 percent, death threats by 8,000 percent. It is a wonder more law enforcement officials and ICE agents haven't been hurt.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, who is going to get hurt: lots of people across this land if ICE and CBP were defunded on account of not having willing Republicans to fund them fully, not just for 1 year but for 3 years, so we never end up here again being held hostage by shutdowns and defunding of our law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, we are attempting here in a Republican-only exercise to fund ICE and CBP at last year's operating budget plus inflation. That is all we are talking about.

Their position is that they want to zero it out. In fact, they already have. They refuse to fund ICE and CBP. They would effectively abolish it.

This is not a slush fund unless you are calling what is the normal and regular operating budget of our immigration enforcement and Border Patrol officers a slush fund. It is regular, normal funding, and we are going to do it not for 1 year but for 3 years, so that we don't end up here again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Gooden), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that budgets are statements of our priorities and our values. Repeatedly, President Biden would propose cuts to the Department of Homeland Security. The last year he was in office, in fact, Homeland Security was cut by 3.5 percent.

Remember, this is all while we had record numbers of illegal immigrants flooding into this country, record numbers of immigrants who were on the terrorist watch list, record numbers of criminals, record numbers of drugs killing Americans at record levels, about a plane load of Americans dying a week.

Meanwhile, my Democrat colleagues found time to give $800 billion in tax subsidies to green energy corporations. Think about that: Tax cuts for the rich, rich green energy corporations.

Tens of billions of dollars with a cell phone and a pen by Joe Biden, those moneys were given to illegal immigrants for healthcare that hardworking U.S. taxpayers funded.

According to NumbersUSA, we are spending about $9,000 per illegal immigrant in this country. Mr. Speaker, that is more than we spend on our most vulnerable U.S. citizens for Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), who is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is true. We did put tens of billions of dollars in the first reconciliation bill because the Democrats' open-border policies absolutely wreaked havoc on the current system. It overwhelmed us.

My State spent $14 billion to do the job the Federal Government wouldn't do. We didn't have the infrastructure. We didn't have the boots on the ground. We didn't have the judicial process set up to take on the millions of people, over 10 million people, over 5 million of them released, not apprehended and held accountable, caught and released, so the system was overwhelmed.

We needed to infuse some capital to boost the infrastructure so we could seamlessly work through that. We are talking about regular operating budgets now and not what we had to put in for the system that was overwhelmed by the record numbers of illegal immigrants. We are talking about last year's budget plus inflation.

The bottom line is, my Democrat colleagues stand on the position of defunding immigration enforcement and effectively abolishing ICE.

I think that is an untenable position in this country. Only a few radicals hold that position. Most people know what we are up against and what these hardworking, brave people do for us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs), who is on the Homeland Security Committee here in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is notable that not once has any reference been made by my Democrat colleagues to the victims of crimes perpetrated by criminal aliens on them and the loss, pain, and suffering of their families--not one time.

No, not once, have we heard, Mr. Speaker, any reference with respect, with honor and dignity, to the law enforcement officers who wear the uniform, who fight the fight to keep us safe, risking their lives to rid this country of the threats to our neighborhoods and our families-- not one time. We heard reign of terror. We heard gestapo. We hear all these things. Not one time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about last year's budget, plus inflation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the good book says: Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.

Our treasure as Republicans and our hearts, as the American people have reflected in this last and most historic election, is with the law-abiding citizens of this great Nation and the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend it every day.

This is regular budget, normal budgets, and this is the least we can do to support those folks who stand on that thin line to defend our sovereign borders and our safety.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democrat colleagues do not defund the ICE and Border Patrol.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5408, the so-called Faster Labor Contracts Act. I will give credit to whoever named this bill because it certainly accomplishes two things faster: It fast-tracks government intrusion into private workplaces, and it erodes workers' rights faster than we have ever seen before.

Under the FLCA, if the private parties involved do not reach a first contract on an accelerated timeline, a government-appointed arbitration panel steps in and imposes one.

The panel does not merely recommend contract provisions or serve as a neutral entity while parties work to reach an agreement. Instead, it imposes a contract on employers and employees for at least 2 years without their consent.

Let's call this bill what it really is: a massive expansion of Washington's power over American workers and job creators.

