Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before we even get to the rescissions, let's be really, really honest about what is going on here. This isn't just a debate about cuts, because in this rule, Republican leadership snuck in a rewrite of their big, ugly bill.

Yes, that is right. A vote on this rule is effectively a revote on their reconciliation package, a do-over. It is a

desperate attempt by Republican leadership to fix the mess they made with their awful tax scam.

Now, when they rushed it through in the middle of the night, they included provisions that aren't even allowed under the Senate's reconciliation rules. Moreover, instead of coming clean and holding a straightforward vote on the corrections, they are trying to bury it in this rule for the DOGE rescissions package, hoping that nobody will notice. Think of it like a Trojan Horse, Mr. Speaker.

Let's be clear: The rescissions could be brought to the floor anytime. You heard that right, Mr. Speaker, they could be brought to the floor anytime. They are privileged. Speaker Johnson doesn't need this rule to move them. The only reason these things are being tied together is to trick certain Republicans into voting for a bill that they have already said they regret.

Now, it should be said that Republicans have an opportunity right now to change the bill before it goes to the Senate. Last night, in the Rules Committee, we could have voted to strip out the State artificial intelligence moratorium for the reconciliation bill, or we could have dropped the controversial language on contempt that some Republican Members objected to.

Nonetheless, Republican leadership deliberately decided not to do any of that. They decided that the very stuff their members are concerned about doesn't matter and, instead, are entirely leaving changes up to the Senate, as if we had no power or influence here in this House.

As the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said herself last night during the meeting: ``Any Member who has any regrets about his or her vote on the first bill has the opportunity to vote `no' on the rule tomorrow.''

She didn't recommend a ``no'' vote, but she pointed out the choice that Members have.

I agree with her. Members have a choice here. Those who didn't like this bill have a choice to stop it right here in this House.

So to all of the Republicans who said they regret voting ``yes'' for this reconciliation bill, especially those who complained about how much this will add trillions to the deficit and debt: This is your chance for a redo. This is your chance for a redo. Vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' here to stop this big, ugly bill from moving to the Senate. If Republicans have the courage of their convictions, then they will vote ``no.''

While Republican leadership is busy playing procedural games trying to slip this through, let's talk about what they are attaching this rewrite to.

The Republican rescission package is based on a scam, a con job, and a grift. This is not about actual savings, nor is it about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. This is based on cementing stupid, preposterous, and self-defeating DOGE cuts into law. These are DOGE cuts that, I might add, have already illegally been in place for months when the Trump administration wreaked havoc on our government systems by freezing critical funding.

From day one, DOGE has been one big excuse to reward Trump's wealthy donors, gut public services, and funnel resources away from programs that help ordinary people and into the pockets of the wealthy and well- connected.

Let's not forget: This is the same DOGE review that cut off funding to USDA bird flu experts in the middle of a bird flu outbreak. They sent pink slips to the people who secure our nuclear warheads. They gutted the National Weather Service so badly that right now we might not have enough meteorologists to warn communities about tornadoes and hurricanes.

DOGE was a total, complete failure, and now Republicans want to lock their disastrous cuts into law?

Come on. That is insane. That is crazy.

Mr. Speaker, look at what these cuts are targeting: funding for global health, clean water, food security, and democracy programs; funding for UNICEF and the World Food Program; funding for diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and for world peace, for Christ's sake.

People think our foreign budget is some huge, massive thing. We are talking about something that is 1 percent of our budget. So, please, do not come down here and pretend as if this is a serious attempt to cut funding.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to go after waste and save taxpayer money, then count me in. Count me in. I wish my Republican friends would express some concern about the fact that their President is spending maybe up to $40 million for a parade of military tanks on his birthday.

Really?

We are cutting money to save lives in this rescission package, but $40 million-plus is no big deal, as long as Donald Trump is happy.

We should start with the Pentagon if we are serious about getting after waste, fraud, and abuse. The Pentagon, by the way, has never, ever passed an audit. They have never passed an audit.

Let's look at tax breaks for Big Oil. We can't do that because they write big checks.

Let's go after the loopholes for billionaires. Let's end the corporate giveaways.

No. No. No. Republicans don't want to touch any of those things.

Meanwhile, the cuts in this rescission package hurt America. They weaken our leverage around the world. They pull back critical funding for our allies. They strip away tools we use to prevent conflict and promote stability. These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world.

At a time when China, Russia, and Iran are working overtime to challenge American influence, this bill says: Go right ahead. This is China's dream come true, the U.S. pulling back our soft power from around the world.

This is self-sabotage masquerading as savings, and it is not even a lot of money. These slivers of our Federal budget, these dollars that generate enormous return by keeping people alive and preventing crises before they happen that is what this money does. That is what Republicans are cutting.

This isn't just penny wise and pound foolish, Mr. Speaker. It is like saving money by burning down your house so you don't have to pay for the heat.

I would like to think that America's greatness comes from our humanity. It is clear Republicans believe that America's greatness is found in our inhumanity and in cruelty and callousness. I believe everyone can agree that is a truly dark, dangerous, and morally bankrupt place to govern from.

The American people deserve better than this. They deserve smarter than this. They deserve a government that prioritizes what works, not what flatters the egos of billionaires hopped up on ketamine.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a disgrace, and the underlying bill is a disgrace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain this again because I don't know why this is such a tough concept for my Republican colleagues to understand.

