[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 14, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H4425-H4431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF (H.R. 139) SUNSHINE PROTECTION ACT OF
2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF (H.R. 8595) NATIONAL SECURITY,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2027;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF (H.R. 9237) TAKE CARE OF AMERICA'S
VETERANS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF (H.R. 1181) PROTECTING
PRIVACY IN PURCHASES ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 1423 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1423
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 139) to make
daylight savings time permanent, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
8595) making appropriations for national security, Department
of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2027, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or
clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived.
Sec. 3. (a) No amendment to H.R. 8595 shall be in order
except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc
described in section 4 of this resolution, and pro forma
amendments described in section 5 of this resolution.
(b) Each amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 5 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against amendments printed in part
A of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc
offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 5 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 5. During consideration of H.R. 8595 for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8595
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 9237) to amend
titles 10 and 38, United States Code, and other Federal laws,
to improve benefits for veterans and the administration of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 8. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1181) to
prohibit payment card networks and covered entities from
requiring the use of or assigning merchant category codes
that distinguish a firearms retailer from general-merchandise
retailer or sporting-goods retailer, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill,
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 9. In the engrossment of H.R. 8595, the Clerk shall--
(a) add the text of S. 1383, as passed by the House, as new
matter at the end of H.R. 8595;
(b) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment;
(c) conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the engrossment; and
(d) be authorized to make technical corrections, to include
corrections in spelling, punctuation, page and line
numbering, section numbering, and insertion of appropriate
headings within the engrossment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
{time} 1220
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House
Resolution 1423, providing for the House's consideration of four
measures: H.R. 139, H.R. 8595, H.R. 9237, and H.R. 1181.
First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 139, the Sunshine
Protection Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour
of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their
respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 8595, the
National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2027, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled
[[Page H4426]]
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, or
their respective designees, provides one motion to recommit, and makes
in order 29 amendments.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 9237, the
Take Care of America's Veterans Act, under a closed rule. The rule
provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, or
their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1181, the Protecting
Privacy in Purchases Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour
of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their
respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides that once the NSRP Appropriations Act is
passed, the Clerk shall add the text of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act,
to the bill and transmit it to the Senate as a single item.
Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of business to attend to in the people's
House this week, and part of that business is passing this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Now, I am sure, as is always the case, that our Democrat colleagues
will not be focused on the task at hand for even a mere second in this
debate. It would be a miracle if they did, Mr. Speaker. You and I both
understand that.
What they will end up doing is ruffling their own feathers, working
themselves into a tizzy, and spending their time blabbering on about
things that are unrelated to the business at hand. It is very typical
behavior.
The rule before us today advances four separate pieces of legislation
that all bear a common thread.
Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker.
The rule before us today advances four separate pieces of legislation
that all bear a common thread: They serve the interest of the American
people.
H.R. 8595 will make America stronger, safer, and more resilient
through the championing of America First foreign policy so that our
Nation and allies are supported while our adversaries are deterred.
H.R. 9237 is a comprehensive package of more than 60 bipartisan bills
which will enhance and reform the delivery of healthcare and benefit
services at the Department of Veterans Affairs for the entire veteran
community, including military and veteran families.
H.R. 1181 would prevent intrusive monitoring by the Federal
Government of Americans who exercise their constitutionally guaranteed
right to keep and bear arms.
H.R. 139 establishes daylight saving time as the permanent, year-
round standard time for the United States and would dispense with the
semi-yearly practice of resetting our clocks. For far too long, the
American public has spoken out against this disruptive practice. This
Congress and this President will bring the stability to American
households that our constituents have been endlessly seeking.
Advancing this rule and its underlying bills is the imperative before
us today, Mr. Speaker. The American people demand our doing so, and we
must act without hesitation or delay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to all my friends on the other side who have held this
floor hostage for weeks on end, let me save them the suspense: Nothing
changes with this rule.
There is nothing in this rule that forces the Senate to take up the
awful SAVE America Act. Nothing. The majority is simply attaching the
SAVE America Act on to an unrelated State Department funding bill and
sending it across the Capitol. The Senate can and will strip it right
back out. Everybody here knows that.
