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.
42 public bills, H.R. 3088- 3129; and 6 resolutions, H. Res. 361-366, were introduced.
Pages H1773-77
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 276, to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the ``Gulf of America'', with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-85); and H.R. 618, to amend the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989 to include the City of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-86).
Page H1773
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Gimenez to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1731
Recess
The House recessed at 11:17 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H1740
Recess
The House recessed at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened at 2:15 p.m.
Page H1741
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'': The House considered 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''. Consideration is expected to resume tomorrow, May 1st.
Pages H1748-55
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 yesterday, April 29th. Recess: The House recessed at 4:58 p.m. and reconvened at 5:15 p.m.
Page H1759
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'': The House passed 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'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 231 yeas to 191 nays, Roll No. 111.
Pages H1741-48, H1759
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 yesterday, April 29th. 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'': The House passed 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'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 225 yeas to 196 nays, Roll No. 112.
Pages H1755-59, H1760
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 yesterday, April 29th. Meeting Hour: Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, May 1st.
Page H1760
Quorum Calls: Votes
Two yea-and-nay votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H1759 and H1760. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:45 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: 158 of 227 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, 50 years ago today, the capital of South Vietnam, Saigon, fell to advancing North Vietnamese forces. The collapse of the anti-Communist South Vietnamese Government marked both the end of a decades-long conflict and the beginning of a painful chapter for millions of South Vietnamese people.
As the North Vietnamese Army launched its final offensive into Saigon, fear and uncertainty gripped the city. For countless South Vietnamese, the Fall of Saigon was not only the loss of their capital, but it was the loss of their country, their dreams, and, for many, their safety. Having allied with and supported the United States in the fight for a free republic, they now faced the terrifying prospect of persecution or worse.
Among the individuals was a young boy named Phi Nguyen, whose story I have the privilege of sharing with you today, Mr. Speaker. Phi is the second-born child of parents Dung Nguyen and Diem Le Do. Notably, his father worked as a newspaper cartoonist whose art illustrated the complex political dynamics in Vietnam during the war, which is preserved in the Library of Congress today.
In the final days of April 1975, Phi was 8. His older sister, Mien, was 10, and his younger brother, Thuc, was just 6.
With the fate of Saigon hanging in the balance on April 28, 1975, Phi's family raced to Tan Son Nhut Air Base for a chance to escape. This would not be an easy task. The airbase had already been heavily bombed in the days before, causing severe damage to its runways and planes. As the North Vietnamese Army closed in, they were actively launching rockets and artillery, even as desperate families attempted to flee.
Yet, in the dead of night, after two planes ahead of them were shot down, the Nguyen family boarded what would become the last fixed-wing aircraft to depart Tan Son Nhut. Their escape was harrowing, but their journey toward freedom, safety, and hope had just begun.
Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine the mixed feelings of relief and heartbreak they felt as the plane left Vietnamese airspace, finally touching down at Clark Air Base in the Philippines. From there, they were transported to Guam and eventually to Camp Pendleton in California, a place known then as Tent City, which saw more than 50,000 Vietnamese refugees who awaited new lives and new homes.
After 3 months at Camp Pendleton, the Nguyen family received a life- changing letter. A Lutheran church in Shavertown, Pennsylvania, had offered to sponsor them. So, they made another journey, this time across the U.S., to begin again in an unfamiliar place, adjusting to a new climate and embracing an entirely new culture.
After 2 years in Pennsylvania, they relocated to Virginia in 1978, where Phi and his family have lived ever since. The Nguyen family even welcomed a new family member, their youngest daughter, Mai-An.
So, Mr. Speaker, why am I standing here on the floor of this House sharing the story of this family? This story could be about any of the Vietnamese families who found freedom in the United States. Here is why, and he is sitting right in front of me.
From this family came someone many of us recognize and know professionally, but maybe not personally, a man who has spent nearly four decades serving as a photographer in the Halls of this House, and that man is Phi Nguyen.
In 1986, Phi began working for the Senate Photo Studio, where he would spend the next 15 years capturing history through his lens. Then, in 2002, he transferred to the House Photographer's Office, a role in which I have had the distinct pleasure of working with him many times.
That same year, Mr. Speaker, he married his wife, Tam Nguyen, whom he met during the Moon Festival in Arlington, Virginia, a celebration marking the end of the harvest season. It was a fitting beginning to their relationship, one rooted in tradition and thanksgiving.
Together, they became the proud parents of two wonderful children. His
Phi's story is not just one of survival. It is one of resilience, adaptation, and success. It is, at its heart, a multigenerational story of the American Dream, a dream that Phi and his father before him pursued with determination and faith in the promise of a better future.
Over his nearly four decades of service to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, Phi has captured countless moments that only a photo can, and while doing so, he has also captured the hearts of those who know and work with him.
Mr. Speaker, in preparation for this speech, I asked Phi: What do you want the listeners and the viewers to take from your story? His answer was simple: ``The American Dream is real, and I am evidence of that. You can do it, too.''
Today, on this anniversary of a day that changed the course of history for millions, I want to take a moment to honor one remarkable individual whose life journey embodies the spirit of the American Dream.
I thank Phi Nguyen. All of us who share in a professional relationship with him thank him for his service and commitment to capturing history and doing it with excellence. It is with the utmost sincerity that I commend Phi for his 39 years of service to this institution and congratulate him on one-half century of living the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a true Rhode Island public servant, State Senate President Dominick Ruggerio.
President Ruggerio dedicated his life to making Rhode Island a better place, devoting 40 years to service in the Rhode Island State Senate, culminating in his leadership as senate president.
Through it all, he was a tireless advocate for working people, a skilled legislator, and a kind and gracious presence to everyone he met.
President Ruggerio made his career in the labor movement, working with the Laborers' International Union of North America before retiring when he assumed the Office of the President of the Rhode Island Senate.
During his tenure in the senate, he championed raising the minimum wage, protecting workers' pensions, and rebuilding infrastructure, among many other causes.
When I was State treasurer, I was proud to work alongside him on the 2018 statewide school construction initiative, where we made historic investments in repairing or replacing hundreds of Rhode Island public school buildings. I saw on that occasion and throughout my time in the statehouse that his commitment to the future of our State was unwavering.
My thoughts are with Dominick Ruggerio's family on his passing this past week, particularly with his children, Charlie and Amanda, and his four grandchildren, and with all in Rhode Island who had the privilege to know and work with him.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the second time to call for funding for global emergency food aid to be restored.
Plumpy'Nut is a nutrient-dense paste used to save the lives of millions of children around the world.
On every box manufactured at the Edesia Nutrition factory in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, are printed the words: ``From the American people.'' It is not just a slogan. This product is made with peanuts from Georgia, milk from Wisconsin, soy from Iowa, and ingredients from a total of 27 States. It is 100 percent manufactured in the United States, and then it travels on American trucks to American ships to children around the world who are caught in the middle of humanitarian crises.
Plumpy'Nut is a lifesaving necessity for millions of children around the world struggling with malnutrition, and it is from the American people.
At Edesia Nutrition, the organization in my district that manufactures Plumpy'Nut, more than 25 million children have been treated by their product.
That is American patriotism that we can all take pride in, but this work is at risk. The Trump administration has halted all new orders, stranding shipments and slowing production. That hurts farmers, American workers, and children most of all.
This funding must be restored. To be clear, Secretary Rubio, Elon Musk, and others in the administration have said that they intend to restore this funding. We need them to do it. We are not asking the administration to change their policy. We are asking them to execute on their stated policy to save lives while also supporting American farmers and workers.
This food is from the American people. It is a promise, and we urge the administration to ensure that this promise is kept.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H. Res. 340, commemorating April as Community College Month to honor and recognize the more than 1,000 public, Tribal, and independent community colleges across the U.S.
Specifically, I want to highlight my alma mater, Pima Community College, and others from Arizona's Sixth Congressional District, Cochise College, Eastern Arizona College, and Central Arizona College.
Together with colleges across the Nation, these institutions serve over 10 million students, equipping them with the skills they need to thrive and succeed.
My time at Pima Community College was deeply impactful and gave me the tools that I needed to pursue my own American Dream, a dream that I am so blessed to live every single day.
For decades, community colleges have empowered students of all ages and backgrounds with the knowledge, certification, and hands-on skills they need to thrive and succeed. From nurses to welders, teachers to construction workers, and so much more, community colleges are responsible for training the workforce that drives our economy forward.
As we wrap up the month, I am proud to celebrate the vital role community colleges play in supporting our students, building communities, expanding opportunities, and strengthening our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Michael Humphries for his distinguished service as Nogales Port of Entry director.
After taking over Arizona's busiest border crossing in 2017, Director Humphries instituted policies that kept communities safe from dangerous contraband while ensuring trade and commerce continued to flow smoothly.
He uncovered record hauls of deadly fentanyl and other dangerous drugs and made sure that essential products like food and medical equipment made it through the port of entry without interruption, even during the COVID pandemic.
His efforts were critical to strengthening the security at our border while supporting economic vitality in southern Arizona.
On behalf of Arizona's Sixth Congressional District, I extend my deepest gratitude to Director Humphries for his years of service and wish him the very best during his well-deserved retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the hard work, dedication, and courage of seven outstanding members of the Casa Grande Fire Department and congratulate them on a well-deserved promotion.
Congratulations to Captain Matthew Farmer, Chief Tony Fornaro, Battalion Chief Ryan Littrell, and Engineers Iveta Murray, Garrett Walker, Jose Serrano, and Tyler Bogart.
Their courage and selflessness keep our community safe. It is deeply honorable and much appreciated. I thank them for their service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Arizona's Sixth Congressional District's own Orange Grove Middle School's eighth grade class for their big victory in the classroom, sweeping the Arizona Council on Economic Education's Economics Challenge.
This competition allows students to compete and test their knowledge on economics, monetary policy, international trade, and even the stock market.
What an incredibly bright group of young students. I know I definitely wasn't studying monetary policy in eighth grade like they are right now.
Since January, 32 students have been hard at work, voluntarily spending their Sundays preparing for this competition.
To all the students, teachers, and parents who had a role in this amazing achievement, I thank them for their dedication. They have proven themselves and made their school and community incredibly proud. They should enjoy this victory. They earned it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rhode Island's late, great, senate president, Dominick Ruggerio.
Mr. Speaker, ``Donny,'' as he was referred to by those who knew him best, was a ``force'' to be reckoned with, a ``forza,'' as his Italian loved ones would say.
For over 40 years as a State legislator for North Providence, a jewel of the First Congressional District, President Ruggerio served as champion for all Rhode Islanders.
From infrastructure to the environment, labor protections and more, he fought for the places and people who make the Ocean State great, hardworking people, like my mom who worked for years as an SEIU nurse in Rhode Island nursing homes.
Every time our paths crossed, he would remind me how, with enough hard work, grit, and determination, that anything is possible, even my own story. He loved our State, and he loved our Rhode Island State House.
Throughout his tenure, he mentored so many legislators, countless legislators, regardless of the aisle they sat on.
His passing last week, after a lengthy battle with cancer, is both a profound loss for our community and for our State.
Earlier this week, we came together at St. Anthony Church in North Providence to remember this beloved icon in Rhode Island history.
Today, I join President Ruggerio's friends, family, staff, and colleagues who will carry the torch that he lit and ensure that his legacy shines a light for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, today, I also rise in support of the lifesaving producer of humanitarian aid, Rhode Island's own nonprofit, Edesia Nutrition.
Since coming to Congress, I have been proud to advocate for Edesia in hearing after hearing as vice ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I have joined over 200 of my Democratic colleagues in an amicus brief to push back on Trump's and Elon Musk's unlawful destruction of USAID, and I have led bipartisan appropriations letters to support funding for Edesia's work. Why? Because it reflects the best of America's values. Edesia supports domestic peanut farmers, creates jobs, and helps distribute the only proven treatment for acute malnutrition and famine.
To date, Edesia's products have saved over 26 million lives around the globe, including in sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr. Speaker, as the son of West African immigrants, it means the world that America shows up in this way, in this important way, for the vulnerable.
Now, more than ever, we should be investing in Edesia's work, not stripping them of funding. That is why I will be relentless in sounding the alarm and pushing Trump to release the remaining funds that Edesia is owed.
I will continue to fight so that Edesia's programs receive the funding they desperately need in fiscal year 2026. The stakes are literally life and death for millions of children, mothers, and vulnerable populations across the world.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to address a grave and urgent crisis, the rampant persecution of Christians in Africa and the Middle East.
Across these regions, our brothers and sisters in faith experience violence, displacement, and death for their belief in our Lord Jesus Christ.
No person or community should ever face such brutal conditions for acknowledging the name of Jesus.
In Nigeria, the situation is dire. More Christians face persecution there than any other nation combined. Since the outbreak of Boko Haram's insurgency in 2009, more than 18,000 churches and 2,200 Christian schools have been destroyed in northern Nigeria alone. More than 50,000 Christians have been killed, and more than 5 million have been displaced since 2009, making it the most dangerous country in the world for Christians.
Earlier this month, 54 Christians were slaughtered after celebrating Palm Sunday. On Ash Wednesday this year, a priest in north central Nigeria was kidnapped and brutally murdered.
This targeting of religious leaders is not a one-off occurrence. Thirteen priests and seminarians were kidnapped in 2024, and nearly 200 priests and seminarians were kidnapped or killed in Nigeria in the last decade.
In Syria, the Christian population has plummeted from 1.5 million in 2011 to just 300,000 in 2022, driven by the horrors of the Syrian civil war and the rise of the Islamic State. Ancient churches have been razed and Christian artifacts destroyed, erasing a Christian heritage that dates back to the Apostle Paul.
With the fall of the Assad regime, Christians are rightly afraid of continued violence against Christians as clashes continue in western Syria.
In March, Islamic forces attacked churches, desecrated cemeteries, forced Christian women to adhere to Islamic dress codes, and confiscated the homes of Christians.
Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy blunders have exacerbated the crisis for Christians in the region, especially in Iraq. The 2003 U.S.- led invasion of Iraq, intended to bring stability, unleashed chaos that empowered extremist groups like al-Qaida, and, later, ISIS. The number of Christians living in Iraq has plummeted from 1.2 million in 2011 to around 100,000 now.
In 2014, ISIS overran Qaraqosh, forcing 100,000 Christians to flee as their homes were marked with the Arabic letter ``N'' for ``Nazarene.'' Churches were burned and families were torn apart, and the Christian mayor of Qaraqosh, a devoted leader working to rebuild his community, was recently removed from his post. This decision was driven by an Iranian-backed militia leader as a deliberate attempt to erase Christian influence in the region.
The failure to stabilize Iraq post-invasion left Christians vulnerable to ethnoreligious cleansing, a tragedy that the international community has yet to fully address.
Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot stand idly by. I urge my colleagues to join me in raising our voices for the persecuted, to honor their faith and bravery with action, and to ensure the United States is a beacon of hope for those suffering for their beliefs in Jesus Christ.
I will introduce a resolution condemning the persecution of Christians, and I urge this body to take up that resolution and pass it overwhelmingly.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the decision of my colleagues to block the House from
Education Committee Ranking Member Scott and I introduced a resolution of inquiry that was scheduled to be considered yesterday during the Committee on Education and Workforce's reconciliation markup.
Unfortunately, while the markup was in recess, the Republicans adopted a rule that blocks resolutions of inquiry from being considered. It was especially frustrating because we could have debated the resolution yesterday morning, but apparently the majority delayed consideration so they could pass this language in fine print that blocks us from conducting important oversight of policies and programs that are in the committee's jurisdiction.
Our resolution is simple. It asks the President and the Department of Health and Human Services to tell Congress why they plan to eliminate the Administration for Community Living, an agency that administers programs designed to support older adults and people with disabilities and helps them stay in their homes. The public deserves to know what will happen if these programs are eliminated.
The Administration for Community Living, known as ACL, was founded around the fundamental principle that older adults and people of all ages with disabilities should, whenever possible, be able to live where they choose, with the people they choose, and with the ability to participate fully in their communities. Bringing programs that serve those two populations together and sharing expertise actually made the programs work better and more efficiently.
Unfortunately, at the end of March, the Trump administration announced a dramatic restructuring of the Department of Human Services that includes the elimination of the Administration for Community Living. Now is not the time to dismantle an agency that supports older adults and people with disabilities.
More than 11,000 people turn 65 every day. In 2022, the people who are age 65 and older represented at least 17 percent of the U.S. population, and more than one in four adults experience a disability, including most adults over 75.
The Administration for Community Living's programs improved the lives of millions of older adults and people with disabilities and also benefits their families and their caregivers. It is the only government entity that advocates across the Federal Government for these populations.
Because my colleagues blocked consideration of this resolution, I want to take this opportunity to tell you more about what is at risk.
Through the Older Americans Act, the Administration for Community Living runs senior centers and distributes more than 200 million meals every year to older adults and people with disabilities through the Meals on Wheels program.
Seniors need access to nutritious food so they can lead healthy lives. It is not just the food. The person delivering the meal is often the only social contact the client will have that day, which is especially important in addressing social isolation.
It is disheartening to see this administration advocating for policies that will put essential food assistance for older Americans at risk.
The ACL does more than food assistance. They support paid and unpaid caregivers, including family caregivers and Native American caregivers. They study better ways to support older adults living with HIV. They protect seniors from abuse through the Adult Protective Services Program. They provide programming to reduce social isolation and loneliness. They support protection and advocacy programs for people with disabilities. They conduct research into fall prevention, chronic disease management, and Alzheimer's disease. They safeguard vulnerable adults through the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, and they address elder justice issues like abuse, neglect, and exploitation. They provide legal assistance for disabled people and more.
These are just some of the reasons that we introduced the resolution of inquiry: to ask what will happen to these important programs with the administration's plan to eliminate ACL. We are a coequal branch of government, and we need this information to make prudent decisions on behalf of our constituents. Yet, as of yesterday, the majority blocked our ability to get those questions answered.
Unfortunately, the Republican majority is also using the same shady tactic to take away the authority of Congress to legislate tariff policy, likely because Republicans know their positions are wildly unpopular and proper oversight would highlight these failings.
This is yet another example of the erosion of separation of powers that we are seeing in this administration and this Congress.
I have heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the importance of transparency and accountability. I hope my Republican colleagues live up to that and prove that by stopping the block on resolutions of inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and fellow fiscal hawk on her last day of work, my district director, Debbie Luper.
How can I possibly frame up the service and political activities of Debbie Luper in one short floor speech? Her presence in Kansas politics is deep, and a great number of elected officials at the State, local, and Federal levels have consulted with Debbie or sought her advice at some point in her career.
Many Kansans know Debbie and have appreciated her dedication to serving the people of the Fourth District of Kansas. She is a pillar in Kansas politics and has been repeatedly recognized for her service, most recently receiving the Spirit of Unity Award from the Sedgwick County Black Republican Council. She has also twice received the Kansas Republican Party's Huck Boyd Volunteer of the Year Award.
She has been an integral member of winning campaigns locally and statewide. She served as the chief of staff for the Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee before joining my staff to lead my district office.
Debbie is a battle-tested, stalwart conservative who is trusted by many throughout Kansas, and her conservatism isn't a fad or a political front, but it is who she really is. In fact, I have been known as a fiscal hawk throughout my time in public service, but she is pretty comparable, giving me a run for my money on that banner.
Debbie has also been a bridge builder and mentor. Even when factions arise, Kansans continue to trust her leadership and count on her to help bring people together. It is one of the reasons why she has made such a phenomenal district director.
The staff in my office in Wichita has learned from her guidance and decades of experience, and she has fostered a family and not just a group of employees.
Debbie was my very first hire following my special election in 2017. As district director, Debbie was always focused on what was best for Kansans, particularly in the Fourth Congressional District.
She ensured that constituents were helped, whether they had a problem with a government agency, they had an opinion on an issue, or they just wanted to express a complaint or sometimes a compliment. Business groups, schools, healthcare providers, and farmers and ranchers can all count on Debbie to help them.
Today is her last day as a full-time employee, but retirement for Debbie doesn't mean an end to a busy and engaged life. She is transitioning to more time in her favorite roles as wife, mother, grandmother, and daughter. She will be spending far more time with family while still having some time for her favorite hobby: helping with campaigns. I am confident that Kansans will still seek her advice and consultation, or at least they will if they know what is best for them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Debbie for 8 years of serving as my district director. More than that, I thank her for her decades of friendship. She has watched
Mr. Speaker, after 100 days of chaos and corruption, Donald Trump and House Republicans are crashing the economy in real time.
The majority has hit the American people with the largest tax increase on the middle class in at least 50 years. We have watched markets around the world plummet, prices spike, and our trading partners hit back with tariffs on American goods that are attacks on the American people.
Hardworking Americans are paying more for food, clothes, cars and trucks, electronics, and other essential goods. Estimates are that the Trump tax will cost the average American family almost $5,000 a year in additional costs. Our constituents' 401(k)'s, pensions, and kids' college funds have all taken a huge hit.
Trump's reckless trade war has only begun to squeeze the American people. Imports at the San Pedro Bay port complex in my district are expected to plunge in May. That means empty shelves at our stores in a few weeks and further price spikes as shortages hit.
Exports at the port complex have also plummeted as retaliatory tariffs by other countries hit agriculture and manufactured goods. This hurts consumers. It hurts businesses. It hurts our port workers and truck drivers who support their families, thanks to trade with other countries.
Trump and his billionaire donors won't feel any of it. They don't feel it when the cost of a can of soup is up a couple of dollars because of tariffs on aluminum. They don't feel it when the cost of our constituents' kids' shirts go up $10 apiece because there is a tariff on the clothes they buy or when the cost of their next oil change goes up $20 because the parts and filters are imported. The average American will feel it.
Trump has even admitted that they will have to feel some of the pain from his Trump tax, and what is the response from Republicans in Congress? The majority plans to follow Trump off the cliff and make it worse while we are on the way down.
This month, Republicans plan to pass the new tax cuts for their billionaire donors and big corporations, and their giveaway to the wealthy will be paid for by cuts to Medicaid, basically healthcare, and food stamps that hardworking American families rely on. This is right as the Trump tax will make it harder to make ends meet, to save for retirement, to pay for prescriptions, or care for aging parents.
House Democrats are doing everything we can to stop Trump and Republicans from destroying our economy and to keep their hands off of earned benefits. We must put hardworking Americans first.
Mr. Speaker, as the economy is tanking, costs are going up, not down. Today, we face a new threat and danger: The Trump government is abusing its power. The Trump government ignores court orders, ignores the Constitution, and then lies to try to justify its actions.
