District of Columbia Local Funds Act, 2025

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 2056, which would effectively nullify laws, policies, and practices duly enacted by the District of Columbia because I strongly support the ability of the residents of the District of Columbia to govern themselves on local matters.

This is one of two D.C. bills that the House is considering this week to demonize immigrants. Let's be clear: The District of Columbia is in full compliance with Federal law. It does not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties.

D.C., like many other jurisdictions, limits its cooperation with Federal immigration agencies to what Federal law actually requires. Why do jurisdictions limit such cooperation other than the fact that immigration is a Federal responsibility? Let us ask the police chiefs for an explanation.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association opposes such cooperation for four reasons:

``Enforcement of routine civil immigration by police would undermine the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities which are essential elements of community-oriented policing.

``Courts have held that the lack of legal authority to enforce Federal civil immigration statutes exposes police to liability for unlawful arrest and detention.

``Local agencies do not possess adequate resources to enforce these laws in addition to the added responsibility of homeland security.

``Immigration laws are very complex, and the training required to understand them and to properly prosecute them significantly detracts from the core mission of local police to create safe communities.''

Let's be clear again: D.C. is in full compliance with Federal law. It does not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties, and it is backed by evidence demonstrating that limiting cooperation keeps people safer. Counties with laws that do not honor extrajudicial civil detainers have significantly lower levels of violent crime than counties that don't have such laws.

Mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and local leaders across the country have made clear that the way to combat violent crime is allowing local police to do their job of ensuring public safety in their own communities, not commandeering local police to spend limited time and resources rounding up and detaining nonviolent immigrants who pose no threat.

Forcing the District of Columbia to carry out the Federal Government's immigration duties also discourages residents from coming forward to share information with the police about violent crimes for fear that they or someone close to them will be detained or deported. This is simply bad policy and will hurt the residents of the District of Columbia.

The House should reject H.R. 2056 and stop interfering in local D.C. matters. Instead, it should pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act, and H.R. 51, Washington, D.C. Admission Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's take up that challenge. Let's make sure the laws that we have passed in this House apply and are complied with in Washington, D.C.

The gentleman may forget, this isn't the first debate we have had about Washington, D.C., or the District of Columbia. We have had this debate through history ever since the Founders of this country created the District. It is a special district in addition to being our National Capital.

Most recently, in 1973, this Congress created the Washington, D.C. Home Rule Act. I will explain to the gentleman what that requires. The Home Rule Act in D.C. says because there is shared jurisdiction within this District that the people of Washington, D.C., the residents here, may govern their local affairs as they please. I emphasize: as they please, for local affairs.

The performance of their local police force is an area within their local control. That is number one. Let's enforce the laws that have been passed in this House respective to the people of the District of Columbia.

Number two. Violent crime, the special circumstances about keeping Washington, D.C., safe. Violent crime in D.C. reached a 30-year low this year, this past year, a 30-year low. Compare that to any city in the country, and it is a favorable comparison.

The police department in Washington, D.C., is doing an amazing job, and the political leadership of D.C. has stepped up. There were years many years ago when there were deep and serious questions about the leadership in Washington, D.C. They have improved dramatically over the last few decades.

This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period last year, and studies show that handling law enforcement the way they have, with community policing and getting to know the people in the neighborhoods, has been a key element. This is according to the last five police chiefs in this city. That spans over about 50 years. This is what they say, that this is the way to keep the people safe, work with the local community.

I know the gentleman is from law enforcement. I am just asking to afford the same respect and deference to our local law enforcement leaders here in this community, give them the benefit of the doubt of how they provide safety in their own city. They know it best. They know the people. They know the streets. They know the challenges.

It is a special place. There is a protest every couple of days, a major one in this city, people for various causes marching through the city take it over, and the local law enforcement has to be part of that effort to keep those people safe so they can express their rights.

It is a special place, but I think we should give deference to the local law enforcement community that they know how best to provide that safety, especially with the record that they have, a 30-year low on crime in this city, 22 percent less violent crime this year compared to the same period last year.