The fact of the matter is that the SAVE Act is never going to become
law because even Republicans know it is a disaster that will make it
more difficult, if not impossible, for American citizens to vote.
{time} 1230
What Republicans are doing here with this procedural move is not some
master strategy. It is merely political theater, designed to settle
another Republican family feud. If that is enough to flip Members who
have held up business for weeks, boy, they are cheap dates.
What this rule does is bring to the floor four bills.
The first would make daylight saving time permanent. Look, everybody
has an opinion about changing the clocks. I actually support this bill,
but for folks getting crushed by rent, groceries, utility bills, and
healthcare costs, is this really the best the majority can do? Is this
really the most pressing issue before the American people at this
moment?
Then, there are three bills Republicans tried to bring up weeks ago,
before their own chaos brought the House to a standstill.
One is the Department of State funding bill that cuts funding for
American diplomacy and foreign assistance.
Another would block the use of a merchant code for gun stores, making
it harder to flag suspicious purchasing patterns.
Then, there is the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
That title is doing a lot of work. That bill expands some benefits by
putting the disability compensation of future veterans on the chopping
block, particularly veterans suffering from tinnitus and sleep apnea.
In other words--get this--Republicans want disabled veterans to pick
up the tab for other veterans' benefits. That is just plain wrong. How
hard is it to understand that we shouldn't rob Private Peter to pay
Sergeant Paul?
The Veterans of Foreign Wars agrees. They were in the Committee on
Rules last night. The VFW strongly opposes this bill on behalf of the
veterans it represents, and it published a political cartoon to protest
the cuts. What did the Republican chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs do? He and other Republican Members sent a letter to
the Department of Veterans Affairs, asking the agency to review the
VFW's accreditation. That accreditation is what allows the VFW to
represent veterans before the VA and help them navigate the benefits
system.
Disagree with the cartoon, fine, say so, but do not use the Federal
Government to threaten the VFW's ability to help hundreds of thousands
of vets. That sure as hell looks like retaliation to me.
Veterans fought for the right to speak their minds. They should not
be threatened by their own government for exercising it, but this is
what happens when a majority becomes completely consumed by its own
dysfunction.
Meanwhile, Americans are working hard. They are doing everything they
have been told that they are supposed to do. Yet, somehow, they can't
get ahead. What is this Republican majority doing about any of it? Next
to nothing.
One of the bipartisan things that we actually did do to try and bring
down housing costs, Donald Trump refused to sign it. He let it become
law without his signature because he was angry that the Senate had not
passed his voter suppression bill.
I mean, imagine that. Think about how screwed up all of that is.
Families cannot afford to buy a home, rents keep climbing, and the
President of the United States used a bipartisan housing bill as
leverage in his fight over election lies.
That tells us everything we need to know about this party's
priorities. They will move heaven and Earth to protect Donald Trump's
political power, but when it comes to making life more affordable for
regular people, suddenly, they can't find the time. They can't be
bothered.
Republicans control the House. They control the Senate. They control
the White House. They control the Supreme Court. They still can barely
keep the House floor open long enough to do the people's work.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better than
this chaos, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Haridopolos).
Mr. HARIDOPOLOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding, and I
am
[[Page H4427]]
proud to stand beside her today in support of this good rule and talk
about the future of America.
I first have to say this: One of the things that makes America great
is that anything is possible, and I am very optimistic that we will be
able to pass legislation to make us all proud.
Just last week, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of America and
the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In my mind,
when you talk about the pursuit of happiness, it means improved by
care. That is exactly what we are looking to do when we change for the
better our VA system.
As the son of a veteran and a father of a person now in the military,
we make very simple pledges: that if you choose to serve your country,
we will provide for you after your service. This bill will make sure
that surely not only will you get the pension you deserve, but also
benefits if injured in service. It is common sense, and it has,
unfortunately, taken this long to get it all together.
