H.Res. 489

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bills in this rule today are nothing more than a cheap distraction and another smokescreen from House Republicans, who are desperate to change the subject. I get why. After all, it was just 2 weeks ago that nearly every single Republican in this Chamber voted for what may be the most shameful piece of legislation that this body has produced in years, the GOP tax scam.

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that it gives massive tax breaks to billionaires and wealthy donors, but it does that by literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry seniors and children and ripping healthcare away from more than 16 million Americans.

In case it wasn't clear, Republicans are gutting Medicaid and even targeting Medicare, programs that millions of families depend on. It is not because they have to but because they want to.

Mr. Speaker, I know my friends across the aisle hate to hear us say the truth out loud. It makes them uncomfortable because they know what they are doing is wrong. Yet, that is just the cold, hard truth, Mr. Speaker.

In the process, Republicans are adding trillions of dollars to the very national debt that the majority loves to complain about when it is politically convenient. That is also the cold, hard truth.

Numbers don't lie. Look at the Congressional Budget Office's analysis. The Republicans' math does not add up. Again, this adds trillions of dollars to the debt.

Since the backlash has been swift and deserved, Republicans are scrambling to do everything they can to sweep it under the rug and change the narrative. That is what these bills are about--political misdirection, not meaningful solutions.

Let's be clear. Three of the bills this week meddle in D.C.'s local governance. It is not because there is some urgent crisis but because Republicans want to score cheap political points and take power away from a local government that they weren't elected to make decisions for.

In fact, Republicans referred to the District of Columbia as ``property'' in last night's Rules Committee hearing. Who talks like that? I thought I was watching ``Gone with the Wind.''

This is so incredibly offensive. The people who live in D.C. are not the Republicans' property. Their land is not Republicans' property. Their money is not the property of the Republicans. The majority should keep their hands off of it and keep their hands off of them.

Republicans, Mr. Speaker, are on a power trip. These bills either chase problems that don't exist or duplicate efforts already underway. That is not legislating. That is performative politics.

Here is the real kicker: If my Republican colleagues were serious about public safety in D.C., as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim, then the first thing to do is restore the $1 billion in the city's funding that they slashed earlier this year.

I want to be clear. This is not Federal money. We are literally talking about the city being able to spend their own money that D.C. residents have paid in taxes for the District. That money, taken from D.C.'s budget and paid by D.C. taxpayers, goes toward supporting public safety, social services, and critical infrastructure that residents and tourists alike rely on.

The Senate already passed the fix. The bill is ready for us to vote on. Even Donald Trump says he supports it. I can't believe it, but he says that he supports it.

Mr. Speaker, why is it that House Republicans here in Congress are dragging their feet? I thought they did everything Trump directed them to do, Mr. Speaker. Why are Republicans willing to stand strong against Trump on this, but when it comes to taking away healthcare and food assistance from their constituents, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suddenly have no backbone and go along with Trump on that? Give me a damn break.

The fourth bill this week makes formatting changes to the HALT Fentanyl Act, a bill that we have debated before.

I will be very clear. The fentanyl crisis is real. It is deadly, and it demands serious action. Yet, that action must be more than slogans and symbolism. You can't say that you are serious about fighting fentanyl while slashing funding for mental health services, addiction treatment, and Medicaid. That is hypocrisy, and that is dangerous.

Yet, this is the Republican playbook. Republicans pay lipservice to real problems, undercut the solutions that actually work, and shovel more tax breaks to the ultrawealthy--rinse and repeat.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better. They deserve better than a party taking away their healthcare in the middle of the night. America's hardworking moms and dads, who may work multiple jobs but still don't make enough to afford groceries under this administration, deserve to know that they can rely on SNAP during rocky times so that their 7- and 8-year-old kids have something to eat.

Seniors deserve to have full fridges and access to healthcare that they have paid into so that they can live out their remaining years with dignity.

If seniors are paying their fair share in taxes, billionaires, hedge fund managers, and people who can afford to dump millions into political campaigns should pay their fair share, too.

People are tired of all of these giveaways to multibillionaires while hardworking, middle-class families or those struggling to get into the middle class get screwed over.

What we saw from Republicans in the last week of May, Mr. Speaker, is reprehensible. It is not what the American people deserve. We must do better, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to be the one to have to inform the gentlewoman of this fact, but the head of CBO, according to The Wall Street Journal, is a registered Republican.

Now, we are being told by the Republicans that we can't trust the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to give us correct numbers on how much things are going to cost or how much the tax cuts are going to cost. Who do we rely on for that? Is it Elon Musk? Maybe not anymore because Elon and Trump are fighting.

The bottom line is that CBO has been kind of the gold standard that both parties have pointed to in various debates on budgetary bills over the years.

I should also point out, because I think I want it to be very clear, there is no Federal funding in Medicaid that goes to provide support for undocumented immigrants. CBO also states that, so that little red herring out there is just, again, to distract. It is just not truthful. That is not truthful. I think everybody in this Chamber knows that. Enough of that.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act of 2025, which would block the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits and kicking people off of these lifesaving programs.

Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago, House Republicans jammed through their multitrillion-dollar budget scam by a one-vote margin. Some Republicans didn't even know what was in the bill. They rushed it through so fast that we are reportedly going to have to revote on it later this week to fix all the errors in the bill.

While we stand here debating three bills to micromanage the affairs of the District of Columbia, which has its own Mayor and city council, who are perfectly capable of representing their constituents, Republicans are moving forward with more tax breaks for billionaires and corporations while lower

income Americans are made worse off through their largest cuts to healthcare and food assistance in our Nation's history.

We live in the richest country in the history of the world. I will inform the gentlewoman and those in this Chamber that we have 46 million people in the United States of America who are hungry or food insecure. We should all be ashamed of that. Rather than trying to address that problem, by the way, which is a costly problem, the Republicans instead chose to cut $300 billion out of the SNAP program.

They have also cut funding out of a whole range of other nutritional benefit programs, as well. Before they have a chance to vote again on their big bill later this week, I urge my Republican colleagues to correct their mistakes and to vote to protect healthcare. Don't throw American citizens off of healthcare. We should be protecting their healthcare and protecting SNAP for millions of Americans.

This is not about undocumented immigrants. Stop that nonsense. This is about American citizens. Stop these cuts by voting to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentlewoman when she wants to know why the numbers keep on going up in terms of the number of uninsured. The reason is the Republicans continuously changed their bill and made it worse. That is why. The majority has made it worse.

The bill that we voted on throws more people off of healthcare. Boy, that is something to be proud of. There is no denying the fact that their big, ugly bill cuts SNAP by $300 billion. They cut SNAP by $300 billion.

This is a benefit that, on average, is about $2 per person per meal, and they cut $300 billion. They want us to believe there will be no adverse impacts. Everything will just be beautiful. Really? I mean, come on.

They cut $300 billion out of the SNAP program. That is going to impact senior citizens, veterans, and children. Let me tell you, the savings that is going to be garnered from the $300 billion cut that the Republicans are using to offset the cost of tax cuts for billionaires, that is going to be very costly because hungry kids don't learn when they go to school. Senior citizens who take their medication on an empty stomach end up in an emergency room. People who don't have access to decent nutrition end up with chronic illnesses that last a lifetime. Workers who are hungry are less productive in the workforce. That is what my friends are doing.

Don't give me this garbage about undocumented immigrants. CBO made it clear that there is no Medicaid funding going to undocumented immigrants in this country. It is clear. That is a smoke screen so that people don't focus in on how their big, ugly bill is going to hurt regular people in this country.

It really is astounding to me. I thought we all came here, no matter what our politics might be, to help people.

