[Pages H2639-H2647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, RESCISSIONS ACT OF 2025

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 499 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 499

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House 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rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in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. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The provisions of section 1017 of the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 shall not apply to a bill or joint
resolution introduced with respect to the special message
transmitted under section 1012 of that Act on June 3, 2025.
Sec. 3. House Resolution 492 is hereby adopted.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. 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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. 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.

{time} 1515

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. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H2640]]

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.
Ms. FOXX. 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.

[[Page H2641]]

{time} 1530

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. McGOVERN. 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.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[From The AP, May 16, 2025]

Children Die as USAID Aid Cuts Snap a Lifeline for the World's Most
Malnourished

(By Taiwo Adebayo)

DIKWA, Nigeria (AP)--Under the dappled light of a thatched
shelter, Yagana Bulama cradles her surviving infant. The
other twin is gone, a casualty of malnutrition and the
international funding cuts that are snapping the lifeline for
displaced communities in Nigeria's insurgency-ravaged Borno
state.
``Feeding is severely difficult,'' said Bulama, 40, who was
a farmer before Boko Haram militants swept through her
village, forcing her to flee. She and about 400,000 other
people at the humanitarian hub of Dikwa--virtually the entire
population--rely on assistance. The military restricts their
movements to a designated ``safe zone,'' which severely
limits farming.
For years, the United States Agency for International
Development had been the backbone of the humanitarian
response in northeastern Nigeria, helping non-government
organizations provide food, shelter and healthcare to
millions of people. But this year, the Trump administration
cut more than 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts and $60
billion in overall assistance around the world.
Programs serving children were hit hard.
Bulama previously lost young triplets to hunger before
reaching therapeutic feeding centers in Dikwa. When she gave
birth to twins last August, both were severely underweight.
Workers from Mercy Corps enrolled them in a program to
receive a calorie-dense paste used to treat severe acute
malnutrition.
She has no more tears, only dread for what may come next.

[[Page H2642]]

``I don't want to bury another child,'' she said.

`Very traumatic'

Globally, 50% of the therapeutic foods for treating
malnutrition in children were funded by USAID, and 40% of the
supplies were produced in the U.S., according to Shawn Baker,
chief program officer at Helen Keller Intl and former chief
nutritionist at USAID.
He said the consequence could be 1 million children not
receiving treatment for severe malnutrition, resulting in
163,500 additional deaths per year. For Helen Keller Intl,
its programs in Bangladesh, Nepal and Nigeria have been
terminated.
``It is very traumatic,'' said Trond Jensen, the head of
the United Nations humanitarian office in Maiduguri, Borno's
capital, of the funding cuts, noting that other donors,
including the European Union, have taken similar steps this
year. ``One of the things is the threat to the lives of
children.''
UNICEF still runs a therapeutic feeding center nearby,
which now supports Bulama's surviving baby, but its capacity
is stretched. It is turning away many people previously
served by other aid groups that have pulled out due to
funding cuts.
Intersos, an Italian humanitarian organization, has the
only remaining facility providing inpatient services for
malnutrition in Dikwa, treating the most perilous cases. Its
workers say they are overwhelmed, with at least 10 new
admissions of seriously malnourished children daily.
``Before the USAID cut, we made a lot of progress,'' said
Ayuba Kauji, a health and nutrition supervisor. ``Now my
biggest worry is high mortality. We don't have enough
resources to keep up.''
Intersos was forced to reduce its staff from 30 to 11 in
Dikwa after the USAID freeze. Its nutrition and health
facilities now operate solely on support from the Nigerian
Humanitarian Fund, a smaller pot of money contributed by a
few European countries. That funding will be finished in
June.
The crisis is equally acute in Maiduguri, where the economy
is reeling from massive terminations of aid workers. At
another Intersos-run facility, 10 of the 12 doctors have left
and four nurses remain, with 50 new admissions of
malnourished children per week.
``It used to be far less,'' said Emmanuel Ali, one of the
remaining doctors.