The gentleman's argument was correct. He shouldn't have to bring a bill up here to do this. He shouldn't have to interfere with local control in this city. He shouldn't have to bring a bill up here to tell the local people how to run their city when Congress has already, in 1973, given them that power in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. I shouldn't have to defend that right that has already been granted by previous Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the Delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about crime in D.C. Let's talk about crime in D.C., as the gentleman mentioned. Let's talk about that.

Let's talk about January 6. We had 1,500 people ransack the Capitol. Let's talk about what happened to them in consequence. They were rewarded. They were pardoned.

Yet, to this day, the Speaker of the House refuses to hang the plaque honoring the over 150 police officers who defended the people in this Chamber, who defended the Republicans.

I know all the Republicans didn't feel safe that day because I saw them running from the crowd, running in fear, until the President told them, no, that was just a tour of the Capitol. They all made excuses for what happened that day. Not one of those people who ran out of the Capitol for safety that day came back to say that they should be held responsible. Now, all of those people have been pardoned.

Mr. Speaker, when they talk about crime in D.C., holding people accountable, and feeling safe, do they think that day was making democracy great again when the elected leaders had to hide, being chased out of this Chamber doing the people's business?

Is this an example of how the Republicans are going to bring the rule of law to D.C.? Give me a break. You have to be kidding me.

To this day, Officer Sicknick's family--there were three officers who eventually died of causes related to the attack on the Capitol on January 6. Those families would hope that the people who were saved that day might be grateful. Those families lost their husbands, fathers, and sons. They simply want to have their sacrifice and law enforcement recognized by the people who were rescued.

I know there are a number of my colleagues on the other side who had exemplary careers in law enforcement. They understand better than any that when you have a son, daughter, husband, or wife who gives their life in service of protecting the people in this Chamber, you would hope for at least just a small gesture, a plaque to commemorate that heroism and service to their country. That is not happening, and that is a shame.

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

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

The title of this bill is misleading. The District of Columbia already complies with Federal immigration law, including warrants and orders related to immigrants issued by Article III courts.

It is ironic that the Republican leadership is cutting or denying the ability of the District of Columbia to spend a billion dollars of the money that they have raised within the District to meet their obligations here in the city. Yet, while they are cutting their budget by $1 billion, they are saying, even though Federal law doesn't require cities to do all this stuff, we want them to do the Federal Government's job, as well. That is the irony here.

Federal immigration law doesn't require the States or cities to inquire about citizenship or immigration status or manage immigration policy. They don't require cities to do that, especially a smaller jurisdiction like Washington, D.C.

What my colleagues want to do is they want to shift the burden of the Federal responsibilities onto the District of Columbia and their political leadership, at the same time when they are cutting $1 billion of the budget from Washington, D.C. It is adding insult to injury.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because I strongly support D.C. home rule. For this reason and at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.

If House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would have been the text of S. 1077, the District of Columbia Local Funds Act. I would have tried to put that $1 billion back into their own budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must note that it has been nearly 3 months since the Senate passed the bipartisan District of Columbia Local Funds Act, which would undo the $1 billion cut to the local D.C. budget in the House Republican-drafted fiscal year bill.

The Republican-led Senate understood immediately the cut's harms and passed the District of Columbia Local Funds Act within 4 hours of its introduction by the Republican Senator, Susan Collins, the chair on the Committee on Appropriations.

The local D.C. budget consists entirely of revenue raised by D.C. It is raised by the District of Columbia, which is why the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the District of Columbia Local Funds Act would have zero effect on the Federal budget.

For the prior two decades, Congress had allowed the District of Columbia to spend under its current local budget for the duration of every continuing resolution. However, the fiscal year 2025 full-year continuing resolution forced D.C. to revert to its fiscal year 2024 local budget.

It did so halfway through the fiscal year. In doing so, the continuing resolution sabotaged the D.C. local budget. There was no time to respond.

On March 28, President Trump called on the House to pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act immediately. Last month, Speaker Johnson said the House had been too busy to act on the District of Columbia Local Funds Act, while it worked on the reconciliation bill. The House somehow found time to rename the Gulf of Mexico.

