H.R. 139 – Sunshine Protection Act of 2025; H.R. 8595 – National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027; H.R. 9237 – Take Care of America’s Veterans Act; H.R. 1181 – Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Rules U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsJames McGovern
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 own members start fighting with each other. Republican leadership finally admits the reality 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, healthcare, childcare, 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 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 a halt over the same bill, the so-called Save America Act, that they think will help them win in November by making it harder for 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 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.
Virginia Foxx
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 Pallone 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.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you for the recognition, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 139, the Sunshine Protection Act. This legislation makes daylight saving time permanent nationwide and removes the twice-annual changing of the clocks. Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of this policy and want to end the practice of springing forward and falling back. 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 and economical benefits. In practice, this change would mean more time for people to exercise outside, visit family, attend concerts, sporting events, attract customers to retail businesses, 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 you may have.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Guthrie. You may win the prize for this session of Congress for being the most succinct. Ranking Member Pallone, you are recognized, and you have a challenge.
Frank Pallone
I guess I'm not going to 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 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, and 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 2025 poll that found only 12% of Americans said they prefer the current system on switching their clocks twice a year.
And that's exactly what we're going to prevent 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 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 I live at the Jersey Shore, and people like to come to the Jersey Shore. Right now in my hometown, there're 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 at a time when the tourism industry is suffering. 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 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, members of the committee, is I don't really know anybody who wants to change the clock anymore. I think this is what Chairwoman Foxx said. But we still have some people who want permanent standard time and some people who want permanent daylight savings. But I think overall the majority, 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 time as a permanent.
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, harm our health, and satisfy almost no one, is the worst of all worlds. I have to be honest, I haven't had a single person say to me they want to change the clocks. They're either for daylight or for standard.
Nobody thinks that we should continue with the change because of all the reasons I mentioned. So I yield back. Thank you.
No questions.
Mr. McGovern?
Speaker 15
I don't have any questions, Madam Chair. I think this is pretty simple. I think Mr. Pallone could have done it in 60 seconds just like Chairman Guthrie did.
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you. 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. 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 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 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. 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 transportation 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, 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 1974 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 repealed 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 the sunrise until 9:00 or 9:30. There are charts where you can see how it would impact your individual region. And we know that here we are 50 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 taken last year. 48% given the choice between permanent standard time and permanent daylight savings time, 48% would take permanent standard time, only 24% 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. 9638, 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 it, Protect Sunshine Protection Act, which says you're going to be stuck with whatever you have as the act goes into effect. So if we're going to make a permanent change that affects every American, we should follow the science and prioritize Americans' 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 before.
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. 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 U.S. Last Tried It. It's in the Washington Post, March 18th, 2022. I yield back.
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Griffith.
H. Griffith
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to ask both Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone, this passed out of Energy and Commerce with a pretty significant vote, did it not?
It did.
Speaker 5
And there wasn't any kind of trick going on when it passed out of committee in regular order, isn't that correct?
Speaker 6
Well, it passed attached to the highway bill, yeah, but it was no tricks in Energy and Commerce.
It was part of the highway bill.
Right.
H. Griffith
And the highway bill passed with one objection based on some other reason, isn't that correct?
Correct.
H. Griffith
All right, I appreciate that. And then a lot of the science, Mr. Pallone, isn't that based on the switching back and forth as opposed to picking one over the other?
Speaker 21
Absolutely, everything I've seen in terms of the studies would indicate that it's the switch that creates the problem with a lot of health issues. The fact that you switch.
H. Griffith
And that was my understanding as well. And then Mr. Guthrie, if Mr. Chairman Guthrie, if you would, there was some concern that this would negatively impact Arizona and maybe some other states that have elected to be on standard time, and is that taken care of in the legislation?
Brett Guthrie
It is, as Arizona, Hawaii, and several of our territories have permanent standard time, and any state that implements permanent standard time prior to the enactment of this bill would also be covered as well.
