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.
17Deletions of Sponsors From Public Bills and Resolutions
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
35 public bills, H.R. 15, 3054-3087; and 5 resolutions, H.J. Res. 94; and H. Res. 357-360, were introduced.
Pages H1725-28
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H. Res. 237, of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Secretary of Education to transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to the reduction in force and other downsizing measures at the Department of Education, adversely, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-84).
Page H1725
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Alford to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1687
Recess
The House recessed at 10:47 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H1692
Recess
The House recessed at 1:22 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Page H1704
Suspensions: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measures. Consideration began Monday, April 28th. Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act: H.R. 1402, to require sellers of event tickets to disclose comprehensive information to consumers about ticket prices and related fees, by a \2/3\ yea-and- nay vote of 409 yeas to 15 nays, Roll No. 107;
Page H1706
Youth Poisoning Protection Act
H.R. 1442, amended, to ban the sale of products with a high concentration of sodium nitrite to individuals, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 378 yeas to 42 nays, Roll No. 108; and
Pages H1709-10
Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act
H.R. 859, to require the disclosure of a camera or recording capability in certain internet- connected devices, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 415 yeas to 9 nays, Roll No. 109.
Pages H1710-11
Recess
The House recessed at 2:13 p.m. and reconvened at 4:15 p.m.
Page H1706
Recess
The House recessed at 4:39 p.m. and reconvened at 5 p.m.
Page H1709
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Motor Vehicles'': The House passed H.J. Res. 60, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 219 yeas to 205 nays, Roll No. 110.
Pages H1706-09, H1711
H. Res. 354, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (H.J. Res. 60), (H.J. Res. 78), (H.J. Res. 87), (H.J. Res. 88), and (H.J. Res. 89) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 208 noes, Roll No. 106, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 206 nays, Roll No. 105.
Pages H1693-H1704, H1704-06
Quorum Calls: Votes
Five yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H1704-05, H1705-06, H1706, H1710, H1710-11 and H1711. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:57 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: 113 of 158 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 celebrate longtime Chicago leader, organizer, and my dear friend, Amisha Patel, for her nearly three decades of civic engagement and community organizing.
From leading environmental justice efforts at just 19 years of age to organizing Chicago care workers with SEIU Local 73, Amisha has consistently united diverse communities to build power. Her work developing thousands of leaders laid the groundwork for winning affordable housing, quality education, and more in Chicago and across the State of Illinois.
I am proud to have worked alongside Amisha during her 15 years as the executive director of Grassroots Collaborative, where we opposed school closures, championed affordable housing, and fought for critical investments to our social safety net.
Amisha is a fighter for peace, justice, and community. As a three- time cancer survivor currently in treatment, I want her to know that we are with her as she continues this fight.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my sincere honor to commend Amisha Patel for her lifetime of service organizing our communities to fight for the future that we deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Fair Housing Month to honor Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, my constituent, my friend, and the former 35th Ward alderman, for his legacy of leadership to realize safe, affordable housing for all. Moreover, I want to congratulate him on his recent appointment as CEO and superintendent of the Chicago Park District.
In his decade as alderman of the 35th Ward, which includes Logan Square, Hermosa, Irving Park, and Avondale, Carlos championed policies to expand affordable housing and resist gentrification and displacement. He has also led unapologetic efforts to expand protections for immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and workers in Chicago.
Carlos shifted the dynamics of local politics by making sure that neighbors and constituents had power over land use, development, and zoning. In doing so, Carlos modeled what a collaborative co-governance approach to community development could look like and work.
It is how we resulted in tangible wins and how he was able to bring those wins to communities, including the development of 100 units of affordable housing in the heart of Logan Square in the Lucy Gonzalez Parsons Apartments.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my privilege and my honor to commend Carlos Ramirez-Rosa for his commitment to a fair, safe, and dignified life for all of his neighbors.
``Se que continuara transformando nuestras comunidades. Y estoy agradecida contigo, Carlos''; ``I know you will continue transforming our communities. I am thankful for Carlos.''
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Carlos Ramirez-Rosa.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will provide a translation of her remarks.
Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of National Fair Housing Month, I rise to recognize my constituent, affordable housing resident, and community advocate, Deborah Suggs.
For over 50 years, Deborah has called home the Marian Park Apartments, a Wheaton affordable housing community serving seniors and families.
While raising her children, grandchildren, and now great- grandchildren, Deborah has brought together her community to organize for the resources they need to thrive, whether it is secure transportation for school, childcare for working families, or road and pedestrian safety.
As a leader with DuPage United, Deborah has been successful in imagining what safe, livable communities look like and building power and coalition to realize those dreams for people in Wheaton.
I had the pleasure of meeting Deborah at one of my townhalls, where I saw firsthand her passion to fight for herself, her family, her community, and our district.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my honor to recognize Deborah for her lifetime of leadership in Wheaton and for her advocacy for a fair, safe, and affordable community. I thank Deborah.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize David Sparks for his outstanding contributions and visionary leadership in the pharmaceutical industry.
As the previous CEO and current chairman of the board at the Professional Compounding Centers of America, PCCA, Mr. Sparks has been instrumental in advancing the pharmaceutical industry. Since joining PCCA in 1992, he has fought to protect pharmacists' rights to compound, playing a key role in FDA reform legislation. Before PCCA, he owned pharmacies in Tulsa for over two decades, pioneering the introduction of compounding pharmacies in hospice care.
Committed to education, Mr. Sparks is a proud contributor to the SWOSU general scholarship fund, ensuring that future pharmacists have the essential resources to succeed. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Houston College of Pharmacy and an active member of its Mading Society of benefactors. He remains a dedicated advocate for the advancement of pharmacy, continuously supporting the profession through leadership and philanthropy.
Mr. Sparks' impact on the pharmaceutical industry is profound and lasting, and his leadership will continue to shape its future.
Recognizing Jim Smith for Leadership in Pharmaceutical Compounding
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jim Smith, a distinguished leader whose dedication and vision have profoundly impacted both the Professional Compounding Centers of America, PCCA, and the healthcare industry.
His educational background, including a bachelor of science in chemistry and biology from West Texas A&M University and an MBA from the University of Portland, has shaped his strategic leadership.
Since joining PCCA in 2000, Mr. Smith has played a crucial role in the organization's growth, serving as president, chief operating officer, vice president of sales and marketing, and a key member of the strategic management team. His leadership has strengthened PCCA's core capabilities, driving innovation and excellence in pharmaceutical compounding.
Prior to his tenure, Mr. Smith leveraged his expertise in home health, specialty medicine, respiratory pharmacy, long-term care pharmacy, and compounding support, demonstrating his commitment to advancing patient care.
Today, as executive adviser to the PCCA board of directors, Mr. Smith continues to shape the industry, ensuring that innovation and patient care remain at the forefront.
Mr. Smith's dedication exemplifies the highest standards of leadership and service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Gus Bassani, a longtime leader and visionary in the pharmacy compounding industry who has recently assumed the role of chief executive officer of the Professional Compounding Centers of America, PCCA.
Mr. Bassani earned his doctor of pharmacy degree from Drake University's College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. Since then, he has been invaluable in various settings within the pharmaceutical industry.
Mr. Bassani embraces opportunities to give back, teaching extemporaneous compounding principles to pharmacy students at Drake University.
Mr. Bassani has been with PCCA since September 2002, actively participating in legislative, regulatory, and public affairs initiatives. At PCCA, he has been a visionary, contributing extensively to the organization's scientific, technical, and strategic pursuits.
In addition to his outstanding work with PCCA, Mr. Bassani has previously served on the United States Pharmacopeia Compounding Expert Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Bassani on this exciting achievement, and I wish him the best in his new role.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a matter of life or death for millions of children around the world. Malnutrition is the leading cause of death for children under 5 globally.
When children starve, their bodies break down their own muscles, bones, and organs to survive. Their immune systems collapse, leaving them defenseless to disease.
Mr. Speaker, if you go into a clinic where children are suffering from malnutrition, you won't hear them crying because they don't have the strength. The silence is all you will hear.
When it comes to nutrition, the first 1,000 days of a child's life are critical for development for the rest of their lives, but there is a miracle treatment that can save the lives of malnourished children, even in the most remote corners of the world. Ready-to-use therapeutic food, or RUTF, is a nutrient-packed peanut butter paste.
RUTF, also known as Plumpy'Nut, delivers the fat, sugar, and protein that children with malnutrition need to survive and grow. It requires no refrigeration, and kids show improvement and are saved within weeks.
Edesia Nutrition, based in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, is one of the two organizations in the United States that manufactures Plumpy'Nut. From their factory in North Kingstown, they produced over 88 million pounds of Plumpy'Nut each year.
This work saved more than 25 million lives across 65 countries, including 5 million lives last year.
Edesia and another organization, MANA, based in Georgia, have been doing lifesaving work, but this work has been largely halted because the Trump administration has frozen new orders for RUTF, grinding production nearly to a halt. This is despite Secretary Rubio and Elon Musk promising publicly that emergency food aid would be continued. That has not been the case so far, and relief for starving children is now uncertain.
USAID's Office of Food for Peace has funded the manufacture and distribution of this food relief to the developing world for decades, but with the closure of USAID, and despite the assurances of Secretary Rubio and other administration officials, no new orders have been submitted for the next fiscal year.
As a result, Edesia, the factory in my district, has had to lay off staff, leaving production of Plumpy'Nut slowed nearly to a halt. Shipments meant for starving children have been stranded in warehouses. There are boxes of this stuff sitting in warehouses right now with no place to go. Every hour of missed production means 415 starving children will not get the food they need to survive.
If we allow Edesia and MANA's mission to fail, it will be a moral failure on our part.
I urge the administration and my colleagues to do the right thing. Restore the funding for emergency food aid. Keep America's promise to the world's most vulnerable children. We do not have another day to waste. This is a moment of urgency.
That is why starting today, I will take to the floor of the House every single day to call to anybody in this city who will listen, asking to please restore Federal funding for emergency food aid.
We do not have the ability to filibuster in the House like they do in the Senate, but I do have the right and the ability to stand in this Chamber every day for at least a couple of minutes to call attention to this urgent issue, and that is exactly what I intend to do until this funding is restored.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John M. Foster of Harrisonville, Missouri, as our April Veteran of the Month.
A proud son of Cass County, John served 9 years in the Active Army Reserve with the 4th Squadron of the 4th Cavalry Division of the 102nd Infantry Division, earning the rank of sergeant first class.
After his honorable service, John dedicated his life to building his community, literally and figuratively, through his work as the owner of John Foster Construction Company and through decades of civic leadership.
He served as president of the Harrisonville Chamber of Commerce, chaired numerous community initiatives, and was instrumental in establishing the Lawrence Smith Memorial Airport.
As a charter member of the Harrisonville Rotary Club, he promoted international goodwill and service.
John M. Foster's life of duty and service to country, community, and family stands as a shining example of American patriotism.
We are proud to honor him today, proud to have him in Missouri's Fourth Congressional District, and we thank him for his service to our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an iconic Fourth District small business, our Small Business of the Month, Pete & Jake's Hot Rod Parts of Peculiar, Missouri.
For more than 50 years now, Pete & Jake's has been a cornerstone of the hot rod community, crafting high-quality suspension components that are not only admired but built to actually use.
What began in 1973 as two friends restoring a pair of 1934 Ford three-window coupes quickly turned into a legendary brand. Pete & Jake's built and designed the hot rod California Kid for the 1974 Hollywood movie titled ``The California Kid.''
Pete & Jake later sold their California hot rod shop, along with the California Kid, to Jerry Slover, and he moved the hot rod shop to Cass County, Missouri.
His son Jason; his wife, Tina; and their son, Colton--third generation in this picture here--run the daily operation of the all- USA-made parts for hot rods.
Their family impact goes well beyond just business. They give back to our community.
Each and every year, Pete & Jake's hosts a major car show in May, with all the proceeds going to support junior diabetes research, showcasing their dedication to both the customers and their community.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, they celebrated 50 years in business, and each May they have a hot rod show with hundreds of cars coming from all over the country into our district.
Last year, 500 hot rods from 40 States were represented. All the proceeds go, as we said, to junior diabetes research.
Small businesses like Pete & Jake's represent the American Dream, built on hard work, innovation, and passion for what they do. Today, we congratulate Pete & Jake's Hot Rod Parts on their 50th anniversary and thank them for their contributions to Missouri and to America.
Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the House Great Lakes Task Force, I rise today to speak on behalf of our Great Lakes region.
My part of it is the Ninth District of Ohio that stretches all the way from Bryan, Ohio, all the way across the northern part of Ohio through Toledo, all the way to Sandusky and down to Fremont, Ohio, passing through places like Rossford, Perrysburg, Defiance, Ohio, and so many other beautiful places.
Our hardworking families depend on the Great Lakes not just for their livelihoods but for our way of life. They are the largest freshwater body on the face of the Earth, and we take the responsibility for tending that seriously.
The Great Lakes form the beating heart of our regional economy. They support hundreds of thousands of jobs, from the auto and steel industries, manufacturing to shipping, farming to fishing, and tourism to technology.
Our freshwater coast is a national treasure, and it is also a global economic engine, the third largest economy in the world that we share with Canada. We work on this together. We have from the beginning.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative--or some people call it the GLRI--has been a bipartisan lifeline and a vital investment that has brought over $3.7 billion to our complex ecosystem to restore our wetlands, to clean up toxic waste in hotspots, and to protect our fresh drinking water. It is complex with lots of industry, lots of agriculture, lots of people, and lots of freshwater.
We must fully fund the GLRI. Every dollar brings back four to our economy, and that just makes common sense.
Let me be clear to this new administration: Keep your hands off our lakes. We will not stand by while shortsighted proposals gut the programs that have protected our water, our health, and our jobs. I would urge the President, while he is in Michigan, to go visit Flint, Michigan, and look at what we have to do to restore enterprise and freshwater across our region.
Mr. Speaker, currently, our Great Lakes economy is being choked by reckless tariffs and inside-out trade policies that hit us hard, including the district I represent in northwest Ohio. It hits our pocketbooks and it hits the balance sheets of thousands of companies.
Take a drive through the Port of Toledo. You will see mountains of aluminum and steel stockpiled, stalled, waiting. Waiting for what? Our workers and small businesses are paying the price for a trade war that didn't need to start, and we certainly can't win as a joint economy.
Our region, the Great Lakes region, we share with Canada. What is all of this commotion for? Tariffs on Canada, our friend--I underline that--and ally, mind you--the Trump tariffs have inflated costs across our industries, including auto manufacturing, crushing competitiveness in an industry that has long been the pride of northern Ohio and for which we have struggled for 40 years to reinvest in.
In Sandusky, in Perrysburg, in Warren, Michigan, in Windsor, Ontario, and across the industrial belt, plants are being squeezed or idled, shifts are being cut, and paychecks are being threatened.
It doesn't stop there. Tariffs on Canadian lumber, potash, and energy have disrupted supply chains our region relies on. It is our life beat.
Construction costs are soaring. Eight percent for a mortgage, who can afford that? Farmers can't access the nutrients they need, and they are in the planting mode right now. The tractors are going into the fields.
As mortgage interest rates rise, we need Canadian lumber. The cost of housing is through the roof. Energy bills climb higher and higher. This is not economic patriotism. This isn't putting America first. It is self-inflicted damage. Somebody doesn't understand where these lakes exist. We share them with Canada.
Trump tariffs on the U.S. and Canada put our workers not first but put them last. Rising prices for consumers are hitting us hard across the board.
Let's not forget tourism, one of our region's most vital and underestimated economic engines. Lake Erie supports billions of dollars of recreational boating and sports fishing, along with a boating industry second to none. We share it with Canada. Cedar Fair, with Cedar Point, the roller coaster capital of the world, draws millions, including from Canada, and they are boycotting our facilities right now. Tourism generates billions.
I ask the President, please, while he is in Michigan, to review how damaging his tariffs are to our Great Lakes nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Christendom College Lady Crusaders women's basketball team on their extraordinary
Under the leadership of Head Coach Mary Minick, the Lady Crusaders entered the season ranked number 1 and lived up to the challenge, finishing with an exceptional record of 26-2 and securing three straight victories in the postseason tournament to bring home the title once again.
This remarkable team is led by seniors Bridget McCaughey, Regina Bonvissuto, Catherine Thomas, and Miranda Keller, and includes Grace Hatley, Lilly Vander Woude, Mary Pennefather, Georgie Snyder, Libby Kolesar, Audrey Speier, Elizabeth Heisler, and Serena Keller.
Miranda Keller was named Student-Athlete of the Year; Regina Bonvissuto was named Honorable Mention All-American; Mary Pennefather was named First Team All-American and Tournament MVP; and Catherine Thomas was named First Team All-American and Women's Basketball Player of the Year. Eight players were also named to the Academic All-American Team: McCaughey, Bonvissuto, Thomas, M. Keller, Pennefather, Kolesar, Speier, and S. Keller. These student athletes demonstrated incredible discipline, teamwork, and commitment both on and off the court.
Coach Minick, now in her seventh season, has fostered a winning culture built on faith, leadership, and mentorship. Her guidance, along with Assistant Coaches Annie Heisler and Jeremy Minick, has elevated the program into a true national powerhouse.
Congratulations again to the 2025 Christendom Lady Crusaders on this historic season. It is an honor to recognize such an outstanding team and the pride they bring to our community. I wish them continued success in the years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Salem High School speech team, who just made history by winning their 19th consecutive VHSL State Championship, the most in Virginia history.