The House passed the reconciliation bill on May 22. The House has found time this week to take up three bills to overturn the ability of the people of Washington, D.C., to govern themselves. The House is now out of excuses on the District of Columbia Local Funds Act.

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

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

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

Mr. President, President Trump has pledged to balance the budget. I want to help him. I want to help him with this task. But to balance the budget requires much less spending than this current bill entails.

Our national debt now exceeds $36 trillion. That is 124 percent of the size of our economy. That should not be a surprise. We are adding $2 trillion every year to the debt, this year included.

Critics of excessive Federal spending have rightly argued that we should return spending to prepandemic levels. This is something I could support. The spending bill before us, though, spends $400 billion more than we were spending before the pandemic. Spending went through the roof during the pandemic, and it never came back down, and the deficits are out of control. In order for this bill to get back to prepandemic levels, it would have to be $400 billion less. That is something I could support.

Three months ago, when the current continuing resolution was passed at the end of last year, we were told that we just needed to clear the decks. President Trump was going to come in, the Republicans would be in charge, and then everything would be OK. Just wait. Pass it. Pass it along in September. Come March, Republicans will be in charge, and something will happen.

Yet the bill before us doesn't change anything. The bill before us keeps the same Biden spending levels.

We were told with relentless fury that we would fight for the taxpayers come spring, and we were given a bill that doesn't change. It doesn't change the course of accumulating $2 trillion in debt every year.

The powers that be, I believe, waved the white flag of surrender when they presented the American people with this bill that fails to make the cuts that are necessary to slow down the accumulation of our debt.

The malpractice is made even worse this time around. Presidents of both parties pay lipservice to the idea that the national debt must be addressed. Despite tough talk, deficits and the debt inevitably keep rising. We now have over $36 trillion in debt.

Unlike past Presidents, though, President Trump created the Department of Government Efficiency--affectionately known as DOGE--to identify wasteful programs and eliminate them. Despite DOGE working around the clock identifying appalling waste of taxpayers' dollars, this bill continues to fund the same programs that are funding the waste and fraud that have been located.

How can that be? If we have located the waste and fraud, why are we not telling them to reduce foreign aid? If the foreign aid budget is full of all kinds of crazy, leftwing advocacy and nonsense, reduce the amount of money you give them.

This bill will give them the same amount of money they got last year. This bill allows foreign aid to continue. It doesn't incorporate any of the DOGE cuts. It doesn't cut waste. This bill embraces the waste. It allows the waste to continue. This bill doesn't respect the taxpayer. It continues to throw their money away.

This bill continues the Biden levels of spending that caused historic inflation, that caused prices to rise, that caused people to be outraged, to vote for a new President. Why in the world would we continue the same spending levels that led to the debt that led to the inflation that is plaguing us?

This malpractice is compounded by the fact that President Trump and DOGE made it easy for Congress to fix. They actually told us where the waste was and where the waste and abuse was and told us how to root it out, how to remove it.

The waste found by DOGE truly shocks the conscience. Taxpayers paid $25,000 for an LGBT trans opera in Colombia. They spent $2 million on sex changes in Guatemala. They spent $1.5 million advancing DEI initiatives in Serbia. They spent $6 million on tourism in Egypt. They spent $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru.

Some of the USAID's programs have actually gone beyond woke absurdity into pouring money and support to people who are the enemies of the United States. The Agency provided millions of dollars to EcoHealth, which funded the dangerous research in Wuhan which, in all likelihood, created and caused the pandemic.

From this account, also, millions of dollars went to support agriculture in

Afghanistan, including fertilizer for the poppy fields grown by the Taliban.

And yet, even after all that DOGE has uncovered--and I commend them-- Congress is still on the verge of passing a bill that fully funds foreign aid. Many in this Chamber think it is wasteful to do all these things, and they say: Well, why should we keep spending money on foreign aid that is paying for sex changes in Guatemala? And yet the funding levels in this bill stay the same. These are the same funding levels for the foreign aid that were occurring under the Biden administration.

Let me say that again and clearly: This bill fully funds the outrageous foreign aid programs that Elon Musk and DOGE have exposed. Something doesn't make sense here.

