{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-06-11-pt1-PgH2639", "2025-06-11", 119, 1, null, null, "PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, RESCISSIONS ACT OF 2025", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H2639", "H2647", "[{\"name\": \"Virginia Foxx\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James P. McGovern\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ralph Norman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Daniel S. Goldman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chip Roy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Melanie A. Stansbury\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Emily Randall\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"J. Luis Correa\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"492\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"499\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"499\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"499\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. H2639", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 100 (Wednesday, June 11, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 11, 2025)]\n[House]\n[Pages H2639-H2647]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, RESCISSIONS ACT OF 2025\n\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call\nup House Resolution 499 and ask for its immediate consideration.\n  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:\n\n                              H. Res. 499\n\n       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be\n     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to\n     rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in\n     special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President\n     on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the\n     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. All\n     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.\n     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order\n     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous\n     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on\n     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening\n     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and\n     controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or\n     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.\n       Sec. 2.  The provisions of section 1017 of the Impoundment\n     Control Act of 1974 shall not apply to a bill or joint\n     resolution introduced with respect to the special message\n     transmitted under section 1012 of that Act on June 3, 2025.\n       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 492 is hereby adopted.\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is\nrecognized for 1 hour.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the\ncustomary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.\nMcGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the\npurpose of debate only.\n\n                             General Leave\n\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may\nhave 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentlewoman from North Carolina?\n  There was no objection.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying\nlegislation. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule,\nHouse Resolution 499, providing for the House's consideration of H.R.\n4, the Rescissions Act of 2025.\n  This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule.\n  The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by\nthe majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees,\nand provides for one motion to recommit\n  Additionally, the rule provides that House Resolution 492 is hereby\nadopted.\n  Mr. Speaker, before we get into the substance of the bill today, I\nwould like to clear up any confusion about any remarks I made in the\nRules Committee last night.\n  Let me be crystal clear. I encourage all Members to support the rule\nbefore us today. My comments last night were lacking in context.\nDemocrats made the argument throughout the hearing that this process is\nsomehow another vote on H.R. 1. That is false.\n  The resolution today makes purely technical changes to protect the\nprivilege of the reconciliation bill as it heads to the Senate.\n\n                              {time}  1515\n\n  It is not a redo or relitigation of any underlying policy issues in\nthe bill.\n  Let me repeat: There are no policy decisions included in this\nengrossment correction.\n  That is what the Senate is working through, and I look forward to\nconsidering H.R. 1 when the bill returns from the other Chamber.\n  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain on a positive, forward moving\ntrajectory in delivering upon the American people's mandate from\nNovember. Just a few short weeks ago, we passed the One Big Beautiful\nBill Act.\n  This week, we are taking up a nearly $10-billion rescissions package,\nand soon we will be moving into the appropriations process.\n  Discretionary waste is about to be put through the congressional\nshredder.\n  Mr. Speaker, the American people demand that this happens. Now our\ncolleagues across the aisle will leap to their feet and scream bloody\nmurder about how the waste we are targeting simply doesn't exist and\nhow we are laying siege to everything under the Sun.\n  Au contraire. We have the receipts to back everything up.\n  Here is just a small sampling of the mind-boggling discretionary\nwaste that we will be slashing in foreign funding:\n  $158 million from the Lebanon peacekeeping mission which has been\nfraught with waste and abuse as evidenced by its abject failure to\ncontain Hezbollah;\n  $3 million for an Iraqi Sesame Street;\n  $833,000 for services for transgender people, sex workers, and their\nclients and social networkers in Nepal; and\n  $500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda.\n  These examples barely skim the surface, Mr. Speaker, and it is really\nno wonder why Americans are outraged that their tax dollars are being\nsquandered.\n  It is the American people's money. A single dollar of taxpayer money\nwasted is $1 too many in our view.\n  Then there is NPR. I honestly don't even know where to begin on that\none. Even if someone were to accept the premise that we need to finance\na public radio outlet, then certainly we can all agree that it simply\ncannot be NPR any longer. NPR's own CEO testified before Congress that\nshe has never seen any political bias at NPR. I don't know what reality\nshe is living in, but it clearly isn't this one.\n  Here is the kicker: NPR does harbor political bias. It took a $1.9\nmillion grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints.\n  There is the proof, and it is a concrete example that NPR's CEO was\ngiving false testimony to Congress.\n  Mr. Speaker, you either understand that you are biased and need help,\napparently in the form of taxpayer grants, or you haven't witnessed any\nbias. You can't have it both ways.\n  Then there is PBS. Again, I honestly don't know where to begin. On\ntop of the concrete, statistically proven bias against conservatives,\nRepublicans, and the Trump administration, this is the 21st century. We\nhave Sesame Street now streaming on private services so the taxpayers\nare now subsidizing for-profit companies. We have seen private\ncelebrities like Ms. Rachel who are engaging in crossover with Sesame\nStreet which, again, leveraged taxpayer dollars to concentrate wealth\nto private individuals.\n  It is clear that we must slash this tranche of wasteful spending and\ncontinue down a path to fully restore fiscal sanity in our Nation.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North\nCarolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself\nsuch time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, before we even get to the rescissions, let's be really,\nreally honest about what is going on here. This isn't just a debate\nabout cuts, because in this rule, Republican leadership snuck in a\nrewrite of their big, ugly bill.\n  Yes, that is right. A vote on this rule is effectively a revote on\ntheir reconciliation package, a do-over. It is a\n\n[[Page H2640]]\n\ndesperate attempt by Republican leadership to fix the mess they made\nwith their awful tax scam.\n  Now, when they rushed it through in the middle of the night, they\nincluded provisions that aren't even allowed under the Senate's\nreconciliation rules. Moreover, instead of coming clean and holding a\nstraightforward vote on the corrections, they are trying to bury it in\nthis rule for the DOGE rescissions package, hoping that nobody will\nnotice. Think of it like a Trojan Horse, Mr. Speaker.\n  Let's be clear: The rescissions could be brought to the floor\nanytime. You heard that right, Mr. Speaker, they could be brought to\nthe floor anytime. They are privileged. Speaker Johnson doesn't need\nthis rule to move them. The only reason these things are being tied\ntogether is to trick certain Republicans into voting for a bill that\nthey have already said they regret.\n  Now, it should be said that Republicans have an opportunity right now\nto change the bill before it goes to the Senate. Last night, in the\nRules Committee, we could have voted to strip out the State artificial\nintelligence moratorium for the reconciliation bill, or we could have\ndropped the controversial language on contempt that some Republican\nMembers objected to.\n  Nonetheless, Republican leadership deliberately decided not to do any\nof that. They decided that the very stuff their members are concerned\nabout doesn't matter and, instead, are entirely leaving changes up to\nthe Senate, as if we had no power or influence here in this House.