With a commanding 39-11 win over E.C. Glass, Salem now holds 103 individual State titles, a record capped by senior Claire Rawlins, who earned the school's 100th with her second straight title in impromptu speaking.
Joining Claire were State champions Charlie Bain in serious dramatic, Rosalie Botos in prose, and the dynamic duo of Lacy Stratton and Bella Poarch in humorous duo.
Rounding out the team's strength were runners-up Hall Blackwood, Rebekah Steinweg, Parneet Gill, Tara Farrokhpoor, and Noah Lovern. Third place finishes went to Connor Smythers and Colton Easter, Brenasha Devlin, Ariana Turner, and Caden Smythers.
Also competing were Aly Ory, Zippy Elliot, Tori Iverson, and Lori Lowry, all rising stars, along with Kaelyn Henzey, the team's manager, who made sure every detail of the event ran smoothly.
This team is more than a powerhouse. It is a legacy of excellence. Congratulations to Salem, whose voices are making history.
Mr. Speaker, today marks 100 days since President Trump returned to the White House, and already the results speak for themselves.
In just 100 days, President Trump has delivered where it matters most: securing our border, cutting inflation, restoring American energy independence, rebuilding our economy, and enforcing the rule of law.
We are seeing the most secure border in our Nation's history, a manufacturing boom, and real relief for families who spent years struggling under failed leadership.
House Republicans are proud to be working with President Trump to keep our promises to the American people by strengthening our economy, protecting our communities, and restoring America's standing in the world.
Mr. Speaker, America is getting stronger every day, and we are just getting started.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a true hometown hero, a legendary trailblazer, a family friend, a mentor to me and many others, and the former Secretary of Labor for this great Nation, Alexis Margaret Herman.
I had the privilege to work on a Presidential campaign myself, President Obama's campaign. Before I decided to join that campaign, I called Alexis Herman because she had worked on several Presidential campaigns.
I then pursued career opportunities at the White House. Again, I called on Alexis Herman because she too had worked in the White House multiple times.
When considering a run for Congress, the seat that I now hold today, I again called Alexis Herman. That is not because I had known her my whole life, it is because few people could advise on the level that she could.
Mr. Speaker, to understand Alexis Herman, you have to understand where she comes from. She was born and raised in Mobile, Alabama, my hometown. She came of age with a number of people and some names who you would recognize if you are from the Mobile area.
They were people who all were born within a 10- to 15-year range of each other, African Americans, names that some know around the world, like Hank Aaron, but others like my father, Michael Figures, and Thomas Figures, General Gary Cooper, Lonnie Johnson, Yvonne Kennedy, Sam Jones, and this body's very own Sanford Bishop. They were all born and raised in Mobile, Alabama, in generally the same timeframe, and went on to break through a number of barriers, color barriers and otherwise, throughout their careers and make significant contributions to this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, Alexis Herman's parents prepared her for the life that she had. Her father was actually the first Black person elected in the State of Alabama to any position post-Reconstruction. This led to him being very active and motivated in Black voter participation. It led to him one day actually being run off the road by the Klan. His five-year- old daughter, Alexis Herman, sat in the car and listened as her father was beaten by the Klan. Her mother was a schoolteacher who Alexis had actually witnessed being thrown off of a segregated bus as a child.
This produced Alexis, who went on to be a fighter for civil rights and a fighter for women's rights. She first stood up as a young woman when she challenged why African-American students at her parochial school were not allowed to participate in religious pageantry. She was suspended for that, but that was just the beginning.
When she finished school after graduating from Xavier University, she came back home to Mobile, Alabama, and helped desegregate other parochial schools. She then helped get African Americans jobs and apprenticeships at the shipyards for the first time in Mississippi.
That led her to doing similar work in Atlanta and helping to diversify some corporations there. That caught the attention of a young Georgia Governor named Jimmy Carter, who was running for President. He ultimately named her, at just 29 years old, the director of the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor.
Mr. Speaker, her journey took her from a segregated Alabama to serving as an adviser to Jimmy Carter and, ultimately, serving as the director of the Office of the Public Liaison, as it was called at the time, under President Clinton. That led to her being a member of the President's Cabinet as the Secretary of Labor where, under her tenure, unemployment fell to a 30-year low here in the United States. She worked to promote job training opportunities for low-income Americans.
After that, she didn't quit. She always reached back. She always gave back. She always served as a mentor to give advice to people like myself, who wanted to pursue similar career tracks.
That led her to sitting in the boardrooms for companies like MGM, Coca-Cola, and Toyota, some of the biggest companies in the world. She never forgot where she came from. She never did.
In January of this year, when she was quietly battling a condition, she took
Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today as a Member of Congress, someone who has followed in her footsteps, it is not only my father who I seek to make proud in this moment, but it is Alexis Herman. I can stand here today because of people like her.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to mark the most solemn time of the year for the people of the Vietnamese diaspora. ``Black April,'' ``Thang Tu Den,'' is not just a solemn day in history, but it is a reminder of the day when we lost everything: our homes, our livelihoods, and our beloved country.
It was 50 years ago, on April 30, 1975, that South Vietnam fell to the Communist regime. American troops airlifted 6,000 American and Vietnamese people to safety. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees would follow, most of them boarding boats on uncharted waters, not knowing what awaited them on the other side of the journey.
In Vietnam, the conditions under the Communist regime grew more brutal. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, losing not just their homes but their freedom, their dignity, and, in too many cases, their lives.
This is a painful day, a day for reflection, for remembrance, and for mourning. Over 58,000 United States soldiers and more than 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers gave their lives in service. These brave men and women made the ultimate sacrifice, and they deserve our continued and unwavering gratitude.
We mourn not only those who fought for freedom but the countless innocent lives lost during the war, those who perished at the hands of the Communist regime and the aftermath and the brave souls who were lost fleeing repression on boats. We have no choice but to honor those precious souls who were lost by giving the most we can to this life that we have been blessed with.
I share my own story with hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese Americans born to parents who fled our homeland with nothing. Boat people did not let the hardship of the journey define the life that they built in America. We have built communities that are unparalleled in strength, prosperity, and commitment to preserving our history.
Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on the past 50 years since the fall of Saigon, we do so in solemn remembrance but in celebration of what we have built together. From the ashes of war, we have risen.
We celebrate today the trailblazers who have risen from this legacy: generals and admirals in the U.S. military, award-winning scientists, titans of business, educators, doctors, and artists. Our community has nurtured leaders in all walks of life, turning adversity into opportunity in just five short decades.
Many of these people are children of refugees or refugees themselves, and they represent just a few of the countless contributions that Vietnamese Americans continue to make across every sector of society. Our journey from tragedy to triumph has only just begun, and the story of our people will continue to inspire generations to come.
As the first Vietnamese American to represent Orange County's Little Saigon community in Congress, I am humbled by the responsibility to carry this history forward. Little Saigon, home to the largest Vietnamese diaspora in the world, is a beacon of hope and a reminder of the resilience that has defined our community.
I stand on the shoulders of the Vietnamese leaders in California and across the country who have paved the way for future generations to succeed. I am proud to be the third Vietnamese American ever elected to Congress, following Congressman Joseph Cao of Louisiana and Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy of Florida.
I am reminded every day of our strength, our determination, and our unyielding commitment to preserving our history and to ensuring that no Communist regime can rewrite our history.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in not only remembering the hardships we face, but also in celebrating the incredible resilience of the Vietnamese people. Let us honor the lives of those who sacrificed everything for freedom: The United States Army veterans and the veterans of the former Republic of Vietnam. As we commemorate this solemn milestone, let us reaffirm our commitment to the values that matter most: democracy, human rights, and our unshakeable will to be free.
Mr. Speaker, to Sikhs both in America and around the world, I wish everyone a happy Vaisakhi.
For those who don't know, Vaisakhi marks the beginning of the harvest season. It is a momentous occasion in the Sikh community.
Over the weekend, I had the privilege of joining the Sikh Center of Virginia to celebrate in Manassas, Virginia. The event brought together community leaders, local leaders, and elected officials, signifying the strength of our growing Sikh community in northern Virginia and across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to partner with our Sikh Americans here in Virginia and all across the country as we celebrate Vaisakhi this year.
Mr. Speaker, I rise out of concern today over the recent firings at Fannie Mae, firings that have impacted many of my constituents, especially in the Indian-American community, constituents who have been dedicated employees for years with exemplary performance reviews.
Without any advance notice, these employees received word of their termination over alleged fraud and ethics violations. I spoke to many of them, and they said that they were fired for contributing to Indian- American-run charities. Yet, some of them didn't even contribute to those charities at all or were encouraged to donate to those charities.
There was no investigation, no due process, and no chance to correct the record or provide their side of the story. Employees simply received a we-will-get-back-to-you message when they contacted HR. Without a proper and official investigation, I am concerned that these firings are another pretext for making indiscriminate cuts to our workforce in northern Virginia.
If these employees were targeted because they are Indian American, national origin being a legally protected class, then that might have been illegal and unconstitutional, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I demand answers to understand why these terminations really took place, and we are going to continue to put pressure until we get those answers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of grave concern over our leadership at the Pentagon right now. In just a few short months, the Department of Defense has been overtaken by chaos because of Secretary Hegseth's leadership.
Mr. Speaker, classified and sensitive information is being shared over Signal. The Secretary has a nonsecure internet line in his office. Seemingly every day, there is a new story about firings, backstabbing, and so-called shake-ups in the highest levels of leadership.
This leadership is not making our country or our troops safer, but don't take it from me. I have had many veterans and military families reach out to me. One military parent is so scared that the sharing of classified information over nonsecure channels will put their son at risk.
She wrote to me:
Another constituent pointed out the hypocrisy of the administration claiming that they did nothing wrong in using Signal for these discussions.
That person said:
That is from military families and military people serving today.
Not only is this a failure of our national security, but it is an embarrassment for the United States. Our allies will be less willing to share intelligence with us if Secretary Hegseth might share it with his family, his poker buddies, or whoever else he thinks it would be neat to loop in.
Our servicemembers deserve better, and the American people deserve better. That is why I reiterate my demand to make sure we have change at the Secretary of Defense level and in the Pentagon.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize April as the Month of the Military Child. While we rightly honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women in our military, April reminds us that service comes in many forms.
We are celebrating the more than 1.6 million children whose parents serve in the Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve Components of the United States military.
Our troops answer the call to defend our Nation. Yet, when they do, their children are quietly called to service, too.
These young people grow up in a world defined by constant change, showing remarkable resilience, patriotism, and adaptability. They move from base to base, often starting over time and time again. They say good-bye to friends more times than they can remember.
They celebrate birthdays and holidays with one parent thousands of miles away. They carry worry, pride, hope, and responsibility, sometimes all at once.
This month, we pause to recognize that while our servicemembers protect our freedoms, their children carry the emotional weight of that commitment. They sacrifice stability, time with their parents, and the comfort of staying in one place, and they do it all with a resilience that is nothing short of remarkable.
This month is a special time to recognize and uplift a group of young people whose strength and sacrifice often go unnoticed.
This is personal for me, not only as an American who deeply respects our Armed Forces but also as a parent of a servicemember.
I have watched firsthand what it means to serve, not just for the person in uniform but for the entire family. I have seen how military children shoulder more than many adults will ever have to.
As a parent, I know how hard it is to be away from your child, but I also know the pride that comes with seeing them live with purpose, discipline, and honor.
Our military families, especially the children, live those values every single day. That is why we celebrate them throughout April. During this month, one of the most meaningful days we observe is Purple Up! Day. On Purple Up! Day, people are encouraged to wear purple as a visible show of support for military-connected youth.
Why purple? Because purple is the combined color of all the military branches. It blends each branch's colors: the Air Force, Navy, Space Force, and Coast Guard's blues, the Army's green, and the Marines' red. Together, they create purple, symbolizing the unity and strength of our military families.
Military children may not enlist, but they endure the impact of service. Through it all, they develop strength, compassion, and character that make them leaders in their own right.
Mr. Speaker, let's honor not just the men and women who serve but the families behind them, especially the children who carry this unique burden with incredible grace. They, too, are part of what keeps this Nation strong.
I thank every military child--past, present, and future--for their strength, sacrifice, and spirit.
Mr. Speaker, since President Donald Trump was overwhelmingly reelected by mandate, he has been winning on behalf of American families.
Today marks 100 days since the President took back the White House, and along with the Republican-led House with the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson and the Senate, immediately began promises made, promises kept, delivering for American families.
In just 100 days, the Trump administration has secured the borders, restored energy independence, begun peace through strength, and brought massive investments and jobs, making America competitive again.
President Trump is keeping his promises to families, making the country strong, safe, and secure.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Open borders for dictators puts all Americans at risk of more 9/11 attacks imminent, as warned by the FBI. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin's lies with the fake cease-fire of May 8-10 for a military parade, insulting President Trump's good faith efforts for a real cease-fire.
Mr. Speaker, I recently visited the Bronx VA Medical Center in the Bronx, New York. This center serves many in my district, and I am grateful for the quality care they provide and for the groundbreaking research happening at this facility.
When a young person signs up to join the military, Americans make them a promise that we will take care of them for the rest of their lives because they have put on the uniform of this country and risked their lives for all of us.
That is why it is perplexing and unconscionable that this administration has proposed devastating cuts to VA healthcare and benefits, eliminating 80,000 staff who provide healthcare and benefits to veterans who have earned them.
More than a quarter of VA staff are veterans themselves. Cuts to the programs that provide home loan assistance to veterans, even cutting staff of the suicide crisis line that saves lives--for what? This message does not say: Thank you for your service. This is a slap in the face for those who have served.
My Democratic colleagues do not support these cuts, and this is an ideal moment for bipartisanship, where our Republican colleagues can join us in pushing back.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Samantha ``Sammy'' Scherba. Sammy was just 28 when we lost her, a vibrant, artistic soul whose light touched every life that she encountered.
She had a massive heart, big enough to embrace the entire world. Whether it was people, animals, or even the tiniest of insects, Sammy believed that every living thing deserved love and compassion. She brought life back into withering plants and turned simple stones into stunning works of art.
In the end, she gave the ultimate gift: life to others through organ donation. At her honor walk at the Cleveland Clinic, more than 150 people lined the halls, a testament to her impact.
Sammy was a daughter, a sister, an aunt, and a friend. She loved deeply, and she was loved deeply.
I honor her family who are here today, who flew in from my district, Ohio 7.
Mr. Speaker, this week marks 100 days since Donald Trump's return to power, 100 days of destruction, chaos, and heartbreak, all rubber-stamped by congressional Republicans.
Trump promised to lower costs. Instead, extreme tariffs have driven up prices and tanked the stock market, gutting retirement savings.
Trump promised to protect Social Security. Instead, he is closing offices, firing workers, and making it harder for seniors to get the benefits that they earned.
Trump promised to fight for hardworking Americans. Instead, he is pushing a cruel budget that rips food and healthcare from children, from seniors, and from veterans, all to hand massive tax breaks to billionaires.
While families struggle, Trump plays golf, and his buddy, Elon Musk, is chainsawing the American Dream.
It has been 100 days of chaos, destruction, and heartbreak, and Democrats are fighting back.
Mr. Speaker, today is Fentanyl Awareness Day, a day meant to spread awareness of a ruthless poison that has stolen the lives of too many of our sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers.
My family and I know this pain personally. My brother Luke was taken from us by a single pill laced with illegal fentanyl.
Mr. Speaker, so many families across our country have experienced this same pain. It is a tragedy, but we cannot let heartache keep us down. Our family and this country, we do not weep in the wake. We rise, we fight, and we prevail.
When America enforces her laws, we win. Fentanyl trafficking is down 54 percent. Border encounters are down 93 percent. Thousands of MS-13 thugs have been thrown out.
This is no accident. It is the result of strong leadership, of resolve, and of putting America first.
I will continue to do my part and fight for families against this poison.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize another example of the fierce brilliance of Virgin Islands youth.
This week, the champions of the U.S. Virgin Islands Regional Science Bowl, the St. Croix Educational High School and Church of God Holiness Academy, stand in Washington, D.C., not just as competitors but as symbols of excellence, Caribbean intellect, and Virgin Islands pride. They represent not just their school. They represent the potential and promise of our home.
As always, the small geographic space called the Virgin Islands does big ``tings.'' These students are an example of the potential of the Virgin Islands. These are the future scientists, engineers, and innovators of America.
I thank the coaches and families for supporting our youth. I congratulate the students. I know they will represent us well in this week's competition and will remember to stay VI Strong.
Providing for Consideration of H.J. RES. 60, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the National Park Service Relating to "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.
Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing for consideration of five pieces of legislation.
H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.
Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of inquiry until September 30, 2025.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly.
I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and sister, Molly, to cancer.
As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the disease. I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson who were watching their children go through treatment.
Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own engagements in public service.
When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life, her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how proud she was of her dad.
While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and his entire family.
Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress is not doing anything.
Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are focusing on.
We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the Biden administration. The President is doing that on a daily basis in the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate with 60 votes. We
Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process.
Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan. Justice Elena Kagan talked about the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under the previous administration talked about the need for injunction reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary restraining orders and injunctions.
We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl.
Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the border.
Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100 days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent year over year.
Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second. They decreased by 94 percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration?
No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction in apprehensions at the border.
Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration.