H. Griffith
So if a state wanted to between now and whenever the bill's enacted, which is probably sometime later this fall, maybe even early winter, would be able to get together and say we want to be permanent standard time, is that correct?
Speaker 20
I think that Ms. Scanlon's concern that if they decided later 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 switch after, you've got to do it before it becomes law. Which is what I agree with.
Nicholas Langworthy
I just thank the witnesses for being here. I mean, I'm not going to sugarcoat it, I do have concerns living in Buffalo, New York, about an early sunrise or a late sunrise that in the month of December comes just before 9:00 AM. But I do think the switching of the clocks back and forth is some of the greatest confusion and it brings a lot of frustration to people. So, you know, while I'm a little undecided right now as to where I go on this bill, but we've heard loud and clear that people don't want to change the clocks. So I don't really have any questions, but I will yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Langworthy. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today, sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Houchin.
Erin Houchin
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone for being with us in rules today. I am a proud cosponsor of HR 139, the Sunshine Protection Act, and I decided to sign in support of this bill because I heard from my constituents loud and clear. More than 90% of respondents to a survey that I asked constituents responded that they wanted to stop changing their clocks. And they want to 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, because the sun was still shining and they didn't understand why they couldn't go out and play. Parents are tired of late afternoons, disrupted sleep schedules. The health side effects of having the clocks being changed with spring forward and falling back is a real concern. And I come from a part of Indiana that we used to have slow time and fast time. So I do appreciate the consistency of having one clock.
So 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, my question for you is to the point of the healthcare concerns, what are the downsides of current spring forward and fall back systems for public health, for safety on the roadways, for our workers and employers who have to absorb the disruption twice a year?
Brett Guthrie
Well, I think the downside is when you change. That's the problem, that seems to be the issue that people seem to have when they're changing. The other, I mean, there's a choice, I know Ms. Scanlon, my friend from Pennsylvania, talked about, I mean, you choose one or the other. Obviously you can't change the sun. It's the time that you have to do and so where do you have the extra light?
And the lightness in the afternoon does show significant societal health and economic benefits, 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.
Erin Houchin
And is there any research on 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?
Brett Guthrie
Well, I don't have one study to quote in front of me. I know that the ranking member has talked about in his testimony is that, yeah, that the big issue that people seem to have is when the clock changes and getting their bodies back in line.
Frank Pallone
It takes, um, the danger really is in the first few days. As time goes on and weeks go by, the incidence of stroke and heart disease lessens. But there are significant problems in the first few days.
Erin Houchin
Yeah. And that's evident not just for the older population, but also for children too. I want to thank you for this practical bipartisan answer supporting families and workers. And even if I have to tell my kids that outside is closed to get them to go to bed when it's daylight, at least they'll just be one time that we're operating on throughout the year. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Houchin. 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 see how we operate. They had a good Rules Committee meeting here to see. So I want to introduce Jeff Crisp from Hibriten High School in Caldwell County and Banner Griffin from Surry Central High School in Surry County.
They are here, they started today, they will be shadowing me for the week and seeing how we do things here in Congress close up so when they go back to school they can 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, Mr. Griffith.
H. Griffith
Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H.R. 139, the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the bill 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 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 consideration of H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027, 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 shall be considered as read.
A rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or clause 5A of rule 21. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, amendments in block described in section 4, and pro forma amendments described in section 5. 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 opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. 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 4 of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee may offer amendments in block consisting of amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of.
Amendments in block 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 of Appropriations or the respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 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 10 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. 9237, Take Care of America'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 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 Veterans' Affairs or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, under a closed rule.
The 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 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 H.R. 8595, the clerk shall add the text of Senate 1383 as passed by the House as new matter at the end of H.R. 8595, 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 spelling, punctuation, page and line numbering, section numbering, and the insertion of appropriate headings. And that is my motion, Madam Chair.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith. You've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? Mr. McGovern, you're recognized.