It is the latest attempt to put workers under the thumb of Federal bureaucrats. Under the bill, government bureaucrats can parachute into workplaces they have never set foot in, override the voice of the workers and industries they know little about, and leave them with contracts that may not serve their interests.

Mr. Speaker, supporters of this bill assure businesses and workers that it is about worker empowerment and efficiency. I may be misremembering the definition of empowerment, but I can guarantee it does not mean taking away a worker's right to vote on his or her own contract and giving that power to a Washington bureaucrat with no stake in the outcome.

As for efficiency, this bill inserts the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, FMCS, an agency that President Trump rightly sought to eliminate for its corruption into the bargaining process.

Reports came out last year about the agency's alleged mismanagement of funds and other fraudulent activities. Now we are expected to give this agency a role in deciding workers' wages, benefits, scheduling rules, disciplinary procedures, and working conditions whenever contract negotiations extend beyond an arbitrary time frame.

I really doubt this agency will be able to do much, if anything, efficiently. If the bill supporters truly care about efficiency--and I believe they do--this is a strange way to show it.

For more than 90 years, Federal labor law has required employers and unions to bargain in good faith. Despite what supporters of this bill seem to suggest, that system is still working today. Whether it is the Teamsters, UPS, or United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers, countless agreements across the country have been reached because both sides negotiated compromise and arrived at terms that made sense for their unique workplaces.

Under this bill, small businesses, in particular, could be forced into long-term, expensive, one-size-fits-all contracts written by bureaucrats. Those contracts could mandate spending that small employers cannot sustain, threaten jobs, kill growth, and in some cases, shut businesses down entirely.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the FLCA is not proworker. It is an ideological Trojan horse that harms the very people it claims to help, empowers bureaucrats over workers, and undermines the collaborative process that has long-defined American labor relations.

Ultimately, workers value having a voice in workplace decisions.

The Trump administration has prioritized putting America's workers first and strengthening the Nation's workforce. This bill goes directly against the President's vision for America: to have the most capable and competitive workforce in the world.

It takes decisions out of the hands of workers and job creators and places them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need government-imposed contracts. We do not need bureaucrats writing workplace rules. We certainly do not need a bill that claims to champion workers while stripping them of their ability to approve contracts that govern their livelihoods, whether they understand that or not.

If Congress truly wants to support American workers, we should strengthen workplace democracy, protect workers' rights, and encourage honest bargaining--not replace negotiation with government mandates.

The FLCA is wrong for workers, wrong for businesses, wrong for the economy, and wrong for the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my good friend and colleague from New Jersey, the sponsor of this bill, and his desire to move processes forward. I just have a significant concern that it is short-sighted to think that government intrusion into this process will ever work in the end and what would be considered optional wouldn't eventually become mandatory in the fact that the workers themselves aren't making these decisions, that the best interests of the union leadership may be carried on, but not the workers'. That is my concern.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a man who knows what it means to be involved in negotiations from both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about efficiency and moving the issue forward 400-some days, but this bill is being rushed. It is being rushed in other ways. It requires a report from the Government Accountability Office, examining the length of time between recognition of a union in the workplace and the initial collective bargaining agreement. However, that report will not be issued until 1 year after enactment of the bill.

We are passing a bill that could impact millions of employers and employees, only then to request a report to understand the alleged issue that this bill aims to address.

I think back to the 2010 ObamaCare vote, when Members of this body were told to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. We face a similar question today.

Why must we vote on a proposed solution before we even know the problem? Instead, let us do the reasonable thing before this bill goes to a vote.

That is just something we ought to consider, especially when we have the opportunity to do that, as opposed to pushing this directly to the floor without even having a GAO study beforehand.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), a great member of our Education and Workforce Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as a former union steelworker, I certainly understand the value that unions play in the workplace. I also understand the value that employers play in the workplace. I sometimes have my concerns about union officials and where they put their greatest agenda items at and the greatest concerns.

Unions can only force workers to pay dues or fees if there is a signed contract in effect. This means that between the time a union is certified and when a first contract is signed, the union is not getting paid to represent workers.

Once the dues spigot is open, nearly all unions funnel that money to opposing President Trump and the Republican Party goals to lower taxes and make the American Dream affordable.

For decades, unions have increasingly spent more of their money on political campaigns--it is part of the record--and fringe social issues with a paltry sum spent on actually representing their members at the bargaining table and fighting for their rights.