While Congress seems slow to open its eyes to waste and abuse, Secretary Rubio has acted. He recently said that the United States is canceling 83 percent of the foreign aid contracts. I am for that. In fact, that is what my amendment will do. My amendment will take the contracts--the dollar amount of the contracts--that President Trump and Secretary Rubio have canceled and put them into language so they don't get funded. Why in the world would we not be for getting rid of the funding for the crazy programs we are trying to get rid of? Something doesn't make sense here.

President Trump and his team identified the cuts that need to be made, but it is ultimately Congress, not the Executive, that has the power of the purse. Congress has to act to make the cuts identified by the administration a reality. And on that score, the bill under consideration today is a disappointment. The bill is a disappointment to those who believe that congressional leadership should have used the 3 months since they came into office, since DOGE and Elon Musk have identified this waste--they should have used that waste and incorporated it into the spending bill.

None of the DOGE cuts, none of Elon Musk's suggestions, have been incorporated into the spending bill. The spending bill continues spending at the Biden levels. When everybody wakes up and scratches their head and says, ``What happened here?'' the spending will lead to $2 trillion in debt. People will wake up and say: Well, what about all those cuts? What happened? I thought we were cutting out waste and fraud. And come September, the deficit for the year will be $2 trillion. Because we are not actually cutting the spending. Congress has to do the heavy lifting.

We owe the American people an answer to this question: Exactly how many Republican seats are required in Congress to achieve a majority that will actually fight to lower government spending?

I don't think the taxpayers need to wait for that fight any longer. I am not willing to say: Oh, just wait, young man. Wait for another day. We will be fixing this 6 months from now.

It never comes. This is the story of this place: Wait until another day. Wait until the sun shines; we will finally cut some spending.

It never comes. Someone must make a stand and fight. To that end, I offer a DOGE cuts 1.0 amendment that would codify the cuts in foreign aid, reducing USAID's budget by 83 percent and aligning with Secretary Rubio's recent decision to eliminate thousands of these programs.

So what I am doing is not inconsistent with the Trump administration; what I am doing is in support of the Trump administration. What I am doing is taking the preliminary cuts that Secretary Rubio has given to foreign aid and making them law.

Why? Because the whole judiciary is opposing the President. They are telling him he can't fire people, that he can't cut spending. He needs Congress to step up and do their job. The people who support the President need to be supporting the President's cuts. They need to be supporting an amendment--DOGE 1.0--that puts those cuts into law.

I am not even talking about codifying all of the cuts. I am only taking a small sliver of them in foreign aid. This is the low-hanging fruit. This is the worst of the worst. This is $3 million for girl- centric climate change in Brazil. This is $4.8 million for social media influencers in Ukraine. This is hundreds of thousands of dollars spent sending Ukrainian fashion designers to the Paris fashion show. This is waste--utter and simple waste--and it ought to be cut.

Why would people tell you publicly they are for it and then vote against it? It doesn't seem to make any sense. What my amendment does is put DOGE's findings into action, eliminating much of the funding for an Agency that spent tax dollars on woke entertainment and advocacy. It sets in law the reductions that the Trump administration has made known to be necessary.

I applaud DOGE's work to uncover these many instances of abuse of taxpayer dollars, and it is now Congress's turn to make the cuts stick. If we do not adopt my amendment, then taxpayers will simply continue spending substantial amounts of money to defund components of the government rather than using savings to pay down our mounting debt. In other words, you might cut it and think it is cut one day; but what if the courts say you have to spend it somewhere else? It never comes back. The cuts are never real. The only way the cuts the administration is making will ever be real, will ever be counted, will ever lessen the debt in the country is to vote in Congress. That is what this is about.

It would be the height of hypocrisy for Congress to pay lipservice to DOGE's exceptional work, support it on the superficial, and then vote against it when you have a chance to vote on it.

Continuing to spend at this bill's level will add $2 trillion in debt. That is a fact. All the newspapers reporting yesterday--it was all over the news: record-setting accumulation of debt.

