Chip Roy

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate and thank Brandon for his kind words and remarks, his presence and that of the entire delegation. There were a number of other of my colleagues who wanted to be here this evening, but they couldn't make it because they had other obligations. We don't always get to control the timing of the House floor. I thank those individuals for their support during this whole time. I want to conclude with a few thoughts. I gave way earlier to make sure that all of my colleagues had a chance to speak. I want to give some flavor to what we have experienced, particularly in Kerrville and in the Hill Country and that part of our great State, over the last 10 days or so. Remember that, on July Fourth in Kerrville, there is an area in the center of town, a park where thousands of people go every year to listen to music, to Texas country music, typically. Robert Earl Keen is a local artist from Kerrville who plays every year, typically. My children, my family, my wife and I, we have been going there every year for the better part of a decade. You will sit down there on the river and canoe and tube up and down the river while you are waiting for the concert. Then, the concert is at night with fireworks down there at the park. It is often attended by the people who are coming down to camp on the Guadalupe, just a little west of Kerrville, in the area that has now become more known, for people across the country, in Hunt, Texas, where these kids' camps are located. There are about 18 or 20 camps right there on the water and 40 camps or so in that general area for kids in the summer. Many of these camps have been there for decades, some as long as a century. Camp Mystic is one of those that would celebrate its 100th anniversary next year. That is an all-girls camp, as my colleagues have noted. My colleague August Pfluger's daughters were there last week. It is an all-girls Christian camp. Camp La Junta, right down the river, is also a Christ-centered camp. That is an all-boys camp. It had massive damage, massive flooding. Fortunately, they had no loss of life. There are multiple camps. I can go through it. I am going to leave some out if I keep going up and down the river. People ask why. People ask these questions of me and say: Why are these camps, all of these houses, all of these campgrounds so close to the river? Well, because the river is awesome. I mean, why are there houses on the beach? Because people like to be on the beach. This is not something that should be that surprising, and it shouldn't be something that we shift away from. It is a great blessing that the Lord has given us this part of the country that you can go to and experience and live with these clear waters and the limestone that is cut through there after thousands of years. This whole area was an area where the Comanches were known to collect, in that part of the country, and also take part and enjoy those particularly beautiful waters and springs. It draws people from all over the country, and that is why these camps are there. I noted earlier on the floor, when we had the moment of silence, the extent to which faith is the central part of everything we are experiencing. It is the reason these camps, for the most part, exist. It is the reason for the spirit that we have seen coming out of Kerrville, as so many people mourn and so many people across the country are taken by the stories of these little girls. Fredericksburg is also an awesome town, just down the river from Luckenbach, from the famous country song. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, when you come into Kerrville and are coming in on Highway 16, coming down from Fredericksburg, you come in on 16 into Kerrville. Up on the hill as you enter, Mr. Speaker, there is a giant cross, and there is a garden there. It is filled with a bunch of the important symbols of our Christian faith, not just the cross, but other things. It was all done by an artist named Max Greiner, and he has done a fantastic job laying it out. It gets hundreds of thousands of visitors every year. This cross sits up on the hill over Kerrville. I noticed, and I said this in an interview this weekend, that there were numerous crosses just showing up throughout the town. There was an interview one of the reporters was doing on the river, and there were three crosses sitting on the bank of the river. I was driving down the highway, Highway 39, which goes from Kerrville out west through Ingram and then Hunt and out by where these camps are. I went out to Camp La Junta after the President came in. It was my, I think, third or fourth journey over the last 10 days. I noticed the changes from the days I first went over there, when the floods had just occurred, all the damage, debris, and cars, and just absolute devastation that destroyed houses, the roofs. The flood lines were 30 feet up in these tall cypress trees. You couldn't even believe it. There were trees stuck in the tops of trees. There was metal roofing that was up in the tops of these trees. There was a dumpster wrapped around a tree. When I was down in Kerrville, the stage from the Fourth of July setup was wrapped around trees probably 500 yards down from where the stage had been set. This is a massive, heavy stage on a truck bed. That was where the President got his briefing. Mr. Speaker, if you saw the pictures, that is where the President was located. That was a stage, that rubble that was there. There was a massive dumpster wrapped around trees, a heavy metal dumpster, just shredded like aluminum foil. That was the force of this water. Somebody told me that it was 1.6 million gallons of water per second rushing through this corridor. That is what we were dealing with. Going back to the cross, Samaritan's Purse showed up on the ground immediately. It is a great organization headed by Franklin Graham out of North Carolina. They show up to deal with disasters all across the country and all around the world. Here they are in my own backyard, not something I had necessarily anticipated. This organization is there cleaning out mud from the Lowe family's house. They are a fantastic family, and I had known them. We went and visited. I can't say that I participated in the clean-out. I intend to do that when we get out of this session in August. We were going around and looking at the damage. They were explaining and walking through it for the average viewer out there asking how this could happen. They looked down and saw the flooding waters, but they were way down. They woke up at 1 in the morning to some alerts. They kept listening and watching the water come up. Then, they realized they had to move. By the time they realized they were going to move, it moved from 15 feet below the level up to the level of their house in a matter of minutes. It just came rushing in. They were able to get out just before and get up to high ground. Another family friend of mine whose kids were there--there were about 30 of them. There were several families, parents, and kids from my kids' school. They were all on a piece of property with three houses. Same thing--they woke up at 3-something in the morning. The river was way down a good 15 or 20 feet below the house. They were watching the water rush and go: Well, maybe we ought to think about moving. They started moving people out of the three houses on the piece of property, these rental properties. They were sitting there and cleaned out the first house, got the kids ready. By the time they did that over 15 or 20 minutes, thinking they had hours, the water was already up to the house. They moved to the second house, and the water was up to their knees. The third house, the water was up to their waist. They had to get up and ride the storm out for 3 hours on top of another house, 30 people, including kids. They were fortunate to survive, and they are okay. All seven of their cars are down the river. The remaining of their houses are down the river. When I went to the Lowe's house, they were explaining it to me. They are great people of faith. Next to their house was a foundation, all that was left of a home. There were several of those in a row. There was one man sitting out in a chair by that foundation. That man, I was told, was the father of a 20-year-old boy who he had lost. He was trying to find him, trying to find his body. They had found three girls who had been there in their vacation home. The dad wasn't there. He was back home in Houston. I walked over. I saw the man and offered him my condolences and listened to his story. This was maybe 4 days after it happened. He walked me through how, at 4 in the morning, the son had called him and explained that it was a bad spot. The water had already engulfed the house. It had come up so quickly. He was walking through it and trying to figure out how to get out. The son was trying to get the three girls out of the house. He is talking to his dad and then hands the phone off to one of the girls. The son is trying to get the other girls out of the house and get through the water. About that time, a very large cypress tree-- huge; I saw the remnants of it still there--came through, hit them and the house, and took it out. The one girl who was left on the phone saw it and basically said to the young man's dad: ``Tell my parents I love them.'' That was the last thing she said and the last thing he heard. There are dozens of these stories. People act like something should have been done differently. Maybe it should have. Maybe there can be better systems. We will go through all that, and we will figure it out. That is what we do as people. We don't point fingers. I will close with this, going back to the cross, going back to the spirit of the people of Kerrville and of the Hill Country who showed up, the first responders who have shown up, the people of the State, the Governor, the Texas Department of Emergency Management, all the prayer warriors, all the churches, and the now $30 million to $40 million of contributions that have poured in and millions more, all the people showing up, bringing food--every single food vendor called my phone. Thousands of people said: What can I do to help? Morgan Luttrell used his training, along with his brother and others, to go into the water to try to find people. Important are the stories of these camp directors and camp counselors who did everything they could to save lives. Dick Eastland lost his life trying to save those little girls. I spent time with his