They are pushing forward a bill that is going to hurt people. It is going to hurt almost everybody in this country except if you are well- off and well-connected. If you are a billionaire, if you are a big donor, if you hang out at Mar-a-Lago, you are doing fine, but not everybody else.

The other thing that Republicans are doing is cutting medical research, cutting NIH. If you want to talk about lifesaving investments, let's find a cure for cancer. Let's find a cure for diabetes. Let's find a cure for Alzheimer's. Instead the Republicans are cutting that research.

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a couple minutes here to talk about something else because this is a rules debate, and this is something that I find particularly annoying at this moment.

I will take a moment to talk about process. Perhaps the only noteworthy thing the Republican majority achieved last Congress was shattering their own record for the most closed Congress ever. That is not something you want to be known for.

To be clear, they made history for running the most closed, antidebate Congress we have ever seen. In total, Republicans issued 115 totally closed rules, meaning 115 times where the House could not debate a single amendment on the House floor. Republicans basically told us: nope, no debate, no amendments, no input to make these bills better. Just do whatever we tell you to do.

This wasn't an accident. It was the whole game plan, a legislative lockdown that delivered the most unproductive, dysfunctional Congress in modern American history.

Did they learn anything from it? No, they did not learn a thing. This Congress they have taken that broken model and somehow made it worse.

As of last night, they have racked up over 50 closed rules in just 5 months. More than 90 percent of the bills they bring up have no amendments, no discussion, no democracy. It is just take it or leave it.

At this rate, Republicans are on track to issue over 200 closed rules this Congress. What are we even doing here?

In just 5 months, we have seen Republican leadership block over 800 amendments. These are amendments that our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, have submitted to make bills better. Only 14 amendments were selected by Republican leadership to be debated across just four bills. That is a 98 percent rejection rate. They block 98 out of every 100 ideas they receive.

What does this look like in practice? It looks like a complete destruction of the deliberative process. Republicans have blocked--get this--debate on amendments that would protect SNAP and Medicaid for millions of Americans and debate on amendments to protect access to the ballot box, the foundation of our democracy.

They even blocked debate on bipartisan amendments which would provide a permanent pay fix for Federal wildland firefighters and allow grants to help with fentanyl prevention and education efforts.

No wonder nobody likes Congress. The issues that are important to the American people are not even allowed to be debated. As we see here today, Republicans are okay with debating trivial issues passionately but important ones not at all.

Mr. Speaker, when I chaired this committee, back when we gave a damn, we welcomed ideas. We let the House work the way it is supposed to work. In our first 5 months, Democrats allowed over 25 percent of all amendments, more than 200 thoughtful proposals to be debated.

Here is the kicker: We gave Republicans more chances to debate their ideas than their own leaders do. In 5 months, only 6 of the 220 Republicans, over 97 percent of Republicans in this Chamber, have had an amendment made in order. That is not by mistake. That is a design flaw; a big one.

I don't understand how my Republican colleagues, some of which were so excited about having a bigger, better, open process, can say with a straight face that this is what they wanted. They have no voice in improving legislation. Amendments that we offered last night were blocked.

At this point in the 117th Congress, Mr. Speaker, under Democratic governance, over half of all bipartisan amendments were made in order. This Congress, we have yet to see a single bipartisan amendment make it to the House floor this year. Not even one.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican leadership seemed to have forgotten that this institution is a democratic legislative assembly. Instead, they are running it like a wannabe authoritarian dictatorship.

I know that Donald Trump speaks admiringly of Vladimir Putin all the time, but this place is becoming like Russia.

Come on. Have some respect for the House of Representatives. Let's open this place up a little bit more. This process right now is a disgrace and the American people deserve so much better than this.

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

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

Wow, the gentlewoman is defending this process.

I just want to repeat, when I was chairman, I made one out of every four amendments in order. My Republican friends are making 1 out of every 50 amendments in order, and 0 bipartisan amendments.

Again, I don't quite know--well, I guess I do know. I mean, again, the way the Republican leadership is operating here is that, again, we don't debate serious proposals on the House floor. They don't want to have votes. They don't want to have debates. They just want to bring things to the floor under a closed process and tell people to take it or leave it. Then they do this other thing of sneaking things in the rules so we can't even have a vote up or down on major changes. However, that is not the way this place is supposed to run.

In terms of, again, the Congressional Budget Office, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, according to The Wall Street Journal, is a registered Republican. If we are not going to rely on the Congressional Budget Office for analyses, who are we supposed to rely on? What, Stephen Miller? I mean, who? I mean, I am just trying to figure out who. Are we supposed to take your word for it or just take the President's word for it? I mean, this is a guy who doesn't read anything. He says he watches everything on TV.

I don't even understand. This new position of the Republican Party is that there is no such thing as objective analysis unless it always agrees with them. Well, that is just not the way it is.

In terms of fear-mongering, I mean, your big, ugly bill that you passed a couple of weeks ago is going to throw millions of people off of healthcare. It is going to throw--millions of people

are going to lose their SNAP benefits, their nutritional benefits, and the reason why is because you are making major cuts. It has nothing to do with undocumented immigrants. You can say that all you want.

The gentlewoman knows that Medicare does not provide healthcare for undocumented immigrants. She knows that. Republicans know that. They keep on repeating it anyway because they don't want people to focus in on the reality. I think the American people are beginning to see through all of this. Again, they don't like what they see.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it is not just CBO saying that your big, ugly bill costs trillions of dollars, it is the Joint Committee on Taxation, Budget Lab at Yale, Penn Wharton Budget Model, and the right-leaning Tax Foundation. All of them, all of them say that your big, ugly bill is going to add trillions to the deficit, will explode the deficit, add to the debt, and that is--I mean, it is just everybody.

The only people who are saying this is not going to explode the deficit are my Republican friends here in the House. I think they think if they keep on saying that it is not going to cost anything, then people will believe that. That is just not the case.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to tell the gentlewoman this, but every one of the organizations that I mentioned actually do account for growth. I have the charts here. I am happy to share them with you. From the Tax Foundation to the Penn Wharton Budget Model to Budget Lab at Yale to the Joint Committee on Taxation, here is the graph. I am happy to share that with you so you can see. If your leadership is telling you that they don't, then they are not being honest with you about the extent of this. Mr. Massie, a member of the Republican Party, has also talked about how your big, ugly bill is going to add trillions to the deficit and the debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlewoman, how many more speakers she has on her side?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that these bills are nothing more than window dressing to cover up a truly grotesque set of priorities. Let's not forget, Republicans just voted to rip healthcare away from 16 million people, not undocumented immigrants, but 16 million American citizens. They voted to deny food assistance to children, seniors, and veterans. They are set to explode the deficit by trillions--trillions-- just to reward their wealthy donors.

Now, with even their own Members having second thoughts and regrets about that vote, as The New York Times reported last week, they are desperate to change the conversation. However, these bills, these distractions won't work because the American people are paying attention. They see what is happening. They see the cruelty behind these choices, and they are not fooled. This isn't about policy. This is about morality, about what kind of country we want to be, about whether we stand with working families or with billionaires; whether we choose compassion or cruelty.

I know Democrats will keep fighting. We will keep speaking truth to power, and we will make damn sure that the public knows exactly who is responsible when services disappear, when costs go up as a result of these crazy tariffs, and when families are left behind.

I urge my colleagues to reject these bills, to reject the politics of distraction, and start doing the hard work the American people sent us here to do. People want us to fight for them. They want us to be focused on their priorities, on making their lives better; not on the priorities of the Elon Musk-wing of the Republican Party, the billionaire class. They want us to focus in on what matters to them.

