Markup on Sunshine Protection, State Appropriations, Veterans, Privacy Purchases

busy

busy

busy people and we're on

yeah me too good to have you here Paul i'm very excited about this it's always good to have you here i'm very excited about this good to have you here i'm very excited about this i'm very excited about this this is um You guys are having a great conversation. Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider a single measure, H R one thirty nine, the sunshine protection act of twenty twenty five. This legislation establishes daylight savings time at the permanent year-round standard time for the United States and would dispense with the semi-yearly practice of resetting our clocks. Every November, as all of us are well aware, we follow the annual fall back. But under this legislation, Americans would no longer need to turn back their clocks an hour. Further, H R one thirty nine provides exemptions for Arizona, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands. As they currently adhere to standard year-round time, and therefore remain on permanent standard time. The remaining forty-eight states under this legislation will be granted the authority to lock their clocks permanently. There are two important things to note here. First, President Trump has made clear his support for this legislation. And he remains adamant that Congress pass it and send it directly to his desk to end what all of us would agree is a tedious and entirely repetitive process. Second, we should take note of the bipartisan support this legislation has garnered, both in the House and the Senate. There's consensus on this issue across the ideological spectrum. I look forward to the testimony of our panel here today. I'm sure they have some pertinent facts and figures to share with us about why this legislation is a win for the American people and the nation. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mister McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, and um, I didn't know it was re- reruns week at the Rules Committee. Uh, you know, what's next? Are we gonna bring I Love Lucy to the House floor, or Gilligan's Island, I mean, we're meeting on three bills we already met on. Uh, and the new, uh, and the one new piece of legislation we're considering is a bill about daylight savings time. I mean, really? Uh, not affordability, but daylight savings time. And people have strong views on on that bill, so I look forward to the debate, and I'm not saying it's not important, but uh, but gee, maybe maybe we should focus on some of the more obvious challenges facing uh Americans. like grocery costs or rent prices or affordability uh but that's just my opinion but instead we're doing three re-runs this week we already considered them all uh we're doing them again today why because mike johnson can't get his act together and this majority can't keep the floor open we have a state department bill that guts diplomacy and humanitarian aid a bill that makes it harder to flag suspicious gun purchases and a veterans package that pays for benefits today by cutting benefits tomorrow. And w- and one thing I'll add, uh, is that since we last considered the veterans bill, uh, the Republican chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee has publicly attacked the veterans of foreign wars, a. k. a. the VFW, one of the oldest and most influential veterans associations in America, which opposes the Republican veterans bill on behalf of their more than one million veteran members and i wanna uh uh i wanna express my appreciation for them being present today in the rules committee but the republican chair of the veterans committee is accusing the vfw listen of of all things of inciting violence over a political cartoon and sent a letter urging the trump administration to pull the vfw s accreditation as a veteran service organization jeopardizing vfw s ability to help veterans get their get the benefits that they earned Now let that let that sink in for a minute. And now, MAGA is trying to weaponize the VA against the VFW as retaliation. That is one of the most offensive things I have seen in a while. And I just want to say publicly that I find it deeply, deeply, deeply troubling. The VFW is not some fringe activist group. It's the voice of American veterans who serve this country with honor and distinction. But the chairman's absurd comments fed a pattern with this majority and this administration of trying to use government to punish anyone who disagrees. I remember when we heard for four years false claims with zero evidence that Democrats were responsible for weaponizing government. You guys are doing exactly what you wrongfully accused us of, and you're not even trying to hide it. You're doing it out in the open for everyone to see. And I personally think it's really insulting for them to dishonor and disrespect those who served our country by questioning their patriotism and punishing them simply for disagreeing. This isn't complicated. When you draft a bill that cuts tens of billions of dollars in benefits for disabled veterans veterans are going to oppose your bill. You know, Republicans are so consumed by their own dysfunction that they have stopped even pretending to care about the issues they claim to care about. Inflation, the cost of living, the things impacting everyday people, those have all gone out the window. And for weeks we have watched the same ridiculous game. We sit through a meeting where Republicans claim the bills before us are incredibly important. Republicans report a rule that silences minority voices. Their role members start fighting with each other. Republican leadership finally admits the reality that we all that that that we can all see that they can't pass. a rule. They are in charge but they can't govern. The house shuts down, members get sent home early. And then some of those bills they claimed were so vital aren't even put back on the agenda. Clearly the urgency was made up. Meanwhile, rent is through the roof, groceries cost a fortune, health care, child care and utility bills keep going up because of Trump's crushing tariffs and stupid endless war which by the way is back on even though he's already declared victory like five times. And Congress finally, finally passed a bipartisan housing bill to lower housing costs. And what does Donald Trump do? Does he sign it into law to help people? Nope. He says he's uninterested. He calls it a, quote, " big yawn." And he doesn't even sign it. It became law in spite of him, but not because of him. Think about how screwed up that all is. Families cannot buy a home. People's rents uh continue to go up and up. And the president treats housing prices like a bargaining chip to use in his attempt to rig the midterm elections in November. And it's not just him, a handful of fringe MAGA members are grinding the house to halt over the same bill, the the so-called Save America Act, that they think will help them win in November by making it harder, by making it harder for uh American citizens to vote. They know the bill has no chance of becoming law, but they are still willing to shut down the floor and throw throw a temper tantrum over it. The entire Republican majority has been a total betrayal of America first, one fit after another by people who clearly are incapable of leading. And this week, I'm sad to say, is no exception. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our panel, chairman guthrie and ranking member Pilon from the house committee on energy and commerce. Your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Guthrie, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the recognition and thank you for the opportunity to testify on HR one thirty nine the sunshine protection act. This legislation makes daylight saving time permanent nationwide and removes the twice annual changing of the clocks. Americans are overwhelming so overwhelmingly supportive of this policy and want to end the practice of springing forward and falling back. Lock locking the clock all year round would have positive impacts on sleep schedules, energy conservation, motor vehicle safety and our economy. Nineteen states have proactively enacted legislation to observe daylight saving time year-round once Congress allows them to do so. The American Farm Bureau and other industries are also supportive of daylight saving time because of the practical uh and economical benefits. In practice, this change will mean more time for people to exercise outside, visit family, attend concerts, sporting events, attract customers, the retail business, and more. It means more sunlight at the end of the day so Americans can return safely from work and children can return safely from school. Thank you again for inviting me to testify and I look forward to answering any questions.

