[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 11, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2154-H2161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RELATING TO A NATIONAL EMERGENCY BY THE PRESIDENT ON FEBRUARY 1, 2025
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February
10, 2026, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) relating to a
national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
February 10, 2026, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 72
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That pursuant
to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the
President on February 1, 2025, Executive Order 14193 (25 Fed.
Reg. 02406), is hereby terminated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
{time} 1500
General Leave
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to have a debate apparently for about an
hour. We are going to have that debate for one reason and one reason
alone. Democrats in the House and in the Senate as well, refuse to
recognize that there is a crisis because of fentanyl entering the
United States of America.
Whether on our northern border, on our southern border, through the
Caribbean, or other places, they refuse to recognize that threat
anywhere. Specific to the debate today, they would like to end an
executive order relating to the crisis of fentanyl coming across our
northern border.
Democrats don't recognize that there is a crisis and that it is
killing thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, each
and every year. They are trying to literally end that executive order
that identifies the national emergency, an emergency that is literally
agreed upon by our northern neighbor, Canada. Even Canada acknowledges
that they have this as a national emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2155]]
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have heard that story before that this is all
about drugs. If I recall correctly, the former President of Honduras
probably put more drugs in the United States than Canada has combined.
The President of the United States didn't say that was an emergency. He
pardoned him. I have heard it before. It is all about drugs. That was
the case.
What is the case and what is a fact is that in the last year, tariffs
have cost American families nearly $1,700. That cost is expected to
increase in 2026. That is the case. Since these tariffs were imposed,
U.S. exports to Canada have fallen by more than 21 percent.
When I go home, my constituents aren't telling me they have an extra
$1,700 to spare. They are asking me to lower grocery prices, lower the
price of healthcare, and make life more affordable. That is what this
is about. It is about the American people and making things affordable
for them.
Today's vote is simple. It is very simple. Will my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle vote to lower the cost of living for American
families, or will they keep prices high out of loyalty to Donald J.
Trump?
That is what this vote is. That is why we pressed for this vote
today. That is why a day is a day, and we finally get our chance to
have the Members of the House vote their conscience. Do they vote for
the President and his ways, or do they vote for their people, their
constituents?
Let's be clear about this so-called emergency Donald Trump declared
on Canada and so many other countries where no emergency exists. For
over 50 years, emergency authorities have been declared. What have they
been? Yes, they have been for civil wars. Pandemics? I think that is an
emergency. A massive human rights crisis could be an emergency.
Canada is none of those things. Canada isn't a threat. Canada is our
friend. Canada is our ally. Canadians have fought alongside Americans,
whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan, where 165
Canadians gave their lives after our country was attacked. There is no
national emergency. There is no national security threat underpinning
these threats.
In an interview just last night, Donald J. Trump admitted he placed
tariffs on Switzerland. Why? I will tell my colleagues why. It is
simply because he didn't like the way their leader spoke to him. He put
tariffs on Switzerland.
That is not a strategy. That is impulse. That is a person who is just
trying to say that he is the king. Mr. Speaker, guess what. That
impulse, who is going to pay the price for it? Who is going to pay the
price for that impulse? I will tell my colleagues who. It is the
American people.
Our morning coffee, our kids' chocolate, lifesaving medical devices,
those are the Canadian goods that are being hit by 35 percent tariffs.
Americans are paying more for healthcare and their daily essentials
during an affordability crisis, all because of a manufactured emergency
and one person's ego.
The damage doesn't stop there. What about American products? They are
being boycotted across Canada. Don't believe me? Just look at the
President's social media posts from just 2 days ago where he said:
``Ontario won't even put the U.S. spirits, beverages, and other
alcoholic products, on their shelves.''
Tourism from Canada is down 30 percent. People in the hospitality
industry--Las Vegas, my home State of New York, and the chairman's home
State of Florida--are losing their jobs because Canadians do not want
to come to the United States of America.
What are the people getting in return? I will tell my colleagues what
they are getting. They are getting higher electricity costs during one
of the coldest winters in modern history. They are getting higher food
prices and higher costs for industrial goods and healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, this is heads, we lose; tails, we lose.
Tariffs are bad for American workers. They are bad for businesses.
They are bad for working families. Instead of addressing the
affordability crisis, which the President has called a hoax,
Republicans have spent a year blocking this vote to protect Donald
Trump, rather than doing their job to help the American people and what
the American people did send us here to do, which is to lower costs.
That ends today.
Every Member now has to go on record. Do they stand with the
disastrous trade war or with their constituents who are demanding
relief? It is time we end this so-called national emergency because the
only emergency here is the economic one created by Donald J. Trump's
tariffs.
I urge the adoption of the resolution and the termination of these
unnecessary and harmful tariffs, which are just taxes on the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to correct from that diatribe I just
heard. I am going to start to go through some of that.
Number one, who will pay the price? That was a question begged by my
colleague. Who will pay the price? It is a very sad thing to have been
asked this by my colleague.
It is important to remember what this resolution is. This resolution
ends an emergency related to fentanyl. I would say to the gentleman
over here that 5,000 people a year die in his State alone from
fentanyl.