\n  As the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the chairwoman of the Rules\nCommittee, said herself last night during the meeting: ``Any Member who\nhas any regrets about his or her vote on the first bill has the\nopportunity to vote `no' on the rule tomorrow.''\n  She didn't recommend a ``no'' vote, but she pointed out the choice\nthat Members have.\n  I agree with her. Members have a choice here. Those who didn't like\nthis bill have a choice to stop it right here in this House.\n  So to all of the Republicans who said they regret voting ``yes'' for\nthis reconciliation bill, especially those who complained about how\nmuch this will add trillions to the deficit and debt: This is your\nchance for a redo. This is your chance for a redo. Vote ``no.'' Vote\n``no'' here to stop this big, ugly bill from moving to the Senate. If\nRepublicans have the courage of their convictions, then they will vote\n``no.''\n  While Republican leadership is busy playing procedural games trying\nto slip this through, let's talk about what they are attaching this\nrewrite to.\n  The Republican rescission package is based on a scam, a con job, and\na grift. This is not about actual savings, nor is it about rooting out\nwaste, fraud, and abuse. This is based on cementing stupid,\npreposterous, and self-defeating DOGE cuts into law. These are DOGE\ncuts that, I might add, have already illegally been in place for months\nwhen the Trump administration wreaked havoc on our government systems\nby freezing critical funding.\n  From day one, DOGE has been one big excuse to reward Trump's wealthy\ndonors, gut public services, and funnel resources away from programs\nthat help ordinary people and into the pockets of the wealthy and well-\nconnected.\n  Let's not forget: This is the same DOGE review that cut off funding\nto USDA bird flu experts in the middle of a bird flu outbreak. They\nsent pink slips to the people who secure our nuclear warheads. They\ngutted the National Weather Service so badly that right now we might\nnot have enough meteorologists to warn communities about tornadoes and\nhurricanes.\n  DOGE was a total, complete failure, and now Republicans want to lock\ntheir disastrous cuts into law?\n  Come on. That is insane. That is crazy.\n  Mr. Speaker, look at what these cuts are targeting: funding for\nglobal health, clean water, food security, and democracy programs;\nfunding for UNICEF and the World Food Program; funding for diplomacy,\nhumanitarian aid, and for world peace, for Christ's sake.\n  People think our foreign budget is some huge, massive thing. We are\ntalking about something that is 1 percent of our budget. So, please, do\nnot come down here and pretend as if this is a serious attempt to cut\nfunding.\n  Mr. Speaker, if you want to go after waste and save taxpayer money,\nthen count me in. Count me in. I wish my Republican friends would\nexpress some concern about the fact that their President is spending\nmaybe up to $40 million for a parade of military tanks on his birthday.\n  Really?\n  We are cutting money to save lives in this rescission package, but\n$40 million-plus is no big deal, as long as Donald Trump is happy.\n  We should start with the Pentagon if we are serious about getting\nafter waste, fraud, and abuse. The Pentagon, by the way, has never,\never passed an audit. They have never passed an audit.\n  Let's look at tax breaks for Big Oil. We can't do that because they\nwrite big checks.\n  Let's go after the loopholes for billionaires. Let's end the\ncorporate giveaways.\n  No. No. No. Republicans don't want to touch any of those things.\n  Meanwhile, the cuts in this rescission package hurt America. They\nweaken our leverage around the world. They pull back critical funding\nfor our allies. They strip away tools we use to prevent conflict and\npromote stability. These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of\nthousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world.\n  At a time when China, Russia, and Iran are working overtime to\nchallenge American influence, this bill says: Go right ahead. This is\nChina's dream come true, the U.S. pulling back our soft power from\naround the world.\n  This is self-sabotage masquerading as savings, and it is not even a\nlot of money. These slivers of our Federal budget, these dollars that\ngenerate enormous return by keeping people alive and preventing crises\nbefore they happen that is what this money does. That is what\nRepublicans are cutting.\n  This isn't just penny wise and pound foolish, Mr. Speaker. It is like\nsaving money by burning down your house so you don't have to pay for\nthe heat.\n  I would like to think that America's greatness comes from our\nhumanity. It is clear Republicans believe that America's greatness is\nfound in our inhumanity and in cruelty and callousness. I believe\neveryone can agree that is a truly dark, dangerous, and morally\nbankrupt place to govern from.\n  The American people deserve better than this. They deserve smarter\nthan this. They deserve a government that prioritizes what works, not\nwhat flatters the egos of billionaires hopped up on ketamine.\n  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a disgrace, and the underlying bill is a\ndisgrace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the\nbalance of my time.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Once again, I need to set the facts straight. Our colleagues keep\nflip-flopping on their characterization of cuts to wasteful spending\nand our campaign to get our fiscal house in order.\n  At one moment our spending cuts are so monumental and draconian that\nthe Earth is going to stand still and people are going to die, as they\ntold us in the Rules Committee. Literally seconds after they said that\nyesterday, not even minutes later, they tell us that the spending cut\nis inconsequential, that it is a rounding error, and that it is a drop\nin the bucket.\n  Mr. Speaker, which is it?\n  It has to be one or the other.\n  The fact that our colleagues keep twisting themselves in knots is\nsimply evidence that they are doing everything in their power to hide\nthe facts about this vote.\n  At one minute, this $10 billion return on taxpayer dollars is not\nworth Congress' time. At another minute, they will tell us that these\nare draconian cuts that they will oppose with every ounce of strength\nin their bodies.\n  Give me a break.\n  Republicans are finally offering taxpayers relief from years of\nprofligate spending from Democrats. Again, they expanded the Federal\nGovernment with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion\nof which has been added to the national debt. It is time to end that\nspending.\n  We are ending it in H.R. 1. We are ending it in this package here\ntoday, and we won't stop fighting for taxpayers. We can cut spending in\nlittle chunks and in big chunks.\n\n[[Page H2641]]\n\n                              {time}  1530\n\n  In response to Mr. McGovern's obvious assertions, Members always have\na choice to vote up or down on legislation, be it a rule,\nauthorization, or appropriation.\n  The plain text of the rule provides for consideration of this\nrescissions package and advances H.R. 1 by adopting the engrossment\nresolution.\n  Since Democrats seem to have selective memory, let me remind them,\nand Americans, that during the 117th Congress, very recently, House\nDemocrats deemed 29 items total. Also included in that number is the\nengrossment correction resolution they deemed in a rule for the\nAmerican Rescue Plan Act, which included section and paragraph strikes.\n  In contrast, Republicans in the 118th Congress deemed only two\nmeasures. We understand that this is a tool of the majority that should\nbe used only when necessary.\n  We all know the Democrats opposed H.R. 1. They opposed it weeks ago,\nand they opposed the engrossment resolution last night on the basis\nthat it advances H.R. 1.\n  Mr. McGovern is tying himself in knots here. In a ``Dear Colleague''\nhe circulated, he characterized this rule as repassing H.R. 1, just\nbefore he went on to complain that H.R. 1's engrossment is not getting\nits own vote.\n  Nothing was added to H.R. 1. Let me repeat, nothing was added to H.R.\n1. Every change was technical or simply removed provisions to make sure\nthis big, beautiful bill has its day in the Senate.\n  Let's remind the American people what the Democrats voted against in\nH.R. 1. Democrats went on record against tax cuts for families, against\ntax relief for tips, against tax relief for senior citizens. They went\non record against protecting Medicaid by advocating for the enrollment\nof 1.4 million illegal aliens. They went on record against increasing\nthe quality of life funds for our Nation's military families.\n  We have a rule before us to protect H.R. 1's process in the Senate\nand restore fiscal sanity to our Nation, and the American people need\nand want us to deliver.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain this again because I don't know\nwhy this is such a tough concept for my Republican colleagues to\nunderstand.\n  Two things can be true. These Republican DOGE cuts can be incredibly\ncruel, which they are, and at the same time mathematically\ninsignificant compared to the massive trillions of dollars that\nRepublicans are adding to the deficit and the debt because of their\nreconciliation bill. So two things can be true. I don't think that is\nthat hard for the American people to understand.