daughter, Mary Liz, over the last week. I met Mary Liz in a church, Trinity Baptist Church, in Kerrville on Saturday night, the day after July Fourth, on July 5. I didn't know Mary Liz. Mary Liz asked me for my number. I gave it to her. We started talking, and I realized that she was Dick's daughter-in-law. Mary Liz was there in the church with all of the families who still hadn't found their little girls. Mary Liz wasn't running away from it, as the director of the camp, or one of the remaining directors of the camp after Dick had passed away. Mary Liz was there. Mary Liz has been constantly on the phone with all of these families, trying to find everything they can. We have now found every one of those little girls except for one, and they are not going to rest until they find her. They are not going to rest until they find the other 100 who are still missing. This is the message that comes out of this: The power of community, the power of faith, the power of the cross that brings people together, the enduring legacy of the little girls singing the hymns as they left Camp Mystic looking at the damage. The people who will now know the power of Christ because of these little girls' stories, the stories of the charm bracelets, the stories of the James Avery jewelry store, the stories of a century-long tradition where children come together to learn the power of the gospel, to spread the gospel, and to learn that there is more to life than these things. There is more to life than the temporary things of life as opposed to friendship and as opposed to being one with what God gave us. That is what these camps are about. My staff, I learned, worked at Camp Mystic. The young man who is sitting down here next to me right now worked as a cook in the back of Camp Mystic 4 years ago. He told me that Dick Eastland was like a grandfather figure to him, that Dick Eastland helped teach him how to fish, fly fish, and the basics of life. That is what every person affiliated with these camps has told me, that is what Dick Eastland and all these other camp directors, like Jane Ragsdale, did. I said earlier that Jane gave her life to save several little girls before she lost hers. I ran into her pastor just randomly on the side of the river. He walked me through her story. It is extraordinary. You heard some of my colleagues talking about it. The fact of the matter is that is what is touching everybody about this because this spirit is unique, and it transcends, and it will be the enduring story of all of this. These camps are going to be rebuilt. They are going to reopen. I said on the radio I would send my kids there next summer because that is what we should do. These camps, these things, these people, this community are more important than fear. Because those of us who have faith in the Lord Almighty and have faith in the Lord's son Jesus Christ, we don't fear earthly loss because the thing that transcends that is our faith in our Lord and Savior and the need to spread that message, and for people to know that. I am so deeply and profoundly grateful for all of the outpouring of support from this Chamber, from my Texas colleagues joining me here on the floor. I am deeply appreciative for all the people who have been risking their lives to help others, to save others, to find these bodies, to find closure for the families. We are going to continue to do that. We are going to continue to heal. It is just the beginning. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Texas, and I wish him safe travels back home to our great State.

Mr. ROY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ROY. I appreciate those kind remarks from the gentleman. I consider the gentleman from Texas a friend, and I am sincere in wishing him safe travels and well wishes heading back home. We throw a lot of barbs around this Chamber, for good reason, we are here. Everybody always says how crazy it is and how divided we are, and I always remind people that when was the last time you had a Secretary of the Treasury and Vice President dueling in the street? That has happened in our past, not now, that was 200-and-change years ago. We have differences of opinion, and that is the reason this body exists. We represent our constituents, and we are supposed to express on their behalf our views consistent with the Constitution in our republican form of government. I am here today to do that. Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about what has been known now as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which is, in simple speak, a reconciliation package which is supposed to be designed to reconcile current policies, tax and spending, to achieve a reduction in deficits, or make sure that we are not adding to the deficit. Mr. Speaker, here we are. The House of Representatives worked together and passed a bill. We passed a budget, we then passed a new budget, and then we passed a bill. We sent it to the Senate. The House bill was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination from my perspective. The House bill didn't do enough on many things that I think are important. However, the House bill had core components of tax-cut extensions for hardworking Americans. The House bill had core components to give resources to the President, the administration, Tom Homan, Stephen Miller, and Secretary Noem to secure the border, and, importantly, to remove people through ICE and enforcement. The House bill had core components to make sure our defense can modernize. The House bill had core components--and this is where it gets important--to terminate the green new scam subsidies, but not all of them. That is why I said the bill wasn't perfect. I think we should repeal them all and save over $1 trillion. We should stop subsidizing China. We should stop subsidizing big corporations. We should stop subsidizing unreliable energy, and stop interfering with the market. We only terminated about 60 percent of the green new scam. I think we should have done better. The House had core components in it to reform Medicaid. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle were saying we are going to be taking Medicaid away from people. Medicaid goes up between 20 and 30 percent under our budget over the next 10 years. Medicaid under our bill would be focused primarily on the vulnerable population more than the able-bodied. I think the bill should have gone farther. I think we should reform more of the money laundering scam that the FMAP seven times multiple giving more money to the able-bodied than the vulnerable. I think we should stop the scam of blue States taking more money from red States and nonexpansion States and giving it to hospitals and insurance companies. I think we should have ended that and done more. We took a giant step forward to have work requirements to ensure that Medicaid could actually be solvent. It has gone up another $1 trillion just under the Biden administration in terms of overall baseline costs. That is all in the weeds. People watching this at home don't know what is going on. They are going about their lives. All they know is that there a big bill, there is some tax stuff in it, there is some spending stuff in it, and there is some border stuff in it. That is about all they know. Mr. Speaker, so why am I here? It is because the House passed that bill--imperfect but I will call it passable by definition. We sent it to the Senate. The Senate is making the bill worse as we speak. The Senate is making decisions, both policy decisions and what is called going through a process over there to see if it is language that is supposed to be in a budget-related reconciliation package. We call it the Byrd process. They are pulling pieces out of it. The bill is getting worse. Let me see if I can put it in basic terms. This chart is not going to mean much to most people back home. Mr. Speaker, you don't even need to look at all the bars. It gets kind of complex. I just want to be real simple. This orange line on this chart--people in the gallery can't see it, but imagine an orange line on an X-Y graph. That orange line says that under the House bill on a dynamic basis-- what does that mean? It means, that accounting for economic growth, accounting for the tax policies, and accounting for what we believe will happen, we would have about an additional $72 billion of deficit spending over 10 years. Sadly, $72 billion is kind of a rounding error when we are talking about 10 years. In other words, it is close to breakeven. We would cut taxes, we would reduce spending, and we would get economic growth. We believe we would add nothing more to the deficit. Here is the problem. Adding nothing more to the deficit means we still have deficits. We still have $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion a year in deficits. I voted for a bill that will perpetuate $1.8 trillion deficits, and I hated doing it. I did it because in this process, in this political environment, to get the reforms that we were getting to Medicaid, to get the reforms that we were getting to terminate 60 percent of the green new scam subsidies undermining our grid, and to get the tax cut extensions for hardworking Americans, to me it was worth doing that when I thought credibly and believably we would not be adding to the deficit and get those important reforms. Here we are. The Senate, in its infinite wisdom over in the house of lords, they are embarking on focusing on what we would have anticipated they would focus on, which is just the tax-cut side, for the most part. They are backing away from the spending cuts, the spending restraints. They are backing away from the reforms that we think makes the math work, and therein lies the problem. Mr. Speaker, do you want to know why we are $37 trillion in debt as a nation? It is because too often my Republican colleagues have never met a tax cut they didn't want to advance while then campaigning on balancing the budget and cutting spending that they never want to vote for. We can't do that. We have to actually lead. In a Republican form of government there are 435 of us representing 300 and, what, 30-something million Americans. I represent about three-quarters of a million people. In a Republican form of government I am supposed to take the hard votes. I am supposed to go back to my constituents and say: Well, we are doing this and this and this. We think it is good. I know you wanted this, but we can't have that because we are $37 trillion in debt. I go back to this chart. There