Let's talk about Kilmer Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father and a husband who was literally abducted in the dark of night by the Trump government.
This is not just a story about a man wrongly deported. It is a story about abuse by the government and the danger it poses to my colleagues and every American citizen in America.
Kilmer Abrego Garcia lived here in the United States for over a decade. He had a court hearing where a court ruled that Mr. Garcia had a right to be here and that he would be in danger if he was returned or deported to El Salvador.
Yet, despite the court order, ICE agents arrested Mr. Garcia anyway, and they deported him to El Salvador. Despite this court order, ICE agents, without a new hearing and without any process, basically made him vanish. He is just gone at the hands of the Trump government.
He was sent to El Salvador to one of the most notorious megaprisons in the hemisphere. It is a prison that American taxpayers are helping to support in a foreign country.
Let me be clear. Mr. Garcia had rights. The government ignored them. That is not how justice works.
It is not just Mr. Garcia. We now have learned of children who are U.S. citizens who were deported by this Trump government and administration. One of those children is just 4 years old and was receiving treatment for cancer. Yes, cancer.
How does deporting a sick child keep our community safe? It does not. This isn't immigration policy, but this is cruelty, plain and simple. The idea that the U.S. Government can deport children who are U.S. citizens or send immigrants to dangerous foreign prisons without a court hearing and then claim the government bears no responsibility should terrify every one of us.
These cases are the most glaring examples, but the assault on due process runs deeper. This is not just about how we treat immigrants. It is about whether any of us can count on being treated fairly when accused of something. It is about whether there are still rules that protect people, or whether the government can just say: Trust us. We don't have to follow the law.
It is about power unchecked and principles abandoned.
Just yesterday, we also learned of a woman from Oklahoma and her children, all of them U.S. citizens. Federal agents broke into her house and took her money. They basically terrorized them and left. If we let them tear up due process for some, it is a danger to all.
Mr. Speaker, I will not stand silent while families are ripped apart and while the Constitution is trampled on. My colleagues shouldn't either.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, one day after National Fentanyl Awareness Day, to honor the memory of a special young man and to share a call for action.
Gabriel Fensler was a much-loved son and brother who had struggled with addiction but had fought hard for his recovery. Gabriel relapsed one day after his 24th birthday.
Fentanyl is a crisis. In Spokane, we are feeling the weight of it. Last year alone, 270 lives were lost to fentanyl overdoses in Spokane County. It is a national epidemic that we must address with urgency. We must stop fentanyl from hitting our streets, and border security is a part of that.
Last year, over 21,000 pounds of fentanyl were seized at our borders, enough to kill billions. A recent executive order ended duty-free treatment for low-cost goods from China, which have been exploited as a major pathway to smuggle illicit drugs into the U.S. It was a measure that had bipartisan support.
Alongside law enforcement efforts, we must help those in recovery, like Gabriel, with comprehensive treatment and community support.
Gabriel's remarkable mother, Kitara Johnson-Jones, has turned her immense heartbreak into a call for action, launching Gabriel's Challenge, a community response to fentanyl, starting on Mother's Day and extending to Father's Day.
She is rallying the community to identify the gaps in support for addiction recovery and urging connection and action. It is a call to pray, a call to talk, and a call to engage.
In Kitara's own words:
Mr. Speaker, let us join her in this fight in honor of Gabriel and so many others and work together to combat this fentanyl crisis.
John Joseph LaFalce was born October 6, 1939, and passed away on April 11, 2025. He was laid to rest earlier this week.
While we mourn the loss of this extraordinary leader, we also celebrate the incredible contributions he made, not just to western New York but to New York State and our entire Nation.
The son of a union steward and bakery worker, John never forgot where he came from. His upbringing shaped his politics. He knew what it meant to struggle. His empathy and faith drove his mission in elected office.
John lived his faith by fighting for labor rights, defending the vulnerable, and standing up for the voiceless. It was his moral compass that guided every vote, every word, and every fight. He knew that serving in Congress was a sacred calling, and he fulfilled it with grace, conviction, and compassion.
Before entering public life, he served our country as a captain in the United States Army. Upon his return from the military, his continued commitment to service drove him toward government. He served in both the New York State Assembly and New York Senate. Then, in 1974, he represented western New York in this Chamber for three decades.
John came to Washington in the aftermath of Watergate, part of a new wave of lawmakers determined to restore integrity and rebuild the public's trust in our government.
Congressman LaFalce spent nearly 30 years shaping national economic policy, leading the House Committee on Small Business and serving as the top Democrat on the Banking Committee. He built a reputation as a thoughtful, deliberative, and independent voice. He was a leader, not beholden to politics but to the truth and, above all, to the people he served in western New York.
On the Committee on Financial Services, John emerged as an early and steadfast voice against the predatory practices of payday lenders and subprime scams that trapped working families in endless debt.
He fought to strengthen consumer protections for women by introducing and passing legislation that created opportunities and resources for female entrepreneurs, opening doors that had long been shut.
Yet, perhaps nothing exemplifies Congressman John LaFalce's leadership more than his fearless fight for our community following the Love Canal disaster.
At a time when so many were reluctant to confront the truth, he stood firmly with the people of Niagara Falls, ensuring they would not be ignored or left behind. He put on boots, walked into basements flooded with toxic sludge, stood with families in their hour of need, and demanded more from our government.
John directed the eyes of the world onto western New York and forced the Nation to reckon with the dangers of industrial pollution. He pushed for Federal recognition of this crisis and secured an emergency declaration, ultimately creating the Superfund program. His efforts helped bring justice and relief to families facing an unthinkable public health catastrophe and environmental calamity.
John LaFalce was not afraid to take a lonely stand when his conscience demanded it. He voted against authorizing the war in Iraq not once but twice. He challenged legislation he felt went too far, even if it came at a political cost. He never stopped thinking independently, and he never stopped thinking about what was right for western New York.
Beneath his tough exterior in Washington was a profoundly loving and gracious soul who treated everyone like family. To him, nothing was more important than family.
At his funeral service this past Monday, John's beloved son, Martin, told the story of a devoted father with a tender heart and a love for the joys of life.
Congressman LaFalce leaves behind a legacy of service, of decency, and of standing up always for western New York.
I am personally grateful to Congressman LaFalce for the guidance and wisdom that he provided me. It has made me a better Representative for our community.
I offer my prayers and deepest condolences to his wife, Patricia; his son, Martin; and all of his loved ones.
May Congressman John LaFalce rest in peace and power.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Black April and 50 years since the Fall of Saigon.
Over 8.7 million Americans served during the Vietnam war, including 2.7 million who put boots on the ground.
We will always remember the 58,281 U.S. servicemembers who gave everything for freedom, and we rally with our Gold Star families and the loved ones of the 1,573 Americans who remain missing in action.
Many of my constituents fled Vietnam in the Fall of Saigon and found their new home in Orange County in southern California. I am proud to have witnessed many of them becoming very successful members of our society, thriving in all sectors that make America great, and I am so proud to call many of them friends.
Our Vietnamese-American community knows well that we cannot take freedom for granted.
To our Vietnam-era veterans: Welcome home. Know that your service protected freedom on the world stage, and we are very grateful.
Mr. Speaker, for years now, we have heard a lot of false accusations about rigged elections and voter fraud.
For instance, despite accusations that noncitizens were casting ballots in Virginia, studies found that there were zero instances of noncitizens illegally voting over the past 20 years.
Let's be honest, these accusations erode public trust and threaten our democracy.
Some localities are stepping up to fight those accusations. Two of those localities in my district are Prince William County and Fairfax County, which recently won the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Clearinghouse Awards, or the Clearies.
Prince William County, in particular, was the first county to publish voting result tapes online in Virginia history. They are not only saving the results, but they are publishing them.
Here is the truth: In Prince William County, Fairfax County, and counties all across the country, officials are working tirelessly to ensure our elections are safe and secure. That is accountability, transparency, and democracy in action.
I congratulate Prince William and Fairfax Counties on their awards, and I look forward to working with them and fighting false allegations about our elections.
Mr. Speaker, today marks the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon.
Thousands of Vietnamese families escaped during the war, coming to America, and Virginia, in search of safety, opportunity, and a new life. There are now over 2.3 million Vietnamese Americans in the U.S.
Many Vietnamese-American families call Virginia home, and Vietnamese Americans have become an integral part of our community, from public service and the arts to groundbreaking work in science, business, and education.
I am proud of the work being done to support Vietnamese refugees right here in Virginia.
One example is Boat People SOS, an organization founded to help Vietnamese refugees. They have rescued over 25,000 Vietnamese boat people. Since then, they have expanded their services to aid immigrants, refugees, victims of trafficking, disadvantaged students, and survivors of violence in the United States.
Today, I recognize the strength, courage, and spirit of the Vietnamese community in Virginia's 10th District
Mr. Speaker, we have heard how the recent DOGE cuts are impacting Federal employees, seniors, and veterans, but these cuts are also impacting our children, particularly vulnerable children.
Recently, the Department of Justice announced the termination of Federal grants to support court-appointed special advocates, known as CASA programs.
CASA programs cultivate trained and appointed volunteers who advocate for abused and neglected children in the courtroom and beyond.
The children they serve often need to be removed from unsafe homes and placed in foster care. At a time when they need it most, the volunteers provide a voice for these children.
Fairfax County's CASA program, for instance, has served over 8,500 kids in our region, including 376 in this fiscal year. They do incredible work to help place children in permanent homes and set them on a path for a brighter future.
The funding CASA receives from the Victims of Crime Act is now on the chopping block. These cuts will put a strain on already stretched thin court-appointed special advocate teams in Virginia and around the country. The result? More vulnerable children with less support.
We must stop these cuts and fight to protect the children that these programs serve.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I rise today to address the administration's efforts to dismantle a cornerstone of American speech, our public media system.
The administration is calling on Congress to rescind appropriations for PBS and NPR, two public media institutions that have served Americans for nearly 60 years.
Each month, 36 million people watch their local PBS stations. PBS KIDS averages 15.5 million monthly users, including my kids. More broadly, PBS and NPR tell the American story through arts, culture, and history programs.
Let's be clear: This is not about budget cuts or making government efficient. This is a gutting of an institution that many people, especially those living in rural areas, rely on for information and trusted programming. In regions with limited or no broadcast access, PBS and NPR are among the few sources of media that people have to stay informed.
The administration argues that this move is necessary to prevent America's culture from being reengineered. Make no mistake: Cutting public media doesn't preserve our culture. It silences local voices, weakens civic engagement and education, and strips away the resources that help children learn.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor McCutcheon High School's Mavericks Robotics team, which won the 2025 FIRST Robotics Competition World Championship.
The Mavericks Robotics team competed against 3,700 teams from around the world just to clinch a spot in the world championship. Only 600 of those teams made the cut, and this robotics team won it all.
These talented students from McCutcheon High School dedicated 17 to 20 hours a week designing, building, and marketing their robot. Each of the students on the Mavericks Robotics team played a vital role in their global victory, from designing aspects of the robot, computer programming, crafting the physical build of the robot, or helping raise money for the project. These brilliant students should be proud of this truly outstanding accomplishment.
I congratulate the world champion McCutcheon Mavericks Robotics team.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Sergeant Rodney Jenkins, a dedicated public servant who devoted over two decades to law enforcement in Montgomery County, Indiana.
At 19, Rodney became one of the first full-time male dispatchers at the Montgomery County Communications Center, and his career only flourished from there.
In 1998, Rodney Jenkins was hired as a jail officer and reserve deputy with Montgomery County Sheriff's office.
In 2000, he was hired as a road deputy, and 9 years later, he was promoted to sergeant.
His leadership, coupled with his dedication to both administrative and field duties, showcases his true passion for law enforcement and community service.
We are grateful for Sergeant Jenkins' exceptional service to our community, and I am proud to congratulate him on his well-deserved retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Karen Plaut, the executive vice president for research at Purdue University who recently announced she will retire on June 30 of this year.
Dr. Plaut has a truly impressive career. Dr. Plaut attended the University of Vermont, received her master's from Pennsylvania State University, and received her Ph.D. in animal science from Cornell University. She held a fellowship at the National Cancer Institute at NIH and led breast cancer research at the University of Vermont.
Dr. Plaut then joined NASA and served as the lead scientist for the International Space Station Biological Research Project, working with engineers to build life science habitats for zero gravity.
Dr. Plaut joined Purdue University in 2010 and became executive vice president in 2023.
I wish Dr. Plaut the best of luck and congratulate her on her well- earned retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor fellow Boilermaker Dr. John Scamahorn.
Dr. Scamahorn earned his degree in veterinary medicine from Purdue University in 1972 and has spent his career supporting veterinarians at the local, State, and national levels.
Dr. Scamahorn runs the Animal Medical Clinic in Greencastle, Indiana. He also helped found the Indiana Animal Health Foundation, which helps fund scholarships and service animals. He also has contributed significant time to 4-H members.
He received the Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine's Distinguished Alumnus Award in 2001 and the American Veterinary Medical Association Meritorious Service Award in 2022, which recognizes a veterinarian who has brought honor and distinction to the veterinary profession.
Indiana is proud to be the home for Dr. Scamahorn, and I thank him for his exceptional service to veterinarians and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Jinsie Bingham, a trailblazing broadcaster and lifelong Greencastle, Indiana, resident. She even graduated from DePauw University, located in Greencastle, in 1956. Her broadcasting career started when she joined the local radio station WJNZ, formerly known as WXTA, as the sales manager in 1969.
In 1977, Jinsie Bingham became the first woman in Indiana to own and operate a commercial radio station. She ran WJNZ, which is now known as WREB and serves Greencastle to this day. In 1996, she received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Indiana Chapter of American Women in Radio and Television.
Jinsie Bingham retired from broadcasting in 1994 but continues to be active in the Greencastle community to this day. She is also known as the unofficial historian for the area.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to know Jinsie Bingham, and I thank her for her decades of service to Greencastle.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I got a call from a constituent whose 46-year-old son had just
It is sad. We sort of shared the pain of fathers who lost kids, worried about losing kids. There is no need to tell anybody here that cancer sucks.
That wasn't why he called. He called because his son's doctors told him that as you go through the course of this treatment, typically, chemo stops working after about 6 months. You see some tumor reduction, and then it stops working. At that point, you really need to start looking for alternatives.
Typically, those alternatives mean you start getting into experimental trials. Those are no longer available because Trump and Elon Musk's cuts to NIH are forcing the local hospitals, the local universities, and the drug companies that would have done these clinical trials, to shut them down.
As he put it to me: As a father, I have to balance hope with reality, but it seems like all I have right now is reality.
Then he said to me: Do the Republicans you work with know that they can get cancer, too? Are any of them going to stand up? Don't they get these calls from their constituents? Why don't they care?
I see them all looking away. How would you have me answer that question?
I tried. I did my best to explain the psychology of folks I work with who fear Trump more than they fear cancer. Mostly I just got sad because this is a guy who said I want hope; all I have is reality. What I want for hope is medicine, and all I could give him was political science to give him some reality.
These stories are in all of our districts. All of our constituents want hope. It is the least we can give them, and we are failing.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my Republican colleagues to just please grow a spine. Stand up. Give us some reason to hope. Give me a better answer to the next constituent who calls my office, or indeed yours, with those same questions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Thomas Burton Merritt, a veteran, a physician, and beloved member of his community.
Born on May 11, 1934, Thomas Merritt was a proud graduate of Auburn University, where he was a strong contributor to the Naval ROTC program and track team.
After graduating, he joined the Navy, completed his medical degree and served with distinction as both a naval aviator and a psychiatrist.
With over 20 years of military service, he was awarded the National Defense Medal, the Naval Aviator Medal, and the Expert Medal for a .45- caliber pistol.
In 2008, he met the love of his life, Robbie ``Honey'' Merritt. Together they traveled the world from England to France, always finding time to cheer on their beloved Tigers.
His love for animals, especially the geese and ducks at Emerald Lake, earned him the nickname ``Father Goose.''
Dr. Merritt's warm smile, great sense of humor, and adventuresome spirit touched everyone who was fortunate enough to know him.
Mr. Speaker, his legacy of purpose, compassion, and courage will continue to be an inspiration. My thoughts and prayers are with Dr. Merritt's loved ones during this most difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Thomasville, Georgia, which was named one of the best small towns in the South.
Thomasville is a charming town located in south Georgia, celebrated for its quaint, timeless charm, vibrant downtown, and diverse food scene.
The town boasts a rich history, characterized by Victorian architecture and brick-paved streets that line specialty shops and local restaurants.
Thomasville's culinary scene is praised as one of the best, specializing in southern classics and comfort foods. The Main Street program has been instrumental in revitalizing the downtown area, rehabilitating numerous buildings, and establishing over 350 new businesses since its inception.
Thomasville was honored with the Great American Main Street Award, highlighting its commitment to preserving its historic character while fostering economic growth.
Thomasville is the official Rose City of Georgia, hosting annual shows and festivals, attracting visitors worldwide. The warm community spirit and welcoming atmosphere make it a standout destination in the South.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the city of Thomasville on this recognition.
Recognizing Effingham County Commission Chairman Wesley Corbitt
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Effingham County Commission Chairman Wesley Corbitt, who was recently honored for his 8 years of service.
During his two-term tenure as chairman, Mr. Corbitt embodied Effingham County's mission to provide through integrity, accountability, and transparency.
His exceptional dedication to public service promoted safety, health, and a high-quality of life for his customers and his constituents.
Mr. Corbitt's focus on disciplined zoning and master planning for industrial growth resulted in significant achievements for Effingham County. These achievements include setting the stage for major upgrades in recreation, contributions to transportation challenges, and commonsense solutions to resolve water and sewer debt.
Mr. Corbitt's leadership and character were integral to the Effingham County Board. He encouraged the board to disagree without being disagreeable, creating an environment that promotes honesty, selfless service, and dedication to doing things the right way.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Corbitt for his years of selfless public service to the people of Effingham County.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Sue Else, an extraordinary leader who is retiring as CEO of the Girl Scouts of Historic Georgia.
Under Ms. Else's leadership, the Girl Scouts continue to thrive, expanding opportunities, deepening community impact, and building the next generation of women leaders.
The Legacy of Leadership event that will be held in Savannah is not only a celebration of Girl Scouts' values, but a tribute to Sue's lasting impact on thousands of lives.
Ms. Else's passion, integrity, and vision has steered this organization through change and growth, always placing the girls at the center of her work.
As the birthplace of Girl Scouts founder Juliette Gordon Low, Savannah is the perfect setting to honor Ms. Else's legacy, which is marked by courage, commitment, and leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I join the Girl Scouts of Historic Georgia, the Savannah community, and grateful families across the State in thanking her for her service. We wish her the very best in her well-earned retirement. Her legacy will continue to inspire young girls for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. DTE wants another rate hike, 11 percent this time. Our families can't afford more power outages in Michigan that wipe out groceries, spoil medicine, and leave our neighbors without critical medical devices, all because DTE would rather pad the pockets of their shareholders and executives than invest in reliability for our families.
We know that DTE charges some of the highest rates, Mr. Speaker, in the Nation, while they have some of the most unreliable service and they perform hundreds of thousands of utility shutoffs per year.
The company made $1.4 billion last year alone. Their CEO made $12.5 million last year. Investor-owned utilities like DTE will always put profits over the people they are supposed to serve.
Now DTE is seeking another massive $574 million rate hike. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that it was just a few months ago that the Michigan Public Service Commission approved a $217 million rate hike back in January. The Michigan Public Service Commission must do the right thing and reject this outrageous, unreasonable rate increase.
Access to utilities is not a privilege; it is a fundamental human right. Every single family should have access to electricity, heat, and water. We need public power to all. We need utilities that serve people, not shareholders. We need to take the profit motive out of the services we all need to live and thrive on.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that it has only been 13 weeks.
President Trump's first 100 days in office have eroded constitutional rights, illegally and lawlessly dismantled Federal agencies, and consolidated power into the hands of the billionaire class. I like to describe it not as shameful, lawless, and reckless, which it is all those things, but it is also the cruelty of how it is being done.
The President has relied on executive orders to push through illegal and divisive policies that circumvent this Congress. He has empowered an unelected billionaire like Elon Musk to fire Federal workers without cause and dismantle the programs our families depend on. That is probably why they are losing in court. We are winning in 93 percent of these courts because, again, much of what he is doing is illegal.
President Trump has attempted to override the Constitution through executive order to end birthright citizenship, deport American citizens without due process, including a 4-year-old with cancer, and he has openly defied Supreme Court orders.
This is a constitutional crisis; that is a fact. We don't need to be cutting services and critical programs for our families. We need to make them work better for our families. Instead of gutting healthcare and Medicaid and food assistance in our public school system, Congress should make the ultrarich pay more taxes and make these programs work better for the people.
Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of working families are living paycheck to paycheck. Working families are worried about paying their rent, covering the costs of groceries, and what they are going to do if they get sick. No one plans to get sick, Mr. Speaker.
Trump's proposed tax plan only benefits the richest Americans. It is a true fact; look at it. Even powerful corporations are going to see a big tax break. He plans on giving $7 trillion, not millions or billions, in tax cuts to billionaires while making working families pay for them by cutting $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion from food assistance.
Mr. Speaker, don't get me going about the environmental protections. They have rolled those back, too. Our children deserve clean water, and they deserve to breathe clean air. They are showing, again, a reckless disregard for our planet and our public health.
Yet in the face of this harmful and oppressive agenda, we have seen power in the resistance not only through litigation but in the streets. Americans have mobilized in unprecedented numbers from protests to townhalls across our Nation. Our communities are organizing, Mr. Speaker, not only to fight back against these harmful policies but to build a better and more inclusive future.
Now is not the time to give in to cynicism. We must stay engaged and speak truth to power and come together in solidarity to fight for a country that our communities truly deserve that is for the people and by the people, not the powerful.
I always remind my residents, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't get the Civil Rights Act or transformative change in our country or the right to organize unions because of what folks do here in this Chamber. It is because the streets demanded it. That is how we got the Civil Rights Act and the right to organize labor unions in our country. Again, continue to rise up and continue to resist this fascist government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
On January 5, President Biden signed the Social Security Fairness Act into law, expanding Social Security for thousands of Americans whose benefits, that they earned through years of hard work, were cut because of bad policies.
The Social Security Fairness Act is estimated to result in an average increase of $360 per month for more than 2.5 million Social Security recipients, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
These are our teachers, firefighters, and other public service employees who have dedicated their careers and their lives to serving and ultimately improving their communities. At a time when people have been struggling to make ends meet, these benefits could not have come at a better time.
