We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
78 public bills, H.R. 641-718; and 9 resolutions, H.J. Res. 29; and H. Res. 57-64, were introduced.
Pages H383-87
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Womack to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H303
Recess
The House recessed at 10:58 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H309
Guest Chaplain
The prayer was offered by the Guest Chaplain, Chaplain Judy Malana, United States Navy, Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies Staff, Washington, DC.
Pages H309-10
Suspension: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure. Consideration began Tuesday, January 21st. Requiring the Secretary of the Interior to partner and collaborate with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Hawaii to address Rapid Ohia Death: H.R. 375, to require the Secretary of the Interior to partner and collaborate with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Hawaii to address Rapid Ohia Death, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 359 yeas to 62 nays, Roll No. 24.
Page H346
Fix Our Forests Act
The House passed H.R. 471, to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, by a yea- and-nay vote of 279 yeas to 141 nays, Roll No. 25.
Pages H312-35, H346-47
Agreed to
Perry amendment (No. 1 printed in H. Rept. 119-1) that strikes carbon sequestration and ecosystem services prioritization from section 301 biochar demonstration projects; and
Pages H333-34
Carbajal amendment (No. 2 printed in H. Rept. 119-1) that allows the U.S. Forest Services to approve the removal of hazardous trees near power lines on federal land without requiring a timber sale, easing a serious threat that has in the past been a major cause of destructive wildfires. H. Res. 53, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 471) and (S. 5) was agreed to yesterday, January 22nd.
Pages H334-35
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
The House passed H.R. 21, to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion, by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 yeas to 204 nays with one answering ``present'', Roll No. 27.
Pages H335-45, H347-48
Rejected the Chu motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary by a yea-and-nay vote of 205 yeas to 216 nays, Roll No. 26. H. Res. 5, the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 21), was agreed to on Friday, January 3, 2025.
Pages H347-48
Work Period Designation
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he designated the period from Thursday, January 23, 2025, through Monday, February 3, 2025, as a ``district work period'' under clause 13 of rule 1.
Page H348
Quorum Calls Votes
Four yea-and-nay votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H346-H348. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:26 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 175 of 291 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a valued member of my team and a true American patriot, Mr. Stephen Siao.
Stephen has been my chief of staff since I first entered the House of Representatives in 2019. From day one, Stephen built and nurtured a high-functioning office dedicated to serving the people of Tennessee's Seventh Congressional District.
Over the course of three terms, Stephen consistently exceeded expectations and faithfully fulfilled his oath to the Constitution. Whether it meant staying up late to help a stranded constituent secure a passport or ensuring our servicemembers at Fort Campbell have the safest barracks, Stephen's dedication to public service was unwavering. Under his leadership, my office has helped over 7,100 constituents with casework, a testament to his tireless efforts.
Stephen is not only an exceptional leader but also a remarkable mentor. He has spent countless hours guiding and supporting junior staff, many of whom have gone on to achieve great things.
Stephen's generosity to others has been the hallmark of his time in the House of Representatives. He consistently encouraged his colleagues to do the right thing, even if it was the hard thing. He has a resolute commitment to faith, country, and those whom the Lord blesses him to lead and serve. His loyalty has meant the world to me and my team.
For me personally, I most admire Stephen's humility. I often describe him as having an ability-to-humility ratio of infinity.
At the beginning of the 118th Congress, my colleagues entrusted me with the chairmanship of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Among the most consequential decisions I made after taking the gavel was to bring Stephen on as the staff director. I knew Stephen's strong work ethic and unwavering integrity made him the ideal choice to lead the committee staff during a challenging time in America's history.
As staff director, he navigated the complex impeachment proceedings of a sitting Cabinet Secretary, a first in our Nation's history. Stephen also led the committee's efforts to write the border security portion of H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act. Additionally, Stephen spearheaded our efforts to modernize the Department of Homeland Security to address challenges of the 21st century. Thanks to his leadership, our Nation is safer.
Beyond his many accomplishments, Stephen will be dearly missed for the selfless love and unwavering support he has shown countless colleagues. While shunning the spotlight and any recognition, this dedicated public servant has always put others first. His mentorship and wisdom, often delivered with a touch of Tolkienian wit, will be deeply missed.
As he embarks on this new chapter, I wish him well, echoing the words of Gandalf the Grey: ``All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.'' Stephen has taken this advice to heart, always using his time in this body wisely and inspiring us all to do the same.
On behalf of the people of the Seventh District of Tennessee and the United States Congress, I wish him well as our Nation calls him further up and further in toward another post serving our country. I thank Stephen. May God bless him.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs, I rise in strong opposition to the expansionist rhetoric that President Trump is directing toward America's strongest and longstanding allies and international partners.
Four days into the new administration, it is clear that the Trump foreign policy doctrine is motivated by territorial expansion and revanchism, or
This distorted worldview is anathema to America's historic role in defense of freedom across the globe. It also mirrors the imperial ambitions that have misled the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping into exerting economic and military power to attack and threaten sovereign nations and the rights of self-governing people in Ukraine, the Republic of Georgia, and Taiwan.
In his inaugural address, President Trump pronounced that the U.S. will ``expand our territory.'' He has specifically proposed that we make Greenland great again by annexing the island from Denmark, which is a NATO ally that he has threatened with tariffs unless it cedes to his demands. When asked if he would use military force to seize Greenland, President Trump refused to rule it out.
The President has similarly suggested that the U.S. could annex Canada as the 51st State, vowing to wield economic retribution against a country that, after World War II, helped us establish the very rules- based international order that he is now attempting to subvert.
As a matter of fact, since the First World War, more than 2 million Canadian Armed Forces personnel have fought right alongside, shoulder to shoulder, U.S. troops in defense of freedom and security in Europe, the Pacific theater, Korea, Kosovo, Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. Nearly 120,000 Canadian servicemembers have made the ultimate sacrifice in support of these U.S.-led operations. Just last year, Canada marked the 80th anniversary since over 14,000 of its Canadian soldiers stormed the beaches on D-day alongside American troops.
President Trump has also declared that he is taking back the Panama Canal, which returned to Panamanian control under the treaties negotiated by the U.S. and Panama in 1977. When asked if he would rule out the use of force to regain its control, the President refused to do so. The Republic of Panama is a strategic U.S. partner whose cooperation to combat drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and maritime piracy is vital to our national security.
Understandably, our allies and international partners have responded to these expansionist threats by reaffirming their right to self- determination.
The Prime Minister of Greenland stated: ``Our future and fight for independence is our business.'' The Foreign Minister of Denmark warned: ``We can't have a world order where [big] countries . . . can just help themselves to what they want.''
The Prime Minister of Canada declared: ``The 51st State, it is not going to happen.''
The President of Panama just alerted the United Nations Security Council that President Trump may be violating the U.N. charter, which prohibits the use of threats and force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states.
Mr. Speaker, if President Trump continues to pursue expansionism at the expense of freedom and national security, America will join the ranks of gangster nations whose imperialist dictators violate international law just to expand their territorial power.
As Russian President Putin tells it, Russia has no borders, and Ukraine is simply historically Russian land that has been stolen.
President Xi has professed that Taiwan is China's ``sacred territory'' and that reunification is a ``historic inevitability.''
An American President simply cannot be espousing similar views.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to firmly reject expansionist rhetoric and actions taken by President Trump.
Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by the Arkansas delegation, Messrs. Womack, Crawford, and Hill. We rise in honor of the life and legacy of Beryl Franklin Anthony, Jr., who passed away on Saturday, January 11.
Mr. Anthony, born in El Dorado, proudly represented the Fourth District of Arkansas in the House of Representatives from 1978 to 1993. His devotion to his family and friends and his 24 years of public service and commitment to the Natural State leave an indelible mark on his legacy.
Not only do I share a connection with Mr. Anthony through proud service of the Fourth District in the House of Representatives, but we are also both proud alumni of the University of Arkansas and both represented the Razorback athletics program.
Mr. Anthony's history of public service began in Fayetteville at the university, and in 1963, with his juris doctor in hand, he was ready to serve the people of Arkansas.
After his time as State assistant attorney general and deputy prosecuting attorney for Union County, Mr. Anthony chose to turn to private practice, serving as counsel for his fourth-generation, family- owned timber company, Anthony Forest Products.
Later, Mr. Anthony returned to public service, utilizing his background in law to lead several initiatives for Arkansas criminal code reform and improving the professionalism of State prosecutors.
In 1978, Mr. Anthony was sworn in as a Member of Congress. Receiving the confidence of his fellow Members, he served as the vice president for his freshman class. This proved to serve him well, as he was appointed to the House Ways and Means Committee, where he was a leader in tax code negotiations.
After countless wins in Congress, Mr. Anthony returned to private practice, still serving where he could through corporate boards or charitable organizations.
A true son of the Natural State, Mr. Anthony was a lover of the great outdoors and a genuine sportsman, teaching his grandchildren how to fish and spending his time photographing wildlife.
I express my deepest sympathies to Mr. Anthony's wife, Sheila; his family; and all who benefited from his leadership, dedication, and tireless efforts, not only in the Halls of Congress but across the State of Arkansas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill.)
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Westerman for yielding to me. It is such a pleasure to be with him, Congressman Crawford, and Congressman Womack in tribute to our late friend and former Member of Congress, Beryl Anthony.
His unwavering commitment to Arkansas and its people has left an indelible mark on our State and this institution. Born in El Dorado in 1938, Beryl graduated from El Dorado High School and, as Bruce said, went on to become an Arkansas Razorback. He came to the people's House in 1979 as Representative of the Fourth District, and he brought a deep sense of responsibility and commitment to the people of LA, lower Arkansas.
Over the next 14 years, he proved himself to be a tireless advocate, a thoughtful policymaker, and a champion for the working families in the Fourth District. As a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, he was instrumental in preserving Social Security's future through the Social Security Amendments of 1983.
I was a Senate staffer in the early 1980s, and I witnessed Beryl's dedication to the Natural State firsthand while working with the Arkansas delegation on the passage of the Arkansas Wilderness Act of 1984.
In a time when politics often divided us, Beryl understood the power of working across the aisle, and that dedication enabled him to achieve lasting results for his constituents. His commitment to bipartisanship became personal.
While attending new Member orientation in Williamsburg, Virginia, Beryl's daughter, Alison, met her future husband, Sam Bethune, the son of then Arkansas' Second District Congressman, Ed Bethune. Now, that is an Arkansas small-world, bipartisan love story.
Arkansas and our Nation have lost a great public servant in Beryl. My deepest condolences to Sheila, Alison, Lauren, and the entire Anthony family. It is a privilege to have witnessed
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Nellie B. King, a trailblazer, educator, mentor, and a dear friend whose impact on western New York will resonate for generations to come.
Dr. King exemplified what it means to dedicate one's life of service, excellence, and empowerment, particularly to the youth of western New York, but to all her fellow human beings.
Born and raised in Foxworth, Mississippi, Dr. King's journey from humble beginnings to becoming an educational pioneer is a testament to her resilience and determination.
She earned her B.A. in social studies from Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College, a historically Black college, followed by advanced degrees in education from Canisius College and Buffalo State College.
With over 35 years in education, Dr. King made history as the first Black superintendent of the Lackawanna City School District where she served for 9 transformative years.
Her innovative programs, including the Kids in Spotlight Program, Lackawanna Center for Family Achievement, and the District Model Aids Program set a high standard for educational excellence and student support.
Under her leadership, the district embraced groundbreaking initiatives like reduced class size for early elementary school, extended-day programs, and the GEAR UP Program, ensuring opportunities for all students to succeed.
Dr. King's dedication to education was seen on a national scale. She contributed research to the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, culminating in their report, ``Gaining the Arts Advantage,'' which emphasized the critical role of arts in education.
Also, her service extended far beyond the classroom. Dr. King was a member of the Calvary Christian Methodist Episcopal Church where her faith guided her work and inspired those around her.
She was an active participant in organizations, such as the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, the Women's Missionary Council of the CME Church, and the World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women, just to name a few.
Most recently, Dr. King served as the president and founder of Unlimited Possibilities Overcoming Poverty Ministry, which provides guidance, leadership, and financial support to women from disadvantaged backgrounds who are enrolled in college or trade school.
Dr. King's contributions did not go unnoticed. Her numerous accolades include the National Association of Counties Achievement Award, the Buffalo Ambassador Award, and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award for Education.
As a State Senator, I had the privilege of honoring Dr. Nellie B. King as a 2019 Woman of Distinction in the New York State Senate, a recognition that celebrated her lifelong dedication to education and bettering our community.
Dr. King's influence extended to countless students, colleagues, and leaders in our community. She was not only an educator, but also a role model, a mentor, and a friend, someone whose wisdom and compassion were a beacon of hope and inspiration.
Nellie was a loving mother to Bennie Omar King, and an adoring grandmother to Angeliya Bernice King, both of whom proudly carry on her legacy.
As we remember Dr. King, let us honor her by continuing her work, advocating for education, investing in our children, fostering innovation, and uplifting those who need it the most. Her life reminds us that one person's dedication can transform not just individuals, but entire communities.
Dr. Nellie B. King's legacy will live on in the lives she touched and the progress she championed, and it will endure as a source of inspiration for us all. I thank Dr. King for her boundless contributions, her unwavering faith, and her extraordinary vision.
We will miss her deeply. We love her, and we will carry on her lessons and her legacy for generations to come. May Dr. Nellie B. King rest in peace and power.
Mr. Speaker, I have been very fortunate, as have the people of my congressional district in the Gold Country of California, to have had guiding my office and shaping my decisions for many years now a truly exceptional individual, Rocky Deal.
Rocky is going to retire at the end of this month to take on a long list of pent-up retirement and family projects, and I will miss his assistance and advice greatly.
His 15 years of service leading my congressional office was actually the second chapter of his service to our country. His first chapter was 28 years of distinguished service in the United States Navy.
In those nearly three decades, he rose to the rank of captain, and for 2\1/2\ years commanded what Ronald Reagan called America's flagship, the aircraft carrier USS Constellation. This culminated an eventful career in the Navy and naval aviation, including command of the USS Kalamazoo and command of the legendary Jolly Rogers squadron of F-14 Tomcats off of the USS Abraham Lincoln.
During his command of the Jolly Rogers, the squadron earned the Battle E as the best fighter squadron in the Atlantic fleet. While he commanded the USS Kalamazoo in two Gulf deployments, it was rated the best logistical squadron in the Atlantic.
During his command of the USS Constellation, it won more Battle Es than any other Pacific fleet carrier during the Gulf and Indo-Pacific deployments. He concluded his career in the Navy as chief of staff to the commander of the Pacific Naval Air Forces responsible for 6 aircraft carriers, 2,000 aircraft, and 40,000 sailors.
After retiring from the Navy, Rocky returned to his hometown of Susanville, California, where he took over the family automobile dealership, first established there in 1929.
He served on the board of trustees of Lassen College, where he also taught history, and he served on the board of directors of Lassen Hospital. He also served in a wide range of civic organizations, including Rotary International, Boy Scouts of America, the chamber of commerce, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
I first met Rocky campaigning for Congress in 2008 and was very fortunate to have him join my office the next year as district director and then chief of staff.
I, my staff, my constituents, and especially our country are all extremely fortunate to have had the benefit of his good judgment, calming influence, team-building leadership, and above all, an innate ability to soothe ruffled feathers, an art that is often in very high demand in my office. Despite my best efforts over the years, he has managed to maintain good relations with our local officials, district leaders, and a diverse range of constituents.
John Boehner once told me that a good chief of staff allows a Congressman to be a Congressman, and Rocky has been successful at that throughout this decade and a half.
The progress we have made on forest management in this district that spans the western slope of the Sierra is in large part due to his constant interaction with local and Federal officials and his total devotion to the businesses of our gateway communities around Yosemite.
He cares deeply about the health and safety of the people of these mountain communities, about the struggles of local businesses, the welfare of his fellow veterans, the governance of our great Nation, and the principles of liberty that he has served in the United States Navy and the United States Congress.
He has trained a first-rate team that will carry on as he leaves congressional service to enjoy time with his wife of 51 years, Gail, his three grown children, and his eight grandchildren.
Our entire team will miss him greatly and miss the wisdom as we bid him, as Lincoln put it, an affectionate farewell.
Mr. Speaker, on my behalf and that of a grateful constituency and a grateful Nation, I thank Rocky Deal.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of Congressman Louis Stokes as we approach what would have been his 100th birthday.
Born on February 23, 1925, in Cleveland, Ohio, Louis Stokes rose from humble beginnings to become a giant in the fight for civil rights and a champion for the underserved. Along with his brother, Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes, he made history and made a difference for northeast Ohio.
His story is one of perseverance, service, and an unshakable belief in the promise of this Nation. A veteran of the United States Army and an attorney who argued landmark cases before the Supreme Court and a lifelong voice for the voiceless, Congressman Stokes' path was paved with courage and conviction, diligence, and determination, and a deep and abiding commitment to justice.
In 1968, he became the first Black Representative for Ohio, bringing much-needed representation to this Chamber. During his 15 terms in the House, Congressman Stokes advocated for the poor, fought for civil rights, and supported our servicemembers and ensured that communities, like my district in Cleveland, received the resources and representation they deserve.
As 1 of 13 founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, he helped advance civil and human rights and promote economic empowerment. Today, the CBC has grown to a historic 62 members because of the work of Louis Stokes, Shirley Chisholm, and their generation.
His legacy lives on through the laws he championed and the institutions that bear his name, from the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center and the Louis Stokes Health Sciences Library at Howard University, to the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation in STEM.
Yet, what resonates most with me, and with so many in our district, is his humanity. He never forgot where he came from, nor did he ever lose sight of who he served.
Throughout his life, he carried with him a deep sense of purpose and a steadfast belief in the power of government to do good.
I am humbled to serve in the district, Ohio's 11th Congressional District, that Congressman Stokes called home.
Mr. Speaker, I hope to honor his legacy by striving to be worthy of the standard he set. As we reflect on his life, let us commit ourselves to the ideals he held dear and the people he so passionately served.
Mr. Speaker, on his centennial, I thank Congressman Stokes. His life and contributions were a gift to our district, our State, and our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, during Black History Month and throughout the year, it is important that we honor the legacies of those that came before us.
Today, I rise to reflect on a remarkable story that hits close to home. I recently learned that a late resident of northeast Ohio, Alma Gladys Minter, served as a tech sergeant in the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion.
Ms. Minter was part of a legacy that demonstrated the strength, resilience, and determination of African-American women. The Six Triple Eight was the first and only all-Black Women's Army Corps unit to serve overseas during World War II.
In February 1945, nearly 850 women were assigned to a vital task: ensuring letters continued to flow between soldiers on the front lines and their families back home. Their assignment was daunting, clearing a backlog of over 17 million pieces of mail in Europe.
In less than 90 days, they completed this Herculean task in half the time expected by the Army. The women of the Six Triple Eight endured freezing warehouses, relentless schedules, and the twin enemies of racism and sexism. Their motto was: ``No mail, low morale,'' which speaks to the importance of their work.
However, in a stark injustice, their hard work was not formally recognized after the war. They didn't join in the victory day parade, and their story was not told in mainstream accounts.
However, Ms. Minter's family in Ohio knew her story, as did the families of the communities that were home to the Six Triple Eight veterans in the decades that followed.
Mr. Speaker, I was deeply honored to vote for legislation awarding the Six Triple Eight the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by this body. It was a long overdue recognition for their extraordinary contributions.
The Six Triple Eight Gold Medal has been minted. In the months to come, it will be formally presented, forever serving as a reminder of the heroes like Ms. Minter who stepped up when our country needed them most.
The story of Ms. Minter and the Six Triple Eight is one of service, resilience, and the pursuit of justice. Their story is part of not just Black history but American history. To Ms. Minter and all the women of the Six Triple Eight, we say a long overdue thank you. Their service will not be forgotten, and their legacy will continue to shine brightly for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the March for Life. Life is a miracle, and it must be protected. I have this small camouflage backpack I have carried in the general assembly for 7 years and now in Congress with a small baby sock to remind us of our most vulnerable.
This week I was proud to cosponsor the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, legislation that continues House Republicans' theme of commonsense measures for the 119th Congress. This bill requires that healthcare providers treat babies born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion with compassion and dignity.
I encourage all of my colleagues across the aisle to vote for life in favor of this legislation. As thousands of people come to our Nation's Capital and rally to support the right for life, I would like everyone to take a moment and remember the millions of unborn feet this small sock could have warmed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize January as Human Trafficking Prevention Month. Human trafficking is modern-day slavery. It can happen anywhere, and it can impact anyone, regardless of race, religion, or creed.
During my time in the Virginia General Assembly, I have fought on the legislative front lines to stiffen felony penalties for human traffickers. Now as a Member of Congress, I am going to continue the fight, and I encourage everyone to help raise awareness so we can save lives.
Whether it is learning more about the telltale signs of human trafficking or reaching out to your local authorities to learn about their efforts, if you see something, say something. Do something.
I encourage everyone to do their homework. Learn more about human trafficking, and join the fight to protect the vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, eggs in my district are $9.19 or, as one resident said, it is ten bucks to buy eggs, Rashida.
I want everyone to think about this because the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 right now. We know grocery prices are out of control, and our government is failing to lower costs for working families. This is why my residents don't call it the minimum wage. They call it the starvation wage. It has been 16 years since Congress has raised the Federal minimum wage.
Let's get to the core value here of understanding this. A mother in our country right now can work for an hour and not be able to afford eggs. It is really unacceptable. I heard the reasons, but they still don't add up. It is
This crisis should be our focus. I understand that there are many dynamics that they keep putting forward. Why aren't we doing anything about it? Fear and division keep us distracted from what is really going on. Those that are rich and wealthy in our country become richer under every single decision I have seen so far.
One glaring thing missing in the 200 executive orders that we have seen this week is any mention of lowering the grocery prices for our families, not one word. We know there have been promises made by this current administration that they are going to lower costs for Americans on day one. Three weeks into the new Congress, we haven't seen a single bill come to the floor on this issue.
In my district they are drowning in the high costs of healthcare. Don't get me started about auto insurance, which is now up 40 percent, many paying almost the cost of rent, the cost of their mortgage to have auto insurance which is required by law to have if a person owns a vehicle.
Instead, we are seeing threats of tariffs that will drive grocery prices higher. Instead, we see them getting rid of protections for discriminatory actions by companies, by actors that we know fully intended to benefit from racist policies.
I know that this doesn't matter to the current President and his billionaire friends. They don't worry about the cost of a carton of eggs or milk or groceries, especially when the three wealthiest men in America are sitting right behind the current President at his inauguration. Their combined worth, so that the American people understand, is $911 billion.
It is clear that the billionaires now control our government, and this Chamber can't let that happen. We need legislative action to lower the cost of living for the American people. Trust me that this is a bipartisan issue. Every corner of our country is asking us to do something about this.
These are issues that, again, matter to many, many families. That is why my residents care about it so much. Stop with the fear-mongering and the hate. I know you are distracting us because you are helping your billionaire friends, but you are hurting so many American people who are drowning right now with the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, immigrants in our country are already under attack, especially our undocumented neighbors. These are hateful and divisive executive orders and a violent assault on our communities and our country. Our very identity, as we all know, is a nation of immigrants.
I wouldn't be here as a child of immigrants. My father, with only a fourth grade education, was able to work in the auto plant line. My mother only had an eighth grade education. They were able to achieve the American Dream to see their daughter become a United States Congresswoman.
What are we doing instead of embracing that identity? We are punishing sanctuary cities that embrace our immigrant neighbors. We are dismantling asylums and humanitarian paroles. We are dehumanizing our immigrant neighbors. We are banning all refugees, even those who waited patiently for years, who followed the law, had flights booked, already cleared, and were denied entry.
We are already laying the groundwork. He is already doing it for the Muslim ban, many of our neighbors, myself, my family, all of us. Even though it is not directly targeted toward us, attacking a whole faith is un-American. Sending ICE to schools, hospitals, and churches is hateful and divisive.
He is even trying to override the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to end birthright citizenship. It is clear from my residents and folks around the country there is absolutely no doubt if you are born in the United States, you are a U.S. citizen. The President does not have the authority to change that, period.
We must fight back to prevent these policies rooted in racism and white nationalism. That means opposing plans for mass deportation. Our families must protect each other. It has nothing to do with public safety. They want us distracted so they can help their billionaire friends become richer.
That means opposing his plans for mass deportation. It means showing up to defend our friends, coworkers, and neighbors when they raid our communities.
It means my colleagues must stop voting to pass racist and authoritarian legislation that expands deportations and paints our immigrant neighbors as violent criminals.
Trump's executive orders call immigrants coming to our country seeking a better life an ``invasion.'' The only invasion we face is ICE coming into our communities to sow chaos, racially profile our neighbors, and tear our families apart.
This has nothing to do with public safety, it is about stoking fear and hate because they want to distract us from what is really happening.
Making the wealthy class richer.
Corporations are already celebrating.
Meant to keep us silent as this administration goes after every single marginalized group in our country.
Now is the time to resist this fearmongering, to stand with our immigrant neighbors and make it clear that our communities are stronger than those that hate us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President and Vice President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a critical gap in school nutrition affecting students across this great Nation.
Today, I will introduce the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, a much- needed win for students, parents, schools, and dairy farmers across America.
This bipartisan legislation expands milk options in school milk programs to include whole and 2 percent milk. It addresses a critical gap in child nutrition. We all know that milk is an essential source of 13 vital nutrients, including several underconsumed nutrients such as calcium, vitamin D, and potassium. These are foundational for building strong bones, maintaining healthy blood pressure, and supporting overall development.
However, in order for kids to benefit from these nutrients, they need to actually consume the milk. As we all know, kids deserve options and choice when it comes to choosing milk at lunchtime. Unfortunately, thanks to a flawed Federal policy based on outdated science, since 2012 schools have been prohibited from serving whole or reduced fat milk in school lunchrooms.
We all know whole milk tastes the best because it is the best. It is long overdue that kids in our Nation's schools have access to the most naturally nutritious beverage available to them. According to the dietary guidelines for Americans, nearly 90 percent of Americans including our children fail to meet their daily dairy intake recommendations.
Thanks to the Federal ban on whole milk, we have lost an entire generation of milk drinkers. Along with them, hardworking dairy farmers across this country have suffered. When students are presented with limited, unpopular milk options, they drink less milk and are more likely to turn to sugary, caffeinated alternatives that offer little nutritional value.
Research has repeatedly shown that whole and 2 percent milk are not only not responsible for childhood obesity, but several studies show that children who consume whole milk are less likely to experience obesity and have healthier levels of body fat. Since whole milk was banned from school lunches, body mass index scores, rates of obesity, and the prevalence of diabetes among young people have increased significantly. According to one case study, childhood obesity rates climbed 13 percentage points between 2008 and 2020.
Clearly, whole milk was not the problem when it came to childhood obesity. Emerging science supports what many parents already know. Whole milk is a nutritious and satisfying option for their children. Whole milk for healthy kids doesn't mandate schools to serve whole milk or for any student to drink milk but, rather, gives them the flexibility to meet the preferences and nutritional needs of their students.
Importantly, this bill aligns with parental choice, empowering schools to offer a wider range of milk options that mirror what kids enjoy at home. This is not just about nutrition, it is about practicality. Low-income children who rely on school meals for a majority of their daily dairy intake deserve access to nutritious and appealing options.
By reintroducing whole and reduced fat milk to school lunchrooms, we can combat food waste, support local dairy farmers, and ensure that our children are well-fed and ready to learn. This crucial legislation already has broad support from the farming community, school groups, Members across the aisle, and Senators across the Capitol.