The good news is that help is on the way. We respect those who serve,
those soldiers who put their lives on the line every single day for us
and allowed us to live in freedom for over 250 years.
For too many veterans, getting healthcare benefits means dealing with
long lines, confusing paperwork, or unnecessary government red tape.
This bill will fix that.
It makes it easier for veterans to see a doctor when they need one,
whether it is at a VA hospital or a trusted provider back at home. It
speeds up disability payments, expands access to mental health care,
and also improves care for veterans with serious injuries. It also
helps families who have sacrificed alongside them. It provides more
support for caregivers, protects benefits for surviving spouses, and
gives servicemembers better tools to transition from military life to
civilian careers.
Just last week, I met with so many veterans back in my district, and
they know that there are some things that maybe we can improve, as
always. What I think politics is is the art of the possible, and
without a doubt, this bill will move forward, keeping the promise that
you will get not just your pension but your benefits that you have
earned should you be injured in service.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for putting this forward. It is so
important that we move this type of bill forward because we are
celebrating the 250th anniversary and the pursuit of happiness because
of the sacrifice our veterans have made.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman by saying that
whatever good is in this veterans bill is offset by the bad. Basically,
they are saying we are providing veterans' benefits by cutting other
veterans' benefits. I mean, this is a shell game.
That is why the VFW is furious, why they are pissed over this bill,
why they have told their membership to contact Members of Congress,
Democrats and Republicans, to oppose it.
If this were a tax cut for billionaires, my Republican friends don't
care about an offset. If it is an illegal war in Iran, they don't care
about offsets. When it comes to providing veterans' benefits, all of a
sudden, we have to find offsets. Those offsets that they have found to
pay for this are by cutting other veterans' benefits. That is
unconscionable. That is wrong, and everybody should vote ``no'' on that
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member
McGovern for his remarks, and I could not agree with him more.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule for many
reasons, as expressed--the outrage about what is in here regarding
veterans and their deserved, earned benefits. For my remarks, within
it, I will speak to the Sunshine Protection Act.
I worry that this bill is repeating the mistakes of the past and that
it is being rushed to the floor without a robust committee process.
We tried permanent daylight saving time during the 1970s oil crisis,
and it lasted less than a year. The policy was popular until parents
realized their children had to travel to school in darkness, armed with
flashlights. After eight Florida children were killed in traffic
accidents, the Governor called on Congress to end the 2-year experiment
early.
{time} 1240
Over 50 years later, we are making the same mistake again. Please,
let's not. We are doing it with less information.
The only hearing on time zones this Congress focused on tourism and
golf courses. Members should have been able to speak and ask doctors
how permanent daylight savings time would affect our health, safety,
and well-being.
My home State is Pennsylvania. We did just this in April. In a
hearing, Dr. Indira Gurubhagavatula, director of the Sleep Medicine
Fellowship at UPenn, explained that our body clocks rely on bright
light when we wake up in the morning and dim light in the evening
before we go to bed.
Under this bill, Pennsylvanians would wake up in the darkness for
months. In some parts of the State, over 100 sunrises would be after 8
a.m. Disruption in our natural sleep-wake cycle can reduce reaction
time, alertness, and other measures of performance and safety.
Sleep deprivation leads to a higher risk of serious health conditions
like obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, depression, and some
forms of cancer.
This topic deserves robust debate, not a closed rule. Congresswoman
Scanlon proposed an amendment for a permanent standard time to do just
that, but it was promptly rejected.
In closing, for the health and safety of our constituents, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat
the previous question, I will offer an amendment to allow the House to
take an up-or-down vote on an amendment to H.R. 8595, sponsored by
Representative Schrier, which would reverse the cuts to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention that were imposed by the Trump
administration that could have prevented the ongoing outbreak of
cyclospora, a parasite that has already infected thousands of
Americans.
Last year, the Trump administration began illegally defunding Federal
health and science agencies, firing scientists and researchers, and
cutting programs that keep us healthy and safe.