If he wants to beg the question of who is going to pay the price for
him trying to end an emergency that actually for the first time has
Canada dealing with fentanyl because of the pressure being put on them,
who is going to pay the price? It is going to be 5,000 more of his
State's residents. That is who is going to pay the price.
I think the gentleman next to me mentioned as well, when he goes
home, this is what he sees when he goes home. When he goes home each
and every year, because they don't want to address fentanyl, they are
going to see 5,000 less faces because they don't want to deal with
fentanyl.
He said it himself. He sees no emergency. The ``so-called emergency''
were the exact words used, the so-called emergency. There is no
emergency that exists, to quote my colleague. If 5,000 people were
dying in my State every single year from one thing and one thing alone,
I think that is an emergency. His people will pay the price.
Let's be clear again about what this resolution is and what it is
not. It is not a debate about tariffs. We can talk about those, but
that is not really what it is. This is Democrats trying to ignore that
there is a fentanyl crisis. Again, they just ignored it. They just
literally said it doesn't exist.
{time} 1510
I will read again directly from the bill: `` . . . the national
emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 1, 2025,
in Executive Order 14193 . . . is hereby terminated.''
That is their language. They are terminating the executive order, and
it is an EO on the fentanyl crisis at the northern border.
It matters to talk about that it is the northern border. Why? That is
because my Democratic colleagues don't believe that there is a crisis
there, but my Democratic colleagues don't believe there is a fentanyl
crisis under any circumstance. Any fentanyl that flows into the
country, they don't see any of it as a national emergency.
We have yet to find a place where Democrats say that drugs are a
national emergency. They made it clear that there is not one single
circumstance where they see the deaths of millions of Americans due to
fentanyl as a crisis. They don't see that anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, let's look again at my colleague's own State. This is a
report. Last report, almost 5,000 deaths, or just under that.
Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the largest fentanyl lab found in
Canada. Where was that found in Canada that was recently shut down
because of the pressure that President Trump is putting on Canada? It
was 30 miles from the New York border. They didn't close it down 2
years ago or 3 years ago. Why not? It was because Canada didn't have
the pressure put on them to do so. That is not a coincidence.
Mr. Speaker, again, do you know who is going to pay the price for
taking the pressure off of Canada? It is going to be
[[Page H2156]]
the constituents of my colleague, where 5,000 people a year die from
fentanyl overdose. If I were him, I would think that is a pretty big
emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I lost 2,500 brothers and sisters in Afghanistan over
the course of 20 years. Our country took that extremely seriously for
every single one of them. Mr. Meeks' State is losing double that from
fentanyl alone every single year, and he says that he sees no
emergency. That is sad for the people of New York.
The administration is doing everything that they can to defeat
fentanyl, while my Democratic colleagues are willing to do everything
that they can to have those deaths continue. They don't support
striking drug boats. We know that much. They don't support removing
cartel leaders. We know that. Apparently, they don't support tariffing
a country that acknowledges that they have a drug trafficking crisis
but weren't doing anything to fix it.
I am going to suspect that my colleague over here doesn't know this
as well: Last year, Justin Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada,
himself addressed the fentanyl problem and said that it needed to be
eradicated. That is the Prime Minister of Canada, or former Prime
Minister.
It was so bad that Canada created a fentanyl czar, who admitted that
they underestimated--Canada underestimated the toll of the fentanyl
crisis and what it had taken, and they literally called it, according
to the Canadian fentanyl czar, a national security threat.
The northern border, for whom this emergency exists, is acknowledging
that there is an emergency, a national security threat, but I guess my
colleagues think that they know better.
Mr. Speaker, take the Chinese-run fentanyl lab that I mentioned being
shut down, or one of them being shut down, of many. There was over 800
pounds of fentanyl confiscated. Why is it being shut down now and not
before? It is being shut down now because the administration had the
stones to put economic pressure on them, but my colleagues want to take
that pressure off because they don't worry about their people dying in
their State.
It is simple. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you care
about the U.S. Government responding to millions of Americans being
killed by fentanyl, this is the policy that addresses that. Even our
northern partner acknowledges that.
The truth is that Canada hasn't wanted to put effort into cracking
down on drugs. They didn't want to close the Chinese fentanyl labs.
They didn't want to increase their spending on border patrols, but they
have to do it because President Trump is putting pressure on them.
Tariffs get more attention than strongly worded letters, and millions
of Americans' lives are being saved because President Trump has
declared this national emergency and is actively forcing our neighbors,
like Canada, to act. It is saving lives.
My colleague wants to make sure that that no longer happens because
he doesn't see an emergency, even though 5,000 people from his State
are dying every single year. That is pretty sad. That is where the
price is paid.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have had some time from the last time that we were on
this floor. If he were so serious about drugs, I asked the chairman
previously: Why would the President of the United States pardon one of
the biggest drug dealers who was killing Americans, Juan Orlando
Hernandez. The last time, the gentleman said that he hadn't spoken to
the President and didn't know why.
Mr. Speaker, if he is so interested in stopping drugs, maybe he could
have and should have had a conversation.
Let me just tell you something about drugs, how much drugs are coming
in from Canada, because that is what this is about. As a former special
narcotics prosecutor--that is me--I know a little bit about that.