I especially thank my partner on this legislation here in the House, Dr. Kim Schrier, as well as my Senate counterparts, Roger Marshall, Peter Welch, David McCormick, and John Fetterman, for joining me in introducing this commonsense effort.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this commonsense solution that provides essential nutrients to our Nation's youth and supports America's dairy farmers. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor Rich Kohng, assistant vice president for civic engagement at Illinois Third's own North Park University, for his lifelong commitment to civic justice and civil rights.
Rich's parents, Roy and Susan, came to the United States as refugees of the Korean war and arrived in Chicago after immigration quotas were removed after the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Inspired by his family's commitment to their faith and service, Rich obtained his master's in divinity and began his career at North Park University by coordinating their urban ministry program. Nearly 15 years later, through his leadership at the Center for Civic Engagement, Rich exemplifies the transformative power of education to promote civic engagement and foster stronger, more connected communities.
Through initiatives like the Catalyst program, Rich has created opportunities for students to engage deeply in Chicago and with Chicago residents, learning directly from local leaders of color and working collaboratively to address pressing social issues.
Rich's work reminds us that when our universities invest in civic engagement, they not only shape the next generation of leaders, but they are strengthening the fabric of our very own communities.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, I commend Rich Kohng for his commitment to promoting civic engagement, his leadership at North Park University, and his dedication to live out his faith through public service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated educator and my constituent from Bensenville, Illinois, Laura Avila-Peterson.
Laura's commitment to fostering civic engagement ensures that her students are prepared to be active, informed participants in our democracy.
Laura is an experienced high school educator specializing in bilingual social studies and supporting English language learners at Fenton High School. Over the past 5 years, she has taught grades 9 through 12, fostering inclusive environments that celebrate the diverse backgrounds of the students that she serves. Her dedication to supporting English language learners is evident in her tailored approach to teaching.
I recently had the privilege of meeting Laura and speaking with her bilingual civics class at Fenton High School. Together, we talked about how we build a multiracial democracy and the importance of uplifting students as they engage in civic life, particularly by creating multilingual spaces, regardless of their immigration status, for them to be able to talk about what they see in the news, how they experience it, and how they belong in this country.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, I commend Laura Avila-Peterson for her dedication to education and her invaluable contributions to shaping the next generation of leaders.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the legacy of Jose ``Cha Cha'' Jimenez, a beloved community organizer and activist, founder of the Young Lords, and one of the architects behind Chicago's original Rainbow Coalition. To this day, the Rainbow Coalition is remembered as a powerful model of multiracial unity and solidarity that continues to inspire all of us.
Cha Cha was born in Puerto Rico and eventually moved with his family to Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood in the midst of the city's planned urban renewal. Today, we would call it gentrification. Cha Cha and his peers faced housing and educational discrimination and harassment at the hands of the police and were motivated to create the Young Lords street organization to protect themselves and their Puerto Rican neighbors.
Under Cha Cha's leadership, the Young Lords evolved into a political organization that hosted free breakfast programs for children, free community medical clinics, and other projects of survival. Through his work, he connected with other activists organizing in their own low- income communities across the city.
On April 4, 1969, Cha Cha co-led an effort to form the Rainbow Coalition, an anti-racist, multiracial, working-class movement uniting the largely Puerto Rican Young Lords in Lincoln Park, the Black Panther Party on Chicago's South and West Sides, and the Young Patriots representing poor Appalachian Whites in the Uptown neighborhood. These organizations connected after beginning to understand the shared conditions they were facing had more commonality than division, particularly in their largely poor neighborhoods.
Cha Cha, Fred Hampton of the Black Panthers, and William ``Preacherman'' Fesperman of the Young Patriots helped their organizations overcome their differences and understand the potential in collaborating to organize their working-class communities.
Together, the Rainbow Coalition united these three organizations to cooperate on projects of survival and demonstrate solidarity at each other's protests and pickets across the city.
In memory of Cha Cha's passing and in honor of his contributions to uniting our community, I commend him and the leaders of the original Rainbow Coalition. May their legacy be a powerful reminder that we are, in fact, stronger together.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor former Rockingham County Administrator Stephen King on his well-deserved retirement after a lifetime of public service to Virginia's Sixth District.
Stephen earned his degree in civil engineering from the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. He went on to work for the city of Buena Vista as a civil engineer and worked his way up to assistant city manager.
From there, he accepted an offer to become Rockingham County's director of public works. He began serving as deputy county administrator in 2004 and was finally appointed county administrator by the board of supervisors in 2016.
Stephen brought his levelheadedness and no-nonsense approach to oversee a period of some of the county's largest growth, helping to establish a positive reputation for Rockingham County as a great place to live and do business.
Stephen always took care to acknowledge county employees' hard work and had a great relationship with everyone he came in contact with.
I wish him, his wife, Mary, and his entire family the best as he begins this new chapter in his life. He is a shining example of the leadership that every local government hopes to have.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 21, the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
The radical left's policies have led to an unacceptable reality: abortion on demand, even up to the point of birth in some States. This is a profound injustice to the most vulnerable among us, the innocent lives that cannot speak for themselves.
Every life is precious, Mr. Speaker, a divine gift from God. Every baby deserves the same opportunity for life. This vital legislation ensures that those who survive an attempted abortion are not abandoned but instead receive the full medical attention that they require.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act mandates that doctors and medical personnel provide immediate lifesaving treatment and guarantee that these newborns are admitted to a hospital without delay.
This should not be a partisan issue. It is a basic acknowledgment of our shared humanity. We must protect the most defenseless among us and ensure that every baby has a fighting chance at life.
With the new administration, we have a tremendous opportunity to advance this critical legislation and make it a reality.
I will always stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. No child should be denied their fundamental right to life or the vital care they need to survive. Every life matters, and every baby's life is worth fighting for.
We must ensure that our laws reflect our commitment to protecting the most innocent among us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Cuyahoga Valley National Park.
While most people don't equate national parks with metropolitan areas and sprawling suburbs, Ohio's 13th Congressional District is proud to be the home of the Nation's most beautiful landscape, which is the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.
In 1974, Congress created the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, as some of the land was designated as parkland, but it was with the leadership of former Congressman Ralph Regula, who slipped a few words into an appropriations bill in the year 2000, that it was ultimately signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The few words that he slipped in said that they were going to redesignate the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.
In the 50 years since the park was established, staff and volunteers in our community have worked hard to renew this natural and cultural resource for generations to come.
The park is a vibrant landscape that is enjoyed by many all across the country each year. The park permanently preserves 33,000 acres of beautiful forests, portions of the Ohio & Erie Canal, and parts of the Cuyahoga River.
The Cuyahoga Valley National Park is one of Ohio's natural treasures, drawing 3 million visitors each year, making it the ninth-most visited park in America.
The Cuyahoga Valley National Park is unique. As I said before, it sits between the urban areas of Akron and Cleveland, but stepping into the park makes you feel like you are a world away from the hustle and bustle of urban life.
The winding Cuyahoga River gives way to deep forests, rolling hills, and open farmland. Some of the park's trails also connect to the Buckeye Trail, which connects all four corners of our great State.
As the only national park in the State of Ohio, it offers residents and tourists alike an opportunity to reconnect with nature, boost their physical and mental health, and explore our region's rich natural history.
This anniversary would not have been possible without the dedicated community members, park staff, rangers, volunteers, and tourists who have protected, preserved, and visited this invaluable resource for over 50 years. Mr. Speaker, I thank them for all they do on behalf of Ohio's 13th Congressional District.
Once again, congratulations to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park community on its 50th anniversary, and I look forward to more anniversaries to come.
Mr. Speaker, the pardons this week of violent felons who attacked our Capitol, injuring 174 of our Capitol Police, were a sacrilege against our Republic and our Constitution. Their actions were an affront on decency and a violent attack on the rule of law.
Americans nationwide are outraged. Mr. Speaker, 140 law enforcement officers were assaulted and 174 sustained injuries. Officer Brian Sicknick died.
Those who engage in violence against law enforcement officers must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
I will soon introduce the Brian Sicknick Heroic Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. This bill aims to strengthen penalties for those who assault law enforcement officers on Federal property. It provides enhanced support for officers injured in the line of duty.
This legislation is named in honor of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. He tragically lost his life in the line of duty defending this Capitol on January 6, 2021. His selfless service and ultimate sacrifice will never be forgotten.
My legislation will include enhanced penalties for assaults on law enforcement officers for individuals who assault officers on Federal property, with potential sentences including life imprisonment.
It will include improved health benefits for officers. It will guarantee full health benefits throughout their service and retirement and for those injured in the line of duty, including the 140 officers assaulted and 174 injured on January 6, 2021.
As one Member who was held against her will in this Capitol on January 6, 2021, I can guarantee you this bill deserves swift passage.
Additionally, it will provide enhanced support for injured officers by providing eligible officers with access to necessary protective services.
The brave men and women of law enforcement put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities and our Nation. This legislation is a necessary step toward honoring their service. It will ensure that they have the support they deserve and that the United States of America reveres them and the rule of law to which they dedicate their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize January as National Blood Donor Month.
Since its inception in 1970, National Blood Donor Month has aimed to increase blood and platelet donations during one of the most challenging times of the year for collecting blood products; the winter months.
In my district, the Centre County Commissioners have officially proclaimed January as National Blood Donor Month in Centre County, joining the nationwide effort to honor and celebrate those who selflessly roll up their sleeves to help patients in need.
Since July 2024, the Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Red Cross has held 101 blood drives in Centre County, collecting over 3,000 units of blood. According to the Red Cross' Centre County operations, this is the highest count in the region.
Mr. Speaker, it is staggering to realize that someone in this country needs blood once every two seconds. By the time I finish this speech, nearly 30 people will require access to a blood transfusion.
Blood donations are critical because the supply relies entirely on the generosity of donors. It cannot be manufactured or stockpiled. To meet patients' needs, the Red Cross must collect 12,500 units of blood every single day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone listening to visit redcrossblood.org and click on the ``Donate Blood'' tab to find a blood drive nearby.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary life of James Sears, a truly remarkable eastern North Carolinian.
Mr. Sears was a dedicated advocate and a steadfast supporter of communities across our region. He served on the Gates County Board of Elections. He was an active member of the NAACP and his home church, New Hope Baptist Church in Gatesville. There are so many organizations, but the one that he loved and devoted over 30 years to was the Eastern North Carolina Civic Group.
He always prioritized the needs of others. His unwavering commitment to families across eastern North Carolina was evident in all that he did. We are incredibly grateful for his contributions and the positive impact he has made on so many lives.
His passing has left a void in our community that will be deeply felt. My heart goes out to his family, the Eastern North Carolina Civic Group, and to the Gates County community as we now remember and celebrate his legacy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, institution, which is celebrating a milestone anniversary.
This year, Shavers Creek Grange Number 353 will mark the 150th anniversary of its founding with a series of events, including a fellowship event that reflects the organization's mission to embrace community members from across generations.
Defined by its enduring commitment to family values and community standards, the Shavers Creek Grange represents the organization's motto, and that motto is: ``In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.''
On behalf of everyone in Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District, I congratulate the Shavers Creek Grange on this sesquicentennial milestone and thank its members for their continued work to strengthen the community fabric of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, very small instances--President Trump's excuse last night for freeing the violent January 6 criminals.
To the 140 dedicated police officers who were injured that day, to the officer who was crushed in a door and had to protect his eye from being gouged out, to the officer who was punched with a flagpole, this was hardly Trump's ``day of love.''
Now, he has released these criminals back to their communities. One boasted of buying guns. Another would: Turn up the heat in the spirit of vengeance--total disrespect for law enforcement, unleashing a heightened threat to the safety of families and communities across this country.
By freeing the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, Trump seems to be following the example of the authoritarian leaders he has admired in telling them to ``stand back and standby''--his private militias, available to crush any opposition at the slightest dog whistle.
Mr. Speaker, Iraq has been oppressed by kleptocrats who support Iranian terrorism. Sadly, Iran-backed militias, the Badr Organization, are part of the Iraqi Government, including the national security adviser. Badr was armed by terrorist Soleimani.
Iran-backed militias in Iraq should be designated as terrorists, as Congressman Greg Steube and the Republican Study Committee have proposed. There must be sanctions on kleptocrat politicians complicit with Iran, such as former Prime Minister al-Maliki.
Any aid to Iraq should be conditioned on not going to terrorists. Brett McGurk's policy of replacing ISIS with Iran has failed. President Donald Trump will reinstitute policies of maximum pressure on Iran, stopping Iraq's
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Open borders for dictators puts all Americans at risk of more attacks as warned by the FBI. Trump is protecting American families.
Americans opposed rigged elections in Georgia and support the legitimate President Salome Zourabichvili of Georgia as protests build for free and fair elections in the nation of Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but as a physician who has treated patients for 30 years. I express my strong opposition to the House Republican reproductive healthcare surveillance act.
Let me make one thing clear: Over my 30 years of practice, I have come to treat patients in the most difficult times of their lives, and I understand full well that no one but the doctor and the patient should be in that examination room.
Like any other issue, abortion care is medical care and needs to be treated by a physician trained to deal with that very difficult situation for women.
Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today undermines medical expertise and seeks to bully physicians into not providing the care that they have been trained to provide according to the best medical science.
This bill is just another attempt to strip women of their reproductive freedom by pushing misinformation that endangers not only the lives of women but the public health at large.
Like with any other medical issue, politicians are not equipped, generally not trained, to manage the healthcare of patients, but we hope they will address the important needs of public health.
Mr. Speaker, let the doctors and patients lead the way on healthcare, and let women make the decisions that are their right to make.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional leader, dedicated public servant, and my dear friend, Major General Dale Lyles, adjutant general of the Indiana National Guard.
General Lyles' journey of service began when he enlisted in the Indiana Army National Guard in 1986. Over the years, he has demonstrated dedication and leadership in every role.
His services included key positions, such as commander of the 219th Engineer Brigade and chief of staff for the Indiana National Guard where he oversaw operations and strategic initiatives.
In 2019, General Lyles was appointed adjutant general of the Indiana National Guard by our Governor, Eric Holcomb. Since then, he has led efforts to modernize the force, ensuring Indiana's National Guard is prepared to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.
Under his leadership, the Guard has excelled in responding to national disasters, deploying overseas in defense of our freedoms, and serving our communities in times of crisis. His unwavering commitment to the well-being of his soldiers and their families has had a lasting impact in Indiana and beyond.
As he retires from nearly 40 years of service to the United States, it is my honor to recognize Major General Dale Lyles for his outstanding service and dedication to a grateful State and Nation.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf Indiana's Ninth District and a grateful country, I thank General Lyles for his years of sacrifice and dedication to America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of Milagros Heredia, a Dreamer, who calls my district home. Milagros was a baby when her mother carried her across the border for a better life. At 8 months old, Milagros was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Specialists gave her a 15 percent chance of survival, and she defied the odds.
Now 22, she is a student at Grand Canyon University, studying to become an oncologist. Like many Dreamers, she lives in constant fear of losing everything. Because of executive orders proposed by President Trump and the Laken Riley Act, Milagros and more than 20,000 Dreamers in Arizona live in fearful uncertainty.
Arizona is their home. This country is their home. They are American in every way that matters. It is past time for Congress to provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and for Democrats to stand up to Trump's un-American policies.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable life of one of our greatest Nebraskans, Jack Hoffman. For over a decade, Jack's story captured the hearts and minds of Americans and Nebraskans as he battled brain cancer. Through it all, the Cornhusker State cheered him on.
In 2013, Jack made national news when he ran for a 69-yard touchdown during the Huskers' spring game. In that moment, Jack became a symbol of perseverance and hope for kids and families grappling with pediatric brain cancer. To help others facing the same battle, his family founded the Team Jack Foundation to support research on pediatric brain cancer.
When Jack passed last week, our entire State mourned his loss. His legacy will be forever etched in the hearts of Nebraskans. He joins his father, who also died of brain cancer, a very good friend of mine and somebody that I know welcomed his son into heaven with open arms.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we marked 52 years since the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade. We should be celebrating 52 years of reproductive freedom. Instead, nearly 3 years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, we live in a very different America.
In North Carolina and across the country, women cannot access vital healthcare services, and doctors are being criminalized for simply doing their jobs.
We now have a President back in the White House who is bent on restricting access to women's healthcare even further. On President Trump's first day in office, his administration even removed a Federal web page that offered important reproductive health information.
While the next 4 years will bring immense challenges, we cannot give up the fight for a country where women can make decisions about our own bodies and our own healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate Lunar New Year, Seollal, which it is called in Korean, and Tet Festival, in Vietnamese, as we ring in the Year of the Snake.
Snakes are mysterious, smart, alert, determined, and calm. We enter this new year with the same calmness, wisdom, and alertness, standing steady and ready to take on any challenges or opportunities that come our way.
I wish success, good health, and blessings for you and your family in
Let me wish everybody a ``happy new year'' in Korean, ``saehae bok mani badeuseyo''; Mandarin, ``xinnian kuaile''; Cantonese, ``gong hei fat choy''; and Vietnamese, ``chuc mung nam moi.'' Happy new year.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Brother Ronald Gallagher who passed away earlier this month after a distinguished life of service to Lasallian education.
Brother Ron was a son of California. He took his final vows in 1972 and went on to earn his Ph.D. in comparative literature. He began teaching at the high school level before joining the faculty at Saint Mary's College of California in the early 1980s.
After a successful teaching career, Brother Ron served as the college's president from 2005 until 2013. As president emeritus after his term as president, he oversaw academic and athletic facility improvements. Brother Ron was honored for his work during all of that time with the naming of the Brother Ron Gallagher Baseball Stadium at Saint Mary's.
Brother Ron will be remembered for his vocation, for his sense of humor, love of sports, and passion for literature. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Brother Ronald Gallagher for a life of unwavering commitment to service, education, his faith, and his community.
Mr. Speaker, the Birthright Citizenship Act is a necessary step to restore integrity to our immigration system. The 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to children of individuals who enter or remain in the country illegally. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to guarantee full rights to freed slaves, not to fuel illegal immigration or exploit U.S. citizenship through birth tourism.
Today, 1 in 10 births in the U.S. is to an illegal mother, and nearly 400,000 of these mothers come across the border illegally every year to give birth. The drafters of the 14th Amendment couldn't have imagined that is how it would be twisted to make that somehow legal.
The loophole also fuels a global birth tourism industry, further undermining the integrity of our laws. Citizenship is one of America's most precious privileges. By closing these loopholes, this legislation prioritizes the rule of law and the interests of American citizens.
It is about fairness. It is not denying opportunity but ensuring our laws are respected and applied consistently. Let's take this vital step to protect the value of U.S. citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mary Barley of Florida to celebrate her much-deserved induction into the Everglades Coalition Hall of Fame.
Mary and her late husband, George, brought unmatched passion and commitment for decades to serving America's Everglades. For instance, this award-winning advocate was pivotal in helping pass the bipartisan Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in 2000. This landmark legislation authorized the world's largest ecosystem restoration effort, one that continues to guide our renewal efforts today.
Mary is also a founding director of the Everglades Foundation, the leading scientific, advocacy, and educational group working to restore this ecological treasure.
Mr. Speaker, Mary Barley has been more than a leading bipartisan force in the historic quest to save the River of Grass. She has been a mentor, friend, and role model to generations of young environmentalists who were fortunate to learn from her passion and devotion to this cherished ecosystem. We are so fortunate to have a persuasive advocate to preserve and protect this unique and magnificent ecosystem. Mary's induction into the Everglades Coalition Hall of Fame is timely and well-deserved.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of everyone on Long Island to welcome Romi, Emily, and Doron home after more than 470 days in Hamas captivity. We will not rest until every hostage comes home. I thank the previous administration and President Trump for working together to get this deal across the finish line.
We will never forget October 7, the single deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Hamas terrorists brutally murdered 1,200 Israelis, including Omer Neutra of Long Island.
The terrorist attacks of October 7 must never happen again. We must always stand with our ally, Israel.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican reproductive healthcare surveillance act. I am from Texas. The last thing any Texan wants is the government telling doctors or women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. That is exactly what this bill does.
I was in Texas in the State legislature when Texas Republicans wanted to pass this same bill. They wanted to use Big Government to reach into doctors' offices and make personal healthcare decisions on behalf of women in my State. These are complex medical issues, and no politician should interfere in the lives of women and their families.
Doctors have medical training. Politicians don't. We must protect the doctor-patient relationship. Simply put, Republicans should not have a seat at the table in a doctor's office. It amazes me that my colleagues in the so-called party of small government continue to put forth bills that seek to control women, families, and doctors.
I will always make sure women and families have the tools they need to make their own healthcare-related decisions. This misguided bill endangers the lives of women, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 471.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 53 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 471.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 471) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes, with Mr. Strong in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, a bipartisan bill I am leading with my good friend from California (Mr. Peters), along with 16 other Democrats and 37 additional Republican cosponsors.
Our prayers are with the people of California as they are enduring horrendous wildfires and experiencing loss of life and property. We have a unique opportunity today to put feet to those prayers and prevent those tragedies from happening again in the future.
There are two reasons why we can't afford to wait any longer to reform forest management policies in this country. Number one, the stakes are too high, and number two, what we are doing is not working.
First, let's talk about the stakes. The Los Angeles wildfires have caused unimaginable damage and will likely become the costliest in American history, with early estimates suggesting upward of $250 billion in damages.
More than 16,000 structures--homes, schools, grocery stores, entire neighborhoods, and communities--have burned. Sadly, at least 28 people have tragically lost their lives.
We all know that such figures can tell only part of the story. No price tag can be placed on the loss of a beloved family member or friend. No property valuation can register the pain a family feels after losing a home where cherished memories were made. No bookkeeping accounts for the lost dreams of a small business owner whose lifework has gone up in smoke. These are the true costs, the human costs, of catastrophic wildfire.
Losing 16,000 structures is nearly unfathomable. Local officials reported that it looked like a bomb was dropped on these communities after the smoke had cleared.
What is truly startling is that there are 44 million homes in the wildland-urban interface nationwide. There are more than 70,000 communities just like Pacific Palisades at risk of being wiped out by catastrophic fire.
This brings me to my second point. What we have been doing is not working. This bill passed the House last September with a strong bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to move it. In the interim, more than 1.5 million acres burned across the country.
The Fix Our Forests Act offers a broad set of commonsense solutions that must be enacted. This legislation creates a needed framework for prioritizing treatments in our highest risk areas. To identify these areas, FOFA utilizes state-of-the-art technology to determine the most vulnerable firesheds across the country. Then, it incentivizes the use of emergency actions to prevent wildfires.
Many of these actions, like clearing brush and creating fuel breaks, are exactly what local authorities hastily undertook as they scrambled to save threatened neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The key difference, however, is that this bill ensures that such measures take place well before the fires start, not in the heat of an approaching blaze.
Without these tools, completing a single forest management project takes an average of 3 to 5 years. Under FOFA, land managers can act immediately to protect communities.
FOFA also expands existing categorical exclusions up to 10,000 acres so that prevention measures can meet the scale of the crisis. Under the status quo, if land managers want to reduce hazardous fuels in an area roughly the size of the Palisades fire, they would need eight separate categorical exclusions. Under FOFA, they need only two.
This change is based on proven results, like the 10,000-acre CE in the Lake Tahoe Basin. That was a bipartisan effort by Representative McClintock and the late Senator Dianne Feinstein. These efforts saved South Lake Tahoe from certain destruction during the Caldor fire.
FOFA also protects communities by creating a community wildfire risk reduction program and clearing hazardous trees from utility rights-of- way to prevent fires like the ones that destroyed Lahaina in Maui and Paradise in California.
FOFA supports wildland firefighters by creating a new casualty assistance program for firefighters killed or injured in the line of duty, ensuring access to the latest technology so they can detect and put out fires faster and standardizing repayment timelines with local fire departments so non-Federal partners aren't waiting years to get the money they are owed.
I have only briefly described some of the important bipartisan pieces in FOFA, but it involves much more to make forests more resilient, healthier, and safer, from sea to shining sea.
All of these tools available in this bill echo a similar theme: We must restore common sense to our approach to forest management. This comprehensive package is a result of years of hard work and bipartisan collaboration formulated through hearings, site visits, and Member feedback.
Fixing our forests should not be a partisan issue, and today, it is not.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, sponsored by Chairman Westerman.
While this bill is flawed, and we will be discussing those flaws here in a moment, I do appreciate that Chair Westerman and Representative Peters did come together to work on this issue in a bipartisan way that acknowledges our wildfire crisis. That is a good thing. Addressing that should be a bipartisan priority, and the Fix Our Forests Act includes some helpful provisions.
For starters, it has incorporated a number of key Democratic priorities that are in direct alignment with the recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. That is what is referenced in this poster here behind me, 148 nonpartisan consensus recommendations for making us safer from the threat of wildfire.
If this bill simply moved those consensus recommendations forward and also did something that the commission told us we had to do, a critical priority, which is to fund them and make sure that the agencies responsible for overseeing these projects have staffing--if this bill were simply doing that, we wouldn't be here today because this bill would already be law, and many of these good things would already be keeping communities safer.
Mr. Chair, as you will hear in a moment, this bill goes off on some tangents that have nothing to do with fire safety.
Also, with respect to the good provisions it does include, it fails to fund them. That is why we are here. That is why the path of this bill has been more complicated. That is, unfortunately, a missed opportunity.
We were able, in this bill, to include reauthorization of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership sponsored by our newly reelected Subcommittee on Federal Lands ranking member, Joe Neguse.
The latest version of the bill also includes a revamped version of the Fireshed Center, which aligns with several of the commission's consensus recommendations aimed at enhancing coordination, using predictive services, and unifying decisionmaking capabilities.
I am glad this bill has evolved to include these priorities my Democratic colleagues have championed. In fact, we have Democratic bills that do all of these good things and more because fire safety is a huge concern for all of us, but our Democratic bills do not pair these good provisions unnecessarily with harmful environmental rollbacks. That, unfortunately, is what the bill before us does do.
If you scratch beneath the surface of H.R. 471, you start seeing problems, starting with the fact that the beneficial provisions are totally unfunded.
There are also several poison pills that have the potential to undermine science-based management and public engagement.
On top of doing nothing to address the key driver of catastrophic wildfires, climate change, the so-called Fix Our Forests Act inappropriately co-opts emergency authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act, undercuts the Endangered Species Act, and even makes it more difficult for communities to engage and scrutinize or even know about projects that could directly impact them.
Wildfire is deadly serious. In a matter of minutes, iconic landscapes and entire neighborhoods can be reduced to ashes. I know because it has happened all too often in my district. It is not something politicians should use as a pretext to jam through unrelated industry favors or special interest agendas that undermine our foundational environmental protections.
Let me be clear. House Democrats agree that we need to increase the pace and scale of restoration in our national forests and on public and private land. That is why we worked to secure robust funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. This enabled the Biden-Harris administration to develop the Wildfire Crisis Strategy and other key restoration activities.
Thanks to the funding we provided, the Forest Service has been able to achieve record numbers for both hazardous fuels reduction and prescribed burning. They have even identified southern California as a priority landscape through this work. The only thing holding them back from doing even more beneficial work on the ground is lack of money.
However, as we are seeing with the Los Angeles fires, addressing the wildfire crisis is not all about work in the woods. Southern California is dominated by chaparral, where things like timber sales and clear- cutting simply do not provide a fire safety solution for these communities.
My Republican friends seem to think that logging is a panacea for fire safety. In fact, it will do little or nothing to reduce wildfire risk in many of the most vulnerable communities. The fuel in the Los Angeles fires was not trees. The fuel was homes, schools, and businesses.
We will learn many lessons from this tragedy, but one I hope we can take away right now is that we can't keep taking a siloed, myopic approach to wildfire management and prevention. Built environments, like Los Angeles, must be a priority.