One of the programs that Trump cut was called FoodNet, and it helped
Federal and State public officials monitor and prevent outbreaks for
eight different foodborne illnesses, including cyclospora. Yet, after
Trump and his DOGE goons got their hands on this lifesaving program,
the government stopped monitoring cyclospora.
That was stupid. It was dumb. Our country is now experiencing a full-
blown outbreak of, you guessed it, cyclospora.
For the sake of everyone's health, I urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so we can reverse these dangerous cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rulli). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, right now, our country is facing a public health crisis
that has been created by the Trump administration. From misinformation
about vaccines and lifesaving medicines to devastating cuts to critical
research, along with political litmus tests, this administration is
putting Americans in danger.
Specifically, the cuts to the CDC have been disastrous. Our public
health workforce has been attacked, and our ability to assess and
respond to outbreaks has been decimated.
We are now seeing the worst measles outbreak in decades, and the
number of
[[Page H4428]]
Americans affected by cyclospora is rapidly growing in over 30 States,
and because of inadequate surveillance, that may just be the tip of the
iceberg.
Last year, the Trump administration changed the CDC's FoodNet
surveillance program, narrowing the number of pathogens under active
surveillance, including cyclospora. The health and lives of thousands
of Americans are on the line as they contract diseases that the CDC has
helped us prevent for years and has screened for, for years, all
because of the actions of this administration.
If you are an American right now with measles, this CDC has failed
you. As cyclospora spreads, the CDC is not meeting expectations.
Communication has been sparse. Misinformation is rampant, and real
information is lacking. HHS Secretary Kennedy, as a leader, has been
completely absent in helping with any of it.
As a doctor and a Member of Congress, I am outraged and deeply
concerned. We need the CDC to be restored to its previous capacity,
because you don't really know how critical our public health service is
and our CDC is until there is an outbreak and we can't manage it.
Every death from preventable illnesses should be laid at the Trump
administration's feet until these changes are undone.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the American people need to take note of the amount of
rhetorical smog emanating from the other side of the Chamber, because
it is obscene. Our Democratic colleagues continue to weave together an
entirely disingenuous and deceptive narrative that Democrats are the
ones standing at the forefront of the conversation when it comes to
supporting our Nation's veterans. That has never been the case and will
never be the case.
If Democrats truly cared enough about veterans, they would spend
their time supporting Chairman Bost's bill and not coming up with hack
job, so-called solutions that do nothing to reform the VA and deliver
high-quality care and service to those who have served this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, it is sad that our colleagues across the aisle have
chosen this position. It is sad that they can gin up misleading
narratives and hawk them around like someone delivering newspapers on a
bike.
The bill before us ensures that combat-disabled servicemembers who
were medically retired through no fault of their own receive the
benefits they earned while maintaining equity across retiree
populations.
This is what happens when personalities of the day and political
gamesmanship subvert actual legislating, like what Chairman Bost and
Republicans have been doing the entire time. The former doesn't deliver
for veterans. It treats them like second-class citizens. Their solution
is spending more money while delivering fewer outcomes.
Wow, color us shocked. It is a story as old as time.
Instead, the bill before us today would reduce net direct spending by
approximately $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. In an era of growing
deficits and debt, H.R. 9237 demonstrates that Congress can advance
significant veterans' priorities while remaining fiscally responsible
and reducing overall Federal spending.
Republicans are focused on targeted relief. This is targeted relief
that focuses on combat-disabled veterans, includes additional fairness
safeguards, and does not throw money at a problem with the meager hope
of things fixing themselves by osmosis.
Let's run through what else you will not find in the cobbled-
together, so-called solutions that Democrats are throwing their weight
behind.
You won't find a unified Democratic effort to reform the VA's
outdated construction and leasing processes that delay the opening of
clinics and facilities across the country. In Chairman Bost's bill,
Republicans are doing just that.
You won't find the Democratic commitment to ensure that veterans can
continue to access the mental health care support services in the
communities where they live nationwide. In Chairman Bost's bill, it is
there.
You won't find Democratic solutions to slash government bureaucracy
that hinders veterans from accessing the care they deserve and earned.