Thank you, Mister Guthrie, you may win the prize for this session of Congress for being the most succinct. Um, ranking member Pilon, you are recognized and you have a challenge.

I guess I'm not gonna meet the challenge unless I just say I agree with everything that Chairman Guthrie said but I do agree with everything that he said. But let me say uh a little more about it, I mean the bill as you know twice a year we're forced to change our clocks and when we spring forward or fall back we throw off our natural rhythms and wreak havoc on our sleep patterns and the sleep patterns of our kids and pets so there's a lot of science on this uh and and the really the question is why do we still change our clocks that's a question many of us ask every time we have to do it and it's getting harder and harder to justify considering that there was a two thousand twenty five poll that found only twelve percent of Americans said they prefer the current system on switching their clocks twice a year. And that's uh e- exactly what we're going to prevent uh with this legislation. It's also not only an inconvenience, but changing the clocks harms our health and safety. There've been a lot of studies, Madam Chair, and I'm ranking member and members of the committee, that have shown an increase in the rate of heart attacks and strokes in the two days immediately following the time change. moving to permanent daylight savings time will also provide a boost to our tourism industry. And of course, I'm a little prejudiced because, uh, I live at the Jersey Shore and people like to come to the Jersey Shore. Right now, in my hometown there's three times as many people as there are the rest of the year. And more evening light basically means more visitors to our boardwalks, more foot traffic for our small businesses, and more revenue for local economies. And this is especially important in a time when the tourism industry is suffering. Uh, I have to complain about the Trump administration because high visa fees, stories of legal tourists being harassed and detained, and strained diplomatic relationships have discouraged travelers from visiting our country. We used to get a lot of people from Canada who are not coming anymore to the Jersey Shore, because they simply don't feel welcome. At the same time, Americans are feeling the squeeze on their pocketbooks and fewer plan to travel this summer. So communities like mine that rely on tourism for our local economies are already feeling the impacts as we enter the peak of the summer travel season. But I want to acknowledge that finding consensus on whether to adopt permanent daylight savings time or standard time has been difficult. Majority of people and the majority of states with with laws on the books vastly favor making daylight savings time permanent, and there's a small minority that have adopted and currently use permanent standard time. What I'm saying, uh, members of the committee is, I don't really know anybody who wants to change the clock anymore. I think this is what uh chairwoman fox said but we still have some people who want permanent standard time and some people who want uh permanent daylight saving times. But I think overall the majority uh big majority want daylight savings time, and it's only a small minority that have adopted and currently use permanent standard time but under this bill the states that use permanent standard time can do so and if they enact a law before this becomes law they can also have standard uh time as as a permit, so it doesn't prevent that. But ultimately our local communities and tourism economy need the boost that I think the Sunshine Protection Act will bring the status quo of twice a year clock changes which disrupt our sleep armor health and satisfy almost no one, is the worst of all worlds. I have to be honest, having a single person say to me they wanna change the clocks, either for daylight or for standard, nobody's thinks that we should continue uh with the change um and because of all the reasons i mentioned so i yield back thank you

thank you mister polone i'll defer my question till later miss fischbach

i have no questions

has there been a question mister mcgovern

thank you thank you for coming i have no questions

ok um mister scott

uh uh i don't have any questions madam chair i think it's pretty simple i think mister polone could have done it in sixty seconds just like chairman guthrie did

Thank you, Miss Galen.