Saying that you are going to focus and stop certain things from coming
across the border of Canada, as if it is coming across in a cluster
like it is an emergency, is just an out-and-out lie.
The fact of the matter is that if you look at the Federal
prosecutions--this just came out not too long ago--for narcotics in the
United States of America, it just came out that, under the Trump
administration, Federal drug prosecutions fell to the lowest level in
decades. It talked about that Federal drug prosecutions dropped 10
percent in 2025 as agents changed their focus to immigration, that the
number of new cases being filed is the lowest in decades according to a
Reuters analysis. High-priority drug investigations have stalled since
Donald Trump took office. It doesn't sound like the President of the
United States is really concerned about drug prosecutions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an individual who really knows about taxes
and tariffs, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I led the negotiation on USMCA, and 195 Republicans
voted for USMCA and 197 Democrats voted for USMCA. It was a bipartisan
effort.
Tariffs, as threatened or imposed, can have an outcome, but not when
we look at Brazil and say that we don't like the result of the
Presidential election and that we are going to impose 50 percent
tariffs, or that we are going to close a bridge as it goes to Canada,
like Canada is an enemy. I have not met anybody in America who was ever
mad at Canada for anything. They have been a great friend, great ally,
and a great neighbor.
Let's have a tariff on NATO because of Greenland. Let's have a tariff
on South Korea because of who they talk to in an international arena.
Let's impose tariffs on our NATO allies or on European Union because we
don't like this or that. We won't negotiate. We will just arbitrarily
impose tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what the most ironic thing is in this
debate? Heretofore, I have never met a Republican in Washington who was
in favor of tariffs.
The party of Ronald Reagan embracing these tariffs is unheard of. The
party of George Bush, Sr., embracing tariffs, part of their existence
was to break down trade barriers everywhere. If you want to target a
tariff based upon a particular product, gotcha. That is understood, but
not the way that these tariffs are being imposed. The ranking member is
on the right path.
{time} 1520
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague, Mr. Issa, I
would ask my colleague--I am happy to yield a moment--would you like to
say 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency?
Crickets.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for
the purpose of a colloquy.
Would you like to respond: 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency.
Mr. MEEKS. Have you found out yet why Mr. Hernandez has been
pardoned?
Mr. MAST. Do you want to answer?
Mr. MEEKS. I want to find out right now because I would prosecute
him.
Mr. MAST. I gave you my speculation. It might have been making room
for Maduro.
Mr. MEEKS. Have you had a conversation with the President about it?
Mr. MAST. We didn't have that talk, but he might be making room for
Maduro.
Mr. MEEKS. Well, you should. If you consider--why aren't you
prosecuting cases now?
Mr. MAST. I asked you a question. Would you like to say 5,000 deaths
are an emergency in New York?
Mr. MEEKS. It would not be coming from Canada.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their
comments to the Chair.
Mr. MAST. Can we engage in a colloquy? Is that something we can do?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Even in the colloquy, the comments are to be
directed to the Chair.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, then, in this colloquy, I would present the
opportunity again: Would my colleague like to deny or admit that 5,000
deaths in New York related to fentanyl is an emergency?
Mr. MEEKS. Did the fentanyl come from Canada?
Mr. MAST. Much of it did. Would you like to hear some stats?
[[Page H2157]]
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I guess you need to direct your--
Mr. MEEKS. What source is that?
Mr. MAST. You have to direct your remarks to the Speaker.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, what source is the gentleman talking about?
Mr. MAST. I would point to just Canada, number one. Canada, in the
last year, had an additional 8,000 fentanyl-related arrests because
they finally started cracking down on it. There was an increase of 80
percent that was seized at the U.S.-Canada border because of the
actions taking place, so, yes, there were deaths going on in New York.
Mr. MEEKS. No, I think that is Canada is doing law enforcement on its
side, and we are not doing now law enforcement on our side.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I am going to end this colloquy and reclaim my
time.
Mr. MAST. I note for the record, again, ample opportunities have been
given for my colleague, who represents New York, to just say 5,000
fentanyl-related deaths in New York is an emergency. Silence, crickets,
no response, because the death of 5,000 of his constituents apparently
means nothing to him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to slightly drift off, but not really leave
this point.
Fentanyl kills 5,000 in New York. It kills 100,000 in the U.S. It
kills thousands in Canada and thousands in Mexico. Those numbers are
staggering, but those numbers are a small part of the tragedy to
families.
For every fentanyl death in our countries, there are families who are
suffering. For every fentanyl death, there is somebody who goes to the
hospital multiple times. For every fentanyl death, there are three or
four people who are living homeless, drug addicted, and their families
are suffering. For every death, there is, in fact, a broken
relationship somewhere. That is not 100,000 in America. That is
millions in America.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know of an American that you talk to about
fentanyl who won't tell you that they know someone whose family, their
health, or their child has been destroyed by fentanyl, many of them
being destroyed as we speak.
There are about 1,900 miles of Mexican border between the United
States and Mexico. I represent about 80 of those miles right there
outside of San Diego. I have seen the border closed as best it possibly
could in an amazing way. I have seen submarines still coming in the
Pacific to try to circumvent it. I know we will never get to zero.