In Chairman Bost's bill, they are there.
Mr. Speaker, that is the difference here. All Democrats see is
another government program to funnel money into without any commitment
whatsoever to improving the lives of those the program serves. They
will contort the language they use and the policy gimmicks they cook up
to mislead people and organizations into believing mistruths.
{time} 1250
VSOs, the purpose-driven organizations that are dedicated to
advocating for veterans, have been led to believe that Republicans
somehow want to rob veterans of their benefits, but that is entirely
untrue.
As is evidenced by President Trump's efforts, the efforts of
Secretary Collins at the VA, and the veteran-driven legislation here in
Congress, Republicans see veterans and meet them where they are.
Republicans see and understand the problems that veterans face every
day and want to ensure that the VA is nimble, responsive, and
rightsized so that veterans are not left in the dark and to fend for
themselves.
Here is a final little nugget that I will leave you with, Mr.
Speaker: The majority of our Republican members on the Veterans'
Affairs Committee are indeed veterans. There is only one Democrat on
that committee who is a veteran.
I trust veterans to know and understand what veterans need and
deserve. People are actually attuned to issues veterans face as opposed
to those who simply haven't the slightest clue.
Republicans are the ones with actual solutions here. We are not
bloviating like so many have chosen to do. We are fighting for
veterans, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If there were people watching these proceedings and listening to my
Republican friends, they may conclude that they sound a little
defensive because they are, and they should be, especially on these
veterans issues.
The bottom line is that the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
strongly opposes the disability benefit cuts that are included in the
proposed Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
entire statement of the VFW and their strong, strong opposition to
these cuts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From VFW, June 11, 2026]
VFW Strongly Opposes Disability Benefit Cuts Included in Proposed Take
Care of America's Veterans Act
Washington--The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) stands
defiant in its opposition against provisions contained within
the proposed Take Care of America's Veterans Act, H.R. 9237
and S. 4744, which would offset the cost of expanding
benefits for combat-injured veterans by cutting disability
compensation and health care access for future generations of
disabled veterans.
``The VFW strongly opposes the Take Care of America's
Veterans Act as currently drafted because it asks future
disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits
through changing the VA rating schedule for tinnitus and
obstructive sleep apnea which are common conditions
associated with combat poly trauma,'' said VFW National
Commander Carol Whitmore. ``We have long maintained that
veterans' benefits are an earned obligation of the nation, a
promise made through the military service contract and should
not be financed through offsets, fee increases or reductions
that place additional burdens on veterans, military families
and 99 survivors.''
According to VA estimates, these changes could reduce
disability compensation payments by approximately $57 billion
over ten years and affect up to 1.5 million veterans. The VFW
vehemently rejects these provisions not only because they
would unfairly penalize disabled veterans, but also because
they set a dangerous precedent by allowing Congress to alter
disability ratings for budgetary purposes rather than relying
on medical evidence and the established principles of the VA
rating schedule.
``Congress should Honor the Contract and strengthen
veterans' programs without creating new costs for those who
sacrifice in service to our country,'' said Whitmore. ``A
grateful nation pays its debts to veterans; it does not send
them the invoice.''
The VFW is urging Congress to remove the disability
compensation offset provisions from the legislation and
identify alternative funding mechanisms that do not come at
the
[[Page H4429]]
expense of disabled veterans and their families.
Veterans, service members, family members and supporters
are encouraged to contact their elected officials and urge
them to oppose the disability compensation offset provisions
contained in the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I trust the VFW more than I trust the
Republican millionaires' club that basically populate the United States
Congress on their side in this Chamber. The VFW is saying we can do
these benefits without punishing other veterans.
I find it amusing because the gentlewoman says we need to find
offsets. Well, she voted basically to increase the debt by $4.7
trillion in the big, ugly bill, adding $4.7 trillion to the debt.
Included in that, by the way, is $70 billion, again, unpaid for, for
ICE and CBP. Again, they have no problem with doing that. They have no
problem with tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and now
America's trillionaire, and no problem with tax cuts for them that are
not paid for, but when it comes to providing veterans' benefits, all of
a sudden they have a problem?