James McGovern
Thank you, Madam Chair. I heard a lot of closed rules there. But I'm reading through the resolution that was just handed out, and once again, it seems like Republicans are trying to merv or attach the SAVE Act to an unrelated bill before sending it to the Senate. And so let me be clear. I think the SAVE Act is an awful, terrible, rotten bill.
It's not about election security. It's about relitigating Donald Trump's loss in 2020. 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 explained to Congresswoman Luna and anyone else who watches the Rules Committee exactly why this scheme accomplishes absolutely nothing.
It is just a big waste of time. It's essentially show business 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's not the case. 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 just want to ask you, why are we doing this? Can you explain how this is any different from the failure two weeks ago?
Virginia Foxx
Mr. McGovern, I really wish you'd let us know next time how you feel about the rule. I'm not sure your comments were clear.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much. Well, we have, 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 move along this other legislation that needs to be moved along. And we appreciate very much your counseling Miss Luna.
James McGovern
No, I just, I said at my opening statement, this is rerun week. I mean, we've been down this road before. And anyway, I just find it interesting that anyone would be bought off by a strategy that everybody knows will not work. I'm also seeing that this rule includes several bills that the Rules Committee already considered. 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.
Can you give us assurances that this time will be different? Do you have the votes to get this rule passed?
Virginia Foxx
Well, we hope very much. 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 bills that should be brought to the floor, that 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.
James McGovern
And I also noticed that for some reason your new rule does not include making H. Res. 1383 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 200 billion dollars. I mean, you know, cut so many essential programs by billions of dollars. Is there a reason why this rule does not include your non-binding resolution?
James McGovern
Well, okay, well, having said that, I do have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee strike section seven of the rule, which would provide for the consideration of H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, under a closed rule. And Madam Chair, last July, Republicans voted to give the military more than 150 billion dollars without any offsets. The DOD still has over 90 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 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 a failed rule two weeks ago. This shouldn't come to the floor right now.
There is significant opposition amongst our veterans community over this bill. And we have an opportunity to pull it and to go back to committee, you know, and not rob Peter to pay Paul, not make veterans pay for an additional benefit, quite frankly, that they're entitled to. And so I would urge the members of this committee 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 yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there further debate on Mr. McGovern's motion?
Madam Chair.
Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Madam Chair, I'd like to note that similar to the last time we discussed this bill, we have in the room with us many Veterans of Foreign Wars. And they are here proudly wearing their, is the proper word hat, proudly wearing their hat that says the state that they're from and that they are proud members of the VFW. And I know that's because you have served, you have put your life at risk. And I would just, if the Chair would indulge me, ask how many of you are in favor of the Richard Star Act? The Richard Star Act, Major Richard Star Act.
I'd like to note that every veteran that was identified with their VFW cap raised their hand. And I think that that's the kind of dedication that they have come here today to the Rules Committee to express their support for that approach to addressing the needs for meeting our obligations to provide benefits to the veterans who have served us across the seas. I support the amendment and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Is there any further debate on Mr. McGovern's motion? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Those opposed say no.
Virginia Foxx
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
I ask for a roll call.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Houchin no, Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy no, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott no, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith no, Mr. Jack, Mr. McGovern.
Aye.
Mr. McGovern aye, Ms. Scanlon.
Aye.
Ms. Scanlon aye, Mr. Neguse.
Aye.
Mr. Neguse aye, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez aye, Madam Chair.
Speaker 26
The noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the bill? Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Yes, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number one to H.R. 139 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 enacting 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, permanent daylight savings time or permanent standard time. As we heard during the hearing, this has 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 going to 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. It's been suggested that the research only relates to the negative impact of switching, especially when we spring ahead to daylight savings time.