From 1990 to 2010, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, was the second largest political donor on record, but spent 98 percent of its dollars on the other party, Democrats.

President Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, but millions of dollars of union dues from unions like the SEIU, United Electrical Workers Union, and United Auto Workers are going to a pro-Hamas, anti- Israel agenda.

President Trump has fought to get DEI initiatives out of our schools, workplaces, and government agencies. Union money has been propping up that agenda for more than a decade. These are hard truths.

President Trump supports a pro-life policy, but union money flows into Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations.

Union-funded House Democrats have not spent their time fighting for workers like they promise. Instead, they have spent their time undermining President Trump's agenda and trying to get him removed from office. These are hard truths.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act is just the latest attempt to undermine the President and his proworker agenda. It will go to union leadership. They will still be pulling it in while the bureaucrats make decisions for the employees.

I urge colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5408, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, through you to my friend from the region where we both grew up, Hammond, South Side of Chicago, Calumet City, steel area and all the rest, I just make one point: Our President is clearly for private sector workers, very much so.

When he dealt with the Federal Government, it follows the pattern of trying to reduce the cost, the size, the scope of the Federal Government. In fact, that is what we are talking about here, of expanding the scope of the Federal Government to come in and force on employees and employers contracts that in many cases they will not have voted on. I just remind my good friend of that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill asks us to believe that workers are empowered when their right to vote on a contract is taken away and handed to a government-appointed arbitrator. That is not empowerment. That is Washington deciding it knows better in the end than people actually doing the job.

For decades, employers and unions have negotiated contracts through good faith bargaining. Certainly, it is not always easy, but it works because the people closest to the workplace are the ones making the decisions. This bill replaces that process with Federal intervention and a one-size-fits-all mandate.

Congress is being asked to make these sweeping changes without the scrutiny they deserve--no committee process, no serious examination of the costs, and no opportunity to fully consider the consequences.

Workers deserve a voice. Businesses deserve certainty. The American people deserve better than rushed legislation that puts bureaucrats in charge and leaves everyone else with the bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will include a letter at a later time raising concerns about H.R. 5408 from G. Roger King, senior labor and employment counsel at CHRO Association, and Alex McDonald, co-chair of the Workplace Policy Institute at Littler Mendelson.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague and friend from Texas, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, we should all be here today to express our strong support for this important piece of legislation to properly and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, including, yes, the people who actually are tasked with carrying out our immigration laws. That is the job of ICE and CBP. These are the laws that we all pass.

I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would love to go back to open borders, but they are not, fortunately, going to go back to open borders because we won't let them.

Madam Speaker, we worked with President Trump to secure the border. In fact, it was the number one issue in the 2024 election. The American people spoke loud and clear, and, yes, that was on the ballot. Everybody knew where each side was.

You would think, now that that issue is resolved, that we could be here in Congress to work together to properly make sure that we fund the Department of Homeland Security. Sadly, that is not what has happened.

You have seen the Democrats, time and time again, shut this Department down, the Department of Homeland Security, formed out of September 11. You would think some people on the other side of the aisle are acting like it is still September 10, like we don't have threats on our homeland.

Yet, we have threats coming from more places than ever because the other side let millions of people into our country. Millions of people illegally come into our country, including many violent criminals. They want you to think, Madam Speaker, that it is just everybody coming in to seek the American Dream.

We have a legal method for that to happen. Every country does, by the way. The United States is the most generous nation in the world in terms of our legal process to come to America--yes, legal. That means you have to follow the rules to be a part of this great American Dream.

If somebody doesn't want to follow those rules, including the prior President, then what it does is wreak havoc. What kind of havoc? I know the other side just likes to attack law enforcement every single day, the party that tried to defund the police. Yes, they are still at it. This vote today, make no mistake, if you are voting ``yes,'' you are not only voting to secure America's border. You are voting to fund law enforcement. If you vote ``no,'' you are voting to defund the police.

Those are the people, the law enforcement officers, who are risking their lives to keep our communities safe. I think, Madam Speaker, that it is important to ask safe from whom? Let's walk a little bit down memory lane and talk about some of the American citizens who are no longer with us today because of people who came into this country illegally because of Joe Biden's open border, because of the policies that the Democratic Party on the other side, Madam Speaker, wants us to go back to.