\n  Mr. Speaker, as we have made clear time and time again, the big, ugly\nGOP tax scam is set to add $3 trillion to the deficit, $3 trillion. To\nbe clear, that isn't me saying that. That is the independent,\nnonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO.\n  It isn't just CBO. Every other reputable independent analysis of the\nbill, including the Joint Committee on Taxation, Yale Budget Lab, and\nPenn Wharton Budget Model came to the same conclusion. Even the right-\nleaning Tax Foundation agrees that this bill explodes the deficit,\nexplodes it.\n  Yet, here we are with Republicans patting themselves on the back over\nthe Trump-DOGE rescission package, a package that in all reality barely\nmakes a dent in the very debt that they ballooned.\n  Since they want to talk about the debt, let's talk about the debt. I\nwant the American people to take a look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. I\nwant the American people to look at this chart. The red indicates the\n$3 trillion that Trump's big, ugly bill will add to the deficit. Then\nwe see this tiny, little blue sliver. Thank God, I am wearing my\nbifocals here. I can barely see it. That little, tiny blue sliver--\nagain, you might need a magnifying glass to see it--that is the $9.4\nbillion that the Republicans are trying to save through these\nrescissions.\n  To break that down a little bit more, the $3 trillion deficit\nincrease in the GOP tax scam is 320 times bigger than the $9.4 billion\nthat Republicans are trying to rescind through these DOGE cuts.\n  The real kicker here is that under their GOP tax scam, CBO says that\nthe top 5 percent of earners will get $1.6 trillion in total tax cuts.\nThat is 170 times bigger than the $9.4 billion Republicans want to\nrescind.\n  Republicans are cutting $9.4 billion in Federal spending so they can\ntry and justify the trillions and trillions of dollars they plan to add\nto the debt so they can deliver massive tax cuts to their billionaire\nfriends.\n  So these rescissions, they are not even a drop in the bucket. They\nare a drop in the ocean compared to the multitrillion-dollar deficit-\nbusting bill that Republicans are trying to jam through.\n\n  Just because the sliver on this chart seems small doesn't mean these\nRepublican rescissions are not harmful. Republicans want to cut $900\nmillion from global health programs, including $400 million for PEPFAR,\nan overwhelmingly bipartisan program created by President George W.\nBush to combat HIV. This program has saved more than 26 million lives\nover the past 28 years.\n  That is not fraud, waste, or abuse. That is a big deal. That is\nsomething we should be proud of. Not properly funding PEPFAR means\npeople will literally die. That is not hyperbole. It is just the truth.\nIn fact, because DOGE and the Trump administration illegally suspended\nPEPFAR already earlier this year, tens of thousands of people have\nalready died, including thousands of children. It is despicable. They\nwant to cut $2.5 billion in development assistance that our allies and\npartners use to build schools, help farmers grow food, fund clean water\nprojects, and combat poverty. They want to cut hundreds of millions of\ndollars in funding for Ukraine and our allies at the border of Russia.\nThey want to completely eliminate Federal funding for public TV and\nradio, which are trusted sources of news and educational programming\nfor millions of American households, particularly in rural areas. I\ndon't know what my colleagues have against rural areas, but those areas\nwill be particularly hard hit by those cuts.\n  It is important to note, once again, that many of these rescissions,\nespecially to foreign aid, have already started to hurt and even kill\npeople. That is because the administration illegally froze USAID\nprograms, which has threatened the lives of millions of people who rely\non this funding to prevent or treat disease, afford food, and access to\nclean water.\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record an\narticle by the Associated Press titled: ``Children die as USAID aid\ncuts snap a lifeline for the world's most malnourished.''\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Massachusetts?\n  There was no objection.\n\n                      [From The AP, May 16, 2025]\n\n  Children Die as USAID Aid Cuts Snap a Lifeline for the World's Most\n                              Malnourished\n\n                           (By Taiwo Adebayo)\n\n       DIKWA, Nigeria (AP)--Under the dappled light of a thatched\n     shelter, Yagana Bulama cradles her surviving infant. The\n     other twin is gone, a casualty of malnutrition and the\n     international funding cuts that are snapping the lifeline for\n     displaced communities in Nigeria's insurgency-ravaged Borno\n     state.\n       ``Feeding is severely difficult,'' said Bulama, 40, who was\n     a farmer before Boko Haram militants swept through her\n     village, forcing her to flee. She and about 400,000 other\n     people at the humanitarian hub of Dikwa--virtually the entire\n     population--rely on assistance. The military restricts their\n     movements to a designated ``safe zone,'' which severely\n     limits farming.\n       For years, the United States Agency for International\n     Development had been the backbone of the humanitarian\n     response in northeastern Nigeria, helping non-government\n     organizations provide food, shelter and healthcare to\n     millions of people. But this year, the Trump administration\n     cut more than 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts and $60\n     billion in overall assistance around the world.\n       Programs serving children were hit hard.\n       Bulama previously lost young triplets to hunger before\n     reaching therapeutic feeding centers in Dikwa. When she gave\n     birth to twins last August, both were severely underweight.\n     Workers from Mercy Corps enrolled them in a program to\n     receive a calorie-dense paste used to treat severe acute\n     malnutrition.\n       She has no more tears, only dread for what may come next.\n\n[[Page H2642]]\n\n       ``I don't want to bury another child,'' she said.\n\n                            `Very traumatic'\n\n       Globally, 50% of the therapeutic foods for treating\n     malnutrition in children were funded by USAID, and 40% of the\n     supplies were produced in the U.S., according to Shawn Baker,\n     chief program officer at Helen Keller Intl and former chief\n     nutritionist at USAID.\n       He said the consequence could be 1 million children not\n     receiving treatment for severe malnutrition, resulting in\n     163,500 additional deaths per year. For Helen Keller Intl,\n     its programs in Bangladesh, Nepal and Nigeria have been\n     terminated.\n       ``It is very traumatic,'' said Trond Jensen, the head of\n     the United Nations humanitarian office in Maiduguri, Borno's\n     capital, of the funding cuts, noting that other donors,\n     including the European Union, have taken similar steps this\n     year. ``One of the things is the threat to the lives of\n     children.''\n       UNICEF still runs a therapeutic feeding center nearby,\n     which now supports Bulama's surviving baby, but its capacity\n     is stretched. It is turning away many people previously\n     served by other aid groups that have pulled out due to\n     funding cuts.\n       Intersos, an Italian humanitarian organization, has the\n     only remaining facility providing inpatient services for\n     malnutrition in Dikwa, treating the most perilous cases. Its\n     workers say they are overwhelmed, with at least 10 new\n     admissions of seriously malnourished children daily.\n       ``Before the USAID cut, we made a lot of progress,'' said\n     Ayuba Kauji, a health and nutrition supervisor. ``Now my\n     biggest worry is high mortality. We don't have enough\n     resources to keep up.''\n       Intersos was forced to reduce its staff from 30 to 11 in\n     Dikwa after the USAID freeze. Its nutrition and health\n     facilities now operate solely on support from the Nigerian\n     Humanitarian Fund, a smaller pot of money contributed by a\n     few European countries. That funding will be finished in\n     June.\n       The crisis is equally acute in Maiduguri, where the economy\n     is reeling from massive terminations of aid workers. At\n     another Intersos-run facility, 10 of the 12 doctors have left\n     and four nurses remain, with 50 new admissions of\n     malnourished children per week.\n       ``It used to be far less,'' said Emmanuel Ali, one of the\n     remaining doctors.\n\n                            Beyond nutrition\n\n       The effects of the funding cuts extend far beyond\n     nutrition. At the International Organization for Migration's\n     reception center in Dikwa, thousands of displaced families\n     and those escaping Boko Haram captivity are stranded. There\n     are no new shelters being built and no support for\n     relocation.\n       ``Before, organizations like Mercy Corps built mud-brick\n     homes and rehabilitated damaged shelters to absorb people\n     from the IOM reception center,'' said one official at the\n     center, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not\n     authorized to speak publicly on the situation. ``Now, that\n     has stopped.''\n       Jensen, the U.N. humanitarian head in Maiduguri, said,\n     ``sadly, we are not seeing additional funding to make up for\n     the U.S. cuts.'' He warned that vulnerable people could turn\n     to risky ways of coping, including joining violent groups.\n\n                            A global problem\n\n       The crisis in Nigeria is part of a larger reckoning.\n     According to Kate Phillips-Barrasso, Mercy Corps' vice\n     president for policy and advocacy, 40 of its 62 U.S.