Beyond nutrition

The effects of the funding cuts extend far beyond
nutrition. At the International Organization for Migration's
reception center in Dikwa, thousands of displaced families
and those escaping Boko Haram captivity are stranded. There
are no new shelters being built and no support for
relocation.
``Before, organizations like Mercy Corps built mud-brick
homes and rehabilitated damaged shelters to absorb people
from the IOM reception center,'' said one official at the
center, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to speak publicly on the situation. ``Now, that
has stopped.''
Jensen, the U.N. humanitarian head in Maiduguri, said,
``sadly, we are not seeing additional funding to make up for
the U.S. cuts.'' He warned that vulnerable people could turn
to risky ways of coping, including joining violent groups.

A global problem

The crisis in Nigeria is part of a larger reckoning.
According to Kate Phillips-Barrasso, Mercy Corps' vice
president for policy and advocacy, 40 of its 62 U.S.-funded
programs with the potential to reach 3.5 million people in
Nigeria, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Somalia, Iraq,
Sudan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Lebanon and Gaza have been
terminated.
In Mozambique, where jihadist violence in the north has
displaced over a million people since 2017, humanitarian
organizations face steep shortfalls with ``devastating''
effects on the needy, said Frederico Joao, chairman of the
forum of NGOs in the region.
More widely, the USAID funding cut compromises Mozambique's
health sector, especially in HIV/AIDS care, said Inocencio
Impissa, cabinet spokesman. The government now seeks
alternative funding to prevent total collapse of health
systems.
(Charles Mangwiro in Maputo, Mozambique, contributed to the
story.)

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
Ms. FOXX. 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. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Foxx for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the
Rescissions Act of 2025, a bill that finally codifies the spending cuts
identified by the Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known
as DOGE.
The American people are getting a front row seat to one party who is
perfectly content to bankrupt this country, one party. We will get no
votes on this rescission package, none from the Democratic Party.
They had their time. When their President, who was cognitively, let's
just say, deficient, where were the cuts? None. They didn't say
anything. They didn't stand up for the American people. They were
silent.
Where were our good friends with the 15 to 20 million illegals coming
into this country, with the drugs flowing in, with the children that
were trafficked? Where were they? They were quiet. They didn't say a
thing. Mr. Speaker, it is anti-American.
This package is not about tightening belts. It is about cutting loose
the dead weight.
As Congresswoman Foxx just mentioned a few things, let me mention a
few things that Democrats will spend Americans' money on:
$3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street; $6 million for NetZeroCities in
Mexico--NetZeroCities in Mexico, what is that? Mr. Speaker, Democrats
will spend $158 million for Lebanon peacekeeping operations which fail
to contain Hezbollah; $135 million for the World Health Organization
controlled by China. This is what Democrats are for. This is how they
are wanting to spend your money.
With $38 trillion in debt, they will keep on spending and spending on
their pet projects. President Trump is calling an end to it.
Mr. Speaker, of this, we are talking about $9.4 billion in
rescissions, funds that should never have been appropriated in the
first place. This includes $8.3 billion from foreign aid programs--some
which I just read--$1.1 billion from the Corporation of Public
Broadcasting. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize a leftwing
media operation like NPR and PBS. These cuts are more than symbolic.
Mr. Speaker, they are structural. They target woke U.N. handouts,
failing to keep the peacekeeping efforts, and Biden's DEI and climate
propaganda campaigns masquerading as humanitarian aid.
Let me be clear. This does not cut defense. This does not cut Social
Security. This does not cut Medicare. This is about rooting out waste,
fraud, and abuse and very firmly putting America first, which they are
not doing.
If we don't codify these cuts, they will be reversed quietly over
time with no vote from this Chamber.

[[Page H2643]]

This rescissions package is the lockbox. It makes the DOGE cuts
permanent. It ensures the victories that we don't want to get washed
away in the next budget cycle. This is our chance to turn--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is about freedom. This is about
maintaining America as we have known it in the past. This is about
returning the American people to some fiscal sanity, which my friends
on the left will not do and never have done, particularly in the last 4
years.