We have accumulated over a trillion, and we are not halfway through the year. It is a record accumulation of debt. It only stops when people stand up and say: Enough is enough.

The least we can do is make sure that it doesn't include the egregious spending that has come from the foreign aid, the craziness, the sex change operations in Guatemala, trans operas, trans comic books. All of these ludicrous things that no American supports will only go away and will only go away with permanence if we vote for it.

Before us is a chance to enact about $16 billion worth of DOGE's cuts in foreign aid. These cuts are only real in the long term if they are reflected in congressional action. If we continue to fund the Federal Government at the Biden administration levels, which is what this bill does, then the money from DOGE's hard-found savings will just be spent somewhere else.

I urge all of my colleagues who have praised DOGE's work to match their actions to their words and vote yes on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic, anti- immigrant bill, which would nullify laws, policies, and practices enacted by the locally elected District of Columbia Government. The over 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of local self-government.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters, one from every Member of D.C.'s locally elected legislature, the Council; and one from D.C.'s locally elected Attorney General, Brian Schwalb, opposing this bill.

Council of the District of Columbia,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to

express our opposition to three pieces of legislation we

understand will be considered on the House floor this week.

All three bills would repeal provisions in laws that were

carefully and deliberately enacted by the Council for the

benefit of all District residents.

H.R. 2096 would repeal several efforts by the Council to

ensure that police officers who violate the law and

contravene public safety are appropriately disciplined. The

bill would strip the Chief of the Metropolitan Police

Department (MPD) of the authority to discipline officers who

violate the law or MPD policy. It would also limit the MPD

Chief's discretion to impose disciplinary penalties greater

than those recommended by the board investigating the

allegations made against an officer. Stripping MPD management

of its authority in this area would

greatly undermine both MPD and public safety. A 2022 D.C.

Auditor's report catalogued cases where MPD was barred from

firing officers who had committed sexual and domestic

violence, who were arrested for assorted criminal activity,

or who gave false statements, misused their firearms, or

slept on the job. H.R. 2096 would also restore a 90-day

statute of limitations for claims against police officers

that, in the past, was repeatedly used by officers seeking to

avoid accountability. Every MPD Chief for the past 15 years

has supported this reform because it empowers police

leadership--not a third-party board or arbitrator--to

determine the appropriate standards of conduct and discipline

for their officers. Congress should not substitute its

authority for that of local elected leaders and MPD Chiefs

who have examined these issues closely.

We support having a robust and strong police force and work

closely with MPD leadership to provide them with the tools

they need to make the city safe. Part of that effort includes

ensuring that the force can appropriately remove officers who

violate the law, MPD policies, and the public trust. When the

public trusts that MPD can effectively police its own,

residents are more likely to cooperate in investigations and

more likely to assist in prosecution, making the District

safer. H.R. 2096 would make it harder for law enforcement

leadership in the Nation's Capital to remove bad actors who

undermine that trust.

We also oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a 2022 law

extending voting rights in local District elections to non-

citizen residents. Non-citizens enjoy similar voting rights

in 15 other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and

Oakland, California, Montpelier, Vermont, and a number of

jurisdictions in neighboring Maryland. It continues to be

unlawful for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in the

District. In fact, federal law has prohibited non-citizens

from voting in federal elections since 1996. Our local law

cannot and does not attempt to change that.

Finally, we oppose H.R. 2056, which attempts to negate

provisions in local District law governing how MPD and other

District agencies participate in federal immigration

enforcement efforts. This law has been on the books for 13

years and makes it clear that District officials must

cooperate with any court order directing that an individual

in District custody suspected of an immigration violation be

detained or transferred to federal custody. H.R. 2056 would

also eliminate rules governing information sharing between

the District and federal law enforcement on immigration

matters. In sum, the bill would scrap rules and practices

that are clear and familiar and replace them with nothing.

This will only cause confusion and uncertainty both for law

enforcement and those suspected of an immigration violation.

The Council is already considering a proposal from Mayor

Muriel Bowser to reconsider the District's laws and policies

in this area. We respectfully request that you allow us to do

that work.