Prices are going up, life is hard, and life is challenging. Rather than dealing with bills that might make their life better, we are dealing with this stuff. This is crazy. The American people want us to rise to the occasion, to be about something more than just politics as usual. This is about people's lives.

I will tell you: We owe the American people much better than this Congress is delivering. Really, it is shameful that week after week after week we come up with these distractions that mean nothing in people's lives. Even worse, we pass this big, ugly bill that we did 2 weeks ago that is going to hurt my constituents and the gentlewoman's constituents, as well. There is no denying that people will lose their food benefits and their healthcare benefits in order to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. It is grotesque.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. If the rule passes, I urge ``no'' votes on all these damned bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act. The House approved this bill in February, and since that time, the Trump administration has set its sights on dismantling our Nation's public health infrastructure, including the agency directly responsible for addressing mental health and substance abuse disorders.

Republicans are going to claim today that they are addressing the opioid overdose crisis with this bill, but this is nothing but a distraction from the fact that Republicans continue to silently stand by and allow the Trump administration to gut our public health agencies.

Republicans are also attempting to distract from the fact that last month they passed the largest cuts to healthcare in American history as part of their big, ugly bill. Republicans are stripping healthcare away from 16 million Americans so they can give giant tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations, two groups that don't need any help right now.

Now, Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years, we have made significant progress in addressing the opioid overdose crisis. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a 24 percent decline in drug overdose deaths for the 12 months ending in September of 2024, compared to the previous year. This is encouraging news, but I am deeply concerned that the Trump administration's attacks on public health, coupled with the Republicans' attacks on Americans' healthcare will seriously threaten the improvements we have made.

The bill before us today permanently schedules fentanyl-related substances on schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This is based on a class definition disputed by scientists. I oppose this bill because it is a permanent extension instead of a temporary one that we agreed on for 2 years in the end-of-the-year appropriations package.

Now, that bipartisan package was pushed aside by Speaker Johnson after Elon Musk voiced his opposition to the overall package. The temporary option would have left the door open for an off-ramp to substances found to have potential medical applications. However, this Republican bill would also exacerbate inequities in our criminal justice system because drugs placed on schedule I include mandatory minimum sentencing. S. 331 also does not provide additional resources for prevention, treatment, recovery, or harm reduction.

So this bill is essentially recycling an incarceration first response to what I consider mainly a public health challenge. That is because Republicans don't want to talk about this as a public health challenge. Instead, President Trump and House Republicans want to focus on piecemeal policies in the hopes it will distract from their efforts to gut Medicaid and drug treatment programs.

Now Republicans are sabotaging Medicaid, which will be devastating to people who struggle with mental health and substance use issues. Medicaid is the single largest payer in the country for behavioral health services, covering 40 percent of all Americans with opioid use disorder.

Americans with substance use and mental health issues will face new barriers and red tape in signing up for and staying enrolled in their health insurance. House Republicans are setting up new barriers and roadblocks to care that will, unfortunately, result in our mental health and substance abuse crises only worsening.

Republicans are silently standing by as the Trump administration is moving forward with an unauthorized and illegal plan to eliminate the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, better known as SAMHSA. SAMHSA is the very agency responsible for preventing substance use disorder, increasing access to treatment, and promoting recovery.

It will be combined with other agencies that the Trump administration doesn't care about under the banner of a larger make America healthy again office. Now, these critical programs to treat mental health and substance abuse will be deprioritized or eliminated in favor of Secretary RFK, Jr.'s, pet projects, like destroying Americans' access to vaccines. He is going to prioritize that, and not SAMHSA and substance abuse treatment.

Congress has received zero information from the Trump administration about how this new office will work and how the work of SAMHSA to address the mental health and substance use treatment needs of our community will be prioritized.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Nation's leading mental health and substance use treatment organizations. It is called the Mental Health Liaison Group.

Mr. Speaker, this letter is in strong opposition to the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate SAMHSA, as well as their reference to drastically cut funding and eliminate critical SAMHSA programs.

As they write in this letter: These proposals ``would have devastating consequences for the 84.5 million Americans with a mental health and/or a substance use disorder, many of whom rely on SAMHSA's programs, research, oversight, and leadership to address critical mental health and substance use disorder needs.''

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is also rescinding more than $1 billion in essential funding that States rely on through block grants. This rescission is wreaking havoc on States' efforts to support prevention, treatment, and recovery. That is because States, counties, and towns are the main places where these treatment programs are.

My Republican colleagues refuse to hold this administration to account for these devastating and illegal cuts. Instead, they are trying to distract with this bill. This bill is opposed by nearly 190 national, State, and local public health, criminal justice, and civil rights organizations.

So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand. What I am saying is that if we don't treat mental health and substance abuse as a public health crisis and, instead, we just say that we are going to have mandatory sentences and throw everybody in jail, lock the door, and throw away the key, then I don't think that is going to solve the problem.

I will continue to highlight that while Republicans propose these mandatory sentences and want to put fentanyl permanently on the schedule, that is not the answer to this mental health crisis. It is not the answer. The answer is to provide adequate treatment, and education. It is also to prevent the drugs from coming into the country but not just to put people in jail and throw away the key.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think House Republicans know that we can't simply schedule our way out of this crisis, but they have refused to pass bipartisan solutions that address prevention, treatment, and recovery to help stop overdose deaths.

I know that they passed reauthorizing the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act last week, but the bottom line is that all of the programs under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act that have helped with treatment, helped with education, caused the number of overdose deaths to decline are being gutted. The staff that administer them and SAMHSA, the program that they are under, all of these things are being either eliminated, gutted, or the funding frozen by the Trump administration.

My point today is this is not just a criminal justice issue. We must combat this opioid crisis through a multipronged public health approach.

Nearly half of all people in Federal prison today have been convicted of a drug-related offense, with a racial and ethnic disparity among those convictions.

Access to treatment remains a challenge today. In 2023, according to SAMHSA, approximately one-quarter of the people who are classified as needing substance use treatment received it in the last year. People with a substance use disorder who are untreated are eight times more likely to die of an overdose compared to those who receive medication treatment.

Just putting people away and throwing away the key is not the answer. Cutting back on the treatment programs, and the education programs under SAMHSA, is certainly going to make things worse.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of our committee knows I have great respect for him, but the bottom line is that this bill does not consider individual circumstances. It is not just people that are selling drugs.

Look, I totally agree that if someone is selling fentanyl, it is a totally different situation from someone who is arrested for possessing it. The fact of the matter is this bill covers both those who possess it, using it for themselves, and those who are selling it--maybe those who have a huge ring of selling it.

My point is that when there are mandatory minimums, all those people come under the same rubric. The legislation, because it now makes permanent fentanyl on the schedule I, the mandatory minimums apply, and the harsh penalties do not consider individual circumstances.

I don't want to keep repeating, but I will, about how the legislation has no resources for prevention or treatment and just simply locks people up. The point is that there are going to be families and communities, because of the minimum mandatory sentencing and the inability of the judge to look at the individual circumstances, that we are going to repeat the same mistakes that were made for many years responding to other drugs.

Right now we know that people of color have been disproportionately incarcerated and sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences. The trend of racial disparity also can be seen in prosecutions for offenses involving fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.

The Sentencing Commission data from fiscal years 2021 to 2023 provides strong evidence that these prosecutions disproportionately target people of color.