is a big yellow bar over here with flames on top. It shows almost a trillion dollars of additional deficit that the Senate bill would add if the policies they are currently debating in the Senate are adhered to. That means they got rid of a lot of our savings, and they made certain tax cuts more permanent. They extended them. I support making those tax cuts permanent and extending them but not without the spending reductions necessary to get us back to deficit neutrality or deficit savings. Why does this matter? It matters because Republicans will go around all the time and say: Don't worry. All tax cuts pay for themselves. Let me be very clear. Not all tax cuts pay for themselves. They just don't. I grew up a child of the eighties. I grew up on studying supply-side economics. I believe in leaving money in the hands of the American people to produce wealth. I believe that does create more revenue the Treasury can bring in with lower rates on a bigger pie. I think that is important. You still have to do basic math. If you reduce the rate, which I want to do to be perfectly clear, for the worker, for the family, for the business, you are going to get a revenue reduction to the Treasury. Your hope is the economic growth will offset part of that. When we do the math and we talk to every outside group and we listen to the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office gets a lot wrong--but every outside group who looks at this tells us that our assumptions that we baked in of $2.5 trillion of economic growth is a kind of reasonable sweet spot, meaning we are assuming the growth. We are already baking in that you are going to get more revenue, but when you keep extending these tax cuts and you don't do enough spending cuts and you weaken the spending cuts that we put in place, you end up with this chart. You end up with a trillion dollars of additional deficit on top of the roughly $18 trillion we are not even touching. My question for my colleagues is: Was even the House bill good enough? Not really; it really wasn't. I held my nose and voted for it. I want to help the President. I want to move the agenda forward. I want tax cuts. I want the green new scam subsidies terminated. I want Medicaid reform. However, we were leaving in place adding another $18 trillion to $20 trillion of deficit spending, if we are lucky for it to be that low, over the next 10 years. If the Senate is going to send the bill back to us that is going to add a trillion dollars more and not reform Medicaid properly and not terminate the green new scam that the President campaigned on terminating, then there is no way I can vote for that bill when it comes back. That needs to be said, and it needs to be clear. The fact of the matter is our country is hanging on by a very thin fiscal thread. The bond markets are recognizing this. There was a headline in the Financial Times today that foreign markets are starting to pull out of Federal treasuries. Interest rates are doing what they are doing. You can change the Fed chairman all you want, but if you don't fix the fiscal mess we are in, the outer part of that curve, which is what sets our mortgage rates, our long-term borrowing rates, that is still going to be a mess, and the American people aren't going to be able to afford homes. The average age of the American homeowner today is as high as it has ever been. It is up about 10 years. Now you are in your upper thirties before you are buying a home instead of your upper twenties, which it was not long ago. We are ripping the American Dream out of the hands of our kids and grandkids because of people in this Chamber and people in the other Chamber who refuse to do the hard work of governing responsibly. I should say representing; we don't govern, but do our job. I am blessed to be alive. I am a cancer survivor. I have talked about that before. I was blessed to have treatment at MD Anderson, and that was 14 years ago. I think it was 14 years ago this next month. Why do I bring that up? I bring that up because I get cancer groups that come into my office all the time. Mr. Speaker, you get cancer groups, you get ALS groups, you get people who have a heart to solve a problem, and they want money. They want funding. I have to say no. If they don't come in and say: Well, we know that we are $37 trillion in debt, so we are proposing this plan, and we are proposing cuts over here in order to achieve what we want, which is $100 million for some research--they usually don't do that. They just come in and say: We need $100 million for research or $500 million for research or $1 billion for some program, and I have to say no. I always say no. I tell my farmers who come in and are just dying for relief because we have messed up their livelihoods so much, Congress has, with a failed system. Crop insurance is important. All the things we do are important, but we include a bloated food stamp program, which is exploding off the charts in the farm bill every 5 years, and they expect me to vote to continue a food stamp program, which is often going to the able-bodied, often corrupted, often feeding our children and people in this country sugary, terrible foods that are making our healthcare system more expensive, and they want me to keep paying for that. I have to tell my farmers: Sorry, guys, I am not voting for the farm bill. I have got to say there are only a handful of us in this Chamber who are willing to say no. ``No'' is the most powerful and important word in the English language when it is used the right way, which I would say in this body should be used most of the time. Ronald Reagan famously said, I think it was on Johnny Carson's ``The Tonight Show'' interview, and they were talking and Reagan said--and Reagan hated taxes--Reagan said: That every new program that a Member of Congress brings to the floor should have a tax increase attached to it. He is correct. He was correct. Why? He was correct because if you bring a billion-dollar program to the floor, we vote for it because the headline will say: Chip Roy opposes puppies or Chip Roy opposes cancer research or Chip Roy opposes something for veterans or for the elderly. Who can vote against that? If the bill was billion-dollar program and needed a tax increase on every American to pay for it, well, now that vote is a little different. We don't do that. We never do that. Now what is going to happen? Well, there is going to be a lot of posturing over the next week. Here is something that everybody should get a bit of a chuckle out of. We had to pass the budget right before Easter. We had to pass the bill right before Memorial Day. Now, we are supposed to pass the final bill, get it through the Senate by July 4. We had to pass the government funding bill right before Christmas. The speaker knows. Mr. Speaker, why do you think that is? Do you think that is just because everybody says, well, wouldn't it be nice to do that right at those great holidays? No. It is something called jet fumes. Every Member of Congress has a trip, personal, business, government, whatever. They all are going to take a trip, so they always want to have these bills right before that so that everybody comes in and says: ``Yes, I will vote for it. Let's get out of here.'' Boom, they get out of town. Mr. Speaker, here we are. Over the next week, there is going to be an enormous amount of pressure brought to bear from the White House and our leadership on both sides to get in line and say: ``We have to pass it. If we don't pass it, the taxes are going to go up. If we don't pass it, we are not going to get the border funding. If we don't pass it, we won't have a debt ceiling increase, and the bond markets are going to freak out.'' We are not going to default on our debt. We are not going to let taxes go up in the end before this year is over. They don't go up until December. We are going to do what we need to do on the border. I would like to do it in this bill, but I am not going to do it in this bill if this bill is adding to the debt, not doing what it needs to do on the green new scam, not doing what it needs to do on Medicaid, and not doing what it needs to do on countless other issues. I am not going to do it if it is going to be a big giveaway to blue State tax jurisdictions in State and local taxes. My friends in this Conference who represent big tax States like New York and California want a bigger deduction for their State taxes. Why the hell should I subsidize their stupid decisions in their States for their expensive taxes? Why should my constituents have to do that? Why should we continue to allow food stamps to go to the able-bodied? Why should we continue to have Medicaid go to the able-bodied and not have work requirements or not deal with the money laundering scam? Why shouldn't we, by the way, have health savings accounts? The Senate bill took our health savings accounts out of the House bill. Why should we continue to have taxpayer-funded sex-change operations? The Senate bill puts that back in. Why should we not tax these big university endowments and these universities that are engaging in political activism and taking massive Federal money and Federal student loan support? Why shouldn't we tax them on it? The Senate reduces our tax on university endowments to raise revenue by 20 percent. Why shouldn't we stop China from getting taxpayer dollars through the green new scam subsidies? Our bill prevented China from getting rich off of our tax dollars. The Senate bill takes it out. Why? Why shouldn't we tax the remittances of illegal aliens who are sending money back to their home countries? Our bill did that. The Senate bill takes it out. We are at a critical juncture in our history as a country, and the question here is: Will Republicans step up and put forward transformational reforms when we have the majority in the House, the majority in the Senate, and the White House? Will we deliver on the President's agenda responsibly? Will we actually take this moment to change the trajectory of debt that is killing our country for our kids and grandkids, or will we continue the same game of tax cuts for everyone but spending and more spending for everyone? We can't keep doing the same thing. We can't. I know the American people are frustrated. I know they expect us to deliver, and we must deliver. Failure is not an option, but we shouldn't deliver for the sake of it. We shouldn't pass a bill just to check a box. We shouldn't pass a bill that increases the deficit; doesn't terminate the green new scam; doesn't reform Medicaid; doesn't prevent tax subsidies for high State tax jurisdictions; doesn't prevent China from continuing to get subsidies for solar panels with taxpayer dollars; doesn't curb the waste, fraud, and abuse in food stamps; doesn't tax remittances for illegals who are sending money back home; doesn't include health savings account expansions for the American people; and, frankly, even in the House bill, doesn't do enough to reduce deficits. The Senate bill was supposed to make the bill better, not worse. I voted for the House bill to move it along in the process for incremental gains and expected the Senate to step up to the plate. Right now, they are striking out. If the Senate sends a bill over that makes this bill worse, adds to the deficit, and adds all the things I just talked about, I will vote ``no.'' No, Mr. President, it is not grandstanding. It is not grandstanding to say that I think we ought to be fiscally responsible. It is not grandstanding to say that we should honor the campaign commitment to terminate the green new scam in full. It is not grandstanding to say that we should reform Medicaid so that the able-bodied are not being subsidized by the vulnerable. It is not grandstanding. It is not grandstanding. Mr. Speaker, I am going to make one final comment, and then I will save everybody from listening to my destroyed voice. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, Rhonda Massie, wife of my colleague and good friend Thomas Massie, passed away suddenly. Thomas is a dear friend. Thomas happens to be taking some heat politically because Thomas believes, as I do, that we are not doing enough on spending and on the legislation we are talking about, but that is politics. Thomas is thick-skinned. He will take the arrows. He will keep representing his constituents. I believe he will get reelected, and I will support him in that endeavor because he is a good man and a good friend. I just want everyone to know that my friend is hurting today because he lost his wife 1 year ago suddenly. My prayers are with Thomas. My prayers are with his family. I know Rhonda is in Heaven looking down on Thomas, probably laughing at him a little. I know my colleagues all wish Thomas well. He is a dear friend, and we will be thinking and praying about him today even as we go about doing our jobs. I am proud to call Thomas a friend. I am proud to stand alongside Thomas, and I will stand alongside Thomas as a man of principle who is trying to do the right thing. I don't always agree, but I agree most of the time. God bless him, and God bless the memory of Rhonda and Thomas' entire family. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, wrong-patient, wrong-site, and wrong-procedure surgeries are rare, but can be life-altering for patients. Members of the Association of PeriOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) are committed to safe surgery. Since 2004, AORN and the Joint Commission have recognized National Time Out Day to bring greater awareness to the safe surgery practice of taking a ``time out'' before operative and other invasive procedures to prevent wrong-site, wrong-patient, wrong- procedure surgery. The National Time Out Day initiative supports the Joint Commission's Universal Protocol and builds greater awareness among surgical and procedural team members about the critical steps that keep patients safe. This initiative's goal is to prevent errors by ensuring that all members of the surgical team pause before invasive procedures, so they can communicate as a group and confirm key information about the patient and the procedure. I commend perioperative and procedural teams in hospitals across Texas' 21st Congressional District for their hard work and dedication every day to ensure safe environments for procedural and surgical patients. I also applaud their efforts to reduce unnecessary healthcare costs. Today, I recognize these efforts on behalf of my constituents, celebrating June 11, 2025, as National Time Out Day in District 21 and across 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 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.

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. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I recognize that today is an important day in the history of our country. As we all know, 81 years ago, on June 6, 1944, we had over 150,000 Allied troops who attacked the beaches at Normandy, knowing full well what they were walking into. You had 150,000 Allied forces, tens of thousands of Americans who stormed the beaches, jumped out of boats into stormy waters, walked into a virtual wall of bullets, went through the fire, went to the cliffs, got shot at on the cliffs, scaled the cliffs, to then have to fight for every yard for the privilege of then getting all the way to Bastogne to sit in foxholes in the freezing cold on Christmas of 1944 while being bombarded by Germans as they were mounting their last offensive. What would cause young men from all over this country to do that? Why would they do that, knowing a huge number of them would not make it through the day? They knew that, but they did it anyway. They knew that when they were jumping out of planes in the middle of the night, many of them wouldn't survive. I saw yesterday on social media photos of dozens of young men who didn't make it through that day, photos from them. They lead up to that morning and the day before in training. What would cause these young men to do that? The reason is that they knew that this country was worth fighting for, not simply because of the existence of the country but because of what this country represents in terms of opportunity to live free and prosper according to your own talents and to be able to live according to your own conscience under our Constitution and under the principles that were advanced in the Declaration and that are central to Western civilization. That is what those young men did. We had 400,000-plus Americans who lost their lives to defend this country in World War II. Precious few who survived that conflict are still alive. Madam Speaker, if you go down to the memorial here in Washington, the World War II Memorial, there are 4,000-plus stars that are across the monument, each representing 100 young men who did what I just described or who did something similar in Iwo Jima or did something similar in the Doolittle Raid. Again, what would cause them to do it? It is to live free. That is what it is about. I have a letter from a dear friend of mine named Victoria Coates, who served in the first Trump administration, from her grandfather Howard. I want to read the letter really quickly. ``Jane darling, yep, honey, it is true. Your boyfriend is in it now. I can't tell you how long I have been here or where I am. That will have to come later when I get home. It is the most serious thing I have been in during all of my life. ``I am well, though, darling, and still all in one piece. As you said in the last letter I got from you, the one you wrote on invasion day, I am well-trained and will take care of myself. ``Of course, the men come first, and our mission, but I am not taking any chances personally, except those in the line of duty. Most all of our officers and men are reacting fine to these new conditions. I have my own platoon and my own headquarters out in the field. ``Fact is, I am sitting in my CP now writing this letter. I have Charlie Mugford here as my executive officer, and he is very capable in the field. My staff sergeant is a boy by name of Varebok from Pittsburgh. He is Polish and a darn good man. The Germans killed his grandparents in their invasion into Poland, so you can well imagine his reaction to all of this. ``The morale of the men is good, and that makes the job easier. Golly, I like my little field setup. Have good radio equipment, also a nice switchboard. . . . I have a Jeep and weapons carrier for my CP, plus my CP personnel. . . . We get a special dehydrated ration that requires only the adding of a little water. . . . For supper last night, we had, as an example, baked beans, sausage, cold-packed tomatoes, rice pudding, biscuits, jam and butter, coffee. ``I haven't received the picture yet but am very anxiously awaiting it. Please write regularly. I need it. We haven't received any mail since coming to France but hope to get some soon. That helps plenty. ``Well, darling, you are ever in my thoughts over here and are my big driving force. I, like the thousands of other Americans, am doing my damn best to get this war over with and get home safely to my family.'' What did they fight for? I can tell you what they didn't fight for. They didn't fight for a Congress to come here and continue $36 trillion of debt and mortgage their children, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren's futures. They didn't come here for this Congress to run away from the fight of policy. They didn't risk everything and walk into a wall of bullets so that people in this Chamber can be afraid of tweets or constituents that come in and talk about, oh, but you are cutting some program. They expected us to actually defend this country in this Chamber. A trillion dollars of interest every year--we are spending more on interest than on the entirety of our national defense. I have to be honest with you, I don't know whether the big, beautiful bill is beautiful enough to support. I have to be honest. I voted for it off of the floor to send it to the Senate. There were a lot of important provisions in it, and I need to level set some of those provisions right now because it is not appropriate for us to run away from the fight now that these young men 80 years ago ran into the fight to preserve. This country will not survive if we mortgage it away, and that is what we are doing. President Reagan was correct when he said that every Member of Congress when they come to this floor and they offer a new bill for a new program should all bring a tax increase to go alongside of it. Because everybody in this Chamber, particularly on this side of the aisle, are all too fine offering tax cuts because it is like selling dessert, but refuse to put forward the spending cuts so that people have to eat the broccoli. That is why we are $36 trillion in debt and growing. That is why we have a trillion dollars of interest. By the way, as interest rates go up, the price of that debt goes up. We are going to be at $1.5 trillion, $2 trillion of interest payments because we can't do