All the President has asked Canada to do is show the kind of effort
they can afford as a First World country, and that effort should be far
greater at all of their borders than Mexico's, which is a relatively
poor country. That effort should be shown. If it is shown, the
President has made it clear that these tariffs will immediately go
away.
This isn't a tariff that is just because you don't like someone. It
is a tariff that says this behavior, this leverage, is being used for
one purpose: to get you to live up to a standard that is in your own
best interests.
By the way, the 5,500 miles of land border between the U.S. and
Canada is our longest by far. The thousands of miles of sea border that
Canada needs to also patrol is huge. This President stands with Canada
to help them do it, to help in technical ways and every other way, but
we cannot allow millions of Americans and countless other Canadians and
Mexicans to continue to suffer without us having the real empathy to do
something about it.
The chairman said: What about the 5,000? We got this answer: How do
you know that they came from Canada? I am sorry, but every time we have
a major bust on the Mexican border, my agents tell me that we are
getting maybe 10 percent, maybe 20 percent in certain areas. We are
never getting 80 or 90 percent. The reality is that those are
indications of a small amount of what is getting in through Buffalo and
other borders into the United States.
Although the gentleman from New York is from a fairly populous State,
he is not from a State without a large rural border, one that you can
simply walk across with impunity normally, which has been used to
smuggle drugs successfully.
The point I make here today--and I thank the chairman for the time--
is: Every life matters. If the President of the United States cares
about his 5,000 or 500 or 5 or 1 enough to use the power of the
executive office to get the right thing out of our neighbors to the
north and the south, then I want to stand with him. I would never take
away a tool being used to save even one life, much less hundreds of
thousands of lives and millions of families.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Issa for his remarks,
and I believe there will be another Representative from California
speaking on the other side. I will be curious if that Representative
will acknowledge the thousands of deaths from fentanyl in California
being an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Canada plays virtually no role in the United States'
fentanyl influx, especially compared to other countries targeted by the
Trump administration. Canada contributes less than 1 percent to our
southern neighbor's border of street fentanyl, less than 1 percent.
That is not according to me, because I don't know where he gets his
facts, but that is according to the DEA, as well as the Canadian
Government, 1 percent.
We do a lot of trade with Canada, and in Florida's 21st District, the
chairman's district, exports to Canada support 1,650 jobs. Many of them
will begin to lose their jobs. This is about affordability. This is
about job creation and the economy. I wonder what he is going to say to
those 1,650 people in Florida's 21st District.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution
rejecting President Trump's illegal tariffs on Canada--our friend, our
neighbor, and our ally.
The truth of the matter is that the arguments on the other side of
the aisle are to distract. The vast majority of fentanyl that comes
into the United States comes from China and comes in via boats in our
ports of entry.
They want to distract to take away from the real issue, which is that
the Constitution is very clear that the power to levy tariffs and
regulate trade belongs to the Congress, not to the President. Yet, too
many in this body are willing to give up that authority because
President Trump demands blind loyalty from them.
The fact is, we already have a trade agreement with Canada. President
Trump negotiated it, and this body ratified it. There is a lawful
review process that goes into effect next year to find ways to improve
it.
That is how responsible governments handle trade disputes, by
following the law, not through weird social media tantrums about
bridges and hockey trophies or through childish threats to annex a
sovereign nation and make it the 51st State.
His daily barrage against Canada does not make him look tough. It is
certainly not strategic. It is just reckless. Frankly, it is bizarre.
We are now seeing the consequences of allowing the President's
unhinged behavior go unchecked. American families, small businesses,
and farmers are paying the price for these endless trade wars.
Trump's tariff tantrums have cost households more than $1,600 a year
in higher prices. Families in the United States are paying more for
groceries, cars, housing, utilities, the basic necessities. What about
the deaths from families that are struggling from food insecurity? Do
those not matter?
It is pushing our allies closer to our adversaries. Last month,
Canada announced it was lowering its 100 percent tariffs on Chinese
electric vehicles. Those tariffs were imposed in coordination with the
United States during the leadership of the Biden administration.
{time} 1530
That cooperation strengthened our position against China.
Now, because of this administration's chaotic trade policies, that
progress is
[[Page H2158]]
unravelling. Rather than target the real bad actors, the President is
picking fights with our friends. Instead of standing up for their
constituents and defending Congress' constitutional authority over
trade, most Republicans in this Chamber are surrendering it to the
President choosing blind allegiance to him over the people that they
are supposed to represent.
I commend the few Republicans who have the courage to break with the
President and join with Democrats to force this vote. Reasserting our
constitutional authority over trade should never have been a partisan
issue.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Let's restore sanity
and stability to our American trade policy.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I would let my colleague know that just one--
because he said Canada plays almost no role in fentanyl deaths--one 70-
pound bust of fentanyl alone was enough to kill every single person in
New York City. Again, my colleague is unwilling to acknowledge that
this is about fentanyl, because that is literally what the executive
order says, and unwilling to acknowledge that 5,000 deaths in his State
is an emergency, certainly in 1 year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Arrington), the chair of the Budget Committee.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats fought Republicans to
require voter ID to protect the integrity of our elections, the
cornerstone of our democratic Republic. Now they stand here today on
the floor of the people's house, fighting the President in his effort
to protect the lives of the American people against what is the most
imminent threat and the number one cause of accidental deaths and drug
overdoses.