Two things can be true. These Republican DOGE cuts can be incredibly cruel, which they are, and at the same time mathematically insignificant compared to the massive trillions of dollars that Republicans are adding to the deficit and the debt because of their reconciliation bill. So two things can be true. I don't think that is that hard for the American people to understand.

Mr. Speaker, as we have made clear time and time again, the big, ugly GOP tax scam is set to add $3 trillion to the deficit, $3 trillion. To be clear, that isn't me saying that. That is the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO.

It isn't just CBO. Every other reputable independent analysis of the bill, including the Joint Committee on Taxation, Yale Budget Lab, and Penn Wharton Budget Model came to the same conclusion. Even the right- leaning Tax Foundation agrees that this bill explodes the deficit, explodes it.

Yet, here we are with Republicans patting themselves on the back over the Trump-DOGE rescission package, a package that in all reality barely makes a dent in the very debt that they ballooned.

Since they want to talk about the debt, let's talk about the debt. I want the American people to take a look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. I want the American people to look at this chart. The red indicates the $3 trillion that Trump's big, ugly bill will add to the deficit. Then we see this tiny, little blue sliver. Thank God, I am wearing my bifocals here. I can barely see it. That little, tiny blue sliver-- again, you might need a magnifying glass to see it--that is the $9.4 billion that the Republicans are trying to save through these rescissions.

To break that down a little bit more, the $3 trillion deficit increase in the GOP tax scam is 320 times bigger than the $9.4 billion that Republicans are trying to rescind through these DOGE cuts.

The real kicker here is that under their GOP tax scam, CBO says that the top 5 percent of earners will get $1.6 trillion in total tax cuts. That is 170 times bigger than the $9.4 billion Republicans want to rescind.

Republicans are cutting $9.4 billion in Federal spending so they can try and justify the trillions and trillions of dollars they plan to add to the debt so they can deliver massive tax cuts to their billionaire friends.

So these rescissions, they are not even a drop in the bucket. They are a drop in the ocean compared to the multitrillion-dollar deficit- busting bill that Republicans are trying to jam through.

Just because the sliver on this chart seems small doesn't mean these Republican rescissions are not harmful. Republicans want to cut $900 million from global health programs, including $400 million for PEPFAR, an overwhelmingly bipartisan program created by President George W. Bush to combat HIV. This program has saved more than 26 million lives over the past 28 years.

That is not fraud, waste, or abuse. That is a big deal. That is something we should be proud of. Not properly funding PEPFAR means people will literally die. That is not hyperbole. It is just the truth. In fact, because DOGE and the Trump administration illegally suspended PEPFAR already earlier this year, tens of thousands of people have already died, including thousands of children. It is despicable. They want to cut $2.5 billion in development assistance that our allies and partners use to build schools, help farmers grow food, fund clean water projects, and combat poverty. They want to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for Ukraine and our allies at the border of Russia. They want to completely eliminate Federal funding for public TV and radio, which are trusted sources of news and educational programming for millions of American households, particularly in rural areas. I don't know what my colleagues have against rural areas, but those areas will be particularly hard hit by those cuts.

It is important to note, once again, that many of these rescissions, especially to foreign aid, have already started to hurt and even kill people. That is because the administration illegally froze USAID programs, which has threatened the lives of millions of people who rely on this funding to prevent or treat disease, afford food, and access to clean water.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record an article by the Associated Press titled: ``Children die as USAID aid cuts snap a lifeline for the world's most malnourished.''

Mr. Speaker, according to the Boston University School of Public Health--and listen to this--more than 50,000 adults and 6,000 infants have died of HIV due to the disruption of PEPFAR. People are already dying. More than 29,000 children have died of malaria, and 25,000 people have died of tuberculosis because the Trump administration froze funding.

Republicans want to rubberstamp the Trump administration's illegal funding freeze into law, and they claim that they are reining in the debt. Well, as we can see, Mr. Speaker, that is a huge load of garbage.

This rescissions package is a moral failure masquerading as fiscal responsibility, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't even know where to begin after that. The gentleman talked about $100,000 here and $1 million there but not a word about the $3 trillion added to the deficit because of the big, ugly bill that he and Republicans voted for and supported. There was not a word about all that is going to be added to the debt.

Maybe the gentleman forgot this, but I am looking at a FOX News story here when the gentleman referred to the $9.4 billion as a teardrop in the ocean when he was interviewed. I don't know what happened, but somehow the gentleman couldn't bring himself to talk about the $3 trillion that Republicans are adding to the debt.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up amendment No. 1 to H.R. 4 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman), which would block Republicans from zeroing out Federal funding that Congress has already appropriated for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Public TV and radio are trusted sources of news and educational programming for millions of households across America and are particularly important in rural areas, where public stations are often the only source of local news.

This is a $1.1 billion cut, Mr. Speaker. Let's compare that to the big, ugly Republican reconciliation bill, which adds $3 trillion to the deficit and--get this--includes a provision that Republicans have been bragging about that removes a tax on gun silencers, which has been on the books for a century.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the JCT, this new tax break on silencers alone will increase our Nation's deficit by $1.5 billion. That is more than the $1.1 billion Republicans are ``saving'' by eliminating all funding for public TV and radio.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the American people and my Republican colleagues: Is this whole tradeoff worth it? Public broadcasting in exchange for cheaper gun silencers? I mean, really? Unless you are an assassin or a hit man, I hope the answer is a resounding ``no.''