This was a major victory for Ohio's 13th District and all of America, one that I was proud to support as a cosponsor, then by signing the discharge petition to bring it to the House floor before finally voting on it here on behalf of the constituents that I represent.
I have heard from countless people in my community, they are thrilled that they were finally able to get the Social Security benefit that they deserve and earned. There wasn't anywhere that I could go in the community: church, the grocery store, the gym, restaurants, someone always stopped me to thank me for voting for the Social Security Fairness Act and to tell me a story of how it is going to change lives.
You can imagine my disappointment as the Social Security Administration has taken recent actions to hurt, not help, the American people, including those in Ohio's 13th. From cutting phone helplines, to requiring certain services be conducted in person, to slowing down processing times, and closing offices, the American people are not getting the service they earned from the Social Security Administration.
Now, to add insult to injury, the Trump administration is vowing to withhold the benefits of Americans as a result of mistakes made by the Social Security Administration. Instead of making the Social Security Administration work better and remain solvent, the Trump administration is accusing seniors of fraud and calling their earned benefits waste.
The fraud is an unelected billionaire, the richest man in the world, who is cutting services to low- and middle-income families. The waste is the garbage coming out of people's mouths who don't care about seniors and say things like it is just a complicated Ponzi scheme. It is abuse by the Federal Government, abuse of people who worked hard their entire lives to support themselves and paid into a system that promised to one day support them.
Our seniors rely on Social Security to pay their bills, to put food on their tables, to keep a roof over their head, and if the Social Security Administration makes a mistake, it can be addressed in time. However, our seniors can't afford to foot the bill for when they make errors. With more than 97,000 residents of my district living under the poverty line and 175,000 residents relying on Social Security, these payments are, in fact, a lifeline.
In what world is this going to improve America? In what world is taking a lifeline away from seniors improving our economy, and in what world is constantly raising and lowering the hopes of some of our most vulnerable neighbors making America great again?
I have already heard from constituents who have been contacted by the Social Security Administration who are concerned about the changes and the cuts. They have been told that 100 percent of their benefits will be withheld until overpayments were paid back in full. These overpayments were as a result of a mistake by the Social
This means that people in my community lose their lifeline to pay for food, housing, medications, and more. This means that people in my community are suffering because of bad policy and abysmal management. Let's fix Social Security. Let's make it solvent, but let's not punish our seniors.
Changes to the Social Security Administration that prevent beneficiaries from accessing their full benefits are nothing more than backdoor benefit cuts, and I will not stand for it. I will always stand in the way of these wolf-in-sheep's-clothing policies. We already know that this is just a setup for cuts, and these changes are setups to pay for tax giveaways for the richest, the billionaires, and greedy corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues say that there is a mandate, but I don't think that there is a mandate to take housing, food, and healthcare away from our seniors. I ask you and all of my colleagues who I serve with to make sure that we protect Social Security, keep it solvent, and ensure that we are protecting the benefits that they have earned for hard work over several years and decades of service.
Mr. Speaker, led by CEO Andy Carr, I am grateful for the South Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a vital public-private partnership that is essential for manufacturing in the Palmetto State. It provides strategies to improve profitability for job creation and bolstering national security.
The partnership generated more than $7 billion for South Carolina over the last 3 years, working with over 550 companies. Over 80 percent of the manufacturers have fewer than 20 employees, and these manufacturers are the size that the South Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership is uniquely serving.
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, rigging the election in the Republic of Georgia against legitimate President Salome Zourabichvili. The fake Georgian regime has falsely smeared President Donald Trump as ``a tool of the deep state.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Black April, a day to lament and reflect on the fall of Saigon.
It has been over 49 years since we fought shoulder to shoulder with our Vietnamese allies. After the fall, refugees were forced to flee their homes with whatever they could carry.
It is important to recognize the resiliency of the Vietnamese people. I grew up with Vietnamese Americans who came to this country for a better life.
Today, my home, Orange County, is home to the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam.
I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the sacrifice of those who fought for freedom, democracy, and opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Master Sergeant David Norman of Troy, Ohio.
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. David Norman was one of the brave servicemen who evacuated over 7,000 Americans and allies from the United States Embassy in 1975.
During the withdrawal from Vietnam, Sergeant Norman was one of the 11 brave marines who defended the U.S. Embassy during the 19-hour evacuation.
Many Americans were successfully evacuated by helicopter, but those remaining stranded on the roof of the embassy, including David, had resolved to defend their positions as long as their ammunition lasted.
A U.S. pilot flying over the embassy at low altitude spotted these servicemen stranded and made a rescue flight under fire, and all 11 men made it home alive.
David retired from the Marine Corps after 30 years of service before returning to Ohio, and then he spent 26 years with the Miami County Sheriff's Department. He was recently elected as the Miami County Recorder.
I rise today to commend David's patriotic service to our Nation and to commemorate this solemn anniversary. Let us never forget the bravery of our troops.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise on behalf of the 800,000 children who will lose access to early childhood care, healthcare, and education because of the Trump administration's budget.
Their budget proposes to eliminate Head Start, the nationwide program that provides essential care to nearly 1
I am an OB/GYN. It has been my life's work to help women have children. Let me tell you, eliminating early childhood care and education, making our Nation's childcare crisis even worse and taking away parents' ability to go to work and provide for their families, is not how you persuade women to have more children.
On top of that, gutting Medicaid, the health insurance program that covers half of all children and 40 percent of all births, is not how you persuade women to have more children.
It is hard to imagine a more antifamily agenda. The Republican plan pressures women to have more children then abandons them, gutting the healthcare, education, and support they need to be healthy and to thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Gail Acampora from Prospect, Virginia. I am lucky enough to call Gail a close friend of mine. She has always been interested in politics and is an avid supporter of President Trump.
In 2021, Gail was diagnosed with lung cancer. She has had a lobe and lymph nodes removed and went through tough chemotherapy. Unfortunately, she is still fighting after another cancer diagnosis.
Her strong faith in God and positive attitude will keep her on the road to recovery.
Tracy and I are with Gail, and I know she is going to fight hard and beat this thing. I ask that everyone include her in your prayers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to this administration's devastating cuts to FEMA's BRIC program, otherwise known as the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grants.
Towns like Crisfield in Maryland, Baltimore, and dozens of communities across this Nation, rely on this funding to ward off the very real and very devastating effects of flooding.
Not only do these programs save lives, but it is also one of the best investments that this Federal Government can make in this country, matching State and local funding. These projects in the long-term save $6 for every $1 in upfront spending.
Yet, on this Earth Day, and just before we are about to enter hurricane season, instead of protecting our communities from sea level rise, the Trump administration ended this program.
When we talk about government cuts to environmental programs, I will caution that rising seas don't care who is in the White House. The water doesn't care how a small town that experiences 90 days of flooding or more a year voted in the last election. Flooding will continue to devastate communities, even if the President does not believe in climate change.
That is why I will continue to fight for the reinstatement of these funds for Crisfield, for Maryland, and for every community affected by flooding across this country.
Providing Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty...
Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up 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'', 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 Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Madam 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 H.J. Res. 87.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 87, a resolution providing for 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,'' sponsored by my friend from the great manufacturing State of Michigan.
In general, what makes these California rules have such an outsized impact on the rest of the country is that, under section 177 of the Clean Air Act, other States can opt in to the California standard.
Not only does California dominate because of its sheer size, but when a
It is my understanding that on just this California EPA waiver for trucks, 10 States--Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington--have opted in to this regulation. This is concerning to me because it seems that California is being given super-State status vis-a-vis the other States of the Union.
States can opt in to a proposal of the privileged State or the super- State but are not able to request a preemption or a waiver from the Federal Government on their own.
This is either the national standard or the California standard. Those are the only two you can have.
It does not allow for individual States to become the laboratories of innovation and democracy as was seen fit and as it was believed to be the case for our Federal system.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that the States should be equal. I am not so sure that we need a super-State imposing its preference on the rest of the country. If that is what we want, why not cede all authority to California and disband the United States Congress?
Either way, having parallel State vehicle regulatory systems is what really causes manufacturers and big fleet operators to be concerned.
Specifically, on this California advanced clean truck rule, this rule creates a complex credit trading system where truck manufacturers must buy or generate zero-emission truck credits just to have the privilege of doing business in the State.
At the end of the day, this rule is very restrictive on traditional diesel-powered trucks. By 2035, this rule ends up requiring electric big rigs to make up 40 percent of the class sales.
I am not here to tell you that electric trucks don't have their place. We all know that they do. Yard trucks, in particular, might be an application where electric trucks have an advantage. Perhaps in certain city delivery situations, those delivery routes could be done with electric vehicles.
That should be a business decision, not the decision of a waiver granted by bureaucrats from Washington to a super-State to dictate to the rest of the country what our policies should be.
Unfortunately for independent owner-operators and small trucking companies, this mandate for electric trucks comes with a very expensive price tag. A new diesel rig costs about $180,000. Electric big rigs can go anywhere from $200,000 to $400,000. That price tag is going to hit the independent driver, the small owner-operators, and the small fleets hard.
Trucking is a relatively small-margin business where time on the road equals money. I am afraid that all of these increased costs could lead to more consolidation in the industry and less competition.
Further, these higher rig costs will present a bigger barrier to entry for the owner-operators and small trucking companies that, with the current technology, would have more charging downtime. Accordingly, not only are they not able to be on the road, but when they are off the road, they are off for a longer period of time.
Time on the road, as I said earlier, equals money. Therefore, it is going to cost more to operate. The big companies might be fine with that, but your smaller companies are going to find it very difficult.
This regulation throws a wet blanket on truckers' opportunities to share in the American Dream of starting their own business, starting out with one truck and building it to five and then maybe getting it to 10. It gives all the power to the big companies.
I believe that this electric truck mandate is going to lead to inefficiency and increased costs on all products that have to be transported over road.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 87 and ending this regulatory nightmare.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 87, 88, and 89, the three bills that we are considering this afternoon.
Like much of what Republicans do here on the House floor, these three resolutions are a waste of time and are going nowhere. That is because both the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, and the Senate Parliamentarian have determined that Congress cannot nullify these waivers using the Congressional Review Act. Yet, here we are. Republicans are ignoring these rulings and moving ahead--again, a giant waste of time.
These resolutions are nothing more than a ploy to basically distract hardworking Americans from the fact that President Trump is singlehandedly destroying our economy and driving up costs for American families, including on vehicles.
Markets are in turmoil. The first quarter report indicated that the American economy is actually contracting. It is not growing. It is actually contracting, getting smaller. American retirement savings are in free fall. Prices for everyday goods continue to rise, all as a result of President Trump's trade war with the entire world. He is at war with the entire world.
Trump's tariffs are also expected to drive up the costs of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000, and Republicans silently sit back and let it happen, bringing up resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere.
These illegal CRA resolutions threaten the Clean Air Act waivers of Federal preemption that allowed stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the State of California. My colleague from Virginia gives the impression that States have to follow California's lead. I don't know that he means that, but he gives that impression. That is not true. No one is telling any State that they have to follow California. My State of New Jersey decided to, but that is up to the Governor and the legislature. In fact, they could withdraw the California standards at any time. New Jersey could if they wanted to. No one is forcing any State to follow California's lead.
My colleague from Virginia, I love him, but he is talking about Big Government. It used to be that the Republicans believed in States' rights, meaning that the States, little or large, would have their own rights and be able to do their own thing. He is the one who is talking about Big Government now because he is suggesting that the Federal Government is going to preempt everything that California and some other States have done.
These resolutions are a direct attack on over 50 years of Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency recognizing California's, and other States that follow, longstanding authority to set stronger vehicle emission standards to protect the public health of its residents from the State's unique air quality challenges.
Why do we let States like California and New Jersey decide this on their own? Because there are different problems in those States with regard to air quality.
Right now, over 90 percent of California residents live in an area plagued by poor air quality. If California decides that we need more stringent standards because we don't want people to get sick in their State, then they should be allowed to do so.
This isn't like pie in the sky. This is based on the fact that the air quality in California is not good. I mean, I hate to say it, but it is true. That is why they need more stricter standards, and they decided to do that.
California started regulating tailpipe emissions actually in 1966 before the Federal Clean Air Act was even enacted. In drafting the Clean Air Act decades ago, Congress recognized California's air quality challenges that demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances, justifying more protective standards.
This waiver mechanism also allows other States with challenging air pollution conditions to voluntarily adopt California standards if they feel that it is appropriate.
This has allowed States to be a laboratory of innovation for the auto industry and pioneer emission reduction technologies, such as check engine dashboard lights or even the development of zero-emission vehicles, and the standards under threat today would continue that legacy.
These resolutions would completely dismantle that progress at a time when the Trump administration appears to be determined to cede our global leadership in clean transportation to China. None of this has to happen. These resolutions are illegal, plain and simple.
My Republican colleagues were informed weeks ago by the independent, nonpartisan GAO that California's waivers cannot be revoked using the CRA for two reasons. First, EPA's waiver decisions are not rules. Second, even if the waivers were considered rules, they would be rules of particular applicability since they only concern one specific entity; i.e., California.
These two factors disqualify the waivers from review under the CRA, and the Senate Parliamentarian agreed. That should have been enough. In other words, the Senate says they can't do this. The GAO says they can't do this.
Again, the Republicans are taking their cues from Trump, and he doesn't care what the law says. He just says do it. That is why we are here today. None of this is going to matter.
EPA has granted dozens of waivers over five decades, and there is a long bipartisan history of recognizing these waivers as orders, which House Republicans are determined to ignore.
What I am saying, Madam Speaker, is they can't do what they are suggesting to do today because it is illegal. Even if they were able to, it sets a terrible precedent for other waivers and other abilities of States to decide on their own what they want to do.
If the theory behind these resolutions were to be successful--in other words, using the CRA to nullify orders--House Republicans would set a dangerous precedent that expands the applicability of the CRA. That would mean countless numbers of executive actions made across the Federal Government would be at the mercy of the political winds of a vocal few in Congress. States seeking approvals for energy infrastructure projects would be under threat. Leasing decisions for major oil and gas fields could be targeted. States that submit waivers for their Medicaid programs could be up for congressional review under this newly expanded applicability. This opens up a Pandora's box for Republicans to invalidate other State programs that they deem unfit for their extremist agenda.
They are trying to impose a very extremist Federal national standard and basically preempt the States.
It is not what Republicans historically do, but this is the age of President Trump.
I think this should ring an alarm bell for everyone in this Chamber. Today, it is waivers for California's clean vehicle standards; tomorrow, it could be a program or project in another State out of favor with Trump or the Republicans.
To be clear, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one- third of overall pollution. Passing these resolutions would allow more nitrogen oxides, fine particles, and climate-disrupting emissions to poison our air.
While it is disappointing that my Republican colleagues are attempting to tear down health-protective standards, it is not surprising. Just look at their plans to strip healthcare from millions of Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in devastating Medicaid cuts, which I expect next week in our committee.
Instead of attacking clean vehicle programs, opposing investments in American electric vehicle manufacturing, and pushing regressive anti- electrification policies, Congress should focus on supporting market innovation, preserving U.S. competitiveness, and providing regulatory certainty for the clean vehicle industry.
My colleagues on the other side talk about China and competition from China, but everything that President Trump is doing is giving China even more of a runway to be competitive and to win, in this case, in the transition to a clean energy economy, especially across the electric vehicle supply chain.
Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose all of these misguided resolutions, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I remind my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, that we are not here today talking about Medicaid cuts. We are talking about EPA rules that need to be set aside in a Congressional Review Act.
You heard him say that this is all illegal. I find this kind of interesting because we have heard them railing for weeks on executive action and why haven't the Republicans pushed back against executive action. That is what we are doing today. We are railing about executive actions. Now, it is the prior administration, mind you, but they are executive actions.
Madam Speaker, I ask you just to use your logic on this, to stop and think about this. The EPA passes what they call a decision in a legalistic attempt to get around the law. That decision that they claim does not fall under the CRA process gives a waiver on Federal regulations to a State, California, that then if you opt in 100 percent, you can't modify it. If you opt in 100 percent into the California rule, other States, currently a minority of the States opt in to, but because you didn't create this patchwork what happens in the industry is, everybody starts to move in that direction. Because if we have to do it in California and 9 other States or 10 other States, then we might as well do it nationally.
What happens is, this is a de facto national regulation. My colleagues on the other side are saying that because they have called it a decision instead of calling it a regulation because they are using a waiver of a regulation that somehow Congress doesn't have any authority.
Madam Speaker, they would have you believe that this Congress can't make decisions on its own. We have to rely on independent bureaucrats to tell us how to do our jobs. I say to you, Madam Speaker, if the Senate wishes to take a back seat to the unelected bureaucrats, so be it. As long as I am in the United States Congress, I will fight to make sure that we are, at least, grabbing what power we can. They heard me say yesterday in committee that I think we give too much to the various Secretaries. I think we give too much to the executive branch. Here is a case where we have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to grab power back from the bureaucrats and to say: No, you can't do this. My colleagues want to rely on legalistic principles from the unelected bureaucratic class in Washington, D.C. I cannot agree to that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my good friend and colleague.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, quite frankly, I can't even believe that our friends across the aisle are complaining. I guess that seems to be their habit, their modus operandi these days.
Madam Speaker, House Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to undo the damage President Biden's radical agenda--maybe that is why they are complaining, come to think about it--inflicted on our economy, our freedoms, and the American way of life. It is just that simple.
This week, we are moving to overturn yet another reckless regulation this time targeting the very backbone of our supply chain: American truckers.
Under Biden--I call him ``O'biden'' because I think he is Obama's third term--we had a shortage of truckers, Madam Speaker. This was Washington bureaucrats trying to do California's dirty work. Don't our bureaucrats here have enough work to do on their own?
This is a direct hit on our truckers. I know. I ran a small trucking business for a short time. This is a direct hit on our small businesses and anyone who relies on affordable, reliable transportation, which, quite frankly, is just about every American.
Let's be real: This isn't about cleaner air. Never was. Never gonna be. It is about control. It is about forcing a one-size-fits-all green agenda on the rest of the country--I might say the unsuspecting country--regardless of what it costs working families, what it costs farmers, job creators, and, yes, truckers. They just don't care.
This CRA sends a clear message, Madam Speaker: Republicans stand with the men and women who keep America running. We stand with Americans for common sense. I couldn't be
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. In the words of the truckers: Let's slam the brakes on this nonsense and put America back in the driver's seat.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution.
The three CRA resolutions being considered today target Clean Air Act Federal preemption waivers that authorize stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the State of California.
Ranking Member Pallone and others have explained how these resolutions go far beyond what is legally allowable under the Congressional Review Act and how the Clean Air Act clearly authorized California to pursue and be granted these waivers as has been the case many, many times over the past 50 years.
Now, I understand that many Republicans in Congress do not like that California is able to take steps to address its extraordinary air pollution from the transportation sector, but they are in luck. They control the House, they control the Senate, and President Trump is in the White House.
If the majority wants to directly attack States' rights and prevent California from developing more ambitious public health protections, they can propose an amendment to the Clean Air Act to change the law and end the waiver process. No one has proposed this because it would require hearings and markups and convincing people of the merits of upending more than 50 years of Clean Air Act precedent, which has been the most successful public health law in history.
Instead, we are here today debating a shortcut, a Congressional Review Act resolution, as we have done time and time again this year as a quick way to undermine environmental rules rather than doing the hard work of actually legislating. If we dug into the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it would be clear that Congress carefully crafted the law to recognize the diverse air pollution challenges facing each State.
We would also have a chance to understand how so many innovations have occurred not only because of the law broadly but specifically because California has been able to pursue more protective standards.
The process that has resulted in us debating this resolution today is all wrong, but it is also bad on the merits.
The Advanced Clean Trucks program is going to make major contributions to reducing air pollution in California, and this rule would only apply to California.
Beyond that, every other State would be able to decide what works best for them. Despite what has been suggested, this rule never required 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales for any class of truck.
Both new and used diesel-powered trucks, buses, and vans will be available for purchase in California and elsewhere in our United States. The rule also includes numerous flexibility measures to help auto manufacturers comply with the standards. The reality is, there are hundreds of different models of zero-emission, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles available for sale today. Major fleets are making the conversion to pollution-free vehicles. Prices are coming down, and more charging infrastructure is being built.
Perhaps, most importantly, these vehicles have the potential to contribute to a tremendous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and traditional air pollution. Reducing this pollution will, indeed, improve health outcomes, result in fewer hospitalizations and missed days of school and work, and avoid thousands of premature deaths. Let's stop with this CRA overreach and attack on States' rights to allow California to move forward with ushering in the next generation of heavy-duty vehicle innovation.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this resolution.
Madam Speaker, our Governor in California, Gavin Newsom, likes to say that California leads the Nation and, unfortunately, President Biden enabled him to do just that. He has led our Nation down a path of total insanity in a way that puts us at war with common sense, with American consumers, and with our fantastic truckers.
California has come after truckers in every way you can imagine, whether it is by far the highest diesel tax in the country, the regulation after regulation after regulation that makes more and more trucks unusable, or AB5 that went after the independent owner-operator model and threatened to put thousands of truckers out of work. However, with this regulation, the State came after the whole ball of wax. They said we are going to take your truck itself.
With this regulation, the State has said that by just the year 2035, we are going to have for some classes of trucks, 55 percent have to be zero-emission vehicles; for others, 75 percent; for others, 40 percent.
What is the practical consequence of this going to be? First, trucks are going to be a lot more expensive, tens of thousands of dollars more expensive. Companies will either have to buy more trucks or they will have to carry less in their trucks because there is less capacity because of the weight of the battery.
By the way, they are going to have to use charging infrastructure that doesn't even exist at this point in time.
American consumers, as we are seeing already in California, will see the cost of just about everything, certainly the cost of groceries, go up, and this will only contribute to the fact that we have a shortage of truck drivers in our State and in this country.
California is being allowed to create policy for the whole country because 11 States are tied to California's actions here and because it puts manufacturers in a dilemma if they have to manufacture one truck for one State and another truck for another State.
Today, we are restoring common sense. We are restoring uniformity when it comes to interstate commerce. We are restoring support for our truckers and we are lowering costs for consumers.
By the way, we believe fully in innovation and we believe in a clean energy future for this country. We believe in clean air, but it is through innovation that we will get to clean air. It is not by government fiat. Indeed, it is an odd approach to innovation that says we are going to somehow magically fiat innovation by banning any and all available alternatives. That is not the way it works.