By the way, just for the record, there is a discharge petition that
has been filed to basically bring the Major Richard Star Act to the
floor without cutting other benefits for veterans. Every Democrat is on
that, every Democrat. We can bring this to the floor. We can have this
debate. We can vote on providing veterans additional benefits without
cutting other veterans' benefits. That is the choice.
When I hear these speeches about, oh, we really are doing all that we
can, and we are on the side of veterans, again, the VFW opposes this
strongly. They showed up in the Rules Committee, filled up the Rules
Committee hearing room yesterday to show their protest, their outrage,
over what Republicans were doing.
Republicans don't have to do this. Republicans could provide veterans
with the benefits they need without robbing other benefits that
veterans need. It is that simple.
This is outrageous. This is outrageous what is going on, and people
should not be fooled.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, as I think we can all tell from the ensuing
debate here, there are serious issues that this body needs to be
wrestling with, but the Speaker has chosen to put on the floor this
week H.R. 139, a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent.
I think there is one thing everyone in this Chamber can agree on:
Americans do not like changing their clocks twice a year.
The big question isn't whether we should ditch the switch; it is how.
Unfortunately, the bill that the Speaker has chosen chooses the wrong
solution by making daylight saving time permanent nationwide while
denying States the right to enact permanent standard time if they so
choose--not if, but when they discover that Congress made the wrong
choice.
We can all understand the appeal of an extra hour of sunlight in the
summer, but permanent daylight saving time comes with serious health
and safety concerns with even darker winter mornings.
If this bill becomes law, winter mornings across the country are
going to look very different. Millions of Americans will wake up during
the winter months in complete darkness, with the Sun not rising until
long after people get up and travel to school or work or have to go
about their days.
In much of upstate and northern New York, communities will not see
the Sun rise until well after 8:30 a.m. In Michigan, it will be close
to 9 before the Sun comes up. In parts of the Pacific Northwest,
sunrise will be pushed even later than 9 a.m.
In many parts of the country, children will be waiting for
schoolbuses in darkness. Parents will be driving to work before
sunrise. Morning commuters, students, and pedestrians will be starting
their day in the dark, not because of the seasons, but because Congress
decided to move the clock instead of following the Sun.
We don't have to speculate about what would happen under permanent
daylight saving time. We already tried it. During the 1974 energy
crisis, Congress made daylight saving time permanent in a failed
attempt to save energy. It lasted less than a year.
Families found themselves sending their kids to school in the dark,
and there was a rash of fatal crashes involving schoolchildren.
Communities raised serious safety concerns, and public support, which
initially was quite strong, quickly collapsed. Congress repealed the
policy within months.
The science has only become clearer since then. Medical and
scientific experts have endorsed the move to permanent standard time
because permanent daylight saving time disrupts our natural circadian
rhythms, the internal clocks that regulate when we sleep and wake. That
disruption has been linked to higher rates of heart disease, stroke,
chronic sleep deprivation, and other adverse health concerns. These bad
outcomes are even more serious and long-lasting than the sleep
deprivation, traffic accidents, and heart attacks that follow the
twice-yearly changes that we currently have.
I have also heard directly from my constituents. Like most Americans,
they are ready to ditch the switch, but when I ask which permanent
system they would prefer if they had to choose, the clear preference
was for standard time. A Gallup poll last year found that Americans
preferred permanent standard time to permanent daylight saving time by
2-to-1.
That is why I have introduced the bipartisan Sunshine for Our Kids
Act with Representative Pat Harrigan. Our bill would end the clock
changes and make standard time the national default.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. SCANLON. Importantly, it would also allow for States to adopt
permanent daylight saving time through State law if they choose.
If we are going to make a permanent change that affects every
American, we should follow the science, learn from history, and
prioritize Americans' health, particularly that of our children. That
is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on H.R. 139.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining
on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has
16\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have great affection and respect for VFW members. In
fact, I have great respect and admiration for every organization that
represents veterans. It is because of veterans that we speak English
here today and that we are the greatest country in the world.