We know where the drugs are coming from, pouring into our country and
our communities, killing our friends, killing our families. I can't
think of a greater security concern than this. The President has
effectively and appropriately promoted and defended America's economic
and security interests by the use of tariffs.
Today, Mr. Speaker, as a result, we have a lower trade deficit than
we have had since 2009. By the way, the top 20 economies in the world
that we do business with had twice the tariffs on our products, three
times the tariffs when you measure agriculture products, and the
deficit is going down. We have quadrupled revenue to strengthen
America's balance sheet and pay down the tax on our children, which is
the deficit. We have gone from 6.3 percent to 5.9, and exports are at
an all-time high.
Now, what is the issue here? It is not about 301, unfair trade
practices, although there are plenty of grievances against our northern
neighbor in that regard. This isn't about USMCA. The USMCA products
flowing from Canada to the United States are exempt. Eighty-five
percent of the products, we are not talking about that. It is not about
232.
This is about one particular authority that this Congress empowered
our commander-in-chief with to deal with unusual threats outside of the
U.S. that would impact our national security, our foreign policy, and
our economy.
Now, I can't think of anything more unusual, and I can't think of a
bigger threat than a chemical warfare waged against the United States
of America. Any President worth his salt, any commander-in-chief, would
be derelict in their duty if they didn't use every tool at their
disposal to stop it.
For my President to expect our neighbor from the north to have the
same vigilance and the same urgency as he has because of the American
people's mandate to stop this madness and protect our children, God
bless him. God bless him.
For my colleagues to run to the floor, to raise their hands, and to
scream foul that this President is somehow using tariffs in a way that
has nothing to do with our interest, to talk about food security, we
could go down the list. We wouldn't have food insecurity if we didn't
have a cost of living crisis where the fuse was lit by unbridled
spending. We could go down the list. Yes, we are doing something about
that. We are bringing interest rates down. We are bringing real wages
up. We are also preserving food stamps so they are not being defrauded
or being spent on people here illegally.
Mr. Chairman, I would love to keep debating all day long. God bless
America, and go West Texas.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 16 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, the talk time is soon over because of what I
am hearing from the other side. Basically what this is about is the
American people having a chance to see where their Members are, whether
they want to--they will judge ultimately--believe that this is an
emergency from what they hear and know of the President or whether they
are concerned about their cost of living, whether they are concerned
about that hot chocolate, whether they are concerned about that coffee,
or whether they are concerned about life-saving medical devices.
What this will do--which has been blocked for almost a year--is
simply to have a vote on the House floor so that the American people
can see because then ultimately, we will know which way is the right
way for them.
We are here to represent the citizens of the United States of
America, not a President. We soon will have a vote because that is what
is going to happen, which is what I have been asking for for over a
year. If you think this is an emergency, if you believe the President,
you are going to vote that way. If you think this is going to be
accountable to the American people, if you think that the American
people will say that the cost of living, the cost of electricity, the
cost of food every day they go to the market is of concern to them,
they will be watching how you vote on this bill. They will be watching.
Vote how you want. This is for the American people to see where you
stand, with them or the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Salinas).
Ms. SALINAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose President Trump's
disastrous tariffs and shine a light on the real harm they are causing
families and businesses in my district.
My district is home to some of the best wineries in the world, and
Canada is our single largest foreign market. After Trump imposed his
tariffs, Canada responded with their own tariffs that lasted for
months. Many Canadians continue to boycott our products, all while our
growers and producers pay the price. They are facing higher costs,
shrinking export opportunities, and real economic pain for real
families.
In October, wine sales to Canada were down 84 percent when compared
to last year. If we fail to act, this Congress will be complicit in
enabling President Trump to destroy the hard-fought relationships my
community has brokered. Wineries in my district built their
relationships across the border over decades, and in one day, President
Trump destroyed them.
{time} 1540
These tariffs hurt American farmers and American consumers alike. We
must act and protect the American people from the volatile whims of the
petulant President.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me we are talking about the
deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, and
somebody is talking about wine. We are talking about the lives of tens
of thousands of Americans, and my colleagues are talking about wine.
Let's get some perspective here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Fine).
Mr. FINE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the opposition to this take on
two things: number one, that this has somehow raised the cost of living
and that, somehow, the fentanyl crisis is not a national emergency. I
would like to disassemble those two arguments.
A long time ago, long before I came to Washington, one of my first
jobs was I taught economics. I would say to my colleagues that they
need to get beyond Karl Marx's ``The Communist Manifesto'' to
understand how the world actually works.
When Joe Biden was President, prices went up 5 percent a year. Under
the
[[Page H2159]]
Trump trade regime that is supposedly making things so expensive for
people, it has gone up one-half that amount, 2.7 percent. Obviously,
tariffs are not the problem.
Economic results: The last quarter, our economic growth as a nation
was 4.4 percent. The economy is booming. That is almost double what we
saw the previous year under Joe Biden. His number started with a two.
These tariffs, rather than hurting America, have brought $15 billion,
that is just from Canada, that we can use to pay down our debt and pay
down our deficit, again, as we have lower inflation and higher economic
growth. It has worked. The chairman talked about the cost of 5,000
lives a year in New York, almost 100,000 nationwide, but those
statistics are 1 year old.