-funded\n     programs with the potential to reach 3.5 million people in\n     Nigeria, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Somalia, Iraq,\n     Sudan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Lebanon and Gaza have been\n     terminated.\n       In Mozambique, where jihadist violence in the north has\n     displaced over a million people since 2017, humanitarian\n     organizations face steep shortfalls with ``devastating''\n     effects on the needy, said Frederico Joao, chairman of the\n     forum of NGOs in the region.\n       More widely, the USAID funding cut compromises Mozambique's\n     health sector, especially in HIV/AIDS care, said Inocencio\n     Impissa, cabinet spokesman. The government now seeks\n     alternative funding to prevent total collapse of health\n     systems.\n       (Charles Mangwiro in Maputo, Mozambique, contributed to the\n     story.)\n\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, according to the Boston University School\nof Public Health--and listen to this--more than 50,000 adults and 6,000\ninfants have died of HIV due to the disruption of PEPFAR. People are\nalready dying. More than 29,000 children have died of malaria, and\n25,000 people have died of tuberculosis because the Trump\nadministration froze funding.\n  Republicans want to rubberstamp the Trump administration's illegal\nfunding freeze into law, and they claim that they are reining in the\ndebt. Well, as we can see, Mr. Speaker, that is a huge load of garbage.\n  This rescissions package is a moral failure masquerading as fiscal\nresponsibility, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\nThis rescissions package does reduce certain global health accounts by\nhundreds of millions. Keep in mind that $10 billion has been\nappropriated for this work in these accounts, making this rescission\nexact and very targeted.\n  The Trump administration has communicated it will not reduce funds\nfor treatment in PEPFAR, rather it eliminates programs antithetical to\nAmerican interests and ones that worsen the lives of women and\nchildren. Enacting this rescission will get this funding stream back to\nits core mission by refocusing it on protecting health and supporting\nlife-sustaining treatment.\n  What we don't need is the wasteful spending priorities of President\nBiden now exposed by the Trump administration: $500,000 for a Lesbian\nJustice Foundation in Canada; $9.3 million to the John Snow Research\nand Training Institute to advise Russian doctors on how to perform\nabortions and gender analysis; $800,000 for transgender people, sex\nworkers and their clients and sexual networks in Nepal; $7.4 million\nfor a One Health Workforce project whose curriculum includes teaching\npractitioners about environmental racism and the importance of DEI.\n  This spending, guised under the terms ``equity, reproductive health,\nand family planning,'' stray far from the mission of sustaining life\nand serve no benefit to the populations they are intended to help.\n  These are wasteful programs financed by the American taxpayer, funded\nby deficit spending; but no longer. This money is better off returned\nto the Treasury, and PEPFAR's integrity is now being restored.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina\n(Mr. Norman).\n  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Foxx for yielding me\nthe time.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the\nRescissions Act of 2025, a bill that finally codifies the spending cuts\nidentified by the Department of Government Efficiency, otherwise known\nas DOGE.\n  The American people are getting a front row seat to one party who is\nperfectly content to bankrupt this country, one party. We will get no\nvotes on this rescission package, none from the Democratic Party.\n  They had their time. When their President, who was cognitively, let's\njust say, deficient, where were the cuts? None. They didn't say\nanything. They didn't stand up for the American people. They were\nsilent.\n  Where were our good friends with the 15 to 20 million illegals coming\ninto this country, with the drugs flowing in, with the children that\nwere trafficked? Where were they? They were quiet. They didn't say a\nthing. Mr. Speaker, it is anti-American.\n  This package is not about tightening belts. It is about cutting loose\nthe dead weight.\n  As Congresswoman Foxx just mentioned a few things, let me mention a\nfew things that Democrats will spend Americans' money on:\n  $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street; $6 million for NetZeroCities in\nMexico--NetZeroCities in Mexico, what is that? Mr. Speaker, Democrats\nwill spend $158 million for Lebanon peacekeeping operations which fail\nto contain Hezbollah; $135 million for the World Health Organization\ncontrolled by China. This is what Democrats are for. This is how they\nare wanting to spend your money.\n  With $38 trillion in debt, they will keep on spending and spending on\ntheir pet projects. President Trump is calling an end to it.\n  Mr. Speaker, of this, we are talking about $9.4 billion in\nrescissions, funds that should never have been appropriated in the\nfirst place. This includes $8.3 billion from foreign aid programs--some\nwhich I just read--$1.1 billion from the Corporation of Public\nBroadcasting. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize a leftwing\nmedia operation like NPR and PBS. These cuts are more than symbolic.\nMr. Speaker, they are structural. They target woke U.N. handouts,\nfailing to keep the peacekeeping efforts, and Biden's DEI and climate\npropaganda campaigns masquerading as humanitarian aid.\n  Let me be clear. This does not cut defense. This does not cut Social\nSecurity. This does not cut Medicare. This is about rooting out waste,\nfraud, and abuse and very firmly putting America first, which they are\nnot doing.\n  If we don't codify these cuts, they will be reversed quietly over\ntime with no vote from this Chamber.\n\n[[Page H2643]]\n\n  This rescissions package is the lockbox. It makes the DOGE cuts\npermanent. It ensures the victories that we don't want to get washed\naway in the next budget cycle. This is our chance to turn--\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the\ngentleman from South Carolina.\n  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is about freedom. This is about\nmaintaining America as we have known it in the past. This is about\nreturning the American people to some fiscal sanity, which my friends\non the left will not do and never have done, particularly in the last 4\nyears.\n\n                              {time}  1545\n\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I don't even know where to begin after that. The\ngentleman talked about $100,000 here and $1 million there but not a\nword about the $3 trillion added to the deficit because of the big,\nugly bill that he and Republicans voted for and supported. There was\nnot a word about all that is going to be added to the debt.\n  Maybe the gentleman forgot this, but I am looking at a FOX News story\nhere when the gentleman referred to the $9.4 billion as a teardrop in\nthe ocean when he was interviewed. I don't know what happened, but\nsomehow the gentleman couldn't bring himself to talk about the $3\ntrillion that Republicans are adding to the debt.\n  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question.\nIf we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up\namendment No. 1 to H.R. 4 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.\nGoldman), which would block Republicans from zeroing out Federal\nfunding that Congress has already appropriated for the Corporation for\nPublic Broadcasting.\n  Public TV and radio are trusted sources of news and educational\nprogramming for millions of households across America and are\nparticularly important in rural areas, where public stations are often\nthe only source of local news.\n  This is a $1.1 billion cut, Mr. Speaker. Let's compare that to the\nbig, ugly Republican reconciliation bill, which adds $3 trillion to the\ndeficit and--get this--includes a provision that Republicans have been\nbragging about that removes a tax on gun silencers, which has been on\nthe books for a century.\n  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the JCT, this new tax\nbreak on silencers alone will increase our Nation's deficit by $1.5\nbillion. That is more than the $1.1 billion Republicans are ``saving''\nby eliminating all funding for public TV and radio.\n  Mr. Speaker, let me ask the American people and my Republican\ncolleagues: Is this whole tradeoff worth it? Public broadcasting in\nexchange for cheaper gun silencers? I mean, really? Unless you are an\nassassin or a hit man, I hope the answer is a resounding ``no.''\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my\namendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,\nimmediately prior to the vote on the previous question.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Massachusetts?\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nNew York (Mr. Goldman) to discuss our proposal.\n  Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for\nyielding me time.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on my amendment to President\nTrump's reckless and stunningly shortsighted rescissions package, which\nwould, among other harmful cuts, entirely eliminate Federal funding for\nthe Corporation for Public Broadcasting.\n  Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear. This is not cutting waste, fraud,\nand abuse. This isn't trimming around the edges. This isn't the\nteardrop in an ocean. This is all Federal funding for the Corporation\nfor Public Broadcasting, which is PBS, NPR, and local public television\nand radio.