I would like to set the record straight about which veteran
organizations are supporting this legislation. We have The American
Legion, and I am not going to read the entire quote, but there is a
quote here from Daniel Wiley, American Legion national commander, who
said: ``For over a century, The American Legion has been the leading
veterans service organization advocating for passage of nearly all
major expansions or reforms to healthcare and benefits that benefit
veterans and their families.''
{time} 1300
``After thorough consideration of the legislative and regulatory
environment, which included conversations with legislators who both
agree and disagree with the bill, we believe TCAVA is the best path
forward to get these crucial bills enacted into law.''
``The Take Care of America's Veterans Act represents our Nation's
sacred promise to those who serve and those they leave behind,'' said
Bonnie Carroll, president and founder of the Tragedy Assistance Program
for Survivors, or TAPS.
The Military Officers Association of America has supported this
legislation. The Wounded Warrior Project and 16 other groups support
the legislation before us today.
Steve Schwab, CEO of the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, is quoted here:
``This legislation is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stand with
the veterans, caregivers, and survivors who have sacrificed so much for
our country.''
Mr. Speaker, I have page after page after page of quotes from these
various
[[Page H4430]]
organizations that support this legislation. I believe they are correct
in supporting the veterans legislation which is a part of this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am glad the gentlewoman decided to go down this pathway because it
is not only the Veterans of Foreign Wars that oppose this, but the
Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, the Hispanic Veterans Leadership Alliance, the Black Veterans
Project, Reserve Organization of America, Veterans Education Success,
Student Veterans of America, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve
Association, Minority Veterans of America, Common Defense, Vet Voice
Foundation, National Security Leaders for America, Swords to
Plowshares, The Chamberlain Network, Unite for Veterans Coalition,
Veterans for Common Sense, Veterans for Responsible Leadership. I could
go on and on and on.
The gentlewoman began by mentioning The American Legion. She may not
know this, but as we speak, The American Legion in Texas, representing
one of the largest memberships of The American Legion, has come out
against this bill and is urging The American Legion nationally to now
follow its lead and come out against this bill.
The bottom line is, the more veterans' organizations know that they
are getting screwed, the more and more they are coming out against this
bill. They are in favor of the Major Richard Star bill, which would
provide and expand veterans' benefits without taking away other
veterans' benefits. It is that simple.
This is a bad bill and, quite frankly, the more people realize what
is in this bill, the more they realize the cuts in this bill that will
adversely affect the veterans' community, the more and more people will
come out against this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Landsman).
Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1181,
which is in this Rules package. I want to talk about the bill because
it is going to make it harder for us to fight gun violence in America.
The majority is bringing to the floor a bill that would prevent
credit card companies from coding the sale of firearms, meaning that if
you buy a firearm from a gun manufacturer, from a gun seller, this
Congress is saying we don't want to track that, we don't want to code
it. We code everything, but we are not going to code this.
It makes it even harder for us to fight gun violence in America.
Some headlines from home:
``18-year-old dies after shooting near Westwood store.''
``Cincinnati Police Department investigating after shooting in
Avondale.''
``1 shot in East Price Hill, search underway for suspect.''
``No arrests made after 3 weekend shootings in Greater Cincinnati.''
These are all headlines from this weekend.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ciscomani). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, the question then becomes: Why are they
siding with gun manufacturers and not law enforcement? Why are they
siding with the gun sellers and not our kids?
It is a terrible bill based on a flawed ideology that somehow if you
sell a gun, you are more important than the people who get shot by one.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we don't side with killers. We side with the
Constitution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this debate has made one thing very clear. Republicans
are not the victims of this chaos. They are the perpetrators of this
chaos. There is only one party that controls this floor and all three
branches of government. Republicans set the agenda. Republicans write
these awful rules. Republicans control the schedule, and Republicans
have chosen to spend week after week fighting with one another while
regular working people are getting squeezed.