In fact, there is extensive research supporting the fact that permanent standard time is better for our health and safety. There's testimony in particular by a neuroscientist, Roxanne Prichard, who's at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, who talks about how permanent standard time is better for health, better for safety, reduces obesity, and reduces stroke. Also, the Indiana State Medical Association has a policy that it prefers permanent standard time, as does the Indiana Chamber of Commerce. We did have, in fact, a real-time experiment with permanent daylight savings time, that was in 1974, 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, I don't see why we should be repeating the mistakes of the past here. 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 text of the Sunshine Protection Act and replace it with my bipartisan H.R. 9638, Sunshine for Our Kids Act, which would make standard time the national default while preserving states' ability to adopt permanent daylight savings time if they choose, unlike the alternative that is before us here where people are going to 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.
H. Griffith
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 70s, and of course there was lots of things different, no internet, no lots of different things in the world back then, but 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 this was 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 as well, but the bill never went anywhere because there could never be there was never 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. I think this is where we're at and I would say that while it was a part of a larger bill that was discussed in Energy and Commerce, it was a separate component of that bill, there was discussion on that, and nobody offered an amendment to that to change it to standard, 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 think this is where we ought to go. 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 going to vote against the gentlelady's amendment.
And I'm happy to yield to the gentlelady.
Mary Gay Scanlon
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 because it doesn't want to disrupt the regional efforts, but apparently the Virginia Senate has made a determination. So you might want to talk to some of your colleagues there. Thank you.
H. Griffith
Well, and Madam Chair, I would just remind the gentlelady that the Virginia Senate, 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 concur with that. And further, we make independent decisions every day that may not agree with our current legislative body in my home, the wonderful Commonwealth of Virginia. Yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Is there further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Scanlon? Mr. Neguse, you're recognized.
Joe Neguse
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, first let me say I find 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 healthcare 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?
Joe Neguse
You disagree with that? Well, what's interesting is those aren't 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 minor, fiddling with the clocks while the country burns." He posted this online, 1:00 p.m. today, in the context of the priorities that House Republicans have decided to pursue this week. I don't... he's not wrong. Again, not Democrats' 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 given his distaste for the way in which Republicans are prioritizing their time this week. The same could be said of Representative Luna, and I know this is... I don't want to belabor the point here, but her tweet from last week, quote, "If you believe in election integrity, don't hide Save America in a MURF. Put it in the bill itself." And so just to be clear, this is exactly what the House Republicans have done.
They've hidden it in a MURF. So for all of 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 time. So that's the one thing that's changed, and I... and maybe that's enough to convince these members to abandon the principled vote that they took and instead support the rule. I suspect not, but I guess we're going to find out tomorrow.
I'm happy to yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Neguse. Further discussion? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Ms. Scanlon requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, no.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack. Mr. McGovern. Mr. McGovern, aye.
Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse. Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, no.
The clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, six nays.
Virginia Foxx
The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further amendment to the rule?
Madam Chair.
Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 167 to H.R. 8595, offered by myself, which requires a report detailing the 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 healthcare facilities in Cuba. Madam Chair, I just 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 talked to regular mothers and patients. And what we are doing to Cuba is heartbreaking. We have a situation where their hospitals are dark and darkened.
They have medical equipment that cannot be repaired, so it sits unused, 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. And I looked at that, and we suffered 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 4.2 to 9.9, 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, we talk to people, it's imagine, imagine that you are a mother who has a difficult pregnancy. So you have preeclampsia, you have those other things. Normally, you'd be able to go 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 resources. It is darkened because they don't have the gasoline, we're not letting the gasoline in, so they can't run their 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 because there's no electricity. 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, and you could 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 healthcare system like we are doing. And it wasn't just my visit, we were there, there were about four members of Congress. I'd like to enter into the record, Madam Chair, an article dated March 26, 2024.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
It is titled "Cuban patients are dying because of US blockade, doctors say." And so it goes through some of the examples of a young man who's 26 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's 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 not blocking that," but the reality is we are blocking that medical equipment.