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman) to discuss our proposal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, wow, that is something.

We were trying to keep up with the gentleman as he was ticking off all the initiatives that he doesn't like, and we were looking at these accounts. I think they all added up to $23.5 million. I don't know about some of the programs that the gentleman talked about. I am happy to look into them.

He came up with $23.5 million in programs that he doesn't like. I just want my friends to understand that that is half of what Donald Trump is going to spend on his 1-day parade on Saturday. That is half. I mean, give me a break.

Then, the gentleman said that the CBO doesn't assume a growth rate. Not only did the CBO take into account the growth rate, but so did every other think tank that did a budget analysis on the great big, ugly bill that Republicans passed.

I should also say to the gentleman and to the gentlewoman that many of these programs have already been halted illegally by the Trump administration.

Just for the record, it is estimated that over 107,000 adults have died as a result of the denial of funds, along with over 224,000 children.

I am ashamed that our government has pulled funding for programs that save people's lives. Maybe my friends think that is fraud, waste, and abuse. I don't.

People are already dying. People are already dying because the Trump administration has illegally halted funding from many of these programs, just withholding the money from USAID. I am happy to share with them the statistics.

Mr. Speaker, I also point out for my colleagues that the big, ugly way in which Republicans have advanced this big, ugly bill is just the tip of the iceberg.

Last Congress, the Republican majority presided over the most unproductive, dysfunctional Congress in modern American history. What an achievement. I know they are all proud.

Republicans shattered their own record by issuing 115 closed rules, meaning 115 times when the House could not debate a single amendment on the House floor.

Did they learn anything from being the most unproductive Congress in the history? Of course they didn't.

In just 5 months, the Republicans have racked up over 50 closed rules. More than 90 percent of the bills they bring up have no amendments, no discussion, no input. It is just take or leave it.

What are we even doing here? Republican leadership has blocked over 800 amendments, and we have yet to see a single bipartisan amendment make it to the House floor this year, not even one.

Only 14 amendments have been selected by Republican leadership to be debated across just four bills. That is a 98 percent rejection rate. They block 98 out of 100 ideas they receive.

Mr. Aderholt, who was testifying before the Rules Committee said: Oh, this rescissions bill gives us an opportunity to vote up or down on whether we want to support public broadcasting. The bottom line is, no, it doesn't because we are not having separate votes. You have to take the whole package or leave it. We can't even vote on the individual cuts that are being made a part of this rescissions package.

Republicans have blocked debate on amendments that would help States protect against deadly wildfires and post-disaster recovery. They blocked amendments that would support new mothers and infants impacted by substance use. They blocked amendments to protect SNAP and Medicaid for millions of Americans.

Really?

It is no wonder why no one likes Congress. Republicans are happy to debate trivial issues passionately but important ones not at all.

Mr. Speaker, here is the kicker: At this point in our majority, Democrats gave Republicans more chances to debate their ideas than their own leaders do.

In 5 months, only 6 of the 220 Republicans in this Chamber have had amendments made in order. I mean, that means over 97 percent of Republicans have not had a single amendment debated.

Are my Republican colleagues proud of being excluded from the legislative process?

Mr. Speaker, I say, again, to the gentleman from Texas who just spoke, I am sorry. Don't lecture us about deficits when you voted for a bill that added $3 trillion to the deficit.

It is shameful. The so-called budget hawks around here talk a tough game, and then they cave. We did have a debate in the Rules Committee about this last night, but the gentleman was absent.

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

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

Every major organization that does budget analysis says that they are going to add trillions to the debt. The only people who don't are the gentlewoman from North Carolina. I am sorry. I didn't know that you do independent budget analyses, but every other one does.

There is one Republican in this House who is not afraid of Mr. Trump and that is Mr. Massie.

Let me read a couple of tweets that he posted. He writes: ``Why didn't Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act make tax cuts permanent?

``Because the impact of the tax cuts on debt after 2025 was understood by them to be too great. Now they're employing new math to claim that renewing the tax cuts, without cutting spending, won't impact debt.''

He writes: ``Hidden inside of a resolution we will vote on today to bring rescissions to the floor is an order to pass H. Res. 492 without a vote. H. Res. 492 changes the text of the BBB after it already passed the House. Sneaky.''

Can we at least be honest about what is happening here?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk today about tightening belts and making tough choices. This bill doesn't make tough choices. It makes stupid choices.

These rescissions would gut PEPFAR, a program that saved millions of lives by preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS. It would slash funding for malaria prevention, for maternal and child health, for clean water, and for food assistance.

These programs are not giveaways. This money isn't a handout. These are smart, strategic investments that make Americans safer and save this government money down the road. Every dollar we spend on global health, on diplomacy, on humanitarian aid can save $10, $100, even $1,000 later by preventing conflict, disease outbreaks, refugee crises, and wars.

This bill eliminates those smart investments. It strips away those tools. It tells the world at a time when it is desperate for American leadership that we are walking away. It will let China, Russia, and Iran fill the power vacuum that we leave behind, and for what?