I would like to get beyond the point here when we debate these bills of saying that mandatory sentencing is a good thing, regardless of whether they are charged with possession or selling or how much they are selling, but that is not what this bill does. They get locked up. There are no individual circumstances considered. We know the consequences of that for people in many cases who, in my opinion, if I was the judge, would not impose these harsh mandatory penalties.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the chairman of our Health Subcommittee said, and I am not arguing with him that we have to look at the fentanyl crisis in many ways, particularly at the border, and prevent it from coming into the country from China and other places that flood this country with it. Yet, my point is that what we are hearing from the Trump administration and from the Secretary of HHS, Robert Kennedy, Jr., is that we are going to defund substance use disorder programs, mental health programs, and treatment.

The fact of the matter is that about 58 percent of the people in prison right now have a substance use disorder. People with these disorders have challenges in getting appropriate treatment, and incarceration often exacerbates their symptoms. By having these mandatory penalties and putting more people in prison, who are, in many cases, only there because of mandatory sentences for possession of fentanyl and analogues, it only exacerbates their condition. It leads to individuals staying incarcerated longer, and they don't get treatment.

In the congressional justification for the Trump administration for a healthy America, the HHS agency proposes to cut various substance use and mental health programs that are helping State and local health departments combat the opioid crisis.

For fiscal year 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to zero out State opioid response grants, the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, first responder training, youth prevention and recovery programs, and many, many more. I talked about this recently.

The bottom line is that if you zero out all of these programs--I think it is over $1 billion that has already been frozen--you are going to have no opportunity locally to actually help people with treatment and education. All you are going to do now is just throw them in prison, which only exacerbates the problem.

In the President's budget, they propose to cut SAMHSA programs that assist with harm reduction strategies to help those in need, as well as programs to help prevent Americans from using controlled substances. The President's budget also calls for reducing opioid overdose prevention and surveillance by $29 million.

I think that every dollar that is cut for prevention, treatment, and education is a life that is left unprotected. Terminating these critical programs and offices just puts millions of lives battling substance abuse in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleagues would spend time on these issues of protecting public health and coming up with solutions instead of retreading a bill that prioritizes this criminal justice approach, which I think doesn't work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), who is our assistant minority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, we had this bill in the House back in February, and then it went to the Senate. Essentially, what came back today for final approval or final passage is the same bill.

As was mentioned by my Republican colleagues, if it passes today, it goes straight to the President's desk. At the time in February, when we were discussing this bill, I had pointed out that President Trump had just pushed a scheme, really, straight out of Project 2025 to choke off virtually all Federal funding, including halting over $8.6 billion in grant funding for the Federal programs to combat the opioid crisis. At the time, congressional Republicans just stood by silently as it happened.

Trump halted over $6.5 billion in funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, which supports treatment programs and prevention efforts. He also halted nearly $1.5 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health drug abuse and addiction research programs, which conduct and support research on substance abuse and addiction, basically to better understand the causes of addiction and identify treatments and interventions that reduce overdoses.

Trump also halted all federally funded programs that provide critical opioid-related services, including federally qualified health centers, which serve a high proportion of patients disproportionately impacted by the opioid crisis.

The Department of Health and Human Services also eliminated the workforce training programs, including the Integrated Substance Use Disorder Training Program, which trains professionals to provide opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery services.

Mr. Speaker, we went to court over a lot of these things, and many of them were overturned. Yet, I don't want anyone to think that the President is giving up. He is going to continue his efforts to illegally cut these programs, and I mentioned some of them before. Again, House Republicans are doing nothing to halt any of this.

In addition to that, I have to say that the big, ugly bill passed a couple of weeks ago by the Republicans, I think, altogether, between Medicaid, the ACA, and Medicare, because of sequestration, cuts, I don't know, I would say $1.7 trillion or so.

Understand that Medicaid is the single largest payer for behavioral health services in the United States and covers nearly 40 percent of all individuals with opioid use disorder. Medicaid covers a full array of services and support for people with behavioral health needs, including services and supports that typically are not covered by other health programs.

This is an assault on every effort for prevention and treatment of opioid disorders, whether it is cutting Medicaid, eliminating SAMHSA's programs, or cutting the money that goes back to States and towns to help people with treatment.

Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is a distraction because it gives the impression that if you lock somebody up with a mandatory penalty, even if it is just for possession, and throw away the key, that is going to solve your problem. It is not.

Everything that the President is doing and the Republicans are doing to support him completely eliminates or significantly cuts back on the treatment and the education that are going to be much more important in terms of trying to save people's lives.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the bill before us today is the Senate companion to H.R. 27, which we voted on here in the House on February 6 of this year. The two bills are identical, other than a couple of minor punctuation differences. This bill would go to the President's desk, and he said he would sign it.

However, since that vote in February here in the House, the Trump administration has seriously threatened our Nation's ability to confront the ongoing opioid overdose crisis by attempting to dismantle the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, as I mentioned, firing hundreds of workers, including senior key officials, and rescinding over $1 billion from State and local behavioral health programs.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to oppose this bill because it is a permanent extension of fentanyl-related substances as schedule I drugs instead of the temporary one that we agreed on for 2 years in the end of the year 2024 appropriations package.

The temporary option would have left the door open for an off-ramp to substances found to have potential medical applications. This bill would also exacerbate inequities in our criminal justice system because drugs placed on schedule I include mandatory minimum sentencing. Furthermore, S. 331 also does not provide additional resources, as I have mentioned, for prevention, treatment, recovery, or harm reduction.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 489 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 489, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

House Resolution 489 provides for closed rules for S. 331, H.R. 884, H.R. 2056, and H.R. 2096.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided by the chair and ranking member for the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees, for consideration of S. 331.

Additionally, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate each for H.R. 884, H.R. 2056, and H.R. 2096, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, starting with S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act, important legislation that the House considered back in February when 98 Democrats supported it, this bill would permanently classify all fentanyl-related substances as illegal and give our law enforcement officers more tools to combat the crisis. The bill also ensures that medical professionals can research fentanyl-related substances so that we can better understand their effects on human health.

In 2023, more than 100,000 people nationwide, including 2,190 from my home State of Indiana, died from a drug overdose. National numbers from the same year indicate that approximately 75,000 people died an overdose death related to synthetic opioids. Fentanyl deaths account for as much as 77 percent of adolescent overdose deaths, and it is the leading cause of death in the 18- to 49-year-old age bracket.

We cannot stand by and do nothing while this scourge exists. The bottom line is that this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill is necessary to assist our law enforcement officers in combating fentanyl.

Mr. Speaker, I will transition to the issue of free and fair elections and H.R. 884.

In 2022, Washington, D.C., enacted a dangerous law: the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, D.C. Act 24-640, which allows noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, foreign agents, and diplomats, to vote in local elections.

We should not allow foreign entities who are hostile to the United States to vote in our elections, period. We should not allow illegal immigrants to vote in our elections. This is a direct assault on the value of American citizenship, and it undermines the voices of lawful voters.

Worse, it is part of a broader effort by the left to chip away at Congress' constitutional authority over our Nation's Capital. The Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to legislate in all cases whatsoever concerning Washington, D.C. Under the Home Rule Act, we have the duty to review and reject laws that threaten the integrity of our elections and our constitutional system.

Even Mayor Bowser withheld her signature from those actions, and I thank her for that.

Of all places, we must not let the Nation's Capital become a model for illegal voting.

Additionally, this rule provides for H.R. 2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act.

In 2023, the D.C. Council passed the so-called Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, a bill that singles out the Metropolitan Police Department, making it the only union in the District stripped of its ability to collectively bargain on disciplinary matters.

H.R. 2096 puts an end to this antipolice policy and restores fairness to the bargaining process for D.C.'s law enforcement officers.

Finally, this rule includes H.R. 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, which simply ensures that D.C. follows Federal immigration law. That is because no city, especially not our Capital, should get a free pass to ignore the laws of the land.