Thank you. Um, I I think I would have to agree with what several people have said, which is that if there's one thing Republicans, Democrats and independents agree upon, it's that Americans don't want to change their clocks. Twice a year, a Gallup poll from last year shows that seven out of ten Americans say we should ditch the switch. Um, this opinion is also endorsed by our medical community, which strongly supports ending the biannual time change. warning that the twice yearly transition causes significant physical and mental health disruptions we've heard about accidents we've heard about more heart attacks in the days immediately following the switch so the big question isn't whether we should end the clock Mm-hmm. changes it's how and unfortunately the bill that is being sent to us today is the wrong solution because it would make daylight savings time permanent nationwide and denying states the right to enact permanent standard time if they so choose. So while I agree with the ranking member that most Amer- most Americans, particularly those who are struggling to pay their gas and grocery bills, would rather we address more critical issues, but since this is the bill before us, I think we should know what we're getting into. Um, after this proposal, the, what is it, the Sunshine Protection Act, which would require permanent daylight savings time, after it was attached to an unrelated bill earlier this year, I dug into the science and facts around the issue and found that science and medical professionals have overwhelmingly endorsed permanent standard time rather than daylight savings time, because permanent daylight savings time is the wrong choice for our health and safety. It disrupts humans' natural circadian rhythms. Think about it, it was standard time for millennia for a reason. Um, and it has been linked to higher rates of heart disease, stroke, and chronic sleep deprivation. It's also particularly harmful to children and young adults, and that's where I first encountered the issue in my role as a school board member, because there's the issue of adolescents with chronic sleep deprivation because they have to get up before their bodies are ready to for early start times. So, we also don't have to speculate about what would happen under permanent daylight savings time because we already tried it. During the nineteen seventy-four energy crisis, Congress made daylight savings time permanent. It lasted less than a year. While there was overwhelming support for it at the outset, families found themselves sending children to school in the dark. There was a rash of fatal crashes involving school children. Communities raised serious safety concerns and public support quickly collapsed. Permanent daylight savings time was within a year because it didn't work. We all enjoy the extra hour or so of sunlight in the summer, but when people are considering this, they need to consider the extra hours of darkness in the winter. Places like Minnesota wouldn't have, uh, the sunrise until nine or nine thirty. There are charts where you can see how it would impact your individual region. And we know that, uh, here we are fifty years later, we've got some special interests who want to ram through permanent daylight savings time, apparently led by the golfing community. But I think we really do need to have full consideration of the health and safety impact, particularly on our kids. According to recent reports, I think it was Politico, the speaker's only bringing the daylight saving bill to the floor as a political trick, to try to get some rebellious Republicans to cooperate with the speaker's agenda and actually pass a rule this month. As part of the research I did when this issue started bubbling up, I asked my constituents which option they would support if we were to ditch the switch. A clear majority said that they would prefer permanent standard time to permanent daylight savings time. And that result is also borne out by a Gallup poll that was um taken last year. Forty eight percent, given the choice between pern permanent standard time and permanent daylight savings time forty eight percent would take permanent standard time only twenty-four percent would take permanent daylight savings time, once they considered all of the facts. So, that's why I recently introduced a bipartisan bill with Representative Pat Harrigan from North Carolina. It's H R nine six three eight, the Sunshine for Our Kids Act, which would end the clock changes and make standard time the national default. Importantly, it does allow for states to adopt daylight savings time if they wish to through state law. Unlike the act before us now, the, what is there, protect, sunshine protection act, which says you're gonna be stuck with whatever you have as the act goes into effect. So if we're gonna make a permanent change that affects every American, we should follow the science and prioritize American's health, particularly that of the children. I think we also should look to the history of what has happened when we have adopted permanent daylight savings, I vividly remember walking to school when the moon was up and watching the sunrise over the strip mall across the street from my school. Um, so I will be proposing that we amend today's rule to substitute consideration of the Sunshine for Our Kids Act instead of the bill to make daylight savings time permanent. And if people are interested, there's a Washington Post article entitled " Why People Hated Permanent Daylight Saving Time When the US Last Tried It". It's in the Washington Post, March eighteenth, twenty twenty two. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Ganlin. Mister Griffith.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I ask uh both uh uh Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone. Uh, this passed out of Energy and Commerce uh with a pretty significant vote, did it not?

It did.

And there wasn't any kind of trick going on when it passed out of committee in regular order. Isn't that correct?

Well, it it passed attached to the highway bill, yeah. But it was a little bit of a

Yeah.

change of topics.

With that in mind. With that on the record, we don't play tricks in energy and commerce. Because we can do it separately, though. Uh.

It was borrowed as a highway bill.

It Yeah. But there was not an amendment to take it out,

Oh, yeah, I can do that, yeah.

is that correct? Right. And and the highway bill passed with one objection based on some other reason, isn't that correct?

Correct.

All right, I appreciate that. And then, uh, a lot of the science, Mister Pilon, is, isn't that based on the switching back and forth as opposed to picking one over the other?

Absolutely, yeah, uh.

everything i have seen in terms of the studies would indicate that it's the switch that creates the problem with a lot of uh you know health issues

yeah yeah

the fact that you switch

and and and that was my understanding as well then um uh mister guthrie uh if mister chairman guthrie if you if you would uh there was some concern that this would negatively impact arizona and maybe some other states that have elected to be on uh standard time And is that taken care of in the legislation?

It is. It's like Arizona, uh, Hawaii, and s- and several of our territories have permanent standard time. And any state that implements permanent standard time prior to the actment of this bill would also be covered as well.

So they, i- if, if a state wanted to between now and whenever the bill is enacted, which is probably sometime later this fall, maybe even early winter, uh, would be able to get together and say, we want to be permanent standard time.

They could,

Is that correct?

they could do that, and be grandfathered in.

I think that Miss Scanlon uh,

Yeah, go ahead uh, Mister Pilon.

is concerned that uh, if

Is your mike on? I'm just trying to make sure you can repeat it.

Yeah, but I think Miss Scanlon's concerned that if they decided later,

Yeah.

after the deadline that they wanted to switch, they wouldn't be able to. And that is true. But it is true that you can't change it.

It it can't switch afterwards.