We shouldn't have to fight lies and disinformation as our brave Federal firefighters, who are already underpaid, are out there still fighting fires. I would like to set the record straight on some of the misinformation and disinformation swirling around this debate.
While Los Angeles has some of the strongest building codes and fire safety requirements in the Nation, there are still thousands and thousands of homes that require retrofitting to ensure that they are adequately protected. Clearly, we have a lot more work to do, and this bill misses the mark by failing to advance that work.
Keeping homes and property resilient also requires constant upkeep and maintenance. Our communities need guidance, and again, more than anything else, they need resources to ensure that this happens.
While the Fix Our Forests Act includes a community wildfire risk program, which is a good thing, it is not enough. We need to pass the Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience Act that I introduced earlier this week with my Republican colleague, Congressman Obernolte. It provides actual resources to help local communities defend themselves from the growing danger of wildfires.
Our bill would empower communities to implement science-based methods for mitigating wildfire damage, and we provide funding to design and implement new community protection and wildfire resilience plans with community members, first responders, and relevant State agencies. It would designate a targeted, specific grant program for home hardening within FEMA and add home hardening as an allowable project under an existing Forest Service program.
The bill provides actual support with an adequate focus on the built environment, and that is why I filed it as an amendment to this bill. Unfortunately, the majority decided to move forward on this bill without allowing a vote on that and many other amendments.
I had been hopeful that the amendment process would be an opportunity to address some of the critical gaps in this bill, especially the absence of a pay raise for our Federal wildland firefighters. That, too, has been left out.
What happened in Los Angeles this month is a national tragedy. In moments like this, we should overcome all politics and find ways to work together on solutions that actually help the people we are here to serve.
With that in mind, I want to discourage any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who might want to embrace this wrongheaded idea that relief and support for Los Angeles can somehow be a bargaining chip or used as leverage to advance other policy goals.
The majority is not going to turn California into a red State by hijacking critically needed disaster relief. In fact, a thought like that never would have crossed our minds when we had the backs of the people in Florida, North Carolina, and Louisiana. We have simply been fellow Americans helping each other in the face of these terrible tragedies. That is the way it has always worked in this Congress, and I hope we are not going to set a terrible new precedent now.
Mr. Chair, I will be recommending a ``no'' vote on this bill today. I hope that we can continue to work together, however, to improve this bill and to address all the critical issues that have been left out. I also hope that when it comes to the broader critical need for Federal disaster relief, we can remember that we are all fellow Americans and that we need to have each other's backs in these moments.
Mr. Chair, if throwing money at a problem would fix it, then we wouldn't be having fires today. Over the past few years, our Federal land managers have been showered with $12 billion to battle wildland fires and to make our forests more resilient. The result of that is that Forest Service estimates they are going to treat less acreage than they treated before.
It is not a money problem. It is a policy problem and Fix Our Forests will help solve that problem.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. Chairman, over the last 10 years, we have lost fully one-quarter of our Federal forests to catastrophic fire.
An untended forest is no different from an untended garden. It will grow and grow until it chokes itself to death, and then it will succumb to disease, pestilence, drought, and ultimately catastrophic fire. This is how nature gardens. She doesn't care that it takes a century or more for a forest to regrow. We mortals do.
Excess timber will come out of the forest in only two ways. Either we will carry it out, or nature will burn it out. That is why we created the Forest Service, to do our own gardening and remove excess timber before it can choke off the forest.
Every year, foresters would mark off surplus timber, and we would auction it off to logging companies who paid us to remove it. For a century, we enjoyed healthy, fire-resistant and resilient forests.
However, then we passed bureaucratic laws which have made the active management of our forests all but impossible. A simple forest management plan now takes an average of 5.3 years to complete, and it costs millions of dollars, more than the value of the timber to be harvested. Since these laws were passed, timber harvested from Federal lands in California has fallen 75 percent with a concomitant increase in acreage destroyed by fire.
My friend, Mr. Huffman, is concerned about climate change and carbon dioxide. He should know that a UCLA study revealed that just the 2020 fires in California alone released twice as much carbon dioxide as had been
Now, we were able to get a categorical exclusion from NEPA for forest thinning projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin in 2016. In the 9 years since its enactment, it has reduced the approval process for forest thinning projects at Tahoe from 5 years to less than 4 months. It has reduced the environmental reports from more than 800 pages down to a few dozen.
Timber harvested has increased from roughly 1 million board feet a year to 9 million board feet a year. The treated acreage has tripled, and the Tahoe forests are returning to fire resiliency. This is what saved the city of South Lake Tahoe from the Caldor fire 2 years ago. The town of Grizzly Flats, which was not protected by this law, was wiped out by the same fire.
I have been trying for years to expand these proven reforms to the rest of the National Forest System through the Proven Forest Management Act. That measure is now included in this legislation, and its enactment is long overdue.
This should not be a partisan issue. The choice is between policies that have proven to work and policies that have proven to fail. Let us return to the policies that work before we run out of forests to burn down.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is always refreshing to hear my colleagues across the aisle, who typically deny climate science forcefully, to suddenly get interested in things like CO2 emissions. They have discovered, correctly, that forest fires actually cause CO2 to go into the atmosphere. I guess that is progress.
I hope now they will begin to listen to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who are saying that this fossil fuel energy bonanza of theirs is actually the primary driver of catastrophic climate change. It is the reason we have record-breaking disasters, one after another because of this fossil fuel bonanza. I hope that we can build on the progress, this awakening that we have begun to hear on at least some climate science.
Now, it was mentioned by the chairman, I believe erroneously, that forest treatments have gone down since the passage of the legislation that I mentioned two Congresses ago. In fact, we need to do a little bit of correcting there.
Since the passage of these two laws, the Forest Service has been treating a record number of acres, including a record number of prescribed fires in California and across the country. We also know that from 2002 to 2023, the Forest Service consistently increased the acres that it treated.
Nevertheless, let's pick up where the Trump Administration left off. Mr. Chair, 2.65 million acres were treated in 2020, and we know that the Biden administration was able to treat 4.3 million acres, a lot more than the Trump administration, in 2023. The numbers, admittedly, leveled off over the last 2 years because of Republican budget cuts, but they have still topped 4 million acres a year, and so it is a very different trajectory than what has been suggested.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fix Our Forests Act, and I rise to fight what could be the first successful attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act.
I believe that the California people deserve our urgent support to recover and rebuild from the tragic wildfires, and I am disappointed that this was not a productive discussion and a bipartisan discussion to help address what they need.
There are many excellent pieces of legislation that we should be looking at for that support, including many that are bipartisan, like the Modernizing Wildfire Safety and Prevention Act.
Those bills provide much-needed funding, deliver desperately needed support to firefighters, and address the needs of frontline communities. This bill does not.
Instead, it regurgitates long-held logging industry priorities to reshape environmental laws on Forest Service land and allow profit, not science, to dictate forest management decisions.
As a co-chair of the Endangered Species Act Caucus, I am particularly troubled by this bill's rollback of Endangered Species Act enforcement by overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' Cottonwood decision. This decision basically says that when new science emerges or develops on endangered species, it must be considered in the Endangered Species Act protections.
By the way, the science goes both ways. It can both identify new dangers, but it can also identify successes and reduce stresses to threatened species.
The industry has long tried to include the so-called Cottonwood fix in several pieces of must-pass legislation, most recently in the farm bill. They now see in their response to the California wildfires their newest opportunity to undermine Cottonwood.
This industry wish list item would exempt Federal land management agencies from reconsultation under the Endangered Species Act. That process ensures that Federal agencies' land management plans incorporate the best available science as it becomes available. It is absolutely essential, but this is also a rare occurrence. It doesn't happen very often. When it does, it is important to consider it.
As any student of history and science knows, our shared knowledge is continuously evolving through new inquiry and discovery. If we didn't incorporate new knowledge, then we would still be stuck with the geocentric model of the galaxy, placing the Earth at the center of the universe. Then think about the modern medical system. The modern medical community is built off the 19th century germ theory, which has saved hundreds of millions of lives.
Incorporating new scientific knowledge is the bedrock of our modern society. It makes no sense when new science emerges to close our eyes, put our hands over our ears, and deny what the best science tells us. This antiscience ESA poison pill is dropped in, unconnected to wildlife management.
Yes, we need good-faith forest management efforts to prevent wildfires, but not environmental rollbacks that allow for logging and other ecologically damaging activities that would worsen, not reduce, the risk of destructive wildfires. We need to take real action to mitigate risks and effects, and I am ready to work with all my colleagues to make that happen.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his hard work for a long time on this to create a bipartisan bill that is intended to succeed.
The area that I represent in far northern California is one that has seen so much fire and so much destruction over the years. The Fix Our Forests Act is an important step and a meaningful step in having this not occur anymore. So I am really pleased that the effort can be bipartisan, and Chairman Westerman is able to advance this cause.
Indeed, this is what one of my cities looked like, Paradise, California. It has already been 6 years, 85 lives lost, 300 towns affected in my district, 2 of them almost completely gone, Greenville, Canyondam, and a third one called Doyle. The fire burned right through that as well.
We are getting tired of this. We are getting really tired of it.
Now, with the tragedy in southern California, I guess that underlines it since it is getting a lot more national press. That is unfortunate.
What I appreciate in this bill is that it is common sense, and it will help with these disasters and keep our power grid more reliable. With the legislation we will have more clearing around the power lines, a bill I was able to pass a while back that we are adding to this bill.
Also, I am pleased to have a provision in here that advances more grazing. Of course, grazing is a very cost-effective way of keeping the fuels down around fire zones, and you can actually get paid for it by those doing the grazing.
So, Mr. Chair, when you see what success looks like, this is a managed forest here. It is thinned out, and it offers a much better opportunity to put fire out and stop fire or at least have it
Let's go with success. What Mr. McClintock was talking about in the Tahoe area, and even in a small town near Paradise called Magalia, where a private concern had done some of the work, and one-half of Magalia did not burn because of the work that was done adjacent to it.
We know these processes work. Why can't we advance them?
Why do we have to continue to have the destruction of the environment, waterways, and everything?
Mr. Chair, the picture my friend from northern California just showed is instructive because both the right and the left side of that picture are areas that were clear-cut. You can tell that, Mr. Chair, because all the trees were exactly the same height. It is what we call a plantation forest. It is unhealthy. It is absolutely vulnerable to wildfire.
I am glad that they did some thinning on the left side of that picture, but the unhealthy forest on the right side is also a vestige of clear-cutting, which does not make anyone safer. It actually makes communities a lot more vulnerable to wildfire, and it is exactly the kind of project that would go through the huge loophole created in this legislation.
More clear-cutting is not going to make us any safer from wildfire risk.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego in southern California (Mr. Peters).
Mr. Chairman, the wildfire crisis is not just a product of inaction, but decades of wrongheaded land management that let our forests, wildlands, and hills turn into tinderboxes. We have suppressed all natural fire, all the time, and let invasive, fire-prone vegetation grow unabated.
The work of clearing dead trees and dry vegetation that fuel fires requires long environmental reviews often followed by years of litigation. While we wait for analysis, forests burn down, habitats are lost, air pollution worsens, and our communities are threatened by catastrophic fire.
The wildfire crisis is also climate change. California wildfires in 2020 contributed more greenhouse gases than the State's entire power sector. It was said before that the fires in that 1 year undid the State's entire progress on emissions reduction from 2003 to 2019.
The Fix Our Forests Act will simplify and expedite the most critical forest management projects while maintaining strong environmental standards. It will reduce the threat of litigation and add new ways for communities to provide input early, something that does not exist today and is one of the reasons why the National Congress of American Indians supports this bill. The Tribes support this bill.
This bill will also protect communities on the front lines of wildfire crises like Los Angeles and my hometown of San Diego. It helps localities craft modern, fire-resistant building codes. It also promotes public-private partnerships to clear flammable materials where nature meets our homes.
We crafted this bill with input from groups like The Nature Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund and others who have their priorities reflected in the text.
While we don't have the firefighting pay increase, which we need and we must get, the grassland firefighters and Western fire chiefs support this bill as is because they know it will help relieve the strain on their already stretched thin resources.
There is more we need to do, and along with Chairman Westerman, we support providing aid for all those hurting in Los Angeles without conditions. No legislation is perfect, but this is a good bill that takes on a problem that is serious throughout the West and the entire country. For once we are not just making speeches. We are passing a bill that can become law and solve problems, and we don't have more time.
I implore my colleagues to join me and vote for this bill and bring some relief to constituents scared that their towns will be next.
Mr. Chair, as a forester, I can say that the only clear-cuts that are happening on Federal lands right now are wildfires. That is nature's way of clear-cutting.
When we see these devastating wildfires that burn everything off of the landscape, that is a clear-cut. What Mr. LaMalfa was talking about was uneven-age forest management and thinning, which we know works.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).
Mr. Chair, I thank Chair Westerman for yielding me time and for his tireless efforts as an engineer and a forester to help save our forests.
Mr. Chair, I am from Oregon. My State has some 15 million acres of Federal forests. H.R. 471 addresses many issues, but the fix of the infamous Cottonwood decision applicable to all 15 million of those Federal acres is one of the most important.
Section 122 of this bill clearly states that no additional consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA will be required under certain circumstances set forth in the bill.
This part of H.R. 471 is one of the key provisions that constitutes the long-awaited fix for the 2015 Cottonwood decision. This reform limits unnecessary litigation, enabling forest management projects to proceed without undue delay, and ensures that critical restoration and fire prevention efforts can actually occur.
With this legislation, the Forest Service and BLM will no longer have to delay dozens of wildfire prevention projects anytime a new species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or other information is brought forward. This legislation will fix this wrongfully decided case.
Mr. Chair, I am in full support of this bill.
MR. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from central California (Mr. Panetta).
Mr. Chairman, in the past few weeks and in the past few years, communities all across America have witnessed the devastation, destruction, and death from wildfires. Much of this calamity and crisis is due to the many communities being in high-risk areas, known as the wildland urban interface. Over 99 million people live in these danger zones, not just in Los Angeles or California, but throughout the entire United States.
In my district in central California, numerous towns are located right next to national forests. Don't get me wrong. It is nice to have national forests as your backyard, but national forests have been neglected and mismanaged, and the risk of wildfires is much worse due to extreme weather and climate change.
Some say that we shouldn't do anything and just let forests manage themselves. Unfortunately, we all bear witness to what can happen when we do nothing.
Fortunately, the Fix Our Forests Act would do something by restoring the health to forests, bolstering the resiliency, and reducing the threat of wildfires. As wildfire seasons have turned to wildfire years, we must be proactive when it comes to our forests.
That is why, rather than just suppress fires, the Fix Our Forests Act would prevent fires, and that is how we protect our communities.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. As you can see, it will pass with bipartisan support.
Over recent weeks, Americans have seen the devastating consequences of poor forest management in southern California. Unfortunately, for those of us who hail from rural America, this risk isn't out of the blue for us. It is a risk we face far too often, and that is largely because we are not doing enough to prevent it. Our hands are regularly tied because of the mess of bureaucracy and red tape that is preventing us from acting.
Does the Speaker know what doesn't require a NEPA analysis or doesn't face a threat of years of litigation? It is a wildfire. Until we fix our broken regulatory system that is putting American lives and our pristine national environment at risk, we are going to continue to lose this battle.
The good, bipartisan legislation that will pass before us today will help address this by bringing some sanity back to our forest management practices.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this good legislation.
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member and the chair for this effort on the legislation.
Over the last 2 weeks, we have seen the devastation that the Los Angeles fires have caused: the lives, the housing, and the commercial structures that have been lost that in some cases will never be replaced.
More than 40,000 acres have burned, the equivalent to over half of Washington, D.C. Lives are at stake, and that is why we need to pass the Fix Our Forests Act.
We know that climate change is having its effect. This bill will better help us maintain our forests by prioritizing the treatment of hazardous fuels in fire-prone areas and expanding wildfire resilience. We also need to recognize that fire management requires different strategies for different geographies.
I am also pleased that my bill, the Headwaters Protection Act, is a part of this package. The bill will strengthen public and private partnerships in forestry and watershed management. Mr. Chair, we will have to find bipartisan additional funding sources.
Our Nation's forests are critically overgrown. We need to have better management. That is clear. The commonsense changes are necessary to prevent wildfires for generations to come, but let's be clear. Much more needs to be done.
We salute the brave firefighters and first responders who are acting today on a 24/7 basis.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this important wildfire prevention bill. We need these provisions in FOFA to protect our communities and maintain the health of our forests. My own community has seen its share of wildfires. The Hayman fire in 2002 burned 138,000 acres in Pike National Forest and killed five firefighters.
Colorado Springs lies west of Pike National Forest, which contains over 1 million acres of forest. I was evacuated from my own home several years back from a forest fire. Portions of the Pike National Forest are included in the wildfire crisis landscape, and four of the five largest fires in recorded Colorado history have occurred there.
This is a real threat in my backyard, but the pace we are doing fire management is unacceptable, and it has deadly consequences. The scale and severity of wildfires can be managed and contained. This bill gives us the tools to do that, but we have to be proactive.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this critical bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in respectful opposition to H.R. 471 and to also express my concern and my condolences to all who are suffering in California from the devastating wildfires. Like California, communities in New Mexico that were similarly devastated by a wildfire last summer are still picking up the pieces today.
It is very clear that our climate is in crisis, and I rise in opposition to this bill because of the dangerous precedent that this legislation sets for climate and environmental policy as we face a new administration.
There is so much that I like about this bill, but I am extremely concerned about provisions in the bill that undermine NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, judicial remedies that are available to communities and to the environmental community, and that it tries to micromanage instead of putting in place comprehensive solutions to address the climate crisis and forestry practices.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the chair for his forestry expertise. As I said, there is much in this bill that I like, but I am highly concerned especially about the undermining of NEPA and these other environmental bedrock provisions, especially in the wake of 2 days after Donald Trump has taken office and signed a slew of executive orders undermining the fundamental environmental climate and clean energy legislation that we put in place over the last several years.
In these executive orders, he took us out of the Paris climate agreement, opened public lands and offshore for drilling, stopped progress on clean energy projects, revoked spending for the Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill, and is clearly trying to undermine the bedrock environmental provisions of NEPA with an executive order that would stop the modernization of that bill.
It is in this context that passing new legislation that would give the opportunity for the administration to exploit loopholes in NEPA, as well as the Endangered Species Act and judicial processes, is untenable.
It is not true that our country is facing an energy emergency, as was declared by the President. It is, in fact, facing a climate crisis. The hottest year in human history was 2024. The wildfires in California and New Mexico were not started by bureaucracy. They were the result of the climate crisis.
We must be clear that if we are going to address the catastrophic and increasing wildfires that are happening across the West, we have to stay the course in our commitment to addressing the climate crisis. We can't stand here and pretend that this bill is actually the result of the deadly wildfires in California. In fact, it is a bill that has been presented in several Congresses, and many of the provisions in it have nothing to do with these wildfires whatsoever.
I ask my friends across the aisle to please join us in actually putting forward comprehensive solutions that will address the climate crisis, that will increase pay and benefits for firefighters, and that will address the resilience needs of our communities and help them rebuild.
Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against this bill because we must address the climate crisis, and we must protect our bedrock environmental laws.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to report that Republicans have an appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior that has firefighter pay increases in that appropriations bill, and I hope that we can all work to pass that as we move forward.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).
Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act is a critical piece of legislation that will restore forest health and increase our resiliency to catastrophic wildfires.
The fires burning across southern California devastated entire communities and will have lasting impacts on our State for years.
Beyond the terrible loss of life and property, wildfires cause hazardous air conditions that lead to significant health concerns. Smoke and particulate matter from these fires can travel hundreds of miles, and geographic conditions trap these air pollutants in the Central Valley, which creates dangerous conditions for our families, farmworkers, crops, and those already battling respiratory diseases.
In 2023, over 1 million acres burned across California. While fires are inevitable, decades of forest mismanagement have directly contributed to the severity of the wildfires that we are witnessing. While there needs to be serious conversation at the State level about the management of California's natural resources, the Fix Our Forests Act will help address the root causes by providing Federal agencies with the tools necessary to help States practice proactive forest management and mitigate risk.
Mr. Chair, I thank the House Natural Resources Committee chair, Bruce Westerman, for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful opposition to H.R. 471, the so-called Fix Our Forests Act.
Right now, as we all have seen, tens of thousands of families are without
Mr. Chair, I represent a district just to the south of this catastrophe. Thankfully, we have not been affected, but we are subject to the same dynamics year after year.
In recent years, we had the Santiago Canyon fire, the Laguna fire, the Canyon fire, and a number of others. When you compile 80- to 100- mile-an-hour winds, made worse because of climate change and the annual Santa Ana winds, with dry conditions, that combination is basically creating tinder conditions. That is why we are having this fire.
I just want to note that this particular bill has done nothing to prevent the Los Angeles fires and would do nothing to prevent similar wildfires going forward.
Mr. Chair, firefighters will say that when you have 80- to 100-mile- an-hour winds, little embers can turn into massive fires, and there is nothing that we can do to stop that. Firefighters cannot be deployed and water or other resources cannot be deployed until the wind dies down.
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation about these L.A. fires, that there is not enough water or that somehow our water systems are inadequate. Many have described these fires as blowtorches, trying to fight a fire that is like a blowtorch.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues who are believing these conspiracy theories to talk to actual firefighters about how they might fight fires like this because I have talked to firefighters, and they have told me that measures like this would not have prevented the L.A. fires.
This particular bill has some important provisions that I support. Some of these have been mentioned in opposition by people on my side of the aisle, but I would note that it lacks the funding mechanisms to actually make these implementable.
It also fails to include any permanent pay increase for Federal wildland firefighters who continue to be underpaid and overworked.
This bill is, at best, a messaging bill, an unfunded mandate. I note that it is wrapped up in this inextricable question of: Will Californians get the aid that our families so desperately need? Unfortunately, that seems to be a question that increasingly looks like the answer is going to be: Only with grossly political conditions.
I note that I introduced an amendment to make clear that Federal disaster assistance to the Los Angeles fire victims needs to be prioritized and must come with no political strings attached. This is something we have done for every other disaster out there in America. When we have had hurricanes in the Southeast, when we have had flooding in parts of the country, California has stepped up. We get 60 cents back for every dollar we pay in tax funding.
I am disappointed that we are politicizing aid to California now that we need it. I was disappointed that my amendment was blocked from even basic consideration. I am disheartened to know that House and Senate Republicans continue to threaten conditions on the basic aid that Californians need right now.
This is un-American and inconsistent with every other Federal disaster response.
Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity just last October to visit Orange County and to fly over the Airport fire with Representative Kim and also to attend the local townhall meeting where I saw residents who were traumatized by these fires, but also residents who had concerns because they either couldn't find homeowners insurance to buy or they couldn't afford it if they could find it.
These fires are devastating. What we are doing is not working. There are provisions in the Fix our Forests Act that will allow us to create these defensible zones around communities in the wildland urban interface.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Westerman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act.
At this very moment, multiple fires are burning throughout southern California. My heart goes out to the communities affected and to our first responders, especially as my constituents and I know the devastation of wildfires firsthand.
Just months ago as the chairman mentioned, the Airport fire started in my district and burned over 24,000 acres in Orange and Riverside Counties. Including the surrounding fires that burned at that time, we had over 100,000 acres that burned. That is why the chairman came out to our community and met with my Trabuco Canyon community leadership and saw firsthand the devastation and what we would do. We had our conversation regarding the Fix Our Forests Act. We talked about the innovative technologies that we need to respond to the threat of wildfires.
The Fix Our Forests Act includes the Wildfire Technology Demonstration, Evaluation, Modernization, and Optimization, or DEMO Act, which I introduced to create a public-private partnership to test and deploy emerging wildfire mitigation technologies.
I thank Chairman Westerman and Representative Peters for making it bipartisan and for including my legislation in this critical bill to protect our forests.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 471.
Mr. Chair, today, we will pass this vital legislation to fix our forests, and we will do so with bipartisan support.
This bill has a number of very important provisions. It simplifies and expedites environmental reviews. It ends frivolous legislation and endless agency consultation. It strengthens the Good Neighbor Authority. It creates a new categorical exclusion to increase vegetation management for utility rights-of-way. It prioritizes hazardous fuel reduction in high-risk firesheds. It protects communities in wildland urban interfaces, and it incorporates technology in a smart way.
I am particularly grateful for those in the California congressional delegation on both sides of the aisle who have spoken in support of this legislation. The contrast could not be clearer to what is going on in Sacramento at the State capital right now where just in the last hour, the runaway supermajority rejected legislation by Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher to add $1 billion to the fire prevention budget, the very budget that the current Governor has slashed time and time again. He was even caught by NPR exaggerating the amount of fire mitigation work done by a staggering 690 percent.
Today, we will pass this very much-needed legislation at the Federal level, and it will make a big difference. It will reduce the risk of wildfire, but until California's political leadership gets its act together, our citizens will remain at risk.
Mr. Chair, I rise today as a cosponsor in support of the critically needed Fix Our Forests Act. As wildfires continue to threaten communities in southern California, including now a new fire near Castaic that borders my district, it is even more urgent that our Nation prioritizes preventing these catastrophic tragedies through proactive forest management.
In the past 5 years, my district has seen over 600,000 acres burned by wildfires. I have seen the devastation that it leaves behind. Our State has seen millions of acres burned and with preventive forest maintenance, these fires could have been extinguished much sooner and saved countless lives, homes, and businesses.
These out-of-control mega-fires need to be greatly mitigated before reaching the point of complete destruction. Expediting environmental reviews and prioritizing active management of our Nation's forested wildlands will be critical and essential to saving lives and communities.
Mr. Chair, I am grateful for the leadership from Chairman Westerman, who has traveled and visited the forests in my district. I am grateful to the Natural Resources Committee and the House by immediately enacting this bill into law.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record 102 supporting organizations. These stakeholders include Tribal and local governments, grazing and forest management organizations, and a diverse coalition of hunters, conservationists, natural resource managers, outdoor recreationists, educators, and scientists.
Mr. Chair, 47 of those organizations also provided support letters. Each letter expresses strong urgency for passing H.R. 471 to ensure improved forest management on Federal land.
The groups that wrote support letters included: American Sportfishing Association, Boone and Crockett Club, Citizens' Climate Lobby, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Public Lands Council, American Sheep Industry Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest Resource Council, Association of California Water Agencies, California Farm Bureau Federation, Family Farm Alliance, National Association of Counties, San Bernardino County, and many others.
Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree that wildfire is a complex, traumatic, and challenging issue. It is serious stuff. The devastation it can wreak on entire communities and destruction can happen in a matter of minutes.
Addressing our wildfire crisis is a national priority that should never be politicized. House Democrats are committed to supporting a robust all-of-government response, and to doing that in a way that acknowledges critical realities.
Starting with the climate crisis and the role of human-caused climate change, especially the burning of fossil fuels, and these worsening conditions are exacerbating not just wildfires but many other natural disasters.
Second, the reality that solutions, including many of the ones in this bill, actually require resources in order to mean something.
We hope to continue working with our Republican colleagues to address our outstanding concerns about this bill, and we hope that the majority will work with us on additional legislation to address critical issues, like adequate pay for Federal firefighters, that were left out of this bill. They need the resources to do their work. Communities devastated by wildfires also need the resources to rebuild.
There is plenty of work that we still have ahead of us. I hope we can do that together.
It is unfortunate that this bill came up so quickly. In fact, Republicans refused most Democratic amendments. At a time of crisis, we should be trying to find ways to work together.
Democrats have a lot of good ideas. I really think this bill could have benefited from an open and transparent amendment process and, unfortunately, we were denied that.