All so Republicans can say they cut spending while they protect billions in tax breaks for Big Oil and billionaire donors.

Let's be clear: This bill isn't serious about fiscal responsibility. If it were, there would be a rescissions package for the Pentagon. We would be debating clawbacks for defense contractors who charge $10,000 for a toilet seat. We would be looking at whether Elon Musk's companies should be getting massive government subsidies, but no.

The party of billionaires would rather defund ``Sesame Street.'' They would rather go after Elmo, and they would rather go after programs that help save lives.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is about Trump's military parade, too. The Army estimates it can cost between $25 to $40 million.

Let's do the math. We are going to kill disaster relief, gut UNICEF, and stop investing in global AIDS prevention. Yet we are fine with Donald Trump throwing himself a birthday party with tanks and missiles in the streets like it is North Korea.

What the hell are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? This is why people don't trust

government. If we want to be serious about budgeting, fine. Let's be serious. Let's look at where the waste, fraud, and abuse runs rampant.

Let's audit the Pentagon. Let's go after corporate welfare and Big Oil handouts. Let's close the loopholes that let billionaires pay zero in taxes. But let's not pretend this bill is about any of that.

This bill is a fraud and a con job. America deserves better. The world needs better. This is a revote on the reconciliation bill.

Vote ``no'' if you are against gutting Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP.

The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Vote ``no'' if you oppose $3 trillion----

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 499 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 499, providing for the House's consideration of H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit

Additionally, the rule provides that House Resolution 492 is hereby adopted.

Mr. Speaker, before we get into the substance of the bill today, I would like to clear up any confusion about any remarks I made in the Rules Committee last night.

Let me be crystal clear. I encourage all Members to support the rule before us today. My comments last night were lacking in context. Democrats made the argument throughout the hearing that this process is somehow another vote on H.R. 1. That is false.

The resolution today makes purely technical changes to protect the privilege of the reconciliation bill as it heads to the Senate.

It is not a redo or relitigation of any underlying policy issues in the bill.

Let me repeat: There are no policy decisions included in this engrossment correction.

That is what the Senate is working through, and I look forward to considering H.R. 1 when the bill returns from the other Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain on a positive, forward moving trajectory in delivering upon the American people's mandate from November. Just a few short weeks ago, we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

This week, we are taking up a nearly $10-billion rescissions package, and soon we will be moving into the appropriations process.

Discretionary waste is about to be put through the congressional shredder.

Mr. Speaker, the American people demand that this happens. Now our colleagues across the aisle will leap to their feet and scream bloody murder about how the waste we are targeting simply doesn't exist and how we are laying siege to everything under the Sun.

Au contraire. We have the receipts to back everything up.

Here is just a small sampling of the mind-boggling discretionary waste that we will be slashing in foreign funding:

$158 million from the Lebanon peacekeeping mission which has been fraught with waste and abuse as evidenced by its abject failure to contain Hezbollah;

$3 million for an Iraqi Sesame Street;

$833,000 for services for transgender people, sex workers, and their clients and social networkers in Nepal; and

$500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda.

These examples barely skim the surface, Mr. Speaker, and it is really no wonder why Americans are outraged that their tax dollars are being squandered.

It is the American people's money. A single dollar of taxpayer money wasted is $1 too many in our view.

Then there is NPR. I honestly don't even know where to begin on that one. Even if someone were to accept the premise that we need to finance a public radio outlet, then certainly we can all agree that it simply cannot be NPR any longer. NPR's own CEO testified before Congress that she has never seen any political bias at NPR. I don't know what reality she is living in, but it clearly isn't this one.

Here is the kicker: NPR does harbor political bias. It took a $1.9 million grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints.

There is the proof, and it is a concrete example that NPR's CEO was giving false testimony to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, you either understand that you are biased and need help, apparently in the form of taxpayer grants, or you haven't witnessed any bias. You can't have it both ways.

Then there is PBS. Again, I honestly don't know where to begin. On top of the concrete, statistically proven bias against conservatives, Republicans, and the Trump administration, this is the 21st century. We have Sesame Street now streaming on private services so the taxpayers are now subsidizing for-profit companies. We have seen private celebrities like Ms. Rachel who are engaging in crossover with Sesame Street which, again, leveraged taxpayer dollars to concentrate wealth to private individuals.

It is clear that we must slash this tranche of wasteful spending and continue down a path to fully restore fiscal sanity in our Nation.

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

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

Once again, I need to set the facts straight. Our colleagues keep flip-flopping on their characterization of cuts to wasteful spending and our campaign to get our fiscal house in order.

At one moment our spending cuts are so monumental and draconian that the Earth is going to stand still and people are going to die, as they told us in the Rules Committee. Literally seconds after they said that yesterday, not even minutes later, they tell us that the spending cut is inconsequential, that it is a rounding error, and that it is a drop in the bucket.

Mr. Speaker, which is it?

It has to be one or the other.

The fact that our colleagues keep twisting themselves in knots is simply evidence that they are doing everything in their power to hide the facts about this vote.

At one minute, this $10 billion return on taxpayer dollars is not worth Congress' time. At another minute, they will tell us that these are draconian cuts that they will oppose with every ounce of strength in their bodies.

Give me a break.

Republicans are finally offering taxpayers relief from years of profligate spending from Democrats. Again, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt. It is time to end that spending.