They want open borders. That is why they are voting ``no.'' Make no mistake about it, this vote is about opening the border again. This vote is about defunding the police. We cannot let that happen.

Why? Let's remember Laken Riley. Did some on the other side already forget who Laken Riley is? She was a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed while jogging near the University of Georgia campus in February 2024. The man convicted of her murder was, yes, a man from Venezuela who entered into the United States illegally.

Let's talk about Sheridan Gorman, Madam Speaker. She was an 18-year- old Loyola University Chicago freshman who was shot and killed in March 2026. The suspect: Jose Medina-Medina, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela.

Stephanie Minter, a Virginia mother, was fatally stabbed at a Fairfax County bus stop in February of this year.

Yes, anybody who votes ``no'' is voting against the people who are stopping criminal illegals who are murdering American citizens still to this day. Yet, they are going to cast that ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker.

Stephanie Minter, who was murdered, her suspect, Abdul Jalloh, came here illegally, an immigrant from Sierra Leone with over 30 police arrests, 30 times arrested, over and over again, until finally he murdered somebody.

Look at these sanctuary cities. By the way, go look at who is running these sanctuary cities.

When these Democrats are coming up here, saying that they want to grab more power, asking you to give them power again, look at what they do with power. They install sanctuary city policies. They let murderers get out of prison over and over again until they murder innocent citizens. You can just go look at the leadership of every Democratic- run city in America right now. Most of the States have major losses of population because of their policies.

Now, where are they going? Mostly to red States, States that are run by Republicans who want to lower taxes, who want to have commonsense policy, to get away from the crazy policies that we are seeing over and over again in these Democrat-run States.

In fact, the policies are so bad that you can look at the city of Chicago and know you will no longer be able to go to the city of Chicago to see the Chicago Bears play football. Illinois ran the Chicago Bears out of the State of Illinois, out of the city of Chicago over to Indiana because they are so antibusiness. Because they are so antiworker, and because they won't stand up and protect their own citizens.

Mr. Speaker, you listen to the people that get up here, day in and day out, and attack President Trump over and over again. What they don't tell you is that because President Trump focused on border security and protecting the American citizens, we now have the lowest murder rate in the United States in over 100 years because President Trump cares about people and their communities.

Look at some of these Democrat-run cities where they let illegals out over and over again. Go back to the suspect who murdered Stephanie Minter in Virginia. He was in prison and let out over 30 times.

Let's talk about Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old Maryland woman strangled to death in 2022 by a known MS-13 gang member from El Salvador.

Rachel Morin, a Maryland mother of five, was murdered while exercising on a hiking trail in 2023. Yes, it was someone who came here illegally, who murdered her, who was finally later convicted of that crime.

Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old Houston girl, was sexually assaulted and then murdered in June of 2024, Mr. Speaker. Two Venezuelans who entered the United States illegally were charged in that case.

Keep in mind, every one of these I am reading, we are about to have a vote to say: Should we have people working for ICE, working for CBP, protecting us from these violent criminals, who are coming into our country illegally to kill our citizens? And you are going to be able to vote yes or no.

And if you vote no, you are saying you want these people to keep coming in. Mr. Speaker, you are voting to defund the law enforcement officers who are going to stop these criminals from coming into our communities.

It is not like some hypothetical. It has happened over and over and over again. Sadly, there are more.

Luis Jocsan Nanez Lopez, a 15-year-old, was shot and killed while trying to protect his mother from an attempted rape by an illegal in Kentucky. The killer was a Mexican national.

Hallie Helgeson and Brady Heiling, 18- and 19-year-olds, were killed in a car crash by a Honduran national who was driving intoxicated in the wrong direction on a highway. This took place in a sanctuary jurisdiction in Wisconsin. They act like they are doing you a favor by looking the other way and not at the laws, except their own citizens are dying.

Megan Bos was killed by a Mexican in Illinois in 2025. After the killer's court appearance, a sanctuary city judge freed him onto the streets of Chicago. There that is again. Fortunately, it was ICE who rearrested that murderer.

And they want to make ICE out to be the enemy? They are defending the murderers. Over and over again they want to defund law enforcement, to stand up for criminals who are wreaking havoc in our communities all across this country.

Thank God, we have a President in Donald Trump who is willing to stand up for the American people and protect us, to keep us safe in our homeland. That is the whole purpose of the Department of Homeland Security. It is why it needs to be fully funded. We need to pass this bill. It should have been done months ago. And it should not be partisan. Everybody should vote for it.