Forests are critical carbon reserves. They are majestic destinations for outdoor recreation, a habitat for a range of wildlife enjoyed by millions of Americans. Short-circuiting environmental review and not allowing the public to participate in decisionmaking actually has negative consequences. It could put all of these values at risk.
We have to also be able to talk about the climate. Like the recent fires in southern California or the ones that tear through my northern California district all too often and throughout the West all too often, some of the most destructive and devastating fires that we have seen in the past 5 years on non-Federal land started as grass fires, exacerbated by the climate crisis.
In the winter of 2021, the Marshall fire broke out in Boulder, Colorado. At that time, it was the most destructive fire in Colorado history, with over 1,000 homes lost. At the time, Boulder County was experiencing hurricane-force winds just like Los Angeles. The fire blazed across open spaces that had been desiccated by months of extreme drought conditions.
Everything about the Marshall fire was unusual: the level of high winds, the condition of the landscape from an unstable climate, and the proximity to an urban interface. What was once considered unusual is rapidly becoming the norm. We need to acknowledge that reality.
Like the Marshall fire, the fires in Maui started on non-Federal grassland. They were fueled by hurricane-force winds and significant drought. This is a climate disaster.
Fix Our Forests would not have stopped either of these fires. Communities like the ones in southern California; Boulder, Colorado; and Lahaina, Hawaii need resources so they can prepare and respond and be more resilient.
Unfortunately, even the sections of this bill that purport to help in these situations completely lack funding. They need to be refined. They need to be backed up by dedicated funding in order to mean more than just thoughts and prayers.
Rushing bills like this to the floor to capitalize on a crisis does not always lead to the best outcome. We should know that by now.
Let's hope this is not a model for the entire 119th Congress.
Mr. Chair, I close by urging my colleagues to oppose this bill and by urging my Republican colleagues to do a better job of working with Democrats. We should be tackling these issues together.
Mr. Chair, I will state again that Republicans have a firefighter funding fix in the appropriations bill that, when it came to the floor, was not supported by my friends across the aisle. We want to provide more funding to our firefighters. This is an authorization bill. It is not an appropriation bill.
It is regrettable that we are having to bring this bill up again already because we passed it last year with large bipartisan support. We had 55 of our friends across the aisle vote with every Republican to pass this bill, but unfortunately, it went nowhere in the Senate.
We are bringing it back again because this is bipartisan legislation. I hope this is an example of how this Congress will go because I don't know that I have worked on a more bipartisan piece of legislation during my time in Congress.
I thank my colleague, Representative Peters, for all of his time and effort in bringing this bill to the floor once again.
I will say that the time to fix our forests is now.
Actually, now is not the real time to fix our forests. The time to have fixed our forests was yesterday. It was last year. It was 10 years ago. It was 30 years ago.
The condition our forests are in now is as a result of bad management decisions over a long period of time. It is like the saying about planting a tree. The best time to have done it was when you were a child. The next best time is today. If not today, we need to do it tomorrow.
Regardless of where and when catastrophic wildfires occur, they offer a grim lesson: The costs of thoughtful prevention would have been far less than those inflicted by merciless flames. The old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is never more true than when it comes to managing our forests.
We spend billions of dollars fighting fires every year. Our forests should be an income stream to our Federal Government, not a cost. People manage forests all over the country, and they actually produce great products that go into homes and sustainable buildings and that become a carbon sink because wood is 50 percent by weight carbon. This table was atmospheric carbon that was stored in this wood at some point in history. It is still in this wood.
Instead of burning these forests up and spewing more carbon into our atmosphere, we should be looking at innovative ways to use our forests, to keep them healthy and resilient. Forests provide clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat, but they don't do that when they are burned to the ground.
These fires oftentimes are so hot that they burn the organic material out of the soil, so it is hard to get trees to grow back. We have seen this in the Angora fire. I visited it several years ago, 12 years after the fire. It had been replanted six times, and the trees still wouldn't grow on it because the soil had been so damaged by these intense wildfires.
The argument has been made that these fires are the result of climate change. If that is the case, the question still remains, what are we going to do about it?
We have unhealthy forests. They are way overstocked with way more trees per acre than we have ever seen. Small trees are competing with other trees for light, water, and nutrients. They get weakened and die. Insects and disease come in. This isn't just in California. It is all across our country.
We know what to do. The question is, will we do it? The Fix Our Forests Act will give us the opportunity to do what we know needs to be done.
I have talked to many of our Federal land managers across the country. They wanted to commit their life to working in an area to make a difference, and it is disheartening to them to have gone to forestry school or whatever educational experience they had and then to see these resources they are charged with taking care of going up in flames. Instead of being land managers and forest managers, they are firefighters. That is really what most of the budget for our Federal agencies goes to anymore, to fight fires. It doesn't have to be that way.
This is something that should be bipartisan. It is going to be bipartisan today. It is something the Senate should take up in a bipartisan manner and get to President Trump's desk as soon as possible.
Again, I encourage everyone to support the Fix Our Forests Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act is desperately needed to better manage our forests in California and across the country.
Wildfires are an unfortunate part of our lives. We were just reminded of this horrific reality in the greater LA area. In the wake of these fires, there's been a lot of discussion about state policies that need to be examined to better protect our residents and I wholeheartedly support reform at the state level. There are also several federal policies that must be reformed, which is why we're here today.
On average, the Forest Service spends four years on paperwork before a fuel management project, like clearing dead or overgrown brush, can even start. That length of time increases by more than three years when a NEPA lawsuit is filed. Those delays can be deadly.
The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act would simplify and expedite environmental reviews for forest management projects as well as enact other reforms to help prevent wildfires. As the recent California fires make clear, we can no longer neglect our duties to manage our forests in a responsible but expeditious way. The American people demand and deserve competence at every level of government. This bill is an important step in re-establishing faith that Congress will lead from the front and do what is necessary to mitigate the devastating impacts of wildfires.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan bill and protect Americans from wildfires.
Mr. Chair, after the House considered the Fix Our Forests Act last fall, I led a multi-member letter to Senate leadership urging them to pass comprehensive wildfire legislation and adopt the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission's consensus recommendations. Today's version of the Fix Our Forests Act addresses more of the Commission's recommendations by expanding on the purpose and role of the interagency fireshed center. It also includes a new provision to ensure that local fire departments receive timely wildfire reimbursements from the federal government.
I applaud House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman and Congressman Scott Peters' work on this bill, but this Congress must do more--more to ensure that federal wildland firefighters are paid fairly, more to prioritize the stewardship of our public lands, and more to ensure our communities get the help they need after disaster strikes.
Federal wildland firefighters deserve pay and benefits that reflect their service and sacrifice. I've supported every effort, including joining as a cosponsor of Tim's Act, to permanently increase firefighter pay. I will do everything in my power to get this done.
Additionally, the wildfire crisis cannot be solved without funding the stewardship of our public lands. I have co-led efforts to secure full funding for Forest Service staffing and tribal forestry programs, and I will continue to do so. I also plan to re-introduce my bill, the Wildfire Resilient Communities Act, which would provide consistent funding for hazardous fuels reduction.
Following the ongoing wildfires that are devasting the Los Angeles area, I am gravely concerned by the new administration's threats to withhold disaster aid from Americans who've lost everything just because of who they elected. I believe that Oregon could be in a similar situation if disaster strikes. Proactive forest management is our best chance to stop these disasters and avoid that kind of political cruelty. We must also continue our longstanding commitment to all American communities and provide federal aid after a disaster strikes.
While imperfect, the Fix Our Forests Act takes meaningful steps to protect our forests, our communities, and my constituents, and that's why I will vote yes.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act.
Many forests across the Nation continue to be undermanaged and face significant forest health challenges. This includes forests such as the Allegheny, located in my district, which has its own difficulties with invasives among other issues.
The devastating fires in Los Angeles and throughout southern California are the latest reminder of what can happen when we fail to properly manage our forests and the risk of catastrophic fire in fire prone areas.
Unfortunately, these fires show that much work remains to help mitigate or prevent such catastrophes from occurring in the first place.
Even with the additional treatments the Forest Service has been performing, tens of millions of acres of national forest and adjacent lands throughout the west are still at risk of wildfire and are in need of treatments. Many of these acres are tinderboxes ready to ignite due to decades of mismanagement, which has led to declining forest health and dangerous levels of overgrowth.
We have continued to witness some of the most destructive wildfires on record in just the past decade, leading to significant property loss, recovery costs, and most sadly, the loss of human life. This truly is an urgent crisis that must be immediately addressed, and Congress must do more to better support the Forest Service and firefighters.
As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am proud of the forestry title we included in last year's farm bill to expand the Forest Service's tools and authorities. Such reforms will enable the agency to improve forest health; reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire; increase the pace and scale of restoration; and ultimately protect communities, property and lives.
Similar to the farm bill, the Fix Our Forests Act will provide the Forest Service with such tools to proactively address invasive species, forest health, and wildfire conditions which threaten many rural communities across the national forest system.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and encourage a YES vote on final passage.
In conclusion, I thank the firefighters and first responders for their work these past weeks and many sacrifices they have made. And we keep the those affected by these devastating wildfires in our thoughts and prayers as they endure this difficult time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
Subtitle A--Addressing Emergency Wildfire Risks in High Priority
TITLE II--PROTECTING COMMUNITIES IN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
Subtitle A--Addressing Emergency Wildfire Risks in High Priority
TITLE II--PROTECTING COMMUNITIES IN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in House Report 119-1.
Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by the 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, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 119-1.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee, for his hard work to try to save one of our country's greatest assets that we see burning to the ground on an annual basis.
We are always shocked, like we are surprised that it happens. It seems like my good friend, the chairman, continues to work on this issue. I don't know if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be included in this statement, but certainly, some in the State and local governments don't seem to get that policies produce these outcomes. Now, we have a great chairman who is prioritizing the solutions here and managing the risks so that we do better.
This amendment, which I think the chairman agrees with, strikes the prioritization of carbon sequestration and ecosystem services in the biochar demonstration projects in this bill.
It is by prioritizing projects based on their impact on carbon sequestration and the impact on ecosystems rather than the impact on forest health and forest fire reduction that we risk throwing more money at the problem while failing to improve the situation on the ground.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is what we all want to focus on today. That is our priority. The chairman's priority is focusing on finding a solution to the problems that we see today occurring in our country.
As the most recent wildfires in California have demonstrated, the continued prioritization of other things at the expense of risk reduction--that is what we are talking about here is risk reduction, not only to property but to lives that are lost--creates deadly disasters that kill Americans and destroy their property over and over again.
The underlying bill makes important changes to improve how our forests are managed to the maximum extent possible. It is not like Mr. Westerman is just some guy here who is trying to do the right thing because he believes it is the right thing. He is the guy in Congress who actually knows how to do this stuff, so it is great that he is the chairman and that he is leading this effort.
This amendment furthers this intent by making sure we are focused on demonstration projects which maximize forest health and resiliency.
Let's remember, Mr. Chairman, we are $36 trillion in debt. Every 100 days, another trillion dollars go by. We have to really make sure that the resources we are spending get to fixing the problem. We would like to do other things. We would sure like to do a lot of other things, but there are needs and there are wants. The chairman is focused on the needs, and so am I.
Moreover, this amendment ensures that these projects are not hijacked by those who would use them to implement the U.N.'s natural capital accounting to block the actual productive use of land and undermine one of the fundamental values of America, which is personal property rights.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate Chairman Westerman's support for this commonsense amendment to improve this bill, and I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Perry's amendment, which would remove certain references from section 301 of the bill.
I wholeheartedly support section 301 of the bill, which provides an opportunity to have a new market for this overgrown material that needs to come off of the land and into biochar.
Biochar can be thought of as a soil amendment that improves soil fertility. It allows more water and nutrients to be stored in the soil. It almost seems like the perfect thing to have in these Western forests where we have water issues and overgrown forests. We can actually make a product that is very beneficial to the whole system out there.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support, and I support his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we were under the impression that this was essentially a closed rule. Many of our beneficial amendments were rejected out of hand or ruled out of order, but apparently, there is always room for an amendment that will make the bill worse. We have a great example of that right now.
CO2 sequestration benefits and potential ecosystem benefits of biochar are a couple of the most attractive possibilities for this program. I know Chairman Westerman believes that because we have talked about biochar. He has talked about the possibilities of this. The truth is that the science on biochar is not settled.
We have more work to do by way of studies, so establishing a program to carry out demonstration programs for the development and commercialization of biochar could be a good opportunity to better understand its role in a healthy forest and explore some of these interesting potential benefits.
Now, with this amendment, we have to do it with ideological blinders on because apparently merely mentioning words like CO2 sequestration and ecosystem benefits are triggering, so we are going to end that part of the study. We are going to put the ideological blinders on. We are going to fire the scientists. We are going to burn the books and rename the Gulf of Mexico.
This is just remarkably wrongheaded. I am so surprised and disappointed. The chairman actually put a good provision into his bill.
Let me make it very clear: Democrats like that part of this bill, and we are about to lose the beneficial aspects of it because of this absurd ideological obsession where you have to deny all climate science and not talk about the environment. It is just deeply disappointing.
Mr. Chairman, let's not mislead anybody here. We have amendments. This is one, and I think there is another one coming very shortly from the other side of the aisle, which is awesome. We want to have these debates.
This is not ideological. Maybe it is great. Maybe the biochar demonstration needs to happen. The question really is, does the Federal Government need to pay for it? If it is so valuable, then the private sector, private industry, should do this work. Private industry should make this investment because we are out of money.
The American people, this government, is out of money. I don't know how many times we have to tell everybody here.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, if the excuse for this amendment is that we don't have the money, then you do an amendment to strike the whole program. You don't simply single out the parts of it that are environmental or that have to do with climate solutions. That is what is happening with this amendment. It is just the same old ideological blinders.
Mr. Chair, again, I am greatly disappointed that the chairman is allowing a flawed bill to become even worse with this wrongheaded ideological amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 119-1.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 471 simply allows the U.S. Forest Service to approve the removal of hazardous trees or vegetation near power poles or power lines on Federal land without the need for a timber sale.
Unfortunately, catastrophic wildfires continue to ravage California and the Western United States. We do need some commonsense solutions that balance sustainable forest management practices with reducing wildfire risks. My amendment strives to find this balance.
I firmly believe that if we can take action to prevent wildfires, we should. We know it pays to be prepared. We also know there are solutions that can help mitigate the impacts of wildfires, but apart from this, I also know that we need to act to address the underlying intensity of these extreme weather events fueled by the climate crisis.
Apart from supporting my amendment, I also urge my colleagues to continue to work to find commonsense solutions to act on this crisis impacting so many American families.
My thoughts continue to be with the people who have lost loved ones and their homes in these horrific fires.
I also thank the brave first responders and firefighters who have been battling these fires.
Mr. Chairman, again, I urge passage of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Representative Carbajal, which would enable the Forest Service to approve the removal of hazardous trees near power lines on Federal land without being required to do a formal timber sale.
This would help address a very serious wildfire threat. Downed hazard trees within utility rights-of-way remain one of the biggest ignition threats and have sparked some of the most significant and deadly fires in the country's history.
For example, the largest single wildfire in California's State history, the Dixie fire, ignited when a hazard tree fell onto electric lines. Similarly, the Camp fire, the deadliest wildfire in California's history, was caused by a faulty electrical transmission line. The Camp fire killed 85 people and destroyed the communities of Paradise and Concow.
In recent years, catastrophic fires in Maui and Texas have also been linked to downed utility lines, and early reports suggest this may have been the cause of the Eaton fire near Pasadena and Altadena, California.
To mitigate these threats, utility companies try to maintain clear rights-of-way by removing hazard trees within their utility corridors. This is done under a special use permit.
However, to dispose of the felled timber, utility companies are required to go through a lengthy timber sale process. This frequently leads to wood waste stacking up in piles, which further increases wildfire risk.
It is an unnecessary burden that is preventing active management in some of the highest risk areas in our national forests. This amendment will allow the Forest Service to permit utility companies to fully remove hazard trees and other vegetation within the vicinity of distribution or transmission lines without going through a separate timber sale.
If utilities eventually sell the material, this amendment requires the proceeds to be returned to the Forest Service. This amendment was a bipartisan effort during the 118th Congress and a similar stand-alone bill was passed unanimously out of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This is a good amendment. It is a commonsense amendment that will empower expedited wildfire mitigation efforts near at-risk communities, and it is a great example of why we need to take action to change bureaucratic policies that have gotten in the way of commonsense forest management.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, we still have concerns, obviously, with the underlying bill, but we do support Congressman Carbajal's good amendment. I thank him for his leadership in working on this issue.
Vegetation management around utility lines is a very important priority.
This amendment aims to improve the process and make it easier for utility companies to complete that work, especially when hazardous conditions exist. That is a good thing, and we should all support it.
I should mention that it doesn't fix the underlying problem with section 203 of the bill, which includes some language that will have unintended consequences on this issue.
Utility line operators are already responsible and liable for hazard tree mitigation around their lines, but the Forest Service has told us that the current language in this bill could potentially increase liability for utilities by a factor of 15 making it even more challenging for them to get the insurance that they need to operate.
Utility lines often spark fires. We need to make sure they are operated more safely and efficiently, but it is also critical that whatever relief we seek is carefully drafted and thoughtfully drafted.
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to do on the underlying parts of this bill. Hopefully, that work will take place in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I think my amendment provides a glimmer of hope in this bill that certainly could use some improvements. I am happy that my amendment is being considered.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Fischbach) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gimenez, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 471) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 53, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 21) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 21.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act protects one of our most vulnerable populations; innocent children.
I am proud that at the beginning of the 119th Congress, we are taking this step toward protecting life and the fundamental rights of our most vulnerable American citizens.
We are all too familiar with the horrors of abortion and the unchecked power of the abortion industry. We know it is simply common sense to provide lifesaving care to those babies who survive an abortion.
In 2013, Jill Stanek testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary about the horrific realities of being a nurse and seeing children being aborted alive and left to die alone in a dirty utility closet.
I can hardly believe that those words are coming out of my mouth standing here on the floor of the House of Representatives, in this, the beacon of hope for people around the world.
She said: I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, a 21- or 22-week-old baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome. That is hard to believe.
One of my guests for the inauguration, one of my dear friends from Austin, Texas, a somewhat well-renowned musician and songwriter, brought his son who has Down syndrome and is such a blessing to this world.
That child, as well as this child that was left to die alone in a dirty utility closet, was and is a fellow human being, a fellow American whose right to life should have been protected by the law. Congress cannot stand by and allow this type of suffering. We have both a moral and a constitutional duty here.
This legislation is simple: The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act requires that infants born alive under an attempted abortion receive the same protection under the law and degree of care of any newborn, combined with, by the way, the penalties associated with those who would ignore their duty under the law.
Mr. Speaker, it is a commonsense measure. Unfortunately, as evidenced by comments from many of my Democrat colleagues, not everyone believes that a child born alive should be protected.
In 2019, then-Virginia Governor Northam stated: ``The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,'' said the Democrat Governor of Virginia.
This blatant disregard for human life has no place in the medical profession in our country.
Last Congress, unfortunately, only one Democrat voted in favor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and another voted ``present.''
My Democrat colleagues send a clear message to the American people that these innocent lives are not worthy of protection and those who intentionally let infants die after birth should not be held accountable.
If a baby American, a fellow American, is lying on a table dying and we cannot, as Congress, as the leaders of this country and the leaders of the free world, cannot say that under the language of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, under the language of the Declaration of Independence that animates our Constitution, and under the privileges of immunities--the roots of which are found in English common law that create the bedrock of our entire justice system--then we need to make sure that that child is protected even and especially because of its defenseless nature.
Mr. Speaker, that is our duty. That is why I rise in support of this legislation. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while their leader boasts of pardoning hundreds of convicted violent felons who attacked and brutalized 140 police officers in this building, the party formerly of Abraham Lincoln in Congress today is working to create a new crime and to perfect three great GOP legislative arts visible this week: Number one, complete legislative redundancy; two, interfering in other families' private lives to prey on their tragedies and medical catastrophes; and, three, threatening to send American doctors to jail.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished Congresswoman from the Third District of Minnesota (Ms. Morrison) who is a mother of three, an OB/GYN, and a former State legislator serving in her first term. This is her first speech on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise not only as the Congresswoman from Minnesota's Third District but as an OB/GYN who has had the honor and privilege of caring for patients for more than 20 years.
As I have said many times throughout those years, being an obstetrician is the greatest job in the world. Being present and helping people during one of the most joyful moments of their lives is an incredible privilege. It is also a serious responsibility.
On most days it is the best job in the world, but sometimes it can be absolutely tragic and heartbreaking. Sometimes medical complications can prevent a patient's dreams of building her family from coming true. The moment when a patient and her family learn about a lethal fetal medical condition that is incompatible with life is devastating. The pain and the grief in that moment is unfathomable. You can never unhear the mother's cries of despair.
Meeting each patient where they are and making a care plan that meets their needs is essential. Knowing that their baby will not survive, some want to plan a delivery that enables them to meet and hold and care for their baby for the precious little time they have together, the time and the space to say good-bye.
This shameful legislation would insert the government into this tragic situation and deny families the care they want for their baby. Instead of allowing parents to hold their dying baby, this bill would require doctors to forcibly take the dying baby from their parents and, even though there is no chance of survival, place the baby directly on a medical table under bright lights and perform interventions that will not work.
Sometimes it is chest compressions, intubation, when a breathing tube is placed in the baby's trachea, and IV lines. If those measures were not taken, the doctor could be charged with murder.
This bill is cruel. It singles out patients who are facing the worst days of their lives. This bill does not solve a
This bill is designed to confuse, to frighten, and to misinform people and criminalize medical providers. It would inflict further and unnecessary tragedy and trauma on patients and their families. We should do everything we can to support pregnant women, mothers, families, and their care providers, not attack them.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you as an obstetrician on behalf of patients and providers across the country, who should never be subjected to this cruel and harmful mandate. I implore my colleagues to reject this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would note another abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2015.
``You wouldn't know it by looking at me today, but in August of 1977, I survived a failed saline infusion abortion. . . . I know where children like me were left to die at St. Luke's hospital--a utility closet.''
Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach) for 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Democrats are trying to distort this issue and this bill. They are trying to mislead the public, claiming that this is an attack on abortion rights and privacy and all kinds of things. What it is, is nothing like the situation that my colleague from Minnesota spoke about.
We only need to look at the actual language of this bill: ``To prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.'' These are the same words the clerk read when we began this debate.
I am absolutely appalled that we have to dictate in law that a newborn baby is a patient and not medical waste. The fact is Democrat lawmakers all over the country are pushing legislation to give abortion providers an out from providing care to babies born after failed abortions.
Babies born after a botched abortion are living human beings with blood in their veins and a beat in their hearts just like us. They deserve the same standard of care that any baby at the same age would receive.
Is providing medical care too much to ask? This bill is not about abortion. It is about medical care for babies. I will repeat this. This bill is not about abortion. It is about medical care for babies.
Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that Representative Ann Wagner is leading the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I am honored to be a cosponsor. I urge everyone to support this bill and support medical care for babies. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have one goal today, and that is a march toward a national abortion ban. They want it so desperately that now through this bill they are treating doctors like criminals, demonizing heartbroken women, and accusing mothers of killing their newborn healthy infants.
I will mention what happened to me. It is a story that can be told by so many women in this country. I learned during a routine sonogram that the doctors could no longer pick up a heartbeat. I was devastated by this news. My doctor said that I would need abortion care to prevent infection.
I asked for more time so I could go home and somehow hope that this could all be reversed. When the time came and I needed to have this procedure to protect my own health and be the mother I wanted to be for my children, I asked one more time to please check that that heartbeat was there before they did this procedure.
These are horrible, painful situations that women, families, and expectant parents find themselves in. When politics are introduced into these moments of grief, they have real consequences for people. When Republicans continue to threaten doctors with prison, what have they achieved? They have gutted reproductive healthcare in this country.
OB/GYNs are fleeing States with abortion bans and leaving the field all together. Today, one-third of all counties in our country have no obstetric care. There are no doctors to help women deliver babies safely. For example, under Georgia's abortion ban, currently half of the counties don't have a single obstetrician.
Mr. Speaker, if Republicans truly care about the lives of women and children, they will vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Roy, my friend from Texas, for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, legislation that I have been blessed and honored to lead since 2019.
Today, thanks to the Herculean efforts of the pro-life movement, the American people have finally regained the power back from the courts to decide how to protect the most vulnerable among us.
However, Congress has a clear role to play when it comes to protecting newborn infants, babies who have been delivered alive and are experiencing their first moments in the world. All children should be welcomed with joy and wonder, no matter the circumstances of their birth. Yet, too many of these little ones are denied the medical care that they need to survive and thrive simply because they are unwanted.
This commonsense legislation will require healthcare providers to administer the same level of care to babies who survive abortions that they would to any other child born at the same gestational age. That is it.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that life is a miracle and children are a blessing. As a proud grandmother of four with a fifth coming any day now--hang in there, Julia--I have watched my own children grow into wonderful, loving parents. I have had the joy of experiencing the world through their eyes, the eyes of my grandchildren.
It breaks my heart to think of the infants who were denied the opportunity to share their light with us and were instead deemed unwanted and left to die. We must remember today that children are not the only victims of born-alive abortions. Mothers, fathers, families, and whole communities all suffer deeply from the loss of a child.
Mr. Speaker, we must act with compassion to protect each little one and give women a strong support system as they navigate the miracles and challenges of motherhood. This bill will save real lives, and it will give survivors a precious chance to build a future.
This is a historic time with a pro-life House, a pro-life Senate, and a pro-life administration. I am so proud that one of our first acts in the House this Congress will be ensuring that every single baby born in the United States receives lifesaving medical care at their most vulnerable moment.
I express my gratitude to the co-leads of this bill, Representative Cammack and Majority Leader Scalise, to the leadership of this Congress, and especially to the multitude of champions for life across the country, for their tireless work in support of the unborn.
Finally, I implore my Democratic colleagues to put aside politics and stand in support of lifesaving care for these innocent newborns as they did when it passed the House in 2015, in 2018, and, yet again, in 2022.
Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of the House to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the 26th District of New York (Mr. Kennedy), a father of three and the still-bereaved father of Brigid Nicole.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 21, an assault on women's healthcare and fundamental rights. On October 19, 2007, my wife Katie gave birth to our beautiful baby girl, Brigid Nicole Kennedy. My wife and I had lost some pregnancies. We were so excited when we got the news she was expecting. It was a girl, and we named her Brigid. She was kicking and doing all the things a
Six weeks before my wife gave birth, we went for an ultrasound and received the worst news imaginable. Brigid was diagnosed with hydrops fetalis, compressing her lungs with fluid, putting her and my wife's life in danger. We were devastated. The only answer was to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the life of my wife whose health was becoming more and more threatened.
It was a choice we did not want to make. It was a choice we had to make. We wanted our baby more than anything. We saw doctors, specialists, and neonatologists. We traveled where we were promised we would receive the best care. If there was something we could do to bring her safely into this world, we did it.
We embraced each other as a family and prayed.
Then, with the guidance of our doctors, knowing that we were losing our child, knowing that she would be born and we would have only a very short period of time with her, we chose palliative care to keep our daughter comfortable and to love her during her time on Earth.
Baby Brigid, who was already loved, would not live the beautiful life we had dreamed for her.
We had to schedule what we knew would be a devastating delivery for the sake of my wife's health. We held her, baptized her, and sent her on to the Lord. She was with us for only 4 minutes. We watched our baby girl become our baby angel, and our lives were transformed forever.
As we faced one of our darkest days as a family, the last thing we needed was legislation that served to stand between the health of my wife, unborn child, and the future of our family.