The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming that there are two genders. These are common sense. I wouldn't think we would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives doing those things or having the President do it by executive order, but here we are.
The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and approving new LNG projects.
Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.
Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.
These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water resources and other conservation efforts.
Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't matter.
Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability to afford to live in the modern world.
This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the White House to restore the ability of the average American family to live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open market.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are infringing on California. Let's remember that California gets treated specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is causing a direct impact on other States across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Representative Roy for acknowledging the tremendous loss that Jim McGovern and his wife, Lisa, suffered this weekend when their daughter, Molly, was taken by cancer, a disease both of us have battled, as well.
With the Speaker's indulgence, I will read a few sentences from the McGoverns' own statement because I think this captured a lot of who Molly was:
``Molly radiated pure joy. She lit up every room with her beaming smile--full of laughter, endless warmth, and a sharp wit that could disarm you in an instant. She was unbelievably funny, fiercely loyal, and wise beyond her years. Molly had a rare gift: She made everyone feel special because she genuinely believed everyone was special. She treated people with compassion and kindness--always standing up for the underdog, and making fast friends wherever she went.''
Molly was deeply loved by Jim and Lisa, and because of that love, Molly was also loved by many of her colleagues in this House. She grew up here in Capitol Hill with other children of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have been exchanging and I have been watching these beautiful pictures of Molly growing up with those kids from when she was young to just last August at the convention.
Lisa McGovern dedicated herself to helping families deal with cancer at Prevent Cancer Foundation. Lisa knows directly what it is like to see that terrible disease impact a young and promising life and how it, therefore, impacts the entire family.
Jim has one of the biggest hearts I know. He stands up on this floor every week to ask us to end hunger now because he deeply feels the pains of hunger that too many young children in America suffer from.
Given that huge heart, my colleagues can only imagine the love he poured into Molly. We don't even have to imagine it. We all saw the love he poured into Molly. He worried about her as she sought to live a normal life, studying in Australia and traveling, but he always said ``yes'' and never missed being by her side for key appointments and scans.
We cry for the things we love, and love always comes with pain. With a love as profound and deep as what Molly had, we know the McGoverns' pain will be immeasurable.
To Lisa, Jim, and their son, Patrick, please know that your colleagues on this House floor on both sides of the aisle are in pain with you. Our tears are flowing with yours, and your congressional family stands with you in prayer and support.
Now, standing in Jim's place, I will turn to the business before us.
Representative Roy and I agree on how we opened this, but not on much more this morning because we see a different view on this 100th day that is marking Trump's service in office, 100 days of chaos, corruption, and economic sabotage. After these 100 days, House Republicans are wasting time on cynical Congressional Review Act resolutions instead of addressing the economic and constitutional crisis facing American families.
One hundred days of economic pain, as Trump's on-again, off-again temper tantrum of tariffs tank the dollar, drive up prices, destroy the markets, and threaten a recession.
One hundred days of chaos in the White House, where Secretary Hegseth texts war plans to journalists, and the administration belittles allies while embracing dictators like Putin.
One hundred days of corruption, as billionaires like Musk and DOGE take Americans' personal Social Security data and fired the employees we need to process those Social Security checks. They fired the auditors and inspectors so no one is there to sound the alarm when Musk steers contracts to his own companies. Talk about self-dealing.
One hundred days of courtroom drama, with courts--district, appellate, and even the Supreme Court--saying Trump's actions are likely illegal, unconstitutional, and must be paused to avoid irreparable harm to the American people.
While Trump defies the law and damages our economy, what are House Republicans doing? This week and into the next couple, Republicans are plotting to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for 759 billionaires. Republicans will sacrifice healthcare for 72 million children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to give tax cuts to the 759 richest people in America.
When they destroy Medicaid, they destroy rural hospitals, and they destroy healthcare centers that everyone in the community uses, not just those on Medicaid.
Trump and Republicans want to give tax cuts to the biggest corporations, as well, so they have to cut funding from low-income college students trying to get ahead and steal food from the mouths of hungry children, and that hurts our farmers and ranchers, too. These are the hungry children that Ranking Member McGovern fights for every day.
Millions of Americans will suffer so the billionaires and the biggest corporations can get more--more power, more money, more control, and more influence in Washington, D.C.
Americans are tired of how the system is rigged against working- and middle-class families. They know the rich are winning and regular Americans don't seem to have a chance.
The Republican budget ends their reconciliation bill. Their tax cuts are going to make sure the rich always win.
Now, Trump's approval ratings are the lowest of any President in the last 80 years. In the latest poll released today, Americans give him F's. He is getting F's on the economy. He is getting F's all over the place.
Americans disapprove of Trump because he is destroying our economy, and he is betraying his promise to lower costs from day one.
Americans are demanding we put an end to Trump's tyranny. Republican voters are showing up at the few townhalls that Republicans are brave enough to have, and they are yelling at their Representatives. They are saying: Do something.
While Americans want us to have the courage to stand up to Trump, House Republicans are doing the opposite.
Hidden in the rule we are debating today is a provision that will cover up Secretary Hegseth's texting of classified war plans. Republicans won't even let Democrats ask for information about what is happening at the Department of Defense--no courage, just capitulation.
Today, instead of helping lower costs for working families, Republicans are pushing partisan bills to overturn environmental laws that protect our air and water. It is ridiculous.
Costs are going up, markets are tanked, court orders are being ignored, and we are talking about a rule that we will hear about later today that we are going to spend all of this time on the floor of this House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate. We are wasting the precious time that we have on this House floor to do something.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty regular occurrence in my various floor speeches.
With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power.
I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics. I had some Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have the conversation.
Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the ``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying if you want to have an open body.
I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be? If we want resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have turned them off.
I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate, are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51- vote threshold for judges.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin, they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by a 51-vote threshold for legislation.
Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound love and respect for the 60-vote threshold.
My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally, then let's have a real conversation about changing the body institutionally.
Closed rules, I get it. In the majority, we are sitting here, and we have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry? What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule, which includes several Congressional Review Acts against the disastrous Biden-era electric vehicle mandates.
These create undue, burdensome rules, which impact our rural communities. Rural communities are the backbone of our country. They are the farmers, ranchers, teachers, and parents, and they are being crushed by the costly and out-of-touch policies from Washington.
There is no doubt EV mandates only add further financial strain to hardworking Americans, especially in my district.
Have you seen an electric tractor, baler, or plow? I haven't because they
When compared to cities, rural areas have extremely low EV rates, with the vast majority of rural areas having EV registration rates between zero and a half of a percent. This means there are between zero to five EVs registered per 10,000 people in rural areas.
It is simple. EVs are for urban elites in warm-weather States who have no concept of rural America.
A government EV mandate is unjustifiable. Vehicle decisions should be left up to the American consumers, not woke extreme climate activists.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a resolution of inquiry--Congress wants to know. Give us some answers.
It is not that big of a deal, except that, right now, I think they just don't want to have to vote. They don't want to have to vote on Signalgate. They don't want to have to actually take up an issue that they know is controversial, and they don't have a reason to present to the American people of why to shut this inquiry down.
I will acknowledge that we also had resolutions of inquiry, and there was a reason that we explained to the world: There was a pandemic going on. People were dying. The United States Government was in an emergency, and we were trying to save lives. We were trying to make sure that people were safe, not just here but in every single State. In New Mexico, it was devastating. We were trying to deal with this worldwide pandemic.
They have not offered any explanation for shutting down resolutions of inquiry at this time. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why? Last night, we had an amendment to actually remove this, and we said: Why? Just explain to us why. They could not answer.
I don't think it is a coincidence that the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee were set to take up these inquiries about the Secretary of Defense using unclassified Signal chats to share sensitive information about military strikes with his family, his personal lawyer, and a journalist.
They don't want to vote on Signalgate, so they are rigging the rules to block us. They are hoping maybe this issue will pass over. Maybe we will forget about this lapse of judgment, this utter failure, this TV personality who, I guess, still wants everybody to know what he is doing, but when you are Secretary of Defense, you are not supposed to be letting everybody know what we are doing and putting our servicemembers at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member and top Democrat on our Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as chair of the California Democratic congressional delegation in opposition to this rule. It makes in order three resolutions that claim to be pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, but are completely illegitimate.
That is not just my opinion, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has not once but twice found that waivers California receives under the Clean Air Act are not rules under the CRA.
The Senate Parliamentarian has reached the same conclusion, so if this passes and if the Senate follows its rules, this will not be in order in the Senate.
Now, of course, our current President has taken many actions that we believe are illegal. More than 100 cases have been filed to stop these actions, and he has lost most of them, but it is sad to see the majority here in the House following suit. I will just say this: Abusing the Congressional Review Act is not the slope you want to slide down. You will regret having opened that when you are no longer in the majority.
I also oppose the underlying resolutions because they directly risk our fellow Americans' health. Air pollution is directly linked with increased rates of asthma, cancer, and other diseases. Parental and childhood exposure to pollution is linked to long-term health risks, adversely impacting babies and young children.
Just one of California's standards that would be blocked, the Advanced Clean Cars II, is estimated to reduce healthcare costs by $13 billion over the next 25 years.
Now, it is important to note that these rules that California has adopted, they are for California. Other States don't have to follow these rules. There is a lot of criticism of California. We are the biggest State. We are the most diverse State. We are a big, sprawling State that has challenges, of course, but we are the most innovative economy. For all of the criticism that the majority sometimes lodges against us, we have just become the fourth biggest economy of the world. The State of California is the fourth biggest economy, and as we meet our challenges, we are also very successful economically.
Mr. Speaker, don't take this step to violate the rules. Don't take this step to cripple California's economy. Vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I won't waste a whole lot more time on it.
The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation.
Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed. Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton. I can keep going down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish, incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID.
Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars. As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment. It is the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California wants to go and which we want to try to solve.
Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of California.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned the fact about a vehicle's expense. Now, let's recognize that used car prices have gone up for the first time in 30 months not because of what California has done but because of Trump's tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Used car prices just rose for the first time in 30 months. Here's why and what it could mean for consumers in 2025.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the resolutions it advances. Texas is allowed to do what it would like to do. California does not mandate Texas' decisionmaking. We want to make our own decisions. Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, signed by President Richard Nixon, we did that, and we have been leaders since he signed it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to specifically three Congressional Review Act resolutions that are in this rule that illegally take aim at California's legal ability to implement more stringent emission standards under waiver from the Clean Air Act.
In the last 2 months, the Senate Parliamentarian and the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office affirmed that California's Clean Air Act waiver is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. This week's attempt to advance these CRAs anyway is blatantly illegal.
On top of that, these CRAs are another unfounded attempt to limit States from having the choice to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality and their public health. It doesn't mandate any other States to do that. States can choose to join California under the Clean Air Act.
I proudly served on the California Air Resources Board under three Governors, including two Republicans and one Democrat, and I have seen firsthand the benefits of curbing emissions, both for the economy and public health. There is a reason why California is the fourth largest economy in the world and has three times the amount of patents than any other State, that State being Texas.
Republican Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the creation of the California State Air Resources Board and Republican President Richard Nixon signed into law the California Clean Air Act. This was not a partisan issue then and it should not be now. It is about public health and the economy.
These waivers are an essential tool to give California and other States the choice to prioritize both the health and well-being of their residents and the environment. Modeling has shown that by 2040, all three rules would provide an estimated $13 billion in health benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can decide what we think ought to apply.
Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.
According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher than last year. For context, the median household income for the gentlewoman's district is $62,000.
The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the price of vehicles. The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west Texas and throughout the State of Texas.
Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer, and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the American people to live. We are making it almost impossible for people to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or the environment.
The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from the inability to afford to live in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is true in New Mexico, we have all that beautiful land. We have our ranchers. We have our farms. We have those mountains. We love our trucks, but the problem is, Trump's tariffs are making all of that more expensive.
He is raising the cost of trucks. Remember, there was like a $20,000 hike after one of his first attempts at tariffs before he started flip- flopping. We never know where he is at, right?
His tariffs are raising the costs of housing. In New Mexico, the firing of Federal employees and the domino effects of the economic uncertainty because of his tariffs are making jobs harder to find.
Mr. Speaker, Trump promised to lower prices on day one. Instead, his tariffs are crashing our economy, making those trucks more expensive and houses more expensive. People are out of work. Retirement accounts are destroyed.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and impose tariffs. It is Congress' duty to review whether what he is doing is accurate or not. Even though it is our review, this is another area where Republicans don't want to have the debate on this floor. They are hiding behind these things they stick in these rules.
They actually thought they stopped time. Republicans passed a rule that stops time for the purposes of voting
Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment last night. I offered an amendment last time we met in rules. We will keep offering amendments to say you can't stop time. If you believe in these tariffs, be willing to debate them, to stand up on this floor and say we think the tariffs are good, we think the tariffs are bad. Make Trump defend those tariffs.
Why is he doing this to us? Why is he creating this disaster? This is a disaster of Trump's own creation. We are seeking four Republicans to join us to stop this. They already have some Republicans over on the Senate side. We have some that might be moving here. Let's stop this craziness of the tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her extraordinary leadership in making the case.
Mr. Speaker, yes, we are talking about something being expensive. Don't say clean air for our children to breathe is too expensive for us after all the things that the President has done to make things more expensive in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to all of the Republican resolutions on the floor today, one of which takes away the right of California or any State to protect residents from dangerous pollution.
The illegal attack on the vital clean air protection set by California would choke our communities with smog. We are used to that. Over time, Californians have seen and felt the impact of smog on our lives. The gentleman even referenced it in his comments, and we will relentlessly defend our State's right to protect the air our children breathe with robust fuel economy and pollution standards when Federal standards fall short.
With these resolutions, Republicans are exposing their cynical, special-interest agenda that endangers public health in every community in our country by dismantling our protections for clean air, clean air for our children to breathe.
They put the American peoples' health, economic security, and futures under direct dire threat as Republicans and their donor-driven cronies funnel billions into the pockets of guess who? Big polluters. Today, they want us to favor big polluters over clean air for our children to breathe.
Democrats will never stop fighting to defend lifesaving protections for America's clean air. For the children, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we talking about here?
How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal, burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us.
The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and natural gas, and it is growing exponentially. Meanwhile, we are crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about worldwide CO2 production. That is the truth. China and India are pumping it out.
Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S. says Chinese lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills into EVs.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
`Like Slave and Master': DRC Miners Toil for 30p an Hour To Fuel
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to parade around EV mandates like they are somehow going to magically create power out of thin air, ignoring the fact we are empowering China, ignoring the fact we are empowering Chinese child laborers while we destroy the cost of living for the average American family, take away choice, take away the ability of an American citizen to be able to go out into the market and buy a hybrid vehicle or another vehicle that they can use to travel long distances, do their job, whether they are a plumber, an electrician, or carrying goods and services in a truck, and then they wonder why the cost of goods and services go up. Then they want to blame tariffs when we are 90 days in, and we had massive and rampant inflation under the Biden administration as a direct consequence of the regulatory policies and the failed policies of the previous administration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks where would we get this electricity. In New Mexico as well as in Texas, we have amazing wind power and amazing solar power. There are many ways of generating electricity. The problem is that with a policy of ``drill, baby, drill,'' they don't want to look at all of the opportunities, even though Americans know that looking at energy independence means looking at all of the beautiful ways in which we can generate power in the United States.
However, a more important question that is before us is: What is happening with Medicaid and SNAP? Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which will prevent the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits.
Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans are continuing full-speed ahead with their disastrous plan to cut the social safety net and blow up the deficit to give billionaires tax cuts. It is shameful. It is wrong. Under their plan, they will have to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion in food assistance just to make the math work.
Mr. Speaker, what is worse is they continue to argue they are not doing that, but the math doesn't lie. They can't reach the levels of billionaire tax cuts they want without completely
Republicans claim they won't make these cuts, so today I will give them a chance to put their money where their mouth is and vote to ensure those devastating cuts can't move forward in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, this past week, I had the honor to visit a number of senior centers in my district. I saw seniors having a meal at lunchtime paid for by SNAP, seniors that have relied on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP, seniors that have worked all their lives to build America, and all they want to do is have a peaceful retirement.
I rise today because my colleagues across the aisle are looking to cut Medicaid and SNAP, programs that hundreds of millions of Americans rely on to keep food on their table and their families healthy.
My colleagues are targeting almost $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid, threatening to take away healthcare for some 80 million Americans who rely on this program. That would strip away healthcare from millions, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans.
They are targeting SNAP, a vital food assistance program that provides food to 40 million people: seniors, children, and veterans.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, to stop our colleagues from taking away healthcare from Americans and making a big mistake.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this issue of the Clean Air Act and the fact that Republicans often say they believe in States' rights, but when a State like California actually chooses a policy they don't like, they throw that principle out the window.
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it gave States that had standards before 1966 the right to apply for a waiver. Congress decided that. For 50 years, California has used that waiver to clean up its air. It is not just California. Other States have chosen to adopt these standards, too.
Across America, we can breathe cleaner air. That is why our children can go out and play in the park and can run around. They don't have to stay indoors like they have to in Beijing or New Delhi or other countries that are polluted from the cars that clog their cities.
Clean air isn't just about the environment. We heard the Speaker Emerita talking about the cost, the cost to the children, but it is also about economic prosperity. When people breathe clean air, they miss fewer work and school days, companies are more productive, kids learn more, families save on healthcare costs because fewer people go to the hospital for asthma and heart disease.