Finally, to the notion of the gentleman from New Jersey that this sets a dangerous precedent, I will note that no California legislator ever voted on this or the car ban, no Member of this House has voted on it, no individual citizen has voted on it. There has been no vote whatsoever on a policy of profound personal consequence to 40 million Californians and tens of millions other Americans. I think that is precisely the precedent, actually putting this to a vote of the people's Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 87.
Heavy diesel trucks are some of the most polluting vehicles on the road. Even though they make up just 10 percent of all vehicles, heavy- duty vehicles produce more than half of all pollution and smog-forming NOX. The soot and smog pollution from these vehicles kill thousands of Americans every year.
For over 50 years, California has had the authority to set its own stronger vehicle emissions rules because California has, to quote the Clean Air Act, ``compelling and extraordinary circumstances'' that justify stronger emissions standards than the Nation as a whole. This was true in 1970, and it is still true today.
According to the American Lung Association's 2025 State of the Air report,
Not only that, these emissions are also a significant contributor to severe weather events. California receives the brunt of climate change's most severe impacts, from wildfires to atmospheric rivers to droughts. In Sacramento, we have faced deadly flooding from more intense winter storms as well as longer and more extreme droughts, and the foothills above Sacramento are still scarred from the many wildfires we have seen in recent years.
California's emission standards are a matter of life and death for my constituents. To protect my constituents, I spent much of my career in Congress fighting for stronger emissions standards.
I am once again stunned by the hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues, who claim to defend States' rights while they do everything in their power to stop California from setting its own statewide emissions standards.
This is even more absurd because the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has already ruled that the EPA waiver for California's emissions standards is not eligible for repeal under the Congressional Review Act. In other words, the legislation we are debating here today is a pointless political exercise, a waste of time because perhaps my colleagues have nothing better to offer today.
The President is playing with tariffs, sending the cost of groceries soaring, and kneecapping American manufacturers. My Republican colleagues will maybe stop debating this meaningless resolution and reassert congressional authority over tariffs. They can end the tariffs this week and bring down costs for families.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 87.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am not against States' rights. I am against creating a super State in California because they are the only ones that are entitled to get a waiver and then claiming, as the Government Accountability Office, that they have some kind of extrajudicial authority to tell Congress how to do its business. I don't agree with that. I believe we make those decisions, not the GAO.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, on this resolution.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 87, which will prohibit California from mandating electric trucks not only for Californians but for all Americans.
The Biden administration's misguided decision to grant California this waiver has serious implications far beyond the State of California, impacting all Americans. It is an assault on our way of life in northern Minnesota.
Madam Speaker, I am not opposed to Americans having the ability to purchase and drive an electric car, truck, or bus if they so wish. In fact, I support their choice to do so. We should support and embrace consumer choice.
What I am opposed to is unelected bureaucrats in Washington or Sacramento mandating my constituents purchase and drive an electric car or truck. The people in Minnesota, many of them, not only can't afford an EV, these vehicles are not compatible with our daily lives.
How are you supposed to drive an electric vehicle when it is 20 below zero, and it loses 60 percent of its battery life in a short period of time?
We cannot forget that the critical minerals that are used to make these EVs are sourced from Chinese Communist Party-controlled mines in places like Congo, where 15 of the 19 industrial mines are owned by the Chinese Communist Party. These mines have zero environmental standards, zero labor standards, and they use child slave labor.
Thanks to the Biden administration's refusal to support responsible, domestic mining, their de facto EV mandate will only increase our reliance on the Chinese Communist Party for critical minerals.
Madam Speaker, the Biden administration ``exported their environmental guilt.''
In my hometown, the Duluth Transit Authority bought electric buses in 2018. It was a big event. There was a ribbon cutting and all the leaders were there. What they didn't tell you was that in short order, Madam Speaker, they had to add diesel-generated heaters to those electric buses because they wouldn't work in the cold climate. They were happy they had their electric buses, but they didn't tell everybody they had to spend more money to add diesel-generated heaters to those buses.
Madam Speaker, in this town just 2 weeks ago, I spoke at an event, and I condemned child slave labor in Congo. As I was walking out, a gentleman from one of those mines said he disagreed with me.
I said: What do you disagree with?
He said: That we use child slaves in our mines.
I said: It is confirmed. It is factual. Not only the Trump administration, but the Biden administration confirmed it.
He said to me, Madam Speaker: Well, it is only a few children.
I said: Even one is too much. We will not consume any critical minerals used by child slave labor, and the Biden administration did that.
Madam Speaker, 33 percent of our cobalt that we use came from child slave labor when we have mines in northern Minnesota that the Biden administration shut down.
I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up against these mandates and standing for consumer choice.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to these resolutions that strip away a State's right to protect its residents from dangerous air pollution.
As a pulmonologist, a lung doctor, I have spent my career caring for people struggling to breathe--patients with asthma, COPD, and lung cancer. However, I am also a mother, deeply concerned about the world we are leaving our children.
I came to Congress after years of treating the consequences of inaction. I could no longer stand by while politicians ignored the root cause--the pollution poisoning the air we breathe. The truth is, Madam Speaker, our air is making us sick, and we have the power and responsibility to do something about it.
More than 156 million people in this country live in counties with dangerous levels of ozone and particulate matter, and yet instead of empowering States to raise the bar on clean air, Republicans are telling them to stand down. Let me say this another way. Republicans are telling States they cannot take action to protect their people, their health, and their future.
They want to prevent States that are at the forefront from using their authority to cut tailpipe pollution, a move that guts local authority in favor of polluters. We must let our communities lead. Repealing these waivers would undermine stronger vehicle emissions standards that reduce dangerous pollution and are essential to fighting the climate crisis.
Make no mistake: That would have immediate impact for our communities, for every family living near a busy highway, every child using an inhaler, and every senior who can't go outside on a high pollution day. This is a direct attack on over 50 years of precedent that recognizes that EPA has the authority and the obligation to allow States to do what is required to protect their residents.
I am, frankly, stunned that my Republican colleagues in the House want to undermine States' rights. Repealing these waivers is an illegal expansion of the use of CRAs, which the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian have conclusively determined cannot be used for this purpose. This is government overreach at its most reckless.
It is a distraction--a deliberate one--from the fact that President Trump's agenda is failing to meet the needs of working families. It doesn't lower prescription costs. It doesn't fix our crumbling infrastructure, and it certainly doesn't improve the air our children breathe or the water they drink. At the end of the day, every American deserves the right to breathe clean air.
The people of Oregon should know that I see these attacks for what they are. I hear their concerns, and I will not stop fighting to protect them, their children, and their future. I will fight to ensure that science, not politics, guides how we safeguard our communities.
Madam Speaker, I am a California resident, and I am also a California businessman. We have a farm in northern California where we actually operate three highway trucks, and I would probably only have two except for State mandates make it to where one of my older trucks, which is a fine-running vehicle, is only allowed 1,000 miles per year to operate under an agricultural situation. Consequently, I had to buy yet another truck that was newer than 2011 in order to be able to comply with these mandates.
Soon after, when the State had said: Well, if you buy a 2011 or newer engine-powered truck, you are going to be good for a long time. That is until they change their mind and take away the mandate. What many people did was purchase, in good faith, vehicles they thought would last for maybe 20 years, 25 years, or whatever their needs are. I am especially talking about mom-and-pop operations that don't buy new trucks with massive turnover like operations with many, many trucks in their fleet that run them 500,000 miles and turn them over.
What we have with these mandates is more and more difficulty to even operate trucks. There is an old saying: If you have got it, a truck brought it. In California, you may not be getting it anymore. By the time 2035 comes around, and they ban the sale of internal combustion engine trucks and cars in California, what are we going to replace them with? That takes no account for the great strides that are made to make cleaner running diesel engines in all these vehicles and gas engines in automobiles and pickups.
With the technology, we have to add this DEF fluid to our vehicles to make sure that they are running in compliance. What credit is given as a transition to more and more of these trucks meeting this mandate helps deliver cleaner air quality? No credit is given. It is just more mandates. CARB sits down there in Sacramento thinking up more and more mandates all the time, taking away barbecues, gas-powered stoves, and gas-powered everything, even gas-powered generators. I still don't know what you are supposed to replace a generator with if you can't power it on gas or diesel when the power goes off. It is ridiculous what is coming down the pike.
Where California goes, there are several other States that want to follow as well because they think we have got it going on with these mandates.
They want us to take away these trucks and take away the ability to have diesel-powered vehicles. Diesel, like it or not, is going to power things for many decades to come. The technology for batteries and the generation of electricity that is needed to keep all these going on the grid--if you have, say, a neighborhood where three or four cars in three or four homes are electric vehicles requiring that power supply, you would have to change the power lines and the transformer in the neighborhood by the time just a few of these vehicles are in place due to the intense load that is required to fast-charge these vehicles; let alone a truck fleet in a particular area. If there are 50 trucks or whatever in an operation all required to be on electricity and charging overnight, the grid people are going to laugh at you on that.
This is at the same time as they are removing hydroelectric dams in California. They may not renew the nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo, also known as Diablo Canyon. They got a 5-year extension a couple of years ago. Is it going to go beyond that? That plant alone represents 9 percent of the power grid in California.
They keep taking away the generation of power. They don't permit the new generation of power except for wind and solar. They want to turn farms in the Central Valley into solar farms perhaps. Take a look at the Ivanpah installation down in southern California where two-thirds of that is being shut down. They have the giant tower and the mirrors all pointed at it. That one is being shut down due to economics. If the economics on renewable power don't work out, where is the power going to come from?
Who is going to drive the trucks? How will we get deliveries when these vehicles aren't purchased? The price of these is 2.5 times what a regular truck costs. If people would pass my legislation on the Federal excise tax, making the $20,000 to $30,000 of additional tax, a tax that was put in place to pay for World War I, on the price of new trucks, maybe people would have a little more relief.
We do not need this mandate. The Federal Government should not give California more waivers. It was okay back in the 1960s when things were bad in southern California, but air quality has improved vastly due to these vehicles and other measures that have been taken.
Agriculture has the ability to burn its refuse, clippings, tree removal, and all that. That has been banned in the San Joaquin Valley now. There have been a lot of strides or moves made. Yet, they are never satisfied at CARB in Sacramento.
Other States will monkey see, monkey do what California does to the detriment of all consumers. All prices of goods delivered, the prices of production where trucks haul raw materials, and then the finished products from field or forest or mine to be manufactured or refined will just go up across the board.
We don't have the battery technology to have these trucks go more than really 150 miles, whereas diesel-powered trucks, depending on how many tanks they have, can go 400 miles.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I was here to speak about different policies, policies that the American people actually want to see to help them pay their bills and to lower the cost of living that is choking millions of American families.
Instead, in this administration's first 100 days, I have seen this Republican majority capitulate to the largest sales tax in U.S. history in the form of Trump tariffs, costing the average American family perhaps $4,900 annually at the checkout counter. I have seen this Republican Congress authorize the imposition of even more excessive overdraft fees which will cost American consumers another $5 billion.
Where is the action to help Americans pay their bills? Mr. Speaker, you won't find it in any of these three measures. Instead, my Republican colleagues seek to undermine waivers from Federal regulations that California and 13 other States have relied upon for half a century to protect our clean air.
This waiver has done much to clear the once smoggy air of the Golden State, and eliminating these standards will result in the release of 1.6 billion metric tons of pollutants into the air. That pollution will imperil our children, our seniors, and the tens of millions who suffer with respiratory illness like asthma and COPD.
As if the harm to our health and environment isn't enough, the GOP proposals in each of these three measures will cost American citizens even more in their pocketbooks. Over the next 15 years, eliminating these fuel standards will increase Americans' spending at the gas pump by $89 billion. Even if it is adjusted for different vehicle purchase costs, Americans will pay $55 billion more out of pocket because of these efforts to make our cars and trucks less fuel efficient.
Indeed, it will also cost us in higher medical bills. The waiver for the Advanced Clean Cars II rule will save
The health and cost benefits are even greater under the heavy-duty truck regulations. In the heavy- and medium-duty truck sector, we are seeing zero-emission and low-emission trucks that are 2 years ahead of schedule in sales set by California requirements.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, the global industry and the market have left them behind. House Republicans have no agenda to lower the costs for the American people. They are attacking California by putting on this political Kabuki show for political benefit.
Let's talk about California. Despite our many faults, my State has used this waiver and these clean air standards to clear skies that were once filled with smog when I grew up there in the 1970s and in building the world's fourth largest economy. It is larger than Japan, India, the U.K., and, yes, even Texas.
Madam Speaker, I am not entertained by this Kabuki, and the American people aren't either. Do you know what would entertain them? If we actually did something to lower their costs.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairmen Guthrie, Congressman Griffith, and their staff for their professionalism, especially on moving this important measure forward.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.J. Res. 87, my resolution of disapproval to overturn the Biden administration's California Advanced Clean Trucks rule.
Mr. Chairman, I am kind of disappointed but not surprised at my colleagues' lack of understanding for exactly what we are trying to do here. I would expect bad-faith negotiations here and elsewhere. Let me highlight a couple of points that we have heard over the recent few minutes.
Let's talk about lowering prescription drug costs. I wonder what my colleagues think about our truck drivers and how their lifesaving drugs get to their constituents. I wonder if they just appear out of thin air, or maybe the trucks that carry these things will actually just get there on unicorn tears, hopes, and dreams. That doesn't happen.
We actually need trucks to get our lifesaving drug medications to the pharmacies at lower costs. Mr. Speaker, if you increase the number of trucks required because you increase the payload capacity, you are going to actually do more harm than good.
Let's talk about infrastructure. Apparently, my colleagues think we are doing nothing to address infrastructure when literally their plan will contribute directly to crumbling infrastructure due to the heavy weight of these trucks. They could also crash into barriers, which would endanger lives. This would make sure the number of around 45,000 fatalities in this country would increase. I wonder how many American lives they would sacrifice on the altar of their Green New Deal initiatives.
How do we pay for these roads, Mr. Speaker? We pay for these roads with gas taxes, and the gas taxes that these gas trucks would not be paying would take directly from the funds that we need to build our roads all across the country.
In addition to air pollution, Republicans care about clean air. We care about clean water. We also care about common sense. Maybe in California they can plug their trucks into a tree, but in the rest of the country we are relying on an energy grid that is still at least half reliant on an all-of-the-above approach where we have economic, reliant energy and we are still including things like natural gas and coal.
These are the types of things that happen in the real world, and common sense applies in other areas outside of California. In Michigan, we are not afraid of the future, but we demand to be a part of it. America called on us during two World Wars and a global pandemic, and my legislation ensures Michigan stands ready to answer the call once again.
My family is no stranger to how important the trucking industry is. My father started a trucking business with one truck, one trailer, and no excuses. Then a generation later, I started a trucking company during the COVID pandemic.
He grew up in the Jim Crow South and moved to Michigan in search of opportunity and for the American Dream. Tooth and nail, he fought harmful regulations and misguided rules that would have prevented his company from ever getting off the ground.
More than 50 years later, his son stands before the United States House of Representatives to continue the fight against harmful regulations and misguided rules that put thousands upon thousands of livelihoods at risk.
This Biden rule is not just bad policy, Mr. Speaker. It is the scam of the decade to put California's failed EV policies in charge of the entire trucking industry in Michigan and the United States. Does anyone in this Chamber actually believe that this is the United States of California? Perhaps Californians do, but in Michigan we do not want to be dictated by Sacramento. There are about 49 other States that would agree.
Gavin Newsom may be content with being the number one State for declining population, losing nearly 1.2 million Californians from 2020 to 2023. Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I am not. This Biden-era waiver allows California to ram its comply-or-die, zero-emission truck rule down the throat of the American trucking industry, essentially gutting the trucking industry all across Michigan and across the country.
It is a Green New Deal mandate that will crush our trucking industry and drive costs up on everything and increase deaths on our highways. Those are facts.
This policy, if left unchecked, would mandate truck manufacturers only sell expensive, less reliable, zero-emission trucks, no exceptions, no choice. This is going to increase the number of trucks required, which is going to increase the cost of everything from gas to groceries.
The death of the American trucking industry is not just an unintended consequence of this radical California policy. Mr. Speaker, it is the goal. They intend to set unworkable emission standards that will cripple our supply chains and make it impossible for tens of thousands of trucking companies to do business because they are unwieldy and inconvenient.
This policy is unsustainable, unrealistic, and a job killer. Most importantly, it will end lives. Telling the Michigan trucking industry and all other industries that they are willing to move forward with this policy is unacceptable.
Today, the House of Representatives will send a resounding ``no'' to the radical left and a resounding ``yes'' to the middle class, to our job creators, to our employers, and to our truckers who keep America running.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do simple math, use common sense, and put this Biden-era California waiver to bed once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak against H.J. Res. 87, which will illegally stop California's efforts to work toward a greener and cleaner future through zero-emission trucks.
Strong vehicle standards protect Americans from expensive and volatile fossil fuels and accelerate the adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies to help us compete globally.
According to the American Lung Association, the L.A. metro area has the most polluted ozone in the country. This is due to the high concentration of freeways and heavy trucking industry and communities such as those in the San Fernando Valley like Pacoima and Sun Valley. Stopping these efforts will worsen our air quality and the public health of our communities that are already plagued with the effects of air pollution and vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, I am against this resolution and its goal of stripping California's ability to regulate air pollution
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for the families who cannot afford to breathe dirty air for another day. I rise for the parents who have rushed their child to the emergency room because the smog outside triggered another asthma attack. I rise for the young people who have the right to a future free from polluted air, climate disasters, and preventable health crises.
House Republicans are trying to overturn EPA's approval of California's clean air waivers, a move that would strip California's ability to protect its people from dangerous air pollution.
This isn't just about California. Over one dozen States voluntarily follow California's standards. If we overturn these waivers, then families from New York to Oregon will feel it, too, in their lungs.
States are not forced to adopt California's standards, but many choose to because of the harm air pollution causes their communities.
If these measures pass, then more pollution will fill our air, more kids will miss school because they are sick, more seniors will land in the hospital, more families will lose loved ones far too soon to preventable deaths, and billions of dollars will be spent on health expenses that could be avoided.
Communities like the ones I represent, low-income neighborhoods near freeways, ports, and warehouses and working-class communities of color, are already, indeed, breathing some of the dirtiest air in our country.
Thousands of people in California and around the country wrote in support of these clean air protections that Republicans want to rip away.
Jane Flynn, from the L.A. area, wrote EPA in support of the clean truck rule. She said: ``Living in southern California, I see how truck pollution impacts our families: asthma, heart disease, respiratory problems. These aren't just numbers. They are our children, our parents, and our neighbors. Please allow California to enforce stronger clean air protections.''
Tia Triplett from Los Angeles wrote to EPA that heavy truck pollution threatens the health of her community, and she urges stronger protections.
House Republicans want to silence these voices.
Our constituents don't need more diesel trucks idling near our homes, pumping smog into our lungs. They need cleaner trucks, cleaner cars, and cleaner air.
Mr. Speaker, we should build a future where children can play outside without an inhaler in their backpacks or around their necks, a future with fewer hospital visits, not more. We should stand with communities fighting for their right to breathe, not keep them polluted.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with our communities and protect their right to clean air. Vote ``no.''
On page H1748, April 30, 2025, in the second column, the following appeared: Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I am
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I am
prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, what I really want to stress today is that, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, the bottom line is that no State is forced to adopt the California rules.
I heard from speakers on the other side of the aisle from States that actually don't follow the California rules at all but somehow feel that they are being forced to comply, which is simply not the case.
Mr. Speaker, what you have to understand is the reason why we allow California and the States that follow it to do what they are doing is because, in those States, we have major pollution problems.
I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about a freedom to pollute or a freedom to choose. The bottom line is, when there is a problem with clean air, you don't really have a choice, Mr. Speaker. You are going to breathe dirty air.
Mr. Speaker, if you are in one of these States like California that feels that they have to have more strict compliance in order to deal with the clean air problem they have in their State, then it is really not fair to suggest that those States should not be able to deal with that problem and have more stringent standards so they can have cleaner air and avoid health problems for their constituents.
That is all we are talking about here. This is not a one-size-fits- all. It is just the opposite. It is a situation where each State makes a decision on whether they want to adopt California standards for their own pollution problems.
I don't think this should be a freedom to pollute. The bottom line is that every State has to look out for its own constituents, and if the situation is such that they need cleaner air and have to try to have some more limitations, then they should be allowed to do so. That is all we are really saying here. We want to protect the public and have cleaner air.
For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this resolution and allow California and other States like mine to continue to be more protective of their constituents.
On page H1748, April 30, 2025, in the second column, the following appeared: Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself the balance of my time.Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, is a great guy, and he is a good friend. He is mistaken in part and correct in part. He is right that it is not one-size-fits-all. It is two-sizes-fits-all, and States other than California aren't given the opportunity to determine whether they want to do something that is a little bit different than California or if they want to do something that is a little bit different than the national standard.
As Mr. Kiley pointed out in his very good comments on this subject, the problem is when California keeps ratcheting up their regulations, because they are a large economy, as has been pointed out, and because several other States decide to join them, although still in a minority, the manufacturers have to look at that and say: Are we going to manufacture two different types of vehicles for each class, or are we just going to follow what California has done?
De facto, this is a regulation on the Nation as a whole. De facto, this decision by the EPA is a regulation on the entire Nation.
That is why this Congress is paying attention to its own responsibilities and not listening to the bureaucrats and other unelected officials. We must make a decision and vote to pass H.J. Res. 87.
It is important to the Nation as a whole to protect our trucking industry and to protect jobs across this great land.
Mr. Speaker, 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.
Providing Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean...
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) providing congressional disapproval under
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 Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 88.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 88, a resolution providing for 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,'' sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania's resolution would repeal the EPA's decision to grant a Federal preemption waiver for this California Air Resources Board rule, the so-called Advanced Clean Cars II rule.
California had a strict vehicle emission standard before, but this rule right here is a mandate. It is a mandate, Mr. Speaker, for electric cars.
The requirement begins with 35 percent of the vehicles sold in 2026 being zero emissions and then scales up to 100 percent of vehicles sold by 2035.
This is an EV mandate, Mr. Speaker. Make no mistake about it.
Mr. Speaker, if you are shopping for a new car in 2035, then you are going to be forced to buy a zero-emission car. At present time, you will be paying more for that EV, about $14,000 more.
These are supposed to be tailpipe emissions standards, not emission standards that are so low or difficult to meet that electric cars are the only path to compliance.