\n  This is not just an attack, though, on PBS and NPR, as so many of my\nRepublican colleagues have said. The majority knows full well that more\nthan 70 percent of this cut will be felt by the local radio and\ntelevision stations in their own communities and across the country.\n  These stations use federally funded CPB radio towers and\ninfrastructure to disseminate lifesaving emergency alerts. They don't\njust inform rural Americans and serve news deserts to discuss local\nnews, which, of course, they do, and they are often the only source of\neducational programming for children around the country, but they are\nalso essential for disaster response and emergency preparedness.\n  There are 20 States that list NPR in their emergency response plans.\nThis infrastructure is essential for emergency alerts, geotargeted text\nmessages, and first responder communications. My colleagues know all of\nthis. The Republicans know how devastating this defunding will be.\n  Even Chairman Aderholt acknowledged yesterday in the Committee on\nRules that these cuts will harm his State's public broadcasting\nnetworks and that he would like to work on it with Democrats. The\ngentleman's chance is right now, on the previous question, which, if my\ncolleagues vote ``no,'' we can work together on funding the Corporation\nfor Public Broadcasting.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the\ngentleman from New York.\n  Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is not about actual\nfunding. This is caving to Donald Trump's thin skin and his inability\nto deal with facts rather than to stand up for local stations, local\ncommunities, and the First Amendment, which specifically prevents\nCongress from abridging the freedom of the press.\n  To every Republican listening, this is yet another chance to oppose\nDonald Trump's attack on any objective form of accountability and to do\nwhat is best for your constituents.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous\nquestion and to choose their constituents over Donald Trump.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). Members are reminded to\nrefrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 mandates that all\npublic broadcasting programs must demonstrate strict adherence to\nobjectivity and balance in all programs. There is a myriad of\nstatistical studies that prove they are not.\n  NPR banned coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming it was\na mere diversion. PBS made 162 references to ``far right'' versus only\n6 references to ``far left.'' Perhaps most damning for NPR is the fact\nthat it had to utilize a $1.9 million Federal grant to improve\nobjectivity and diverse viewpoints last year.\n\n  The problem with the Public Broadcasting Act is that it lacks an\nenforcement mechanism, so we will go with our constitutional\nprerogatives here to enforce the law. That starts with this rescission\nof funding.\n  PBS and NPR will continue to pivot their response to this cut back\nand forth, as they have for some time. They tell us that their\ntaxpayer-funded gift is just a drop in the bucket, not worth our\nattention. Nothing to see here. Yet, when we want to hold them\naccountable, it is the end of the world.\n  They will weaponize their content against congressional Republicans.\nThey will hire lobbyists. They will buy ads. In fact, they have. They\ncan continue to do that, but thankfully, it won't be subsidized by the\ntaxpayer any longer.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from\nTexas (Mr. Roy).\n  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman, my friend from North\nCarolina, for yielding me time.\n  Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I rise in support of the rule.\n  For the American people watching back home, we are here because, on\nJune 3, the House of Representatives received a rescissions request\nfrom the White House to eliminate $9 billion in unobligated spending.\nLet's just say there is much more to go. This is step one.\n  Under the Impoundment Control Act, once a request is received,\nCongress has\n\n[[Page H2644]]\n\n45 days to act. The House is now acting. These rescissions are, in\npart, due to what DOGE was able to uncover and bring forward in terms\nof wasteful government spending.\n  Just look at what we have been funding with taxpayer dollars: $6\nmillion for net-zero cities in Mexico; $5.1 million for programs to\nstrengthen the resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,\nintersex, and queer--good grief--global movements; $1.5 million to\nadvance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces; $2\nmillion for Moroccan pottery classes; $2 million for sex changes and\nLGBT activism in Guatemala; $33,000 for being LGBTI--I can't even keep\nup with this stuff; $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt; $32,000 for\ntransgender comic books in Peru; and $1 million to help disabled people\nin Tajikistan become climate leaders.\n  Is that what Democrats think their taxpayer dollars should go toward?\nI can promise the minority that the people I represent think that this\nis absolute garbage.\n  How on Earth can my Democratic friends possibly defend that? My\nfriends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe,\nseriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this\nabsurd list of projects and thousands of others that I didn't even\nlist, somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will\ncrumble.\n  Let's just reject this now. The White House is right to send up this\nrescissions package. This should be just step one. There should be\nnumerous other steps.\n  We should rescind billions upon billions of dollars of wasteful\nspending that is destroying our country through inflation and\nincreasing the size and scope of government, undermining the safety and\nsecurity of the American people.\n  How about the $160 million we can save by not giving more money to\nUNRWA, the organization whose own employees participated in Hamas'\nslaughter of Israeli citizens on October 7, which we now know to be\nverifiably and completely true?\n  Why would we continue to shovel money to an organization that is\nfunding terrorism against our allies and against our American citizens?\nYet, that is precisely what my colleagues on the other side of the\naisle would wish us to continue to do.\n  Mr. Speaker, let's address the One Big Beautiful Bill Act issue. My\nfriends on the other side of the aisle are raising the prospect of $3\ntrillion of additional deficits. I have been very open in my belief\nthat this bill should be better, that we should cut more spending and\nbe more mindful of reducing the size of government to get deficits down\nmuch further than we are seeing in this bill.\n  To be very clear--and we had this debate in the Committee on Rules--\nwhat my friends on the other side of the aisle are forgetting and not\nputting forward here in this debate, when they say $3 trillion of\nadditional deficits, is what you believe the growth rate will be if you\nadopt policies that will actually increase economic growth. That is\nputting more money into the pockets of the American people and\nderegulating so that businesses can create wealth.\n  We assumed 2.6 percent economic growth. That is higher than the CBO's\nexpectation of 1.8 but lower than the historic growth of 3.2 percent.\n\n  We hit the sweet spot. We believe that if you get that growth, you\nwill have deficit neutrality on this bill so that you will end up\ncreating wealth, creating jobs, putting more money into people's\npockets, and trying to deliver on the spending cuts, reversal and\ntermination of the green new scam, and the application of Medicaid work\nrequirements to make sure that people aren't getting benefits when they\nshould be working.\n  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a good bill.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the\ngentleman from Texas.\n  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a good bill, and I will say it\nagain: I think the bill can get better. I think the Senate should\nimprove it. I think that we should find more savings, but to say to the\nAmerican people that it is creating deficits, ignoring economic growth,\nis just simply not true.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, wow, that is something.\n  We were trying to keep up with the gentleman as he was ticking off\nall the initiatives that he doesn't like, and we were looking at these\naccounts. I think they all added up to $23.5 million. I don't know\nabout some of the programs that the gentleman talked about. I am happy\nto look into them.\n  He came up with $23.5 million in programs that he doesn't like. I\njust want my friends to understand that that is half of what Donald\nTrump is going to spend on his 1-day parade on Saturday. That is half.\nI mean, give me a break.\n  Then, the gentleman said that the CBO doesn't assume a growth rate.\nNot only did the CBO take into account the growth rate, but so did\nevery other think tank that did a budget analysis on the great big,\nugly bill that Republicans passed.\n  I should also say to the gentleman and to the gentlewoman that many\nof these programs have already been halted illegally by the Trump\nadministration.\n  Just for the record, it is estimated that over 107,000 adults have\ndied as a result of the denial of funds, along with over 224,000\nchildren.\n  I am ashamed that our government has pulled funding for programs that\nsave people's lives. Maybe my friends think that is fraud, waste, and\nabuse. I don't.