It doesn't stop there. To meet California's emission standards, carmakers have built more fuel-efficient vehicles. That means we are saving money at the pump. Republicans love to talk about energy dominance, but for them, as I noted, it is just ``drill, baby, drill.'' Improving fuel efficiency is cheaper, smarter, and better for the environment and economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop this political theater and focus on the real issues that matter to the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that with respect to wind energy, yes, Texas is one of the leaders in wind energy. I worked for Governor Perry when the Governor was embracing wind power, and the fact of the matter is, as it has become a larger percentage of the grid, the reliability of Texas' grid has suffered, and now the consequences of having embraced wind as a significant portion of the grid are now coming to roost.
We are now having to deal with what happens when these need to be shelved. Where do they go? They fill landfills. How much oil and gas goes into the production of said windmills? How do you get the power from the wind farms in west Texas to the various facilities where we are making power? How reliable is it during ice storms or during the heat of the summer? When you have a cloudy, windless day, how are you getting power? Who is making the parts for the solar panels? What happens to the solar panels in the environment when you are finished with the solar farm?
All of these questions get brushed aside in a quest to say that we can have magical ``green, clean energy,'' when we have clean-burning natural gas in Texas and throughout this country that is producing a significant amount of economic benefit and power for our country and has done more to drive down CO2 production and for clean air than virtually any other innovation we have had over the last century.
Yet, we are impeding the ability to have more reliable power by virtue of mandates. That is the whole point of the problem with the Inflation Reduction Act. That is the whole point of the problem with the rules and the rulemaking done by the Biden administration that we are trying to reverse under these CRAs, so that we can make things more affordable for the American people. That is it. We are trying to help the average Texan, the average New Mexican, the average American be able to afford to live, trying to be able to figure out how to get power, get a vehicle that they can afford to be able to carry out their job. That is it.
On the issue of healthcare, the issue was raised, as is often the case by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to try to scare the American people that somehow raising questions about the inefficiency, the ineffectiveness, the waste, the fraud of a government healthcare solution, that somehow that is taking away benefits.
When you have a trillion dollars of improper payments, when you have the State of California openly and publicly stating that they are gaming the Medicaid system and the provider tax and the Federal match rate to provide funds to illegal aliens and for their general budget to game the system at what best can be called money laundering, as was editorialized in The Wall Street Journal last week. When that is what is happening, when you have people on Medicaid who are getting a higher subsidy than people on Medicare, who have paid into it their entire lives, into the tax on Medicare; when you have people who are able- bodied who are getting a higher subsidy than the vulnerable population for whom Medicaid was originally created, then someone explain to me why we don't have a duty to fix that.
That is what we are putting forward, to try to deliver healthcare that would actually have a doctor and a patient relationship rather than a corporate overlord or government bureaucrat telling you what your healthcare is. That is the system that has been created. That is the system that we are living with now under expanded ObamaCare. That is what that is, expanded ObamaCare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about the expansion of that population into the able-bodied who could be and should be working at a higher rate of return by the Federal Government than is going to the vulnerable population, while California games the system to give money to illegal aliens. That is expressly and openly being acknowledged by California leadership.
They don't want to have those conversations. They don't want to talk about how you manage that problem, how you get more people to be able to have affordable care instead of what they currently have, which is a broken system that insurance companies run, forcing individuals onto an exchange so they can get like my constituent who passed away last year from cancer, who wanted to go to M.D. Anderson and could not go because she was on an
The failure of our healthcare system cannot be overstated. Both parties need to step to the table to get government out of the way and to allow doctors and patients to be able to go get healthcare from a provider of their choice--not some insurance bureaucrat or government bureaucrat--in order to deliver outcomes that the American people want us to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is, after 100 days of Trump, the verdict is clear: We are living through a campaign of economic chaos, constitutional contempt, and corporate greed. The American people see what is happening, and they are not fooled by the chaos. They are not happy with the chaos. They are watching this body to see who will fight for them and who will fold to Trump.
Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. This administration isn't governing. It is looting. Trump's cronies are lighting the house on fire so their billionaire friends can sell the ashes for profit.
With this issue of cutting Medicaid and addressing healthcare, yes, our healthcare system is not working. We need to address some issues in Medicaid. Let's be honest. The CMS itself said that there is less than 1 percent of fraud in the system. It is an incredibly lean system. It pays out less than any other system.
Still, even with it as it is, 40 percent of pregnant women in the country rely on Medicaid so they can give birth to healthy babies. They would strip that away from those women. It is even higher in rural areas, and those hospitals in the rural areas rely on that.
With regards to prices, Trump's tariffs are raising prices. At the same time that prices are going up, they are slashing food assistance. At a food bank I went to last week, they have more people showing up and less food because Trump literally stopped the trucks from delivering the food that was in the trucks. How cruel is that?
They are wrecking our national parks, not out of necessity but to fund tax cuts for 759 of the richest people in America. They are bleeding rural hospitals, stripping students of opportunity, and polluting our air, all to line the pockets of the ultrarich.
This isn't policy. It is plunder. House Republicans won't stop it. I say we stop it by voting against this rule. Let's defeat this rule today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, number one, Congress has an important role to play in repealing the Biden-Harris administration's EV mandates and other rules that are damaging the lives of the American people.
When the administration transmits an action to the House and the Senate for review under the CRA, then it is Members of Congress, not the GAO and not the Parliamentarian, who decide whether and how we proceed under the CRA.
The fact here is California mandates, which is what we are dealing with here in several of these Congressional Review Act actions, effectively take away Americans' ability to buy new gas cars, a hybrid vehicle, or the vehicle of their choice. It raises their vehicle and transportation costs.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the former Speaker of the House, came down and described that somehow we are not factoring in the price of clean air. With the vehicles that we are producing today, the fact is we have the cleanest air we have ever had.
There is no problem with having EVs. It is the mandates that are the problem. It is mandating the American people must convert that is the problem. In fact, worldwide, the extent to which coal-fired plants in China, coal-fired plants in India, and other countries around the world are producing CO2 and other particulate matter that is bad for the air is rising.
Why would we undermine our own economic well-being to pursue a negligible impact on the overall global emissions, while driving up the price of goods and services for the average American family? They have to live for today. They have to pay their bills today.
All the subsidies in the world aren't making those things economically viable for them. Whether you are talking about wind farms or EVs without the mandates, what is clear is the American people aren't buying these things because they are still not able to function and carry out their livelihoods effectively under the mandates.
Higher costs and fewer choices for consumers hit low-income and disadvantaged communities the hardest. There is a reason why, when I drive around Austin, Texas, I see it is the rich folk driving around in their Teslas. It is the rich folk who are getting their EV tax credits. I see it. They are not in east Austin. They are out in the rich parts of Austin.
Mr. Speaker, do you think that is an accident? Do you think the hardworking plumber I represent in San Marcos, Texas, in New Braunfels, Texas, or any other part of Texas is going to go out and get a battery- powered truck to drive across 10 counties to carry out his job or his livelihood? As I said before, the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.
Mandates disrupt the free market. We have talked about the impact these mandates can have on the reliability of our power grid.
Is the Nation's grid even up to the mandates we talk about? No, it is not because then there will be more mandates on what the grid has to look like. Suddenly, we are Spain. Suddenly, we are wondering why the grids are failing.
Importantly, California's move empowers China, which dominates the EV market and uses slave labor and coal-powered plants to produce EV batteries. That is just the truth.
Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the world's electric vehicle batteries are manufactured in China. China owns 80 percent of the industrial cobalt mines in the Congo and controls 15 of 19 of the primary cobalt mines in the Congo. These mines are operated by trafficked child slaves. Since when do we not care about that?
The idea that California can do this unilaterally is preposterous. They are the only State allowed to seek waivers under a unique policy. They should not be able to determine policy for the State of Texas or any other place.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:
Providing for Consideration of H.J. RES. 60, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the National Park Service Relating to "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 354) providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 89) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; The `Omnibus' Low NOX Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''; and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, nays 206, not voting 11, as follows:
Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. GARAMENDI, and Ms. TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act
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. 1402) to require sellers of event tickets to disclose comprehensive information to consumers about ticket prices and related fees, 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 Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 409, nays 15, not voting 9, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO changed her 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.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the National Park Service Relating to "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles"
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 60.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 60, led by Representative Maloy. This is an important effort that will overturn an onerous and unnecessary regulation designed to restrict off-highway vehicle access and recreational use of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
House Republicans are committed to pursuing a comprehensive approach to restoring multiple use and public access to our Federal lands, one that favors commonsense land management and prioritizes community buy- in over preservationist policies that are cooked up here in Washington, D.C.
As chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, I have often said that some of our most meaningful work increasing access to our public lands will maybe never be a headline on FOX News or CNN, but it will make the front page of your local paper.
Established by Congress in 1972 to enhance public recreation, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is a premier tourist destination that offers world-class water-based, backcountry, and off-highway recreation opportunities. Off-highway vehicle recreation predates the recreation area's establishment and has allowed visitors for generations to explore some of the most remote and beautiful stretches of this remarkable landscape.
Consistent with this history, the National Park Service issued a rule in 2021 that expanded the permissible uses of off-road vehicles throughout Glen Canyon, but groups quickly sued, leading the Biden administration to enter into a hasty and secretive settlement against the wishes of local communities.
Under that agreement, the Park Service issued a revised rule in the waning days of the Biden administration that restricts motorized uses in Glen Canyon, overturning decades of precedent and severely restricting public access and recreation opportunities.
Under this new rule, dozens of miles of popular trails and shorelines are closed off to highway vehicles in what the State of Utah called de facto wilderness management. Even small road closures can have profound consequences for public access.
For example, the National Park Service effectively cut off access to the adjacent 1.45 million-acre Henry Mountains travel management area by closing just one-half mile of road in the new rule.
Some of the most popular trails in this area, including the Flint Trail and Poison Springs Loop that are pictured behind me, were also shut down under this rule. What is especially nonsensical about this is that these trails aren't even maintained by the National Park Service. The local county maintains them.
These restrictions are unnecessary and, frankly, lack common sense. Many of these routes are restricted to off-highway vehicles and remain open to conventional vehicles. This creates public safety concerns by incentivizing the use of vehicles that are not meant to handle rough terrain and rugged trails.
Restricting off-highway vehicles also disproportionately affects disabled individuals, who often rely on ATVs or side-by-sides to gain access to remote areas of our public lands. The State of Utah compared the decision to limit off-highway vehicles while still allowing for conventional vehicles as akin to designating parts of Lake Powell exclusively for yachts while restricting more accessible fishing boats and kayaks to less desirable sections of the lake.
In totality, this rule ensures that only the most able-bodied and wealthy will be able to have access to areas of Glen Canyon that used to be open and accessible to everyone. Utah boasts $9.5 billion of outdoor recreation economy driven largely by motorized recreation. By shutting down some of the State's most popular motorized recreation trails, the National Park Service is shutting down a main engine of economic growth in some of the poorest, most rural counties.
Earlier this year, Congress passed the first-ever bipartisan, comprehensive recreation package aimed at growing, not restricting, our Nation's $1.1 trillion outdoor recreation economy. The EXPLORE Act passed unanimously in both the House and Senate, a rare feat that demonstrates the overwhelming support for opening more of our public lands to outdoor recreation, not locking up our lands and throwing away the key.
In keeping with that, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important joint resolution, which will restore off-highway vehicle access to treasured public lands. I again thank Congresswoman Maloy for her excellent work and leadership on this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution would nullify a National Park Service rule that manages motor vehicle use within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. It is a commonsense rule that this resolution targets, and it outlines where cars and off-road vehicles are allowed to travel within the boundaries of the national recreation area. It shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be political.
The Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is a very popular destination. It offers ample opportunities for backcountry exploration across 1.25 million acres of public land. To put that in perspective, this area is larger than the entire State of Rhode Island.
Now, the National Park Service is tasked with managing park units in a manner that balances public access and enjoyment while ensuring responsible stewardship of the natural environment. That is their job.
Achieving that balance can be a tall order under the best of circumstances. It has become even more difficult as the Trump administration works to dismantle the National Park Service. More than 12.5 percent of the entire workforce has left the agency since Donald Trump took office. It has only been a little more than 100 days, and we are already down 2,000 rangers and park employees.
House Republicans have stood by and watched, and now they are proposing a resolution that undermines national park management even further. As a reminder, this resolution would repeal a rule that manages all motorized vehicle access within Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, a unit of the Park Service that is home to very fragile ecosystems like the Orange Cliffs adjacent to Canyonlands National Park and countless cultural and archeological resources.
Initial planning started way back in 2007 and was not finalized until the first Trump administration published an overly permissive record of decision in 2018. A court determined that the 2018 version of the rule did not do enough to consider the environmental consequences of allowing off-road vehicles on certain roads, so the Park Service went back to work and they published a new rule that achieved a better balance.
The updated rule, which is being targeted today, balances visitor use and access with the long-term stewardship and management of park resources.
Despite some of the rhetoric that we may hear from the other side of the aisle, the Park Service did not shut off access to off-road vehicles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rule allows off- road vehicles on 388 miles of road within the park, only closing access to approximately 6 percent of the existing roadways to protect sensitive resources.
Even those roads are still open to cars, jeeps, and other street- legal vehicles. They are just closed to vehicles that have the ability to travel off-road and cause severe damage in proposed wilderness and other sensitive landscapes.
That is 94 percent of the roads in this Park Service unit open to motor vehicles, including off-road vehicles, and
It is also worth noting that Congress has never used the Congressional Review Act in the way it is being used right now to repeal a Park Service decision of this nature. This is meddling and micromanaging at its worst, and it could have some unintended consequences as we will discuss in the course of this debate.
When Congress uses the CRA to repeal a rule, then the agency is prohibited by law from issuing a substantially similar rule on the same topic. The decision to repeal this rule could lead to some unintended consequences that would backfire on the very off-road vehicle community that my friends across the aisle are saying that they are trying to protect.
Park managers would be unable to change or alter access even if a proliferation of off-road vehicle use is damaging park resources. That is the downside from the environmental perspective, but even worse, from the perspective of these off-road vehicles, it could mean an end to all off-roading in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
Mr. Speaker, Park Service has to have a rule in place if they want to authorize any access. That is what this rule does. If Congress repeals it and the CRA says no replacement rule can be issued, that is how it works. It is like Cortez when he got to Mexico, he burned the boats so nobody would go back. That is how the CRA works.
You burn the bridge; you can't go back on that particular subject area. A court in the future may well decide that the absence of a rule means no off-roading. Period.
It is the kind of uncertainty that would be discussed and fleshed out if you took the time to have a hearing and have a little bit of deliberation instead of jamming a CRA like this, a blunt instrument, right on the House floor.
If the intent is truly about preserving access, there are better ways to do it. There are certainly much better ways for Congress to uplift and support our national parks; for example, standing up to Donald Trump and Elon Musk's gutting of the National Park Service.
I wish we spent more time talking about that rather than a very reckless use of the Congressional Review Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the idea that passing this Congressional Review Act would restrict all off-road vehicle access is just not right. That is not going to happen. There was a rule in place before the Biden administration put the new rule in place. We vetted this with the Congressional Research Service. We would simply go back to the rule that was in place that was working fine before the Biden administration came in and put this onerous rule in place.
Also, the argument has been made that only 24 out of 388 miles have been restricted to off-road vehicle use, but as we all know, roads are networks. For instance, there is a half-mile section in this ruling under the Biden administration that blocks off access to over a million acres. You block off a half-mile of road, and you restrict the use to a million acres. I don't think that is what most people would call public access or would agree that it is the way that we should be managing our Federal lands, especially in an area that when it was established, part of its goal was to be able to provide off-road vehicles a place to recreate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy), the lead sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, H.J. Res. 60, which provides congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the rules submitted by the National Park Service on the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area pertaining to motor vehicles.
The National Park Service finalized a rule that restricts off-road vehicles and all-terrain vehicles, ORVs and ATVs, to access certain areas within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in my district.
This would prohibit access to approximately 24 miles of road as the chairman said, including popular trails near the Orange Cliffs and segments of the Poison Springs Loop. I have spent a lot of time on the ground in these areas with local elected officials who, for years, have tried to generate a better experience for visitors to the Orange Cliffs, and this goes in the wrong direction.
Wayne and Garfield Counties are counties that struggle in a State that otherwise thrives. Utah has a really strong economy, but these rural counties have really weak economies. The reason the rural counties struggle is because almost all of the land in their counties is managed by the Federal Government. The Federal Government can make rules that restrict access to parts of their county over their objections.
These roads we are talking about are important to those residing in Wayne and Garfield Counties and the tourists who come here from all over the world. They have used these paths to get to places that are part of their history and part of their recreation for generations. These road restrictions reflect a pattern of access loss that characterizes the problems with having a distant Federal Government make local rules.
People from across the world come to experience the unique opportunities these trails offer. The rule threatens to sever these connections, leaving communities to bear the brunt of its consequences. This is in a beautiful part of a gorgeous State, but it is not easy to get to. Keep in mind, this is a recreation area, not a preservation area.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Utah deserve better. They deserve a government that listens, that respects their traditions, and understands the importance of balancing conservation with access.
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is very popular, as my colleague across the aisle pointed out. The Orange Cliffs area is not well traveled. Much like the rural counties are struggling in a State that is thriving, the Orange Cliffs area is tough to get to in a national recreation area where everybody goes to the lake.