You gotta do it before uh, it becomes a law. Which is what I agree with.

ok alright those are all the questions i have madam chair

thank you mister griffith mister langworthy

uh just thank the witnesses for being here i mean i i i'm not gonna uh sugarcoat it i do have concerns living in buffalo new york about a an early sunrise uh or a late sunrise that uh in in the month of december comes just before nine am uh but i do think the switching of the clocks back and forth is is some of the the greatest confusion and it it brings a lot of frustration to people so um you know well you know i'm i'm a little undecided right now as to where i go on this bill but um we've heard loud and clear that people don't wanna change the clocks so i don't really have any questions but i will yield back

thank you mister langworthy is there anyone else seeking to testify on today sorry oh i'm sorry Ms. Halchen,

Thank you, Madam Chair,

you're recognized.

and uh thanks to Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone for being with us in rules today. I am a proud co-sponsor of H R one thirty nine, the Sunshine Protection Act, and I decided to sign in support of this bill because I heard from my constituents loud and clear. Uh, more than ninety percent of uh respondents to a survey that I asked, uh constituents responded that they wanted to stop changing And they wanna stick with one consistent schedule. So the bill is simple and true to its name, it makes daylight savings time the permanent year-round standard for the country, putting the extra hour of light where families can enjoy it in the evening. Um, we used to have to tell our children that outside was closed when it was time for bed, cuz the sun was still shining and they didn't understand why they couldn't go out and play. Um, parents are are tired of um uh late afternoons disrupted sleep schedules uh the health side effects of having uh the clocks being changed with spring forward and falling back um is a real concern and i come from a part of indiana that we used to have slow time and fast time um so i i do appreciate the consistency uh of um having one clock so the my constituents made themselves very clear that they want one consistent system more daylight in the evening and an end to dark afternoons that would cut into family time and hurt local businesses chairman guthrie i uh my question for you is um to the point of the healthcare concerns what are the downsides of current spring forward and fall back um systems for public health for safety on the roadways for our workers and employers who have to absorb the disruption twice a year

well i think the downside is when um to change. That's the that seems to be the issue that people seem to have with the changing. The other, I mean, there's a choice, I know uh Miss Gatlin, uh, a friend from Pennsylvania talked about, I mean, you choose one or the other, do obviously you can't change the sun, it's the time that you have to do. And so where where do you have the extra light? And the lightness in the afternoon does show um significant societal health and economic benefit, roadway safety, extra hour of economic activity is important, a decrease in sleep loss, risk of heart attacks and seasonal depression, and quality of life with more daylight in the evening, and therefore more time for outdoor activities, decrease in crime with more daylight in the afternoon and increased energy conservation.

And is there any research on um uh those health impacts for when you lose an hour of sleep, how long it takes you to catch up, or do you ever catch up?

Well, I I don't have one uh a study to quote in front of me, I know that you the ranking member has talked about in his testimony is that, yeah, that that the big issue that people seem to have is when the clock changes to get their bodies back in line.

Yeah. And every

It takes um it uh it the the danger really is in the in the first few days as time goes on and weeks go by, the incidence of stroke and heart uh disease lessens, but there are significant problems in the first few days.

Yeah. uh and that's evident not just for um the older population but also for children too um i wanna thank you for uh this practical bipartisan answer supporting families and workers and even if i have to tell my kids that outside is closed uh to get them to go to bed when it's daylight at least uh they'll just be one time that we're operating on throughout the year thank you very much i

thanks

thank you miss houcher Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting, and I thank our witnesses for being here. Um, I do want to take a very quick point of personal privilege. I have two guests in the audience. Normally I would not take the time to introduce them, but I do a program called Teacher in Congress where every year I bring two teachers from my district up to um see how we operate. They had a good rules committee meeting here to see. So I want to introduce Jeff Crisp from High Brighton High School in Colwell County and Banner Griffin from Surrey Central High School in Surrey County. They are here, they started today. They will be shadowing me for the week. And um seeing how we do things here in Congress close up so when they go back to school, they can um help their students I hope understand things a little better about what we do. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Griffith.

Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H R one three nine, the sunshine protection act of twenty twenty five a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the bill be shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking a minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for cons- consideration of H. R. eight five nine five, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, twenty twenty seven. Under a structured rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority, member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill should be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause two or clause five A of rule twenty-one. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in part A of the rules committee report amendments in block described in section four and pro form amendments described in section five. Each amendment 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 oppo- and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section five of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rules wa- the rule waives all points of order against the amendments, printed in part A of the Rules Committee report or amendments in block described in section four of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee may offer amendments in block to consisting of amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments in block shall be considered as as read, shall be debatable for twenty minutes equally, divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of appropriations or the respective designees. Shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section five of the rule, shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to ten pro forma amendments, each at any point for purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H. R. nine two three seven, take care of Remekren's Veterans Act under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment printed in part B of the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amendment shall be considered as read the rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amendment the rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on veterans affairs or their respective designees the rule provides one motion to recommit the rule further provides for consideration of hr eleven eighty one the protecting privacy and purchases act under a closed rule. Rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that 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 and the bill as amended amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of eight of H R eight five nine five, the clerk shall add the text of Senate thirteen eighty-three as passed by the House as new matter at the end of H R eight five nine five, assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment, conform cross-references and provisions for short titles within the engrossment, and be authorized to make technical corrections to include corrections in punctuation, page, and line numbering, section numbering, and the insertion of appropriate headings. And that is my motion, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mister Griffith. Um, you've now heard the motion, is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?