Thank you for your consideration and your attention to

these important matters. We look forward to working with you

on our shared goals to advance the safety, security, and

prosperity of the District.

Sincerely,

Phil Mendelson,

Chairman, At-Large.

Anita Bonds,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Robert C. White,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Brooke Pinto,

Councilmember, Ward 2.

Kenyan R. McDuffie,

Chair Pro-Tempore, At-Large.

Christina Henderson,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Brianne K. Nadeau,

Councilmember, Ward 1.

Matthew Frumin,

Councilmember, Ward 3.

Janeese Lewis George,

Councilmember, Ward 4.

Charles Allen,

Councilmember, Ward 6.

Zachary Parker,

Councilmember, Ward 5.

Wendell Felder,

Councilmember, Ward 7.

Mr. Speaker, D.C. residents are treated as second-class citizens by Congress. They are required to pay Federal taxes, serve on Federal juries, and register with Selective Service in the same manner as residents of the States. They have served in the military since the Revolutionary War, which was fought to end taxation without representation and to give consent to the governed. Yet, Congress has denied them voting representation in Congress and full local self- government over the past 200 years.

Last Congress, 100 bills and amendments were introduced to repeal or block local D.C. laws and policies. This Congress, 28 such bills and amendments have already been introduced, including bills to abolish the locally elected D.C. Government.

Three months ago, Congress passed a bill that cut over $1 billion from the local D.C. budget, which consists entirely of locally raised revenue. While Congress has the authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, it does not have a duty to do so.

In Federalist No. 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''

In 1953, the Supreme Court held that: ``There is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power.''

The council has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. This is called democracy.

Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is the antithesis of democracy.

Congress has the authority to grant D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government. It simply needs to pass H.R. 51, the D.C. statehood bill, which would make the residential and commercial areas of D.C. a State.

The Admissions Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit new States. All 37 new States were admitted by an act of Congress. The District Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to reduce the size of the Federal district, which it has previously done.

The substance of H.R. 2056 is irrelevant since there is no justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters, but I will briefly discuss it.

Consistent with Federal law, the position of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and D.C.'s values, D.C. limits cooperation with Federal immigration agencies. D.C. concluded that cooperating with Federal immigration agencies would make D.C. less safe for all residents by diverting police resources

and discouraging immigrants from interacting with the police department and other government agencies. Many States, cities, and counties have reached the same conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to respect the will of D.C. residents by voting ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Wyden for his outstanding work as the former chairman of the Finance Committee and now as the ranking member.

I get around Vermont a bit. I get around the country a bit. And, generally speaking, when I talk to a group of people, I ask them a simple question.

I say: What do you think about the healthcare system? Is it working well or is it broken? Is it dysfunctional?

And, overwhelmingly, the hands go up that the American healthcare system today is broken, it is dysfunctional, and it is cruel. And what people understand is the function of the American healthcare system, today, is not to provide quality healthcare to all of our people, which, in fact, goes on in every other major country on Earth. It is to make huge profits for the drug companies and the insurance companies.

The current healthcare system is a system in which we spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of any other nation--an astronomical sum of money. And yet despite all that money, 85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, and the cost of healthcare keeps going up every single year. One out of four Americans cannot afford the costs of the drugs that their doctors prescribe. And, unbelievably, it is a system in which 60,000 Americans die each year because they can't get to a doctor on time.

It is a system in which we don't have enough doctors, we don't have enough nurses, we don't have enough dentists, and we don't have enough pharmacists. But the good news is the insurance companies and the drug companies are making huge profits.

The current healthcare system is a system in which our life expectancy is lower than in any other major country, and if you are working class in America, you are going to live 7 years of shorter life than if you are wealthy.

It is a system in which some 500,000 people go bankrupt each year because of medically related debt. It is a system where, in large parts of our country, rural hospitals are being shut down and where people even with decent insurance have to travel hours in order to find a doctor.

As Senator Wyden indicated, in December, after months and months of difficult negotiations--and I want to congratulate Senator Wyden, Senator Crapo, and all of the people involved in those negotiations--we made some progress on this healthcare crisis by coming together on a bipartisan and bicameral agreement on a healthcare package.