It doesn't make sense to close roads and concentrate all those visitors in those small areas. These nonsensical rules that make bureaucrats feel better don't help Utahans and are a symptom of the problem of having a distant and disinterested landlord with an agenda.
That is why I introduced H.J. Res. 60, a resolution that leverages the Congressional Review Act to overturn this misguided rule. The resolution is not just about restoring access to trails. It is about standing up for the rights of my constituents, protecting local economies, and preserving freedoms that define our Nation.
Let us be clear: Conservation and access are not mutually exclusive. We can protect our natural heritage while ensuring that Americans can go see it and enjoy it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. We should send a message that we stand with the people of Wayne and Garfield Counties, the people of Utah, and the people who like to recreate on our public lands.
We value their voices, and we won't allow bureaucratic overreach to dictate our way of life. Together, we can ensure that Glen Canyon remains a place of freedom, adventure, and opportunity for generations to come and isn't a hindrance to the local economies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentlewoman for her efforts on this legislation and for being a voice for her constituents. She talked about the county governments there that didn't have a voice when this rule was made. This is hurting their economy. It doesn't make sense, and it is kind of a bad example of having that distant landlord with an alternative agenda that lives many miles away managing the land where you live. I thank her for her efforts on behalf of her constituents and on all Americans who enjoy outdoor recreation.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I stand by what I said a few minutes ago. Without the rule in place or a replacement rule, off-roading could very well be illegal in all of Glen Canyon.
I did expect that my colleagues across the aisle would state that they assume the Park Service would simply revert back to a previous rule. Now, I don't know for sure because Republicans didn't hold a hearing on the legislation to bring in a witness from the Park Service to answer any questions, but there are two problems with this assumption they seem to be proceeding under.
One, the current rule was issued under a settlement agreement to enforce compliance with environmental protection laws. Repealing that rule doesn't repeal those legal obligations, so whatever outdated rule the administration might try to revive will still have to comply with those laws, and a court is going to strike it down when it doesn't.
Two, as we keep having to remind our colleagues, using the CRA to repeal a rule doesn't just remove that rule, it also prohibits the agency from ever issuing a substantially similar rule on this same topic. That means any rule regarding off-road access in this park unit.
This repeal is practically inviting a court to strike down whatever fallback rule the administration tries reverting to, and when that litigation ensues and they comb through the Congressional Record to divine the intent of Congress, they will see pretty plainly that I warned you folks that that was the case right here on the record.
Now, since this information seems new to some of my colleagues, they may be thinking: Wait, that can't be right. Wouldn't this sort of thing have happened before?
The answer is no, because Congress has never used the CRA to micromanage a park or a park-access rule this narrow in the way that is being proposed with this resolution. The entire scheme is untested, reckless, and ill-advised.
If my colleagues accidentally ban off-roading in Glen Canyon, I hope they are ready to explain that to their constituents, assuming they ever hold townhall meetings again.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. Last week was National Park Week, an annual tradition meant to honor our deep connection to national parks. President Trump carried on the tradition by issuing a proclamation to officially designate the week--this is one of the few noncontroversial actions in the first 100 days of this administration--because all Americans love and value and support national parks.
Unfortunately, the proclamation also highlighted how the administration is trying to use national parks to tell a myopic and narrow view of our history. This revisionist turn is exemplified by President Trump's decision to rename Mount Denali in Alaska despite overwhelming criticism and concern from Alaska Native leaders and other voices in the State. It is clear the President is more interested in branding and flashy stunts than actually supporting our national parks and public lands.
House Republicans have stood by and watched as all of this happened. They did nothing as President Trump and Elon Musk decimated the land management workforce, shuttered critical buildings, and froze funding for critical grant programs designed to safeguard and restore our parks and our public lands.
Just since January, the Park Service has lost 1,700 rangers and Park Service staff, leaving parks understaffed and resources vulnerable just before the busiest time of the year. There have to be better ways to celebrate and cherish our national parks than to dismantle them.
We could be doing something to restore all the jobs that have been cut by this administration. We could debate proposals to create new parks or expand existing ones to honor our shared history and protect our most cherished landscapes. We could advance comprehensive and thoughtful appropriations bills that invest in the future of our parks and our public lands.
Instead of doing any of these productive and responsible actions, House Republicans decided to use some more precious floor time to overturn a narrow and specific rule at the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. That is a disappointment, another missed opportunity, and a testament to the priorities of this Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, I again urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I just want to say that it is unfortunate that we are having to use a Congressional Review Act, but it is unfortunate that a former administration tried to legislate from the administrative branch.
That is the purpose of the Congressional Review Act. When bureaucrats overstep their bounds, we have this tool to rein them back in. It would not allow them to make this rule again. A clear reading of the Congressional Review Act, it is easy to see that the rule would go back to the rule that was in place before the Biden administration put the rule in place that we are doing the Congressional Review Act on. It is also common sense that that would happen, and it is clearly the intent of Congress, should this get signed into law, that it would go back to the original rule.
I again applaud Representative Maloy for her exceptional leadership in this effort and for looking out for her constituents. This is a necessary resolution that will allow for more recreation opportunities, greater public access, and growth within Utah's outdoor recreation economy. Whether it is hunting, fishing, hiking, or recreating on off- highway vehicles, our public lands were meant to be enjoyed by all Americans, and this CRA allows just that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the joint resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes 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. 1442) a bill to ban the sale of products with a high concentration of sodium nitrate to individuals, and for other purposes, as amended, 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 Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 378, nays 42, not voting 12, as follows:
Messrs. MOORE of West Virginia and McDOWELL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PETERS and Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to ban the sale of products with a high concentration of sodium nitrite to individuals, and for other purposes.''.
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. 859) to require the disclosure of a camera or recording capability in certain internet-connected devices, 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 Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415, nays 9, not voting 8, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
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.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the National Park Service Relating to "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles"
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, nays 205, not voting 9, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of John Thomas Welchel.
Tom was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, attorney, and community leader. He was born in Adel, Georgia, in 1935 and spent his childhood in Moultrie, Georgia.
He attended the University of Georgia, where he joined Phi Delta Theta and served as president of the Interfraternity Council. Tom then went on to earn his law degree from the Lumpkin School of Law in 1959 and moved to Brunswick to begin a legal career that would span over the course of six decades.
He served as county attorney for Glynn County and was president of the local bar association. He was also a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a national recognition for excellence in the courtroom.
Outside of law, Tom was active in his community by serving on the Frederica Academy Board, helping launch the First Bank of Brunswick.
Tom found great joy in being a pilot, which paved the way for his early partnership in Golden Isles Aviation.
Above all, Tom was a devoted husband and a proud father and grandfather. His legacy lives on through the family he cherished, the community he served, and the lives he touched.
Mr. Speaker, as the senior member from Ohio, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to honor and celebrate the life and legacy of Charlotte Y. Price, a beloved wife of the Honorable Elder Larry Price, a devoted mother to Dr. Angela Price, a proud member of Delta Sigma Theta, Incorporated, a member of Triedstone Missionary Baptist Church, and a dedicated Columbus Public Schools educator. She taught for over 25 years, specializing in special education.
She was one of the Nation's few teachers to earn National Board Certification.
She continued tutoring long after her retirement, and she believed deeply in every child's potential, including students in the juvenile justice system.
Mrs. Price was a pillar of faith, service, and hope for our community. Charlotte Y. Price fought a good fight, finished the race, and kept the faith.
Mr. Speaker, today, to my district and to all watching, we celebrate Charlotte Y. Price.
Mr. Speaker, my home State of California's vehicle sales mandate removes consumer choice.
Americans are not choosing electric vehicles. They still prefer and rely on internal combustion engine-powered cars.
In most States, EV sales aren't even close to the mandate.
New York, for example, is supposed to reach 35 percent electric vehicle sales by 2026, but they are barely at 10 percent today.
The Biden-Harris EPA granted these waivers after they lost the election in a clear attempt to lock in California's extreme electric vehicle requirements in their environmental agenda.
These mandates don't just affect California. Other States copy as well. They impact every State by raising vehicle prices and limiting what Americans can buy.
The policy threatens jobs across this country and forces companies to spend more to replace their fleets.
Our electric grid cannot handle the surge in demand for mass EV adoption. Neighborhoods with three or more houses in the neighborhood that have these electric vehicle chargers, have to replace the wires and transformers on those poles in that neighborhood. The infrastructure is not there. The desire by the market isn't there, yet the government is trying to force this mandate on people.
H.J. Res. 88 restores fairness and protects Americans' right to choose the vehicles that work for them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Carter Bisig.
Carter is a junior at Wilmington High School in Wilmington, Ohio, and has earned the Eagle Scout Award, the highest possible achievement in the Boy Scout community.
To earn an Eagle Scout Award, Carter had to obtain 21 merit badges showcasing the skills he learned as a Scout and his commitment to the community. Thanks to the invaluable lessons taught to Scouts, Carter has become an expert in first aid, camping, fitness, communication, and citizenship.
Throughout our Nation's history, the Boy Scouts have played an invaluable role in teaching young people hands-on skills that make them better citizens and stewards of their communities. America is blessed to have an organization dedicated to helping our children become the best versions of themselves.
Southern Ohio is so proud of Carter's accomplishment and happy to call him one of our own. Since the Eagle Scout Award was first introduced in 1912, only about 4 percent of Boy Scouts have earned the award, making this achievement nothing short of extraordinary.
I look forward to seeing how Carter can continue to create positive change in Ohio's Second Congressional District.
I would also like to recognize Carter's parents and Scout leaders for their role in this process. Without them, this achievement would not have been possible.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate and announce as our champion of the week North Canton City Schools Superintendent Jeff Wendorf on his retirement after a 40-year career serving the students of North Canton as a teacher, coach, and administrator.
Since he began serving as the superintendent in 2016, North Canton has consistently been ranked as one of the top school districts not just in Stark County but throughout the State of Ohio.
Just last year, the district received a 5-star rating, the highest, on its school report card from the Ohio Department of Education for the 2023-2024 school year.
Throughout his career, Superintendent Wendorf has led by example, demonstrating perseverance, compassion, and dedication for his community, all while supporting strong public schools.
For his outstanding devotion, he earned the respect and esteem of many students and educators alike. While his character and decisive leadership will be sorely missed, I am confident that his numerous contributions will serve as an inspiration for everyone in the wake of his departure.
Congratulations again to Superintendent Jeff Wendorf on his well- deserved retirement. He is a shining example of why this community is known as the ``Birthplace of Champions,'' and I wish him many more years of happiness and prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to America about Abrego Garcia, the alleged MS-13 member and illegal alien who the Trump administration deported back home to El Salvador.
I would like to ask my Democrat colleagues this question: Where was your outrage when the Biden administration allowed millions of undocumented illegals into our country? Where was your outrage when my own constituents, the Corcoran family, were crying over the body of their child who was killed at the hands of an illegal? Where were you when Laken Riley and many other Americans were slaughtered by illegal aliens who were allowed into our country under your open-border policies?
Now you want to go on TV and act outraged about Abrego Garcia being deported? Give me a break.
Here are the facts. He was pulled over by the Tennessee Highway Patrol for speeding with an expired license. He was detained. He had folks in his vehicle that were apparently not American citizens. Then he was ordered by Biden's FBI to be released.
In court documents, his wife even said: ``At this point, I am afraid to be close to him.'' She goes on to say: ``I have multiple photos, videos of how violent he can be . . . ''
When Democrats grandstand on the deportation of a wife-beating El Salvadorian, MS-13 gang member and chant ``Bring him home,'' I have good news for you. He is home, and he will never be able to call America home.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate someone truly special, a person whose presence has touched so many lives at the University of Mary Washington.
After 30 years of dedicated service to the dining team, Dora Whiting is retiring.
I want to take a moment to recognize her immense impact on our community by naming her my ``Constituent of the Week.''
From her iconic ``It's Friday!'' moments to the joy she brings when students walk by Woodard Hall, her positive energy has made a lasting impression on all she meets.
Her compassion and unwavering support for students and faculty alike have helped create a welcoming environment that will be remembered for years to come.
I know the students at Mary Washington will certainly miss her constant presence, and I join them in celebrating her retirement and her legacy.
Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to recognize Lee Irwin on the week of her 90th birthday.
She has lived an extraordinary life. Mr. Speaker, she has spent 90 years of serving the community, making tens of thousands of dresses and britches for those young people over in Africa that don't have very much, serving her community and the Methodist Church that she served as both a secretary and now a volunteer teaching accordion, and raising three lovely children, also known as my cousins.
Welcome to just a great woman here in the House to recognize a life well lived. Happy birthday. I love you, and God bless you.
Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Congress has kicked the can down the road on meaningful action on immigration reform, and there is still significant work to be done to secure our border.
Meanwhile, families in eastern North Carolina are facing dire consequences from illegal drugs and crime in communities. People back home want Congress to act.
Clearly, this isn't just an issue for border communities. It affects all of us.
With a decline in unlawful entries into our country, our attention has shifted to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Recently, I visited the ICE Detention Center servicing eastern North Carolina, followed by the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, where detainees from eastern North Carolina are transported. I also made a trip to Guantanamo Bay with members of the Armed Services Committee.
To be clear, we must not compromise public safety and we must adhere to the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, $880 billion, that is how much Medicaid funding is on the chopping block. Medicaid funding provides lifesaving care for millions of Americans.
Medicaid is America's healthcare safety net. Without it, hospitals operating on thin margins will close, medical debt will skyrocket, and kids across the country will suffer.
Americans on Medicaid are your grandparents, your neighbors, your friends, and they are at risk because of these cuts. Virginians, in particular, are vulnerable because even if 1 percent of Federal funding of Medicaid is cut, 600,000 Virginians will lose their
These cuts will make us less healthy and they will make us less prosperous and less safe. Even if you are not on Medicaid, emergency rooms will be overwhelmed with uninsured patients and your premiums and healthcare costs will go up, as well.
Mr. Speaker, every American should speak out against these cuts to Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of Arab American Heritage Month, I rise to honor my colleague and friend, State Representative Abdelnasser Rashid.
As the first Muslim elected in the Illinois General Assembly and the only Palestinian American to serve, he is not just making history; he is crafting it. He didn't step forward for titles or recognition. He stepped forward because families and communities like his have waited long enough for homegrown leaders who carry their hopes because they know their hardships.
His presence is a testament to perseverance, principle, and the strength to stay true to community. Abdelnasser carries the hopes of generations on his shoulders. He knows his work is bigger than any one person, and he does so with quiet courage, not seeking applause, but grounded in the belief that dignity and opportunity are rights, not privileges.
Representative Rashid isn't just honoring his heritage; he is building a future.
Mr. Speaker, today, we are proud to stand with him.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has $36 trillion in Federal debt. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is greater than Greece and Italy when they had their debt crisis, and we are incurring a deficit of $2 trillion a year.
The most rapidly growing part of the Federal budget is Medicaid. You will have people come to the floor and they will talk about Medicaid cuts, but Mr. Speaker, only in Washington is a slight decrease in the increase in a program called a cut or slashing because that is not the way anybody's budget works at home, but that is the way it works in Washington.
The Medicaid budget has increased 40 percent over the last 5 years and is out of control. We have to control the growth in it to preserve it for the future. A little known fact is that in many States, providers are paid more to take care of a Medicaid patient than a Medicare patient. That ought to scare every senior in this country when Medicare is going to be crowded out by an out-of-control Medicaid budget.
Mr. Speaker, today marks the 100th day of this administration. One hundred days of chaos, dysfunction, and attacks. Attacks on our democracy, our communities, and our environment, rollback protections for climate and clean energy, for our air, land, water, and wildlife.
Here just 1 week after the 55th anniversary of Earth Day, my colleagues across the aisle are putting forth a set of resolutions to gut protections for clean air and public lands across the West, while they prepare a reconciliation package next week that would open our public lands to oil and gas drilling, selling them to the lowest bidder, and repealing historic investments in climate and clean energy.
To think that just 55 years ago, a historic bipartisan people's movement led the United States in leading the world to protect our air, land, and water. We are here today to say we are not going back and we will continue to fight for our planet and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. Speaker, after Donald Trump and his co- president Elon Musk took office on January 20, Democrats in Congress realized that we were engaged in a multifaceted struggle to protect and defend everyday Americans from the harm being inflicted by this reckless and cruel administration.
It was an all-hands-on-deck moment with roles for Congress, the courts, and for we the people.
On February 10, House Democratic Party Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries formally established the Rapid Response Task Force and Litigation Working Group, chaired by assistant leader Joe Neguse and co-chaired by Representatives Rosa DeLauro, Gerry Connolly, and Jamie Raskin.
The task force itself is also a multifaceted defense of our democracy with its 45 Members participating in various working groups. I participate in the Litigation Working Group that brainstorms ideas for amicus briefs where Congress' perspective would be especially important and useful to the courts such as when the Trump administration tramples upon Congress' constitutional powers by ignoring the will of Congress as expressed by legislation that directs that a certain thing be done.
When Congress passes legislation and that legislation is signed into law, then whoever is President is charged with the responsibility of taking care that that law is faithfully executed. The President does not have the power to nullify a law passed by Congress, but this President is willfully acting like a dictator and the Litigation Working Group is working to stop this President from acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally.
We are seeing great success in the courts, which is why this President is now attacking the judiciary and attacking judges, and we will talk about that later during this Special Order hour, which I have been asked to lead.