If this bill had been law, doctors would have been required to whisk Brigid away from us, inhumanely poke and prod our baby girl with tubes, needles, and IVs, causing her needless pain, suffering, and torture.
My wife and I would have been robbed of those precious minutes with our baby Brigid. It would have eviscerated the one moment my wife and I cling to as baby Brigid's parents.
It would have only added to our pain, hurt, and helplessness--that is, if they would have performed the procedure at all, for fear of breaking the law and going to jail or losing their license in order to save my wife.
I thank my wife, Katie, for allowing me to share our story, and I share it because it is not ours alone.
Countless women and families with dreams for their children and their future face difficult decisions and unthinkable circumstances every day. Our government has no business intruding on a family's deeply personal medical decisions, yet the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision has opened the floodgate for States to rob women and families of the ability to make healthcare choices with their doctors, including the very difficult choice to access safe, legal, and oftentimes medically necessary abortions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Madam Speaker, they are now using this bill, built on a despicable lie rooted in neither medicine nor science, to restrict access to abortion nationwide. It would levy criminal charges against healthcare practitioners and providers, jeopardizing their ability to deliver proper medical care to women. It impacts people all over this country.
Madam Speaker, today, I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 21, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Vote ``no'' to criminalizing healthcare and ``no'' to imposing more hurt on families facing very difficult days.
The morning after we said good-bye to Brigid, I woke up in the hospital and a rainbow appeared. It was a sign from above that our baby girl, Brigid Nicole, was home in Heaven.
Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Morrison, and Ms. Clark for their poignant, riveting personal testimonies. I hope our colleagues are listening to our colleagues over here.
This bill is all about demonizing women, threatening doctors, exploiting other people's tragedies, and dividing the country.
Madam Speaker, our heart goes out to our colleagues who have suffered personal tragedies. Unfortunately, none of the things that were just ascribed to this bill are true. The bill does none of those things.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my friend and co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.
Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank Ann Wagner for her tremendous leadership and courage in authoring this important bill.
Madam Speaker, in a Florida abortion clinic, Sycloria Williams delivered a perfectly healthy, live baby girl at 23 weeks.
The clinic owner took the baby, who was gasping for air, cut her umbilical cord, threw her into a biohazard bag, and put the bag into the trash like so much garbage.
Heartbroken, Ms. Williams later had a funeral for her baby girl she named Shanice.
Madam Speaker, why are these live births so little known? We are talking about, in most cases, perfectly healthy babies who are killed but they survive.
The Philadelphia Inquirer did a cover story years ago called ``The Dreaded Complication.'' In it, the abortionists were complaining that so many children were surviving late-term abortions and they didn't know what to do. The partial-birth abortion ban, where the baby's brains are sucked out--we did the ban, but the actual procedure--was, in part, in response to that. They wanted to ensure that the baby was dead.
In that article, Dr. Willard Cates, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's abortion surveillance unit, said: Live births are little known because organized medicine, from fear of public clamor and legal action, treats them more as an embarrassment to be hushed up than a problem to be solved. It is like turning yourself in to the IRS for an audit. What is there to gain? The tendency is not to report because there are only negative incentives.
Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, one of the few who got caught, was convicted of murder for killing so many children and women in his abortion clinic in Philadelphia. The grand jury described it this way: Gosnell had a simple solution for unwanted babies: He delivered them. He killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it ensuring fetal demise. The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that snipping.
These children are not junk. They cannot be treated as so much garbage. This legislation tries to say we need to protect them once they are born after the abortion.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act seeks to end or at least mitigate this egregious child abuse by requiring that a healthcare provider must--and this is from the bill--exercise the same degree of professional care, skill, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious healthcare practitioner would render to any other child born alive.
Why can't we have that standard to try to save that child? The bill empowers the women upon whom the abortions are performed to obtain appropriate relief through civil action. We passed a bill like this when Steve Chabot was the prime sponsor years ago, but the enforcement has been almost nil if not none.
This is humane, pro-child, pro-human rights legislation, and I hope my colleagues on the other side realize these children have great value and should not be treated like junk.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the passionate vehemence of the gentleman, but the whole substance of his argument completely undercuts the meaning of their bill.
In the case that I could hear him talking about, Kermit Barron Gosnell was an American serial killer who indeed engaged in precisely the conduct the gentleman is talking about and was convicted of murder in Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.
Infanticide is against the law in 50 States in America, and this guy was picked up for the conduct the gentleman spoke of. He was prosecuted for it, and he was sent to jail.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.
Madam Speaker, we are here again because Republicans have prioritized a bill designed to make headlines, not good law.
H.R. 21 is designed to mislead the public about those who need abortion care and the doctors who provide that care.
Let's be clear. As stated, the law of the land is that doctors have an obligation to provide appropriate medical care to their patients, including infants, and no one here is advocating for infanticide.
This bill goes further than restating the current law, and it is our job here to read the fine print. This bill would create harsh criminal and financial penalties for doctors and clinicians providing medically necessary and appropriate care to their patients.
As Representative Kennedy's heartbreaking testimony just made clear, every pregnancy is different. Patients and providers have to be able to make the healthcare decisions that are right for their families without politicians mandating a one-size-fits-all approach and threatening healthcare providers who disagree.
Republican extremists can continue attacking healthcare providers and women's fundamental freedoms, but we are going to keep fighting to ensure that women can make their own healthcare decisions.
Madam Speaker, I am a healthcare provider, and I have been one for 30 years.
I rise today in support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to protect the lives of our country's most innocent. This is not about abortion.
As a physician, it is beyond my comprehension that anyone would not intervene to save an innocent and defenseless human life. I cannot in my deepest soul understand how anyone would not come to the aid of a helpless infant child. Neglect, in this instance, when the baby is outside the mother's body, is murder, plain and simple.
There have been so many instances of individuals who are alive today who were saved after an attempted abortion. They testify how their life was saved because some physician abided by their oath to do no harm, primum non nocere.
The child is born alive. It is not part of the mother's body. This is not about abortion. Neglect is harm. Neglect is immoral. Abortion is not the issue.
I strongly support this bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to understand the delineation between an abortion and trying to save the life of someone who survives an abortion.
Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this legislation, which is not rooted in medical realities.
Physicians do not abort babies after birth, period. Healthcare providers have always been legally required to provide appropriate care. Patients and providers must be free to make health decisions based on their circumstances without political interference.
I will tell you what this bill would do. It will cause more pain and suffering for families who are already facing an extraordinarily heartbreaking situation. In many cases, it may be safer and healthier to treat a baby at the birth location rather than wasting precious time traveling to a hospital. This bill would take that medical judgment away from doctors and give it to politicians, putting infants' lives at greater risk. That is outrageous.
This bill is not about protecting children. It is about controlling women's lives. Republicans campaigned on the promise that they would not ban abortion, yet here we are in the first month of the new Congress and the GOP has already brought this cruel bill to the floor in an effort to advance a dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide, although this bill really will ban no abortions at all but rather threaten the lives of some newborns. It is shameful.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 21, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
This legislation says that infants who are born alive after an attempted abortion are entitled to the same respect and medical care that would be provided to an infant of the same gestational age.
In some late-term abortions, the abortionist is unsuccessful at ending the life of the baby, and the baby is born alive. Babies are able to move and breathe on their own. Even pro-abortion academics admit this is often the case, and it is not rare.
A June 2024 article published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology found that of 14,000 second-trimester abortions, over 1,500 babies were born alive, a rate of 11.2 percent.
This legislation unfortunately is necessary due to heartbreaking reports of abortionists in the United States placing these living, breathing babies in biohazard bags, vats of formaldehyde, or storing them away in a utility closet to die alone. In that sense, there is a complete analogy between what goes on in these abortions, after these abortions, and what Kermit Gosnell did and languished in prison for.
This commonsense legislation requires that abortion survivors be treated with dignity. Remember, this bill applies to the baby's right to care after a baby is born alive and has no implication for abortion or the mother's health.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter calling this a dangerous government intrusion into medical care which injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, signed by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Nursing, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and a dozen other organizations.
Madam Speaker, I had always wanted to start a family of my own, but like many women in America, I struggled to get pregnant. Some days I kept praying to God wondering if He was ever going to allow me to have a child at all. For far too many women in this country, the miracle of pregnancy often ends in tragedy.
Our State of Georgia has one of the worst rates of maternal death in this country, and Black mothers face even worse statistics. Now extremists want to mandate our healthcare decisions and intimidate our doctors with political games that cut off access to care, care that once saved my life.
My story is not unique. Lives are at risk, and I fear for the safety of families in Georgia and across the country if these attempts succeed.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to call out the glaring hypocrisy of H.R. 21. Once again, the Republican Party is twisting the truth instead of telling the truth. With H.R. 21, Republicans claim they are saving lives of newborn babies. The last I checked, infanticide is already illegal in all 50 States.
This bill is the first step of the Republicans' radical agenda to make us less safe.
They boast about being the party of law and order. However, it seems that notion only applies when punishing women and healthcare providers, not the violent insurrectionists who stormed our Capitol on January 6. Shamefully, they don't seem to care about the five police officers who died as a result of January 6 or the 140 others who were injured.
What happened to Back the Blue?
They also don't seem to care about the women who have already died as a result of Donald Trump's extreme abortion ban. Apparently, not all lives matter.
The goal of H.R. 21 is clear: to further strip women of their fundamental rights by threatening doctors and healthcare providers with jail time.
Now Republicans want to lock up those who save lives while freeing cop killers?
It is radical and not what the American people want.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with their constituents, not against them, and vote ``no'' on this dangerous, grossly hypocritical, and unnecessary bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues like to dismiss this as if it is not a real problem. Of course, those who have suffered through it, including the baby whom I described who was being held as it was dying for 45 minutes after such a grotesque procedure, beg to differ, as do the 143 babies whom the CDC, which is hardly a paragon of pro-life propaganda, writes that between 2003 and 2014 at least 143 babies died after being born alive.
This is hardly a fiction. This is hardly something that we should ignore.
Certainly, these are babies who are deserving of equal protection under the law. Our fellow Americans deserve protection.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' reproductive healthcare surveillance act.
This bill is the very definition of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It uses an intentionally scary title that simply doesn't happen. Babies born alive are not killed by abortions after birth.
Republicans pretend to support families and pregnant women, but this bill is clearly another attempt to control a woman's body. It is a bill to wedge the government between couples and their doctor when facing incredibly difficult decisions.
This bill pushes lies and misinformation about pregnancy and abortion care. It targets women who received heartbreaking diagnoses of serious health complications, the kind of complications that puts the life of a fetus or their own life at risk.
That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly opposes this legislation. These are the very frontline medical professionals who provide care for women throughout their pregnancy.
We all know women who are suffering due to the Republicans' agenda that puts pregnant women in the crosshairs of their extremism.
Sadly, these tragic stories are not hard to find in my home State of Florida. Let's not create more of them.
Mr. Speaker, we must reject these attacks and stand up for women in our country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for those who were not here at the beginning, I would repeat the testimony of Jill Stanek. She testified before the House Judiciary Committee after seeing the horrific reality.
She was a nurse, and she saw a child being aborted who was alive and was left to die alone in a utility closet. She went over and held the little survivor for 45 minutes until the baby died. Again, the baby had been aborted because the baby had Down syndrome.
I want to remind Members that Virginia Governor Northam said: ``The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired.''
We are talking about a fellow living American baby. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about abortion. We are talking about a child.
Mr. Speaker, when I was pregnant, I ended up in an emergency room waving my ultrasound picture showing I was pregnant. I was so proud. After multiple miscarriages, I wanted to keep this pregnancy, so I didn't take anesthesia.
As I lay bleeding on that operating table, I could hear the doctors yelling: We are losing her. We are losing her.
My doctors had to worry about keeping me alive that day, but they didn't have to worry about going to jail for any decision I made.
However, today Republicans would criminalize reproductive healthcare nationwide. Women experiencing heartbreaking, life-threatening pregnancies will die on the operating table because doctors will be scared of going to jail for 5 years under this bill.
Republicans don't seem to care about the deadly consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of strong women on this side of the aisle who beg to differ, including the lead author of the legislation.
I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to focus on the main point, which is ``born alive.'' We are talking about, again, a fellow living human being, a fellow American who is alive.
My colleagues don't want to address that because they know the horrors of that will not be accepted by the American people. We are just simply saying
The fact of the matter is this is real life that we are dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, 284 babies were reported to have been born alive between 1997 and 2024. Florida alone reported 14 babies born alive in 2023. This is a real issue.
We are just simply saying that these precious babies, fellow Americans, deserve protection because they are alive. Under the Hippocratic oath, doctors should care for these living, fellow Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is the mother of two wonderful grown children and a consumer advocate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this extreme legislation that would criminalize doctors. As we have heard, killing a baby is already against the law. What we should be doing is working together to get accurate healthcare information to anyone who is pregnant or who wants to be pregnant.
Here is a real story from Oregon. A county public health clinic closed, and when a local woman missed her period, she went to a so- called crisis pregnancy center. She got a test and an ultrasound.
The center said: You are pregnant. All is well. You should plan for a new baby.
A month later, she was hemorrhaging and went to the emergency department where the doctor diagnosed a uterine polyp and early cancer.
That blurry ultrasound she got at the crisis pregnancy center was not a baby. It was impacted stool in her colon. She was obviously and dangerously misdiagnosed.
Sadly, stories like this are not uncommon, which is why I will soon introduce the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive advertising of services by crisis pregnancy centers. They often engage in deception to get people in, and then they mislead them about the services they provide and often tragically mislead them about their condition.
Now, that is a real problem and one that makes a compelling case not for this bill but for comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was just handed by my pro-life, female legislative director information here about pregnancy centers.
Pregnancy resource centers nationwide serve millions of pregnant women and new mothers each year. These centers provide services and resources often at no charge and include ultrasounds, pregnancy testing, STD testing, diapers, clothing, and educational programs.
Private and public adoption agencies assisted approximately 115,000 adoptions in 2022. These are organizations and entities that want to protect life.
Again, I will note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not address and do not want to address the simple purpose of this bill: protecting a living American from being allowed to die without having medical treatment provided to that child.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), who is the chair emerita of the Democratic Women's Caucus and who is also a proud mother and grandmother.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This bill is not about protecting anyone. It is about intimidating doctors and making it harder for women to get the care they need.
Let's be clear: Every baby born in this country is already protected under the law. The bill creates unnecessary rules that aren't based on medical facts or science. It threatens healthcare providers with jail for doing their job.
Instead of focusing on real issues like making healthcare more affordable or addressing the maternal healthcare crisis, Republicans are doubling down on their dangerous agenda of banning abortion nationwide.
Women deserve the freedom to make their own medical decisions without politicians getting in the way. That is why I strongly oppose this very deadly bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we ask the mothers and fathers of America: Who do you want in the doctor's office with you making this decision, a medical decision, OB-GYNs and doctors who vehemently oppose this legislation, or the MAGA politicians who are applauding this week the release of hundreds of violent cop assaulting convicted felons.
The vast majority of American people reject this legislation and say: Let us trust the medical practitioners.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about jail and we are going to talk about who might be pardoned, then I am proud that President Trump seems to be on the verge of pardoning a large number of American citizens who have been put in jail at the hands of a weaponized Department of Justice against American citizens simply carrying out their First Amendment rights to speak out in defense of life.
For example, Lauren Handy, 31 years old--by the way, an active, progressive activist for human rights--was put in jail for 57 months.
I am glad that it seems that President Trump is on the verge of pardoning Lauren Handy. Even though I disagree with her on a whole lot of issues, I was proud to sit with her and meet with her when she was being targeted for prosecution by the weaponized Department of Justice under Joe Biden to be put in jail because she is pro-life.
Mr. Chairman, it is sadly unsurprising to me that Members of this body know next to nothing about pregnancy or abortion care, which is why we should not be the ones getting involved in these decisions in the first place.
Let's clear a few things up for my colleagues. First of all, killing a baby is already illegal in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. It is called murder, and we already have criminal penalties for it. Second of all, no one--and I mean no one--goes through 8 or 9 months of pregnancy and all that comes with it, such as morning sickness, heartburn, swollen ankles, and all of the other uncomfortable and painful parts of pregnancy, and then, after 8 or 9 months of that, it is just like, no, I don't want to do this.
Only 1 percent of all abortions happen at 21 weeks or later. If they do, it is because of a serious fetal abnormality or the health of the mother.
If you are the one getting that news, it is heartbreaking. It is earth-shattering. The last thing families need is government to interfere with their access to care.
This bill isn't based on science or reality. It is a horrible, disgusting bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Texas keeps referencing his female staff and colleagues, but it seems like there has been a coed exodus from his side of the aisle as support for this bill vanishes. In the meantime, I don't have enough time, and I am happy to be yielded time to share with my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I simply say I am proud to have my colleague here from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), who is coed the last time I checked.
The fact of the matter, as my friend from Maryland and the last speaker is
As subcommittee chairman, I sent a letter to Washington, D.C., authorities to preserve the records. Biden's Department of Justice refused to look into this information, but the D.C. five reveals the uncomfortable truth about abortion and a reality that we are all dealing with here.
Again, I go back to the point. Talking about murder, we are also talking about babies being allowed to die and babies being allowed to sit there and literally gasp out their last breath rather than have doctors resuscitate those infants.
That is the truth that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just simply do not want to recognize.
Mr. Speaker, this extremist bill undermines women's access to healthcare. That is unacceptable, and it is, frankly, not what I was sent here to work on. I will be voting ``no.''
The evidence is clear. In States with less access to care, maternal mortality is higher, infant deaths are higher, and racial inequities are greater. These restrictions also make it harder for expectant mothers to receive the care they need in pregnancies with complications.
It is nonsense that my daughters have less rights than I did at their age. It is nonsense that we have had to decide with them where to live and where to go to school based on where they have rights. It is nonsense that my daughters are less safe because of government interference in their healthcare.
It is time that House Republicans put aside this foolishness and start focusing on real issues, like eliminating maternal mortality and increasing rural access to healthcare, like lowering costs and creating good jobs, like working across the aisle to deliver real results for real people.
Mr. Speaker, I have to bring this back to what we are talking about because I have heard so many passionate words from the other side, and the words have nothing to do with the bill that we have in front of us.
Like I mentioned before, this bill is about medical care for babies. It says it in the title. The clerk mentioned it. I have mentioned it. It is about medical care for babies.
What we are trying to do here today is make sure that babies are treated with dignity and medical care that they will need so that babies aren't left to die in a closet alone and discarded like medical waste. We recognize the humanity of these babies. We ask for them to have medical care. That is what this is about.
Don't let the other side gaslight and pretend this is about abortion rights. This is about babies and medical care. I will continue to repeat that.
Mr. Speaker, it is another day under a Republican majority and of an antiscience, antifacts healthcare agenda. I don't know which is worse: the cruelty or the ignorance on full display here across the aisle.
I would ask my colleagues if they have ever met or spoken to a woman who had abortion care late in pregnancy? If they had, what they would have heard her share is about the nursery that she lovingly decorated. If they had, what they would have heard her share was about the name that she picked out. If they had, then they would have heard her share about how her world collapsed all around her when learning of her baby's devastating medical diagnosis.
Let me be clear what my colleagues are doing here. The majority is not only putting women's lives at risk, but they want to deny them the chance to hold their baby who will not survive. I don't know what God my colleagues on the other side of the aisle serve. The God I serve is one of love and mercy and would not deny a mother final moments with a dying child or subject her to carrying a lifeless fetus around.
Republicans want to force their way into the exam room during one of the most impossible, dangerous moments in someone's life. When a family learns their baby has a fatal diagnosis and would be born with only a short time to live, some people make the decision to end the pregnancy so they can hold their baby during their final moments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, how cruel it is that Republicans in Congress would deny them that small comfort? In these dire situations, families forego treatment which has no hope of saving their baby's life and instead spend time comforting them and saying good-bye. Physicians who care for families have shared how their patients spend this very limited devastating time with their infants.
Once again, we have ignorant, uninformed men who think they know better than doctors and mothers taking to the House floor to deny us our medical care.
It is another day under a Republican majority. Enough.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Gianna Jessen, another adult survivor of abortion, testified to the House Judiciary Committee in 2015, stating:
`` . . . I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April the 6th, 1977. . . . Thankfully the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die.''
I will have plenty to answer for when I meet my maker and talk to the good Lord, for my life as a flawed and sinful human being, but I will not have to answer for not standing up in every which way that I possibly can to stop those kinds of horrors and to stand up for a fellow living American, a fellow living human being allowed to die, for the political whims of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Since the disastrous Dobbs decision, we have seen nothing short of an all-out assault on women's reproductive rights and freedoms.
Make no mistake: This bill has nothing to do with its fallacious title. Infanticide is already a crime. Instead, this bill is aimed at deterring physicians from providing reproductive healthcare that many times is lifesaving. I know this firsthand because when I was supposed to be thrilled by a 20-week sonogram, I got the devastating news that my daughter had no heartbeat. I needed to have an emergency abortion procedure to ensure that I could live to raise my two children already at home.
It is unthinkable that this law and laws like it are trying to strip my daughters of the same access to this healthcare. Americans want Congress to lower costs, secure our border, and create jobs; not interfere with heartbreaking family medical decisions. America's women deserve better. Our daughters deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent words. When will Republicans stop feeding on other people's tragedies? We don't need MAGA in the delivery room.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vehement opposition to this
Killing infants after birth is murder. It is illegal everywhere in this country. This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to make healthcare providers fear that they will be criminally prosecuted or sued for giving lifesaving, legal healthcare.
Under this bill, infants born with a heartbeat but without any chance of survival must be subjected to immediate traumatizing life support rather than being allowed to die peacefully in their mothers' arms. This bill does nothing to save babies or protect mothers. Instead, it is a disgusting fear tactic, and it will absolutely exacerbate the already dire shortage of women's healthcare across this Nation.
Make no mistake: Women across this country will be harmed with this bill. No doctor should have to choose between administering the treatment their patient needs and going to jail, and no politician should be making decisions about any patient's healthcare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just note that, in the very text of the legislation, Congress finds: ``One, if an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws; two, any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.''
That is hardly anything to do with what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about. We just heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle describe very specifically, yes, what we are trying to say we shouldn't do, which is, after a procedure, an abortion or otherwise, if you have a living human being, that, yes, you should try to resuscitate and save that child.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).
Mr. Speaker, I know that this has been discussed already, but this has been talked about quite a bit in Virginia, and that is because our former Governor, Ralph Northam, was the one who really laid bare the horrible attitude on the left that, if a child is born with some abnormalities, that after that child is born, that child may not necessarily be given life-sustaining treatment. Instead, according to our former Governor, a conversation between the mother and the physician would ensue about whether or not to attempt to save this child's life after it had been born.
Mr. Speaker, this is a tragic story of just how far the left has gone, the attitudes toward children born alive, and we must do all we can to stop this treatment of human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon), the mother of two, who, like so many women, was forced to make a choice when her child died in utero.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this misleading bill that deeply will criminalize doctors who provide the most basic and emergency healthcare to women.
His name was Selah Weston. At 21 weeks, his faint heartbeat clapped right next to my daughter's. He was a twin. I was given the opportunity to go home, and perhaps Selah would expel himself from my body, but all three of us became septic.
I had to go back to the emergency room, and my OB/GYN sat with me and my then-husband, who is now, too, in Heaven, and gave us the opportunity to say either we go through this procedure, or you die, Lelah dies, and Selah dies.
I want Congress not to be in those conversations with OB/GYNs who have to mourn with women who are facing death.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill. If we want to talk about children, let's talk about childcare. Let's talk about housing. Let's talk about healthcare. We can come together and create beloved communities for our children and parents. This ain't it.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 21 would rob families of the ability to make difficult, complicated medical decisions in some of the most heartbreaking circumstances imaginable. It is a mean-spirited solution in search of a problem.
Infanticide is already illegal in every State of the Union, and Congress unanimously affirmed this with a law in 2002, but this bill is not about saving lives. It is about spreading misinformation about abortion care to further anti-abortion talking points.
If the majority is interested in caring for newborns, I invite them to support Democrats' efforts to provide paid family leave to every new parent.
Republicans are welcome to join our efforts to expand the child tax credit to families struggling with paying the bills, and we would be thrilled to have bipartisan support in this Chamber to make childcare affordable everywhere.
Instead, House Republicans have brought up a bill designed to intimidate doctors and perpetuate disinformation about how abortion care really works.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered my bill, the Women's Health Protection Act, legislation that would create a Federal right to abortion care, free from medically unnecessary restrictions in all 50 States, in all ZIP Codes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine, hard to believe that we are actually here debating a born-alive act, that we actually have to do this. The question is about life. When does life begin and is government responsible for protecting life.
I say life begins at conception and government is responsible for protecting life. If we go back to the document that is before our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, what does it actually say?
It says: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.''
What is one of the first unalienable rights? It is life.
I guess the question is: When does life begin? Life begins at conception, and that is why I stand here in support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, now we have had the opportunity to be lectured about life by a gun dealer. That is pretty impressive. I think he gave the game away when he finished his remarks by saying ``life begins at conception,'' a proposition that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the American people who think that women have a right to choose, but that is a topic for another day. After spending all their time saying it wasn't about abortion, I am afraid he gave the game away at the end.
This bill is an exercise in complete legislative redundancy. It is an interference in other people's private and medical lives to prey on their personal tragedies and catastrophes as we have heard throughout the debate. It is a shocking threat to send OB/GYN doctors and physicians to jail at a time
Their bill proposes to move in exactly the wrong direction, which is perhaps why they had a shortage of speakers on their side and we had a shortage of time because I could have had dozens more people who wanted to speak on behalf of the American majority against this absurd attempt to interfere in the medical lives of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I started this about an hour ago, and I was moved to talk, as I said, about a woman who testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
She described having been a nurse, having witnessed what occurred where, in her testimony, the child was born after the abortion procedure. The child survived for 45 minutes having been discarded into a utility closet. This nurse held this 22-week-old child, a child of God, who had been aborted because the child had Down syndrome.
This legislation is very simple. If a fellow American, a fellow human being, who is afforded equal protection under the law, is alive in a hospital, in a clinic, frankly anywhere, where a doctor is there and present and can perform lifesaving treatment, it is our position that that child is deserving of the same equal protection under the law, under the Constitution of the United States, as any other living American, any of us in the Chamber, any of the Americans watching this now.
This child should not be left to die, should not be left in a utility closet without getting the care that a doctor, who is present, having taken the Hippocratic Oath, and could administer that care to save that child--that is what this bill is about, nothing more.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. It is why for the last hour they have literally refused to address those facts. They have literally refused to defend this grotesque procedure. In the greatest country in the history of mankind, we allow the most vulnerable of our citizens to be denied equal protection under the law and denied the care that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this year's March for Life is an engraved invitation to each and every one of us to seriously recommit and rededicate ourselves to the defense of the weakest and most vulnerable.
To recommit with love and compassion to tangibly assist women-- especially through the extraordinary work of pregnancy care centers--in order to protect their precious babies and their own lives from the violence and cruelty of abortion.
Pregnancy care centers are under siege by Planned Parenthood--also known as Child Abuse Inc.--an organization that has killed more than 10 million babies in its clinics.
This year we recommit to exposing abortion methods to a society that has chosen to be blind to the realities of brutally dismembering helpless babies with sharp knife-like curettes or poisoning babies with pills that literally starve them to death and often result in their bodies being flushed down a toilet.
We are a people of indomitable hope--we absolutely refuse to entertain discouragement or defeat.
We thank President Trump for defeating not one but two extremist pro- abortion candidates--Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris--and for his amazing defense of unborn children.
Abortion-President Joe Biden is gone--but his morbid legacy of packing the judiciary with litmus tested abortion activists, using executive orders to kill more babies and integrating the nefarious abortion agenda into countless benign and necessary programs like veterans' health and global health must be immediately reversed.