That legislation, while more modest than I would have wanted, would have provided $4.5 billion for community health centers this year and $4.6 billion next year, up 15 percent from a few years ago.

Community health centers provide primary healthcare to 32 million Americans--working-class, lower income people. They do a phenomenal job, but they are under financial stress.

That legislation would have provided $350 million a year, over 2 years, for the National Health Service Corps, so we can attract young people to go out and work--young doctors to work in underserved areas. And it would have provided $300 million a year for teaching health centers.

It would have also lowered the outrageous price of prescription drugs by taking on the greed of pharmacy benefit managers.

It was a bipartisan bill. And just before that bill was going to be passed, Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, who does not have to worry about whether he and his friends can afford healthcare, he sent out a series of tweets--some of them outrageously dishonest--to kill this legislation, and he succeeded in doing so.

So, today, it is important that we take a step forward and undo the damage that Mr. Musk caused, and the legislation that we are proposing today would, in fact, begin to take us back where we were. It would increase funding for community health centers and do all of the other important work that Senator Wyden wanted.

We have a healthcare crisis in America today. The CR that we are going to be voting on in a little while will make a bad situation worse. This is an opportunity to tell the American people that we are aware of the healthcare crisis; we are at least trying to do something.

And I would yield back to Senator Wyden.

That is it?

We have a healthcare crisis--85 million uninsured or underinsured, people dying because they can't afford healthcare. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We have reached a bipartisan conclusion to go forward in a modest way, but it would have some impact in approving healthcare in America, and my Republican colleague objects. That is about it.

Well, I hope the American people are watching.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden, Senator Sanders, and Senator Scott be recognized for up to 25 minutes, and that following their remarks, the majority leader be recognized.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague from Vermont Senator Sanders to pass a set of critical improvements to America's healthcare system. This legislation is overwhelmingly bipartisan, fully paid for, and targeted at two objectives every Senator ought to support: improving healthcare for Americans and cracking down on the middlemen who take advantage of the system.

Mr. President, 597 days ago, the Senate Finance Committee passed the most comprehensive legislation in history to address the pharmacy benefit managers' predatory business practices, and it was passed by a vote of 26 to 1. And 493 days ago, the Senate Finance Committee passed another piece of healthcare legislation that improves

mental healthcare for Americans with Medicaid, expands and strengthens telehealth, and more PBM policies, by a vote, again, of 26 to 0. Since that time, negotiations about how to sign these policies into law have been fatally intertwined with the dysfunctional debate over congressional appropriations, as the public can see on full display this week.

These policies are too important to leave behind due to an unrelated disagreement. Community pharmacists are counting on this legislation. Doctors who don't want to see a pay cut are counting on this legislation. Seniors and working families who want better care at a lower cost are counting on this legislation. So the time to act is now.

In December, Democrats and Republicans struck a deal on this bill. I have the press release on my website to prove it. It was introduced in the House and set for passage. But along came Elon Musk and his now familiar wrecking ball. With one tweet, he killed the entire package for reasons that had nothing to do with the bill before the Senate today.

Musk even had the gall to tweet, ``What is a `pharmacy benefit manager'?'' less than 2 weeks after he single-handedly killed the bill.

While this unelected billionaire rifles through Americans' private information and earned benefits, claiming to be looking for waste, fraud, and abuse, he doesn't even know about the middlemen who skim billions off the Federal Government.

Since Musk's tweeting adventure, 237 independent pharmacies have closed their doors. That is nearly three small businesses closing every day. Our bill includes critical protections that stop the giant PBMs from bullying even more local pharmacies into the abyss. Every day matters. That is why it is critical to act now.

Now, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Sanders, so he can explain the important pieces of this bill that are in his committee's jurisdiction that also need to pass as soon as possible.

Mr. President, very briefly, I want to thank my colleague. We have been working, as we have indicated, for months and months, because Americans, with respect to healthcare, feel like they are getting hit by a wrecking ball here in terms of the costs and inability to get quality care.

So with that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 891 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Wyden substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

The Senator from Florida.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.