In 2019, D.C. Mayor Bowser approved the Sanctuary Values Amendment Act of 2019, which, according to the Mayor's Office, ``limits the District's cooperation with Federal immigration agencies, including by complying with detainer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (``ICE'') absent a judicial warrant or order issued by a Federal judge or by providing to Federal immigration agencies information about when or where someone will be released.''

This is ludicrous. In other words, D.C. will make it harder for ICE to detain dangerous criminals and otherwise impede their ability to do their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up. While my colleagues continue to double down on their America-last policies, House Republicans are charging forward and standing up for hardworking families and vulnerable Americans.

The legislation before us is common sense, pro-law enforcement, and necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of these important pieces of legislation. I urge the passage of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said this again and again. The rhetoric from our Democratic colleagues on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is just not true.

In fact, we are preserving benefits for those who need it most by preventing people who are illegal and ineligible from accessing Medicaid. We are also ensuring that able-bodied adults have a mandatory work requirement of just less than 20 hours per week. It includes the ability for participating in education, job search, and community engagement to all count toward that work requirement.

What we were trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is ensure that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. That is the truth.

With reference to the CBO, the CBO has been wrong again and again. It is on record as being wrong by more than $1 trillion. We cannot count on the CBO's score alone as a measure of how well or what savings this bill will have or not have.

In fact, the Democratic-led CBO has overestimated the cost of Trump's tax cuts, underestimated the cost of the Affordable Care Act, and overestimated the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act.

I will note something about this being political misdirection, as my colleague noted. He said that this is not an urgent crisis. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may want to take a look at the lawlessness that is happening in California. That is not a crisis? I think it is, and it is certainly something that we don't want to see in our Nation's Capital, in Washington, D.C., which is exactly the type of thing that we are trying to prevent by passing this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that my colleague mentioned was the people who are food insecure. I note something that we should be ashamed of is the inflationary policies of the Biden administration that drove up food costs leading to more people being food insecure.

I am glad to hear that my colleague on the other side of the aisle is interested in preserving healthcare for those who need it most. I hope that means he will vote for H.R. 1.

One of the things we heard just in the last few minutes is that children with cancer and the mother of a child with cancer will not be covered. That is just not true. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act protects benefits for those children.

Democrats are fighting to protect healthcare for 1.4 million illegal immigrants. They are fighting to protect billions of dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse.

The number that they keep referencing just keeps going up. It has been 13.7 million, 14 million, and now it is 16 million. That is just not true. Even The New York Times said that the numbers that the Democrats have been saying about people who will ``lose their healthcare'' is not true.

If you are illegal, if you are ineligible, if you are able-bodied and could work, those are the people that this bill will target.

Finally, I will say that, once again, taking it back to the issues at hand, we are here to do the important work of safeguarding our elections in the United States, supporting the police, and ensuring that local jurisdictions aren't obstructing immigration enforcement.

Similar bills on these topics have gained support from some Democrats. Instead of trying to belittle these issues or endlessly debate H.R. 1 at every possible turn, they can stop and reflect about their opposition to these commonsense bills, bills supported by the agenda that voters backed months ago.

Democrats just can't seem to help themselves. President Trump's multifaceted approach to immigration enforcement is working. Illegal border crossings are down 95 percent. Daily border encounters are down by 93 percent. Got-aways are down by 99 percent. Fentanyl flows are down 54 percent. Mr. Speaker, there were 2,000 ICE arrests every day recently. ICE is finally cleaning up the open-border policy of the Biden administration. Yes, they were open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that our colleagues will support the underlying rule and the bills that we have considered before us today because we need to secure our elections and stand up for our police and the rule of law.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, fear-mongering is not a solution to the problems that we face today. If we are not going to find savings across all agencies by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, we are not going to safeguard these programs for the future.

Unfortunately, my colleagues are against rooting out even waste, fraud, and abuse. By doing so, they are not protecting the very programs they claim that they are fighting to protect.

Again, with the CBO, according to the White House press secretary, there hasn't been a single staffer in the entire Congressional Budget Office that has contributed to a Republican since the year 2000, but guess what? Many of the staffers within the CBO have contributed to Democratic candidates and politicians in every single cycle since.

Unfortunately, it is not an institution in our country that is bipartisan. It has become partisan and political, which is why conservatives and Republicans on our side are skeptical of the CBO and what they report.

My colleague referred to closed measures, so I just want to note that it is true, there have been 53 closed measures, but the number needs context. Twelve were in the rules package, which passed 2 weeks before the 119th Rules Committee even organized to begin meeting. An additional 21 measures were either CRAs or received no amendments, making them closed by definition, so only 17 measures have been closed by discretion of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to make the emphasis what it should be today, which is on safeguarding our elections, supporting local law enforcement, and trying to eliminate the deadly scourge of fentanyl across the United States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, many of the entities that my colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned do not account for growth. The growth measure is significant in reducing the deficit, and I believe that under President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we will have record amounts of growth.

Our version of the bill only accounts for about 2.6 percent of growth. Some of these agencies are accounting for only 1.8 percent growth counting toward the calculations in this bill. If we are not accounting for robust growth, which I think we will get, then we will have an unclear picture, which is why I am leaning into OMB Director Russ Vought's assessment of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

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

I have got just a couple of things I would like to note in my closing, and this is reasons why the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is the best chance in a generation to pass critical reforms that the American people voted for:

It delivers tax relief, the largest tax cut in American history, meaning an extra $5,000 in Americans' pockets with double-digit percent decrease to their tax bills.

It makes the Trump tax cuts permanent, preventing the largest tax increase ever.

It raises Americans' take-home pay by as much as $13,300 and wages by as much as $11,600.

It reverses the spending curse plaguing Washington, D.C.

The bill delivers the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years, with $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings, the largest single reduction in mandatory spending in our country's history.

It delivers no tax on tips and no tax on overtime.

It provides historic tax relief for seniors.

It finishes President Trump's border wall. It boosts Border Patrol and ICE agents on the front line, with the largest border security investment in history.

It increases the child tax credit to $2,500 per family.

It protects Medicaid for Americans who truly need it.

It implements popular work requirements for able-bodied Americans receiving taxpayer-funded benefits.

It eliminates hundreds of billions of dollars in green new scam tax credits. It reverses electric vehicle mandates that let radical climate activists set the standards in American energy.

It ends Biden's war on American energy.

It streamlines onerous permitting processes so America can get building again.

It refills the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to safeguard America's energy security.

It repeals and rescinds every green corporate welfare subsidy.

It stops illegal immigrants from receiving tax credits and tax remittances sent to foreign countries.

It supports small businesses by increasing the section 199A deduction to 23 percent.

It incentivizes made in America.

It creates new Trump savings accounts for newborns. It expands access to childcare for hardworking families.

It provides historic increases in funding for the U.S. Coast Guard.

It supports building new factories to grow domestic business operations.

It helps American farmers, producers, and ranchers compete and sell products in foreign markets.

It holds woke elitist universities accountable by increasing the endowment tax on large universities.

It protects hardworking taxpayers by canceling Biden's illegal and unfair student loan bailouts.

It ends taxpayer-funded gender transition procedures.

It is a once-in-a-generation chance to revolutionize our Nation's defense capabilities and protect the homeland against new threats by funding President Trump's Golden Dome.

It enhances the capacity of America's naval fleet.

It modernizes air traffic control.

It strengthens SNAP benefits.

It implements critical program integrity and cost-containment provisions in Medicaid to strengthen it for future generations.

It safeguards the Second Amendment by removing tax and registration requirements for firearm silencers and eliminating silencers from the National Firearms Act.