I am not an anti-electric car person. I don't hate electric cars. If an electric car works for you and your family, Mr. Speaker, then so be it. That is fine, but what really gets me and a lot of my constituents stirred up about this is that we are mandating that these cars be the only ones sold.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a mountainous district where electric car batteries are not up to the challenge. When you factor in range problems and charging waiting times, it is not something that many in rural America can use.
I fear that we might find ourselves in situations like Cuba did after Fidel Castro took over. Because of the shortage of new cars in Cuba, people were doing everything they could to keep the pre-Castro cars on the road for decades and decades. In many districts like mine, we might have something similar with gas-burning cars if EVs are mandated.
Let me explain. My folks cannot afford to buy a new EV car. They can't really afford to buy a used car. Normally, what they do in a district like mine, which is economically stressed, is they will buy a used car. The problem is that with the batteries in the EV cars, if you buy a used car, Mr. Speaker, then you really don't have any idea how long it is going to be before that battery wears out.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, you buy the chassis and a battery hoping it works for you if you don't have any other choice. If the battery goes bad, then you are looking at $4,000, $5,000, maybe more, to replace the battery.
It is kind of like going to the roulette table and just throwing your money on the table and spinning the wheel, hoping that if you buy a used car, you might be able to make it work because the battery is so integral.
With gas-burning cars, a lot of them know how to fix the cars themselves, and they will make it work. They will continue using those gas cars as long as they can get any usage out of it whatsoever, no matter how bad of a shape it is in, because they can't afford to buy one of the leftwing's EV cars.
That is just not going to happen in my district by the timelines that they set up.
The technology is not available today, and when we are talking about 2035, the technology we are selling today is what my constituents are looking to buy used in the future. Many people drive cars more than 10 years old, and they are going to put our folks either without cars or still burning gas cars for many years, many decades, in the future.
There are some communities in my district that are more suburban and urban, and there an electric car may make sense for those folks. But some of my folks drive an hour or more to go to work or even go to school because it is cheaper for them to live at home and drive to the school. I am talking about the colleges and the law schools and the vet school and the pharmacy school in my district. Every day they drive back and forth to save money and they don't want to have to rely on an EV car that might not get them there and back.
When it is cold and you are going up a mountain, the EV doesn't get the mileage that is stated. It is kind of like your gas mileage. When you buy a car, it says a standard driver will get this much, but that doesn't work for everybody, particularly if you are climbing mountains. If you need to run errands before or after work, that adds to the time. It makes it so they have anxiety about recharging. That is a real issue for people being forced to drive EV cars.
I can't even get around my district in an EV car. I looked at it because I like the idea, but I sometimes drive 400 miles a day around my district. Oftentimes, there is no place to charge, or if there is, I am not stopping at any one place long enough to get a full charge on an EV battery.
Some might say this is just a California regulation. That is just not so. As we heard in the previous debate, and we will hear again in this debate, California is a dominant force in the economy. They will tell you that every day of the week.
Further, while California has a waiver, other States can opt into it. They can't modify it, but they can opt into the California standard. When they do, that pushes the manufacturers further and further in the direction of the California standard.
The States should either be equal or we should have a national policy. I am not so sure that we should give California a super-State status, imposing its preferences on the rest of the country.
It gets even worse. This started in 1966, and then it made some sense. Today, it doesn't make sense. Right now, we have 11 States opting in to this California standard: Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Maryland. With those States, even though they represent a minority of the population and a minority of the market and a minority of the States, they are dictating much of what is going to happen in the rest of the market.
Now, those markets add up to about 35 percent of the total new car market,
The situation we now find ourselves in is different than the one that was contemplated by the 90th Congress. In 1967, when the body passed the Air Quality Act, which later became the Clean Air Act after extensive amendments in later years, in that act California was allowed to have a waiver for stricter tailpipe pollution regulations. One of the big reasons this carve-out was made was because of the terrible smog that enveloped Los Angeles at the time.
I remember that. I can remember that being talked about in the news. We have all seen the old pictures. You have got the ocean on one side and the mountains inland. It causes an inversion where pollution just sits over the cities there. California was granted this exemption because it already had the capabilities to formulate and enforce stricter standards. That is not true for everywhere else, nor was it anticipated that they would continue to ratchet up to the point where they made many cars in the United States illegal.
The intent of the waiver was to allow California to have more stringent vehicle standards, not a way to have a backdoor ban on gasoline- and diesel-powered cars for the rest of the country.
I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 88, to roll back the State of California's EV-only agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague from Virginia and what he has been saying. I have to correct some things.
First of all, this idea that California is imposing a national mandate is not the case. Only certain States, a minority of States, have adopted the California standards, and there is a lot of flexibility in that.
His own State, Virginia, hasn't adopted the California standards. Maryland has modified the standards. My State adopted the California standards a year after California. So this idea that there is no flexibility or one size fits all is simply not the case.
You don't have to adopt the California standards at all. In fact, if you don't adopt the California standards in your State, you can continue to sell internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles.
Essentially what California is doing is, because of the fact that they have a major air pollution problem, they have adopted more stricter standards, and the Federal Government lets them do so.
As I mentioned during debate on the last resolution, this resolution--this one now is about cars, primarily--is a waste of time, because both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and, therefore, can't be revoked using the Congressional Review Act. This is just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy as they stand by and let it happen.
Now, in the case of California, their program builds on the success of previous standards and scales down light-duty vehicle emissions to reduce smog-forming pollution and greenhouse gases starting in the model year 2026 through 2035. This program has been in the works since 2020, and it provides a clear, planned, and gradual approach to transitioning to cleaner vehicles.
No State has to adopt it. The California standard only applies to new on-road vehicles. It does not impact cars already on the road or used cars. It is not an EV mandate. A wide variety of currently available vehicles, like hybrids, for example, which allow you to use gas, obviously most of the time, continue to be allowed.
I really had to laugh when I heard my colleague talk about--I think he said EVs are like a left-wing thing. I assure you that a lot of the people, maybe a majority of the people, driving around my district with electric vehicles are not voting for me. It is not a left-wing thing. People buy these whether they are Republican or Democrat, whether they are liberal or conservative. That is simply not true.
It is estimated that in California, their program will result in $13 billion in savings from reduced health costs, and the standards will save clean vehicle drivers $7,500 in maintenance and fuel costs over the first 10 years of use. These are real cost savings that will make a difference in people's lives.
Again, California is doing this because they are concerned about pollution. It does save money. It saves fuel costs. These savings are needed now more than ever because Trump's tariffs are wreaking havoc on our economy and particularly on car sales.
Trump's tariffs are expected to drive up the cost of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000. Republicans silently sit by and let it happen and keep bringing up these resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere.
A little more about California's advanced clean car program. It is forward-looking, it slashes harmful pollution and the associated health costs, and it also drives up investments, innovation, and job creation. They have proven to be a leader in improving air quality but also enabling significant economic growth.
Again, I don't want to take away from California. I think they are doing a good job, and I think my State of New Jersey, by following them, is doing a good job in trying to protect people from the health effects of dirty air.
There is nothing in any of this that requires other States to follow, and they haven't for the most part. They can continue to sell cars pursuant to the Federal standards that are for internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles.
I don't understand what the Republicans are talking about, but it is a waste of time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of the waivers before us today: H.J. Res. 87 by Representative James of Michigan; H.J. Res. 88, led by the vice chairman of the full committee, Representative Joyce of Pennsylvania; and H.J. Res. 89, led by Representative Obernolte of California.
The issue is that it is essentially becoming a nationwide mandate. Article I of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. These are the reasons that I would point to that we need to not have State-by-State standards for building automobiles.
What this is, is you can't build a gas-powered car in Michigan and sell it to somebody in California. California has 40 million people, over 10 percent of our country. When you start having a patchwork of State laws banning cars that can be driven anywhere else in the country, except California says no, New Jersey says no, and Maryland, as pointed out, says no, then it completely distorts national commerce.
If you think about it, by 2035, zero-emission cars in California, the problem with that is, I don't think anybody believes they can get there with that standard, just like the EV mandates by 2032.
What happens, though, these automotive companies have to start building for that. We see the results of it. In my district, BlueOval SK, which is tied to Ford Motor Company, has two battery plants. One they are building. Only one is going to have production in it. They are looking at what to do with the other one. They have that and another one in Bowling Green because they put out these mandates, and businesses have to follow them. When they don't come to pass, it is just not an efficient way to do business.
You have California doing mandates on having to buy electric cars or non-internal combustion engine cars. It is clearly within the purview of the Commerce Clause. It is clearly the responsibility of the national government to set up what the standards are so commerce can easily move across State borders.
If somebody builds a car in California, a gas-powered car in California, I think California has the right to ban their citizens from buying it. I don't think they have the right to ban their citizens from buying cars produced everywhere else in the States.
There are contracts among the States. It is clearly what our Founding Fathers intended. This certainly fits right in it, and I urge my colleagues to reject these policies and support the underlying resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution.
The American Lung Association recently issued its annual ``State of the Air'' report, which found that nearly one-half of all Americans are breathing unhealthy air.
Despite all the progress that has been made since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, air pollution remains a public health threat. This is especially true in California where over 90 percent of residents live in an area with poor air quality.
Given this tremendous public health threat, California has taken the initiative, as it is clearly authorized to do in the law, to protect its residents, including through the Advanced Clean Cars II Program.
We have gone over all of the reasons why the CRA is not applicable to this waiver. I will focus on the specifics of the underlying rule which will rapidly reduce tailpipe pollution from light-duty vehicles by increasing the percentage of new zero-emission vehicles sold in California to 100 percent in 2035.
I will try to dispel some of the myths about this rule. First, it only applies to new vehicles. No one is requiring people to give up their existing vehicles. Second, it does not apply to used vehicles, so there will continue to be a robust secondary market for internal combustion engines.
Third, I heard several Republican Members express their support for hybrid vehicles at the Rules Committee. Under this standard, plug-in hybrid vehicles can account for a significant portion of sales requirements through 2035.
Now, Members also raised a litany of concerns about the performance of electric vehicles, that they don't have adequate range, they don't perform well in cold climates, and they are too expensive. Well, as they are sharing those concerns, we have a Trump administration response that I will talk about.
We hear a lot of talk here today in this debate about executive overreach, primarily from the previous administration of President Biden. Well, I find it ironic that these complaints are coming up while the Trump administration is actively working to undermine Federal investments and programs to address these very issues.
The Trump administration is illegally freezing billions of dollars at the Department of Transportation that were intended to build out a network of charging stations, which will reduce range anxiety and improve the convenience of EV ownership.
The Trump administration has made the Department of Energy an unwelcoming place to work, resulting in 3,500 public servants leaving the agency who were responsible for supporting R&D funding to improve battery technology.
Mr. Speaker, talk about overreach by the executive branch. There it is. Improvements to batteries will allow for greater range, improved performance, and lower costs.
It has been very publicly reported that the majority is considering repeal of consumer incentives that reduce the upfront costs of EVs, all while giving people a clear choice of what vehicle to purchase.
Of course, after the upfront costs, EVs are proven to save consumers considerably through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Even that upfront cost is quickly approaching parity with internal-combustion vehicles as more and more activity is existing out there with the manufacturers globally.
If Members were truly concerned about the cost of vehicles, they would speak out about President Trump's reckless tariffs, which are expected to raise the cost of all vehicles, EVs and internal-combustion engines alike.
Finally, Republicans have suggested that the EV transition plays right into China's hands. The reality is that the market, both in the United States and globally, is heading down a clean-vehicle path. At this moment, China has emerged as the global leader.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding additional time.
Mr. Speaker, at the moment, China has emerged as the global leader, but its long-term dominance of the global EV market is not guaranteed.
Here is what I know for certain. If we do not compete, China benefits and will control those global supply chains. Yet, if we embrace this transition, we will give America's automakers and innovators a great opportunity to win the competition in clean vehicles.
The bottom line is that, at every turn, the Trump administration is sabotaging all efforts to build a domestic EV and battery manufacturing industry, and the attack on California's right to put forward more protective standards is part of that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reject this resolution, to allow California to make the decisions it needs to protect the health of its residents, and allow our entire country to have a better chance to create jobs and compete to dominate for the future of the automotive industry.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 88, but I will clarify one thing for my colleague on the other side of the aisle and add a little bit more color or correct the truth with the other half of the truth. That is, yes, Trump is trying to claw back some money for the infrastructure of building these charging stations. Why is that?
It is because the Biden administration gave them approximately $1 billion to build charging stations. Let's see. I think they built less than 10. I don't know about other Members, but I don't think that is a real good use of taxpayer money, so I am in support of clawing some of that money back. I thank President Trump.
Mr. Speaker, moving on to the resolution, this resolution offered by my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) would reverse a waiver granted by the Biden EPA that allows States to ban the sale of gas- powered vehicles. This EPA rule has legitimate constitutional questions and would increase costs for Americans and manufacturers.
Americans deserve to choose the car of their choice. In fact, Biden used liberal California to force a one-size-fits-all solution nationwide. One State should never dictate national policy because I can assure my colleagues that what works in California sure doesn't work for the people of my great State of Michigan.
In fact, this policy only hurts Michigan auto manufacturing jobs, threatening to kill 37,000 jobs in my State of Michigan. I am not for that.
This is yet another example of House Republicans righting the wrongs and failings of the previous administration. We are keeping our promises to the American people to restore common sense, roll back burdensome regulations, and lower prices.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 88.
It shouldn't be controversial to say that air pollution is dangerous. Every year, particulate-matter pollution kills more than 50,000 Americans. Study after study has linked air pollution to higher rates of cancer, heart disease,
If my colleagues are like me and grew up in California, then Members know the impacts of air pollution. I remember what it felt like to breathe smog and particulate pollution before we had the strong pollution standards that we have today.
In California, we have been dealing with the impacts of air pollution for a long time. California's unique geography, with its valleys, coastal basins, and surrounding mountain ranges, creates natural barriers that trap pollutants and contribute to unique air pollution challenges. As a State, we have long recognized the dangers of air pollution, and we have been a pioneer in addressing the root causes.
In fact, California's efforts to control air pollution predate Federal efforts in 1967. In 1967, California was the first State to establish a State air pollution control agency. The country soon followed with the Clean Air Act of 1970, which created the EPA and established the First national air pollution standards.
In light of California's unique air pollution challenges and our State's early leadership in tackling air pollution, the Clean Air Act grants California the authority to set its own stronger vehicle emission standards. Over the last 50 years, California has used this authority more than 100 times to update and strengthen our pollution standards, and these actions have actually saved countless lives across California.
Yet, this resolution would strip California's rights to manage deadly air pollutants within our own State, stripping away our right to protect ourselves. Why? Why are Republicans trying to degrade California's air quality? It is my constituents, my neighbors, and my fellow Sacramentans who will suffer if Republicans succeed in killing California's emission standards.
Mr. Speaker, I ask again: Why are Republicans willing to put the health and safety of our communities at risk? I think the real answer is that California's leadership helps to support automotive innovation. The catalytic converter and electric car are thanks to California's visionary leadership and re-imagining a future without air pollution.
Mr. Speaker, the oil industry is afraid of electric vehicles. Once again, Republicans are doing the bidding of oil lobbyists. Once again, the majority is on the wrong side of history, fighting to hold back the future for as long as they can. It is shameful and indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 88.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.J. Res. 88, my legislation to reverse California's radical electric vehicle mandate.
With one foot out the door, President Biden and his administration provided a waiver approving of California's policy to require all vehicle sales in the State to be electric vehicles by 2035. What makes this policy even more dangerous is that 17 other States, making up 40 percent of the American auto market, are set to adopt these regulations, including my home State of Pennsylvania.
If consumers want to purchase an EV, they should be able to, but Californian politicians have no right to remove the choice to buy a gas-powered vehicle from my constituents.
The Biden EPA wrongly allowed California to enact an electric vehicle mandate that will ultimately affect the entire United States.
What works in Glendale does not work in Gettysburg. Allowing the California waiver to stand impedes on the rights of all other States, even those who do not follow California standards.
Not only do EVs not fit the needs of so many American families, but they are incredibly costly, as well. In my district, the average household income is $65,000 a year, while the average price of an electric vehicle is more than $55,000 a year.
Prices in the used car market will also surge, as dealers will not have the gas-powered vehicles to sell because of the inventory of unsellable EVs. My constituents simply cannot afford this ridiculous regulation and should not be forced to purchase entirely unaffordable vehicles that do not meet their needs.
Our economy was built on an open market and the freedom of consumer choice. Congress cannot allow California to continue its abuse of its standing in the Clean Air Act to limit consumer freedom. It is time that we overturn this dangerous rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation to protect our auto industry, to protect our autoworkers, and, most importantly, to protect the freedoms of all of America.
Mr. Speaker, as a staunch defender of Michigan's auto industry, which is still the backbone of the American economy, and someone who cares deeply about the environment, I do not take this vote lightly.
I have spoken multiple times to all of the stakeholders involved. I believe in preserving consumer choice, maintaining American leadership in innovation, defending the future of domestic manufacturing, and protecting the environment. These are not mutually exclusive.
Michigan and the United States put the world on wheels, and we are now leading in the transition to the next generation of vehicles. We cannot afford to cede that leadership to our adversaries.
I will remind my colleagues that, in my lifetime, it wasn't that long ago when gasoline prices went up and American consumers wanted smaller cars. Japanese automakers flooded our markets with smaller vehicles, caught our domestic auto industry flatfooted, and U.S. manufacturers paid the price for that for a decade.
We must innovate, adapt, and build vehicles competitively here at home. The global marketplace wants EVs, hybrids, and internal- combustion engines.
To lead globally, we must accelerate the manufacturing of cleaner vehicles in a practical, affordable, and inclusive way. That means building out EV charging infrastructure, keeping hybrids and plug-in hybrids available, and assuring affordability, which is becoming one of the biggest issues in this country, especially when we are competing with at least one other country where the government subsidizes the manufacturing, uses forced labor, and manipulates its currency.
We cannot cede our leadership to China or any other country. This also means investing in advanced manufacturing, securing domestic battery supply chains, and protecting the Inflation Reduction Act's historic EV investments.
California's Advanced Clean Cars II program would impose EV sales mandates across nearly 30 percent of the U.S. market. While that may work for California, it isn't working in some other States.
Let me be clear. This is not the time to ban gas-powered vehicles. CARB and Governors must be able to adjust these programs if market conditions change. Maryland Governor Wes Moore recently did just that, easing compliance enforcement. Consumers in these other 13 ZEV mandate States need to be talking to their Governors, and CARB needs to pay attention.
I also share concerns about consumer choice, but this Congressional Review Act resolution has serious legal flaws. The Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian both ruled that these waivers are not subject to the CRA. Proceeding sets a dangerous precedent.
Misusing the CRA today could open the door to striking down a wide range of Federal programs tomorrow, including Medicaid waivers, which worries me greatly. I don't sleep at night on that one.
We are here today because some States have adopted stricter rules that could ban new gas-powered vehicles by this summer. I support the EV transition, but we are simply not there yet.
For model year 2026, ACC II States would require 35 percent of new car sales to be a mix of electric or plug-in hybrid, yet the national average is at about 10 percent. That requirement jumps to 68 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035 for the ZEV mandate States. For most States, this is simply not realistic today.
We need all the stakeholders at the table--labor, manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, consumers, the environmental groups--to work together for the American people and figure it out and figure it out right so that we stay competitive in a global marketplace, meet consumer demands, take care of the environment, sell affordable cars, and keep manufacturing in this country.
This resolution would be unprecedented Federal overreach. While I disagree with California's timeline, I also disagree with misusing the CRA to address it.
If we are serious about America's leadership, EVs must be in our portfolio. I remain committed to protecting American jobs, expanding consumer choice, and ensuring U.S. leadership in global automotive innovation.
The American people sent us here to solve problems.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, let's stop wasting time on illegitimate messaging CRAs and work together to support innovation, build out the infrastructure, ensure access to affordable American-made vehicles, whether gas-powered, hybrid, or electric. Let's work together for our country.
Mr. Speaker, referencing my previous comments related to the GAO, et cetera, I will not yield to the GAO on what the responsibilities of the United States Congress are.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for leading this.
For my dear colleague from Michigan who just spoke on that, I greatly appreciate she got most of the way there. Indeed, why we have the Congressional Review Act is to reel in out-of-control bureaucracies and bad mandates that come down the pike. That is why we have H.J. Res. 88, led by my good colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
We are supposed to take back when government gets out of control. In this case here, people are not going to have control of their automobile choices. We see, with the mandate coming down the pike here, that by 2026--that is next year. This current model year is almost over with, 2025 vehicles. By 2026, it will be a requirement of 35 percent of vehicles sold--in one more model year in these States, 35 percent.
At the current rate in California and New York, about 10 percent of these vehicles are being sold. How the heck are you going to jump to 35 percent in a year?
Nobody wants to buy these cars. Mr. Speaker, as you see when you go talk to the dealers, they have to have a certain number of vehicles that meet these mandates on the lot that aren't selling in order to get a Jeep or something you want that has a gas-powered engine in it or a pickup with a bigger engine it. They have to sell a certain number of these other ones to meet the quota. They can't sell the other stuff because they are not what people want to buy.
When talking about vehicles to be replaced anyway, these cars cost half again as much as a similar size, similar used car. Who is supposed to afford that?
Go down the supply chain here. People with a lower income probably primarily buy used vehicles. There is going to be a bigger premium on used cars on the market that are going to be less available to people with more moderate incomes.
As it is, we are going to see the $7,500 incentive done under the IRA disappear soon. When we are talking $14,000 more per vehicle anyway, and that $7,500 incentive is gone to people who can file a tax return with all of those complications on it, because there is a large standard deduction, thanks to the JOBS Act legislation a few years ago--most people can't even take advantage of that if it is there.
What are we talking about? By 2035, 100 percent of these cars are going to be battery-powered. What were we just saying a while ago about the power grid? What were we talking about with all of these data centers coming online using mass amounts of new electricity? When are we going to talk about that we can't produce power plants in this country? We can hardly get out of our tracks to build nuclear plants. They are tearing down hydroelectric plants in my district that make CO2-free power. We love to stop CO2, right? That is what this whole electric deal is about.
Let's go back to 1990 in California, when CARB, the California Air Resources Board, decided we are going to require that by the year 2000, 10 percent of all vehicles have to be zero emission.
What happened? Mr. Speaker, go to your dealers there and you see these little golf carts with license plates slapped on them that are pretending to be automobiles. They are trying to get those into the market. Nobody is going to buy that. Nobody is going to drive that. They are not even safe.
CARB had to relent on that year 2000 goal, and they are going to have to relent again on this and on the trucks because it isn't realistic for real consumers, for real people. They don't want these cars unless they can get a sticker and drive in the fast lane in California on that, but that is a narrow group.