our job correctly. Now, let's go through the big, beautiful bill. The bill is what I would call the good, the bad, and the ugly because that is the truth. I am not going to get into personalities and squabbles and back and forth. The President is right that we need to move a bill through here with tax cuts and spending restraint so that he can get the agenda done that he campaigned on. He is 100 percent right, and we should do that. Elon is right that this bill doesn't cut enough. That is the truth. Two things can be true at the same time. The barrier to actually achieving the greatness of moving the big, beautiful bill through and that would achieve the President's agenda and achieving what Elon is rightly saying, which is that we should cut more, the barrier is right here in this Chamber. It is right over there in the Senate. We have people unwilling to face their constituents and tell them the truth. Well, I am going to try to sit here on the floor and tell the truth. I had to hold my nose to vote for this bill 2 weeks ago off the House floor to the Senate. Why? It does not cut enough, and it is not even close to cutting enough. My colleagues say: Oh, but Chip, it is the biggest spending decrease in history. Let's be very clear: It is a reduction in future increases of about $1.6 trillion. Yes. That is the biggest amount ever. But guess what? We have sizably more debt and sizably more spending than ever, so, of course, it should be, but it should be more. Madam Speaker, $1.6 trillion in cuts on future reductions is really about $160 billion a year over 10 years. That is the truth. The truth is that our whole budget has grown from about $3.6 trillion a decade ago to $7.2 trillion now. It has doubled. Everybody wants to applaud themselves for $160 billion of reductions in increases. I am sorry. I don't think that is good enough. The fact is, our budget, the budget we passed to get the big, beautiful bill through says that we should be at $6.5 trillion for 2026, but after this bill, if it is passed this way out of the Senate, we would be at $7.2 trillion. That is a lot of numbers. You want me to tell you back home--the fact of the matter is, unless we have record economic growth for an entire decade, deficits will go up. That is the truth. This bill front-loads all of the cost for the first 4 years, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 deficits are up. That is, by the way, on a dynamic basis. You are going to hear a lot of people taking shots at the CBO, and they should. The CBO is biased. The CBO is left leaning, and the CBO doesn't always get it right. But guess what? No economist ever gets it right. The fact is, we took care of that, at least in part, in the Budget Committee by assuming growth. We assumed economic growth of 2.6 percent, higher than the last two decades averaged, lower than the historic average. Why does that matter? Because we have already accounted for what you call dynamic scoring, meaning the impact of the tax cuts on revenue. What does that mean in simple terms? It means that if you look at our analysis, even assuming economic growth and more revenue from that growth, we will still have $400 billion of deficits added to the existing $2 trillion deficit in 2026 because of the bill. Those deficits will go up even more and will be another $400 billion or so in 2027 and 2028, we add to the deficits, 2029 we add to the deficits. Finally in 2030, the deficits go down. If you look across the entirety of the 10 years under this bill, you are basically--it is somewhere around breakeven on the impact on deficits. Now, again, everybody understand what I am saying. The deficits of roughly around $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion a year will continue. This bill will adjust taxes and adjust spending, will increase deficits for 3 or 4 or 5 years, and then cut deficits in the outer 5 years if you believe that will ever happen. Only in this town do you assume that the good things will happen in 5 years and accept the bad things in the first years, but that is what we are doing. Now to be clear and to be fair, this does not account for tariff revenue, which is up. Of course, tariff revenue has to be factored into the economic impact of the tariffs. You have got to stir all that in the pot and decide what you think is going to happen. If you ask me to weigh all of this, I will tell you that on the simple question of whether this bill will add to or decrease deficits, I think it will add to the deficits. Because for the first 5 years, even dynamically scored, they add to the deficits. Even if you assume the current rate of about--I don't know--$250 billion of tariff revenue, which you can't assume because they change, you are still going to be adding to the deficits even factoring in for the economic impact of growth. Okay. That is all a lot of nerdy speak. Everyone sent us here to save the country. You can't save the country if you are adding to the deficits. You can't save the country if interest rates aren't going to be able to go down because you are being fiscally responsible and the bond markets respond. That is the simple truth, but here we are. Why are we here? Why, despite what I just said, did I hold my nose and vote for the bill? Well, A, as part of the process and I am hopeful the Senate might work its will to make the bill better. Probably not a good bet. The Senate rarely makes things better. Okay. B, we did get some serious reforms to Medicaid. I am proud of those reforms, but I do have to be honest with you, they are kind of like breathing. When I tell you the reforms, you are going to be, like, wait. We don't do that already. We are simply going to reverse a lot of the damage of the Biden administration and reverse a lot of the damage of the expansion of ObamaCare by simply saying this: You shouldn't be on Medicaid if you are able-bodied and can work and you are not working. Now, Democrats will say: Oh, you are slashing Medicaid. No, we are not. They are not telling you the truth about that. What we are doing is simply saying you should have to work. It is the same thing for food stamps. My Republican colleagues will say: Oh, my gosh, these are the biggest savings in history. This is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Every American I talk to says: Why weren't you doing that already? It is like the basic business of commerce. Why would you do that? Why would you provide benefits to people who are able to work and don't? It is insane. We are going to say: Oh, my gosh, we saved hundreds of billions of dollars on Medicaid reform by tightening and making sure we are enforcing eligibility and that only the vulnerable get it instead of the able-bodied. But we are not doing anything to stop the money laundering scam. We are not doing anything to stop the fact that expansion States under ObamaCare get seven times more money for the able-bodied than the vulnerable. We are going to do nothing about that. We are going to do nothing about the provider taxes that are part of that scam, that have blue States getting money to give money to illegals and to people at Planned Parenthood and other things because they launder the money through Washington to get a multiple to give it to hospitals and insurance companies and then give them a tax break on the back end. It is well documented, well reported, and this body is doing not a damn thing about it because they are too afraid. They are too afraid to take on the insurance lobby. They are too afraid to take on the hospital lobby. They are too afraid to be honest with the American people. Yet, I voted for the bill. Why? Because if we don't, we keep operating under the current system, which means we keep giving Medicaid to people without work requirements. Therefore, I am faced with a conundrum: Do I vote for the bill so I can actually have the common sense of a Medicaid work requirement start in 2026 or do I vote ``no'' on the bill because I think deficits are going to go up and I think this is the bare basics of reform we should do while we are not doing anything to stop the money laundering scam that will likely encourage the 10 nonexpansion States to expand and cement ObamaCare permanently? This is the Hobson's choice that someone like me or some of my other colleagues face, all under the bluster of what this bill does or does not do, which 90 percent of the people in this body can't even explain, much less the American people or anybody in the media. That is the truth. We add lots of new tax cuts. Here is the little secret that everybody should understand: All of the new tax cuts expire after 4 years or 5 years. You want to know a classic Washington gimmick? That is one. You are getting absolutely the bait-and-switch by Republicans in the House and the Senate by saying we are going to have these tax cuts only be applied for 4 years because they will expire, don't you know, in 4 years, so you don't have to score them now. They always say: Don't worry, over 10 years this thing, man, it reduces deficits. However, they don't score the last 5 years because the tax cuts expire. Now, let me ask you a question. If you are watching this, all 12 of you on C-SPAN, tell me whether you think if we put in place the $500 enhanced child tax credit--I don't care whether you like the policy or not. I have my concerns with the policy. I think it is a giveaway. I don't think it is actually all that helpful. I don't think it creates economic growth, but, okay, we are all in the giveaway business in this Chamber. We are going to give away another $500 for every child in this country, even though it costs thousands to raise them, but we are only going to do it for 4 years. I am not allowed to speak and address the audience, I have to address the Speaker, but for anybody who happens to be listening in the Chamber or on C-SPAN, would you go to Vegas and bet yes or no that those tax credits would be expanded in 5 years? You know damn well they will be expanded in 5 years, but we don't score that. That is a Washington gimmick. There are seven of those, I think, or more of these tax cuts that expire in 4 or 5 years but are not then scored for the outer 5 years so that everything can balance, but it doesn't. That is $1.6 trillion of additional lost revenue. Now, again, let me be clear: I support a lot of those policies. I don't think we should be taxing Social Security on seniors either at all or certainly as much. I don't think we should have taxes--let me restate it. I think we should give tax benefits