We are ending it in H.R. 1. We are ending it in this package here today, and we won't stop fighting for taxpayers. We can cut spending in little chunks and in big chunks.

In response to Mr. McGovern's obvious assertions, Members always have a choice to vote up or down on legislation, be it a rule, authorization, or appropriation.

The plain text of the rule provides for consideration of this rescissions package and advances H.R. 1 by adopting the engrossment resolution.

Since Democrats seem to have selective memory, let me remind them, and Americans, that during the 117th Congress, very recently, House Democrats deemed 29 items total. Also included in that number is the engrossment correction resolution they deemed in a rule for the American Rescue Plan Act, which included section and paragraph strikes.

In contrast, Republicans in the 118th Congress deemed only two measures. We understand that this is a tool of the majority that should be used only when necessary.

We all know the Democrats opposed H.R. 1. They opposed it weeks ago, and they opposed the engrossment resolution last night on the basis that it advances H.R. 1.

Mr. McGovern is tying himself in knots here. In a ``Dear Colleague'' he circulated, he characterized this rule as repassing H.R. 1, just before he went on to complain that H.R. 1's engrossment is not getting its own vote.

Nothing was added to H.R. 1. Let me repeat, nothing was added to H.R. 1. Every change was technical or simply removed provisions to make sure this big, beautiful bill has its day in the Senate.

Let's remind the American people what the Democrats voted against in H.R. 1. Democrats went on record against tax cuts for families, against tax relief for tips, against tax relief for senior citizens. They went on record against protecting Medicaid by advocating for the enrollment of 1.4 million illegal aliens. They went on record against increasing the quality of life funds for our Nation's military families.

We have a rule before us to protect H.R. 1's process in the Senate and restore fiscal sanity to our Nation, and the American people need and want us to deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This rescissions package does reduce certain global health accounts by hundreds of millions. Keep in mind that $10 billion has been appropriated for this work in these accounts, making this rescission exact and very targeted.

The Trump administration has communicated it will not reduce funds for treatment in PEPFAR, rather it eliminates programs antithetical to American interests and ones that worsen the lives of women and children. Enacting this rescission will get this funding stream back to its core mission by refocusing it on protecting health and supporting life-sustaining treatment.

What we don't need is the wasteful spending priorities of President Biden now exposed by the Trump administration: $500,000 for a Lesbian Justice Foundation in Canada; $9.3 million to the John Snow Research and Training Institute to advise Russian doctors on how to perform abortions and gender analysis; $800,000 for transgender people, sex workers and their clients and sexual networks in Nepal; $7.4 million for a One Health Workforce project whose curriculum includes teaching practitioners about environmental racism and the importance of DEI.

This spending, guised under the terms ``equity, reproductive health, and family planning,'' stray far from the mission of sustaining life and serve no benefit to the populations they are intended to help.

These are wasteful programs financed by the American taxpayer, funded by deficit spending; but no longer. This money is better off returned to the Treasury, and PEPFAR's integrity is now being restored.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 mandates that all public broadcasting programs must demonstrate strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs. There is a myriad of statistical studies that prove they are not.

NPR banned coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming it was a mere diversion. PBS made 162 references to ``far right'' versus only 6 references to ``far left.'' Perhaps most damning for NPR is the fact that it had to utilize a $1.9 million Federal grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints last year.

The problem with the Public Broadcasting Act is that it lacks an enforcement mechanism, so we will go with our constitutional prerogatives here to enforce the law. That starts with this rescission of funding.

PBS and NPR will continue to pivot their response to this cut back and forth, as they have for some time. They tell us that their taxpayer-funded gift is just a drop in the bucket, not worth our attention. Nothing to see here. Yet, when we want to hold them accountable, it is the end of the world.

They will weaponize their content against congressional Republicans. They will hire lobbyists. They will buy ads. In fact, they have. They can continue to do that, but thankfully, it won't be subsidized by the taxpayer any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy) explained very well why we are not voting to increase the deficit by $3 trillion. We all know that that is coming from the fact that we are extending tax cuts that were passed in 2017.

By the way, if we go back and look at the Record at all the scare tactics and all the Armageddon comments that were made when we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, we heard the same things. None of those things happened. In fact, we had a booming economy. I don't think the same scare tactics are going to work again.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Americans are the most generous and caring people in the world. We have set up lots of programs to save the lives of people across this country and across the world, and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing here is not going to cause people to be dying if the money is spent the way Congress intends for it to be spent.

Now, as my Democrat colleagues are well aware, reconciliation bills are different from other types of legislation and are prohibited from including provisions deemed as extraneous in the Senate.

What we are doing here in terms of the engrossment resolution for H.R. 1 is we are striking a few provisions in the bill that Senate Parliamentarians concluded would jeopardize the privileged status of the bill in the Senate.

The House is taking all necessary steps to enable the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to be considered expeditiously in the Senate and sent to President Trump's desk under the reconciliation process, which is what this engrossment resolution does.

Mr. Speaker, I will also remind the ranking member and my Democrat colleagues that when they were last in the majority, they also utilized an engrossment resolution to strike extraneous provisions from their American Rescue Plan in 2021.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with the reconciliation bill and with the rescission bill is, we are doing everything we can to get our country back in fiscal shape. That is more important to the people in this world than any individual program is. It is important that the United States remain the greatest country in the world and that we reduce our debt and deficit. That is the focus of Republicans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear: The American people gave Republicans a mandate to restore fiscal sanity. This rescissions package is part of achieving that end.