One of the automobile reps I talked to drives from Sacramento up to Oroville and then has to go on up to Susanville. He is unsure if the pickup he has, which is a new electric pickup, is going to be able to make the whole trip. They are uncertain whether he can cover that trip, about a little over an hour here and about an hour and a half up the mountain to get the job done.
People have uncertainty about even being able to rely on these vehicles. We have all heard the story about someone who bought a new pickup. I think he is from Michigan. He bought a camper, the whole works. It was to take his family on vacation. He made it about two States away. He had to stop and recharge so often that he finally took the truck to a different dealership, a different brand, and traded it in and bought another one with a diesel and finished the family vacation on that.
This is the stuff they are going to put normal consumers through with these mandates, and it is going to happen in many States. A lot of times people in an industry, auto manufacturers, they want to just have one standard. They will take the worst standard that affects everybody, like food labeling and stuff, and foist it upon everybody else.
We need to pass H.J. Res. 88 and give people a choice.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it really bothers me that I never hear during this debate anybody on the Republican side of the aisle talk about clean air and the fact that we need to continue to make progress toward clean air because of the negative impacts of air pollution on people's health, particularly people who have health problems, asthma and other health problems.
I want to talk a little bit about the Clean Air Act and why it is important, and then I will talk a little bit about the California standards.
Thanks to the Clean Air Act, America has made massive strides in cleaning up our air, but we still have a long way to go. Nearly half of all Americans are breathing unhealthy air, and I think that that is unacceptable.
Air pollution is a serious public health crisis. It can lead to health problems like lung cancer, asthma attacks, heart disease, and even premature death. Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. I have reiterated this statistic before, and I am not going to stop until I make my Republicans on the other side of the aisle understand that we are still trying to clean up the air and save people's lives.
Tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks, and other vehicles are significant sources of air pollution. Burning gasoline and diesel fuel contributes particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases into the air.
The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one-third of overall pollution. Therefore, strong vehicle emissions standards are necessary to combat these deadly trends.
The three waivers under threat today in these three bills would yield $45 billion in health benefits and prevent 4,700
Eliminating these waivers would allow more than 1.5 billion metric tons of nitrogen oxides, 17,700 metric tons of fine particulates, and 1.6 billion metric tons of climate-harming emissions to poison our air.
I know that President Trump says that climate change is not real, not human-induced, but the fact of the matter is that the pollution problem continues. Climate change continues.
Nullifying the California waivers is going to wreak havoc on Americans' well-being and public health, leading to more premature deaths. There is no doubt about it.
I find it deeply disappointing that in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, Republicans are continuing the trend of putting polluters over people by attempting to nullify health-protective vehicle emissions standards.
What is worse is that, at the same time, Republicans are also plotting to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, take healthcare away from millions of people, all so they can secure tax breaks for their billionaire friends and big corporation cronies.
I have heard the Republicans on the other side act as if the California standards are a mandate and that they are going to mandate electric vehicles. Members on the Republican side from Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, and Ohio have all spoken. None of those States have adopted the California standards. I have no reason to believe that any of them ever intend to adopt the California standards.
This is not a mandate. They can continue to sell internal combustion gas-powered cars in those States. Nobody is saying they can't, but they still have to meet the national standards, which are not really at issue today. They still have to meet the national standards for tailpipe emissions with those vehicles, as it should be because we want to have clean air.
There is nothing in the law that says that other States can't continue to sell gas-powered cars. Even under the California standards, they can still sell hybrid vehicles. There are other options. For a hybrid, most of it is still being powered by gas.
I just think that the Republicans are giving the impression that somehow California is dictating what we do in other States, and that is simply not true.
Madam Speaker, today, I am presenting a resolution I have sponsored under the Congressional Review Act to reverse California's ban on gas-powered vehicles, to stop a single individual, Gavin Newsom, from dictating what tens of millions of Californians and other Americans are allowed to drive.
Madam Speaker, let me tell you where this ban came from. It was September 23, 2020. California was in the throes of the worst wildfire recorded in our State's history. There was untold suffering. Our heroic firefighters were doing everything they possibly could to get the blaze under control. Governor Newsom came out and announced: Here is what we are going to do. We are going to ban gas-powered cars. Our cars make wildfires worse.
It was an absurd, pathetic attempt to deflect responsibility from his own failures, for an NPR investigation would soon find that Newsom exaggerated the fire prevention work he had done by a staggering 690 percent and had also slashed the fire prevention budget by $150 million.
Newsom's edict eventually took the form of the regulation that is in front of us today, and on his way out the door, President Biden gave him special authority to effectively impose it on the rest of the country.
Three things about this mandate are undoubtedly true: Number one, it was never voted on, not in Sacramento, not in Washington. Number two, it does have a nationwide impact. Number three, it is not just a problem for the future. The 35 percent mandate goes into effect next year.
Therefore, we must act with urgency to democratically reverse that which was unilaterally imposed. It will be one of the most important things we do in this Congress. It will lower costs and restore common sense. It will restore the paradigm of consumer choice.
Madam Speaker, I like EVs. I happen to drive an EV myself. It works well for where I live and for my lifestyle, but I would never think to use the coercive powers of government to impose my personal preferences as a consumer on everyone else. Americans should be able to drive a car of their choice, not one that is chosen for them by the government.
Finally, with this resolution, we can restore a paradigm of dynamic innovation rather than command and control mandates. It is an odd approach to innovation that says we are going to force innovation by banning any and all available alternatives. I believe in the future of clean energy. I believe that it is upon us now, but that future is being driven by entrepreneurs and innovators, not by vainglorious politicians.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to this resolution passing. I hope it does with bipartisan support, so we can prevent the insanity of California's politics from infecting the rest of the Nation.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 88.
In the final weeks of 2024, the Biden-led EPA approved a waiver allowing California to ban the sale of gas-powered diesel and even hybrid vehicles by 2035, effectively paving the way for the State to set emission standards for the entire Nation.
This resolution overturns this waiver, protecting the right of every American to choose the vehicle that works best for them. For many consumers and entrepreneurs, they see conventional gas-powered cars as reliable, affordable, and able to meet the needs of their families and small businesses. Yet, the Biden administration chose to team up with radical climate activists to support the one-size-fits-all electric vehicle mandate that the market and the American people have clearly rejected.
This legislation is about defending consumer choice. Let's make sure California does not dictate what the rest of America drives.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I will just stress that my Republican colleagues like to wrongfully assert that California standards set the vehicle emission policy for the whole of the United States, and it just demonstrates an inaccurate understanding of the Clean Air Act.
So let me just close by explaining this.
Through section 209 of the Clean Air Act, Congress provided the EPA the ability to grant California Federal preemption waivers to set more protective vehicle emissions standards to address the compelling need to reduce air pollution in that State.
The resolutions at issue today are about one State's Clean Air Act waivers, California, not the entirety of the United States. Other States do have the flexibility to voluntarily adopt California standards in whole or in part, modify the standards to their specific needs, or just not adopt the standards entirely.
As I have mentioned, most of the speakers on the Republican side, their States haven't adopted the standards at all. If your State doesn't want to
Now, just last week, the American Lung Association issued its annual ``State of the Air'' report, which shows that nearly half of all Americans breathe unhealthy levels of air pollution. Unhealthy air leads to hospitalization, increased infant and fetal mortality, impaired development in children, and the higher likelihood of illness and cancer, among other detrimental health impacts.
We know that air pollution has serious impacts on the most vulnerable among us, especially pregnant women and children, populations my Republican colleagues claim to care a lot about. If you want women to have more children but can't muster the courage to ensure pregnant women and children have safe air to breathe, what are you talking about?
The bottom line is, we have to do something about the air pollution in this country. If some States like California and mine want to have more strict standards, they should be allowed to do so because they have more air pollution problems. It is that simple. That is why I oppose this resolution and will oppose all three resolutions today.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I was saying to the team over here that I was getting a little tired of hearing myself speak, and I suspect that my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, is probably getting to that same point, too, because our job is to reiterate the same points over and over because we have three bills of a similar nature.
Notwithstanding the fact that I am tired of hearing myself speak, I will proceed nonetheless.
I will say that States can opt in and out, but they only have the choice of the national standard or the California standard. Why is that?
Madam Speaker, that is because back in 1966, California started moving in this direction. In 1967, Congress passed its first national rules. It recognized that California was already moving in a slightly different direction, and it gave them the ability to have a waiver. Other States could opt in to that, but in 1966, the world was greatly different than it is today.
In fairness, a big part of the air pollution in the Western part of the United States comes because of previous bad rules by the EPA that force so much of American manufacturing to Asia, particularly to China.
China was not a major economic power in 1966. They were going through all kinds of problems, and I don't remember now if they were in the Cultural Revolution or about to start it, but it was about that time.
Today, they are a major manufacturer but they don't have the regulations that we have and they produce a lot of air pollution. According to a NASA study, it takes 10 days for the air to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of Virginia, and a lot of that pollution is falling on California.
If we really want to solve California's air pollution problems, we need to bring manufacturing back to the United States where we can do it more efficiently and cleaner than what they are doing currently in China. Further, regulations like this only play into the hands of manufacturing being done in China instead of being done in California or in Michigan or in Virginia or in Kentucky.
Now, the gentleman raised the issue about nobody is talking about clean air. There is your clean air talk, Mr. Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend from New Jersey, because if we really want to clean things up, we will stop regulations like this that make it harder on American businesses.
The gentleman correctly points out that this is only for California and other States can opt in. What happens is, manufacturers respond to California and they respond to a few other States, even though it is not a majority, Madam Speaker; even though it is not a majority of the States or a majority of the population that has opted in to any of these three regulations that we are doing today or intends to. Some States have opted in to the California rule on this one and then opted out, including my State of Virginia.
It becomes a mishmash and very difficult for manufacturers to know what they are supposed to be doing. The regulations that were anticipated--was it a tailpipe emission regulation--were never intended that the regulation by California and other States, perhaps, would be so low as to outlaw gas and diesel vehicles. That is why we need to pass this CRA.
We have the authority in Congress to do so notwithstanding bureaucrats that work for us, not the other way around, and notwithstanding whatever the Senate might say.
If I have additional time, Madam Speaker, you know how I feel about this. We were directed in Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice and Procedure not to discuss and debate what the Senate was going to do or not going do. If we wanted a unicameral body, we should have had a unicameral body. We have a bicameral body, and this House must make its own decisions and not worry about what the Senate does or whatever the heck the Senate Parliamentarian may think.
It is the United States House of Representatives, and we should not take a back seat to any institution, particularly the unelected ones here in Washington, D.C.
Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to vote for this 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.
Providing Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control...
Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up 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 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 Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 89.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 89, a resolution providing for 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,'' sponsored by the gentleman from California.
The gentleman from California's resolution would repeal the EPA decision to grant a waiver to the California Air Resources Board rule on heavy-duty engine emissions of nitrogen oxides, or NOX.
I think it is interesting to point out here because the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) pointed out in the debate on the previous two bills that these rules were approved by a nonelected body in Washington, D.C., for a waiver to a nonelected body in the State of California, so it is interesting that this is a waiver granted not to the legislature even of California but to the California Air Resources Board.
This standard, believe it or not, of the three California regulations we are discussing today, has probably the toughest timeline of compliance.
Now, Madam Speaker, you had to pay close attention because at first I thought my team had made an error. This rule would require a 75 percent NOX reduction beginning with model year 2024.
Now, you say: Wait, how can that be? This is 2025.
Well, that is a good question, and a lot of people are asking that question, and manufacturers are having to think maybe we have got to do something to be ready for retroactive action.
Now, if we were passing something, I am not sure we could do it retroactive in this nature. Maybe we could. Now we are going to have unelected bureaucrats on top of unelected bureaucrats affecting a regulation passed originally by Congress and authorized by Congress and now a regulation waiving a regulation on another regulation. It doesn't seem right.
Due to the fact that the EPA had not yet granted the waiver when the rule was made, there was already some uncertainty in the marketplace because of concerns with that retroactive enforcement that I just mentioned.
This rule would require--but, wait. Like the old Ronco commercials: But wait, Madam Speaker, there is more. This rule would require a 90 percent reduction in NOX from diesel engines beginning with model 2027 engines.
Do you think they are already getting those in production? I think they probably are, Madam Speaker. I think they are already working on it. Now, before it has even become the law of the land through a waiver of a regulation on a regulation, we have a 90 percent reduction in NOX being required. It would be a 90 percent reduction from current Federal emissions standards in 2027. Did I say that yet? I believe I did.
This California regulation is coming over top of Federal regulators in an effort to truly vilify diesel engines. Some diesel engine manufacturers will have compliance concerns, and already do, and they may end up having to purchase NOX credits from electric vehicle manufacturers and may have to purchase credits.
Now, that credit is a Federal credit. The emissions credit trading system adds another layer of complexity to the compliance and shows how difficult it can be to marry up the Federal standards with these new California standards. It is essentially allowing some Federal credits to be transferred to the California pool depending on vehicle sales in California. Confusing, convoluted, and hard to follow. You bet it is.
Another burden that manufacturers will have to account for are extended engine warranties and new testing procedures that will inevitably have some costs that will have to be borne by fleet operators who purchased the trucks and by consumers who will have to pay more in freight costs for everyday goods. We have already seen lower truck sales in California and, as expected and previously predicted by one of our earlier speakers, increased purchase prices.
Briefly, I will address the congressional resolution of disapproval process. We have heard a lot today about all this, and I would submit to you that Congress under Article I should deal with repealing regulations, particularly when that regulation has significant impact and is as controversial as this one is.
In the end, it is the House that is covered; the EPA transmitted the California waiver notices of decision on the regulations in February. The notice was published in the Federal Register. The public was allowed to request a hearing and submit materials for the record. It is a rulemaking process on a rule and regulation, no matter what others may choose to call it. Madam Speaker, they can call it whatever they want to. I know what it is, and it is the waiver of a regulation by the Federal Government in order to give power to a regulation in California. They can call it a notice of decision. They can call it the epizooty if they want to, call it anything they want. We all know what it is. It is a regulation. To paraphrase Shakespeare: A rose by any other name still smells the same.
Accordingly, I would submit to you that we have jurisdiction. I would submit, further, Madam Speaker, that while CRAs can't be reviewed by the courts, when this passes--and I think it will, notwithstanding outside objectors--CRAs technically can't be reviewed by the courts.
It will be interesting to see when it gets to the Supreme Court because I believe the Supreme Court will agree with me: Regulators can call it whatever they want to, but when you are waiving regulations and allowing other regulations to take their place, that is subject to the Congressional Review Act and this process we are doing today.
I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of the resolution of disapproval sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), H.J. Res. 89. Even if you are not 100 percent in agreement, you ought to do it so that we can preserve the power of Congress because if not, we should dissolve and let California run everything, or perhaps my colleagues would like us to dissolve and make all decisions the subject of the Government Accountability Office instead of the elected Members of the United States Congress. I ask everyone to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 89.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 89, yet another extremist, and I believe illegal, Congressional Review Act resolution attacking a commonsense regulation to protect Americans' health and the environment.
Now, H.J. Res. 89 would block the California waiver for the heavy- duty omnibus rule that sets stronger standards to lower nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty engines. The trucking industry makes up just 10 percent of vehicles on the road, but 45 percent of nitrogen oxide and 56 percent of particulate matter pollution.
Nitrogen oxide is a precursor for smog that can exacerbate numerous health conditions and is associated with premature death. People who live near ports, highways, and warehouses are disproportionately exposed to high concentrations of this pollution.
Now, the California standard aims to address this pollution and reverse course on these deadly trends. This is based on California's unique circumstances. They have an air pollution problem that is a lot worse than many of the other States.
Despite Republicans' false claims, the California program does not ban internal combustion engine trucks. Maintaining the California program is critical to improve public health outcomes and secure the right to clean air for everyone. Repealing California's Federal preemption waiver for its heavy-duty omnibus plan will rob Americans of over $23 billion of health benefits through 2050 and increase premature mortality, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits.
This resolution is a waste of our time because, as I have said on the other two, both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and, therefore, cannot be revoked using the Congressional Review Act. It is just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy.
This resolution is going nowhere, but for all these reasons, Madam Speaker, I oppose the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We keep hearing that it is not a rule and it is not a regulation and that kind of stuff. I just ask if it is not a rule, does that mean it is not enforceable, and does that mean it can be repealed by the next administration with a click of the fingers? I don't know the answer to those questions. I just raise them. If it is not official, is it even enforceable? That is the argument that my colleagues would have you believe.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my friend for yielding. I rise as the proud sponsor of this bill, H.J. Res. 89, but also as a proud Californian.
This bill would overturn the EPA's waiver granting California the ability to decide for all Californians what cars they drive and what trucks they use to deliver their goods.
This waiver was granted in the waning moments of the Biden administration, and I believe it was shortsighted and misguided.
To be clear, I am not an opponent of electric vehicles, and I consider myself an environmentalist, but I feel strongly that my constituents ought to have the ability to buy for themselves the vehicle that will best meet their needs. For some of them, that is an electric vehicle. For some of my delivery companies, that is an electric truck; but for some, it is not. I believe our country was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty, and that means we are empowered to choose for ourselves about those decisions and not have our government make those decisions for us.
Make no mistake, it is entirely appropriate that we are taking this action here today. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives this body, the United States Congress, the ability to regulate interstate commerce. As everyone knows, these vehicles, cars and trucks, are not just manufactured for one State, the State of California, they are manufactured for a worldwide audience. It is very much interstate commerce that is at stake here.
Also, let's be clear about this: If it were more efficient or less expensive to deliver using zero-emissions trucks, these companies would already be doing it, but the truth is it absolutely is not. It is more expensive. By forcing this choice on California consumers, we will also be forcing on them all of the concomitant increases in the prices of the goods that they buy every day.
Let me remind you, California already has the worst poverty of any State in the country. Madam Speaker, this waiver would have made it even worse. That is why I think it is entirely appropriate for us to be considering this action today.
Also consider how nonsensical it is for us to run a system of interstate commerce where trucks deliver goods from State to State to State. If we were to allow every single State in the country to establish its own emission standards for those trucks, every one of these goods would have to stop at every single State line and be transshipped from one truck to another truck. Madam Speaker, that is ridiculous, costly, inefficient, and unnecessary.
I believe this body is entirely appropriate in taking this action today, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, H.J. Res. 89, and the other Congressional Review Act actions we are taking today.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution. We have already heard so much debate about why the Congressional Review Act is not applicable to these waivers and why this is such an egregious attack on States' rights, so I won't belabor those points.
I will say that California developed this rule, the heavy-duty omnibus rule, to reduce pollution from some of the worst sources of traditional air pollution from the transportation sector.
This rule does not include a sales requirement for zero-emission trucks, but it would result in diesel vehicles reducing their output of harmful NOX and particulate matter.
Despite these trucks and buses being only a small fraction of vehicles on the road, they account for some 45 percent of NOX and 56 percent of fine particulate matter pollution from the transportation sector.
We know that heavy-duty vehicles have a long lifespan. Vehicles sold today will still be on the roads for many, many years. Ensuring that new trucks and buses are as low-polluting as possible not only reduces pollution today, but will continue to contribute to cleaning up our air for decades to follow.
I know this decision to regulate was not made lightly. The California Air Resources Board spent significant time working with truck and engine manufacturers to allow for compliance flexibilities and alignment with EPA's NOX standards, but, ultimately, California's decision to pursue this rule was done for the sake of their residents, residents that live along highways and ports and who experience a disproportionate amount of pollution from truck traffic.
Madam Speaker, anyone who has spent time in neighborhoods that border these industrial sites, as I have in the south end of Albany that I represent, knows that these additional public health protections are not only warranted but they are indeed necessary.
I am glad that California is leading the way in reducing diesel truck pollution, and we should not stop them from wanting to better protect these fenceline communities.
Of course, no other State is required to adopt the California rule. Like so many other vehicle innovations, I suspect that many of our constituents, whether our States adopt the rule or not, will thank California for supporting the development of new pollution control technologies that will result in all of us benefiting from cleaner and healthier air.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to reject this resolution.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 89, which would nullify California's Low NOX rule. My Republican colleagues will talk about the supposed EV mandate and how California is forcing the rest of the country to drive EVs. This is obviously ridiculous. California's regulations are for California. We aren't forcing anyone else to do anything.
It is especially ridiculous to call California's Low NOX rule an EV mandate. The Low NOX rule for heavy-duty trucks does not mandate zero-emission vehicles. It is specifically and narrowly targeted to reduce NOX production which is a primary ingredient in forming smog.
Anyone who grew up in California knows the health impacts of smog. Thick clouds used to hang over our city, burning our eyes and lungs. We have come a long way since then,
California cities still take 5 of the top 10 spots for the worst smog pollution. Smog increases the incidence of asthma and other respiratory conditions, especially among children and the elderly. It is linked to a host of other metabolic, cardiovascular, and developmental impacts.
These impacts add up. Reducing smog-forming NOX is expected to have health benefits for California, saving approximately $36.8 billion in avoided health costs. That is not just dollars and cents. That is thousands of lives that will be saved if this regulation goes into effect.
California has long been a global leader in the fight against air pollution, recognizing early on the serious health risks posed by dirty air. For 50 years, we have worked hard to protect our communities through strong, forward-thinking air pollution regulations.
After establishing the first tailpipe emission standards in 1966, California established the first NOX standards in 1971, followed by the first particulate matter standards in 1982. California was also the first State to outfit vehicles with catalytic converters, a decision that transformed efforts to reduce harmful smog-forming emissions from vehicles.
The country has benefited greatly from California's leadership, not because California forced the rest of the country to follow suit but rather because the country saw the health benefits that California has enjoyed.
None of this would have been possible without California's leadership and California's authority under the Clean Air Act to set our own air pollution standards.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for clean air and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 89.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republicans' dangerous attempt to revoke California's ability to protect public health and reduce toxic vehicle emissions.
The Clean Air Act is clear. California has the fundamental right to adopt vehicle emission standards that support our communities' unique needs better than Federal standards.
This isn't new. It has been the law for more than 50 years, and the Clean Air Act has been upheld by every administration, Republican and Democrat. Republicans are making an extremist attack on this precedent, and it is utterly hypocritical for them to call for States' rights when it suits them.
I spent 10 years in the California Legislature, and I know firsthand how critical it is for our States to meet the needs of our local communities whose health and safety are at risk due to pollution.