President Trump has done more to protect the innocent than any other president in history--and now, thank God, he's back.
Since the reversal of Roe v. Wade--achieved by the three Supreme Court justices President Trump appointed--half the states have enacted laws to protect unborn children, saving over 200,000 children over two years.
On Monday, President Trump issued a powerful executive order designed to defund the outrageously pro-abortion World Health Organization (WHO), and another--the expected reinstatement of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance to reverse Biden's hijacking of global health funding, which shamelessly promoted abortion on demand around the world including in President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
Last week, the most recent revelation was that PEPFAR broke U.S. law to pay for abortions in Africa--a tip of the iceberg of the Biden- Harris anti-child activism at home and abroad. The 2025 Marist poll has found that 73 percent of Americans oppose using tax dollars for abortions in other countries.
Other pro-life executive orders are expected soon.
Special thanks to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate for their ongoing courageous legislative initiatives, including legislation to save babies born alive during the grisly abortion process.
The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act under consideration in both the House and Senate seeks to end or at least mitigate this egregious child abuse by requiring that a health care provider must ``exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age'' or be fined and/or face up to five years in prison.
The bill makes clear that no mother of a child born alive can ever be prosecuted.
It also empowers the woman upon whom the abortion is performed to obtain appropriate relief in a civil action.
This is humane, pro-child, human rights legislation.
Why is there opposition? Dr. Willard Cates, MD, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Abortion Surveillance Unit, explained years ago: ``(Live births) are little known because organized medicine, from fear of public clamor and legal action, treats them more as an embarrassment to be hushed up than a problem to be solved. It's like turning yourself in to the IRS for an audit . . . What is there to gain? The tendency is not to report because there are only negative incentives.'' Cates was quoted by the Philadelphia Inquirer in ``Abortion: The Dreaded Complication.''
Bottom line: pro-lifers are a people of persevering faith in God willing to bear any burden and endure any attack. We know that the cruel injustice of abortion need not be forever and that each day, despite setbacks, many unborn children and their mothers have been and are being protected. We have hope. We have just begun.
On January 23, 2025, on Page H344, in the first column, the following appeared: Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this year's March for Life is an engraved invitation . . . and are being protected. We have hope. We have just begun. The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
The material previously referred to by Ms. Chu is as follows:
On January 23, 2025, page H344, in the second and third columns, the following appeared: The Clerk read as follows: Ms. Chu of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 21 to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this year's March for Life is an engraved invitation . . . and are being protected. We have hope. We have just begun. The material previously referred to by Ms. CHU is as follows:
The online version has been corrected to read: The Clerk read as follows: Ms. Chu of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 21 to the Committee on the Judiciary. The material previously referred to by Ms. CHU is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 375) to require the Secretary of the Interior to partner and collaborate with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Hawaii to address Rapid Ohia Death, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 359, nays 62, not voting 11, as follows:
Messrs. KNOTT and HARRIGAN, Ms. BOEBERT, Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, Ms. HAGEMAN, Messrs. COLLINS, FRY, HERN of Oklahoma, STUTZMAN, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Messrs. TIMMONS, DOWNING, SCHMIDT, Mrs. BIGGS of South Carolina, Messrs. SCHWEIKERT, MAST, McCORMICK, McDOWELL, and ROY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. McGARVEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 471) to expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279, nays 141, not voting 13, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 21) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion, offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, nays 216, not voting 12, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
On January 23, 2025, page H348, in the first column, the following appeared: The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The online version has been corrected to read: The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 204, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser)(during the vote). The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery, no matter how happy you are, that they are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, due to the death of my beloved wife of 41 years, Patty Williams, I was unable to be in D.C. and vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 25 and YEA on Roll Call No. 27.
Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber today due to illness. On January 18, 2025, I was seen in the emergency room and subsequently admitted for treatment of influenza and pneumonia. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 24, YEA on Roll Call No. 25, YEA on Roll Call No. 26, and NAY on Roll Call No. 27.
Mr. Speaker, due to travel restrictions related to my pregnancy, I was unable to travel to DC to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 24, YEA on Roll Call No. 25, YEA on Roll Call No. 26, and NAY on Roll Call No. 27.
Mr. Speaker, as the only geriatric nurse practitioner in Congress, I have seen firsthand the way in which our older veterans, especially those who require care in nursing homes, experience poor health outcomes because of a lack of advocacy in government.
The Department of Veterans Affairs regularly convenes a Geriatrics and
However, advocates for those living in State veterans homes and those who provide nursing home domiciliary and adult care for our veterans are left completely out of the conversation. That is unacceptable and harmful to the long-term health of our veterans.
That is why I am introducing the Representing Our Seniors at VA Act to reform the VA's advisory committee and ensure a representative from the National Association of State Veterans Homes is included.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this effort so we can improve the quality of care for our Greatest Generation living in assisted living facilities.
Mr. Speaker, after more than a year in captivity, 15 months of pain, fear, and horror, Israeli hostages are finally coming home.
The first three to finally return to their families' arms are Romi Gonen, Emily Damari, and Doron Steinbrecher. Relatives worked tirelessly to get their loved ones home, and I have had the heart- wrenching privilege of meeting with many of them.
Just last month, I met with Yarden Gonen, Romi's sister, and Aviva Siegel for the third time since October 7.
Aviva was taken hostage with her husband, Keith. Aviva was released between the pauses of 2023, 51 days later, but Keith remains in Gaza. He is expected to be released in this phase of the ongoing cease-fire.
After 15 months too many, Romi, Emily, Doron, and, God willing, 30 others will return home and then the remaining 70.
We must see this bilateral cease-fire through. We must ensure all hostages return home. God bless the people of Israel. God bless the hostages, living and dead. May they all come home soon.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the body for the first time to express appreciation and exhilaration with the opportunity that sits before us now.
Last week, former President Biden addressed the Nation for the last time in a speech that was filled with blame-shifting and praise for his administration that left us with nothing but empty promises and lighter pockets.
President Trump is now at the helm, and I am confident that with his administration, in partnership with this House and our Senate colleagues, we will turn the page with policies that put America First, win the border war, protect tax dollars, keep our promises that were made to our veterans, and defend our sacred values.
That is what my constituents want from this Congress, and that is what I intend on helping deliver in my service to South Carolina's Third District.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to President Trump's unlawful attempt to end birthright citizenship.
The 14th Amendment clearly states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States. This law has been the law of the land for over 150 years, and it is core to our identity as a nation. Any attempt to change that through executive order is both unconstitutional and un-American.
As the daughter of an immigrant, I know the vast majority of immigrants work hard, pay taxes, own businesses, and contribute so much to our country's success.
I also agree that we need to secure our borders and fix our broken immigration system, but we can't accomplish any of that by relying on fear tactics and failed, inhumane policies from the past.
Instead, President Trump must work with Congress on serious bipartisan solutions that will actually make our communities safer and more affordable for everyone.
I am happy to work with the new administration to achieve that goal. However, if the President continues to pursue dangerous and harmful policies, I am prepared to defend the rights of my constituents.
Oregon sent me here to fight for them, and that is exactly what I intend to do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Petal, Mississippi, as it celebrates its 50th anniversary.
For half a century, Petal has been a vibrant and thriving community known for its strong sense of pride, deep-rooted history, and outstanding contributions to south Mississippi. From its rich heritage to its remarkable growth, Petal has become a shining example of what makes our region so special.
As their Representative, I have seen firsthand the hard work and dedication of Petal's residents, leaders, and businesses. They have built a city that not only honors its past but also embraces a bright future.
This milestone is a testament to the resilience, unity, and spirit of this great community.
I look forward to seeing Petal continue to grow, thrive, and inspire for many years to come.
I congratulate Petal on 50 incredible years, and here is to the next 50. Thank you for all you do for the Fourth District of Mississippi.
Mr. Speaker, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was born in New Brunswick and raised in South River, and he died in D.C. on January 7, 2021.
He succumbed to two successive strokes just hours after being pepper- sprayed by violent criminals attempting to stop the peaceful transfer of power and undo our democracy.
The men who attacked him just hours before his death, who were charged, tried, and convicted of assaulting a police officer, were just able to walk free. They were pardoned by Donald Trump.
Officer Sicknick made the ultimate sacrifice. Pardoning his attackers is an assault to his memory, an affront to his family, and a disgrace to the Constitution that he swore to uphold and gave his life to defend.
January 6 was a violent insurrection. We have proof. We have videos, and nothing will change that history.
Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the heaviest manufacturing districts in the country. In fact, my family employs Hoosiers who build and fabricate products for our great American economy.
In 2017, President Trump laid out his plan to add rocket fuel to the American manufacturing sector. He enacted major tax cuts, eliminated regulatory red tape, and increased pressure on countries like China that have been eating our lunch for decades.
During Trump's first term, we saw businesses return home at a record
Trump knows how to make businesses successful, and following his lead, we will make America successful again.
We need to support his efforts to deregulate. We need to use every tool available to level the playing field. We must create an appealing business environment so that our great manufacturing companies can feel confident to grow here rather than looking abroad.
It is time to take pride in our abilities, our people, and the words ``made in America.''
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Rick Cardinal and Wendi Damm as Ohio's 13th Congressional District Champions of the Week.
Rick and Wendi are chemistry teachers at Barberton High School, and this year, they each earned the Gene Easter Award, which recognizes science teachers who demonstrate in their classrooms the importance of science and chemistry. They earned this award for their dedication to the Explorers Post, a program designed to inspire students to explore careers in STEM fields.
Ohio's 13th Congressional District has long been known for its scientific innovation, and Rick and Wendi are ensuring this legacy for generations to come.
Congratulations once again to Rick Cardinal and Wendi Damm on this fantastic accomplishment. I thank them for all they do to inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the opening of the Akers Mill ramp project.
During my first months in Congress in 2018, I gathered Federal officials to speak about the importance of the investment in our State's infrastructure. In July of that year, my team was able to announce a $5 million grant, the final funding needed to complete the project.
I am so proud that, working together, we were finally able to secure the resources for our project that will serve more than 100,000 commuters in my community and benefit all of metropolitan Atlanta.
I thank the Cumberland Community Improvement District, our partners in Cobb County, the Atlanta Regional Commission, and our State and Federal officials who had a hand in making this project a reality.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Juan Pablo Duarte, the founding father of the Dominican Republic, where I was born.
Duarte was an instrumental person in the war for Dominican independence. He fought for the ideals of a liberal democracy after founding the nation.
January 26 marks Duarte's birthday, and it is celebrated by the Dominican Republic as a national holiday.
Each year, I have the pleasure of introducing a resolution that supports the ideals of Juan Pablo Duarte, and I look forward to doing it again. This is one of several bills that I will introduce to mark the beginning of Dominican Heritage Month.
We look forward to the February 11 event here at the Hill, Dominicans on the Hill.
In February, we will remember Juan Pablo Duarte for all of his sacrifices.
``God, Homeland, and Liberty,'' ``Dios, Patria, y Libertad.''
Mr. Speaker, step right up, and prepare to be amazed.
This is an ordinary folder. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, no hidden compartments, and yet inside it is an invisible rabbit.
If you like that trick, Mr. Speaker, then you are going to love Donald Trump's national energy emergency. It is also totally imaginary, but as any good carnival barker will tell you, there is a sucker born every minute who falls for this shtick.
Let's review the numbers. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. created 16 million jobs, had the fastest growing economy in the OECD, held oil demand flat, drastically cut coal use, and embraced cleaner, cheaper renewables and efficiency. We decoupled economic growth from fossil fuel giving American people more heat, more light, more power, and more money.
That put downward pressure on domestic oil and gas prices which caused domestic fossil producers to export into less developed and more remunerative overseas markets.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before you say: There is no emergency here, consider this from the perspective of our poor oil and gas producers. They are losing market share. They are making less money. However, they have got an ally in Donald Trump. After all, he is the guy who forced the Saudis to curtail production in 2020 to drive up oil prices and oil industry profits. That is right. He made sure U.S. consumers paid more for gasoline.
Ta-da.
Don't be a sucker, but if you are, Mr. Speaker, I am available for parties, and I can solve all your invisible rabbit problems. You can keep hopping, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today with a heavy heart as we remember and honor the life and legacy of my dear friend and mentor, State Representative Eliseo Lee Alcon.
Chairman Alcon's legacy and passing leaves a hole in our community, but his legacy will live on.
A veteran, a judge, a State representative, a beloved father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, Representative Alcon dedicated his life to public service and was rooted in our community.
A fierce advocate for the people, the economy, the environment, and our government, all New Mexicans across the State will miss him as we grieve his loss. Our prayers are with his family and everyone who loved and learned from Representative Alcon.
We will work to carry his vision forward and continue his fight to lift up our veterans and our military, our children and our elders, and all New Mexicans whom he loved so deeply.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because tens of thousands of acres are on fire in my State of California.
More than 10,000 families have no home to go back to. Nearly 30 people have already lost their lives in this disaster, and the numbers keep climbing. Tens of thousands will have long-term health issues from the smoke, all because our government failed California.
These mega-fires could have been prevented if our government had done its job. We have been yelling from the rooftops for years that our communities are in danger. We have a massive firefighter shortage. Bureaucratic red tape holds everything up, and our lands aren't properly maintained.
Today, thankfully, my colleagues joined me in finally taking the first big step in dealing with this crisis. We passed the historic Fix Our Forests Act to finally do what is badly needed: real, comprehensive wildfire protection.
I am happy to say this is a true bipartisan effort. Wildfires don't care if we are Republican or Democratic, and neither should we. This is the first of many reforms needed to get this crisis under control, and time is running out.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the detrimental impacts that President Trump's recent flurry of executive orders targeting our workforce are already having.
Despite being in office for less than 3 days, President Trump has already caused major disruptions to the Federal workforce in my district.
The first casualty is the healthcare provided to our veterans. The Richmond VA Medical Center in my district was forced to rescind employment offers to essential hospital staff. Other VA hospitals across the country have done the same, including rescinding employment offers to nurses at a time when we face a nursing shortage.
The new VA medical center set to open in Fredericksburg, Virginia, now has to contend with hiring freezes and the inability to staff up, jeopardizing their opening in February.
Medical school students have been told they can't go to the VA for clinical rotations because of the hiring freeze, impacting the training of a critical workforce provider.
Our veterans deserve much more than this. They put their lives on the line for our Nation and should be able to access the healthcare services they need, but this hiring freeze is putting that in jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the brave firefighters who have stepped into the breach to take on the fires raging across southern California. Their bravery has been on full display these past weeks, including in my own district, where they have valiantly and swiftly responded in Jurupa Valley to the Clay fire.
We all owe them our thanks.
Nevertheless, I am deeply troubled by some in the Republican Conference who are seeking to link emergency disaster aid to my home State with toxic policy goals. This would be a disaster.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass emergency aid without policy riders, just as we did for the people in North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and many other States who have faced natural disasters.
Leveraging the losses of thousands establishes a dangerous precedent. It is unacceptable for politicians in Washington to endanger Americans' survival for their own political gain.
These are the names of the U.S. Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police who died in the wake of the January 6 Capitol attack.
Mr. Speaker, 140 police officers were assaulted on January 6, but this week Donald Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of over 1,500 individuals responsible for this attack.
He has made a mockery of our justice system and the rule of law. These were not hostages, and they were not victims. They were extremists who showed up armed, wore Nazi symbols, and attacked police officers.
They were militants who planned for months to overthrow the election and were convicted of sedition by a jury of their peers.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the President has put dangerous criminals back on the streets. Today, I echo the National Association of Police Organizations in their condemnation of this act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Christian Jose Fidalgo Barros, who was called to be with his Lord in Heaven far too soon.
After Christian's first birthday, he was diagnosed with a rare form of high-risk neuroblastoma cancer. John and Tchintcia were unrelenting in their prayers and their efforts, as were his doctors, to extend and to save his life.
Christian's weary body is now at rest. His soul was called home on January 13, 2025, just weeks after his second birthday. Despite his short time here on Earth, Christian left an impression on all blessed to meet him and to bear witness to his faithfulness.
Christian means follower of Christ. I know he knew God. It was the only way he could have summoned the strength and kept a smile every day.
So last weekend, it was no surprise, given the masses and the multitudes he inspired, to see thousands of people show up to support Christian, John, Tchintcia, John Junior, Jeremiah, Casey, and Olivia. They braved the New England winter to share their love and support for the Barros family during this time of unspeakable grief.
The Barros family is our chosen family. To many in the city and our Commonwealth, they have put their love into action in public and in private and in big and small ways in public service. They are loved, and Christian belonged to all of us, which is why I am on the House floor eulogizing him because I believe his loss is one for our Nation. I mourn his loss, but I celebrate his life and his light.
Christian, we thank you for the happy memories you leave behind, and we thank you for inspiring us with your courage, your strength, and your joy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the University of Minnesota Spirit Squad on their monumental performance at the 2025 UCA and UDA College Cheerleading and Dance Team National Championships this weekend in Orlando, Florida.
The Gopher cheer team made history this weekend, securing the program's first-ever national title, winning the small, co-ed game day division. The Gophers also finished runner-up in small, co-ed cheer.
The University of Minnesota dance team earned their third straight national title in the Pom division on Sunday night, securing the dance program's 23rd title. The team also finished second in the jazz division.
These are tremendous achievements all around from the University of Minnesota Spirit Squad. We are incredibly proud of each and every one of our Gopher athletes for the hard work they have put in to bring home these national championships.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to wish all those who celebrate a happy lunar new year. Lunar new year is observed by many Asian countries around the world, including the incredible east and southeast Asian communities in my district.
As the son of Vietnamese refugees, I represent Little Saigon in Orange County, California. I am especially
Tet is a time to reflect on the past, to embrace new beginnings, and to eat a lot of really good food. It is a vibrant celebration brimming with parades, festivals, and firecrackers.
What is more, it is a celebration of family, tradition, and the enduring spirit of hope. It is a time to express kindness and well- wishes to each other.
So as the Vietnamese saying goes: ``Chuc mung nam moi. An khang thinh vuong va van su nhu y.''
(English translation of Vietnamese is as follows:
``Happy new year, wishing you peace and prosperity, and may all your wishes come true.'')
Mr. Speaker, President Trump was elected with a mandate to improve the daily lives of hardworking Americans, a mandate to lower housing costs, make groceries more affordable, and help families get ahead and stay ahead.
Let's take a moment to highlight what the President has done for the people during his first week in office: ended birthright citizenship, a guaranteed right under the 14th Amendment; terminated diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; withdrew the United States from the Paris agreement; renamed the Gulf of Mexico; raised the cost of prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare and Medicaid; pardoned 1,500 convicted felons who stormed our Capitol and violently assaulted our police officers on January 6, 2021; and created a special fake department for shadow president Elon Musk.
Wait. None of those executive orders lowered costs, let alone meaningfully improved the lives of the American people.
I urge the President to stop treating the White House like his Twitter account and get to work fixing the problems he was elected to solve.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an incredible achievement by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas cheerleading team, who once again won the All Girl Division 1A Game Day Championship title last week.
This isn't the first time these amazing women have taken the top spot in one of the most prestigious championships for cheerleading. With this year's performance, an iconic Elvis-inspired homage to our city, they have reaffirmed themselves as not just national champions, but a national powerhouse for years to come.
I congratulate every cheerleader, coach, and family member who made this success possible.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish a happy 100th birthday to my constituent, Mr. Roger Desjardins.
Originally from Cumberland, Rhode Island, Mr. Desjardins served in the 43rd Infantry and saw combat during World War II as a machine gunner.
Honorably discharged in 1946, he worked as a pipefitter and a plumber in North Providence before retiring nearly four decades ago.
That doesn't mean age has slowed him down. At his centennial celebration last week, he showed off some karate moves, walking cane and all, that he practices to stay in shape.
Mr. Speaker, Roger is a quintessential Rhode Islander: feisty, selfless, and full of hope and good cheer. When asked what his birthday wish is, he simply said: to live another year or two.
It is my honor to recognize him today on the floor of the people's House so that his story and his dedicated service to our Nation may be remembered for all time.
Mr. Speaker, on September 24, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed an executive order which ensures equal opportunity for people of color and women; prohibits Federal contractors from engaging in discriminatory practices in recruitment, hiring, training, and discriminating based on race, sex, religion, or national origin.
This executive order was signed during the period of transformative progress, 1 year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a few months after the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and 2 years after Dr. Martin Luther King's iconic ``I Have a Dream'' speech.
Yet, just 2 days after we honored the legacy of Dr. King this week, President Trump, with the mere stroke of a pen, seeks to undo what has been in place for nearly 60 years. His actions aim to undermine the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and threaten the livelihood of thousands of Federal workers and their families.
Mr. Speaker, I could not sleep last night, and these executive orders by the President are a direct attack. We must stand up and speak.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Gus Williams, a basketball great and New York 16th Congressional District native from Mt. Vernon, New York. Gus was born October 10, 1953, in Mt. Vernon, and his basketball talent made him one of the greatest players to ever hail from my hometown.
On the basketball court, Gus got the nickname ``The Wizard'' for his acrobatic style, speed, and incredibly accurate midrange jump shots-- none of which I have.
He led the Mt. Vernon Knights high school basketball team to a 22-1 season, winning State championship and State Player of the Year in 1971.
He went to the University of South California, where he was Most Valuable Player in 1975, went onto an NBA career with the Golden State Warriors, and then signed with the Seattle Supersonics. In 1979, Gus led the NBA Supersonics to their NBA title, averaging 28 points in their final games. The Sonics retired Gus' No. 1 jersey in 2004.
I am grateful that I got to go to high school with Gus Williams, to have seen his magic and his skill in person before the rest of the world had the opportunity.
He will be deeply missed in the Mt. Vernon community, but his memory will live on.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
This past Monday, our Nation celebrated MLK Day, a powerful reminder of the ongoing effort for equality and justice and the profound impact an individual can make.
It is also a day spent volunteering and a day of action. I am so deeply proud of the schools across Oakland County, Michigan, who engaged in volunteer activities.
I also would like to share some of Dr. King's powerful words that resonate not only with me, but I believe speak to the moments that we find ourselves in today:
``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''
``Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.''
``The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.''
``We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.''
``I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.''
``Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.''
Lastly, ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is: `What are you doing for others?' ''
In service, we honor Dr. King's legacy, and we commit to his written words from the Birmingham jail that we continue to strive toward justice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. Speaker, tonight is going to be a little thick, so I apologize to everyone, but we are going to actually try something a little bit broader. We are going to actually play economist.
I am going to try actually to walk through three or four themes here of why what we must do is so difficult, why it absolutely has to happen, and the truth about the math. Let's have some fun here.
Since I know everyone around here is a genius and we spend lots of time reading difficult things, I am sure every Member of Congress got their hand on the latest McKinsey report that came out a few days ago that actually walked through in beautiful detail what is happening in the industrialized world with the lack of young people. Okay. Let's walk through this.
Idiots like me have been coming behind this microphone for almost a decade talking about the morality of prosperity. I don't care if you are on the left or right, but having a society that grows and becomes prosperous and becomes more and more productive and can provide better things is moral, but, also, why is it so hard?
Look, this was done by our own CBO, taking updates from the data from the Census Bureau. In 8 years, the United States has more deaths than births. Last year, we had 17 States that had more deaths than births.
Okay. If Members read through, the term now has become ``absence of young people.'' There is lots of crazy discussions. There are entire books. I have all these things on my shelves about natalist policies and how many countries have tried to encourage higher fertility rates, and all failed. There really is no success in the entire world.
They have been able to move forward some of the fertility rates spiking up, and then they go back and fall back to the mean. It is the nature of wealth. It is the nature of modern societies, but then my colleagues come to me and say: David, you are on Ways and Means, chaired the Joint Economic Committee, so all of these economists work for you. Show me how we are going to have 3 percent GDP growth every year.
I can show Members how to do it. I just need my colleagues to understand that the United States is better off than so many countries, but the fact of the matter is we are having fewer children than countries like France.
In 8 years, we have more deaths than births. Remember the first year of economics class where they walked through the formula and said, well, population growth, then capital expenditures for plant and equipment that are more productive, then spikes in technology. That is how the wealth of a nation is built. We are losing one of the things.
When people like me walk behind these microphones, my colleagues need to hear coming out of their mouths: I am willing to actually deal with the reality of how do we make capital investments in equipment that makes us more productive? How do we encourage the synthetic biology that makes us not only live longer, but able to survive and do well and enjoy life? How do we actually deal with not being fearful of AI and artificial intelligence, but use that to make this another American century? I can't make the math work without the adoption of labor substitutes.
I am going to actually show something here that seems to make people mad when I get to it. Let's wait, I am going to actually make a pitch that what are the two extraordinary privileges of this country?
Okay. Members are going to hear monetarists come behind the microphone all the time and say that people want to use the U.S. dollar and that people must use the U.S. dollar to borrow, to trade in, and to hold assets.
As an economist, what is actually more valuable than having the world reserve currency is that smart people, entrepreneurs, and people with wealth want to invest their lives, their time, and their talents in the United States.
We hold the two greatest extraordinary privileges from a worldwide economist. We have to start understanding the math and what we are up against because it is not us.
Start to take a look at what is going on. I know some of these charts are almost impossible to read, but the basic point of many of these is we have all talked about, in a couple of years, all of the baby boomers are 65 and up, and we have this huge population bubble.
We hate to say this because we get booed at our townhalls when we say this: The fact of the matter is, in the next 10 years, almost 100 percent of U.S. debt is interest and the growth of the cost of Medicare.
How many years have we known that baby boomers were going to turn 65? It has been 65 years, but we didn't plan for it. We didn't set it aside. One thing we weren't ready for as a society is, in 1990, fertility rates started to roll over.
As the McKinsey report goes up and down, it is the absence of young people. Now make an economy grow.
Some of the points I am going to try to make here is this one. I need people to think. There was the kerfuffle last week when Elon Musk and some of the others got into the H-1B visas, bringing talent into the country. I am actually not even sure I liked the H-1 process. I would like to move maybe to a talent-based system.
The entire industrialized world is going through things very similar to us. China's numbers look--it is the craziest charts you are ever going to see. It is like a boom.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the world competed for hydrocarbons, oil. We remember the oil.
The last decade, we sort of battled for where we could have supplies of rare earths. Some of the smartest economists who actually do demographics are now saying that the industrialized world is going to knife each other for smart people.
Now, maybe a smart person is the great carpenter or the synthetic biologist, but we need to start being honest with each other that my colleagues want us, particularly my economic team, to say: Build us ideas. Build us a plan. As we get ready to do reconciliation, do the things that provide us the growth so we can still be Americans, that sort of beacon of prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, you have to understand that, in 8 years, there will be more deaths than births.
Are we going to be willing to do very difficult things and move to a talent-based immigration system that doesn't care about your race, your gender, who you cuddle with, or anything else? It cares about the talent.
I have actually done entire presentations here where I have shown that what happened at the border over the last 4 years will make the working poor poorer in this country. It is math. It is not my opinion. I am not demagoguing. It is math.
In part of our society, we have what is called the quartiles. I sort of despise that term. It is people who didn't graduate high school, so what they do economically is sell their willingness to work. They go out and hang drywall. They bust their backsides, and then, tomorrow, they are competing against millions of other people with the same skill set. Look at how our economy works and the fact that, let's be brutal, populations under a certain income will receive services from our society because we are a compassionate society.
When you start to see a talent-based immigration system, you have people here because of the productivity they bring to society. It turns out that when you look at their career, they pay a boatload of taxes and actually help us grow. We need to deal with the math, and the fact of the matter is, we look over and over at these things.