Republicans are cleaning up the ruin that the Biden-Harris administration left this country in. We are taking a fiscal scalpel to waste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 499, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I request that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025.

Last November, the American people sent a clear message to Washington: Stop wasting our tax dollars and get our fiscal house in order.

The President and House Republicans heard the American people. We heard them loud and clear. We are keeping our promises to end the waste, the fraud, and the abuse.

This rescissions package sends $9.4 billion back to the U.S. Treasury. That is $9.4 billion of savings that taxpayers won't see wasted.

It is their money, Mr. Speaker. It is, along with our One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the first of many important steps

House Republicans are taking to rein in wasteful spending.

In 2024, the Federal Government spent over $1.8 trillion, and that is just in discretionary spending. The rescissions are only addressing one-half of 1 percent of that total. Democrats would consider this a rounding error.

This administration has spent months combing through our Federal budget, line by line, identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot.

I think the American people would be hard-pressed, or anyone would be hard-pressed, to say that the government runs so efficiently that we can't find any more efficiencies. However, don't let the fear-mongering from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fool you, Mr. Speaker.

Those claiming that these rescissions will harm people in other countries--I am going to say that again--those Democrats who are saying that these rescissions will harm people in other countries are missing the point. It is about people in our country being put first. It is about putting Americans first. What a concept.

That is because American citizens support ending the waste, the fraud, and the abuse in places like USAID.

A ``yes'' vote today will stop wasteful spending on programs like $500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda, $4 million for bean systems research, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar, and $3 million for Iraqi ``Sesame Street.'' Lord knows, the Iraqi children need a little Big Bird in their life. It is a good use of $3 million of taxpayer money. I might want to use the $3 million on homeless vets.

How about we take some of that cash back.

Mr. Speaker, $4 million for sedentary migrants in Colombia. That seems like an oxymoron.

There is $2.5 million for teaching young children, get this, how to make environmentally friendly reproductive health decisions. I scratch my head on that one.

There is $833,000 for services for transgender people, sex workers and their clients and sexual networks in Nepal.

The list goes on and on. I am sort of embarrassed to read it.

Americans know the Federal Government is wasting money, and they are wasting Americans' taxpayer money. House Republicans are going to stop wasting our tax dollars. It is really simple. We are focused on actually putting the American people first. We are focusing on the American people whom we represent, not whether the people in Zimbabwe have vegan food to eat, and not electric buses in Rwanda. This is what those on the other side of the aisle want to defend: the waste, the fraud, and the abuse. They actually advocate for it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' to end the insanity and actually put Americans first. Let's rescind wasteful spending. It is really simple.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify: We are having a debate on the rescissions package, correct, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Mr. Speaker, I will just remind you, that is fear- mongering at its best.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, we can have free speech in America. The government just doesn't need to fund it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, that was fear-mongering at its best.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the sponsor of the

bill and the majority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

I can't take the fear-mongering anymore. Let me correct the truth with the other half of the truth. We are talking about PEPFAR: $4.4 billion, and we are talking about cutting less than 1 percent from that whole entire program.

We are not saying that you have to cut AIDS. Perhaps let me tell you what other programs that we could cut for the American people. You are saying that people are going to die because you want to cut the funding. We are not saying that.

How about we do this? How about we cut $3 million for circumcisions, vasectomies, and condoms in Zambia? How about that? How about we cut $5.1 million that is used to strengthen the resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer global movement? I have got an idea. How about instead of spending it there, how about we spend that money and invest in American healthcare? I could go on and on, but this fear-mongering has absolutely got to stop.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell).

Mr. Speaker, I never realized Elmo was more important to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle than the American people, but anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harrigan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. These rescissions should get bipartisan support. We, as elected officials on both sides of the aisle, have been entrusted with the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people.

The duly elected President of the United States has asked this Congress to protect the American people's tax dollars. It is the least we can do. The administration has identified waste, fraud, and abuse of American taxpayer dollars. It is our responsibility as Representatives to act on those abuses and rescind the money.

All of us should be able to vote to eliminate $45 million in duplicative spending in the African development program. We should all be able to support eliminating $1.7 billion for radical gender projects in the Economic Support Fund. Every Member of this Chamber should be able to support a rescission of $2.5 billion in the development of assistance programs, which bankrolled corrupt leaders in foreign countries.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are watching their Representatives today, emphasis on ``their Representatives.'' They are watching to see if their Representatives have the courage to actually fight for them or will their Representatives defend waste, fraud, and abuse of the bloated Federal Government.

I can say with certainty that House Republicans will always put the American people first, and I hope the other side of the aisle might have the courage to join us.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 4 so that we can take the necessary first step in rescinding the wasteful spending of American taxpayer dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, our conference chair (Mrs. McClain) for managing this time on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people come up here, and they talk about trying to get America's fiscal house in order. They talk about the idea of getting back to balanced Federal budgets. I don't know many people here who are against it.