for moving manufacturing to the United States and give rapid depreciation expensing for those companies. I am for that policy. That might actually be one of the few that might pay for themselves with the growth. How about the auto loan tax deduction? We have got that in there now. Well, do you think that is going to pay for itself? Do you think they will let that expire in 4 years when everybody is used to deducting their auto interest? Maybe it is fine policy, but shouldn't we pay for it? Shouldn't we have more spending reductions, or are we going to keep up the fiction that we can continue to do these policies? All my Republican colleagues go: Chip, they all pay for themselves. Are you a tax raiser? That is what they do. They go: Chip, you are out there, you are saying we have got to raise taxes. There is a reason, as I said a minute ago, Ronald Reagan said if you come down here with a new idea, you ought to have a tax increase attached to it. Everybody in this Chamber cannot say no to the Farm Bureau when they come in and they want more money, when the ALS people come in and say they need more research, when the cancer people come in and say they need more research. I am a cancer survivor, and I tell them no because, damn it, we don't have any more money. But everybody in this Chamber just says: Okay, we are going to authorize more spending, and I am going to go do a tax cut because, oh, that is your money, you get to keep your taxes, I agree. Let me be clear: They are all going to sit there and play some clip; Chip Roy is for tax increases. It is all crap. The truth is everybody in this Chamber says every tax cut pays for itself. What if I cut taxes to 1 percent? Do those all pay for themselves? No, they don't. And we owe $36 trillion. Everybody watching this: Your kids, your grandkids, your great- grandkids are holding the bag because you wanted all your free crap. As I have said before in a speech, this is always the United States House of free crap, and that is what we do, we just write checks. The Inflation Reduction Act, the green new scam, I am going to tell you the one reason I voted for this bill--one. Yes, I like the Medicaid requirements; yes, I like a lot of the extensions of the tax cuts; yes, I like some of the policies that stop funding Planned Parenthood; yes, I like some of the policies that stop funding transgender surgeries. All of those are good, but in my opinion, we needed more spending restraint, if you want to be honest about deficits. I voted for this bill for one reason, and this is why I am on the floor today, because I need the United States Senate to hear this as clearly as I can say it: We got restrictions on the green new scam to ensure that about 55 or 60 percent of those subsidies that are going to enrich billion dollar corporations to put money in the pockets of the Chinese, to undermine our grid with unreliable energy and undermine natural gas and undermine nuclear, all while bolstering wind and solar, which is littering our fields and littering our landscape, all to provide unreliable energy. We fought like hell to get restrictions on that, to get 60 percent of the green new scam basically terminated. The President campaigned on terminating all of it, but this weak-ass Congress and Senate are going to not do that because, oh, we can't disrupt the existing flow of the $400 billion of subsidies going into the pockets of all those big companies raking in the money so they can get free money. While you guys all subsidize, they are getting rich, and your grid gets weaker. This Congress is going to do that, and we fought like cats and dogs to get that 60 percent. Everybody in town, the K Street lobbyists are freaking out: Oh, no, we are not going to be able to have our subsidies to build more wind farms and solar farms. We are going to have more giveaways because their energy won't compete. That is the one reason I voted for this bill. My message to the Senate: This will get clipped. It will get sent to the Senate. I am looking at you, Thom Tillis. I am looking at you over there in the Senate, you backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies, and I am voting against this bill. I want the White House to hear it. I want the Senate to hear it because it is the only reason I voted for this bill. Those God-forsaken subsidies are killing our energy, killing our grid, making us weaker, destroying our landscape, undermining our freedom, and I am not going to have it. You do what you want to do in the Senate, House of Lords, have your fun, but if you mess up the Inflation Reduction Act green new scam subsidies, I ain't voting for that bill. We have a duty to actually honor those who fought 81 years later. All these colleagues of mine, both sides of the aisle, they will go out. You watch, today, D-day, there will be a tweet from everybody. June 14, the 250th birthday of the Army, there will be a tweet from everybody. July 4, they will get in their parades, they will walk around with the flag. They will kiss babies. Yay. What will they do on Veterans Day? What did they do on Memorial Day? What are we doing to actually honor the memory of those who gave the last full measure of devotion, who walked into the wall of bullets, who died for this country? So that we can be $36 trillion in debt? So that we can subsidize the green new scam? So that we can run away from the fight of having a tough conversation with constituents that there, in fact, is no more room in the inn, that we are out of money? I have got to tell you; this bill does not meet the moment. I voted for it because I believe strongly in stopping those green new scam subsidies and for a variety of other good provisions, but we ought to do better. The Senate ought to do better. If the Senate weakens it, shame on the Senate. If the House just takes it, shame on the House. The President of the United States campaigned on terminating the green new scam. We should terminate it. The President of the United States said that we should get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid. Well, we should, including the money laundering scam enriching blue States at the expense of red States, expansion States at the expense of nonexpansion States, and enriching the able-bodied at the expense of the vulnerable. The President campaigned on tax relief. We should deliver it. But we should have the commensurate spending cuts to go alongside of it to ensure that deficits go down to do what the President also campaigned on, which is balancing the budget of the United States. I do not believe this bill yet will do that. We will see what the Senate does over the next week, but we will do a disservice to the memories of those that we are celebrating today on the 81st anniversary of D-day, and we will do a disservice to the memory of all those who came before us who fought and died and bled for this country. But more importantly, we will do a disservice to their ancestors, a disservice to our kids and our grandkids, who are the ones left holding the bag of rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a bond market that is teetering on the edge of a knife's edge because we refuse to do our job. Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to do it. I hope the Senate will step up and make this bill better. If they leave it the same, they can send it to the President's desk. If they leave it basically the same and they send it back, I guess a lot of us will hold our nose again and say: Well, I guess that is the best this Congress is capable of doing. It is like General Patton's quote in the movie: `` `What did you do in the great World War II'? You won't have to say, `Well, I shoveled crap in Louisiana.' '' What is Congress going to say that they did at this moment in time and in history to save this country? I hope the Senate will listen and make this bill better. I hope they will make it deserving of the President's campaign and mandate and deliver for the American people. They better darn well not backslide. Frankly, it was hard to hold my nose to vote for that bill in the first place because I am over a barrel. I am trying to actually make Medicaid work, trying to make these subsidies get repealed, and trying to do the job that the President campaigned on, while we are too inclined to want to have giveaways that don't simply add up. This is a moment for us to rise up and deliver. I hope the Senate will do it, and I hope the House will follow. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden) as cosponsor of H.R. 3464.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, today we congratulate the 2025 Service Academy Appointees from the 21st Congressional District of Texas. The following individuals have accepted Academy Appointments: Alexa Kim Bowers, Smithson Valley High School, Bulverde, Texas, United States Air Force Academy. John Michael Burris, Father Joseph T. O'Callaghan Homeschool, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, United States Military Academy. Madeline Reed Coats, Moe and Gene Johnson High School, Buda, Texas, United States Military Academy. Hannah Ryleigh Dufresne, Boerne High School, Comfort, Texas, United States Military Academy. Aiden Angelo Embestro, St. Andrews Episcopal Upper School, Austin, Texas, United States Naval Academy. Annabelle G. Evans, Cole High School, San Antonio, Texas, United States Military Academy. Ryan Palmer Farhoudi, Tivy High School, Kerrville, Texas, United States Air Force Academy. Lauren Taylor Andrion Fuentespina, Claudia Taylor Johnson High School, San Antonio, Texas, United States Military Academy. Christian Ray Gonzales, Claudia Taylor Johnson High School, San Antonio, Texas, United States Military Academy. Olivia Grace Hanson, Regents School of Austin, Austin, Texas, United States Military Academy. Noah Craig Hernandez, Boerne Champion High School, Boerne, Texas, United States Naval Academy. Preston Michael Longhurst, MacArthur High School, San Antonio, Texas, United States Merchant Marine Academy. Lillian Page Marrou, Fredericksburg High School, Fredericksburg, Texas, United States Air Force Academy. Madison Faith Mendez, Great Hearts Northern Oaks/ Texas A&M, San Antonio, Texas, United States Military Academy. Storm St. John Pena, Davenport High School, New Braunfels, Texas, United States Air Force Academy. Emelia Marie Storey, Canyon High School, New Braunfels, Texas, United States Air Force Academy. Caden James Spradling, Smithson Valley High School, New Braunfels, Texas, United States Air Force Academy. Reagan Nicole Turmin, Pieper High School, San Antonio, Texas, United States Merchant Marine Academy. Kaden James Vincent, Canyon High School, New Braunfels, Texas, United States Air Force Academy. These outstanding students have much to contribute to their chosen Academy and to our country. We appreciate their talents and their patriotism. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will join me in congratulating these truly heroic young men and young women.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Police Week this week and ALS Awareness Month in May, I take time to recognize Monica Martinez. I know that her niece, Annie Martinez, is here in the Chamber, and Annie is a staffer here on Capitol Hill. Annie is from New Braunfels. Monica served faithfully with the Comal County Sheriff's Office for nearly a quarter of a century. I have become very close with the great public servants of Comal County in the sheriff's office and the police department. They are great people. Tragically, in 2023, Monica's career was cut short after she was diagnosed with Bulbar Onset ALS. She is a cornerstone of her community and a beacon of inspiration for the entire family. We are indebted to her service to Comal County, and we honor her as she faces this next challenge against this terrible disease. As a cancer survivor, I wish her well, and we will be praying for her constantly. I thank Monica for her steadfast commitment to Texas. She is in the thoughts and prayers of me, the people of Comal County, and her family. May God bless Monica.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for consideration of three pieces of legislation--H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255--which will all be considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. Additionally, the rule provides each with a motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are here in Washington this week to continue to work on behalf of the American people. This is, in fact, Police Week, but we have been busy this year, this Congress delivering for the American people. In this Congress so far, we have passed legislation to secure our elections, H.R. 222, the SAVE Act; hold rogue activist judges accountable, H.R. 1526; bring transparency to institutes of higher education, H.R. 1048; make changes to our border with the Laken Riley Act and the HALT Fentanyl Act; and to repeal the Biden-era harmful environmental regulations by passing what we call Congressional Review Acts to undo the damage of the Biden administration. As Republicans continue to work on behalf of the American people and finalize the reconciliation products we are working on currently, we are also here to recognize National Police Week and the thousands of law enforcement officers who wake up every day to step on that thin blue line to defend and protect us. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15 as Peace Officer Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week. Yesterday, my staff and I got the opportunity to welcome police officers from New Braunfels, Texas, and hear about the challenges they face every day. I talk to the men and women in blue virtually every day in the district that I represent, as I know many of my colleagues do. My grandfather was the chief of police of a small west Texas town called Sweetwater. I was blessed to work in the United States Attorney's office and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, working every day with law enforcement. What they do matters for the peace and security of our country. Our Republic depends on having security on our streets. There are thousands of stories that I can share about the daily heroism of law enforcement officers across the country, hundreds I could share even in the district I represent. On February 16, 2024, Austin Police Department officers Dalton Schroeder and Jason Wright responded to 4-year-old William Martinez Romero, who was choking. The officers quickly jumped into action. Body cam footage shows Officer Schroeder run to his cruiser to grab an antichoking device he bought with his own money to be prepared for situations just like this, while Officer Wright started supporting William with back blows. They saved his life that day. We must also remember that Police Week honors fallen peace officers, including one officer who died in the line of duty, Austin Police Department Senior Officer Jorge Pastore died in action November 11, 2023, responding to a domestic violence call in South Austin. Hostages were held inside a home, and when officers attempted to enter, gunfire started to go off. The SWAT team was called in to help distract the suspect, one being Officer Pastore, who was trying to rescue the victims. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we couldn't be more excited to welcome tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country to D.C. this week. Let's be clear: House Republicans and President Trump are mobilized to restore order and sanity in the United States, something that had been lacking for years. I remember the days, as I know my colleagues do, in 2020 when there were fires and destruction rampant across the country, as our cities were being burned to the ground and law enforcement was being targeted. It was unacceptable. There are Members of this body, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who were encouraging it. They were undermining our law enforcement officers, making it more difficult for them to carry out their jobs, who were challenging them. It was important that we stood by them, and it is important now that the President and Republicans are standing by our law enforcement officers. Americans suffered due to the amplification of that extreme rhetoric against law enforcement. The homicide rates stayed significantly higher through 2022 after massively skyrocketing in the wake of 2020. The rule before us today is another step in helping law enforcement officers across the Nation which, after 4 years of a Biden-run Department of Justice targeting police departments, should be a welcome relief to our men and women in blue. This week we will consider three pieces of legislation to support our brothers and sisters in law enforcement. H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, which would allow Federal law enforcement officers the opportunity to purchase the service weapons they used before obtaining a new one; H.R. 2243, the LEOSA Reform Act, which amends the Gun-Free School Zones Act to provide an exemption for law enforcement officers certified under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry a concealed firearm in a gun- free school zone; and H.R. 2240, Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which would require the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress that includes data on attacks on law enforcement. These bills are widely supported by law enforcement groups. The Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police Organizations, National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, and Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD sent a letter on March 25, 2025, to the House Judiciary Committee urging support of these bills and advancement to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about crime in the country that the parting shot of Joe Biden on January 19 was to commute the sentences of 2,500 Federal defendants he claimed were ``convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.'' Let's look at that. We have a situation where he reduced the sentence of a Buffalo man, Lairon Graham, 67. In 2023, he was convicted of organizing and heading a drug conspiracy to sell fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin. When police raided his home, they found fentanyl, crack, and cash. He also possessed a firearm. In addition to heading up the drug gang, Graham was also convicted of sex trafficking by force or coercion from 2013 to 2021. Of course, this is on top of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanting to defend a Maryland man for being sent overseas after the guy was clearly moving people illegally, beating his girlfriend and wife, violating our laws, and here illegally. That is who they want to defend. There are numerous other examples. Jaron Ruth, another Buffalo native, pleaded guilty in 2019 to selling drugs over a period of 3 years and possessing firearms. He had been charged with shooting a man in the chest during a burglary of the victim's home. These are the kind of folks that Joe Biden was commuting as he exited stage left. We had another situation where he commuted the sentence of a gentleman who left prison after Biden commuted his sentence in the killing of two FBI agents. Is that who my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think they ought to be defending? Can they answer the question of commuting the sentences of these violent criminals and putting them out on the streets, just as they voted against every measure we put forward to defend our borders and to stop the death and destruction of American citizens like Laken Riley or like Jocelyn Nungaray or those who have died at the hands of dangerous criminal cartels and gangs in our country? What President Trump is doing is restoring the rule of law. What Republicans are doing is standing up in defense of law enforcement because we stand up in defense of the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I would notice, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman complained about not having the amendment considered, but he offered the amendment about 1 hour before the Rules Committee met. So spare me the concern about whether or not we are considering amendments when we don't have the time to look at the amendment. I would also note that when we are talking about these kinds of people, I went through a list of folks whom President Biden had commuted. Here is another one. A Lubbock man, granted clemency by Biden, was arrested. The sheriff was absolutely angry about the former administration's decisions. The sheriff said that he felt angry after he found out a convicted criminal was being released back on the Lubbock streets early, that a convicted criminal is now back in law enforcement custody after violating his supervised release. These are the kinds of folks whom we are putting back out on the streets, and we are having to arrest again the very people that President Biden put back out. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McGuire).