Under President Trump's tariff regime where he has cracked down on
it, last year, fentanyl deaths in this country dropped by 21 percent.
That is 20,000 Americans who did not die because of a fentanyl
overdose. That is 20,000 national emergencies diverted. That is 20,000
families that aren't destroyed, and that is 20,000 futures that still
get to be in our country.
We should not be criticizing the President for what he has done,
because the last thing I will say is this: When I taught economics, we
had a concept called Pareto optimality. It is something where
everything is good and nothing is bad, and that is exactly what is
happening here.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one thing that I will say, yes, the economy is booming.
Mr. Speaker, if you are a billionaire, the economy is booming. However,
when I go home and I talk to my constituents, what they tell me is that
the price of beef has risen 16.4 percent over the last year. The price
of coffee is up a whopping 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3
percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. So for them, it is not booming.
As I said, this is just about a vote. It is just about a vote. I wish
we could have had this vote 1 year ago. If, in fact, they believe this
is an emergency, I don't know why it was held up for 1 year and tried
to be prevented again.
It is a vote. Let the American people know where you stand, Mr.
Speaker. They see it with your vote.
Do you stand with them, Mr. Speaker, trying to fix the affordability
crisis, or do you stand with Donald Trump and my Republican colleagues
who are just taking care of those for whom the economy is booming, the
billionaires of our country?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Magaziner).
Mr. MAGAZINER. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's tariffs are raising
costs on working people. Just like everything else that Donald Trump
does, his tariffs are all about helping himself and his rich friends at
the expense of everyday people.
The Big Tech companies and the Big Oil companies have been donating
millions of dollars to Trump's ballroom and lavishing him with gifts
like a golden iPhone.
Wouldn't you know it, Mr. Speaker, he exempted them from the tariffs.
Who is not exempt?
They are the small businesses, the farmers, the restaurants, and the
small manufacturers who can't afford to go to Mar-a-Lago to ask for
special deals. They are the builders who are paying thousands of
dollars more for materials to build new homes, and they are everyday
people who are stuck with higher costs, working themselves to the bone
and who can't keep up with their bills.
In Donald Trump's America, the rich and connected are always taken
care of, and everyone else struggles.
For what, Mr. Speaker?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' report that came out
today, we lost more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs last year.
End these tariffs. Stop this madness, and lower costs for working
people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should educate themselves on
what these tariffs are affecting. They are third-party goods coming in
from countries like China. I don't think they are growing much coffee
in Canada. They might want to look at the map and look at the
temperatures and where these items grow.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Crane).
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Mast for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution which
would terminate the President's national emergency in response to the
flow of fentanyl across our northern border.
As an Arizonan, I am all too familiar with the destruction these
weaponized opioids have caused, and I fully support President Trump's
mission to rid our Nation of this poison.
Under the previous administration, fentanyl claimed the lives of
approximately 73,000 Americans per year and became the leading cause of
death among those aged 18 to 45. President Trump was elected in part to
confront this catastrophic crisis.
Fentanyl affects constituents of every Member of this body,
regardless of political affiliation. As someone who has met with
individuals devastated by this deadly substance, maintaining our
momentum to stop fentanyl must remain a top priority.
Over the past year, the Trump administration urged Canada to work in
coordination with our law enforcement partners to help stem the flow of
dangerous narcotics. Unfortunately, our neighbors to the north have
failed to adequately respond, prompting the administration to use
leverage to bring them to the table. Now Democrats are on the House
floor attempting to end the President's declaration, which would
undermine efforts to prevent fentanyl-related deaths. It would be very
unwise to tie the President's hands and remove this critical tool
during an ongoing public health and national security crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the leadership of Chairman Mast, and I
applaud the administration's commitment to preventing addiction and
overdoses.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Castro), who is the ranking member of HFAC's Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J.
Res. 72, the resolution to terminate President Trump's tariffs on
Canada.
Families in San Antonio and across this country are already
struggling with the rising cost of living. The price of everything is
going up: groceries, housing, childcare, and rent. When you go to the
grocery store, Mr. Speaker, beef prices are up 16 percent, and coffee
is up nearly 20 percent.
Instead of lowering costs, the President imposed tariffs on Canada,
which is nothing more than a tax on American families, and started a
trade war with one of our closest allies. Those tariffs don't just hurt
American families. They threaten jobs in places like my hometown of San
Antonio. Nearly one-half, 48 percent, of San Antonio's exports go to
Canada, the highest share of any major city in the country.
Our economy is deeply tied to North American supply chains. Thousands
of San Antonians work in aerospace, automotive manufacturing, energy,
machinery, semiconductors, and medical devices, exactly the high-paying
industries we want to be growing here in the United States.
These companies chose San Antonio because we are highly integrated
into trade networks with Canada and Mexico. When tariffs go up, local
businesses pay the price. When Canada retaliates, it becomes harder for
our workers to sell their products abroad.