Yeah.

Mister McGovern, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I I heard a lot of closed rules there. Um, but um, but I'm I'm reading through um the resolution that was just handed out. Um. And once again, it seems like Republicans are trying to murve or attach the save act to an unrelated bill before sending it to the Senate. And so let me be clear, uh, I think the save act is an awful, terrible, rotten bill. Um, it's not about election security, it's about relitigating Donald Trump's loss in twenty twenty, can't seem to handle it, and it's about making it more difficult for people to vote, my constituents and your constituents as well. But the last time you tried this, I exp- I explained to Congressman Luna and anyone else who watches the Rules Committee exactly why this scheme accomplishes absolutely nothing. It is just a big waste of time. Um, you know, it's um, it's it's it's essentially show business, uh, to uh, to think that you're actually moving something forward in a way that will get it over the finish line when you all know it it it's not the case uh so let me be clear the senate will just strip the save act out we all know that merving it with this bill or any bill does not prevent that nothing in this rule will prevent that so with that madam chair i i i just wanna ask you why are we we doing this can you explain how this is any different from the failure uh two weeks ago

Mister McGovern, I really wish you'd let us know next time how you feel about the rule. Um, I'm not sure your comments were clear.

OK.

Um

I'll try to be clearer in the future.

Thank you very much. Um, well, um, we have, uh, we we believe that this is one way for us to move forward this week, to accomplish a couple of things, get the save act passed again out of the house. and uh move along this other legislation that needs to be moved along and we appreciate very much your counseling miss luna

no i i just um i i mean i said at the my opening statement that these are these is re-run re-run week i mean we have we have been down this road before and anyway i i just find it interesting that anyone would be bought off by a strategy that uh everybody knows will not work i'm also seeing that this rule includes several bills that the Rules Committee already considered. Um, these bills were in recent rules that either failed on the House floor or were pulled because they would have failed on the House floor. Um, do you, can you give us assurances that this time will be different? Do you have the votes to to get this rule passed?

Well, we hope very much. We all, we live as optimistic people on the majority side on the Rules Committee, although we've had disappointments in the past, but We certainly believe that we have um uh bills that should be brought to the floor for, the rule should be brought to the floor for a vote and the bills within the rule be brought to the floor for a vote, so we're very optimistic.

And I also noticed that for some reason your new rule does not include making HREs thirteen eighty-three in order, which celebrates the one year anniversary of Republicans passing their big, ugly bill, which cut Medicaid by a trillion dollars, cut Snap by two hundred billion dollars, I mean you know um you've got so many essential um programs by billions of dollars uh is there a reason why this rule does not include your non-binding resolution

well we think that this is a full agenda for the week

so might we see that rear it's ugly head again in the future

well you'll have to wait and see

well ok well having said that i do have an amendment to the rule um i move

you're recognized

i move the committee strike section seven of the which would provide for the consideration of hr ninety two thirty seven the take care of america's veterans act under a closed rule and madam chair uh last july uh republicans voted to give the military more than a hundred and fifty billion dollars uh without any offsets the dod still has over ninety billion dollars unspent and instead of using any of those billions this bill would instead cut benefits for veterans with tinnitus or sleep apnea and raise fees on VA home loans to pay for it. It's a bad policy. We we went through this the last time this was brought up. And you all know that. And that's why it still hasn't made it to the floor despite including it in the in a failed rule two weeks ago. This shouldn't come to the floor right now. There is significant opposition amongst our veterans community. uh over this bill uh and we have an opportunity to pull it and to go back to committee um you know and not rob peter to pay paul uh not make veterans pay for an additional benefit quite frankly that they're entitled to and so um i would urge uh the members of this committee uh to support this i mean this is not ready to go to the floor this is not a piece of legislation that is worthy of this house. And I would urge a yes vote on my motion and I would yield back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Is there further uh uh debate on Mister McGovern's motion?

Madam Chair.

Miss Leslie Fernandez.

Madam Chair, I'd like to note that similar to the last time we discussed uh this bill, we have in the room with us many veterans of foreign wars. and they're here uh proudly wearing uh their this is a proper word hat proudly wear the hat that says the state that they're from uh and that they are proud members of the vfw and i know that's because you have served you've put your life at risk and i would just if uh the chair would indulge me ask uh how many of you are in favor of the richard's star act. The the Richard Starr act.

Yeah.

Uh, major Richard Starr act. Uh, I'd like to note that every veteran, uh, uh, that was identified with, uh, i- their, uh, VFW cap raised their hand. And I think that that's the kind of dedication that they have come here today, to the will's committee, uh, to express their support for that that approach to addressing the needs, uh, for meeting or obligations to provide benefits to the veterans who have served us across uh the seas. I support the amendment and I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Leslie Fernandez. Is there any further debate on Mister McGovern's motion? Hearing none, um, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

aye

aye

those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion chair the no's have it the amendment's not agreed to

i ask for a roll call

mister mcgovern requests a roll call vote the clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fischbach

no

Mrs. Fischbach no Mr. Norman Mr. Roy Mrs. Halchen Mrs. Halchen no Mr. Langworthy

no no

Mr. Langworthy no Mr. Scott

no

Mr. Scott no Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith no Mr. Jack Mister McGovern

aye

Mister McGovern I am a Scanlon

hi

Miss Scanlon I am Mr. Nguz

hi

Mister Nguz I am Miss Roger Fernandez

i'm gonna have my thought over and then we can do a bit of a

Mr. larger Fernandez. I am Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

Clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, six nays.