I also participate in a hearings working group that sets up hearings across the Nation to highlight how this administration's unlawful and unconstitutional actions are affecting everyday people. Importantly for tonight, I participate in the Special Order hour working group, where my fellow Representatives and I organize time to speak on topics of urgent importance so that the American public can be informed about the harm this administration is causing, our thoughts about it, and what we can do about it, both here in the Halls of Congress and in the courts as well as in the streets.
Tonight, the topic I feel most urgency around is illuminating the ways that the Trump administration is destroying democracy through its attack on the rule of law.
As a young man, I decided to become a lawyer. Actually, as a child, I was 4 years old when my hero, my mentor, my cousin--we called him Tokey, but his name was Archibald Hill--I was 4 years old when he graduated from law school and became a lawyer. When that happened, I decided at that tender age of 4 years old that I wanted to be just like him. I wanted to be an attorney also.
Archibald went out to Oklahoma and set up his homebase there in Oklahoma City, and he hung out his shingle as a solo practitioner and began to practice criminal defense law, and me, being his acolyte, his fan, wanted to be just like him. I decided I was going to open up my law firm and practice criminal defense law just like him.
I believed in due process. I believed that if government accused you of a crime, you had a right to a trial by a jury of your peers and the prosecutor had the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury was authorized to convict. The government could not just accuse you of something without evidence, lock you up, and throw away the key without due process.
I believe in the rule of law and I believe in the Constitution, which undergirds the rule of law. I believe in equal protection under the law. As a lawyer, I fought for my clients in court, ensuring they received due process and equal protection under the law that they were entitled to.
I administered our system of justice as a magistrate court judge, upholding the law without fear or favor. That is the America that I love, one where everyone in this country feels secure enough in our rights to speak their mind and to live freely.
I am deeply disturbed about the devolution that I am seeing taking place right now in terms of the rule of law and justice in this country.
Unfortunately, this is what we are seeing under this Trump reign of terror. In only 100 days, there has been an onslaught of attacks on the judiciary and the rule of law. Trump is using the Department of Justice to carry out a campaign of terror, retribution, and vengeance.
Trump is perverting his Justice Department away from administering justice into an outfit that is only there to prosecute his personal vendettas, punish his enemies, and award his friends.
He has installed to do his bidding banana republic cronies like Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, who are more than willing to carry out Trump's abuse of the justice system. Under their reign, dozens of prosecutors were targeted, identified, and fired simply because they had worked on the January 6 insurrection cases.
The FBI turned over a list of 4,000 current and former FBI personnel who worked on the January 6 cases so that they too could be targeted for firing. When the pardon attorney refused to recommend restoring the gun rights of one of President Trump's supporters, who was also a convicted domestic violence perpetrator, guess what? She was fired too. When she was called to testify as a whistleblower about her termination, she was called by Democrats to Congress. Then the Friday night before the Monday she was to show up in Congress, armed law enforcement agents were directed to show up at her house on a Friday night, late, knocking on her door, and they tried to intimidate her out of testifying.
It didn't work, I am happy to report. The DOJ is also opening investigations to intimidate other whistleblowers from speaking up and to punish those who already have. The Department of Justice has opened investigations into a lawyer who previously prosecuted Trump's friends. They are investigating a Governor who opposed Trump. They are investigating the New York attorney general, the New Jersey attorney general, and also United States Representatives and Senators who have spoken out against the Trump administration.
Trump has directed the Department of Justice to investigate Chris Krebs because Chris Krebs told the truth that the 2020 election was safe and secure.
Just within the last week, the Attorney General issued legal guidelines that allowed the Justice Department to subpoena reporters' personal communications without notice and to criminally prosecute any government employees who are seen as undermining the administration's views.
The message is clear: If you say anything negative about the king, then you are not safe. This reign of terror is what we are talking about tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury), who I am glad has joined me this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for convening this Special Order hour.
Mr. Speaker, this week marks this administration's first 100 days in office. It has been 100 days of chaos, corruption, confusion, and absolute destruction of our Constitution and the norms that this great Nation was built on; 100 days of tearing apart our democracy, our families, our communities, the vital Federal programs that serve the people who make up our communities; thousands fired, agencies dismantled, and people's personal and private data stolen; self-dealing billions of dollars in Federal contracts, judges jailed, a Congress that refuses to act and to do its job, and the countless Americans who are living in fear.
Mr. Speaker, I have just wrapped up a townhall tour across my district. While my colleagues across the aisle are afraid to even face their constituents, we are showing up every day across our communities: 15 townhalls touching 15,000 New Mexicans across every county that we represent in 12 towns and communities and Tribal communities across our State.
Let me say this: Our people are afraid. Everywhere we go, across the aisle, we saw people who are afraid they are going to lose their Social Security, people who are afraid they are going to lose the healthcare that keeps them and their family members alive, people who are afraid that they are not going to be able to afford to put a roof over their head or food on the table, people who are afraid watching as their family members and friends are facing the threats of deportation, students who are afraid to show up to school because they don't know what will happen to themselves or their families.
This is the sign of an unhealthy democracy. This is the sign of an executive who has lost touch with the American people. This is the sign of an authoritarian and autocratic way of operating. This is the sign of a democracy that has lost its way. This is a sign that the American people need to continue to stand up, to speak out, to show up, to attend those townhalls, to call their Representatives, to continue marching, to continue making sure that we hold our elected officials to account.
All across my district, there is not a single family who has not been touched over the last 100 days: People who have lost their jobs, teachers and firefighters, people who work for the VA and the Forest Service, who work for our national security programs, scientists and engineers, people who just started their jobs and people who have been there for countless decades. These are real stories, real people, real lives that have been impacted every single day for the last 100 days.
What have my colleagues across the aisle done? Nothing. They have done nothing. They have failed to do their most basic constitutional duty of speaking up on behalf of the people that they represent, of holding the administration accountable, of saying something when they see something that is wrong.
Not only do they refuse to do their most basic job, but they are here in this building working on a tax package behind closed doors all around us that will further take away the rights of the American people, that will decimate basic programs that help people put food on the table and a roof over their heads.
All around us, our colleagues are refusing to say out loud the things they will say to us in private: that they, too, are frightened about what is happening; that they, too, have constituents and veterans and elderly people on Social Security and disability who are frightened for their lives right now.
What is happening in this country is not normal. We refuse to normalize it. We refuse to allow our democracy to be hijacked. We refuse to allow the silence that is deafening this country right now to continue. We must continue to speak up.
I say, Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now because if we do not, we will lose everything. We must restore accountability. We must restore our institutions. We must restore our norms. We must stand up. We must speak out. We need our colleagues across the aisle to join us before we lose our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those very thoughtful comments. The terror that inflicts my colleagues on the other side of the aisle so that they find it impossible to muster the courage to speak out when they see something wrong and hear something wrong and, you know, everything going against their morals-- they know it is wrong, but yet they can't speak out--they are
They should have courage, just like the law firms that have been targeted by the Trump administration. Some of those law firms have protested, but others have yielded to the terror. He is threatening these very powerful and wealthy, corporate-representing law firms with investigations, with revocation of security clearances, with termination of government contracts or funding, with bans from accessing government buildings, and hiring bans.
Some of these law firms are standing up and suing the Trump administration for this unlawful behavior, law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale; but a raft of other law firms, like Paul, Weiss, Skadden, and Latham, bent the knee and laid down because they were too afraid of this administration destroying their businesses.
I mean, here are a number of big, bad, powerful, wealthy law firms that can't even use the law to protect themselves, afraid to use the law to protect themselves. What makes their clients think that those law firms that bent a knee to Trump will represent their interests? I don't know. Only time will tell what happens to those firms that capitulated.
In the first Trump administration, law firms were part of the huge effort by the legal community to challenge unconstitutional policies of the Trump administration, like the Muslim ban, but this time around the Trump administration is going to make sure that that doesn't happen. That is why they are threatening these law firms and making them heel and forcing them to come to the table and capitulate and roll over and let him rub their soft bellies. They won't be involved in protecting the people against Trump's excesses this time around.
Not only that, but as part of their deal with Trump, these law firms promised nearly a billion dollars in pro bono work, but only for the causes that Trump cares about. Now, pro bono means ``for the public good,'' but apparently Trump and the law firms that he has punked out think it just means free legal work for Trump. Trump has punked these big, powerful, and wealthy law firms into providing free labor to help him negotiate trade deals, to help him revive the coal industry, and to help his friend Elon Musk, the billionaire, as he wields a chainsaw through his position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency.
White House officials have said the pro bono work could be used toward representing Trump himself or his allies. Just last night, one of Trump's executive orders directed the Attorney General to use this private sector pro bono work that he has extracted to represent him so that they would defend law enforcement officers who are charged with offenses in the performance of their official duties.
Let me translate that. That means--okay, you remember George Floyd, who was murdered by an officer who wouldn't take his knee off of George Floyd's neck until he suffocated. You all remember that. You all remember Breonna Taylor, who was shot and killed in her bed after a botched, no-knock drug raid; or Tyre Nichols, who was beaten to death after a traffic stop.
Under the new Trump regime, the DOJ would conscript private law firms to, for free, represent those police officers against the families of the victims of police brutality. That is not the way the Department of Justice should work, and that is not the way that big, powerful law firms should work. They should choose the clients that they want to represent, not Donald Trump choosing their clients and causes for them.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman), my good friend, a former prosecutor. He has some things that he wants to tell you.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Johnson, for organizing this incredibly important Special Order hour to highlight the absolutely unprecedented and devastating attacks on our democracy and on the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm that our democratic values and the rule of law are under attack. We all must open our eyes before we find ourselves in Vladimir Putin's Russia. In just 100 days, President Trump has engaged in a coordinated, premeditated, deliberate attempt to dismantle our government.
Let's be very clear: Donald Trump does not seek to lead us. He seeks to rule us, and we all must open our eyes. Since he first came into office, President Trump has persistently attacked the media to undermine the credibility of the messenger of news that he didn't like.
Then, during Special Counsel Mueller's investigation on Russia's interference in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump's campaign, President Trump attacked the FBI relentlessly, trying to undermine its credibility.
Rather than debate the facts or the evidence, which he knows he would lose, isn't it just a lot easier to simply shoot the messenger and claim that everything bad about you is just fake news?
Mr. Speaker, while many, rightly, have been focusing on the arbitrary and devastating cuts to essential Federal programs or the disastrous and reckless tariffs that have increased prices and inflation and have tanked the economy, President Trump's first 100 days have also escalated this relentless assault on the checks and balances that have been the foundation of our great Nation.
On day one, he pardoned more than 1,500 criminals who stormed this very building on January 6. Hundreds of them were convicted of violently assaulting law enforcement officers. It was a blatant and disgusting disregard for the rule of law and for our fine men and women in uniform.
Next, during his first week, he fired nearly 20 inspectors general, the independent watchdogs in the executive branch agencies. It is their responsibility to ensure that those agencies follow the law.
Then he went after the Department of Justice and the FBI. He fired prosecutors and special agents who investigated his criminal conduct. They simply did their job. He then turned to the Public Integrity Section, the renowned and venerable institution that was created after Watergate to be an independent investigative body of public officials.
He and his administration have also been firing and forcing out anyone who might not share his political views, even though these jobs are career, nonpartisan, and apolitical jobs.
Next, he went after lawyers and law firms who tried to hold him accountable to the law. He continues to do so. He has signed several executive orders, trying to limit the ability of law firms to represent their clients, one of the fundamental hallmarks of our system of law.
He has gone after universities. These institutions form the bedrock foundation of the growth and innovation of our great country and underpin and form the foundation for the best global economy in the world. He is now threatening to withhold billions of dollars in Federal funding unless universities change their curriculum, change their admissions process, change their hiring process, and change other core parts of their mission that they, as educational institutions, decide in this democracy.
He is also waging a war against nonprofit organizations, yanking grants away that have already been made and allocated. He is threatening to remove the tax-exempt status of any organization that may disagree with his opinions or support lawsuits that might actually enforce existing laws.
Mr. Speaker, you see where this is going. The media, the FBI, inspectors general, the Department of Justice, law firms, universities, and nonprofit organizations are all institutions that enforce our laws and that hold those in power accountable. This is his methodical way of undermining all forms of accountability in this government.
More recently, his attack on our Constitution has escalated. Before he even came into office in January, President Trump had completely submitted the Republican Conference of this body. They have abdicated their constitutional duty to be a check and balance on the executive branch.
The judiciary, the third branch of government, still remains in his way. How does he deal with the judiciary? He is openly and brazenly criticizing
The President and some of my Republican colleagues are threatening judges. They are trying to bully them into ruling in their favor and not ruling based on their interpretation of the law.
With the career folks removed from our executive branch agencies, he has put political lackeys in charge of our criminal justice system and our national security apparatus. He is ordering criminal investigations into individuals simply because they disagree with him.
That is the type of corruption that our country travels the world to root out. At its core, it is as antidemocratic as it gets. It is the stuff of dictators and strongmen and not of democracies.
Even worse, he is attacking our basic and fundamental right of due process. That is the right to have any allegation presented before a neutral arbiter who makes a final decision.
Like a king, Donald Trump thinks it is okay for him to get to decide what the law is. That is not how our system works. The Supreme Court and our judiciary decide what the law is. When a unanimous Supreme Court rules that he is not a king and that he must abide by our basic principles of due process, he then refuses.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, even though he had an order on him that would prohibit him from going to El Salvador. Donald Trump admits the mistake and refuses to bring him back to face due process.
Due process is the cornerstone of our country. It distinguishes us from an authoritarian dictatorship, and Donald Trump wants to destroy it. It is not optional, and court rulings are not simply suggestions. They are the backbone of American democracy. They are our final safeguard against the unchecked power of the executive.
When a President ignores the courts, he is not challenging policy. He is declaring war on the Constitution itself. Despite this laundry list of attacks on trying to undermine our democracy and our rule of law, my Republican colleagues remain absolutely silent and, in some cases, even supportive.
These alarm bells are deafening, but too many in this Chamber would rather enable Donald Trump's descent into dictatorship than to confront him. They have laid down the power of the purse, and now they are actively trying to forfeit their oversight authority.
They are silent as President Trump wages an all-out assault on our constitutional democracy. They are silent as he goes after the media, launches investigations into his political adversaries, and attacks our basic fundamental rights.
This is what dictators like Vladimir Putin do. They use repression, retaliation, and the threat of violence to consolidate their own power, while doling out billions of dollars to other oligarchs who will support them.
Many countries have faced moments like this before, moments where the freedom and the openness of the democracy that they represent stand at a crossroads. I urge my Republican colleagues to please stand up for our Constitution. Stand up for our democracy. None of us want authoritarianism. We don't want a dictator.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time where the rubber meets the road, and my friends across the aisle will make their record for history.
Do they want a dictator or do they want a democracy?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very prescient comments. He spoke of a reign of terror that has been inflicted upon our institutions and the people of this country.
As a lawyer, I never thought that I would ever live to see the Department of Justice being perverted to the point of turning its attention on prosecuting a State court judge for interfering with a deportation in her courtroom and in her courthouse. Even judges and courthouses in this Nation are not safe from the reign of terror of this President.
In Milwaukee, Judge Dugan, a State court judge, was arrested by the FBI for obstructing justice by allegedly directing a migrant out of her courtroom through a side door, as Federal agents waited to arrest him in the hallway. He was there for a hearing on charges unrelated to his immigration status.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, did not even have a judicial warrant to arrest him. A judicial warrant is based on probable cause, is signed by a judge, and has the force of law. What the ICE agent had was only an administrative warrant. This type of warrant is just simply a piece of paper that somebody types up, saying that this person should be arrested. There is no probable cause, no nothing. It is just an administrative warrant.
The judge told the ICE agents that if they wanted to arrest someone in her courtroom, they needed a judicial warrant signed by a judge. They needed to speak with the chief judge of Milwaukee County. The chief judge told the agents that they could not make arrests inside courtrooms or other private locations in the courthouse.
That makes a lot of sense. If people know they will be picked up by ICE if they report to the courthouse, they will never show up for their State court proceedings. Mr. Speaker, it is impugning the ability of the courts of the States to administer justice according to State law.
Judge Dugan allegedly ushered the migrant out a side door. A week later, FBI agents show up at her courthouse. When she pulls up to the parking lot, they take her out of the car and put her in handcuffs. They perp walked her in a public manner that was meant to send a message to any other judge who stood up for the rule of law.
This was clearly designed to make not just State court judges but all judges, including Federal judges, afraid of taking a position out of step with the Trump administration. It is meant to stop judges from doing their jobs and standing up for the communities they are empowered by and against the illegal abuses of the Trump administration.
This is even before the talk Trump has stirred up about impeaching Federal judges who have the temerity to rule against his administration when it violates the laws and the Constitution. Once again, Trump and his cronies are trying to bully and remove people who have the backbone to do their jobs and stand up for our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I am now joined by my colleague from the great State of Georgia, Representative Lucy McBath.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my delegation colleague, Representative Johnson, for being the managing Member and for yielding to me this evening. I thank him for these moments tonight as we are in a very critical time, as my friend has been expressing before I came.
I thank Mr. Johnson's staff, as well, for taking the time and effort to put this together tonight and the Litigation Task Force for convening on the floor tonight.
I am proud to join my Democratic colleagues here to raise the alarm that this administration's actions are rapidly undermining our democracy and our justice system. However, Democrats continue to stand as the party of truth, the party of democracy, and the party of the American people.