I am just using Japan because it is easy. Japan has almost 300 percent
I have done the chart before, but think about this. We click off an additional trillion dollars of borrowing about every 125 days. Do you think it is going to go on forever?
I am going to show you, in the second part of this, a number of the biggest bond traders in the world, and Larry Fink and Ray Dalio are basically saying you guys got a problem, and it is coming fast. They are actually taking billions of dollars and starting to hedge even the U.S. bonds and saying we think you are going to 5 percent, 6 percent.
Please understand that if the United States ever went back to what was normal before the Great Recession of 2008, if we went back to a 6 percent handle on U.S. debt, in 9 years, 45 percent of all tax collections are interest. Why doesn't that scare the crap out of people?
Then, we are going to engage in policies where we are doing our best to scare to death the very people we are turning to, saying to please buy our bonds.
How do we do what is necessary, particularly in reconciliation, to not hurt working people by having their taxes go up because of the expiring provisions of TCJA, and then also, at the same time, deal with the math. If we finance everything, because we are already scheduled to borrow about $22 trillion additional between now and, I think, 2034, is the intent to stack another $5 trillion on top of that?
You don't think the bond markets aren't going to punish us? Little bits of interest just crush not only the U.S. Government but also working people.
How many people can afford a mortgage right now when it is over 7 percent? How many can afford a car loan? We just went through, functionally, 3, 4 years of inflation where, in my community, if you don't make 27 percent more, you are poorer today.
Isn't the employment rate great? It is, but it is wage growth, and wage growth goes up by two things: inflation, which means you are not getting ahead and are just treading water, or productivity.
When you are lacking population growth, how do you get productivity? Regulatory policy, good trade policy, great tax policy that makes it so you are investing in plants, equipment, and research and development to do it better, faster, cheaper. That is how you make people less poor.
This one is a little tricky, but it is fascinating. If you actually dig into the article, if you are out of your mind or geeky or you just don't have a life or you don't have a Netflix subscription, you sort of dig into what level of productivity growth you actually need just to sustain your lifestyle.
It is all sorts of different countries, and for the United States, you need almost about 2 percent where we are looking at the different years. Do you see the pink line? We calculate if you are not having at least a 1.8 percent productivity gain, which is a lot, you are functionally poorer. You become poorer.
For all the people who complain about, well, don't do tax cuts for business. Okay. Don't do regulatory change for business. Okay. Now, go read the literature.
We know that, in 2017, when we did the change in the corporate tax rates, getting companies to move their money back here, getting them to invest in productivity, those things, we calculate from 60 to 70 percent of every dime they got went into wages because, once again, the primary way people make more money is productivity.
This is the chart I am sure will show up in an election ad beating the crap out of me, but you see this spike? That was the years of the open border. We go back to normality where the immigration system-- except we are the last country really on Earth that uses a familial system.
In a familial system, you sponsor someone because your grandma was here. Your grandma sponsors her sister, and they sponsor theirs. That is a familial immigration system.
My argument is, as part of when we are starting to deal with productivity for the society, we actually have to start thinking about it from top to bottom. It is not just great AI policy, great synthetic biology policy, great regulatory policy, great tax policy. It is also going to have to be immigration.
Now, on to sort of the reality of where we are at. We actually got, I am going to call it, better news. CBO actually did some calculations and said we expect tax receipts to be up in this fiscal year.
I have come here repeatedly and shown my chart that says, for every $1 the United States takes in in all sorts of tax receipts--remember, most of those tax receipts are going to Social Security, Medicare, those sorts of things, but for every $1 we take in, $1.39 is spent.
Guess what? The good news is that now it is no longer $1.39 of spending for every $1 we take in. Now it is $1.36. It got better, but it is still terrifyingly bad. This is the improvement that so many people are running around being giddy about.
Let's actually sort of walk through some of these numbers as quickly as we can.
This chart says Federal spending as the share of total tax revenue. The reason I am showing you this is to give you an idea of the scale we are up against. If you actually take all of our tax receipts, every dime, and say here is what we call mandatory spending--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, and interest because you have to pay your interest--we are the ones who basically binge on debt. It consumes every dollar of tax receipts plus some.
We actually don't collect enough taxes to pay for our mandatory spending and our interest. That is our basic problem. If you do net interest and mandatory spending, it consumes everything.
Mr. Speaker, the point from this chart is very simple: Everything you and I vote on, everything a Member of Congress votes on, is on borrowed money. That is every dime of defense and every dime of nondefense discretionary.
We are going to do theatrical things like go on our local talk radio show, go on cable television, sometimes stand behind these mikes and say things that may be great policy, but we act like it actually will make a difference to these sorts of numbers. It doesn't.
I have heard my brothers and sisters here say things like, okay, ObamaCare subsidies for those who are here illegally. I am fine with that. Go ahead and get rid of them, but it is 9\1/2\ hours for an entire year's worth of borrowing.
In an entire year, you just covered 9\1/2\ hours. Don't act like it is a solution. It is one of a thousand things you have to do.
Here is the classic problem on the way this place thinks. It turns out that fixing things is complex, and we live in a society with these things where we want something that is simple, flashy, short. It turns out that complexity often requires a complex solution.
It is hard. We will have the armies of the lobbyists in the hallways mad at us. They don't like it when we tell the truth, Heaven forbid.
Have you ever gone home and talked to your voters and they think if you just got rid of foreign aid--and then you show them the chart. It is about a week of borrowing, and they just stare at you with daggers, like, how can that be?
It is not their fault. I believe the political class, the commentary class, and the partisan media class have just made up crap for years.
I challenge my brothers and sisters on the left and the right to know your math and start telling the truth. If you look at charts like this where this right here is breakeven, this is where the dollar is. Even this year, every dime of discretionary and a little sliver of mandatory are on borrowed money, once again.
The only reason I threw this chart in the way it is, where we did '24, '25--you see this. That was with the CBO's calculations that the law says next year they get to take in some $400 billion additional taxes because Americans' taxes go up. We don't want that to happen. We want to protect hardworking people.
The very last board I am going to show here is the way you protect American people is you offset as much of that as you can because you give it to hardworking folks and then take it away from them in higher interest costs and higher financing costs. You smile at them and hand them a dollar in their face while you are grabbing their wallet from behind and stealing it from them. That moment of telling the truth about math is really important.
I brought a lot of the boards just trying to explain that, for the last couple of years, for every $1 we took in in tax receipts, we spent $1.39. This year, we will spend $1.36, which means all that differential.
This is a little complex, but this will make it super simple, as best I can.
You are going to hear particularly Democrats and others say the tax reform caused this or that. You have to work through the incredible craziness of the pandemic, but if you look at the charts and actually take a look at the matching of TCJA and what we expected to be inflation-adjusted tax receipts--I am not playing the scam of looking at how much more money we are getting, even though we have had 25 percent inflation. For an honest number, when you actually calculate it and normalize it, guess what? Tax receipts are pretty much right on track.
We have a couple of these to give you sort of a sense. When you take a look at annual revenues match pre-TCJA projections, this one is important, and we often don't actually talk about it. Go back to the baseline numbers of CBO and Joint Tax before we did tax reform in 2017. Then, step up to where we are today and take a look where baseline is. If you adjust for inflation, it is normal.
The math is normal. When someone says, well, it is because you did this tax reform and you helped the economy, I am not standing in front of you and saying tax cuts pay for themselves. What I am saying is that the scale of the economy actually today is right on track to what the projections were before tax reform.
It is a complex calculation of everything from technology adoptions to new ways we do things to productivity gains, but the baseline number is the baseline number.
Now, back to trying to make the point. What is the issue with the United States bingeing on debt? Is it that we don't collect enough taxes, or is it that we spend too much money?
I have done entire presentations here where I have shown high marginal tax rates, low marginal tax rates, and we seem to hold about 17 percent of the size of the economy in taxes. You will often hear 17 percent of GDP.
It is historic. Somehow when you raise up the marginal tax rates, you are getting 17 percent of the economy. Part of that is an offset because the economy slows down. When you have done low marginal tax rates, the economy grows, so you are getting 17 percent of the economy because the economy has expanded.
In trying to make the point that growth is moral, it is also great economics. How do you grow, grow, grow? I just showed you, in the beginning portion of this, we have an issue. In 8 years, we will have more deaths than births. We have a demographic issue--debt demographics. Demographics are your destiny.
I am just trying to point out on this, over the last 4 years, we functionally have borrowed $7.8 trillion in deficits. That borrowing functionally is a current stimulus effect, but you are going to pay for it. It is coming out of your retirement, whether you know it or not. It is coming from your kids.
I am 62, and my wife is 62. I have a 9-year-old daughter and a 2\1/ 2\-year-old son. They both have the same birth mom. We have adopted them. My little boy, when he is 24, to keep baseline services, just to keep things even--what was that fancy word? Ceteris paribus--the United States, in about 22 years, would have to double every single tax. The math basically says my kids will be part of the first generation in America that will be poorer. That is the morality of this place.
They will say, David, adopting modernization and cutting spending is really hard, and we are going to get someone who is going to say mean things about us. Instead, you are willing to screw over your kids? That is the morality of this place. How is that Republican or Democratic?
Then, once again, to my friends on the left over here, I have done a whole presentation on it. Go to the Manhattan Institute right now. Look up Riedl's analysis. Every tax hike--and there is a dozen of them--on those $400,000 and up, when you do all the economic effects, produces about 1\1/2\ percent of GDP.
For those of us on the right, here are all the things we are willing to cut. It is about 1 percent of GDP.
If my math is right, that is--what?--2\1/2\ percent.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to borrow about 7 percent of the entire economy this year. Does anyone get the fraud? ``Here are the tax hikes. It is rich people,'' or, ``We are going to do these cuts.''
We are not willing to do the hard things of modernizing how we deliver services to our brothers and sisters in this country because we are going to make some bureaucracy, some union, some company out there that lives off delivering the services the way they were doing it 30 years ago modernize.
Once again, over the last 4 years, we have gone from--what is it?--4 years ago, the debt was $1.52 trillion. Last year, it was $1.9 trillion. Now, you have to understand that that number also is a bit of a fraud.
The United States is one of the only countries that doesn't actually put in its internal borrowing. We borrow money from the Social Security trust fund, from the veterans trust fund, from all these things. Are we not going to pay it back? You know we pay interest to those.
That is why the real number for this year is going to be closer to $2.3 trillion because there is about another $300 billion out there that we borrow internally that we also have to pay back and also have to pay interest.
Budget deficits are headed to--I have to make the point. If there is any staffer who actually writes memos for their boss, this is the one I want them to memorize. If we do the tax hikes that are coming and don't offset them--we don't pay for them--in 9 years, we are no longer at 7 percent of the economy in borrowed money. We are at, I think it is, 9.2 percent of the economy in borrowed money.
When the smart people are starting to tell us that small changes in interest rates--are we really dead set on trying to freak out our bankers, the people we turn to, and say: Please buy U.S. bonds. Help us finance the fact that we can't stop spending.
Let's say this again. If we went to a six handle on U.S. debt, so 6 percent, which I think, before 2008, we were at 5\1/2\, 6 percent, somewhere in there, in 9 years, 45 percent of all tax receipts would be just interest.
We are playing with live ammunition here, and we seem terrified to own a calculator.
You are going to tell our brothers and sisters, the hardworking people of this country, that we are not going to let your taxes be raised. Absolutely. But we don't want to do things that are hard and get yelled at by a lobbyist or some group back home, so we are just going to borrow the money. We are going to give it to you, and then a few years from now, you will find out that productivity in the country has slowed down because the capital stack, another $4 trillion we have sucked out of the economy, doesn't get lent to your business, to you buying a house, to the new piece of equipment.
The economists have already done the calculations basically saying--I am sorry, it got crumpled as I was marching over here--you want to maximize the economic growth and the wealth of this country. There is a CBO report that has been vetted by my economists on Joint Economic. You want to maximize prosperity and the curve. You offset the spending because you are screwing up the available capital.
The reason really smart bond houses are now writing articles is the bingeing on debt that is going on in this country but also China and so many other places. Why do you think Great Britain this summer took down their government? Their bonds exploded; they lost their government. What the hell do you think is going on in France? What do you think is going on in Germany? What do you think happened in South Korea? What do you think was happening in Canada?
All these countries, even Germany, are just trying to deal with the financing costs of their pensions. The United States is much better off than many of these countries, but it is coming fast for us.
Do hard things today. Maximize prosperity tomorrow for every working person but also for my kids and maybe for your pension, your retirement.
Mr. Speaker, getting older isn't Republican or Democratic. It is math. Go to CBO's data and tell the truth: 100 percent of the debt for the next 30 years is Social Security and Medicare. The rest of the government actually grows slower than tax receipts. It is like $124 trillion of borrowing, but everything is basically what we call discretionary. Military is actually squeezed to grow slower than the tax receipts. It actually has what they calculate as a positive balance.
This isn't mean because, the fact of the matter is, we have demonstrated here over and over that you could modernize how we deliver so many of these things to our brothers and sisters who have earned their benefits. You just have to be willing to tell the bureaucracy and the deliverers of those services, saying: We expect you to modernize.
Those of us with a fixation on watching the bond futures, the debt markets, today's interest rates are almost a full point higher than they were December 1. If that 1 percent works its way into U.S. bonds over the next 10 years, it is almost $3 trillion of additional spending. It is almost everything we are talking about trying to cut.
Grow up. Figure out how to actually act like we are the board of directors of the biggest economy in the world, understand math, and start being fiscally disciplined. It doesn't mean cruel. It is not cutting and slashing. If you don't communicate to the world, who we ask for money, they raise our interest rates, and those interest rates are much more cruel than anything we could possibly do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before we go to our next speaker, may I please remind the gallery to close the door if there are conversations outside the gallery.
Pardoning Rioters Who Assaulted 140 Police Officers
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
Mr. Speaker, here we are on the final legislative day of inauguration week.
As a Democrat, this was a week of mixed feelings for me and for my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I am also a genetic optimist, so on Monday, I went to the inauguration, yes, concerned, but also optimistic about new possibilities, committed as I always have been to finding ways to work with my Republican colleagues for the benefit of my constituents, and celebrating the peaceful transfer of power this time.
This time because, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, 4 years and 17 days ago today, in this Chamber, a brutal, violent, criminal attempt was made to prevent the peaceful transfer of power in our democracy.
Thousands of people rioted and descended on the Capitol. They broke windows, and they attacked police officers with heavy objects, with bear spray, with their fists, with anything at hand. Several carried firearms.
There were 140 police officers who were assaulted. Let me say that again: There were 140 police officers who were assaulted that day.
All of us have memories of that day. I started the day up in that corner of the gallery, and when it became clear that we had to evacuate, because I was in the gallery with some colleagues, it took a long time. We saw what was happening on the floor.
We saw the Capitol Police with weapons drawn as an object broke the window of the main door to the House. We watched the Capitol Police move a heavy article of furniture. In this country, it was an article of furniture that prevented the rioters from getting into this Chamber.
We have all seen those images. This time, we had a peaceful transfer of power.
Now, on Inauguration Day, I kept that optimism until the moment that the new President took the decision to pardon not those who were wrongly convicted for their actions on that day, not those who just got caught up in the frenzy and maybe didn't know that they were committing an offense by trespassing on the Capitol Grounds. The new President pardoned every single person, including those involved in those assaults on 140 police officers--every single one of them.
That was an uncomfortable moment for some of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side. They were asked, and, well, they hadn't read the pardons, hadn't heard the story. It was an uncomfortable moment.
The Speaker responded by saying, yeah, we are not looking backward; we are looking forward. Then, very shortly thereafter, he reconstituted a committee to investigate the people who investigated what happened here on January 6.
The Speaker of the House said, House Republicans are proud of our work so far in exposing the false narratives peddled by the politically-motivated January 6th Select Committee during the 117th Congress; the false narratives.
Mr. Speaker, I get it. I get it. Sometimes people on my side of the aisle do things with which I do not agree, and I try to have the principle and the integrity to call them out for it.
You have two choices when people on your side do things that are wrong: You can call them out, you can stand with principle, and you can be clear; that is what leaders do. You can also obfuscate and try to change history, try to suggest that what we all saw and experienced traumatically wasn't what we all saw and experienced.
You can make stuff up, like maybe the FBI instigated it. Maybe it was really Nancy Pelosi's responsibility. Maybe it was antifa. Oh gosh, maybe the people who assaulted 140 police officers were just, like, tourists.
That is not the way of leadership. That is some dark, dark and evil way of proceeding. Why?
Because it dishonors the truth on which the stability of this Republic relies and maybe just as importantly: It dishonors all of us who were there that day and who saw with our own eyes what happened.
Maybe worst of all, it dishonors the brave men and women who put their lives on the line that day to protect us. Those of us who put up the signs on our office doors saying: Thank you, Capitol Police, only to turn around and remain silent when the attackers of the Capitol Police were pardoned on Monday.
These were people who put their lives on the line to protect us and the democracy. I think it is worth spending a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, to remind us who these people were and what happened.
Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, he stood outside the gates here and fended off the attackers as they bear sprayed him in the face and eyes.
The very next day, Officer Sicknick suffered two strokes and ultimately died, making him the first fatality of January 6. Officer Brian Sicknick was only the fourth Capitol Police officer to die in the line of duty.
Julian Khater pled guilty to pepper-spraying Brian Sicknick, and he was pardoned on Monday.
Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department, he fought off rioters in the Capitol that day only to be struck in the face by a metal pole as the siege continued that night. You can imagine the trauma. We feel it. We didn't get struck in the face by a metal pole though. Days later, Officer Smith climbed into his Ford Mustang and shot himself in the head.
Those who assaulted Officer Jeffrey Smith are now pardoned.
Officer Howie Liebengood grew up in the Senate. He followed his father
He came back to work, despite what he had seen on January 6, on January 7, January 8, and January 9, unwilling to quit and inconvenience his fellow, similarly depleted and exhausted, officers. On the night of January 9, Howie Liebengood took out his service revolver and shot himself.
Officer Gunther Hashida was a decorated Metropolitan Police Department officer. Officer Hashida earned the Medal of Valor, the Lifesaving Medal, and a variety of other medals throughout his 18-year career. He served on the Department's emergency response team and responded here on January 6. Officer Hashida took his own life at home in July of 2021.
Officer Kyle DeFreytag was 26 years old. He had been on the job for 5 years when he deployed to the riot, to the insurrection. He was tasked with enforcing the curfew put in place that evening. He was 26 years old when he committed suicide.
The trauma suffered by these officers was not an accident. It wasn't an act of God or an act of nature. It was done to them by people, each and every one of whom has now been pardoned. Not just pardoned, but they are out there now celebrating and thinking about what is next.
I have three questions for my colleagues before I invite them to reflect on what this week has meant to them. The first question I have is: We put up the signs on the doors that say: Thank you, brave police officers.
Do we honor the heroic work of those who protected us, or do we denigrate it by suggesting that it just wasn't that big a deal?
Is this just about signs on office doors, or do we raise our voices and say: Those who attacked the people who protected us don't deserve a pardon and certainly don't deserve celebration.
Question number two: Are we--and when I say we, each and every one of us and each and every American--are we committed, without reservation or condition, to the idea that our differences are worked out in here with words and debate, not out there with bear spray and clubs?
Are we committed to that idea, or do we celebrate and pardon and elevate those who wield bear spray and clubs?
I hear all too often something that is pernicious in moral thinking and a corrosive of our political dialogue: the whataboutism. Yeah, I was bad on January 6, but what about Black Lives Matter throwing bricks through Starbucks' windows in Seattle? What about the Biden pardons?
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, I am not a fan of the Biden pardons either. I am not afraid to say so because of that thing about principles.
Yet, the whataboutisms that equates a violent attempt to change the peaceful transfer of power with some idiot who throws a brick through a Starbucks window in Seattle or Portland, that is a lack of discernment.
More to the point, what a moral failure. We don't let 3-year-olds defend themselves with the idea that somebody else did it too.
How has this become an exculpatory thing in our politics?
Third and last, Mr. Speaker, and this is something that I think each and every one of us should reflect on: Where is your line? At what point do you say no? At what point do you find the courage to say no, Mr. President, that is not right?
This week, we learned that for most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the pardon of the attackers of these police officers was not outside that line.
At what point do you say no?
At what point do you remember that the Congress is here to be a check and a balance on the President, regardless of the President's party?
Mr. Speaker, if you can't answer that question, if you don't have that point, and if you don't have the commitment to principle and the courage to stand by that point, well, Mr. Speaker, I fear for the future of our Republic.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Himes for doing this Special Order and including us. I appreciate his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I was legitimately shocked. I am certain that this is the first time ever the President of the United States, certainly in my lifetime, released hundreds of violent criminals from jails and sent them into our communities. These are people who have now said that they are determined to buy weapons to pursue more violence.
These are convicted criminals. They conspired to overthrow their own government. They stormed this Capitol. They destroyed property, sacred property. They attacked police officers.
On day one, a day that was supposed to be about fixing the economy, lowering prices, actual border security, and real immigration reform, the focus was on releasing these violent criminals.
Mr. Speaker, it is a betrayal to the American people, to law enforcement, and it has made us all less safe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Himes for having this Special Order, and I thank him for his passion.
Mr. Speaker, I represent many of those people who protect us on Capitol Hill, members of the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan/ Washington D.C. Police force, the Arlington County Police, police who live in my northern Virginia district.
January 6 was not some distant abstract event for my constituents. Democracy was on the line that day, but so were their lives, their bodies, their physical safety, and well-being.
As events spiraled out of control on January 6, calls for help went out on police radios, and they were answered by men and women in uniform throughout the Metropolitan, Washington, Virginia, Maryland area, some of whom were off duty. Many were off duty. They chose to get dressed, jump in their cars, and race in to help us, to protect our Capitol, to protect all who work here.
Hundreds of those officers still bear the wounds seen and unseen that will never heal. The January 6 pardons and commutations were some of the worst things that Donald Trump has ever done. With these pardons, Trump embraced lawlessness and violence.
Trump pardoned the people who beat and tased my constituent, Officer Michael Fanone, who was tased repeatedly in the neck. He described it as being like torture, and it led him to have a heart attack at that very time.
Trump pardoned the people who gave a brain injury to my constituent, Officer Jeffrey Smith, days before he died by suicide. Congressman Himes mentioned how he was beat in the head with a pole. His wife, Erin Smith, said those injuries changed him in his final days. He was a different person.
Officer Smith's death was later ruled as a line-of-duty death because it resulted from injuries suffered here on our behalf.
Trump pardoned the people who attacked my constituent, Officer Brian Sicknick. They sprayed him with pepper spray hours before his death from two strokes.
The medical examiner said his death was from natural causes, but what happened to Brian before his death during the attack on the Capitol clearly led to his death.
Trump pardoned the people who chanted Nazi slogans, who yelled racial slurs at our Black police officers, and those who called for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Trump's own Vice President, Mike Pence.
Mr. Speaker, Trump pardoned a man who was charged with throwing an explosive device at the police in the Capitol. This was a man who had previously been convicted of domestic violence, battery by strangulation.
Trump pardoned a man who stomped on an officer's head, who beat other officers with a flagpole, a crutch, pieces of furniture, and sprayed officers with pepper spray. Trump pardoned a man who ripped off the gas mask of a police officer, beat him in the face with it, and crushed him in a door.
Trump pardoned hundreds of people who pled guilty to assaulting law enforcement, many of them with deadly weapons. He pardoned or commuted the sentences of over a dozen violent criminals convicted of seditious conspiracy. By pardoning those who carry out
These pardons send a message that violent crime, even against law enforcement, will be sanctioned by Trump's government if it is carried out in his name.
I urge my colleagues to remember the families of the five police officers who died as a result of January 6: Officer Brian Sicknick, Jeffrey Smith, Howie Liebengood, Gunther Hashida, and Kyle DeFreytag.
I urge everyone to remember the officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, who put themselves at risk to protect us, and will carry the scars of the seen and unseen as long as they will live.
These scars were inflicted by people who will face no further legal consequences for those acts thanks to President Donald Trump. This injustice is a gross betrayal of their service and sacrifice but does not diminish their patriotism.
After January 6, many of my colleagues posted messages of support for law enforcement and the Capitol Police. It was on their doors. It was on their walls and in the halls of Longworth and Rayburn and Cannon. It was even on social media.
Members like Speaker Johnson called for the prosecution of those criminals who committed those acts of violence against the police who guard the Capitol. Let me quote Speaker Johnson: To the fullest extent of the law.
Republicans went on to hold votes on symbolic, nonbinding resolutions expressing support for police. They told us to back the blue. Back the blue. Their silence, or worse, their defense of Trump's pardons are unforgivable. They can never again claim to back the blue with any credibility.
Finally, a warning: With these pardons, Trump put violent, dangerous people back into our communities. Many of them did terrible things on other days besides January 6, 2021. All of them had just been emboldened by receiving get-out-of-jail-free cards from this President. Who knows what other criminal acts they will perpetrate next. Unfortunately, we are all about to find out.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for organizing this Special Order, appropriately so, because this is the conclusion of the inauguration efforts of this week.
On January 6, 2021, I expressed numerous times to my constituents and to my colleagues that it was the saddest day of the 20 years that I have had the privilege and honor to serve in the Congress. That day the world watched as a violent mob of insurrectionists breached the Capitol, attacked the police viciously, and tried to overturn a fair and free election.
I was one of 25 Members trapped in the House gallery for 40 minutes as we observed the counting of the ballots as part of our responsibility every 4 years. Let me just say this was not a peaceful protest, as some have tried to portray it, including President Trump and Speaker Johnson.
Let me repeat this. The photos and the videos that we have all seen over the last 4 years make it very clear. This was no lovefest. It was not a peaceful protest. It was a violent insurrection attempt to overthrow a fair and free election. I feel very strongly about this, having been trapped up in that gallery with my colleagues here for 40 minutes.
On that day I came to the House Chamber with my colleagues to certify the 2020 Presidential election which President Joe Biden had won overwhelmingly. Four years later, this week, my colleagues and I are speaking out to ensure that no one rewrites history with a false narrative which we see being attempted to take place.
Just a handful of brave Capitol Police Officers up in that gallery that day stood between us and the violent mob that had already breached the Senate Chamber and now were trying to force their way in here to the people's House.
I took this photograph when I was crouched down there with my gas mask because of the attempt of this violent insurrectionist group of people. I remember crouching on the floor with my colleagues, thinking how could this be happening. I thought it was surreal and unbelievable that it would happen in the United States of America, the oldest democracy in the world.
As a student of American history, I thought to myself that as strong and as resilient as our democracy and our country has been historically during wars and depressions, it was a stark reminder to me, while we were up there wondering what our fate might be, how fragile our democracy can be.
This week President Trump pardoned over 1,500 perpetrators convicted for assaulting police officers and, as was noted by some of my colleagues here this afternoon, some who lost their lives. These are some of the folks, these Proud Boys, that were trying to break into the Chamber. The police had them on the ground. They had their hands bound.
We finally got out of this Chamber and walked out. As we were being escorted to a safe place, we saw people trying to break in to get us, to get the Speaker, to hang the Vice President at the direction of President Trump. They were trying to overthrow the results of the 2020 elections.
I do not believe these pardons that took place here this week were justified, and I think the majority of Americans don't believe they were either. We cannot allow history to be rewritten. The facts are the facts. The documentation, the hearings, and the videos are proof of what happened that day.
Four years ago those violent insurrectionists chose a different path at President Trump's direction. They shattered the sacred tradition of a peaceful transfer of power which has been the cornerstone of our democracy, dating back to our first President, George Washington.
Let's talk about this week. While I didn't agree with the outcome of last year's election, I respected it. That is the essence of a democracy. This Monday, at the inauguration, we had a peaceful transfer of power led by President Biden and the other former Presidents. That is the way it is supposed to be. It wasn't that way 4 years ago. No, it wasn't that way 4 years ago.