The um no's have it, the amendments not agreed to. Is there further discussion um on the bill? Miss Scanlon, you're recognized.

Yes, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order of amendment number one to H R one thirty nine, offered by myself, which would strike the language of the Sunshine Protection Act and replace it with the full language of the Sunshine for our Kids Act which would make standard time permanent while allowing states to pass their own legislation and acting permanent daylight savings time if they choose. I think our discussion today has shown that we agree on one thing, that Americans are tired of having to change their clocks twice a year, where we clearly disagree, and where I think a vast part of the public disagrees still is what should replace it. But as it stands, the House is only getting the opportunity to vote on one approach and that would be making daylight savings time permanent. members deserve the chance to debate and vote on both options, uh permanent daylight savings time or permanent standard time. As we heard during the hearing, this is not received full discussion and consideration, it was slotted into an amendment in a surface transportation bill, that's hardly the consideration that it deserves if we're gonna make the whole country adopt one time or another. And the very limited debate that we had exposed serious gaps in information for members to consider. um that the research only relates to the negative impact of switching um especially in when we spring ahead to daylight savings time in fact there is extensive research supporting the fact that uh permanent standard time is better for our health and safety um there's testimony in particular by a neuroscientist roxanne pritchard who is at the university of saint thomas in minnesota who talks about how it uh how permanent standard time is better for health, better for safety, um reduces obesity, and reduces stroke. Also the Indiana State Medical Association has a policy that it prefers um permanent standard time as does the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. Um we did have in fact a real time experiment with permanent daylight savings time, that was in nineteen seventy four and the experience was that while people went into it saying, oh, won't it be great, we'll have extra daylight every day, they forgot about the winter months, when we would not have extra daylight in the morning when people have to get up, kids have to get to school, people have to drive. People were so miserable, Congress had to repeal the law within a year. So, um, I don't see why we should be repeating the mistakes of the past here. Um, if permanent daylight savings time is truly the preferred policy, then so be it, but we shouldn't deny Congress the opportunity to consider the alternative that physicians and scientists and many of our constituents believe is the healthier and safer choice. My amendment would strike the test text of the Sunshine Protection Act and replace it with my bipartisan HR ninety-six thirty-eight sunshine for our kids act, which would make standard time the national default while preserving state's ability to adopt permanent daylight savings time if they choose. unlike the alternative that is before us here where people are gonna be stuck with what they have when the law goes into effect. So I would urge a yes vote on my amendment and I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Gatlin. Mister Griffith, you're recognized.

Ma- Madam Chair, I've long been for getting rid of having us flipping back and forth. And what I find curious is, and I don't know the answer, is that when we did it in the seventies and of course there was lot of things different, no internet, no lots of different things in the world back then. But they so well they went back to switching back and forth, which leads me to the conclusion, could be wrong, but leads me to the conclusion that people didn't want permanent standard time and that that this was uh uh an alternative that should be looked at. I will also say it concerns me some because I can remember, I don't know how many years ago, Chairman Upton was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and he favored standard time uh as well, but the bill never went anywhere because there could never there was never a consensus between whether we should be daylight savings time permanently or standard time permanently. And so my fear is that we get into a fight over which one is the better of the two when clearly not having to switch is going to be good for the health of most people. Uh, I I think this is where we're at, and I would say that that while it was a part of a larger bill that was that was discussed in energy and commerce, um, it was it was a separate component of that bill, there was discussion on that, and nobody offered uh, an amendment to that to to that to change it to standard. Uh, and nobody voted against the bill because it was going to daylight. So the regular order of the process is the Energy and Commerce Committee which would have jurisdiction over this has put its seal of approval on this bill. And so I I think this is where we ought to go. Um, if the public doesn't like it, the beauty of Congress is we can always change it. But right now my constituents and others are asking on a regular basis how come we have to keep flipping back and forth and I usually get those questions when we change but there's clearly an issue there and so I'm I'm going to vote against the gentlelady's

Would the gentleman yield just for a second?

um amendment and I'm happy to yield to the gentlelady

I I just wanted to point out that the Virginia Senate in March passed a bill saying that it would like to go to permanent standard time it just is waiting on Maryland and DC cuz it doesn't want to disrupt the regional um, efforts, but apparently the Virginia Senate has made a determination, so, um, you might wanna talk to some of your colleagues there. Thank you.

Well, and, and, and Madam Chair, I would just remind, uh, the gentlelady that the Virginia Senate, uh, just like here, the Senate doesn't run the House. Apparently the House didn't, according to what she's saying, the House didn't con- concur with that. And further, uh, we make independent decisions every day that may not agree with our current legislative body, uh, in, uh, my home state, the wonderful Commonwealth of Virginia. Yo, back.

Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Is there further discussion on the amendment from Miss Cantlin? Mister Neguse, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, well, first let me say I find the the entire discussion fascinating. But to be clear, I had a town hall in my district in Longmont a couple days ago. And I can assure you, Madam Chair, this is the one topic that did not come up. I got a lot of questions about health care prices, I got a lot of questions about corruption in Washington DC, all kinds of concerns about the Iran war. Nobody brought up daylight savings time. I think you could fairly describe the efforts of Republicans in terms of the priorities that you all are demonstrating here in the house this week as fiddling with the clocks while the country burns. Madam Chair, would you agree with that characterization?