\n  People are already dying. People are already dying because the Trump\nadministration has illegally halted funding from many of these\nprograms, just withholding the money from USAID. I am happy to share\nwith them the statistics.\n  Mr. Speaker, I also point out for my colleagues that the big, ugly\nway in which Republicans have advanced this big, ugly bill is just the\ntip of the iceberg.\n  Last Congress, the Republican majority presided over the most\nunproductive, dysfunctional Congress in modern American history. What\nan achievement. I know they are all proud.\n  Republicans shattered their own record by issuing 115 closed rules,\nmeaning 115 times when the House could not debate a single amendment on\nthe House floor.\n\n                              {time}  1600\n\n  Did they learn anything from being the most unproductive Congress in\nthe history? Of course they didn't.\n  In just 5 months, the Republicans have racked up over 50 closed\nrules. More than 90 percent of the bills they bring up have no\namendments, no discussion, no input. It is just take or leave it.\n  What are we even doing here? Republican leadership has blocked over\n800 amendments, and we have yet to see a single bipartisan amendment\nmake it to the House floor this year, not even one.\n  Only 14 amendments have been selected by Republican leadership to be\ndebated across just four bills. That is a 98 percent rejection rate.\nThey block 98 out of 100 ideas they receive.\n  Mr. Aderholt, who was testifying before the Rules Committee said: Oh,\nthis rescissions bill gives us an opportunity to vote up or down on\nwhether we want to support public broadcasting. The bottom line is, no,\nit doesn't because we are not having separate votes. You have to take\nthe whole package or leave it. We can't even vote on the individual\ncuts that are being made a part of this rescissions package.\n  Republicans have blocked debate on amendments that would help States\nprotect against deadly wildfires and post-disaster recovery. They\nblocked amendments that would support new mothers and infants impacted\nby substance use. They blocked amendments to protect SNAP and Medicaid\nfor millions of Americans.\n  Really?\n  It is no wonder why no one likes Congress. Republicans are happy to\ndebate trivial issues passionately but important ones not at all.\n  Mr. Speaker, here is the kicker: At this point in our majority,\nDemocrats gave Republicans more chances to debate their ideas than\ntheir own leaders do.\n  In 5 months, only 6 of the 220 Republicans in this Chamber have had\namendments made in order. I mean, that means over 97 percent of\nRepublicans have not had a single amendment debated.\n\n[[Page H2645]]\n\n  Are my Republican colleagues proud of being excluded from the\nlegislative process?\n  Mr. Speaker, I say, again, to the gentleman from Texas who just\nspoke, I am sorry. Don't lecture us about deficits when you voted for a\nbill that added $3 trillion to the deficit.\n  It is shameful. The so-called budget hawks around here talk a tough\ngame, and then they cave. We did have a debate in the Rules Committee\nabout this last night, but the gentleman was absent.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy)\nexplained very well why we are not voting to increase the deficit by $3\ntrillion. We all know that that is coming from the fact that we are\nextending tax cuts that were passed in 2017.\n  By the way, if we go back and look at the Record at all the scare\ntactics and all the Armageddon comments that were made when we passed\nthe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, we heard the same things. None of\nthose things happened. In fact, we had a booming economy. I don't think\nthe same scare tactics are going to work again.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Every major organization that does budget analysis says that they are\ngoing to add trillions to the debt. The only people who don't are the\ngentlewoman from North Carolina. I am sorry. I didn't know that you do\nindependent budget analyses, but every other one does.\n  There is one Republican in this House who is not afraid of Mr. Trump\nand that is Mr. Massie.\n  Let me read a couple of tweets that he posted. He writes: ``Why\ndidn't Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act make tax cuts permanent?\n  ``Because the impact of the tax cuts on debt after 2025 was\nunderstood by them to be too great. Now they're employing new math to\nclaim that renewing the tax cuts, without cutting spending, won't\nimpact debt.''\n  He writes: ``Hidden inside of a resolution we will vote on today to\nbring rescissions to the floor is an order to pass H. Res. 492 without\na vote. H. Res. 492 changes the text of the BBB after it already passed\nthe House. Sneaky.''\n  Can we at least be honest about what is happening here?\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico\n(Ms. Stansbury).\n  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this harmful,\nshameful, and offensive rescission package.\n  The GOP is canceling $9.4 billion, yes, billion, in funding for\nprograms that fund lifesaving work across the world. It is funding for\npublic television and public radio, for agriculture and research jobs,\nin my own district, and to codify the DOGE cuts that two-thirds of\nAmericans oppose. Our own President asked his other Cabinet members,\njust 2 weeks ago, if they were just total bullshit. That is a quote of\nthe President of the United States.\n  Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell Members of this Chamber to vote ``no''\non this rescission package.\n  Transmitted by the director of the Office of Management and Budget\nand architect of Project 2025, Russell Vought: This package would make\npermanent cuts to USAID and the State Department which was put into\nmotion illegally. They knew it because they were impounding funds. They\nessentially admitted that in the rescissions package because they said\nit was pursuant to the Budget Control Act. They knew that what they\nwere doing was illegal.\n  Now, 5, 6 months later, they have transmitted this package to cut $8\nbillion in programs that saves the lives of children across the world,\nthat would gut U.N. programs that would save thousands of lives, and\ngut public broadcasting.\n  This is a full-scale attack on our international system, global peace\nand security, the health and welfare of millions of children across the\nworld and on public television. We will fight back every step of the\nway.\n  Mr. Speaker, not only am I a ``no,'' I am a ``hell, no'' on this\npackage.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from using\nvulgarities in the House Chamber.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, Americans are the most generous and caring people in the\nworld. We have set up lots of programs to save the lives of people\nacross this country and across the world, and we will continue to do\nthat, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing here is not going to cause people\nto be dying if the money is spent the way Congress intends for it to be\nspent.\n  Now, as my Democrat colleagues are well aware, reconciliation bills\nare different from other types of legislation and are prohibited from\nincluding provisions deemed as extraneous in the Senate.\n  What we are doing here in terms of the engrossment resolution for\nH.R. 1 is we are striking a few provisions in the bill that Senate\nParliamentarians concluded would jeopardize the privileged status of\nthe bill in the Senate.\n  The House is taking all necessary steps to enable the One Big\nBeautiful Bill Act to be considered expeditiously in the Senate and\nsent to President Trump's desk under the reconciliation process, which\nis what this engrossment resolution does.\n  Mr. Speaker, I will also remind the ranking member and my Democrat\ncolleagues that when they were last in the majority, they also utilized\nan engrossment resolution to strike extraneous provisions from their\nAmerican Rescue Plan in 2021.\n  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with the reconciliation\nbill and with the rescission bill is, we are doing everything we can to\nget our country back in fiscal shape. That is more important to the\npeople in this world than any individual program is. It is important\nthat the United States remain the greatest country in the world and\nthat we reduce our debt and deficit. That is the focus of Republicans.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\\1/2\\\nminutes remaining.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.\n  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk today about tightening belts\nand making tough choices. This bill doesn't make tough choices. It\nmakes stupid choices.\n  These rescissions would gut PEPFAR, a program that saved millions of\nlives by preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS. It would slash funding\nfor malaria prevention, for maternal and child health, for clean water,\nand for food assistance.\n  These programs are not giveaways. This money isn't a handout. These\nare smart, strategic investments that make Americans safer and save\nthis government money down the road. Every dollar we spend on global\nhealth, on diplomacy, on humanitarian aid can save $10, $100, even\n$1,000 later by preventing conflict, disease outbreaks, refugee crises,\nand wars.\n  This bill eliminates those smart investments. It strips away those\ntools. It tells the world at a time when it is desperate for American\nleadership that we are walking away. It will let China, Russia, and\nIran fill the power vacuum that we leave behind, and for what?