The consequences of this are real. Toxic air pollution causes asthma, heart disease, and contributes to over 100,000 deaths in America every year. We have a moral duty to protect our residents from unnecessary toxic air pollution and environmental harm.
Let's be clear. This attack comes as Republicans are trying to gut Medicaid. While they are stripping healthcare from millions of Americans, at the same time they are attacking our ability to protect public health. It makes no sense.
It also makes no sense to create chaos for automakers that already agreed to meet these standards with investments in domestic EV production and manufacturing that created over 200,000 new jobs and nearly $200 billion in private investment.
If they really cared about reducing costs for American families, Republicans would focus on reversing Trump's reckless tariffs that are increasing car prices by up to $15,000.
This is a hyperpartisan, political stunt that wastes everyone's time. The Government Accountability Office has explicitly said that Congress cannot use this process to overturn California's waivers with the EPA, and we should not pretend otherwise.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this effort. Let's stand up for clean air, State rights, and for the health of the American people.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are really misleading the American people with their claims about the Heavy-Duty Low NOX Omnibus rule. This rule actually gives California and other States the ability to clean up pollution from dirty diesel trucks, protecting the health of Americans and saving lives.
Heavy-duty engines emit harmful NOX and other toxic pollutants that are significant contributors to ozone and particulate matter. The health effects of this air pollution are well-documented and include respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and even death.
Madam Speaker, the Clean Air Task Force recently issued a report showing the impacts of dirty diesel on communities. The figures are staggering, and here are just a few highlights.
In 2026, dirty diesel is projected to cause nearly 500,000 lost workdays, impacting our Nation's productivity; over 3,500 heart attacks; thousands of cases of respiratory illness; and, yes, over 8,000 deaths. Dirty diesel will cost Americans over $90 billion in health damages. Republicans are fighting for resolutions that are hurting people's health and putting lives at risk.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, this is the third of three regulations in the same vein. We have heard today about the process. We have heard today about the fact that California and those who opt in are still a minority of the States and a minority of the U.S. population. Yet, they are dictating in many ways to the rest of the country because of the oversized import of the California economy, et cetera.
The bottom line is that my colleagues have said in the last few minutes that this is somehow a States' rights issues. This is not a States' rights issue. This is the creation of a superstate: California. We have the right to override the waiver granted to them that gives them outsized weight in relationship to vehicles. In this case, it is the diesel vehicles. It is the trucks.
That being said, no one State should have this much power. The waiver should not have been granted in the first place. It is a waiver of a regulation, which makes it a regulation in effect, no matter what it is called. It is a waiver of a regulation.
Therefore, it is something that the Federal Government should be dictating, as you heard my colleague from California say. It should not be granting so many waivers. We heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that--I forget the number of years it had been, and I am paraphrasing--California had ratcheted up these regulations on various things over 100 times using various waivers.
This was created in 1967. California started down this path in '66. Congress recognized that in '67. The world is greatly different than it was in 1967. We shouldn't be allowing California to constantly ratchet up and then dictate to the rest of the States.
I was just a kid back in 1967, but I was alive. The world was vastly different even inside the United States. At that time one State doing something didn't have the impact or the ripple effect that it has today across the country.
I think we ought to vote ``yes'' on this resolution. I strongly encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 89. I think it is the right policy for all the reasons stated throughout this entire day.
Madam Speaker, I would say to you that if we don't want to see an increase in the price of trucks, the price of maintenance on trucks, the price of those trucks then carrying goods to market all over these United States, if we do not want to see that happen, we need to pass H.J. Res. 89 and stop this inappropriate waiver by the Biden administration's EPA.
Madam Speaker, 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.
Providing Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty...
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. 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'', 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, nays 191, not voting 11, as follows:
Messrs. AUCHINCLOSS, FIELDS, TORRES of New York, Ms. CLARKE of New York, and Messrs. HORSFORD and VEASEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. McCLAIN DELANEY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Providing Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control...
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. 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'', 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 225, nays 196, not voting 12, as follows:
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call vote nos. 111 and 112 because I attended my daughter's senior awards night ceremony. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call No. 111, H.J. Res. 87, and Nay on Roll Call No. 112, H.J. Res. 89.
Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be physically present for votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 111 and NAY on Roll Call No. 112.
Mr. Speaker, whether they wear scrubs, a firefighter's helmet, or a badge, every town in America has real-life heroes, familiar faces who serve their communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true hometown hero, Chief Bryan Gilliard of North Carolina's Monroe Police Department.
For 32 years, Chief Gilliard has dedicated his life to public safety, including the last 11 years leading Monroe's police force.
Born and raised in Union County, Chief Gilliard has given his entire career back to the community, and Monroe is a better place for it. He has truly exemplified the best of what it means to wear the badge.
Today, on his final day, as he enters into retirement, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Gilliard for his three decades of service.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to mark the most solemn day of the year for the people of the Vietnamese diaspora.
Black April, Thang Tu Den, is not just a solemn day in history. It is a reminder of the day we lost everything--our homes, our livelihood, and our beloved country.
I am honored and humbled by the trust the Little Saigon community has placed in me as the first Vietnamese-American Congressman to represent the largest Vietnamese diaspora in the world. It is a privilege to share the story of my family and community with my colleagues in Congress and ensure that our history is never forgotten.
This is a painful day, a day for reflection, remembrance, and mourning.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in not only remembering the hardships we faced but also in celebrating the incredible resilience of the Vietnamese people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of longtime Lenawee County Sheriff Richard Germond, who sadly passed away Wednesday morning at 90 years of age.
Sheriff Germond joined the department when he was 21 years old and ultimately served as Lenawee County Sheriff for 36 years, making him Michigan's longest serving sheriff. He also was a member of the Lenawee Intermediate School District Board of Education for 25 years, supporting students in our community.
Sheriff Germond is a hero in every sense of the word and will be remembered as a model sheriff and a leader to many.
Mr. Speaker, Sheriff Germond was a prominent member of the Lenawee community, and we honor him for his service and commitment to keeping us all safe. He will be sorely missed, and his impact on our community will be felt for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, 100 days: irresponsible tariff imposition, confusing businesses, and tanking the stock market; illegal seizure of citizens without judicial process; dramatic cuts to the delivery of Social Security benefits and veteran benefits; abandoning environmental protections for clean air and clean water; destabilizing families, hospitals, and nursing homes with pending Medicaid cuts; and siding with a ruthless aggressor, Russia, rather than the victim, Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, 100 days: exonerated violent criminal behavior from the January 6 insurrection; unethical efforts to end investigations on allies and donors; firing talented, career-committed professionals and replacing them with blind loyalists; insulting Canada, Mexico, Denmark, and the European Union; disruption of programs; threats to universities, law firms, State and local governments, the Federal workforce, and the media; and threats to elected officials.
The American people gave the MAGA movement a narrow majority 6 months ago, but now they are having second thoughts. There is no golden age ahead, just a recession. Contrast this with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who, in 100 days, saved America.
Mr. Speaker, on April 26, after a tragic off-duty accident, the east Texas law enforcement community lost one of its young, rising stars, Tyler Police Officer Sam Lively.
I rise today to honor Officer Lively, to mourn alongside his family, and to pray for peace and comfort for all who knew him during his 25 years of life.
Officer Lively embodied the very best of east Texas, dedicating his life to serving others and protecting the community he loved as a member of the Tyler Police Department since 2023. His service was underscored by courage, compassion, and commitment.
Those who knew him speak of his infectious smile, his natural leadership, and his dogged determination.
They also note that despite the departure of his physical presence from this Earth, they know he now resides in his eternal heavenly home because of his faith in Jesus Christ. Sam understood that our hope is not in this world. Instead, he knew with certainty that our hope is only in Jesus.
Today, although we mourn his untimely loss, we celebrate his impactful life.
Sam Lively will be missed but not forgotten. May he rest in peace, and may God be with his family and the law enforcement community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to reflect on the Meet Residents Where They Are Tour my team and I conducted during the past district work period, a meaningful journey, crisscrossing North Carolina's First Congressional District.
We connected with people who make eastern North Carolina special from classrooms to farms. At the 60th annual Haliwa-Saponi Blooming of the Dogwood Powwow, I was proud to present my bill in support of Federal recognition.
We visited schools, read to children, engaged with food bank volunteers and farmers. We spent time at the Tar River Boys and Girls Club in Rocky Mount, celebrated Barton College and Wilson Community College, and met with quilters in Warren County, as well as disaster survivors in Perquimans County. We also visited key businesses driving our economy, the United States Coast Guard in Elizabeth City, and ECSU.
Mr. Speaker, it was a remarkable experience and a powerful reminder of why we are able to serve.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Lieutenant Commander Robert Stewart Cutler, who passed away peacefully on April 16, 2025, at the age of 97, in Savannah, Georgia.
Born in Braintree, Massachusetts, on April 14, 1928, Lieutenant Commander Cutler answered the call to serve his country by enlisting in the United States Coast Guard at 17 years old.
During his distinguished 27-year military career, he rose from an enlisted man to an officer, culminating in his roles as Commander of the Coast Guard Group in Savannah and Captain of the Port.
Even after retirement, his commitment to public service continued.
He dedicated an additional 29 years to the Coast Guard Auxiliary, promoting maritime safety and community outreach.
Outside of his formal duties, Lieutenant Commander Cutler was actively engaged in various veterans organizations, tirelessly advocating for the welfare of those who served.
He shared 54 cherished years of marriage with his late wife, Dorothy, building a loving family that continues their legacy of kindness. His life was marked by steadfast service to his country, community, and family.
Mr. Speaker, may Lieutenant Commander Cutler's memory bring comfort to those who knew him.
Mr. Speaker, today, I join my colleagues in commemorating a somber moment, the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon and Black April.
Today is a moment to recognize and reflect on the courage of the Vietnamese people and their fight against a Communist dictatorship.
As a refugee whose family fled Soviet Ukraine with under 800 bucks, I connect deeply with that experience.
My family came to America in search of an opportunity to succeed, to achieve the American Dream. We worked hard, we served our country in the military, and now I serve my constituents in Congress. I will fight to keep the American Dream alive for anyone who wants to work for it.
Mr. Speaker, today, my thoughts are with my Vietnamese neighbors commemorating Black April.
As a 25-year Army veteran, I reaffirm my commitment to upholding the ideals that the Vietnamese refugee community risked everything to find: liberty, freedom, and opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart this evening. On Saturday, April 26, Columbia County in my district experienced an unimaginable tragedy as one of our beloved law enforcement officers, Deputy Brandon Sikes, lost his life and Deputy Gavin White was severely injured while serving a temporary protective order.
This heartbreaking event serves as a profound reminder of their commitment to selfless service. As they often do, these officers choose to prioritize the safety of others above themselves, even in a life- threatening situation.
While our community grieves this tragic loss, I am reminded of John 15:13, ``Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.''
Mr. Speaker, please join me in praying for Deputy Sikes' wife, Amber, their daughter, Lyndsey, and all of Brandon's loved ones as they continue to mourn this fallen hero.
Please also join me in praying for a swift recovery for Deputy White, as well as Sheriff Whittle and the entire Columbia County Sheriff's Department.
May God's grace be with our entire community as we continue to heal from this tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, this administration's deportation process has been sloppy and reckless since day one. No due process and no transparency, just families being illegally ripped apart and left to fend for themselves.
In severe instances, innocent people have actually died, like Marie Blaise. She was a 44-year-old Haitian woman who was in ICE custody in Pompano Beach. Marie had been complaining about chest pain for hours. They gave her some pills and told her to go lie down. Unfortunately, Marie never woke up.
Her loved ones deserve answers. They deserve accountability, like so many immigrant families who have their loved ones missing and who are hurt. These conditions at the ICE facilities are inhumane and unsanitary.
Immigrants are being treated without basic dignity and being denied medical care. I am calling for a full and transparent investigation into Marie's death, and I will be visiting the Broward Transitional Center very shortly. It is this neglect and cruelty that is really hurting our American families who are being deported even at this moment.
Mr. Speaker, we must have transparency. We must have justice.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life and legacy of the late Jack Edward Erickson, a beloved leader of our Newtown, Pennsylvania, community, and someone whose absence will be deeply felt.
For 96 extraordinary years, Jack Erickson lived a life of purpose and principle, defined by devotion to his family, service to country, and a deep commitment to his community.
A veteran of the United States Army, nationally recognized photographer, successful businessman, and a champion golfer, Jack excelled in literally every single role because he gave each one of them his full heart and his full measure of devotion, but it is how he gave back that truly defined Jack.
He dedicated decades of his life to his local Rotary club in Bucks County, proudly serving twice as president. He led the Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation with purpose and spent 31 years on the Upper Makefield HARB Board, helping shape and preserve our community's rich history.
Mr. Speaker, Jack had a way of lifting others up just by being himself. Whether supporting our students, mentoring our young leaders, or simply showing up for his friends and neighbors, he led with quiet strength and genuine care.
Mr. Speaker, we extend our deepest condolences to his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren, and his loving partner, Mary Ann, and all who loved him.
Jack was a constant, someone who made our community stronger just by being a part of it. His legacy will live on in the lives he touched and the example he set.
Mr. Speaker, may his memory be a blessing and may he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and recognize the extraordinary bravery of Tesfaye Deyasso, who was named the 2025 National Hero of the Year by the National Association of Letter Carriers.
On April 18, 2024, Mr. Deyasso witnessed a car drive off the highway and crash into a barrier, erupting into flames. Without hesitation, he rushed to the scene. Joined by a group of Good Samaritans, Mr. Deyasso worked tirelessly to pry the car door open, fighting against intense heat and smoke from the burning car to save the driver trapped inside.
Mr. Deyasso has been a proud member of the Minneapolis Branch 9 of the National Association of Letter Carriers for over 4 years. His heroism is a testament to the strength and compassion found in our community. I am proud to have Mr. Deyasso as a constituent, and I am honored to commend his bravery.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Tesfaye Deyasso on his remarkable and well-earned honor.
Mr. Speaker, you just heard right here on the floor that those mean Republicans are cutting Medicaid.
Let's set the record straight. As this graph shows, the Republican instructions don't cut Medicaid, they increase Medicaid by 25 percent over the next 10 years.
Even with common core math--I know it is popular on that side of the aisle--you can see that Medicaid expenditures of the Federal Government go up over the next 10 years with the Republican plan, even after eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse, which a clear majority of Americans agree we should eliminate across the Federal Government. We spend $656 billion in fiscal year 2025 and, again, it goes up by 25 percent over the next 10 years. It is not only that, but Medicaid payments in some States' providers could
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are protecting and preserving Medicaid for the truly needy.
Reopening of Scotland African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a powerful moment of resilience and healing, the opening of Scotland African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church.
Scotland AME Church has been a beacon of faith, hope, and history for the predominantly African-American Scotland community in Montgomery County for over 100 years. Sadly in 2019, the community was devastated as floods literally wiped the church off the map.
Scotland refused to abandon their work and their legacy. After more than 5 years of hard work, and thanks to an extraordinary showing of support from the local community, I was honored this morning to join this Scotland congregation as they reopened the newly rebuilt church.
Mr. Speaker, local leaders and officials from across Maryland came to participate in the celebration because AME truly represents a story of struggle and triumph that defines the community, a perfect antidote of faith, love, hope, and community for our country during these turbulent times.
Mr. Speaker, according to Bubba from ``Forrest Gump,'' there are 21 ways to prepare shrimp, but there is only one place you can experience all that and more: Fernandina Beach, Florida's Isle of Eight Flags Shrimp Festival. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, this is the 60th year.
As Fernandina Beach's congressman and former mayor, I love to attend this event, which started out as shrimp boat races, but has grown into a massive festival celebrating delectable crustaceans.
From the thrill of the pirate invasion--arrgh--to the crowning of Miss Shrimp Festival to the irresistible aroma of wild-caught shrimp sizzling across the waterfront, every corner of this festival reminds us of why we come together to celebrate our heritage as the birthplace of the modern shrimping industry.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to festival, this one is shrimply the best. I invite my colleagues and you, Mr. Speaker, to come shell-e- brate with us. It is always the first weekend in May.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Black April.
As Pulitzer Prize-winning author and one of San Jose's favorite sons, Viet Nguyen, has written: ``All wars are fought twice; once on the battlefield and a second time in memory.''
On this day, 50 years ago, fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers looked out across a vast ocean as Saigon was falling behind them. Among them was Helen, my constituent, who watched as her aunt boarded a boat, and days later she would also follow the path of Vietnamese refugees on to San Jose in my district, which proudly boasts the largest population of ethnically Vietnamese people of any city in the world outside of Vietnam.
Helen's journey was filled with horror and hardship, but rooted in hope, hope for a life with freedom and opportunity. We must honor her hope by living up to the promise of America, by fulfilling our democratic values, and by embracing those who come to America from around the world earnestly seeking freedom, as she did.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bill McInnish for his outstanding contributions to education and workforce development at Eau Gallie High School in Melbourne, Florida, where he teaches aviation fabrication and assembly technology.
His 27 years of technology and CTE teaching experience are best defined by his passion and dedication to helping students succeed in the aerospace industry. As a veteran of the Coast Guard, where he performed search and rescue missions, he established the first-ever aviation fabrication and assembly program in an economically disadvantaged high school.
Under his leadership, this program became the first in the Nation to award high school students with the National Aerospace/Aircraft Assembly certification.
It is with great pride that I recognize his exceptional achievements in building the local talent pipeline, with graduates securing positions at companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, United Launch Alliance, and others.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Bill for his incredible contribution to our district.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening on behalf of the people I am privileged to represent in northwest Ohio: workers, family, farmers, and urban and rural communities where neighbors try to look out for one another.
However, too many families are struggling to put food on the table. They are being priced out of their own grocery store. Food prices have shot up--meat, milk, bread, eggs--basics that every family depends on. Households are getting buried under the weight of their grocery bill.
Now, to make matters worse, the Trump administration has unilaterally paused Federal food assistance and canceled shipments to food banks. We are feeling it. By withholding food and funds, the new administration has turned its back on the American people.
They feel the rising prices, and they feel the harm. Food banks in Ohio and across our Nation are seeing shelves go bare, school meal programs, senior nutrition, and food pantry lifelines short. The boxes going out to seniors don't have protein.
When Federal food dollars are cut off, it doesn't just hurt the hungry, it hurts the producers. Congress must restore these funds to feed our people, support the farmers, producers, and growers who make and grow what makes and grows America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Apprenticeship Day and highlight the vital role apprenticeships play in shaping our workforce and expanding opportunity.
For thousands of years, apprenticeships have helped people learn valuable skills and secure meaningful careers, from blacksmiths of the past to today's electricians, software developers, and healthcare technicians.
Today, too many good-paying jobs go unfilled because workers lack the proper training. Apprenticeships help close that gap by combining classroom instruction with hands-on experience while participants earn a paycheck. They offer a debt-free, practical alternative to college that leads directly to stable, in-demand careers.
As co-chair of the Congressional Career and Technical Education Caucus, I have long championed career-focused pathways that connect Americans to opportunity. Apprenticeships are among the best tools to prepare people of all ages and backgrounds for success.
With greater Federal support and public-private partnerships, we can expand access and modernize our apprenticeship system. I commend President Trump's commitment to this goal, including his executive order aiming for 1 million new apprenticeships.
Mr. Speaker, let us celebrate National Apprenticeship Day and ensure that the future is brighter for all those who are climbing the ladder of opportunity and that every American knows that there is more than one path to success in the future.
Mr. Speaker, Agent Orange exposure continues to negatively impact the lives of our veterans, Vietnamese people, Vietnamese Americans, and their children.
As we mark 50 years after the United States' withdrawal from Vietnam, it is time to meet our moral and legal obligations to heal the wounds inflicted by these atrocities. That is why I am proud to introduce the Victims of Agent Orange Act and the Agent Orange Relief Act, because we know that the devastating harms that our country committed in Vietnam did not end in 1975.
The U.S. exposed millions of people in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to deadly toxins like Agent Orange which to this day causes birth defects and deadly disease, as well as premature death, Mr. Speaker.
For there to be any justice for the war crimes committed in Vietnam, the United States, our country, must devote itself to repair by cleaning these ongoing Agent Orange contamination sites, investing in medical care for those impacted, and removing unexploded ordnance. Our country must never again commit these acts of violence anywhere.
I ask my colleagues to please support this legislative package to bring justice for those victims of Agent Orange.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the resolution I have to overturn the listing of the San Francisco Bay Delta population of longfin smelt, which is being done under the Endangered Species Act.
This listing was not based on sound science. It was forced through by a lawsuit and a court order at kind of the last minute in the Biden administration. Of course, that is not the way environmental decisions should be made.
This was done on the heels of the regular delta smelt, which for over 30 years has had tens of millions of acre-feet of water shoved out through the delta to supposedly sustain that delta smelt to no effect because they have been trawling the area, looking for the fish, trying to find the fish, and haven't found any since I believe 2017.
The Endangered Species Act has been weaponized for decades to shut down water deliveries, halt forestry, and cripple farming, ranching, and mining across the West. The Biden administration and activist judges have turned the law into really a political tool.
The Fish and Wildlife Service overlapped this new listing on top of delta smelt regulations that already sends valuable water out to the Pacific Ocean in droves. It hurts farmers, families, and every Californian who depends on a stable water supply. We must stop these bureaucrats.
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 gentleman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, again, yesterday marked 100 days since President Trump took office for the second time. It has been a whirlwind 100 days, to say the least, as his administration has taken swift action to reverse many of the Biden-era policies that I believe brought major challenges to American businesses and families.
From bringing the southwest border crossings to their lowest in history to ushering in critical private investments to our communities and boosting job growth, the Trump administration has wasted no time in reversing many of the wrongs of the last 4 years.
We have much to celebrate and highlight this evening. I appreciate my colleagues for taking time to reflect on these past 100 days and how House Republicans are joining the administration to implement a progrowth, profamily, conservative agenda that will deliver for Americans across the country.
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Vice Chairman Moore for yielding and for claiming this time to highlight the many accomplishments of the Trump administration during the first 100 days.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of tens of thousands of Tennesseans I represent to express appreciation to President Trump and his administration on their bold action over the last 100 days.
After 4 years of unprecedented illegal immigration under President Biden, our borders are finally under control. After 4 years of deficit spending, we are grateful to have a Chief Executive who is willing to cut waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of the American taxpayer. Indeed, what we have witnessed over the last 100 days is a real master class in the art of following through.
If elected again, President Trump said he would put a stop to men competing in women's sports. He did.
He said he would end divisive and anti-American DEI policies in schools across the country. He did that, too.