{time} 1545

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Goldman) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on my amendment to President
Trump's reckless and stunningly shortsighted rescissions package, which
would, among other harmful cuts, entirely eliminate Federal funding for
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear. This is not cutting waste, fraud,
and abuse. This isn't trimming around the edges. This isn't the
teardrop in an ocean. This is all Federal funding for the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, which is PBS, NPR, and local public television
and radio.
This is not just an attack, though, on PBS and NPR, as so many of my
Republican colleagues have said. The majority knows full well that more
than 70 percent of this cut will be felt by the local radio and
television stations in their own communities and across the country.
These stations use federally funded CPB radio towers and
infrastructure to disseminate lifesaving emergency alerts. They don't
just inform rural Americans and serve news deserts to discuss local
news, which, of course, they do, and they are often the only source of
educational programming for children around the country, but they are
also essential for disaster response and emergency preparedness.
There are 20 States that list NPR in their emergency response plans.
This infrastructure is essential for emergency alerts, geotargeted text
messages, and first responder communications. My colleagues know all of
this. The Republicans know how devastating this defunding will be.
Even Chairman Aderholt acknowledged yesterday in the Committee on
Rules that these cuts will harm his State's public broadcasting
networks and that he would like to work on it with Democrats. The
gentleman's chance is right now, on the previous question, which, if my
colleagues vote ``no,'' we can work together on funding the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is not about actual
funding. This is caving to Donald Trump's thin skin and his inability
to deal with facts rather than to stand up for local stations, local
communities, and the First Amendment, which specifically prevents
Congress from abridging the freedom of the press.
To every Republican listening, this is yet another chance to oppose
Donald Trump's attack on any objective form of accountability and to do
what is best for your constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and to choose their constituents over Donald Trump.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. FOXX. 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. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman, my friend from North
Carolina, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I rise in support of the rule.
For the American people watching back home, we are here because, on
June 3, the House of Representatives received a rescissions request
from the White House to eliminate $9 billion in unobligated spending.
Let's just say there is much more to go. This is step one.
Under the Impoundment Control Act, once a request is received,
Congress has

[[Page H2644]]

45 days to act. The House is now acting. These rescissions are, in
part, due to what DOGE was able to uncover and bring forward in terms
of wasteful government spending.
Just look at what we have been funding with taxpayer dollars: $6
million for net-zero cities in Mexico; $5.1 million for programs to
strengthen the resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
intersex, and queer--good grief--global movements; $1.5 million to
advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces; $2
million for Moroccan pottery classes; $2 million for sex changes and
LGBT activism in Guatemala; $33,000 for being LGBTI--I can't even keep
up with this stuff; $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt; $32,000 for
transgender comic books in Peru; and $1 million to help disabled people
in Tajikistan become climate leaders.
Is that what Democrats think their taxpayer dollars should go toward?
I can promise the minority that the people I represent think that this
is absolute garbage.
How on Earth can my Democratic friends possibly defend that? My
friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe,
seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this
absurd list of projects and thousands of others that I didn't even
list, somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will
crumble.
Let's just reject this now. The White House is right to send up this
rescissions package. This should be just step one. There should be
numerous other steps.
We should rescind billions upon billions of dollars of wasteful
spending that is destroying our country through inflation and
increasing the size and scope of government, undermining the safety and
security of the American people.
How about the $160 million we can save by not giving more money to
UNRWA, the organization whose own employees participated in Hamas'
slaughter of Israeli citizens on October 7, which we now know to be
verifiably and completely true?
Why would we continue to shovel money to an organization that is
funding terrorism against our allies and against our American citizens?
Yet, that is precisely what my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle would wish us to continue to do.
Mr. Speaker, let's address the One Big Beautiful Bill Act issue. My
friends on the other side of the aisle are raising the prospect of $3
trillion of additional deficits. I have been very open in my belief
that this bill should be better, that we should cut more spending and
be more mindful of reducing the size of government to get deficits down
much further than we are seeing in this bill.
To be very clear--and we had this debate in the Committee on Rules--
what my friends on the other side of the aisle are forgetting and not
putting forward here in this debate, when they say $3 trillion of
additional deficits, is what you believe the growth rate will be if you
adopt policies that will actually increase economic growth. That is
putting more money into the pockets of the American people and
deregulating so that businesses can create wealth.
We assumed 2.6 percent economic growth. That is higher than the CBO's
expectation of 1.8 but lower than the historic growth of 3.2 percent.