\n  All so Republicans can say they cut spending while they protect\nbillions in tax breaks for Big Oil and billionaire donors.\n  Let's be clear: This bill isn't serious about fiscal responsibility.\nIf it were, there would be a rescissions package for the Pentagon. We\nwould be debating clawbacks for defense contractors who charge $10,000\nfor a toilet seat. We would be looking at whether Elon Musk's companies\nshould be getting massive government subsidies, but no.\n  The party of billionaires would rather defund ``Sesame Street.'' They\nwould rather go after Elmo, and they would rather go after programs\nthat help save lives.\n  Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is about Trump's military parade, too. The\nArmy estimates it can cost between $25 to $40 million.\n  Let's do the math. We are going to kill disaster relief, gut UNICEF,\nand stop investing in global AIDS prevention. Yet we are fine with\nDonald Trump throwing himself a birthday party with tanks and missiles\nin the streets like it is North Korea.\n  What the hell are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? This is why people\ndon't trust\n\n[[Page H2646]]\n\ngovernment. If we want to be serious about budgeting, fine. Let's be\nserious. Let's look at where the waste, fraud, and abuse runs rampant.\n  Let's audit the Pentagon. Let's go after corporate welfare and Big\nOil handouts. Let's close the loopholes that let billionaires pay zero\nin taxes. But let's not pretend this bill is about any of that.\n  This bill is a fraud and a con job. America deserves better. The\nworld needs better. This is a revote on the reconciliation bill.\n  Vote ``no'' if you are against gutting Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP.\n  The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Vote ``no'' if you oppose $3 trillion----\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is no\nlonger recognized.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.\n  Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear: The American people gave\nRepublicans a mandate to restore fiscal sanity. This rescissions\npackage is part of achieving that end.\n  Republicans are cleaning up the ruin that the Biden-Harris\nadministration left this country in. We are taking a fiscal scalpel to\nwaste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government. It is the right\nthing to do.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous\nquestion and ``yes'' on the rule.\n  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:\n\n  An Amendment To H. Res. 499 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts\n\n       Strike everything following the resolved clause and insert\n     the following:\n       That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order\n     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to rescind certain\n     budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages\n     transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025,\n     in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional\n     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. All points of\n     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill\n     shall be considered as read. All points of order against\n     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question\n     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any\n     amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening\n     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and\n     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the\n     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees;\n     (2) the amendment specified in section 2 of this resolution,\n     if offered by Representative Goldman of New York or a\n     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any\n     point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be\n     separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and\n     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be\n     subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one\n     motion to recommit.\n       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as\n     follows:\n       Page 7, line 17, strike paragraph (21).\n\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I\nmove the previous question on the resolution.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). The question is on\nordering the previous question.\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe ayes appeared to have it.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.\n  The yeas and nays were ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair\nwill reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on\nthe question of adoption of the resolution.\n  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,\nnays 204, not voting 18, as follows:\n\n                             [Roll No. 164]\n\n                               YEAS--210\n\n     Aderholt\n     Alford\n     Allen\n     Amodei (NV)\n     Arrington\n     Babin\n     Bacon\n     Baird\n     Balderson\n     Barr\n     Barrett\n     Baumgartner\n     Bean (FL)\n     Begich\n     Bentz\n     Bergman\n     Bice\n     Biggs (AZ)\n     Biggs (SC)\n     Bilirakis\n     Boebert\n     Bost\n     Brecheen\n     Bresnahan\n     Buchanan\n     Burchett\n     Burlison\n     Calvert\n     Cammack\n     Carey\n     Carter (GA)\n     Carter (TX)\n     Ciscomani\n     Cline\n     Cloud\n     Clyde\n     Collins\n     Comer\n     Crane\n     Crank\n     Crawford\n     Crenshaw\n     Davidson\n     De La Cruz\n     DesJarlais\n     Diaz-Balart\n     Donalds\n     Downing\n     Dunn (FL)\n     Edwards\n     Ellzey\n     Emmer\n     Estes\n     Evans (CO)\n     Ezell\n     Fallon\n     Fedorchak\n     Feenstra\n     Fine\n     Finstad\n     Fischbach\n     Fitzgerald\n     Fitzpatrick\n     Fleischmann\n     Flood\n     Fong\n     Foxx\n     Franklin, Scott\n     Fry\n     Fulcher\n     Garbarino\n     Gill (TX)\n     Gimenez\n     Goldman (TX)\n     Gonzales, Tony\n     Gooden\n     Gosar\n     Graves\n     Greene (GA)\n     Griffith\n     Grothman\n     Guest\n     Guthrie\n     Hageman\n     Hamadeh (AZ)\n     Haridopolos\n     Harrigan\n     Harris (NC)\n     Harshbarger\n     Hern (OK)\n     Higgins (LA)\n     Hill (AR)\n     Hinson\n     Houchin\n     Hudson\n     Huizenga\n     Hunt\n     Hurd (CO)\n     Issa\n     Jack\n     Jackson (TX)\n     James\n     Johnson (LA)\n     Johnson (SD)\n     Jordan\n     Joyce (OH)\n     Joyce (PA)\n     Kean\n     Kelly (MS)\n     Kelly (PA)\n     Kennedy (UT)\n     Kiggans (VA)\n     Kiley (CA)\n     Kim\n     Knott\n     Kustoff\n     LaLota\n     LaMalfa\n     Langworthy\n     Latta\n     Lawler\n     Letlow\n     Loudermilk\n     Lucas\n     Luna\n     Luttrell\n     Mace\n     Mackenzie\n     Malliotakis\n     Maloy\n     Mann\n     Massie\n     Mast\n     McCaul\n     McClain\n     McClintock\n     McCormick\n     McDowell\n     McGuire\n     Messmer\n     Meuser\n     Miller (IL)\n     Miller (OH)\n     Miller (WV)\n     Miller-Meeks\n     Mills\n     Moolenaar\n     Moore (AL)\n     Moore (NC)\n     Moore (UT)\n     Moore (WV)\n     Moran\n     Murphy\n     Newhouse\n     Norman\n     Nunn (IA)\n     Obernolte\n     Ogles\n     Onder\n     Owens\n     Palmer\n     Patronis\n     Perry\n     Pfluger\n     Reschenthaler\n     Rogers (AL)\n     Rogers (KY)\n     Rose\n     Rouzer\n     Roy\n     Rulli\n     Rutherford\n     Salazar\n     Schmidt\n     Schweikert\n     Scott, Austin\n     Sessions\n     Shreve\n     Simpson\n     Smith (MO)\n     Smith (NE)\n     Smith (NJ)\n     Smucker\n     Stauber\n     Steil\n     Steube\n     Strong\n     Stutzman\n     Taylor\n     Tenney\n     Thompson (PA)\n     Tiffany\n     Timmons\n     Turner (OH)\n     Valadao\n     Van Drew\n     Van Duyne\n     Van Orden\n     Wagner\n     Walberg\n     Weber (TX)\n     Webster (FL)\n     Westerman\n     Wied\n     Williams (TX)\n     Wilson (SC)\n     Wittman\n     Womack\n     Yakym\n     Zinke\n\n                               NAYS--204\n\n     Adams\n     Aguilar\n     Amo\n     Ansari\n     Auchincloss\n     Balint\n     Barragan\n     Bell\n     Bera\n     Beyer\n     Bishop\n     Bonamici\n     Boyle (PA)\n     Brown\n     Brownley\n     Budzinski\n     Bynum\n     Carbajal\n     Carson\n     Carter (LA)\n     Casar\n     Case\n     Casten\n     Castor (FL)\n     Castro (TX)\n     Cherfilus-McCormick\n     Chu\n     Cisneros\n     Clark (MA)\n     Clarke (NY)\n     Cleaver\n     Clyburn\n     Cohen\n     Conaway\n     Courtney\n     Craig\n     Crockett\n     Crow\n     Cuellar\n     Davids (KS)\n     Davis (IL)\n     Davis (NC)\n     Dean (PA)\n     DeGette\n     DeLauro\n     DelBene\n     Deluzio\n     DeSaulnier\n     Dexter\n     Dingell\n     Doggett\n     Elfreth\n     Escobar\n     Espaillat\n     Evans (PA)\n     Fields\n     Figures\n     Fletcher\n     Foster\n     Foushee\n     Frankel, Lois\n     Friedman\n     Frost\n     Garamendi\n     Garcia (CA)\n     Garcia (IL)\n     Garcia (TX)\n     Gillen\n     Golden (ME)\n     Goldman (NY)\n     Gomez\n     Gonzalez, V.