But when that board lights up, you are going to see who is standing with the American people to keep us safe in our home and who is going to defend the criminals.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with the American people and say, let's keep our communities safe. Let's pass this bill. Let's fund this department.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will start by reminding the American people that last year Republicans passed reconciliation 1.0, which President Trump and my Republican colleagues proudly boasted at the time was the big, beautiful bill.

Notice, you don't hear much about it anymore. Why? Because the American people figured out what was in it. The bill became one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation to pass Congress in decades, with disapproval more than 2-1 over approval. The reason is simple: because it hurts America's families.

The bill cut healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare costs for millions more. It made the largest cuts to food assistance in American history. It added trillions of dollars to the national debt and all to help pay for the largest tax breaks for billionaires in our Nation's history.

That is the Republican record. They cut healthcare. They cut food assistance. They raised costs on working families. They exploded the debt, and then they handed the biggest benefits to billionaires.

At the same time, this administration has failed miserably on the economy. We all remember Donald Trump campaigning in my home State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and across this country, promising the American people he would ``lower prices on day one.''

Well, here we are, just past day 500, and costs are higher than ever. President Trump's reckless tariff taxes have driven up costs for families and businesses. As if that wasn't bad enough, his choice of war in Iran has helped send gas prices soaring, a more than 50-percent increase in just a matter of months. Families are paying more at the pump, they are paying more at the grocery store, and they are paying more for healthcare.

With that, you would think that, in reconciliation 2.0, the Republican majority might actually want to do something to fix that situation, to fix the mess they created, but no. This bill does not include one dime to help American families pay for the crushing costs that they bear.

On top of all of that, we have the President who is continuing to openly say he wants to give billions of taxpayer money to January 6 insurrectionists. Even though a vast majority of American people oppose that obnoxious notion, there is nothing in this bill to prevent that from happening.

Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better than a bill that does nothing to lower costs, nothing to help families, and nothing to stop Donald Trump from rewarding violent criminals who attacked our Capitol. We deserve better.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of words there. What I didn't hear, though, was even one word, just one, about what this reconciliation bill would do to lower costs for the American people. I didn't hear one word for the 15 million Americans about to be kicked off their healthcare.

I didn't hear one word about those who are paying 50 percent more for gas than what they were paying just a couple months ago because of this President's reckless war of choice. There are no words, no plans, nothing in their bill whatsoever to bring down costs for the American people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I have been participating and listening to this entire debate. Actually, the President's name that has come up the most is President Biden. I think they actually miss him because they would like someone to blame other than the man who is in the White House right now.

The American people make it clear with some of the worst approval ratings on the economy in 20-plus years by a 3-1 margin, that they disapprove of this President's handling of the economy--72 percent disapprove. Again, these are the worst numbers since the Great Recession.

They need someone else to blame because they know just how poorly things are going right now under this President and Republican leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will point out, as I said in the beginning, that this bill does absolutely nothing to prevent Donald Trump from handing taxpayer dollars to the violent criminals who attacked police officers here on January 6.

We know that this is not hypothetical. The President has said repeatedly that he wants to compensate January 6 rioters.

Just this past weekend, he refused to rule out payments even for those who assaulted law enforcement officers at the Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, let's remember what these criminals did.

Rioters trapped Officer Daniel Hodges in a doorway and ripped away his gas mask as he was crushed and assaulted.

Officer Michael Fanone was beaten, tased again and again, dragged into the crowd, and suffered a heart attack. Other officers were attacked with flag poles and pepper sprayed.

These rioters were not tourists. They were violent thugs who attempted to overturn an election by force.

Now, let's not forget, this President has already pardoned them. He already gave them a free pass. Now he wants to reward them again with our taxpayer money. What a disgrace.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to commit this bill back to committee.

If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment would make clear that not one penny of taxpayer money may be used to create, administer, or pay for any slush fund, settlement payment, or any other payout to January 6 insurrectionists.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of this amendment immediately prior to the motion to commit.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I did.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Faster Labor Contracts Act creates a fair and reliable time frame for workers and employers to reach their first contract.