While the Trump administration is emboldened to tear down foundational programs that keep Americans safe and gut the Department of Justice and our law enforcement, Democrats in Congress are holding this administration accountable and fighting so that our government works for every family, not just the richest in the world or the close friends and colleagues of the President.
I am here today not just as a public servant but as a mother who knows what it feels like to lose everything to gun violence, and I know this: Every family in America deserves the right to be safe at school, at the grocery store, and at home.
The Trump administration is making this much harder. This White House has worked to unwind the very protections that are designed to keep us safe. They have cut critical funding for gun
These decisions are not just reckless. They are deadly, making it easier for violence to spread, for lives to be shattered, and for communities to keep on living in fear.
As a mother who lost her son to gun violence, let me be perfectly clear: The American people are crying out for the basic right to live safe from unnecessary gun violence. Americans want to send their children to school or to the mall without wondering if they will ever come home.
These egregious Trump administration cuts are a slap in the face to every family and every survivor of gun violence. In many cases, these rollbacks also make it more difficult for law enforcement to keep our communities safe.
Unfortunately, of all the disputes local officers are called to address, domestic violence incidents involving a gun are some of the most dangerous. The emotion and volatility during these incidents mean they can quickly turn deadly if a lethal weapon is present.
Instead of strengthening background checks and red flag laws to provide tools to our law enforcement, the Trump administration has weakened those crisis response tools that law enforcement depends on and drastically cut funding to police departments, putting our officers at risk.
I came to Congress to make our laws safer after I witnessed firsthand how fragile our justice system can be, and now I am determined, as we all should be, to protect our justice system so that perpetrators of crime and violence are actually held accountable.
There have been recent attacks on judges, as has been expressed by my colleague, Mr. Johnson. These attacks on our judges and the courts by the Trump administration should alarm every American. It will now become harder for families to seek accountability for crimes that are committed against them and for survivors to get the justice that they deserve.
Every American, no matter their background or the State that they live in, deserves to trust that when they walk into a courtroom, the law is fighting on their side. When our elected leaders belittle public-serving judges and bend the Department of Justice to serve their own interests, then they shatter that trust.
Families looking for answers, for protection, and for justice cannot afford to wait. Trust me, Mr. Speaker, I know. I have been one of those families. I know the stakes of receiving justice for a loved one, and they are just far too high.
I thank my colleagues for standing up. I thank Representative Johnson for standing up for the integrity of our democracy on behalf of those who rely upon it every single day.
Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching at home, I say this to them: You are simply not alone. House Democrats are fighting for you, and we will not let this administration undermine the very ideals of America and the fabric of our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her passion, for her courage, and for her tenacity in representing the interests of those who have been adversely impacted by crime and who need the justice system to hold accountable those who would violate our laws. She stands for justice for all. I appreciate her comments.
It is not just big law firms and judges who are being targeted but also Department of Justice officials, FBI officials, government employees, and whistleblowers. The Department of Justice is now going after none other than ActBlue. What is ActBlue?
Trump has asked the Department of Justice to cut off funding to anyone who opposes him, and recently, he directed the Department of Justice, the DOJ, to target ActBlue.
What is ActBlue? It is a Democratic fundraising site that collects small-dollar donations from people across the country who fuel the Democratic Party's fundraising. ActBlue is a vehicle for everyday Americans to make small-dollar donations to the campaigns of people who are standing up to Donald Trump and fighting back against this administration. As a result of that, Donald Trump and his department of so-called justice are trying to shut them down.
There is zero evidence of any wrongdoing by ActBlue, unlike this President's own shady crypto businesses and his taking of unconstitutional emoluments during his first term, but because ActBlue provides a way or mechanism for small donors to fund those who oppose Trump, Trump is using his power over the Department of Justice to shut down ActBlue like the authoritarian dictator that he is trying to be.
Under rulings by the Supreme Court, it is big dark money donors who now dominate elections, and they donate heavily in favor of Republicans. Instead of putting some restrictions on those dark money donors, he wants to make them the only ones who are in place to be able to fund elections of Representatives.
In other words, he is persecuting and prosecuting, trying to prosecute a small-dollar donor network for the Democrats so that only the big dark money donors who participate in electing him and his MAGA cronies are the ones who are playing the game.
We cannot allow that to stand. Trump is actually going full MAGA out here with this, and his purpose is to Make America Great Again again. He wants to turn the country back to a time when the only people who had the right to vote were the White male property owners.
In line with that, he is trying to destroy the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. Under Trump, Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice are degrading the ability of civil rights lawyers to do their jobs on behalf of the American people. The Department of Justice has a storied Civil Rights Division, which was established by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which focused on fighting racial discrimination. The division has since been tasked with upholding the rights of all persons in the United States, particularly the most vulnerable.
When Trump took office, there were almost 400 attorneys in the division. Based on unofficial estimates, approximately 70 percent of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is expected to accept the second resignation offer, leaving fewer than 150 attorneys, as Trump has twisted the division into something unrecognizable, a unit that is bent on dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, reversing policies on transgender rights, rooting out so- called woke ideology, and other such nefarious goals.
Vanita Gupta, a former associate attorney general under President Biden, has said that the division has been turned on its head and that now it is being used as a weapon against the very communities it was established to protect.
Cases have been halted, and top managers from the voting rights section have been reassigned.
As devastating as this is now, it also means that that knowledge is being lost. If we have an election in 2028, which is not guaranteed with this President who is already selling merchandise proclaiming Trump 2028, but if we do have an election in 2028 and get a new President, we cannot snap our fingers instantly and rebuild an entire division that was demolished by this administration.
Major damage is being done to our institutions, and all my brothers and sisters can do on the other side of the aisle is cower in favor of what they know is wrong and unjust.
This is abuse of authority, and we cannot let it go unchecked. As much as Trump and his Department of Justice try to silence us, we must all speak up and speak out. Democracy is a fragile and precious thing. It lasts as long as we fight for it. That is because each time we let ourselves be cowed and each time we yield to fear, our rights narrow.
I have before me the Preamble of the Constitution. It says, ``We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice''--it is right up there at the top. This is why we wanted to ``form a more perfect Union.'' It was to ``establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare.''
It was to establish justice. That premised everything else. Justice and the system of justice in this country are worth protecting, and we shall do so. We shall continue to do so.
I promise that I will be in the trenches fighting with you, We the People.
As John Lewis used to say, let's go make some good trouble.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Illinois?
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in recognition of Faith Month, a time that we set aside each year in this body to share the importance of our faith and how it inspires us in public service.
We just celebrated the greatest event in human history: the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
When Christ ascended into Heaven from the Mount of Olives, he promised that the Holy Spirit would comfort and guide us. He also left us with Scripture that provides answers to every problem we face.
Our Founding Fathers acknowledged the importance of God's Word and the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
In his ``Notes on the State of Virginia,'' Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``God, who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a Nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.''
Our first freedom, religious liberty, even finds its roots in Scripture in that God gives every man and woman the freedom to accept or reject His free gift of salvation.
Patrick Henry acknowledged that: ``It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and the freedom of worship here.''
When the Constitutional Convention was about to fail, Benjamin Franklin called the delegates to prayer and declared: ``I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that `except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.'
``I firmly believe this; and I also believe, that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.''
You can't design a building without a firm foundation, and that is why our Founders made sure our Republic was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
The Bible contains the answer to every major political issue we face, whether it be life, marriage, family, or the difference between a man and a woman.
The Bible gives warnings to nations, governments, and rulers on how to properly lead its citizens. The Bible teaches us how to treat each other with dignity and respect and provides the ultimate source of purpose and contentment: a life committed to Jesus Christ.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my very good friend (Mrs. Miller of Illinois), a very strong lady of faith, for this Special Order. We really appreciate this.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize and to celebrate what we call Faith Month, a time when we proudly and openly give voice to the faith that strengthens and sustains so many of us who serve up here and all across this great Nation of ours, both here in Congress and, as I said, the United States of America that was built, as my good friend Mrs. Miller said, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible and faith that we were handed by our forefathers.
America was built on this foundation, as she said, of religious liberty: the very first freedom enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Our Founders understood that faith was not just a private matter but a powerful force for good in public life.
I get so weary of hearing people say: Oh, we don't want to hear about politics in church or we don't want to hear about church in Congress. Well, politics in church has become something--if it has to do with morals and good and evil, then it is not politics, folks. That is church.
We will talk about this very thing. It says right there before us: ``In God We Trust.'' We know where our Forefathers stood on this issue. Without a doubt, we are going to continue this great thing called the United States of America and what we were built on.
We will honor this tradition. We recognize that faith is not something to be hidden away but is something to be lived out boldly and with joy. The Scripture reminds us that we are called to be a light on a hill, not to hide this light under a basket but to let it shine for all to see.
Each of us comes from very different backgrounds here and with very different traditions, but the thread of faith that is woven through the fabric of our national story, we must always remember to honor that. Our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our Declaration of Independence are built on those principles, those Biblical principles.
From prayers whispered on battlefields long ago to hymns sung in chapels, from the simple faith of farmers to the heartfelt petitions of families, faith has carried America through many, many trials, through triumphs and every moment in between, win or lose. Sometimes we profit when we lose, because we learn and we make ourselves better people that way.
During this Faith Month, I am very proud to stand alongside my colleagues right here and speak of my Christian faith right on this very floor.
I encourage every other Member to please join us to lift up the faith that guides us, to celebrate the freedom that protects us, and to remember that enduring truth that has been proclaimed from generation to generation: ``Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.''
May we never take our religious freedom for granted, may we steward it wisely, and may we always seek to lead, to serve, and to govern with humility, with conviction, and that unwavering faith.
Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers, including George Washington, did not shy away from expressing their religious beliefs.
In 1854, Congress made the statement: ``The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.'' That is Congress, 1854.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on faith tonight.
You know, the Bible so beautifully defines faith. In Hebrews 11:1, it says: ``Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.''
This Nation is in the midst of spiritual warfare--make no bones about it--for the soul of not only America but for the world. There is an assault on Christianity, and we have to be diligent in sharing our faith if we profess to be Christians.
As my colleague, Mr. Babin, just quoted, Psalm 33:12 declares: ``Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.'' America is a Nation that is blessed, in
I want to speak about faith as it pertains to politics. During the earliest beginnings of our Nation, it was abundantly evident that Christianity played a formative role in shaping our Nation's founding. Christian principles shaped the Founders' thinking in a profound way. They believed that humans are created in the image of God with an informed conscience of what is right and what is wrong. They believed that humans are inherently sinful, and because of that, we always would need laws and a system of checks and balances. They believed God is the source of moral standards and that legislation should be in agreement with the moral law. They believed that religious liberty is a God-given right and must be protected.
There was a British politician who served in the late 1700s, early 1800s. He was against the slave trade, and he devoted his life to promoting Christian values. His name was William Wilberforce. He wrote: ``I am disturbed when I see the majority of so-called Christians having such little understanding of the real nature of the faith they profess. Faith is a subject of such importance that we should not ignore it because of the distractions or the hectic pace of our lives.''
He goes on to say: ``I would suggest that faith is everyone's business. The advance or decline of faith is so intimately connected to the welfare of a society that it should be a particular interest to a politician.''
Being a Christian in a secular society is not an easy task, but we have examples who left benchmarks for not just our country to follow but for the world to follow.
This generation of leaders has a tremendous opportunity to leave a Christ-honoring legacy that can possibly change not only our country but the world. We should let our faith be the catalyst for every decision that we make.
I am thankful, as a Christian, I can share my faith from a platform that very few people will ever have the opportunity to share from, and that is right here in the House of Representatives.
Wilberforce's work is an example to generations going forward to integrate faith, reason and courage into our engagement with those we have been called to serve.
I am honored to be part of Faith Month ``for such a time as this.''
Mr. Speaker, it is such a privilege to be able to meet with you and other legislators to pray for our Nation.
To quote another one of our Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, Revolutionary general, legislator, the voice of liberty, ratifier of the U.S. Constitution, and Governor of Virginia. He said: ``Righteousness alone can exalt America as a Nation. Whoever thou art, remember this and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.''
One of the verses that I came to Washington, D.C., with to be a plumb line for me, to remind me, is II Corinthians 5:9: So whether we are at home or away--this is the Apostle Paul--we make it our aim to please Him, knowing that we are going to give an account for what we have done in our bodies whether for good or for evil.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Miller for her outward expression of faith and for being such a light here in this body to all of us, for her leadership and also putting together this Special Order tonight recognizing Faith Month.
Today, we are not only connected through our positions as public servants but also by the moral fabric of our Nation. This fabric is our Christian faith which ties together the sacrifice of our Founding Fathers with the dedication of today's leaders.
Faith Month holds profound significance across this land, serving as an all-encompassing reminder of the spiritual guidance that shapes our lives and the variety of beliefs that enrich our Nation and our Nation's rich heritage.
I believe that our Constitution is God-breathed, and so I ask the question: Where is our Nation today?
I am a member of a ministry, The LEAD HOUSE, and we are reading through the scriptures for, I think, our fourth year in a row.
We are in Judges right now. When you read Judges, God appointed judges to bring about rule and obedience among Israel because, every time that a judge passed on, Israel turned from God. Every time they turned from God, they were attacked. In fact, it was so bad that the Mennonites actually hid in caves in the hills. Every time, they cried out to God. Of course, we are reading about Gideon this week.
Yet, the one thing that, I think, captures our faith is a story I heard on Easter Sunday from our pastor in our church, and that is the story of the crucifixion. After the crucifixion, there were 11 disciples who went away, and they feared for their lives. In fact, they hid in a room.
Resurrection was 3 days later. Jesus Christ was resurrected from the grave.
What that did for those 11 disciples was it gave them the power over death. They became fearless. They started a movement that the Roman Empire feared and were severely persecuted.
I tell you that, on Easter Sunday, over a third of the world celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Roman Empire no longer exists. That is the power of the resurrection, and that is the power of faith.
As I reflect on these timeless teachings of the Bible, I am reminded of the divine wisdom in Exodus. In those sacred passages, God established laws and governance to uphold justice and righteousness. Just as Moses, the only full face here, looks down on this body today and as we look at the flag, In God We Trust, really?
Do our actions actually align with the purpose that God set before us of restraining evil and promoting good in our society? What this proves is our belief in God must be reflected and represented in our daily lives, not simply spoken.
We are a nation founded in the Judeo-Christian value of family. Joshua 18 is one of the greatest promises in the scriptures. God told Joshua, who, of course, followed Moses:
``Do not let this book of law depart from your lips. Be careful to do what it says, meditate on it night and day, and you will be prosperous and successful.''
This is the first book in the Bible that I memorized, and I say it every day. What I have discovered in my time here in Congress and in business and whatnot is that, unlike when I grew up, we have become a Bible-illiterate culture.
Why do we meditate on God's Word? Like Abraham, whose faith was credited to him as righteousness, we must trust in God's promises. They are abundant throughout his scriptures, and we must live obediently to His Word, or America will end up like Rome.
Let us seek God's blessing and protection as we navigate through the complexities of governance, acknowledging his sovereignty over all things.
It is during this time of such division that I often lean on the words of Mark 3:24, reminding us that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. America is at a tipping point. It is through our collective faith and drawing near to the Word of God that we find the path to unity, truth, and freedom.
During this special month, we are reminded of the profound impact of our faith. It is the beacon of hope, guiding us through life's trials and triumphs, and it unites us in a bond stronger than any earthly tie.
I hope those watching me tonight will join with me and reaffirm our commitment to worship the Lord and to draw strength and inspiration by meditating on His Word morning and night and be careful to do what it says.
May God bless each of us abundantly and guide our Nation as we walk in faith and righteousness, and may we never forget that we are, in fact, one nation under God.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Allen for his faithfulness to show up to pray together for our country and to always be bold to share his faith.
I also thank the gentleman for the compliment that I am a light out here, but I do say along with the First Book of Peter 2:9: `` . . . proclaim the
What is the darkness? The darkness is sin. It is what has afflicted mankind since the Garden of Eden, and it causes humans to be self- consumed, rebellious, and foolish. Yet, we should draw near to the Lord and come boldly to his throne in time of need.
Hebrews says: ``Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I am honored to be able to speak here and that Congresswoman Miller has yielded me time to talk about Faith Month here.
When our country was founded, John Adams said that our country was made for a moral and religious people and totally unfit for every other kind.
We, therefore, must be especially concerned--and I realize there are many good people who do not go to church--that church attendance has fallen so overwhelmingly in the last 40 years, particularly in the last 20 years. I believe it has fallen 25 percent in a very short period of time.
I think we should be very concerned that the number of people who say that they don't believe in God of any sort has, from the statistics that I have seen in the Gallup poll, gone up by about 9 to 1 over the last 40 years.
Our country will be protected if we turn to God and ask for forgiveness. We will be given the wisdom and the good fortune to make our country the Bible-believing country that it has been through most of our history. We will get back to the moral country that we all envision the United States to be.
However, if we continue to go down the path of rejecting God and just thinking that all the wonderful blessings that we have are going to show up automatically, we will be in deep trouble.
I, like the other speakers tonight, ask the American people to ask for forgiveness and ask for God's wisdom and ask us to make the appropriate decisions that America again become the moral and religious country that John Adams wanted us to be.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I remind everybody again that our Founding Fathers did not shy away from sharing their faith.