It provides critical disaster recovery funding to farmers, producers, and ranchers.

It provides funding to rebuild America's military.

It expands health savings accounts to give Americans greater choice and flexibility in how to spend their money.

It gives $10,000 bonuses annually over the next 4 years to Border Patrol and ICE agents on the front lines.

It incentivizes scholarships that empower American families and students to choose the education that best fits their needs.

It repeals Democrats' insane attack on the gig economy.

It reforms and streamlines the Federal student loan program to drive down tuition costs and simplify repayment plans.

It strengthens accountability for students and taxpayers on Federal student loans and implements critical reforms to Pell grants to make sure they prioritize students who truly need financial assistance while promoting completion.

It increases timber sales on Federal lands.

It authorizes the sale of expanded spectrum megahertz to strengthen rural broadband and secure America's technological dominance in AI and other emerging technology.

It creates permanent fees that illegal immigrants must pay for their applications so American taxpayers aren't saddled with covering these costs.

It protects family farmers.

It ends abusive financing practices in Medicaid by freezing provider taxes and prohibiting new provider taxes.

It reins in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it rolls back harmful Biden-era regulations that increase costs and administrative burdens with limited flexibility for States.

Mr. Speaker, we are not here today to talk about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. We are here today to talk about the many provisions that are important to the safety and security of the United States. We are talking about a rule that includes provisions to secure American elections, protect and support our police, and target the deadly scourge of fentanyl across the United States.

Despite what my colleagues on the left may say, that this is a distraction, we say it is necessary and that we can multitask by doing these things and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The American people understand the importance of immigration enforcement and the need to provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to stop the deadly flow of fentanyl. That is why 77 million Americans voted to end the Biden-Harris administration's reckless handling of the border and their disregard for the rule of law.

Today's measures crack down on fentanyl, safeguard our elections, and back the blue. It is about law, order, and protecting the American people.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 2096, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the District of Columbia. Madam Speaker, D.C. deserves the right to govern itself. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate full legislative authority to the District of Columbia for local matters. However, Republicans choose not to do so.

Police officers are entrusted with extraordinary authority to protect public safety. The vast majority of officers exercise it honorably and bravely. However, there must be accountability and transparency for instances in which officers violate their oath of office.

H.R. 2096 would repeal provisions of a 2023 D.C. law that made it easier for the police department to discipline officers for crimes and serious misconduct. Before that law, the department had been forced to rehire a significant number of officers it had fired for crimes and official misconduct.

Let me provide examples of the types of officers the department had to rehire: officers convicted or arrested for child abuse, sexual assault, indecent exposure, drunk driving causing injuries, domestic violence, and assaults while off-duty. D.C. also had to provide millions of dollars in backpay to those officers it was forced to rehire. D.C. also had to pay millions of dollars to resolve police officer misconduct lawsuits.

Before the 2023 D.C. law, every single D.C. police chief, for at least the prior 25 years, has requested more authority to discipline officers. H.R. 2096 would inexplicably revoke this authority. By bringing H.R. 2096 to the floor, Republicans are declaring they know better than the D.C. police chiefs how to run the department.

Let's hear what some of these D.C. police chiefs have had to say about this authority. Let's start with former Chief Peter Newsham. He said that he had to allow ``very bad police officers back into our department.''

Former Chief Charles Ramsey said: ``It is demoralizing to the rank and file who really do not want to have those kinds of people in their ranks. It causes a tremendous amount of anxiety in the public. Our credibility is shot whenever these things happen.''

Former Chief Robert Contee said that this authority would ``help reduce the risk of returning poor performers to the force. . . . ''

Following the devastating murder of George Floyd, D.C. enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which, in pertinent part, made it easier for the police department to discipline officers. H.R. 2096 would repeal that discipline provision in that law.

H.R. 2096, as introduced, includes a purpose section. The purpose is ``to combat the rise in violent crime in our Nation's Capital by eliminating policies which place law enforcement personnel of the District of Columbia at risk and discourage them from serving, ensuring that such personnel will be treated equitably and fairly and the recruitment and retention of such personnel shall be increased.'' We are not surprised that the version of H.R. 2096 on the floor today does not include that purpose section since it is inaccurate.

Violent crime is not rising here in D.C. In 2025, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period in 2024. In 2024, violent crime in D.C. was the lowest in over 30 years. Let me repeat. Violent crime is falling in D.C. and is at a 30-year low in the District of Columbia.

The D.C. Police Department is not alone in having difficulty in recruiting and retaining police officers. Police departments of all sizes across the country have had this difficulty for many years. A survey conducted in 2019, before jurisdictions across the country enacted police accountability and transparency legislation after the murder of George Floyd, found ``that the difficulty in recruiting law enforcement officers and employees is not due to one particular cause. Rather, multiple social, political, and economic forces are all simultaneously at play. . . . ''

H.R. 2096 would repeal four discipline provisions.

First, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that removed police officer discipline for collective bargaining. Several States, including States represented by Republicans, prohibit collective bargaining by police officers. The 2023 D.C. law maintained the right of police officers to collectively bargain, except over discipline, and maintained the civil service protections and due process rights of officers.

Collective bargaining by police officers has been widely criticized for protecting police officers from discipline. A Republican staff report for the Joint Economic Committee said: ``Collective bargaining plays a significant role in shielding police officers from the consequences of their misconduct. . . . ''

Second, H.R. 2096 would reinstitute a 90-day statute of limitations on the police department to commence discipline. The 2023 D.C. law repealed that provision because 90 days was not enough time, in some cases, to commence discipline. Adjudicators had overturned discipline because the department had exceeded the 90-day statute of limitations. There is no statute of limitations for most D.C. employees. The home State of the sponsor of H.R. 2096 has an 18-month statute of limitations to commence discipline against police officers.

Third, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that gave the police chief the authority to increase the discipline proposed by a police trial board, which consists of police officers. Before the 2023 D.C. law, the police chief could only impose or reduce the proposed discipline or order a new trial. The D.C. law increased the discipline power of the chief and reduced the discipline power of the trial board, which may be more inclined to protect their fellow officers from discipline.

Fourth, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that required the police department to publish on a public website a schedule of officer discipline hearings which are open to the public. The House of Representatives itself publishes on a public website a schedule of its committee hearings.

I close with a question and a plea. If Republicans support police officers, why hasn't Speaker Johnson installed the plaque honoring the brave police officers, including D.C. officers, who defended this Capitol on January 6? Federal law requires its installation by March 15, 2023, more than 2 years ago.

That plaque in honor of officers who were killed defending the Members of this Congress, defending this institution, is apparently sitting in a closet. The families of those officers who were killed and beaten that day are waiting for the due respect that is owed to their husbands, sons, and fathers.

The more than 700,000 D.C. residents who have all the obligations of citizenship, including paying Federal taxes and serving in our Nation's wars, deserve voting representation in Congress and full home rule. I call on the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Deirdre Schifeling, Anthony Romero, and Deborah Archer of the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to H.R. 2096.

June 10, 2025.

Re Vote ``No'' on H.R. 2096 Protecting Our Nation's Capital

Emergency Act Which Would Allow Dangerous Officers Who

Have Been Terminated for Criminal Conduct or Police

Misconduct to Remain Employed as D.C. Metropolitan Police

Officers Endangering Public Safety, Evading

Accountability, and Eroding Public Trust.

Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union

strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 2096 which would make it

easier for police officers accused of criminal conduct or

police misconduct to be reinstated as D.C. Metropolitan

Police Department officers. H.R. 2096 removes key polic

misconduct oversight provisions from The Comprehensive

Policing and Justice Amendment Act of 2022 which was signed

into law.