I know later in this Congress when we put a bill on the floor to require a balanced Federal budget, there will be many Democrats, Mr. Speaker, who will vote ``no'' on that because when it comes time to actually put your votes on the board to back up the principles that most Americans relish, they walk away. They won't be there when it actually matters.

Everybody can talk about cutting wasteful spending, even if you don't necessarily agree that it is wasteful spending. However, what we are bringing today is wasteful spending, even if you think it might not be as bad as some other things you don't agree with. We all have to agree, Mr. Speaker, that as we just saw a few weeks ago, Moody's downgraded the credit rating of the United States.

It wasn't a recommendation, Mr. Speaker. It wasn't a warning that if you folks don't get your fiscal house in order this might happen. They actually did it. They downgraded the credit rating of the United States because spending has to get under control. The party over there that spent the last 4 years under President Biden spending like drunken sailors, in all due respect to drunken sailors because they don't spend this bad, but the trillions of dollars of debt that were racked up had consequences, Mr. Speaker.

It had consequences not only in terms of our national debt, but it affected the pocketbooks of families all across America because that bloated spending in Washington, which is money we don't have, by the way; and it increased inflation to the point where people couldn't even go to the grocery store to fill up their carts. They couldn't afford to go to the gas station to fill up their cars. They couldn't afford to take out a loan to buy a house because interest rates had gotten so high that today we are spending more money servicing our interest than we are on America's national debt.

These are all real, dramatic facts that concern most Americans. They say: Thank goodness Congress is finally bringing a bill to the floor to start cutting some spending that aren't priorities.

You can call it wasteful if you want. Call it whatever you want, but these aren't things that we can afford to spend, even if you agree with them, because it is not money we have in the bank. It is all borrowed money, Mr. Speaker.

Where did we start? The White House laid out a number of things, but they looked at that USAID program. They didn't gut the whole thing, but they said there are a number of things that are being done that just don't represent the values of the United States and are being done in foreign countries while we don't have our fiscal house in order here in America, so how about we start there.

I know the Democrats on the other side are acting like, oh, my God, the world is going to stop spinning on its axis if this spending goes away, so why don't we talk about some of the spending that will go away.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is borrowed money, not money we just took out of the bank. It is money we borrowed from countries like China to spend that is a debt to our kids.

To each one of these I list, Mr. Speaker, you should ask: If you vote ``yes,'' you are finally relieving that debt burden, but if you vote ``no,'' you think it is okay to send this bill to our kids. We are not paying for it today, Mr. Speaker, but our kids would if we keep doing it.

If the other side votes no, they want to keep borrowing money from our children to spend a million dollars on voter ID in Haiti. This is the same party that doesn't want voter ID in America, calls it racist, wants to fund voter ID in Haiti. They want to spend $6 million for net- zero cities in Mexico. I know some of their best supporters are waving a Mexican flag in an American city right now, and they support those efforts. Most Americans don't support those efforts, Mr. Speaker. They want to spend $3 million for ``Iraqi Sesame Street.'' The minority leader held up a ``Sesame Street'' character here on the floor as if ``Sesame Street'' is somehow going to go away.

I was just watching a commercial on TV yesterday where the Cookie Monster was actually doing an advertisement for Netflix because a private company is paying money to run ``Sesame Street.'' It is not going away. It is doing just fine. It is very lucrative.

What will go away is some of the far-left radical views that are being espoused. By the way, when this goes away at NPR, you can still turn on about six or seven other channels and get the same far-left radical views, but they are all going to be private companies, Mr. Speaker, not taxpayer-funded entities.

If somebody wants to pay money to go on one of their services that they stream or get over-the-top or however they get their digital content, they can still do that. There are a lot of options. There has never been more options.

Some people joke that they buy their services for their cable or whatever else they get and that there are 200 channels, but they might only watch 4 or 5 of them. There is still going to be a plethora of options for the American people, but if they are paying their hard- earned dollars to go get content, why should your tax dollars go to only one thing that the other side wants to promote?

Let everybody compete on a fair basis. They can still watch ``Sesame Street'' in Iraq, but let the Iraqi people pay for it, not the taxpayers of the United States of America's children. Today's taxpayers aren't paying for it because it is all borrowed money.

They want to spend $2.1 million for climate resilience in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and East Africa; $500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda. Rwanda is more than free to go buy all the electric buses they want or diesel buses. Why should the taxpayers of America be borrowing money from our children to buy electric buses for Rwanda?

They want to spend $33,000 for ``Being LGBTQI in the Caribbean.'' It is taxpayer money that a ``no'' vote today says is more important than strengthening a program like Social Security. I say not.

Also included is $643,000 for LGBTQI+ programs in the Western Balkans. This is borrowed money.

Mr. Speaker, there is $567,000 for LGBTQI+ programs in Uganda and $5.1 million to strengthen the ``resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, intersex, and queer global movements.'' I am not sure what that global movement is. They can continue that movement in some other way, but just not with the taxpayer dollars of the United States of America's children.

Again, there is no bank account that $5.1 million came out of. It is all borrowed money that a ``no'' vote says is more important than strengthening Social Security.

There is $135 million in contributions to the World Health Organization, which we all saw during COVID was the mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party. I would imagine if we stop this $135 million funding, the CCP may pick it up because they were regurgitating their talking points during COVID.