Let me just say something, and I wish more of my Republican colleagues had the profiles in courage that I think is required. Democrats are not election deniers. We may not have liked the results of last year's election, but we accepted them. We cannot allow history to be rewritten nor can we forget the sacrifices of the brave Capitol Police who risked everything to protect our democracy.
The Capitol Police stood on the front lines, giving their all to defend the ideals that we hold dear. They should be appropriately honored with more than simply a sign on our doors. We owe it to their families and to our constituents to ensure that the truth remains clear that justice is served and that we never let those who sought to tear us apart rewrite the story on January 6, 2021.
Mr. Speaker, let me close by expressing the simple, plain truth. As a young boy, my mother told me: The truth is the truth. America is a great country. Some of us like to say it is the greatest country in the world because we honor the truth. That is why we are here today. That is why this Special Order is important. That is why I want to thank my colleagues for speaking out. America is a great country because we honor and respect the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because in light of the President's January 6 pardons, someone has to stand up for the people who defend this building, who defend the Representatives of the United States of America, and who defend this magnificent institution. I thank my esteemed colleague, Congressman Himes, for reserving this Special Order hour because it is time that truth speaks.
Just the other day at the beginning of this week, the members of the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police protected us once again as we engaged in inauguration ceremonies of the 47th President of the United States of America. The irony is that while they
The very idea of pardoning people who violently attack police officers who were protecting the United States Capitol is anathema and should be offensive to every Member of this body. I simply cannot think of a more disgraceful act than to disrespect the life and blood and legacy of the men and women of the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police who in some cases literally gave their lives to protect this institution and us as Representatives.
To pardon people who relished and participated in acts of political violence that led to the death of innocent people is something that cannot be and should not be overlooked. It cannot be explained away nor can it be facilitated by politics and regular parliamentary procedure.
What the 47th President of the United States has done in pardoning the people who attacked the police officers is simply wrong. I echo the words of my dear colleague, Congressman Costa. We have been taught right versus wrong. Every Member of my esteemed party and Members on the opposite aisle should join us in raising their voice. We are setting a precedent. We should know and we should call out when character counts.
It is offensive, to say nothing of the fact that it is a violation of the moral law that makes this country one of the finest flowers in the gardens of the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the members of law enforcement who protect this building and who protect our lives that the Members of the Democratic Party see them. We understand them, and we respect them. We respect their character.
We are ashamed at the behavior of this institution. We are ashamed at the behavior of the 47th President of the United States of America. We are ashamed that our officers have been disgraced and humiliated while they come here to protect us every day. We have not afforded them the same protection that they give us every day.
We honor them. We respect them with giving them this hour to tell them that we have not forgotten those that have given their full measure of their duty to this country to protect us and to ensure that this democracy goes forward, even as they have been betrayed.
We do not support the unsolicited and unwarranted disrespect extended to them by the President of the United States of America. There were quotes given by Reverend Martin Luther King the other day. There is one quote I would like to share:
``Expediency asks the question, `Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, `Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question, `Is it right?' ''
There comes a time that we must take a position that is neither with politics nor does it have to be popular. We must ask the question that conscience raises: Is it right?
At some point, we have to stop functioning in this building as if political parties are the only thing that matters. At some point, we have to summon the courage to do what is right, even when it is not necessarily politically expedient. This is one of those times.
What happened on January 6 was violent. What happened on January 6 was a disgrace to the men and women who serve this institution honorably. Anybody who tries to make it out to be anything other than that, than actually what it was, is lying about what we saw with our very own eyes.
We shall know the truth, and the truth shall set us all free. How can we go forward if we cannot go forward in the truth? No lie can live forever.
The election of 2020 had been decided. The people who came here on January 6--that was not a day that most people in American history know what procedurally happens here. What happens here was supposed to be the transfer of power with the electoral college votes that we ceremoniously pass.
No, people were summoned. People were called. Who called them? What were they called to do? They came here and built a noose and gallows outside to hang the Vice President of the United States of America.
We sit here in silence? We act like it never happened?
What concerns me most now is that we are sowing the seeds for future anarchists. We are sowing the seeds for future insurrectionists. We are sowing the seeds for future levels of violence.
I would remind my colleagues that history is watching, the future is listening, and our children are observing everything that we do.
Before we get up and speak recklessly about a mob that violently attacked police officers, we would all be wise to consider how our words will age in years to come and whether future generations will condemn what we said or that we remained silent about this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is no lie can, will, or shall live forever. Whether today or tomorrow or whether in days or decades to come, truth will have its day. We shall know the truth, and the truth shall set us free.
Let us work to do what is right, even when it is hard. Let us affirm what is good, even when it is politically dangerous.
Just yesterday, in this same Chamber where the officers were defending us, insurrectionists of January 6 came in here and sat up in the gallery.
Just this past week, there were 32 miles of fencing all around our beautiful Capitol.
If we had known then what we know now, police should have had the day off so these people could have roamed this building freely. That was their intent, to destroy and kill.
The constitutional ideals that make this Nation as good as its promise are what each of us should be in service to do. When history calls, we must be available to something greater than ourselves.
I pray that we will answer this call. I pray we will not dishonor what is right. I pray we will stand up for those who consistently stand up for us.
I take a point of privilege to say thank you from the bottom of my heart to those officers who came to work on that dreadful day to do what was right and normal and moral but who had been betrayed.
Reverend Martin Luther King also said there comes a time when silence is betrayal. I feel that many of our officers have been betrayed.
We can fix this. We can stand up. We can speak up. We cannot betray the legacy of those officers who have been slain, violently killed. They did not give their life. Their life was taken from them. They should be with their loved ones today. Let us not curse their memory by not erecting a statue and a monument to their brave souls.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a very special thank-you to my colleague, Congressman Himes, for having the courage and the fortitude to stand up. Let the record reflect in years to come that we did our best to make sure we honored our commitment to this country.
Mr. Speaker, day one, our President made our country less safe. Day one, with an irresponsible stroke of his pen, Donald Trump released 500 violent felons back out onto our streets.
These are the criminals who brutally attacked cops who were protecting this building. These were the people who betrayed our country, our democracy. I am not talking about the people who merely showed up that day to protest and didn't commit crimes. This is about the attackers who beat cops with pipes and flagpoles and tasers and mace, who literally stomped on police and tried to poke their eyes out. These were the sweeping pardons that Donald Trump made on day one.
These pardons disproportionately benefited the most violent among the mob. Now, they are back out on the street, heading to our communities. A number of them have already publicly commented that they are going to go buy some more guns, that they are out for retribution and have no remorse for what they did.
Of course, Americans are angry by this, and rightly so. It is an awful thing that the President has done, and it puts Americans in danger.
Among those who are angry is the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest
In a statement, they said: ``When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not severe.'' They further worried that it could encourage more violence against law enforcement.
If you can viciously attack a police officer and get off scot-free, what kind of message is that?
So, violence is acceptable if it is committed on Donald Trump's behalf? It is okay to beat a cop if it is in the service of keeping him in power?
This is incredibly dangerous. I have to say, it looks an awful lot like the actions of someone who would like to be a dictator.
How can the officers who protect us believe that we actually value them if the President doesn't believe in holding people accountable who attacked them? How?
Over the last 2 years, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the officers on the Capitol Police force. They take their jobs incredibly seriously. They have our backs every day. They put their lives on the line not just to protect our flesh and blood but to protect the very democracy, to protect the ideals of this country.
Like many of those who spoke before me have said, it is important to make this connection. These pardons are part of a concerted effort to rewrite what happened on January 6. This desecrates the memory of Officer Brian Sicknick, who lost his life in defense of this building, and it diminishes the great sacrifices that were made by thousands of officers that day.
If we don't push back on this perverted rewriting of history, we can look forward to our children and our grandchildren learning about the glories of January 6, 2021.
It has to be remembered for what it was. It was a domestic terrorist attack, plain and simple.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be trapped in a lie that they can't get out of. I know by the eye rolls. Actually, even before we went into the inauguration, I saw some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle doing impressions of the incoming President, making fun of him. They are now trapped in this lie that they have perpetuated for years now, and they don't know how to get out of it.
What Donald Trump has done on day one is to say to the Capitol Police: I value violent felons more than I value you.
I know I speak for so many Americans today when I say that makes me sick.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vermont for her words as we close this up.
As is so often true in this Chamber, we heard lots of words, and I think they were powerful words, honoring those who protected us and honoring the truth, but what can we do? What is the action? What can we actually do?
Under the law passed a few years ago, Congress is required to produce a plaque to honor those officers who sacrificed so much on that fateful day 4 years and 17 days ago.
I have a little photograph of it here. The plaque reads: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.''
You can only look at the photo of the plaque because the plaque has never been put up, as required by law, in the Capitol of the United States. It is a little curious. We say, ``Their heroism will never be forgotten,'' yet the plaque, as required by law, is not yet displayed in the Capitol of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today, the President of the United States issued 21 very important pardons of individuals who had been put in jail, prosecuted, persecuted, for their religious beliefs and exercise of their speech. These are individuals who are pro-life who had been put in jail because a weaponized Department of Justice was unleashed against these individuals, very specifically and purposefully because they were espousing their pro-life views.
In the President's action to formally pardon these 21 individuals, he rights a wrong that was carried out against them. More importantly, he sends a loud message that the Department of Justice cannot and should not be targeted toward individuals for their political beliefs and their political actions. That is precisely what happened to those 21 individuals.
How do we know this? If you look at the application of the so-called FACE Act that was used to prosecute these individuals, to arrest and prosecute them, 97 percent of the FACE Act prosecutions between 1994 and 2024 were initiated against pro-life Americans.
I want you to pause and listen to that again. Ninety-seven percent of the prosecutions under this one act were carried out against pro-life Americans--this despite the fact that there have been numerous attacks on pro-life facilities and crisis pregnancy centers in the wake of Dobbs. Ninety-one pregnancy resource centers have been attacked since the Dobbs opinion was leaked.
In 2022, pro-life activist Mark Houck was arrested by the FBI for FACE Act violations related to an incident outside of an abortion facility. They didn't charge him in Pennsylvania--in fact, they passed--but the Feds went after him.
Mr. Speaker, you have to ask yourself: Why is that true?
There have been 411 recorded attacks on Catholic churches since 2020.
Was the FACE Act used once by the Department of Justice against any of these Catholic churches?
No.
So what does that look like for these 21 individuals?
By the way, I think this is really important in the context of the speeches that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were just giving with respect to the treatment of those individuals incarcerated, charged, and prosecuted in the wake of January 6. I will come back to that in a minute.
Regarding these individuals whom I am talking about with respect to the pro-life prosecutions by the Department of Justice under Joe Biden, as one of the attorneys for one of the defendants put it:
``While Biden's prosecutors almost entirely ignored the firebombing and vandalism of hundreds of pro-life churches and pregnancy centers, they viciously pursued pro-life Americans.''
``And had they been opposing anything but abortion, Joe Biden would have given them medals. Instead Biden wanted them branded as convicted felons and imprisoned for years in a Federal penitentiary.''
Eva Edl is an 89-year-old survivor of a Soviet concentration camp who sat in front of the entrance to an abortion clinic in a wheelchair. She was one of those targeted by the Biden Department of Justice.
Let's be clear. She described how she was shipped off in cattle cars to concentration camps in Yugoslavia at age 9. They were packed in body to body with no food and no water. She lived through that. She is 89 years old.
Again, I want everybody to understand who is listening to this at home: An 89-year-old survivor of gulags in Europe was prosecuted by the Biden Department of Justice at age 89 for being in a wheelchair in front of an abortion clinic--a Federal crime, Federal Department of Justice.
Paulette Harlow is a 75-year-old grandmother from Kingston, Massachusetts. She has six children and is a grandmother to eight. She is suffering from health issues: liver disease and arthritis. She was prosecuted and sentenced to jail in a 25-month sentence in Texas, miles away from her home in Massachusetts. She is 75 years old.
Why?
It is because she was at an abortion clinic professing her faith and her hope
Lauren Handy is a peaceful, pro-life activist and was formally sentenced to 57 months, almost 5 years, plus 3 of supervision, for her efforts to peacefully save the lives of the unborn. I want to be very clear. Lauren, whom I met, is actually a progressive activist. She and I don't agree on a lot of issues, but she was out advocating for life, and she was sentenced by the Biden Department of Justice under Merrick Garland to 57 months in jail.
Again, I want everybody to think about that.
She was protesting an abortion clinic. Nobody here, Mr. Speaker, by the way, is saying that there isn't room for misdemeanor-type prosecutions if you are in the way and you won't listen to the calls for you to leave. Call it a misdemeanor, pay a fine, whatever it might be. It was a Federal prosecution and she was sentenced to 57 months.
John Hinshaw, 68 years old, was sentenced to 21 months. He said: ``People are having prayer services all over the place for us. The expression of support has just been tremendous.''
Today, the President of the United States righted those wrongs. He righted those wrongs for those four I have just described and 17 others for a total of 21. He also sent a loud message, as I said before, that the Department of Justice never again should be politicized to target people for their beliefs and to be used as a political weapon as it has been under the Joe Biden regime.
It is a new day, and it is an important day.
I want to follow up, though, on my colleagues here who took the floor regarding January 6. I was very clear on this House floor 4 years ago during January 6 that what occurred was wrong. What was occurring and what had occurred was wrong. Those who had broken the law should be prosecuted for breaking the law. I don't know anybody who disagrees with that. I really don't.
There are differing facts for each one of those 1,500 cases. Some of them are pretty bad facts, and regarding some of them there are absolutely no facts at all, but they were pursued anyway.
Therein lies the problem.
I want everybody to really listen to this point. There is going to be time for us to study all 1,500 cases, and we can look and we can judge what was the nature of how they were arrested, where they were arrested, where were they put in jail, how long were they in jail, what were the conditions in the jail, and how many of their loved ones could they talk to.
What was their access to defense counsel?
What was the nature of the prosecution?
What did the judges do?
What were the sentences?
We need to look at all those things.
Notably, the President commuted I think 14 individual sentences. I don't have it right in front of me, but I think it was 14, which tells me that the President and his team went through and tried to differentiate some of the worst, most egregious acts in their view that shouldn't be pardoned but rather commuted to time served.
I would also note this: we are now 48 months beyond the events. Many of these individuals were arrested early in the process, they have been in jail, they have been in the judicial system and have been dragged along. I have talked to dozens of parents, family members, wives, husbands, and spouses of the people who were jailed who were unable to talk to their loved ones. These are people without criminal records, people who had done nothing else.
Many of these people were charged with just parading here in the Capitol complex which then the court said: Well we are not sure about that, and then crossing a line and being in a place you are not supposed to be in, the obstruction issues.
What were you obstructing exactly?
Again, I think it is important to note that what occurred that day should not have occurred, that many of the acts that occurred should and have been punished. Some that were punished should have been punished, but when you completely ignore the rule of law, when you politically charge people, and when you use the Department of Justice as a political weapon, Mr. Speaker, then you undermine the rule of law and you turn it on its head, so that there is no differentiation between the right and the wrong.
Mr. Speaker, when you literally go prosecute an 89-year-old gulag survivor because she was exercising her pro-life views at an abortion clinic, what do you think one's view is of the righteousness of the other actions of the Department of Justice?
Mr. Speaker, how do you look at the 1,500 and go through and break them down in a way when 48 months later, as a father was on a news show today talking about his son and saying that his son had been moved from jail to jail, had had to filter the water through a sock because there was so much rust in the water, that they weren't able to talk to him for 3 weeks over Christmas, they didn't even know where he was and he couldn't get access to counsel during a lot of those times. What are we supposed to do with that?
Ignore it?
The President came in and made a judgment that these 1,500 people of varying forms, some sentenced and some not, some had taken plea deals and some not, had had 48 months of their life turned upside down by a Department of Justice who wanted to try to make an example out of them and the President of the United States said: Enough.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?
I agree.
That is because at the end of the day, 48 months later, many of them having been in jail for all or a lot of that time, many of them had their doors broken down, and many of them had FBI raids--I had two grandmas driving from Austin, Texas, out into the hill country just a few months ago who were arrested and jailed overnight because they were physically present here at the Capitol. They were not even inside, to the best of my knowledge. I think they might have just crossed one of the bike lines.
Three years later two grandmothers are arrested and put in jail?
Does anybody see what happens when we politicize the justice system and the scales of justice become something that we can't look at as blindfolded?
Again, why am I talking about this?
It is because today the President righted the wrongs of those 21 individuals who were literally protesting, in their view, and I share that view, the murdering of unborn children. I think that stuff matters. I think it matters a lot because had Joe Biden and had Merrick Garland not politicized the Department of Justice, then maybe 20 or 30 cases of individuals who had done something that were particularly egregious that were prosecuted, maybe those wouldn't have been pardoned. I don't know. I haven't studied every case.
However, Mr. Speaker, when you are looking at 1,500 cases and all the people who are being abused, I think the President did the right thing and again differentiated between those with the commuted sentences.
Meanwhile, what the President is doing besides, I think, trying to restore balance to the justice system is he is keeping his promises to secure our country.
One of my colleagues over there said that the first thing the President did was make us less safe.
Is he serious?
Is he serious?
He thinks reversing politicized political prosecutions 4 years later is making us less safe.
May I remind my Democratic colleagues that the individual who burned down a police station, a career criminal, got 27 months. That is the idea of justice from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Let's put aside the $2 billion worth of damages nationwide in the wake of the Floyd riots, and let's put aside all the other damage that flowed from that.
Meanwhile, what is the President doing?
He is making our Nation much more safe. There was an executive order declaring a national emergency at the border.
In the first Congress that I was in office, I introduced the Border Visibility and Security Act to help regain operational control of the border. I put together a bill calling on the designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, and I am pleased that that was one of the President's executive orders this week, declaring cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
He issued an executive order requiring Homeland Security to deport aliens with orders of removal. There are over 1 million with orders of removal that Joe Biden wouldn't do.
Again, the lawlessness of the previous administration set the stage for the dangers that we have experienced, and now President Trump is undoing that damage.
There was an executive order saying categorical parole policies, undoing the CBP-1 app that was used to flood the zone with people who came into our country and were released and did things like kill Jocelyn Nungaray, whose mother Alexis I have gotten to know and who was with me for the inauguration this weekend.
There is an executive order to end the catch-and-release program and an executive order to resume the successful migrant protection protocols and return to Mexico, so we can stop the flow. To reinstate recognition of title 42 where you cannot travel through the country with communicable diseases. An executive order ending birthright citizenship, as it has been applied wrongly and incorrectly for years, to people who have manufactured or have used a manufactured cottage industry in which people pay money to get delivered into the country, have a baby, get the citizenship, and then it is what is known as anchor babies. It is real, it is pervasive, it is problematic, and it turns our country's system on its head.
By the way, yes, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say: Yeah, but a court today ruled that that is not constitutional, so they put an injunction on it.
We will see. We will see how this plays out in the legal system.
From my reading of the law, when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, a mere 4 years later, the United States Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases, explicitly said--4 years removed from the passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution, the then-sitting Supreme Court said that it did not apply to people who were here as the children that were being born here of people who were foreign citizens. Another court echoed that a decade or so later.
One court came in and said: Well, no, we think there is birthright citizenship if you are born here to a foreign national, but only if you are a legal permanent resident.
I believe the President's executive order is correct, I believe it is lawful, I believe it is constitutional, and I believe he ought to continue to enforce it.
We ought to be challenging this all the way up to the courts and immediately win this. I believe this Supreme Court will side on the right side, which is that you are a citizen if you are the child of an American citizen. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof has to matter.
The President is restoring our border, restoring law and order, and reversing the damage, and he should be. He should be thanked and congratulated for it.
What else has he been doing in the last, what am I adding up, 78 hours? President Trump, 78 hours in, has been withdrawing us from the disastrous World Health Organization, a globalist entity that has been undermining our sovereignty and wants to take away our own decisionmaking and make us subject to foreign powers on our health issues; withdrawing us from the disastrous Paris climate treaty that was making us beholden to China and foreign nationals and unable to advance and promote our own American energy.
By the way, had we not reversed all of that, we wouldn't have been adding fuel to the fire of Russia going into Ukraine, so to speak.
The President has been declaring a national energy emergency; unleashing American energy; opening up exploration; reversing Biden's ridiculous bans on offshore drilling; making it the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female; ending affirmative action and DEI in the Federal Government and trying to get us back to the actual view of a government that does not look through the lens of color or sex, but, rather, merit and hard work; and requiring that everybody actually shows up to work. Who knew?
All of those things are things that the President has been doing in a matter of 78 hours since getting sworn in a few feet from this Chamber and making our country immensely better off for it.
We have already seen a massive decline in the number of people trying to come across our border. Who knew? Who could have predicted that if the law is enforced maybe people will say: I guess we can't come now. Maybe the cartels will say: This may not be the profit center that we have at the moment.
Just last night, a guy was apprehended by ICE somewhere up in New York or somewhere in the northeast, and he lost his mind. He started swearing at Trump, F Trump, all this stuff. I am with Biden forever. I am not going back to Haiti, he said.
Yeah, he is. He is, and so are a lot of other people because prisons of the world shouldn't be dumped onto the streets of America, endangering our citizens. That is what Biden did, and that is what Trump is reversing.
Now we have to deliver. This is my message to my colleagues here. We have to deliver. My friends in the Freedom Caucus, other conservatives, we have put forward a plan that we believe would deliver and deliver quickly.
We don't have time to waste. The President needs resources. Tom Homan needs resources. The Border Patrol met with the union this last week. They need resources. ICE needs resources to do their job, so let's do it.
They want $86 billion. Let's find it. We can. The defense needs to be modernized, built up after getting undermined and focused on all sorts of ridiculous woke and DEI policies. We need a new, modern, robust military to beat China. We can do that.
We put forward $200 billion over 4 years under President Trump to modernize the military, an additional $50 billion a year. Let's do it. We can do it, and we can pay for it. We said we would raise the debt ceiling over 2 years, about $4 trillion. We are not inclined to want to raise the debt ceiling, if it hasn't been noticed, but we will do it.
The President wants us to get that aside so Chuck Schumer can't play games with the bond market, so let's get rid of the debt, or let's increase the debt ceiling. Let's get $86 billion for Border Patrol. Let's get $200 billion for defense. Then let's apply a handful of cuts to pay for those things. I don't know, how about we repeal the student loan fiasco? It is $100 billion to $270 billion.
How about let's just apply Medicaid work requirements so that, if citizens are on Medicaid for able-bodied Americans--not all, but the able-bodied Americans--that they must work? It is a pretty popular issue. Every Republican has voted for it, and it is $120 billion.
We can pay for defense, pay for Border Patrol, make our Medicaid system better, and reverse the ridiculous student loan bailouts which are giving money from one American to another.
The plumber who never went to college is subsidizing the sociology major sitting in their parents' basement tweeting about nonsense. How about we end that? The sociology major pays their student loans. They took the loans out. The plumber who didn't can go do their thing. Every American who I know who works hard agrees with that. We can do that.
Conservatives, the Freedom Caucus, have put that forward. We want to support President Trump. We want to make sure that President Trump can deliver on the border, get the debt ceiling away from being used politically by Chuck Schumer, and so we put that plan forward.
I think we should have already done it. As usual, we sit in this body, and we debate, and we continue to debate. Unfortunately, we are still debating. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we are going to continue to debate because there is a real debate going on about taxing and spending. I am blowing Republicans' minds when I say that I am all for tax cuts, but Members better cut the spending so that we can actually reduce deficits.
I have been pretty clear about that. A lot of my colleagues have been pretty clear about that. Some of my colleagues here seem to want nothing but tax cuts and no spending cuts.
I will also hear a lot of my colleagues say: Yeah, I am for the spending cuts. I will say: Okay. Well, how many? How much? Well, I mean, as many as we can get.
Okay. Are we going to reduce deficits, or not? I mean, that is the question I am going to be asking everybody. Can they do math, and are we going to reduce deficits? That is the question every American sent us here to do. Do the hard work. Sit at the table. Why don't we put the microphones down, put the cameras away, use these tables, roll our sleeves up, get the paper out, and do the math?
Yes, tax cuts can and do produce economic growth. It puts more money in the hands of the people. Yes, it is morally correct to leave more money in the hands of the American people. I would gladly vote to get rid of the income tax, zero it out, leave the money in the hands of the people, but guess what? Whether it is President Trump's vision or views on tariffs, whether it is something else, there has to be some amount of revenue to pay for all of the promises and all of the programs that every politician loves to go home and run on.
Now the rubber meets the road, or the piper needs to be paid, or whatever metaphor one wants to use. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. We can't run around and beat up the CBO and blame the CBO and say: They never score anything right. That is probably correct. They are human beings, and maybe they are biased. Fine.
Okay. My colleagues think they are biased? Great. Come in with models. Come in with somebody else's models and show me how the math is going to work out, that if we do all of these tax cuts and do no spending cuts, that somehow we are magically going to have deficits going down because it is just not going to be true in the aggregate.
When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981 from the confiscatory top rate of 70 percent under Jimmy Carter to 28 percent on the top marginal rate, there was a lot of good economic growth.
Corporations aren't these blobs. They are people. When we cut corporate rates 8 years ago from 35 percent to 21 percent, there was pretty significant economic growth. That was pretty meaningful in trying to keep more capital here.
Expensing, research and development, all of these things create growth. A lot of tax cuts don't. Take the child tax credits. I get how child tax credits can be argued to be good policy, pro-family policy, good for hardworking families that have kids. There are a lot of arguments for child tax credits.
They are not going to be massively stimulative. They cost about $800 billion over 10 years. So my point is, over here, it is like what are you cutting? What are we cutting because we can't continue to rack up deficits?
I think I am running close on time, and I just want to close with this: Right now, we have $36 point whatever trillion in debt. Right now, we are racking up about $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion a year in deficits.
When the interest on the bonds that we currently hold are getting refinanced over the next couple of years, those interest payments are going to go up, probably to the tune of another $200 billion to $300 billion a year.
If we renew all of the tax cuts, which I support, but we don't offer any cuts correspondingly, we will add hundreds of billions, if not several trillion dollars of deficit spending. The job for us, Republicans and Democrats, is to not do that.
I am asking for deficit neutrality on the tax bill. Let me just be clear. If all of my colleagues who want deficit neutrality or deficit reduction on the tax bill combined with spending cuts, being debated in reconciliation right now, if I win that fight that I am having right now with colleagues--because they are like, I don't know--the best we will get is the current deficit, that is how we would end up with exactly what we have right now of roughly $2 trillion deficits.
By the way, it will get worse because of the interest I mentioned if we keep financing and refinancing our debt, and interest goes up.
What I am trying to scrap for in this body is just trying not to make it worse. It is like ``Christmas Vacation.'' ``Worse? How can it get any worse?''
This is how it can get worse: Vote for more deficits. We shouldn't do that.
My actual last point with, I think, 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, is that, if we are going to do anything at all in reconciliation on policy, we should be fighting for healthcare freedom.
My office put out a report 2 days ago entitled: ``The Case for Healthcare Freedom.'' It is 48 pages that outlines all of the ways in which we are destroying the average American's access to healthcare; that we need to restore the doctor-patient relationship; that we need to break down the stranglehold that insurance companies and hospitals and pharma have on our healthcare. We need to free them up with expansive health savings accounts and allow them to decouple that so they can go out in the market and get actual insurance, go to direct primary care and actually get care for themselves instead of paying $25,000 a year between their employer and themselves to be able to go to an insurance company and be told that they can't get care.
If we want to transform this country, we need to reduce the deficits, give the President what he needs to secure the border, and give us healthcare freedom. That is my call to my colleagues.