This trade war is making life more expensive, creating uncertainty
and putting good jobs at risk, all while the world continues to move
around us. Congress has constitutional authority over tariffs. We must
use it here and now. Let's lower costs for American families, protect
jobs in San Antonio and across America, and end this reckless trade
war.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
{time} 1550
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country
agree, the unmitigated flow of fentanyl under the Biden administration
now constitutes an emergency.
[[Page H2160]]
Let's discuss some facts. In 2023 alone, this crisis contributed to
the deaths of 70,000 Americans--in just one year, 2023--a number that
only worsened the following year, when the amount of fentanyl that
crossed our border with Canada was actually enough to kill 9.5 million
people, given that potential.
Given this context, it is no surprise that between 2024 and 2025,
under President Trump, fentanyl seizures at the northern border nearly
doubled. As the supply of fentanyl is so tied to trade through the
movement of precursor chemicals, the President has utilized trade
policy to spur progress.
While today's resolution is meant to debate the merits of the
emergency created by the flow of fentanyl, our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will use this as a venue to debate trade policy. I
have been watching.
I certainly welcome my Democratic colleagues' interest, relatively
new interest, in the trade policy following what I would say was 4
years of neglect on trade policy under President Biden. However, if we
are serious about engaging in real reform, I believe that my colleagues
would not just resort to political maneuvers.
I am not a fan of tariffs. That is no secret. I am in favor, however,
of robust engagement with our trading partners. Let me be very clear.
In trade, there is no stagnation. If we are not gaining ground, I think
we are losing ground, and data would show that.
During the Biden administration, the President and this body were way
too passive on our trade agenda. Right now, President Trump obviously
is taking a new aggressive approach in order to level the playing field
and address supply chains that have put Americans at risk.
Beyond the gains made in addressing the fentanyl crisis and outside
the scope of this emergency, the President's engagement has led to
significant gains for fairness throughout the global trading system.
While Canada is one of our most important allies and trading
partners, and a friend, there have been a number of irritants in our
economic relationship. Under President Trump's leadership, we have seen
this change, most recently when Canada removed its discriminatory
digital services tax.
These productive--and I will say oftentimes uncomfortable--
conversations must continue, though, as we strengthen and extend USMCA
during this 2026 Joint Review.
The President has, at every turn, reaffirmed his commitment to use
tariffs as a means to drive these conversations, and Congress has
delegated a number of tariff authorities to the executive.
While we are ultimately debating the merits of the emergency, let me
be clear: This approach will not change the President's tariff
strategy, just the conditions. This body works best when engaging with
the full context of the policy environment.
As we await the Supreme Court's decision on whether tariffs lie
within the authority of IEEPA, today's politically motivated vote, I
believe, is premature. If my colleagues have full confidence there is
no risk of fentanyl imports at the northern border, then they have more
faith than I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, if this resolution is instead
driven by a newfound tariff skepticism, I urge them to allow the
Supreme Court to first make its decision.
To overlook the very basis of the emergency in the hope of removing
tariffs for which the President has other authorities to pursue only
increases uncertainty in the short term.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's repeated bullying of
Canada and its eloquent Prime Minister Carney is both embarrassing and
alarming. Our country could not have a better neighbor or trading
partner than Canada.
Declaring emergencies where none exist, Trump delights in these
executive decrees for tariffs. He can act like a king, and he is
enabled to be a king-like figure on this issue by Republicans, even
though it is costing American families thousands of dollars.
There have been 76,000 American manufacturing jobs lost amidst Trump
chaos. Small businesses are losing out if they don't have a lobbyist
who can go to Mar-a-Lago and bargain with Trump.
This vote is about reaffirming ``no king,'' no rule by decree from
the President when he has no authority to do this, and recognizing that
our Constitution places responsibility for trade and tariff taxes where
it should be, right here in this Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Horsford).
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, President Trump loves tariffs. He calls
them beautiful. He says they protect American workers, but here is the
cold, hard truth: The American people are paying them.
Just today, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed
what families already feel--American consumers are paying 95 percent of
these tariffs. They pay at the grocery store. They pay in higher energy
bills. They pay when small businesses shut their doors.
These blanket tariffs on Canada are a slap in the face to one of our
closest trading allies. Canada is Nevada's top international visitor.
Tourism in Las Vegas is already down 7.5 percent. Nationwide, Canadian
travel is down 23 percent, a $4 billion hit to our economy.
Today, though, thanks to Congressman Meeks, House Democrats, and
Republicans who are willing to stand up, Congress can take back its
power. We can give the American people real relief today. The families
sitting around their kitchen tables tonight deserve a government that
will lower their costs and that will end these Trump tariff taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 72.
I thank Ranking Member Meeks for his great leadership on this
critical issue.
It is time to end Trump's illegal tariffs on Canada, his tariffs on
United States' biggest trading partner, Mexico, and the so-called
liberation day tariffs. Congress has the power of the purse, not the
President. It is time that we take our power back from an executive who
is out of control.
Trump's tariffs have been a massive tax on the American people,
costing an average household $1,000 per household just in the last
year. These tariffs have led to slower job growth, a declining
manufacturing industry, and less investment. They have hurt our farmers
and increased food costs.
These tariffs have inflicted real damage on our relationship with
Canada. Canada isn't just our neighbor. It has historically been one of
our strongest military allies and biggest trading partners. Trump's
constant insults, threats, and these punishing tariffs have turned one
of our best friends away from us and toward the People's Republic of
China.