\n     Goodlander\n     Gray\n     Green, Al (TX)\n     Harder (CA)\n     Hayes\n     Himes\n     Horsford\n     Houlahan\n     Hoyer\n     Hoyle (OR)\n     Huffman\n     Ivey\n     Jackson (IL)\n     Jacobs\n     Jayapal\n     Jeffries\n     Johnson (GA)\n     Johnson (TX)\n     Kamlager-Dove\n     Kaptur\n     Keating\n     Kelly (IL)\n     Kennedy (NY)\n     Khanna\n     Krishnamoorthi\n     Landsman\n     Larsen (WA)\n     Larson (CT)\n     Latimer\n     Lee (NV)\n     Lee (PA)\n     Leger Fernandez\n     Levin\n     Liccardo\n     Lieu\n     Lofgren\n     Lynch\n     Magaziner\n     Mannion\n     Matsui\n     McBath\n     McBride\n     McClain Delaney\n     McClellan\n     McCollum\n     McDonald Rivet\n     McGarvey\n     McGovern\n     McIver\n     Meeks\n     Menendez\n     Meng\n     Mfume\n     Min\n     Moore (WI)\n     Morelle\n     Morrison\n     Moskowitz\n     Moulton\n     Mrvan\n     Mullin\n     Nadler\n     Neal\n     Neguse\n     Ocasio-Cortez\n     Olszewski\n     Omar\n     Pallone\n     Panetta\n     Pappas\n     Pelosi\n     Perez\n     Peters\n     Pettersen\n     Pingree\n     Pocan\n     Pou\n     Pressley\n     Quigley\n     Ramirez\n     Raskin\n     Riley (NY)\n     Rivas\n     Ross\n     Ruiz\n     Ryan\n     Salinas\n     Sanchez\n     Scanlon\n     Schakowsky\n     Schneider\n     Scholten\n     Schrier\n     Scott (VA)\n     Scott, David\n     Sewell\n     Sherman\n     Simon\n     Smith (WA)\n     Sorensen\n     Soto\n     Stansbury\n     Stanton\n     Stevens\n     Strickland\n     Subramanyam\n     Suozzi\n     Swalwell\n     Sykes\n     Takano\n     Thanedar\n     Thompson (CA)\n     Thompson (MS)\n     Titus\n     Tlaib\n     Tokuda\n     Tonko\n     Torres (CA)\n     Trahan\n     Tran\n     Underwood\n     Vargas\n     Vasquez\n     Veasey\n     Velazquez\n     Vindman\n     Wasserman Schultz\n     Waters\n     Watson Coleman\n     Whitesides\n     Williams (GA)\n     Wilson (FL)\n\n                             NOT VOTING--18\n\n     Beatty\n     Cole\n     Correa\n     Costa\n     Gottheimer\n     Green (TN)\n     Harris (MD)\n     LaHood\n     Lee (FL)\n     Nehls\n     Norcross\n     Randall\n     Scalise\n     Self\n     Sherrill\n     Spartz\n     Stefanik\n     Torres (NY)\n\n                              {time}  1642\n\n  Mses. BROWN and TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''\n  So the previous question was ordered.\n  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe ayes appeared to have it.\n\n                             Recorded Vote\n\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.\n  A recorded vote was ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.\n  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,\nnoes 207, not voting 12, as follows:\n\n[[Page H2647]]\n\n                             [Roll No. 165]\n\n                               AYES--213\n\n     Aderholt\n     Alford\n     Allen\n     Amodei (NV)\n     Arrington\n     Babin\n     Bacon\n     Baird\n     Balderson\n     Barr\n     Barrett\n     Baumgartner\n     Bean (FL)\n     Begich\n     Bentz\n     Bergman\n     Bice\n     Biggs (AZ)\n     Biggs (SC)\n     Bilirakis\n     Boebert\n     Bost\n     Brecheen\n     Bresnahan\n     Buchanan\n     Burchett\n     Burlison\n     Calvert\n     Cammack\n     Carey\n     Carter (GA)\n     Carter (TX)\n     Ciscomani\n     Cline\n     Cloud\n     Clyde\n     Cole\n     Collins\n     Comer\n     Crane\n     Crank\n     Crawford\n     Crenshaw\n     Davidson\n     De La Cruz\n     DesJarlais\n     Diaz-Balart\n     Donalds\n     Downing\n     Dunn (FL)\n     Edwards\n     Ellzey\n     Emmer\n     Estes\n     Evans (CO)\n     Ezell\n     Fallon\n     Fedorchak\n     Feenstra\n     Fine\n     Finstad\n     Fischbach\n     Fitzgerald\n     Fitzpatrick\n     Fleischmann\n     Flood\n     Fong\n     Foxx\n     Franklin, Scott\n     Fry\n     Fulcher\n     Garbarino\n     Gill (TX)\n     Gimenez\n     Goldman (TX)\n     Gonzales, Tony\n     Gooden\n     Gosar\n     Graves\n     Greene (GA)\n     Griffith\n     Grothman\n     Guest\n     Guthrie\n     Hageman\n     Hamadeh (AZ)\n     Haridopolos\n     Harrigan\n     Harris (MD)\n     Harris (NC)\n     Harshbarger\n     Hern (OK)\n     Higgins (LA)\n     Hill (AR)\n     Hinson\n     Houchin\n     Hudson\n     Huizenga\n     Hunt\n     Hurd (CO)\n     Issa\n     Jack\n     Jackson (TX)\n     James\n     Johnson (LA)\n     Johnson (SD)\n     Jordan\n     Joyce (OH)\n     Joyce (PA)\n     Kean\n     Kelly (MS)\n     Kelly (PA)\n     Kennedy (UT)\n     Kiggans (VA)\n     Kiley (CA)\n     Kim\n     Knott\n     Kustoff\n     LaHood\n     LaLota\n     LaMalfa\n     Langworthy\n     Latta\n     Lawler\n     Letlow\n     Loudermilk\n     Lucas\n     Luna\n     Luttrell\n     Mace\n     Mackenzie\n     Malliotakis\n     Maloy\n     Mann\n     Mast\n     McCaul\n     McClain\n     McClintock\n     McCormick\n     McDowell\n     McGuire\n     Messmer\n     Meuser\n     Miller (IL)\n     Miller (OH)\n     Miller (WV)\n     Miller-Meeks\n     Mills\n     Moolenaar\n     Moore (AL)\n     Moore (NC)\n     Moore (UT)\n     Moore (WV)\n     Moran\n     Murphy\n     Newhouse\n     Norman\n     Nunn (IA)\n     Obernolte\n     Ogles\n     Onder\n     Owens\n     Palmer\n     Patronis\n     Perry\n     Pfluger\n     Reschenthaler\n     Rogers (AL)\n     Rogers (KY)\n     Rose\n     Rouzer\n     Roy\n     Rulli\n     Rutherford\n     Salazar\n     Scalise\n     Schmidt\n     Schweikert\n     Scott, Austin\n     Sessions\n     Shreve\n     Simpson\n     Smith (MO)\n     Smith (NE)\n     Smith (NJ)\n     Smucker\n     Stauber\n     Steil\n     Steube\n     Strong\n     Stutzman\n     Taylor\n     Tenney\n     Thompson (PA)\n     Tiffany\n     Timmons\n     Turner (OH)\n     Valadao\n     Van Drew\n     Van Duyne\n     Van Orden\n     Wagner\n     Walberg\n     Weber (TX)\n     Webster (FL)\n     Westerman\n     Wied\n     Williams (TX)\n     Wilson (SC)\n     Wittman\n     Womack\n     Yakym\n     Zinke\n\n                               NOES--207\n\n     Adams\n     Aguilar\n     Amo\n     Ansari\n     Auchincloss\n     Balint\n     Barragan\n     Bell\n     Bera\n     Beyer\n     Bishop\n     Bonamici\n     Boyle (PA)\n     Brown\n     Brownley\n     Budzinski\n     Bynum\n     Carbajal\n     Carson\n     Carter (LA)\n     Casar\n     Case\n     Casten\n     Castor (FL)\n     Castro (TX)\n     Cherfilus-McCormick\n     Chu\n     Cisneros\n     Clark (MA)\n     Clarke (NY)\n     Cleaver\n     Clyburn\n     Cohen\n     Conaway\n     Costa\n     Courtney\n     Craig\n     Crockett\n     Crow\n     Cuellar\n     Davids (KS)\n     Davis (IL)\n     Davis (NC)\n     Dean (PA)\n     DeGette\n     DeLauro\n     DelBene\n     Deluzio\n     DeSaulnier\n     Dexter\n     Dingell\n     Doggett\n     Elfreth\n     Escobar\n     Espaillat\n     Evans (PA)\n     Fields\n     Figures\n     Fletcher\n     Foster\n     Foushee\n     Frankel, Lois\n     Friedman\n     Frost\n     Garamendi\n     Garcia (CA)\n     Garcia (IL)\n     Garcia (TX)\n     Gillen\n     Golden (ME)\n     Goldman (NY)\n     Gomez\n     Gonzalez, V.\n     Goodlander\n     Gray\n     Green, Al (TX)\n     Harder (CA)\n     Hayes\n     Himes\n     Horsford\n     Houlahan\n     Hoyer\n     Hoyle (OR)\n     Huffman\n     Ivey\n     Jackson (IL)\n     Jacobs\n     Jayapal\n     Jeffries\n     Johnson (GA)\n     Johnson (TX)\n     Kamlager-Dove\n     Kaptur\n     Keating\n     Kelly (IL)\n     Kennedy (NY)\n     Khanna\n     Krishnamoorthi\n     Landsman\n     Larsen (WA)\n     Larson (CT)\n     Latimer\n     Lee (NV)\n     Lee (PA)\n     Leger Fernandez\n     Levin\n     Liccardo\n     Lieu\n     Lofgren\n     Lynch\n     Magaziner\n     Mannion\n     Massie\n     Matsui\n     McBath\n     McBride\n     McClain Delaney\n     McClellan\n     McCollum\n     McDonald Rivet\n     McGarvey\n     McGovern\n     McIver\n     Meeks\n     Menendez\n     Meng\n     Mfume\n     Min\n     Moore (WI)\n     Morelle\n     Morrison\n     Moskowitz\n     Moulton\n     Mrvan\n     Mullin\n     Nadler\n     Neal\n     Neguse\n     Ocasio-Cortez\n     Olszewski\n     Omar\n     Pallone\n     Panetta\n     Pappas\n     Pelosi\n     Perez\n     Peters\n     Pettersen\n     Pingree\n     Pocan\n     Pou\n     Pressley\n     Quigley\n     Ramirez\n     Raskin\n     Riley (NY)\n     Rivas\n     Ross\n     Ruiz\n     Ryan\n     Salinas\n     Sanchez\n     Scanlon\n     Schakowsky\n     Schneider\n     Scholten\n     Schrier\n     Scott (VA)\n     Scott, David\n     Sewell\n     Sherman\n     Simon\n     Smith (WA)\n     Sorensen\n     Soto\n     Stansbury\n     Stanton\n     Stevens\n     Strickland\n     Subramanyam\n     Suozzi\n     Swalwell\n     Sykes\n     Takano\n     Thanedar\n     Thompson (CA)\n     Thompson (MS)\n     Titus\n     Tlaib\n     Tokuda\n     Tonko\n     Torres (CA)\n     Torres (NY)\n     Trahan\n     Tran\n     Underwood\n     Vargas\n     Vasquez\n     Veasey\n     Velazquez\n     Vindman\n     Wasserman Schultz\n     Waters\n     Watson Coleman\n     Whitesides\n     Williams (GA)\n     Wilson (FL)\n\n                             NOT VOTING--12\n\n     Beatty\n     Correa\n     Gottheimer\n     Green (TN)\n     Lee (FL)\n     Nehls\n     Norcross\n     Randall\n     Self\n     Sherrill\n     Spartz\n     Stefanik\n\n                              {time}  1649\n\n  So the resolution was agreed to.\n  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.\n  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.\n\n                          personal explanation\n\n  Ms. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, due to family matters, I was unable to vote\ntoday on H. Res. 499. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll\nCall No. 164 and NO on Roll Call No. 165.\n\n                          personal explanation\n\n  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent and missed the\nfollowing votes on the House Floor. Had I been present, I would have\nvoted accordingly: NO on Roll Call No. 164, Motion on Ordering the\nPrevious Question on H. Res. 499; and NO on Roll Call No. 165, H. Res.\n499.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2025-06-11-pt1-PgH2639"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 13.474919833242893, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}