No, Mr. Neguse, I'm like not.

You you disagree with that? Well, what's interesting is those are my words. Those are the words of one of your colleagues today. This is representative Keith Self, Republican member of the House. Quote, pathetic, Republicans are majoring in the minors, fiddling with the clocks while the country burns. He posted this online, one PM, today. In the context of the priorities that House Republicans have decided to pursue this week. I I I I don't he's not wrong. Again, not Democrat's words. This is a member of your caucus. One would assume that he doesn't vote on this rule. I mean, I can't imagine that he would vote for this rule, uh, given his distaste for the way in which Republicans are prioritizing their time. This week, the same could be said of uh, Representative Luna, and I know this is I don't wanna belabor the point here, but her tweet from last week quote if you believe in election integrity don't hide save america in a murph put it in the bill itself and so i just to be clear this is exactly what the house republicans have done they've they've hid it in a murph so for all of uh your colleagues madam chair whom i respect who voted against the rule ten days ago nothing has changed well the only thing that's changed is that we've we're now voting on daylight savings So that's the one thing that's changed and I and maybe that's enough to convince these members to abandon, uh, the the the principled vote that they took, uh, and instead support the rule. I suspect not, but I guess we're gonna find out tomorrow. But I'm happy to hear back.

Thank you, Mister Neguse. Further discussion. Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, say no. No. In the opinion chair of the no's have at the end um amendments not agreed to. Miss Ganlin requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott.

No.

Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack. Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern, aye. Miss Ganlin. Miss Ganlin, aye. Mr. Nguz. Mr. Nguz, aye. Miss Ledger-Pernandez. Miss Ledger-Pernandez, aye. Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, six nays.

Uh, the no's have it. Uh, the amendment is not agreed to. The further amendment to the rule.

Madam Chair.

Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, um, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order, amendment number one six seven to H R eighty five ninety five, offered by myself, which requires a report detailing the pax uh impacts of United States policies on the health system in Cuba, and requires the Secretary of State to provide recommendations to ensure that United States policies do not impede the delivery of adequate amounts of fuel, medical, equipment, and medicine to the health care facilities in Cuba. Um, Madam Chair, I just, uh, came back from a trip to Cuba where we met with the people of Cuba, where we went to the clinics and the hospitals and talk to regular mothers um and patients. And what we are doing uh to Cuba is heartbreaking. We have a situation where their hospitals are dark and darkened. There have medical equipment that cannot be repaired, so it sits unused uh abandoned we have there were waiting rooms that were empty because the patients literally cannot get from their home to the hospital because we have blocked all fuel all fuel going in that somebody would be able to access uh and i looked at that and we suffered Uh, for the time I was there, there were maybe a few hours of electricity. So we suffered in the heat, as many of the Cubans did, but we didn't have to live there. Infant mortality. Madam Chair, I know you care about the lives of babies. Infant mortality has gone from four point two to nine point nine. More than doubled because of what we are doing. Now, whether or not you agree with the Cuban government, what they're trying to do, what they haven't done, whatever. The idea that we are engaged in an effort that is doubling the deaths of babies. I know that's not what the American people would want. And, you know, uh, we talked to people. It's, imagine, imagine that you are a mother who has uh, a difficult pregnancy. So you have preclampsia, you have those other things. Normally you'd be able to go uh to a specialty, they call it a home, a maternal home, to get the kind of care you need for hypertension, for those kinds of things. You can't get there. That facility doesn't have the uh resources. It is darkened because they don't have the gasoline. We are not letting the gasoline in, so they can't run the electrical grid. But that mother, that expectant mother, is living in a home where she can't open a refrigerator and put food that she might need to sustain her health in a refrigerator cuz there's no electricity. The, she cannot open the tap and wash her hands to make sure she stays healthy because if there is no electricity, guess what else there isn't, Madam Chair? There is no water because electricity powers the pumps. So that's how you get to a doubling of infant mortality. You can go on and on down the list of the negative health impact. And I don't think that the American people intend for us to actually cripple the health care system like we are doing. And it wasn't just my visit. We were there. There were uh about four of uh members of congress uh i'd like to enter into the record madam chair an article dated march twenty sixth twenty twenty six uh it is titled cuban patients are dying

without objection

because of us blockade doctors say and so it goes through some of the examples of a young man who is twenty six who cannot work his ventilator it goes through the examples that actually document this. We spoke with the doctors who cannot sometimes leave the hospital because there is no way for them to get home so they sleep there and they cried in front of us because they're not there to engage in anything else but to save lives. Now, we might say and the State Department has said, oh, no, we're don't, we're not blocking that, but the reality is we are blocking that medical equipment. uh they're cuba you know has faced shortages before and so they know how to make uh lots of medicines but they can't get the the the basically the basic goods that you would make need to make those medicines in because we have completely blockaded and prevented other other countries from being able to send anything in so the the the the blockade the sanctions are incredibly complicated i just got back today so i wasn't able to really look on there and say no Let's ask the State Department. They have actually talked about, oh, there is ways in which we could do that, but we are not doing that. So I want there to be a report so that Congress knows what can we do to make sure that basic humanitarian needs, things that we would not wish on any country, in terms of forcing their doctors to cry and to abandon all hope because they cannot provide health care to their patients. So that's the intent of of of this resolution is, let's ask the State Department, come before us, tell us what are what are our policies doing to Cuba and what are ways in to the Cuban health care system? It's cuz it's the people that this is aimed at, the patients. Not the government. I, you know, leave all that aside, but what about the patients? And we are not doing this to any other country. So that's what this amendment is intended uh to address and actually ask in the safety department come to us let us know how we can address this crisis that is of our making uh and with that uh i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back