H.R. 2096 repeals key portions of current local law that

address the problems highlighted in recent D.C. Auditor's

report of officers being rehired despite being previously

terminated for police misconduct or criminal conduct.

Specifically:

1. H.R. 2096 would reinstate the ineffective, slow, and

costly arbitration process for handling cases where officers

are accused of crimes or police misconduct and face

termination of employment.

2. H.R. 2096 would place a 90-day limit on the police

department to start a disciplinary response, but this bill

does not place a time limit to take a case to arbitration.

From 2015-2021 officers who were fired and/or their

representatives allowed years to pass before bringing a case

to arbitration resulting in large awards for backpay and high

administrative costs for the District.

3. H.R. 2096 would remove the transparency requirement for

the police department to publish on a public website a

schedule of adverse action hearings in which the proposed

discipline for an officer is termination, including the date,

time, and location of the hearing, the name and badge number

of the officer, and a summary of the alleged misconduct or

charges.

4. H.R. 2096 also removes the D.C. Metropolitan Police

Chief's ability to increase proposed penalties for officers.

H.R. 2096 Will Reinstitute Closed-Door Arbitration Hearings

for Officers Accused of Criminal Conduct and Police

Misconduct, A System Which Puts Dangerous Officers Back in

the Metropolitan Police Department and Costs Taxpayers

Millions.

H.R. 2096 will institute a police officer negotiated, non-

public arbitration for cases where an officer has been or

will be fired for misconduct. This system makes it nearly

impossible to fire officers from the D.C. Metropolitan Police

who have engaged in criminal

conduct and conduct that violates civil liberties due to the

convoluted and lopsided nature of the arbitration. According

to former Metropolitan Police Department Chief Peter Newsham,

the arbitration system puts ``very bad police officers back

into our department.'' In 2022, the Office of the District of

Columbia Auditor issued a report studying the cases of

officers fired and then reinstated by the D.C. Metropolitan

Police from 2015 to 2021. Thirty-seven D.C. Metropolitan

police officers were fired for allegations criminal conduct,

civil rights violations, and officer conduct violations.

These dangerous officers were reinstated, on average, 8 years

later, and 36 of those officers were paid $14.3 million in

taxpayer dollars.

Of the 37 police officers who were terminated and then

reinstated by the closed-door arbitration system that H.R.

2096 would reinstitute, 17 (46 percent) were terminated for

police misconduct defined as `threat to safety' which meant

these officers engaged in conduct that included a risk of

harm to persons through action or inaction, such as physical

and sexual violence, mishandling firearms, or compromising

evidence related to an arrest. The other 20 officers (54

percent) were terminated for reasons such as

misrepresentation of injuries, time theft, fraud, and other

misconduct that violated the Metropolitan Police rules and

code of conduct (see below for examples from the 2022 audit

report).

H.R. 2096 Will Protect Dangerous Police Officers from Being

Fired and These Officers Will Continue Their Pattern and

Practice of Civil Liberties Violations.

Officers who were fired from the D.C. Metropolitan Police

Department for criminal conduct or police misconduct continue

their pattern of dangerous behavior and have police

misconduct complaints even after being reinstated. As of

September 2022, 15 of the 37 officers that were fired and

reinstated through the arbitration process which H.R. 2096

will reinstate are still working at the D.C. Metropolitan

Police Department. Six of the 15 officers (40 percent) had

another official misconduct complaint filed by the

Metropolitan Police Department after they were reinstated.

H.R. 2096's arbitration system encourages officers to engage

in civil rights violations against the public because

dangerous officers know they will simply be reinstated

through the arbitration process and cannot be fired.

This bill fails to learn any of the lessons of the murder

of George Floyd by police officers: officers with a pattern

of misconduct must be removed from employment, not simply

cycled back into positions of authority and control.

H.R. 2096 Will Reinstate the 8 Year Arbitration Process

That Pays Dangerous Police Officers $374,000 on Average in

Backpay and Costs the District $895,000 Annually in Personnel

Resources. H.R. 2096 does not create a timelier process for

the resolution of police misconduct cases. H.R. 2096 will

reinstate a termination process that is not public and

overseen by arbitrators. This process is heavily skewed to

protect dangerous police officers by allowing them to

capitalize on a drawn-out arbitration process that does not

set any time limits for officers to bring their case to

arbitration.

According to a 2022 Report issued by the Office of the D.C.

Auditor, from 2015 to 2021, the police officer termination

and reinstatement process lasted an average of 8 years, the

average amount of backpay the District paid to these officers

was $374,000, and the District personnel and resources spent

on these drawn-out arbitration processes totaled an estimated

$895,000 each year for a period of five years.

H.R. 2096 sets a 90-day limit on the police department to

commence corrective or adverse action against a police

officer or civilian employee but does not place any time

limits on the fired officers, or their representatives, to

bring a case to arbitration in a timely fashion. Fired

officers and their representatives have allowed years to pass

before bringing a case for arbitration creating a process

that takes, on average, 8 years before a misconduct case is

resolved resulting in costly backpay payouts for the District

of Columbia. Additionally, the 90-day time limit in this

legislation allows individuals engaged in criminal conduct to

avoid any accountability for misconduct through a technical

hurdle and one-sided timeline requirement.

The officer discipline process H.R. 2096 would reinstate

has proven to be excessively slow, a waste of taxpayer money,

and puts officers unfit to serve back in the Metropolitan

Police Department.

H.R 2096 Creates a Wall of Secrecy and Undermines Public

Transparency and Accountability.

This legislation will remove the current requirement for

the Metropolitan Police Department to publish on a public

website a schedule of adverse action hearings in which the

proposed discipline for an officer is termination, including

the date, time, and location of the hearing, the name and

badge number of the officer, and a summary of the alleged

misconduct or charges.

Public access to police misconduct information is a key

component of accountability and reduces the likelihood that

an individual engaging in criminal behavior or police

misconduct can simply resign and join another law enforcement

agency. A recent study published in The Yale Law Journal

found 800 officers in Florida who were fired, some even for

serious misconduct, and were rehired at another police

department. Police misconduct records are often inaccessible

to the individuals and communities most affected by excessive

use of force and police misconduct. H.R. 2096 would remove a

critical tool that allows for greater transparency and

accountability.

For these reasons, the ACLU strongly urges you to vote

``NO'' on H.R. 2096. If you have any questions, please

contact Nina Patel, Senior Policy Counsel, Justice Division.

Sincerely,

Cynthia W. Rosebery,

Director, Justice Division,

ACLU National.

Nina Patel,

Senior Policy Counsel,

ACLU National.

Monica Hopkins,

Executive Director,

ACLU District of Columbia.

Melissa Wasser,

Senior Policy Counsel,

ACLU District of Columbia.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a law duly enacted by the District of Columbia because D.C. should be free to govern its own local matters.

Republicans claim that Congress has a constitutional duty to legislate on local D.C. matters, but this is historically and legally incorrect. Republicans legislate on local D.C. matters only when they think they can score political points, such as by demonizing immigrants.

Where is this passion and work on affordable housing for D.C. residents? Where is this impassioned work on ending gun violence for D.C. residents? They only bring it up to the floor when they think they can score political points, taking away the democratic rights of people here in D.C. and home rule.

The Framers expected Congress to establish a local government for D.C., and Congress has established various forms of local government for D.C. since 1802.

The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate to D.C. legislative authority over local D.C. matters. In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which gave D.C. an elected chief executive and an elected legislature, the Mayor and the D.C. City Council. The purpose of the Home Rule Act is to ``grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self- government'' and ``relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.'' H.R. 884 contravenes the purpose of the Home Rule Act.