They Cuba, you know, has faced shortages before and so they know how to make lots of medicines, but they can't get 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 blockade, the sanctions are incredibly complicated. I just got back today, so I wasn't able to really look at that and said, 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 healthcare to their patients.
So that's the intent 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 healthcare system, because 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 to address and actually asking the State Department, come to us, let us know how we can address this crisis that is of our making. And with that, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Any further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Leger Fernandez? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed say no.
Ms. Leger Fernandez requests a recorded vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. Fischbach?
Mrs. Houchin no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith no. Mr. Jack? Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern aye. Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon aye. Mr. Neguse?
Mr. Neguse aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez?
Ms. Leger Fernandez aye. Madam Chair?
Madam Chair no.
The clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, six nays.
Madam Chair.
Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 23 to H.R. 8595 offered by Representative Tlaib, which would strike the section of the bill that imposes penalties and funding limitations on countries that welcome Cuban medical professionals. Madam Chair, the Cuba has decided as one of its policies to train medical professionals, and they train medical professionals from many, many other countries. It is one of its priorities, and so they have medical schools. We met with 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 then Cuba sends these medical brigades to other places. And I know how important that is because I am from a state that we rely on medical professionals from other countries to come in and provide healthcare in our rural areas. Now, these are not soldiers, these are not terrorists, these are doctors and nurses that go to countries, especially throughout Latin America. And the United States is it has a provision and there is 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. I want to enter into the record another report from the World News, June 15, 2026. And this is the Cuban report which quantifies the impact of US oil blockade 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 policy in this bill itself, this provision that we want to 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.
The UN said that the regional Pan-American Health Organization reported delays in shipments of antibiotics and laboratory reagents because of flight cancellations. Seven critical shipments of supplies for newborns valued at $630,000 were stalled in transit, while the World Food Programme said 2,900 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 healthcare between two willing countries, between those that want to both receive this expertise and then send help and antibiotics in response to the humanitarian crises going on right now. So I urge my colleagues to think about the fact that we have other priorities in the United States. We should be addressing the needs of our veterans.
We should be addressing the fact that our State Department and our Department of Defense are engaged in war in Iran that's raising our prices of oil. We should be addressing wholeheartedly our cost of living rather than spending our resources and our legislation to stop the availability of healthcare 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. And we shouldn't be stopping the availability of doctors and nurses who might want to go and serve in another country. And with that, I urge adoption of my motion, I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 22
Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, no.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack. Mr. McGovern. Mr. McGovern, aye.
Ms. Scanlon. Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse. Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
No. Mr. McGovern no. Ms. Scanlon. No. Ms. Scanlon no.
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.
Mr. Neguse. No. Mr. Neguse no. Ms. Leger Fernandez. No.
Ms. Leger Fernandez no. Madam Chair. No. Madam Chair no.
The clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, six nays.
Virginia Foxx
The nays have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Is there further discussion or amendment? Hearing none, the question comes on the motion by Mr. Griffith. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed say no.
Virginia Foxx
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to.
Madam Chair, I ask for a roll call on that.
Speaker 22
Mrs. Fischbach. Aye. Mrs. Fischbach aye. Mr. Norman. Mr. Roy.
Mrs. Houchin. Aye. Mrs. Houchin aye. Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
Mr. Langworthy aye. Mr. Scott. Aye. Mr. Scott aye. Mr. Griffith.
Aye. Mr. Griffith aye. Mr. Jack. Mr. McGovern. No.
Mr. McGovern no. Ms. Scanlon. No. Ms. Scanlon no. Mr. Neguse.
No. Mr. Neguse no. Ms. Leger Fernandez. No. Ms. Leger Fernandez no.
Madam Chair. Aye. Madam Chair aye.
The clerk will report the total.
Six ayes, four nays.
Virginia Foxx
The ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to. I will be managing the rule for the majority.
And I will.
Virginia Foxx
And Mr. McGovern will be managing for the minority. The dynamic duo. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.