Enough is enough. It is time that we end this. I urge my colleagues,
Republicans and Democrats alike, send Trump a clear message that he
can't unilaterally wage a trade war against one of our strongest allies
and biggest trading partners.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
The American people are watching. This is very simple. Why did we
take a year to get this vote? It is because Trump's tariffs are
unpopular--the majority of Americans know it--and a majority of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to be on the
record. Well, they are going to be on the record.
[[Page H2161]]
They know that more than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of these
tariffs. They know that the foreign governments don't pay these
tariffs. They know that American families do. The farmers feel it.
Small businesses feel it. Moms and dads feel it every time they see the
prices at the grocery store.
What this is, we can go back and forth, but the American people are
watching. They are the ultimate judges. They can see. They can hear.
They know our friend. They know how Canada and Canadians are friendly
to us in the United States of America, closest partners. Many Canadians
have given their lives for us.
The American people can watch. What this simply does, this
resolution, we will see. If you think that there is a crisis with
Canada, then vote.
Still, the Constitution says it is the House of Representatives and
the United States Congress, it is within our authority. Don't punt.
Don't just hide behind somebody else. That is what this will do. If you
believe that this is an emergency, vote that way, if that is what you
really believe.
However, if you go to the grocery stores, if you see the price of
beef, if you look at the price of coffee, if you feel that the economy
is suffering as a result of these tariffs, if you think the economy for
the average, everyday American is as good as those billionaire friends
that the President has, then you vote with the President.
{time} 1600
Give up, but don't give up your authority as a Member of this House
to vote. The first fight here was the power to vote on this issue,
which was blocked for 1 year. I choose not to give up that power.
Whether I agree or disagree, I want to vote on it. That was prevented
for over a year.
Today, we will vote on it. I thank some of my colleagues on the other
side who have had the courage to stand up and say: Let's vote. Let's
vote on this, and let the American people know how we stand. Let's vote
on this to see if we believe that tariffs cause an affordability issue.
Let's vote on this if we believe that Canada is not our friend, if
Canada is an adversary, and you feel we should block a bridge like the
President is talking about now, a bridge that Canadians paid for right
across, block it, make them the 51st State, and insult them. If that is
what you want to do, do it.
If you want to stand to bring down prices, if you want the average,
everyday American to be able to raise their children and live the
American Dream, if you want to make sure that families can afford to
pay their rent, can afford to buy food, can afford to have healthcare,
then you vote ``yes'' for this resolution.
The jury is really the American people. They ultimately will vote.
They ultimately will tell us what is in their best interests. I have
confidence in the American people. That is why I wanted a vote on this
bill.
I didn't want to play the funny rules that were being played and were
attempted last night. Fortunately, some of my colleagues on the other
side did not want to play that game anymore either.
Those rules and those games that were played to prevent a vote on the
floor in the United States Congress are over. That is what this is
about, so the American people can see what we stand for. Do we stand
for just going blindly with the President of the United States, or do
we stand for the American people and making sure that their cost of
living is cheaper and affordable so they can simply send their kids to
school and be able to put a good meal on the table and a roof over the
heads of their families? That is what this vote is about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. My colleague over here is the ranking member, the top
Democrat. It is important that when we use our voice, when we speak, we
speak accurately.
Number one, they refuse to speak about the fact that this bill is
about ending an emergency relating to a fentanyl crisis. Number two,
every single item that they like to talk about on tariffs and Canada
are literally items that are exempt from tariffs in Canada.
It is very important, certainly as one of 435 in the House of
Representatives, that you know what you are talking about. It is
especially important as the number two person on the Foreign Affairs
Committee that you know what you are talking about when you talk about
tariffs.
There are not Canada beef tariffs, not Canada potash tariffs or dairy
or food or grain or fertilizer. The list goes on and on. They mentioned
coffee I don't know how many times.
The only things that there are tariffs on are things that are coming
in from third-party countries into Canada and then coming into the
United States of America. If it is grown in Canada, there is not a
tariff on it. It is very important that my colleagues know that and
recognize that and speak accurately in the positions that they are in.
Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what this is about.
My colleagues say there is no emergency. In fact, my colleague Mr.
Meeks said that if you think there is a crisis, if you think this is an
emergency, then vote. Those were his words.
I think the only person on that side who might be able to change the
mind of Democrats is my colleague, Mr. Meeks, who is, again, unwilling
to acknowledge that the death of 5,000 people in his State from
fentanyl alone in 1 year is an emergency. He is unwilling to
acknowledge it.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the remainder of my time here, about
1 minute, and give my colleague the opportunity one last time to
correct the record for his New Yorkers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for
the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. MEEKS. I will say that the American people are the judges. They
don't need to hear anything else. The American people will judge.
Mr. MAST. Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths aren't an
emergency?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida controls the
time.
Mr. MAST. Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths are an
emergency? Five thousand deaths in his State in 1 year from fentanyl--
preventable. The President is doing everything he can to stop it with
drug boats, with the Caribbean, with the northern border, with the
southern border. Crickets. You could hear a pin drop in here. Not a
word from them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of February 10, 2026, the previous
question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________