D.C.'s Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 allows D.C. residents who are not yet U.S. citizens to vote only in local elections--namely, for Mayor, members of the city council, the State Board of Education, attorney general, advisory neighborhood commissioner, and ballot measures.

The D.C. law does not allow noncitizens to vote in Federal elections, which is a crime under Federal law.

Regardless of your views on the merits of noncitizen voting for local elections, we have to acknowledge that D.C. is not the first nor are they the only jurisdiction in our country to allow this. At various points throughout American history, Congress and 40 States have allowed noncitizens to vote in local, State, and territorial elections, including the home State of the sponsor of this bill.

Congress did not prohibit noncitizens from voting in Federal elections until 1996, and today, about 20 municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

I also want to address very specific concerns that we are hearing from our Republican colleagues. Number one, they are concerned that foreign diplomats might vote in local D.C. elections. We believe, number one, that that is highly unlikely, both because they have to renounce their right to vote in their home country and because D.C. has no authority over Federal matters and has only limited local self- government.

In D.C., the penalty for voter fraud includes imprisonment for up to 5 years. To be eligible to vote in D.C., a person must maintain their residency in D.C. for at least 30 days before the election and cannot claim voting residence or the right to vote in any State, territory, or country.

In a letter to Congress, the D.C. Board of Elections made it clear that to vote in a D.C. local election, a foreign diplomat would have to ``effectively renounce their right to vote in their country of origin.'' The board noted that a foreign diplomat would have to ``swear under penalty of law through the D.C. registration application that that person is not claiming voting residence in another country.''

The board also noted that an embassy address could not be used to register to vote since it is considered a commercial or business address and that a foreign passport cannot be used to register to vote since it does not contain a residential address in D.C.

While Republicans are concerned about foreign diplomats voting in local elections, I wonder if they are aware that currently in this country, United States citizens who are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act are currently allowed to vote in elections at all levels of government in the United States, including Federal elections. That is right. Registered foreign agents who are currently U.S. citizens can vote anywhere in the United States.

Republicans are also concerned that undocumented immigrants might vote in local D.C. elections. That is highly unlikely because the D.C. voter roll is a public record, and undocumented immigrants likely will not want to identify themselves, including their addresses.

In closing, the House of Representatives is considering the wrong D.C. voting rights bill here today. Republicans claim that voting is a core right or privilege of American citizenship. Not only is that historically incorrect, but as I described earlier, it is also hypocritical.

Republicans have fought tooth and nail to defeat legislation that would give the American citizens who reside in D.C. voting representation in the House and Senate. We, of course, continue to push for D.C. statehood.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House to reject H.R. 884 and, instead, to pass H.R. 51. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman just asked our constituents to ask us what we think about this issue. I think the better thing would be for the gentleman to ask his constituents what they care about. I promise this issue will not be in the top 3 or 10 things that they want us to focus on.

At the same time, they are pushing a bill to take away healthcare from 15 million Americans. Give me a damn break.

D.C. believes in universal adult suffrage, that all adult D.C. residents, regardless of their immigration status, are subject to D.C. laws and taxation and must register with the Selective Service System. D.C. believes they deserve a say in the local laws that govern them and how their local taxes are spent.

Congress should not decide which residents are fit to govern on local D.C. matters. I promise the gentleman that if he spoke with his own constituents, they don't give a damn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting because the gentlewoman who just spoke said this is about preserving ``our elections.''

This is not about our elections. It is not about my election. It is not about her election, being from New York. It is about the elections, the local elections, of residents of D.C. It is not

about hers or mine. It is about their local elections.

I think it is interesting because I don't know what happened. My Republican colleagues always like to talk about limited Federal Government. My Republican colleagues always like to talk about how important local governance is. Yet, they want to rip it away from the people in this city.

My question is: How many doors have they knocked on in D.C.? Have they knocked on a single door? Have they spoken with a single resident, a person who lives here, about what they care about? No, they are using this Chamber and these bills to score national political points on local issues.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing the gentlewoman said is that this is about protecting the sanctity of citizen voting. Like every other issue, Republicans want our people to believe that in order to protect us, we have to take something away from somebody else. That is how we protect the sanctity of voting for citizens. We have to take something away from D.C. that they voted for when, right in front of us, if we want to protect the sanctity of citizen voting in D.C., then we know what we have to do. It is D.C. statehood.

We have to ensure that citizens in D.C. are able to have a fully voting Representative in the United States Congress and have full representation in this country.

That is what we do to protect the sanctity of citizen voting in Washington, D.C. We don't encroach on decisions that the people here have made locally.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to hear about our elections. Local D.C. elections are not my elections. They are not their elections unless they live here. The local D.C. elections are about the residents of this area.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues want to deflect on this issue focusing on undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are unlikely to vote in local D.C. elections.

Again, why?

It is because the D.C. voter roll is public record. Undocumented immigrants are not going to want to identify themselves, including their address, where they live.

Noncitizen voting, again, this is consistent in a lot of jurisdictions across the entire country. We talked about 20 municipalities doing this to allow universal adult suffrage, the ability for people to take part in local elections.

The other thing, really quick, that one of my Republican colleagues brought up that the purpose of this bill is to: ``Stop diluting the voices of American citizens.'' What is really diluting the voice of American citizens are voter suppression laws like we see in the South and like we see in Florida where I am from: poll taxes, voter roll purges, and voter intimidation. That is what is diluting the voice of American citizens.

I haven't heard a single Republican in this debate talk about ensuring that citizens who live in D.C. can have full representation in Congress.

Where is that?

I bring it up again. In every issue Republicans want to talk about protecting us by taking away stuff from other people. They never want to talk about giving citizens what they deserve. The citizens of D.C. deserve to have full representation in the United States Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the esteemed chair from Wisconsin would indulge me, he brought up a set of laws in Georgia, which I thought was very interesting, talking about what we need to do. However, I would yield 30 seconds to the chair if he could let me know who voted for those laws that were enacted in Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time. I am curious what body wrote the legislation, voted on the legislation, and sent it to the Governor's desk?

Reclaiming my time. The reason I ask the gentleman is he brings up a law in Georgia that was written by the elected representatives of the legislature voted into office by the people of Georgia.

My Republican colleagues would have us believe that today a lot of Democrats are going to vote for a bill to give noncitizens the ability to vote in D.C.

That is not what we are voting on. We are not voting on a bill to do something. We are voting on a bill to allow something to stay in place which was voted into action by the elected representatives of the local government of D.C.

That is what we are doing here today. We are not voting to give noncitizens the ability to vote. We are just saying: Let D.C. make their own local laws just like they did in Georgia, just like the esteemed chair brought up earlier.

The other thing I want to mention that was brought up has to do with the length of residency to vote. D.C.'s length of residency requirement is not a unique thing. To vote in D.C., yes, a person has to be a resident for at least 30 days before an election, but to vote in Kentucky, for example, a person has to be a resident for at least 28 days.

I haven't heard our esteemed chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform complain about the laws in Kentucky. In fact, under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, States cannot set a voter registration deadline for Federal elections more than 30 days before an election.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned here today, no matter what my Republican colleagues say, they want to frame this as the Democrats voting to do something here today. We are not voting to let noncitizens vote in D.C. today. What we are voting to do is allow D.C. to make their own decisions. That is something my Republican colleagues used to talk a lot about, home rule, the ability for localities and people to elect their representatives to a body and those representatives to do something.

If my friend has a problem with local D.C. laws, then pick up a damn clipboard, go knock on doors, and try to change it in D.C. To do it from this institution, I think is shameful.

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

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