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would note that as we are considering this Police Week and we are talking about the safety and security of our streets, I would just note that two of our most dangerous States as measured by violent crime and property crime rates are the States of New Mexico and Colorado, which also happen to have Democrats controlling all levels of power. I would note that last summer, the good people of Aurora, Colorado, were dealing with Tren de Aragua, who were engaging in violent activities in apartment complexes and demonstrating the violence that has led to the death of Americans, and the trafficking of dangerous narcotics and fentanyl. They literally took over their homes. I met with and talked to Cindy Romero from Aurora about what happened to her in her home and that my Democratic colleagues weren't even acknowledging that it was happening. They were just ignoring it. Then Tren de Aragua moved to San Antonio and other places across the country. I want to give a shout-out to the Texas Department of Public Safety and all the great local law enforcement in Hays County, Texas. That is because just literally last week they converged together with the FBI to go identify and stop 47 individuals. Probably 14 of whom were a part of Tren de Aragua from all over the country. They had come into Austin to coordinate. They had drugs, narcotics, and children in a home near where I live in Dripping Springs, Texas. Thanks to law enforcement we now have removed at least four of those individuals and are prosecuting others because we now have a law enforcement community who knows that the President of the United States is backing them, and a Republican House and a Republican Senate are backing them. Local law enforcement are being backed instead of having leftist judges who are dismissing the crimes and putting dangerous criminals on the streets. When Joe Biden commutes sentences and puts dangerous criminals on the streets, the American people know who is actually standing up for law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we talk about standing up in defense of police, how can my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with a straight face that that is what they want to do when we had one Democrat from New York who said: I am not in favor of more police; I am actually in favor of defunding the police. We had another Congresswoman from New York who said: Defunding police means defunding police. I can go back, and the Record is replete with examples of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling for defunding the police. In fact, one of my colleagues from Texas was literally serving on the Austin City Council when they cut $150 million out of the Austin Police Department's budget, leaving their academy decimated, leaving them unable to field 911 calls, leaving violent crimes skyrocketing in the city of Austin, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were patently clear about their desire to defund the police and side with violent mobs in the summer of 2020, when our cities were burning across the country. Yes, we are standing up for the men and women in blue. Yes, we will defend them, but, no, we are not going to blindly support grants that are being used by NGOs to undermine the very police they are saying they are trying to support. For example, one grant to an NGO that was promoting prostitution and open borders, this is the kind of stuff that the American people sent us here to stop. This is the kind of stuff that they are proud of the President for using DOGE to identify and stop. Yes, we are trying to defund those particularly bad grant programs, while we try to make sure that our local jurisdictions can fund police properly and have judges that will actually put bad guys in jail instead of letting them on the streets and a President that won't commute the sentences of 2,500 people, dozens or hundreds of whom were violent criminals and are now back out on the streets. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROY. May I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my Republican colleagues for bringing forward legislation in support of our law enforcement community. I am proud of the fact that, in fact, this President is trying to focus resources where it will best provide security and safety on our streets and back our law enforcement community to actually target criminals, not fund ridiculous grants, not fund NGOs that are undermining our security, the very NGOs that are perpetuating the open borders; that are putting gangs in our communities, like TDA and MS-13, that lead directly to the death of Americans, death of Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, like Laken Riley, like Rachel Morin, like Kayla Hamilton; Americans that are no longer with us because of the policies of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because of wide-open borders, and because of tolerance of violent criminals, because of a Democrat President who has let violent criminals out on the street and commuted their sentences; because of radical leftist judges promoted by those that fund my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; like George Soros who have funded DAs that are letting criminals out on the streets in cities like San Antonio and Austin that I represent; like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have defunded the police time and time again and have defended that position. For example, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that the defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services. Another colleague said that the defund movement isn't new. Folks are just finally listening. Defund the police, said a Democrat colleague. Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real, said a former Democrat colleague and, as I said before, a colleague that literally voted on the Austin City Council to strip $150 million out of the police budget, leaving the Austin Police stranded, unable to do their job and the people of Austin unable to get the services that they deserve and pay taxes for, while their streets are made more violent and while criminals are allowed to roam free under the very aforementioned Soros DAs that refused to prosecute the criminals. Everybody in America knows what is going on. Everybody in America gets the joke. They saw their cities burning in the summer of 2020. They saw the reality of what happens when you allow these radical Democratic policies to take root, and they want it to end. They want common sense back. They want a President who will enforce the law and an FBI that will target criminals instead of the American people. They don't want to have a Federal Government that is weaponized against them. They don't want them to be targeted. They want violent criminals off the streets. They want violent gangs off the streets. They want our borders to be secure. They want TDA out. They want MS-13 out. They want fentanyl off their streets. The only way you can do that is to actually back up the people trying to enforce the law and actually stand with them in the enforcement of the law, not turn around and let all the criminals back out on the streets. Yet, that is what my colleagues perpetually want to do. The fact of the matter is, the American people understand that this President, this Republican House, this Republican Senate, and Republican jurisdictions across the country stand for law enforcement. They stand for order. That is what they want. That is what they sent us here for. We put together some bills this week that are focused on wishes of the people, the men and women in blue, like my grandfather, who served as chief of police in Sweetwater, Texas, and the many law enforcement I was proud to serve with and alongside in the Office of the Attorney General of Texas and in the United States Attorney's Office. We work with them on a regular basis. When you talk to them, they cannot do their jobs if the radical leftist policies of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are allowed to continue to be perpetuated. You can't combat crime if you put the criminals back on the streets. You can't combat crime if you import criminals from dangerous prisons. You can't combat crime if your law enforcement agencies are targeting American citizens for political retribution rather than taking dangerous, violent criminals off the streets. I rise in support of these bills. I rise in support of the rule. The legislation that we put forward will provide the value for our men and women in uniform that they have asked for. They have asked for the ability to keep the weapons that they had in service. Why does that matter? I will tell you why it matters. My grandfather that I mentioned before died in 1949 of cancer. When my dad, a 7-year- old, had polio and my grandmother was a single mom in west Texas raising him and did all the tough things, didn't ask for any handouts, took two jobs, helped my dad go on to be the first to go to college--my dad is 82 years old. He is still alive. He is 82 and still manages to walk, barely. My dad talks about his dad as a cop, and he pulls out his old .38, the .38 revolver that my grandfather had in service. That means something to the people who serve. It means something for them to be able to carry that with them and take it with them. It is no small thing. Some of my colleagues dismiss it as not being important. I can tell you it is important to the people who are out there serving because they devote their lives to this cause. When I take that .38 out of the safe and show it to my son, he is holding the .38 that his great-grandfather held and carried with him when he was policing the streets. I think that is a good thing. The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 405 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 33) directing the Architect of the Capitol to install at a permanent location on the western front of the United States Capitol an honorific plaque listing the names of all of the officers of the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective entities who responded to the violence that occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. All points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees. Sec 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 33.

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