Workers in this country are guaranteed the right to organize and collectively bargain. Together, by passing this bipartisan bill, we can close one of the biggest loopholes undermining their ability to get an actual contract.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a union electrician by trade and a proud member of IBEW Local 351. I have spent my entire life fighting for workers to get a fair shake from their employers. I am proud to rise in support of what would be the most impactful protection for workers' rights in nearly 100 years, my Faster Labor Contracts Act.

Whether it is safer working conditions, better pay, or even something as simple as getting the weekend off from work, unions have been making people's lives better for generations. They do so by helping workers get a seat at the table with companies that control the purse strings. One of the most important tools a union has to get that seat is the right to collectively bargain.

Workers' right to negotiate their contracts together has been the law of the land for almost a century. Yet, for that entire time, there has been a glaring loophole in the system that allows employers to prevent unions from ever securing their first contract. Simply put, workers have no real option if their bosses hold out in negotiations indefinitely.

That is exactly what employers have done. They have run out the clock.

It can already take 1 year for workers to win and certify an election and to actually be unionized, and that is when the start of the clock begins. It takes an average of 458 days for an employer to agree with a union to get their first contract. That is just the average. Roughly one-third of all those workers are forced to wait over 3 years before they can sign on the dotted line.

Companies have every incentive to drag out this waiting game. For starters, delaying a new contract ensures that their profits don't have to be shared with their workers. Employers also know that if they can hold up negotiations long enough, there is a chance their employees might get frustrated and decide this process simply is too long. For some of the largest corporations, making collective bargaining as painful as possible might just prevent their other branches from trying to unionize in their workplace.

Let's be clear: Union-busting is illegal and wrong, and it has been for generations. With the dirty tactics of indefinite delays, many employers are working relentlessly to kill their employees' unions.

If you live in America, Mr. Speaker, you have likely crossed paths with many of those workers who were hurt by their employer's waiting games. Let's talk about the father in the Amazon delivery van dropping off home goods in an ice storm. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the young woman at Starbucks who knows your coffee order by heart, or the kind senior bagging your groceries at Trader Joe's, or the hiking expert going that extra mile for you at REI.

Those workers are getting screwed, plain and simple. Many of them are also getting screwed by bosses like Jeff Bezos, who in a short time has accumulated more wealth than any human in the history of the world.

At Amazon, the company Bezos helped found, there are currently over 5,000 warehouse workers in Staten Island who voted to form a union in 2022. For 4 years, they have been waiting. They have been waiting for Amazon to negotiate in good faith, and they are still waiting.

Mr. Speaker, if your partner gave you an engagement ring but didn't show up for 4 years at the altar, you would think there is a problem. Well, folks, we do have a problem.

I believe workers deserve to hold their employers to those same standards. My Faster Labor Contracts Act offers a simple, three-step solution to turn endless negotiation delays into fair contracts for workers.

First, following the certification of a union election, it would require employers to begin contract negotiations with their new union within 10 days.

Second, if a new agreement is not reached after 90 days, my bill would give workers or their employers a choice to refer the negotiations to an independent mediation.

Finally, if mediation takes longer than 1 month, workers or the employer could ask for an arbitration panel to render a decision on a first contract.

This three-step plan would give both parties multiple opportunities to advance stalled contract discussions if they choose to. That is because right

now there are no opportunities if the other stops negotiating in good faith.

My bill's clear timeline for contract negotiations would ensure workers can start benefiting from their new union contract in months, not years. I am also confident that not every negotiation will require outside help because hundreds of employers already do this process the right way each day. Problem employers will be forced to sit down at the table when they know they are not allowed to run out the clock.

Unions fight for American workers of all political stripes. That is why my Faster Labor Contracts Act has attracted bipartisan support. Especially during this nasty era of politics, I am grateful for Members on both sides of the aisle who are willing to stand up with workers together.

Mr. Speaker, I am also grateful to my friends in the broader labor movement for long calling out bad-faith negotiations by employers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record letters by several of these partners in support of the Faster Labor Contracts Act, including the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, IBEW, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, United Steelworkers, and International Association of Machinists.

Mr. Speaker, the coalition we have built behind the Faster Labor Contracts Act bridges political parties, blue-collar and white-collar industries, young and old, and all walks of life. Our bill reaffirms that collective bargaining is a fundamental right

even the richest billionaires must comply with. By advancing this legislation, Congress can send a clear message that workers deserve a level playing field. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.