News flash to my Republican colleagues: The American people know the
difference between working and pretending to work. They know that
passing the same voter suppression bill again and again will not lower
their rent. They know that stapling the SAVE Act onto yet another piece
of legislation will not bring down the price of groceries. They know
that threatening the VFW will not improve veterans' care. They know
that changing or not changing the clocks will not change what is in
their bank account.
Mr. Speaker, if Democrats were in the majority, we would begin every
day with one simple question: How do we make life more affordable for
working people in this country?
We would work to build more housing. We would work to lower rents and
stop giant Wall Street firms from bidding families out of the market.
We would take on corporate consolidation and price gouging that are
driving up the cost of food.
We would lower health insurance premiums and prescription drug prices
instead of ripping coverage away to pay for more billionaire tax
breaks.
We would make childcare more affordable. We would lower utility bills
and end these stupid tariff taxes that show up in the price of nearly
everything that people buy.
In addition, we would stay here and we would keep working until the
job was done.
Now, I am not saying that every problem would be solved overnight,
but we would put real solutions on this floor. We would allow debate. I
mean, we don't debate anything anymore. Most of the bills that come to
this floor are completely closed, where nobody can offer an amendment,
take it or leave it.
I mean, you know, and when something did not pass, we would keep
trying. We would keep trying until we got it right, until we helped
people in this country. I mean, that is our job. That's what we are
supposed to do.
When it comes to veterans, Democrats would fund the benefits that
these veterans earned. We would not pit one generation of disabled
veterans against another, and that is what my Republican colleagues are
doing.
It is really not only frustrating; it is unconscionable. That should
not be a partisan statement, by the way, in terms of helping our
veterans. That is basic decency.
The American people deserve a Congress that is focused on
affordability, not on Donald Trump's long list of petty grievances and
attempts to rehash old conspiracy theories from 6 years ago. They
deserve a majority that understands that power is not about controlling
the floor. It is about using the floor to help people, to improve the
quality of life for the people that we represent.
Republicans have had their chance. They blew it. They have wasted it.
I urge my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote
``no'' on this rule. Let us end the chaos and get back to work for the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1310
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As I said at the outset of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of
business to attend to this week. Our work in service to the American
people continues.
We are not in chaos, Mr. Speaker. The four underlying measures of
this rule meet the priorities of President Trump, the administration,
and the American people. We are focused on commonsense measures.
As we have seen across our country in recent weeks and months, the
Democratic Party is being taken over by communists, and we know that
communists have never made the world a better place to live.
A vote against this rule and its underlying measures is a vote to
deny the priorities of all three of the entities I have mentioned and
to deny positive progress. We would all do well to remember that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
[[Page H4431]]
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my intention to vote
against H. Res. 1423, the rule for consideration of H.R. 8595, National
Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
I oppose the resolution as written so that the House of Representatives
can advance my amendment to Massie Amendment No. 8, printed therein.
Should the Rules Committee meet again, I would offer an amendment to
the Massie Amendment that would read, ``After page 1 1ine 6 insert the
following: (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent
the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the West Bank, the
Palestinian Authority, or the broader region, nor shall it be construed
to prevent support of Palestinian Security Forces in the West Bank, and
nor shall it be construed to prevent the delivery of defensive weapons
for the protection of Palestinians and Israelis.''
This would prevent the passage of the Massie Amendment from impacting
the delivery of humanitarian aid and items critical for defense.
However, without the opportunity to advance my amendment, I will oppose
H. Res. 1423.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 1423 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 10. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment specified in section 11 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in part A of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution if offered by Representative Schrier of Washington
or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent.
Sec. 11. the amendment referred to in section 10 is as
follows:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. RESTORATION OF CERTAIN FUNDING RELATED TO PUBLIC
HEALTH
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall restore to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all unexpended
but obligated funding appropriated by Congress to assist
State and local health departments, nongovernmental
organizations, and international programs for public health
related initiatives, including testing, data reporting,
community health workers, initiatives to address health
disparities among high-risk and underserved populations,
health department staffing, immunization clinics, and
prevention programming.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________