We hit the sweet spot. We believe that if you get that growth, you
will have deficit neutrality on this bill so that you will end up
creating wealth, creating jobs, putting more money into people's
pockets, and trying to deliver on the spending cuts, reversal and
termination of the green new scam, and the application of Medicaid work
requirements to make sure that people aren't getting benefits when they
should be working.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a good bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a good bill, and I will say it
again: I think the bill can get better. I think the Senate should
improve it. I think that we should find more savings, but to say to the
American people that it is creating deficits, ignoring economic growth,
is just simply not true.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

{time} 1600

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.

[[Page H2645]]

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.
Ms. FOXX. 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. McGOVERN. 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).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this harmful,
shameful, and offensive rescission package.
The GOP is canceling $9.4 billion, yes, billion, in funding for
programs that fund lifesaving work across the world. It is funding for
public television and public radio, for agriculture and research jobs,
in my own district, and to codify the DOGE cuts that two-thirds of
Americans oppose. Our own President asked his other Cabinet members,
just 2 weeks ago, if they were just total bullshit. That is a quote of
the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell Members of this Chamber to vote ``no''
on this rescission package.
Transmitted by the director of the Office of Management and Budget
and architect of Project 2025, Russell Vought: This package would make
permanent cuts to USAID and the State Department which was put into
motion illegally. They knew it because they were impounding funds. They
essentially admitted that in the rescissions package because they said
it was pursuant to the Budget Control Act. They knew that what they
were doing was illegal.
Now, 5, 6 months later, they have transmitted this package to cut $8
billion in programs that saves the lives of children across the world,
that would gut U.N. programs that would save thousands of lives, and
gut public broadcasting.
This is a full-scale attack on our international system, global peace
and security, the health and welfare of millions of children across the
world and on public television. We will fight back every step of the
way.
Mr. Speaker, not only am I a ``no,'' I am a ``hell, no'' on this
package.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from using
vulgarities in the House Chamber.
Ms. FOXX. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H2646]]

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.
Mr. McGOVERN. Vote ``no'' if you oppose $3 trillion----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is no
longer recognized.
Ms. FOXX. 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.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment To H. Res. 499 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Strike everything following the resolved clause and insert
the following:
That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order
to consider in the House 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. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees;
(2) the amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution,
if offered by Representative Goldman of New York or a
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as
follows:
Page 7, line 17, strike paragraph (21).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). The question is on
ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 204, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 164]

YEAS--210

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NAYS--204

Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Beatty
Cole
Correa
Costa
Gottheimer
Green (TN)
Harris (MD)
LaHood
Lee (FL)
Nehls
Norcross
Randall
Scalise
Self
Sherrill
Spartz
Stefanik
Torres (NY)

{time} 1642

Mses. BROWN and TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 207, not voting 12, as follows:

[[Page H2647]]

[Roll No. 165]

AYES--213

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOES--207

Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Beatty
Correa
Gottheimer
Green (TN)
Lee (FL)
Nehls
Norcross
Randall
Self
Sherrill
Spartz
Stefanik

{time} 1649

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

personal explanation

Ms. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, due to family matters, I was unable to vote
today on H. Res. 499. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll
Call No. 164 and NO on Roll Call No. 165.

personal explanation

Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent and missed the
following votes on the House Floor. Had I been present, I would have
voted accordingly: NO on Roll Call No. 164, Motion on Ordering the
Previous Question on H. Res. 499; and NO on Roll Call No. 165, H. Res.
499.

____________________