thank you miss leger phernandez any further discussion on the amendment from miss leger phernandez hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye

all those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion chair of the no's have it the amendment's not agreed to

i i'm chair of the committee yes

mister ledger fernandez requests a recorded vote the clerk will call the roll

mrs. fischbach

no

mrs. fischbach no mister norman mister roy missus Houchin

no

missus Houchin no mister langworthy mister langworthy no mister scott

no no

mister scott no mister griffith mister griffith no mister jack mister mcgovern

no aye

mister mcgovern i am miss Scanlon

i

miss Scanlon i am mister Nguz

i

mister Nguz i am miss ledger fernandez

i

miss ledger fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

The clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, six nays.

Uh and the amendment is not agreed to. Um further uh amendment.

Madam Chair.

Madam uh Miss Leisure Fernandez.

Uh uh uh I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number twenty three to H R eighty five ninety five offered by Representative Talibin, which would strike the section of the bill that imposes penalties and funding limitations on countries that welcome cuban medical professionals uh madam chair the uh cuba has decided as one of its policies to train medical professionals uh and they train medical professionals from many many other countries it is one of its priorities and so they have medical schools uh we met with uh people from other countries latin american countries who had been trained there, who became doctors because they were able to go from their country, which didn't have those resources to train in Cuba. And and then Cuba sends these medical brigades to other places. And I know how important that is because I am from a state that relies on medical professionals from other countries to come in and provide health care in our rural areas. Uh, now these are not soldiers, these are not terrorists. These are doctors and nurses that go to countries especially throughout Latin America. And uh the United States is It has a provision, and there is uh a section of this bill that specifically says, no, another country cannot accept doctors and nurses from Cuba. why would we deprive countries of doctors and nurses from wherever they may come and this is part of a larger effort to completely strangle the ability of this country this island nation to be able to have any relations with anybody else uh i wanna enter in into uh the record another uh report in from the world news

without objection

Uh, June fifteenth, twenty twenty six. And, uh, this is the Cuban report which quantifies the impact of US oil barcade on children's health. So while it goes into the impact on children's health, which I talked about earlier, it also speaks to the fact that our p- policy in this bill itself, this provision that we wanna strike, really is trying to cut off the ability of regional countries to have any kind of medical relationship or healthcare relationship with this country. Uh, the UN said that the regional Pan-American health organization reported delays in shipments of antibiotics in laboratory regions because of flight constellations. Uh, seven critical shipments of supplies for newborns, valued at six hundred and thirty thousand dollars, were stalled in transit. while the World Food Programme said two thousand nine hundred metric tons of contracted food aid could not be shipped to Cuba because of limitations. This is the relationship that we should not have any objection to a flow, a free flow of health care between two willing countries, between those uh that want to both receive this expertise and then send help and antibiotics in response to the humanitarian crisis that is going on right now. So, um, I urge my colleagues to think about the fact that we have other priorities in the United States. Um, we should be addressing, uh, the needs of our veterans, we should be addressing the fact that our state department and our department of defense uh, i- or engaged in a war in Iran that's raising our prices of oil, um, we should be addressing, uh, wholeheartedly our cost of living rather than spending our resources and our legislation to stop the availability of health care for the people, the people of Cuba, which are related to so many Cuban Americans in the United States. They're related to people in my district. They're their family. Uh, and we shouldn't be stopping, uh, the availability of doctors and nurses who might wanna go and serve in another country. And with that I urge adoption of my motion. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Leisure-Fernandez. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say no. No.

Aye.

In the opinion, chair of the no's, have it, the amendment's not agreed to. miss ledger fernandez's request recorded vote the clerk will call the roll

mrs. fischbach

no

mrs. fischbach no mr. norman mr. roy mrs. Houchin mrs. Houchin no mr. langworthy mr. langworthy no mr.

no

scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith mr.

no

scott mr. griffith no mr. jack mr. mcgovern

i

mr. mcgovern i am miss ganlin

i

miss ganlin i am mr. neguse

i

mr. neguse i am miss ledger fernandez i am madam chair

i

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report to total

four yeas six nays

the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to is there further discussion or amendment hearing none the question comes on the motion by mister griffith um all in favor signify by saying aye aye those opposed say no

no

in the opinion chair the ayes have it the motion is agreed to

i'm curious for a roll call on that

mister mcgovern requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

mrs. fishbach

yes

mrs. fishbach aye mr. norman mr. roy mrs. houchin mrs.

aye

houchin aye mr. langworthy

aye

mr. langworthy aye mr. scott mr. scott aye mr. griffith

aye

mr. griffith aye mr. jack mr. mcgovern

no

mr. mcgovern no miss scantlin

no

miss scantlin no mr. neguse

no

mr. neguse no miss ledger-fernandez

no

miss ledger-fernandez no m- madam chair

aye

madam chair aye

The clerk will report the total.

Six yeas, four nays.

Um, the ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to. I will be managing the rule for the majority.

And I will.

And Mister McGovern will be managing for the minority. The dynamic duo. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.