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, Surgeon General of the Continental Army, ratifier of the American Constitution, father of American medicine, Treasurer of the U.S. Mint, father of public schools under the Constitution, said: ``By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published.''
Daniel Webster said: ``The Bible is a book . . . which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow man.''
``Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.''
``The Christian religion--its general principles--must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.''
I conclude by saying that I begin almost every morning by reading Psalm 25, and I encourage us as a country to read that and pray over it. I have almost gotten it memorized.
Psalm 25 reads:
``To You, O Lord, I lift up my soul. O my God, in You I trust; let me not be put to shame; let not my enemies exult over me. Indeed, none who wait on You shall be put to shame; they shall be ashamed who are wantonly treacherous. Make me to know Your ways, O Lord; teach me Your paths. Lead me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; for You, I wait all the day long.''
God's Word unites, and I believe this body would function a lot better if we took a little time each morning to pray and meditate on this Psalm. It is Psalm 25.
What a privilege that we get to share our faith on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I thank each of my colleagues for participating in this year's Faith Month Special Order. I especially thank the ladies of Concerned Women for America for their work in sharing their faith across our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, may God continue to bless our Nation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about something that happened on January 20.
On January 20, the President of the United States took the oath of office at this Capitol. Shortly thereafter, he signed several executive orders.
One executive order was Executive Order No. 14151. That executive order ended all DEI programs. The argument that DEI initiatives constitute reverse discrimination fundamentally misunderstands both the history and the purpose of these programs.
DEI initiatives emerged as thoughtful, evidence-based responses to documented inequities suffered by rural communities, minorities, women, the poor, and the disabled. These programs represent America at its best, acknowledging our Nation's shortcomings and tireless work to overcome them.
The ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 codified equal protection as a constitutional principle. Yet, Americans soon discovered that simply declaring equal protection didn't automatically create it.
The real challenge was in translating these legal guarantees into everyday justice through their implementations. When the landmark Supreme Court decisions in 2023 and 2024 further restricted race- conscious university admissions and workplace policies, they accelerated a retreat from this understanding.
The history of DEI efforts in America is not some partisan agenda. It is part of our Nation's ongoing work to ensure that America's promise extends to every American. In 2025, as we face renewed attacks on these principles, we must renew our commitment to this work.
Let me be clear: Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not about guarantees and preferences; they are about removing barriers. They are not about lowering standards; they are about ensuring that the standards we apply don't inadvertently favor some groups while disadvantaging others who are equally qualified.
When our military, for example, embraced diversity and inclusion, it didn't become weaker. It became the most formidable fighting force in human history.
When our businesses embraced diverse talents and perspectives, they didn't become less competitive. They gained access to broader markets and built the strongest economy in the world.
When our universities created more inclusive learning environments, they didn't sacrifice excellence. Instead, they became global leaders in research and education.
The world is always watching us to see what we will accomplish, but now more than ever before, they are watching us to see who we will become.
I still believe in an America where a child's potential isn't limited to his ZIP Code, the color of his skin, their gender, or other factors beyond their control.
I believe in an America where we can acknowledge our imperfect past while working together toward a more perfect future.
Most of all, I believe in the fundamental goodness and fairness of the American people.
When we move beyond slogans, when we truly see each other as fellow citizens on one shared journey, we find that what unites us is far greater than what divides us.
While the temptation is great, we cannot let this moment divide us. We were never meant to be the divided States. We were created as and have thrived for over 250 years as the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the chairman of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
I would like to read for you, Mr. Speaker, a speech that the Honorable George W. Bush gave at the inauguration of the African American history museum. I was proud to be in attendance there, and I must say I was not a big fan of the Presidency of Mr. George Bush, but now, looking back over the times from which we have entered, I have to give him credit where credit is due. He gave a speech that day that I wish my Republican colleagues would take the time to listen to, and I will summarize it. Mr. Bush was the person who granted the land rights on behalf of African Americans.
He said: ``This museum is an important addition to our country for many reasons. Here are three.
``First, it shows our commitment to truth. A great nation does not hide its history; it faces its flaws and corrects them. This museum tells the truth, that a country founded on the promise of liberty held millions in chains . . . that the price of our Union was America's original sin. From the beginning, some spoke the truth--John Adams called slavery `an evil of colossal magnitude.' Their voices were not heeded, and often not heard, but they were always known to a power greater than any on Earth, one who loves His children and meant them to be free.
``Second, this museum shows America's capacity to change. For centuries, slavery and segregation seemed permanent parts of our national life--but not to Nat Turner or Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, or Martin Luther King, Jr. All answered cruelty with courage and hope. In a society governed by the people, no wrong lasts forever. After struggle and sacrifice, the American people, acting through the most democratic of means, amended the Constitution that originally treated slaves''--Americans that had been enslaved-- ``as three-fifths of a person to guarantee equal protection of the laws. After decades of struggle, Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were finally enacted. Even today, the journey toward justice is still not complete, but this museum will inspire us to go farther and get there faster.''
These are the words of George W. Bush.
``And finally, the museum showcases the talent of some of our finest Americans. The galleries celebrate not only African-American equality but African-American greatness. I can't help but note that a huge influence in my teenage years is honored here, the great Chuck Berry; or my baseball idol growing up in far West Texas, the great Willie Mays; and of course, something I never really mastered, the ability to give a good speech, but Thurgood Marshall sure could.''
He concludes by saying: ``Our country is better and more vibrant because of their contributions and the contributions of millions of African Americans. No telling of American history is neither complete nor accurate without acknowledging them. The lesson of this museum is that all Americans share a past and a future. By staying true to our principles, righting injustice, and encouraging the empowerment of all, we will be an even greater nation for generations to come. I congratulate all those who played a role in creating this wonderful museum.''
These are the words of George W. Bush.
I thank Mr. Bush for having helped erect that magnificent museum now that the current administration is trying to take out its materials.
Earlier today, I wished Mr. Hegseth, our Secretary of Defense, could have shown the honor and the decency to come into the Capitol Visitor Center to acknowledge the women of Six Triple Eight. There, Speaker Johnson was present, and the leader of the Senate, Mr. Thune, but notably absent was our Secretary of Defense.
Someone made the remarks, Mr. Speaker, today that people were hidden, there were hidden figures in American history. I know the message that they are sending, referring to the movie ``Hidden Figures,'' the African-American women who did the math to put man on the moon but somehow were unceremoniously removed from all the accolades and all the parades, these women who were called human calculators. It came to my mind that they are really not hidden. Hidden is to be made inconvenient to the dominant narrative, shuffled to the footnotes or left on the cutting room floor of America's memory. It is dishonest, yes, but it leaves room for some discovery.
Erasure is more sinister. Erasure says that we were never here. Erasure digs into the archives with red ink and crosses out our lives, achievements, and sufferings. The women in Six Triple Eight have suffered erasure. It removes their names from the rolls and gravestones from the earth. It doesn't just forget. It forbids remembering.
These 885 women who put together 17 million pieces of mail that kept the morale of our troops high were given no recognition until today, after 80 years. I thank Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune for their contribution.
When we talk about erasure, ask the descendants of Tulsa's Greenwood District, who for decades lived with silence where there should have been national mourning, and ask the generations denied their roots by a system that said their past wasn't worth recording.
We see it now in the battles over school curriculum, in sanitized histories where the enslaved become mere workers and civil rights are a footnote to a fabled color-blind dream.
When we allow erasure to masquerade as reform, we not only assault those who live the truth but endanger the consciousness of a nation already prone to moral amnesia.
To hide history is cowardice, I would say. To erase it is cruelty. America must choose neither because when we forget what we were, we forfeit the right to know who we are.
Mr. Speaker, we are addressing the issue today of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I would like to speak on this matter because it is an urgent matter, one that touches the very soul of our Nation's promise and its founding ideals of equality, justice, and the pursuit of liberty.
We are at a crossroads, a critical juncture where the direction we choose will define the future of this Nation. I speak today about the persistent and harmful attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and how these attacks, particularly under the leadership of the President of the United States, are undermining the values upon which this Nation was built.
More profoundly, these attacks are not merely political, but they represent a direct assault on civil rights. Specifically, they started by targeting African Americans, and they threaten to undo the hard- fought progress that has been made over generations.
DEI, at its core, is not just a set of policies but an embodiment of American values, values that ensure every citizen, regardless of race, gender, or background, has the opportunity to thrive.
It reflects the notion that our strength as a nation lies in our diversity, that our success is drawn from the breadth of our collective experiences, and that our unity can be found not in the erasure of differences but in the celebration of them. Today, this fundamental belief is under siege.
When President Trump and his allies launched their attacks on DEI, they were not merely engaging in political rhetoric. They were dismantling policies designed to correct historical inequities and promote a more just and inclusive society.
These efforts, cloaked in the language of ``merit'' and ``individual responsibility,'' are, in fact, a thinly veiled attempt to perpetuate a system that continues to privilege a select few while marginalizing the very communities that have fought the hardest for their rightful place in the American story. The deep scars of racism and inequality are not erased by wishful thinking or by policies that deny their existence.
The attack on DEI is an attack on civil rights, the idea of an egalitarian democracy, and the constitutional ideals that undergird the very idea of America.
This rhetoric is dangerous because it fundamentally misrepresents the mission of DEI and, in doing so, misrepresents the broadest civil rights movement that has shaped this Nation. It was, after all, the civil rights movement that won the battles to dismantle segregation, that fought for voting rights, and that created the foundation of a more inclusive society. The very principles of DEI stem from these victories.
When we attack diversity, equity, and inclusion, we erode the gains made through blood, sweat, and tears from the marches in Selma to the legislative victories in the sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties, and beyond.
To push to eliminate DEI policies is a dangerous step backward in this ongoing fight for justice and equality. It is no accident that this movement to undermine DEI coincides with the resurgence of racism and hatred, and this rhetoric and these policies are un-American.
These policies also coincide with the banning of books. I ask, when does a society move forward banning books? When we talk about restraining freedoms on women's bodies, when has that ever been good for society?
We talk about xenophobia when most people in this country have come from other lands. It is as if society has never moved forward. It is not a coincidence when I tell you, under the guise of fairness and colorblindness, these policies have disproportionately harmed the African American and the marginalized communities all while maintaining a status quo that favors the privileged few.
While it is true that the Black community created the pathway that led to greater diversity in America, the reality is that Black people are not the only community that benefits from it. Women are a part of DEI. Veterans are a part of DEI. People with different abilities are a part of DEI. American workers are a part of DEI. Even women and families that need IVF, in vitro fertilization to build strong American families, are all communities that benefit from DEI initiatives.
Here is a news flash: Diversity does not mean Black. Diversity can mean making sure people who use wheelchairs are not discriminated against and get equal consideration for housing and employment opportunities. It can mean making sure that senior citizens have the same protection as young people. To say nothing of the fact that ensuring the right of young people to be in leadership is what diversity and inclusion is all about.
The move to get rid of these policies is not theoretical; they are real. They are felt and they have consequences. Take, for example, the recent span of book bans across the Nation, particularly those targeting African-American authors, targeting our history, and targeting our lived experiences. Books like ``The Hate U Give'' by Angie Thomas, ``Beloved'' by Toni Morrison, ``Between the World and Me'' by Ta-Nehisi Coates have been removed from classrooms and libraries not because of their literary merit but because of the discomfort they cause to those who wish to ignore the brutal realities of race in America.
These bans are not merely an affront to academic freedom; they are an assault on Black identity and an attempt to stifle the critical conversations necessary for a truly inclusive society.
Moreover, the policies that aim to ban discussions of race and racism in the classroom directly undermine the very spirit of education. It is no secret that Black students--especially those attending public schools in underserved communities--are already facing systemic barriers to educational opportunities. When DEI programs are eliminated, when history is whitewashed, and when Black experiences are rendered invisible, the message sent to our children is clear: Your history, your experience, and your potential does not matter.
These policies contribute to a culture of exclusion, a culture that denies the very existence of our humanity as a people, and by extension, the humanity of all people.
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems I think that many people have with DEI programs--which is one of the same problems they had with affirmative action, if you recall--they viewed it as two parallel lines, where you took a person who was less qualified and you elevated him to the level of somebody who was more qualified.
That is not DEI. That was not affirmative action. Instead, people should look at it as a circle and every single person within the circle are all qualified to do the job, but there is just one single problem: There are folks in the circle, although they are qualified, they never get chosen. There are women in the circle who never get chosen simply because they are female. Hispanics, Blacks in the circle don't get chosen simply because of the color of their skin. People need to view it as: Everybody in the circle is qualified, but DEI comes in and grabs people who are not chosen only because of the color of their skin or because of their sex.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting when we started this conversation about diversity, equity, and inclusion, I invited some of my other colleagues to participate. One person asked me: Is it legal for you to discuss DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion?
As coequal branches of government, we do not work for the DOGE. We do not work for the Presidency. We fundamentally disagree with the way the Nation is going under the Presidency. Mr. Pete Hegseth, our Secretary of Defense, needs to understand, if he would take the time to read it, that diversity is legal according to the United States Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions.
Mr. Speaker, the generals that have written the amicus brief said: ``Growing and maintaining a highly qualified, diverse officer corps remains a U.S. national security imperative.''
We had discussed this at one point. Further on, they go on to say: ``The U.S. military's commitment to diverse and inclusive leadership derives from decades of experience.'' This is exponential.
``The U.S. military's international presence and engagement abroad with foreign military and civilians requires diversity in this officers corps.''
In part C, they say: ``U.S. military diversity initiatives have led to significant progress in growing a highly qualified and racially diverse officer corps, but this work must continue.
``Invalidating universities' modest race-conscious admissions policies would seriously impair the military's efforts to maintain cohesion and effectiveness.''
Mr. Speaker, Members can read the entirety of the amicus brief at the following link: https://www.harvard.edu/admissionscase/wp-content/ uploads/sites/6/2022/08/Amicus-Brief-Military-Brief72.pdf.
When they say they are anti-DEI and then they take down the statues and remove the gravestones of Jackie Robinson, that does not help with military cohesion. If there is one of our colleagues that is watching us in the Chamber, we invite you down so we can have a debate, a discussion on DEI and stop the polarization and racializing this. They find it okay.
Mr. Pete Hegseth finds it okay to resurrect the name of Ku Klux Klansman General Bragg, Fort Bragg, but yet you take down the name of Jackie Robinson. And you are not done with improper ideology? Then you resurrect the names of so many others. There are six military bases that have some of these Confederate generals on there, but then you take down the names of Medgar Evers and Harriet Tubman? That is shameful and hypocritical.
Diversity makes the Nation stronger. Being committed to truth and justice about our paths only serves as a benefit. It doesn't take anything away. The false narrative that people are unqualified simply is not true. We know from these Halls of Congress right here that people whose parents have been here before can teach their children how to run for office, how to raise the funds, and you will see children of those that have been in power following in that tradition.
We are talking about creating an on-ramp for greater inclusiveness, for greater cohesion amongst the troops. Lastly, if it is good enough for the war room, isn't it good enough for the boardroom and classroom?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
What is interesting is when the President signed that executive order to do away with three words: diversity, equity, and inclusion, it sent universities in a tailspin. They didn't know what to do. In fact, the President himself ended a program--and I am glad the gentleman from Illinois serves on the Agriculture Committee. I am glad that you and others wrote letters and he restored the program that gave
Not to mention the impact it has had on businesses. There are businesses that have ended their DEI programs simply because of that executive order.
Mr. Speaker, if I could jump in on that for just a moment.
These are voluntary programs. These are aspirational programs, as you have shared with me. There is no DEI law. No DEI law has been passed by the Congress. How can you outlaw something that never was a law?
When we go into the Senate, just at the other end of this Chamber, you see ``E Pluribus unum'' over the Speaker, which means ``out of many, one.'' That is the call for diversity.
When we talk about equality in the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law, we only had that once the Nation could confront its history and tell the truth. We wouldn't have had to have the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and the 14th Amendment that was meant for equal protection for those Americans that had been enslaved for 246 years from 1619 to 1865. And it was 346 years from 1619 to 1965 before the Voting Rights Act was even passed. Then the 15th Amendment came around to make sure that everyone had equal access to the ballot, and that wasn't fully enacted until 1965.
Yes, this has been a long journey and we cannot be cowards and not confront the history and the truth of our past.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Fields for the privilege of standing here beside him. I thank him for his commitment to justice, for his commitment to the American way, and I thank him for making America better.
His case right now before the United States Supreme Court, Louisiana v. Callais, is taking into account, once again, the maxim of equal protection under the law. We want to make sure that America stays strong and America gets better.
I tell those that say ``Make America Great Again,'' I tell them that this is the greatest America has ever been. This body now has more female Senators, has more people of ethnicities, more diversity, and I am proud of the culture that this great country has.
I hope other people would step forward to find the courage to come and join us on this floor so we can have a conversation.
Do not live in fear of the President primarying you. Do not live in fear of the President taking words out of your mouth. You can be a major law firm. Don't lose the ink in your pen because you have fear. You can be a major university. Don't give up your academic freedom because of fear. You have a major corporation. You have the right to align yourself with the interests of your shareholders and the interests of your future marketplace. Hold on to the DEI.
Members of this body, as coequal branches of government and the United States, fundamentally disagree with President Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Speaker, I want Mr. Pete Hegseth to know that diversity is legal in the United States military. Colin Powell was an affirmative action general. We should tell the truth about it. He came through under the Carter administration.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Fields for this Special Order.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 30, 2025, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