At some point, Mr. Speaker, the question we have all got to answer is: Number one, do you believe in fiscal responsibility? Maybe some people have other priorities than these they would like to defund. If you think these are all things that are worth borrowing money from our children to fund, then that is what the ``no'' vote represents.

If you think it is time we start somewhere, and here is the place to finally start--not to finish, just the beginning--getting control over spending and respecting those families who are working hard, who are working two shifts at the diner to pay taxes on tips that will soon go away if our One Big Beautiful Bill Act passes, or somebody who is working overtime because you want to send your kid to college and you find out this is where your taxpayer dollars are going and you are disgusted and say, when will somebody do something about it, then today is the day to do something about it.

Talk is cheap. Put the action on the floor. Let's finally get control over

spending in a small way. Start a bigger picture toward a balanced budget. It starts here.

Vote ``yes,'' to get this done, and let's keep moving forward to strengthen this great country. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill to aid and abet billionaires in stealing from the American people and which does nothing to help the American people with the cost of living.

Since taking office, President Trump and Elon Musk unlawfully have stolen funds appropriated by Congress, passed by Republicans and Democrats in the House and in the Senate, and signed into law by the President, upending the separation of powers and our constitutional order.

For what end?

It is to hand billionaires and the biggest corporations, who already pay little or no taxes, another massive tax break. It is 4.5 trillion of taxpayers' dollars.

Do the Republicans want to talk about wasting taxpayer dollars?

This money is going to the wealthiest people and the biggest corporations. That is where they should save the money.

They want to make our government so broken, so dysfunctional, so starved for resources, and so full of incompetent political lackeys and bereft of experts and professionals that its departments and agencies cannot feasibly achieve the goals and the missions to which they are lawfully directed. That is where we are going.

Ultimately, they want to embrace privatization and give the biggest companies unchecked power. They want to rig the economy against the middle class, workers, and vulnerable families. They want to ensure the American people have no faith in the ability of government to do good in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, there is no inherent authority for the President to impound and steal funds, and there never has been. I don't care if the President is Republican or Democrat. The late Justices Scalia and Rehnquist said so. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh have said so. By the way, they are no liberal torchbearers.

The Department of Justice and the Government Accountability Office have said so. Over 200 years of American history say so. Our Founding Fathers designed our government so.

Alexander Hamilton said: ``But where the purse is lodged in one branch, and the sword in another, there can be no danger.'' The power of the purse resides in the United States Congress.

This rescissions package dated May 28, submitted June 3, 134 days after the President began unlawfully freezing funding, is an admission by President Trump and Russ Vought that they are breaking the law by impounding $425 billion in appropriated funds across the government. They do not care about the consequences for Americans.

This is a bill to codify the rights of billionaires and to rubberstamp the right of billionaires to steal from rural and vulnerable American communities, children, and the global poor, for the sake of handing even more money to billionaires. Congress needs to fight for the middle class, for the working class, and for the most vulnerable, not to protect the interests of billionaires and big corporations.

Members considering voting for this own the reckless cuts done by Elon Musk.

This is a bill to shut down rural television and radio stations, cutting off coverage of local news, eliminating emergency information like severe weather alerts, and jeopardizing access to PBS KIDS children's programs like ``Sesame Street.''

This is a bill to rip lifesaving support away from the hungry, displaced, and sick people in developing countries and conflict zones across the globe and to end programs that treat deadly diseases and prevent pandemics.

This is a bill to abandon the people of Ukraine while they resist Putin's tyranny.

This is a bill to cut $400 million from PEPFAR, a paragon of American leadership that has saved the lives of 26 million mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. Instead of facing a death sentence, people supported by PEPFAR are raising families, building their communities, and helping their communities grow and develop.

This is a bill that puts America last. When we retreat from the world diplomatically and through our assistance to vulnerable people, then America will be alone, without allies, and in a less stable world without the support of the international community.

Mr. Speaker, do you know who will come out ahead?

China, Russia, and Iran. When people in need see bags of food and flour coming through that say USA, that shows the power of the United States. That now will be traded for food aid from China.

We are here today considering cuts after months of unlawful impoundment, stealing, that will conceal a Republican reconciliation bill to make the billionaires in America even more rich and increase the debt by $3 trillion. Mr. Speaker, you increase the debt. You rip health insurance away from at least 16 million Americans.

This bill rescinds $9.4 billion, which Congress just appropriated not even 3 months ago. Now the President is asking the Congress to rubberstamp its proposal to steal from the American people without concern for the consequences. This bill does nothing to help the American people with the cost of living. The President said he was going to bring it down on the first day. He has done nothing but make it worse.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill which forfeits our global leadership, undermines national security, and steals from the American people to hand more wealth to billionaires.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), the distinguished ranking member of the Interior and Environmental Subcommittee of Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished Democratic whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), the distinguished ranking member of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of Representative Kelly's amendment immediately prior to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump promised to bring down the cost of living. He made it worse. He is illegally stealing congressionally approved taxpayer dollars, and these are services for the American people.

If my colleagues want to deal with waste, fraud, and abuse, they have to deal with cutting back on the $4.5 trillion tax cut for billionaires that the Republicans supported and voted on, tax cuts for billionaires and the biggest corporations.

If my colleagues vote for this bill, they own every reckless cut crafted by Elon Musk. They are rubberstamping illegal cuts, and they own it.

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