The President told us that this country would once again be respected on the world stage. Mr. Speaker, it is clear he has delivered on that promise, as well.
There are many, many wins I could point to. Just last month, 228,000 new jobs were added to the U.S. economy. Prices fell for the first time since May 2020. The Border Patrol reported a 94 percent drop in illegal immigrant encounters at our southern border compared to the same month last year under Joe Biden.
It is noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that the only thing the President needed to accomplish this was leadership. We heard the last administration claim time and time again that Congress would need to pass legislation to secure the border. We heard a blank check would end the unprecedented illegal immigration happening at our southern border. Yet, last month, President Trump's Border Patrol reported only 7,181 illegal crossings compared to 137,473 similar crossings during the same month in 2024. All of that without Congress lifting a finger. It is clear that the accomplishment was because of the clear leadership of President Donald J. Trump.
In Tennessee specifically, President Trump's tariffs and economic policies have brought about millions of dollars in new investment and countless new jobs. Cra-Z-Art is moving manufacturing equipment from Asia back to the United States to expand operations in Lewisburg, Tennessee. Charms, the maker of Blow Pops and other candy, has planned a nearly $100 million expansion of its Covington, Tennessee, plant. Schneider Electric has announced plans to expand their footprint in middle Tennessee in the coming months.
Thanks to President Trump, gas prices are down and optimism is up. Candidly, this White House has been able to accomplish more positive results in 14 weeks than the last administration did in 4 years, and President Trump has just gotten started.
I look forward to working with my fellow House Republicans to codify many of the President's executive actions into law. I am confident we will
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I always appreciate his consistent voice and willingness to support Special Order hour.
Again, there are many wins to focus on, and I can't emphasize this enough. President Trump was overwhelmingly elected in November to fix the border. I don't understand why Democrats couldn't see the horrific approach that they had to it.
It doesn't make any sense to me why they let that get as bad as it was, when it was fixable. We have seen the lowest numbers in history. It is common sense. I appreciate the focus on that one fundamental issue. Again, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore) for leading us here tonight.
Picking up on what he said, we are in the first 100 days of a new administration. I have to harken back just 101 or more days ago to what had been going on the last 4 years.
The first thing that comes to mind is the border situation. As my colleague was saying, how does that make a lick of sense with what was going on there? We are allowed and supposed to have a sovereign border if we are going to confine ourselves to the country. In the days previous and in the formation of this country, for people to immigrate here, they had to bring a skill. They had to bring sponsorship. They needed to bring something that added to the growth of America.
That wasn't seen at the time as racist or hateful or anything else. People from all backgrounds and from pretty much any continent were coming over here and being part of that. We had immigration laws that made sense. We really have never lost our immigration laws. They weren't being enforced a lot in the last 20-plus years or so.
When we talk about common sense, it just went out the window on that issue for a long time. We are gaining it back. We have seen that the illegal border crossings, by and large, across the country have dropped by 95 percent under President Trump. We knew that is what we were going to get, and that is what voters asked for.
It didn't take a bunch of new, comprehensive immigration laws to do that. It took enforcing the laws we had on the books. It took enforcing and having the will to say: No, we are not going to do this anymore.
Guess what? We are still pro-immigrant. It just means legal immigration. It means following our rules. It means coming through the ports of entry and applying under the various ways one would apply for particular visas--student visas, tourist visas, work visas. Apply and ask for permission.
We lock our cars when we park in this town. We lock the front door on our houses when we leave. We are allowed to have gates on the entry to this country. I say gates with well-oiled hinges. Somebody staffing them will then say if an immigrant has his papers, come on in. If he doesn't have his papers, he has to go back and apply. There is a process for that.
Why is that so tough? When I see interviews on TV, talking with President Trump or Tom Homan or anybody, the interviewers just don't seem to grasp that--well, so you are against immigration, you are against people coming across. No, it is legal immigration. Follow the legal process. What is so tough to grasp about that? It just amazes me how that isn't mentioned. It is the duplicitous of the media and sometimes the interviewers on that, they are just not able to quite connect those dots.
When we talk about the 95 percent, we also note that the number of got-aways, the individuals who intentionally avoid detection, pose some of the greatest dangers. The number of got-aways is also down by 99 percent.
We have seen lately the reporters down on the border can't find a single illegal immigrant coming across these times. Indeed, we have seen some dramatically good results. The catch and release is over.
Since taking office, President Trump has deported more than 139,000 illegal immigrants. We hear a lot of caterwauling about that. Oh, the humanity. It is horrific. Well, he hasn't done the most yet. Under President Obama, the numbers are probably triple of that only because different Presidents and different parties actually--look at the floor speech or the State of the Union speech, you can go back and listen to President Clinton talk about that years ago. Hillary Clinton has talked about it back before something changed politically and they completely switched on that.
We have had bipartisan support for border control. Go back to 1986, when a deal was struck with Ronald Reagan, the Democrats, and Tip O'Neill and the gang. He allowed for amnesty. It is the ``A'' word now. There is a distrust around striking additional deals like that.
Reagan said, okay, we will give amnesty to the ones that are here-- back in 1986, it was a much smaller number than we now have here illegally--in order to have strong Border Patrol and Border Patrol infrastructure put in place. A stronger fence and all that.
Well, that wasn't fulfilled. We never really got the whole border barrier we needed in order to make it much simpler and easier for our personnel down there to be able to do their job. President Trump is backing that up by having a barrier. Is it perfect? No, Mr. Speaker, no thing is going to be perfect because you build a better mousetrap and somebody finds a way around it. At least it deters the massive tide.
Is it symbolic? Is it actually a good barrier? It is probably both. It also shows that the U.S. is determined to enforce its border and that that alone is going to deter people. They are not going to try it now because President Biden isn't waving everyone in and giving them a free T-shirt.
When we see that 150,000 illegals have been arrested, many of them gang members, we have success. Violent gangs, like MS-13, have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations. Hallelujah, it is time.
What do we see in the news lately? Some of our Democrat colleagues are bending over backwards to go to El Salvador to bring a guy home. How about half of that effort being expended over the Israeli hostages over there after the horrific Hamas attacks back on October 7 of the previous year?
President Trump has taken these measures. Gang leaders operating in Virginia, Florida, and New York are now in custody and off the streets.
President Trump shut down the Biden-Harris migrant app which had served as a fast pass into the country. Why would we develop an app to make it easier to come into the country illegally?
President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportation and dismantle criminal networks operating on U.S. soil. That is a useful tool that the left is trying to throw out. Hopefully, it will succeed in tests in the court.
Construction of the border wall resumed. More than 85 new miles of barrier are already in place. There is still a lot to do, but at least we can keep it funded and get the job done and aid our border personnel.
Taxpayer-funded goodies for illegal immigrants--luxury hotel stays, food stamps, special college funds--at least at the Federal level--have been eliminated. California is still giving that away as fast as they can. We have a Medi-Cal handout of $9.5 billion to illegal immigrants in the State of California. We are going to hear caterwauling there on some of the other things for cost-cutting measures being done here federally. California could take a long leap towards that just by not funding illegal immigrant activity.
Sanctuary cities are finally being held accountable, as they should. President Trump has taken legal action and moved to cut off Federal support for jurisdictions who refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement. Why would they not cooperate with Federal law? It is a violation of Federal law. I see more and more local municipalities pushing back against State mandates on this. I commend them for doing so.
Some of my northern California counties have done it. The city of Oroville did it. Siskiyou County has done it. Others have and others will continue to do so.
What it has done is helped to deliver justice. We passed the Laken Riley Act. It is now law. It even got bipartisan support at the end. It is a powerful reminder that this administration will never forget those whose lives were taken by illegal immigrant crime.
This is real leadership. These are promises made. These are promises kept. President Trump is helping to get that done for all of us. For those of us who have been here a lot longer and have battled on this issue, we are seeing common sense applied to our border and so many other things as a result of President Trump's leadership and partnership with the House and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to congratulate President Trump on a successful first 100 days in office.
Under President' Trumps leadership, he has successfully closed the southern border. For the past 4 years, our country has been invaded by illegal aliens, many of whom are on the terrorist watch list, members of the Taliban, members of the Chinese Communist Party, not to mention MS-13, gangbangers, human traffickers, and fentanyl distributors. They have also trafficked over 300,000 children, and who knows what hell those young people are in right now because of our callousness.
That has not happened under this President, though. Under President Trump's leadership, the border is now completely shut down. That means safer streets, safer schools, and safer communities, Mr. Speaker.
In my own community, some dear friends of mine, the Corcoran family, lost their dear son at the hands of an illegal. I see them and talk to them on a regular basis, I don't know anything that could ease their hurt except prayer.
However, as we now pass the 100 days since President Trump has taken office, it is time for us to do our jobs and codify these executive actions that he has taken to make America great again. If Republicans are serious about backing the President's agenda, let's do something about it, dadgummit.
That means making sweeping reforms that may actually involve some sacrifice, like passing a bill that I have--a shameless plug--End Congressional Stock Trading Act, which would level the playing field and help restore America's faith in Congress once again.
There is no reason in the world, Mr. Speaker, that we are individually trading stocks. Everybody ought to do like I do and have my buddy, Tommy Seiler, manage my portfolio of $11,000. I do not trade any individual stocks. It is all a mutual fund.
President Trump said if Congress passed a bill banning stock trading for Members of this body, he would sign it. I say let's give him that opportunity. Let's first see if Congress has the guts to stand up and do what is right. I sure as heck know that is what I will do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), our final, last but not least, speaker. With his energy level that he always brings to this place, you will understand why he is clearly not the least.
Mr. Speaker, is it true President Trump has done more in 100 days than the previous President has done in 4 years?
Mr. Speaker, I have only got 60 seconds, but let's break it all down: border closed; mass deportation of illegal immigrants; fentanyl smuggling dropping; Laken Riley Act signed into law; inflation cooling; egg prices down; gas prices falling; astronauts back home; 11 American hostages freed; reducing the Federal bureaucracy, saving taxpayers billions of dollars and rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse; reversing the anti-crypto crusade; unleashing American energy; the green new scam terminated; EV mandates eliminated; revoked DEI policies in the military and government; affirming there are only two genders; no more men playing in women's sports; restoring America's leadership on the world stage; rebuilding our military; military recruitment up; defending religious liberty; sending gang members back to their own home countries; standing up for American workers; adding 345,000 new jobs; securing billions of dollars in new investments in the United States.
The golden age of American prosperity is indeed here. As exciting as the first 100 days of President Trump have been, it is clear President Trump is just getting started.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida never disappoints, and I thank him for his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I will briefly close with some of the comments I have made before.
President Trump in November, along with congressional majorities--the House majority stayed in Republican control. The Senate majority flipped to Republican. It was a clear show that we wanted to move past some of the policies that have been implemented, or not implemented, from the previous administration. I am proud as we look out at his first 100 days.
Again, to reiterate what has taken place with our southern border, enforcing very commonsense laws such as making sure that our parole authority is properly done, ending catch and release, and re- implementing the remain in Mexico policy. I think this gets missed from the conversation quite a bit. It is actually some of the most humane things we can do.
I still remember the 30-plus immigrants who were basically killed in the back of that truck in the San Antonio area. The only reason that that type of thing happens is because the cartels don't care for human life. The cartels that were running the border over the last 4 years do not care about the plight of an immigrant searching for a better life and a unique work opportunity.
They sell them a bill of goods. They literally sell them that bill of goods by making them pay thousands of dollars in the hope that once they get them across the border, then everything will be great for them. Then, they get stuck in a legal system that doesn't benefit them.
The most humane way to do it is to re-implement things like the remain in Mexico policy. The point I had always tried to continue to make was that a simple policy change would actually reduce border crossings significantly. When we do that, we take away the power that the cartels have. When the cartels are in power, human beings suffer. There is no other way to look at it.
Customs and Border Protection data from earlier this month show that Southwest border crossings are the lowest they have been in recorded history.
Think about that, Mr. Speaker. By the numbers, there were over 7,000 Southwest border crossings in March. That is still a high number, but over the last 4 years, the monthly average was over 150,000. It is astonishing.
This is something that has been delivered. I would appreciate any opportunity to codify this into law. I do not like ruling by executive order all the time. This is stuff we need to codify.
I hope that we can learn from the good experience with the Laken Riley Act and how our functioning Republic is supposed to work to get a piece of legislation done. This one had good, strong bipartisan support. The President signed it.
I know there is more that we could be doing on that so we don't have this constant back and forth in the future of our country. We have to get some predictability with this type of policy. Predictability is incredibly important, as well.
As I look ahead past the 101st days, I look ahead to one of the most important things to accomplish going forward, and that is a reconciliation piece of legislation. This discussion that has been very prominent here in the beltway is the talk of reconciliation. To put it in plain terms, this is just making sure that, at the end of this year, American families don't pay a significant increase in taxes.
In 2017, there was major tax reform done, and I think if you were to take a look at the specific elements of that bill, Mr. Speaker, you would find excitement and broad support for almost all of it.
The Republicans in 2017 doubled the standard deduction. Who does the
The second piece is doubling the child tax credit. In 2017, Republicans doubled the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. That is something that has been incredibly bipartisan. Democrats, in their own version of reconciliation, have enhanced that, as well.
I lead the Family First Act, which is another enhancement of the child tax credit, and I am looking forward to, hopefully, getting that passed through. That is another key win.
There are numerous business provisions that help. Real wage growth, economic activity, and strong GDP growth are helping.
Mr. Speaker, any time you have the White House, the House, and the Senate under one party, then people get a little bit chippy. They get a little bit partisan as we try to get significant pieces of legislation through. It is not going to be any different this time.
That was the case in 2017. I wasn't here then, but as I was sort of watching from the sidelines on these types of things, I get it.
Then, in 2021, the Democrats had the White House, the House, and the Senate. They did the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, and they tried to do Build Back Better. Those were incredibly partisan approaches, which I firmly disagreed with, but that was the piece that took place at the time.
We have an opportunity going forward for these next few months to be able to deliver on something that is very important to every American family, and that is making sure that they have consistency in the tax code so there is not going to be a massive tax increase on American families next year. It is something I am proud to be working on, and I hope that we can celebrate it as a key piece of success as we look past this first 100 days of the administration. We are 4 months into our 119th Congress, and this is going to be a key piece.
Democrats will say over and over again that this is just a tax break for the billionaires. Mr. Speaker, when you cap SALT like the Republicans did, that only hurts wealthier folks. I hate to bring them that news. I believe it was Bernie Sanders who was criticized by The Washington Post--again, The Washington Post--by giving three or four Pinocchios when they say that these tax breaks that Republicans do just go to benefit the wealthy. That is The Washington Post saying to call it as it is. These are Pinocchios. These are complete lies that the tax policies that Republicans put forth actually strengthen and target the middle- and lower-income Americans.
We will say that over and over again. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues will say this is just going to benefit the billionaires.
I hope that, deep down, they would come to some realization that that is just a lie. Their own media is saying that it is just a lie. It is just one of those things that exist back here, and we are probably going to be dealing with that a lot for the next few months. The reality is this is good, strong tax policy that is going to benefit American families and workers.
In addition to some of the successes we have had over the last few months, this is something we have to be able to lock in and accomplish. I look forward to being a key part of that as we move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for a Special Order hour with my Congressional Progressive Caucus colleagues. I do so on the 100th day of the Trump administration, and I note that this is a day when we received the news that our economy has contracted and that we are witnessing confusion, chaos in our markets, and uncertainty about our economic future.
We can also mark this day by stating that our country is in the midst of a constitutional crisis.
The administration is disappearing individuals without due process in defiance of court orders. They are ripping people from their homes and communities, putting them on secretive flights, and sending them overseas, including more than 280 individuals sent to the brutal CECOT prison in El Salvador without so much as a hearing.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the administration must facilitate the return of one such man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father, but the executive branch has ignored the highest Court in the land, saying that their own views matter more.
Just last night, the President of the United States admitted in a public interview that he could return Mr. Abrego Garcia if he wanted to, but he is choosing not to. He has openly mused about sending American citizens to El Salvador next because it always starts with those without power, the most vulnerable, but it never ends there, and that should terrify every American.
I want to take the opportunity to draw attention to another case that has captured the public conscience, that of Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, a 31-year-old gay Venezuelan makeup artist and asylum seeker who was forcibly disappeared without due process.
Andry entered the United States legally, fleeing persecution for his sexual orientation and political beliefs. He passed an initial asylum screening and had no criminal record. Yet, without warning or due process, he was forcibly removed to El Salvador and imprisoned in the notorious CECOT facility.
What is the evidence against him? A couple of crown tattoos above the names ``Mom'' and ``Dad,'' symbols of his love for his hometown's Three Kings Day celebrations.
Andry's case exemplifies the dangers of unchecked executive power and what happens when the rule of law is pushed aside.
I call on President Trump to free Andry.
There are so many others to talk about: students who have been snatched off the streets, young American citizens kicked out without so much as a hearing, and the list goes on and on.
I want to be clear that this is not just about immigrants. This is bigger than that. If the government can violate the Constitution with impunity in these cases, then it can do so anywhere to anyone.
To the Americans listening at home, I ask you: How would you feel if masked men grabbed you in broad daylight and refused to show their ID? I know I would be terrified, and I bet you would be, too.
Today, we will hear from a number of my Congressional Progressive Caucus colleagues as we bring a spotlight to these injustices.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Takano for yielding. I am so grateful for his leadership and for bringing us together on the House floor to talk about what is happening here in our country every day.
Americans are sounding the alarm about the crisis that our country is in. It is not just an economic crisis, as we see our country sinking very quickly into an economic crisis, which is being reflected in Donald Trump's poll numbers. In fact, his sinking poll numbers are even being reflected in the issue that many consider to be his strong suit with the American people, which is immigration.
Americans are now realizing that Donald Trump's anti-immigrant policies are targeting everyone in our country, including U.S. citizens.
When Donald Trump eliminates due process for immigrants, whether it is
When Donald Trump ignores an order from the Supreme Court to bring back a wrongfully deported immigrant, he is violating the rule of law, which impacts all of us.
Mr. Speaker, when Donald Trump sends immigrants to a gulag in a foreign country, believe him when he tells you that he will be doing this to U.S. citizens next. In fact, he has already begun deporting U.S. citizen children.
Just today, in the House Judiciary Committee, as the Judiciary Committee was marking up the reconciliation package, which, unfortunately, many Republicans will just blindly approve, Judiciary Committee Republicans refused to protect U.S. citizens from deportation.
It is shocking, I know.
Here is the thing: We can have strong border security and a fair and humane immigration system that works for our Nation. That is not what Donald Trump is doing. He is acting like a tyrant, and he will keep undermining our democracy, our country, and the rule of law as long as compliant Republicans allow him to.
Will there be just four Republicans who will stand with us and their constituents to protect the Constitution, the rule of law, and law and order in this country? I hope so.
Mr. Speaker, fascism always demands a public enemy. Through lies and scapegoating, the Trump administration has tried to make immigrants the enemy. They have tried to convince us that the problem isn't their abuses of power or the unchecked greed of multinational corporations but it is immigrants.
In their 100 days in office, the Trump administration and Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, have abused the power of the Department of Homeland Security to pursue a campaign of persecution, of mass incarceration, and of deportation.
Day after day, they have disregarded the authority of Congress, the laws of the land, and the constitutional rights of residents, the courts, due process, and every check and balance that protects us from fascist authoritarians.
No one has been spared from their abusive authoritarian assault, not United States citizens, children with cancer, not pregnant women, not fathers with legal residency, not organ donors, not student activists, not professors, not green card holders, not asylees, not DACA recipients.
Trump and Noem have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in their criminal acts from a $200 million anti-immigrant ad campaign to $46 million paid to illegally detain people in offshore prisons to more than $300 million to militarize and end parole and due process at our borders. There is no end to how they will abuse their power, and we have to say: Enough.
As I demanded yesterday in the Homeland Security Committee, Noem must step down. We can't give one more dollar to this administration to continue its unconstitutional, anti-immigrant, authoritarian agenda.
I will close with this: Today, Trump, Noem, and the administration have made the immigrants the enemy. Tomorrow, it will be whoever they deem undesirable.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great concern regarding our First and Fifth Amendment rights. Our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and right to due process are under attack by the Musk-Trump administration.
You don't have to like what someone says philosophically, politically, or otherwise, but free speech is not based on what you like or dislike or choose to hear or not hear; it is based on one's ability to express themselves. It is not conditioned on what you like to hear. Free speech is free speech.
We will not stand by while they violate the principles that form the bedrock of our democracy. Right now, this administration is defying a Supreme Court decision that ordered them to facilitate the return of an individual who was deported without due process. Alongside others, he was sent to an inhumane prison in a different country without a hearing. This happened in the United States, violating his right to due process. There are many individuals whose stories deserve to be told, so today I am going to highlight just a few.
Last week, I led a bicameral codel to two ICE detention facilities in Louisiana where Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, and Wendy Brito are being held.
Mahmoud Khalil is a lawful permanent resident and Columbia graduate student who was detained because of his participation in a peaceful protest. I had an opportunity to sit and visit with him. He said, without fear of contradiction: I am not anti-Semitic. I am not pro- Hamas. I am simply concerned about my homeland and the treatment of the people that are there.
Rumeysa Ozturk is a Ph.D. student detained because she wrote an op-ed in her school newspaper.
Wendy Brito, a mother of three U.S. citizens, who may one day be U.S. Senators. A U.S. citizen right here on our homeland, was deported without giving her due process. Her lawyer was in the waiting room. They would not let her have access to the lawyer. Then they added insult to injury by saying she signed a waiver.
Who and what mother would not say, when asked: Do you want your children to go with you versus being with some strangers would not opt for that first option?
Ms. Brito simply said: What are you going to do with my children? They said: Well, they can go with you. As a father, I would have made the same decision, but her lawyer was in the other room begging for an opportunity to stand in, and they would not give him or her an opportunity to do so.
Arresting people who are in this country legally--people whose only crimes have been to exercise their right to free speech--is an assault on our civil liberties and our Constitution.
An attack on these individuals is an attack on all of us. Who is to say what this ruthless administration will do next or who they will do it to? Will it be your family member, your friend, or a coworker who is taken without cause?
I am reminded of a quote from Angela Davis: ``If they come for me in the morning, they will come for you in the night.''
We must all stick together and fight for the rights of our great country, this great Constitution, the First Amendment right of free speech, and the Fifth Amendment right of due process. We must continue speaking up and fighting back against these tyrants and preserve our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if you found this funny or if you are laughing at a joke that is on your phone, but this is serious business, sir.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his principled remarks about the importance of the rule of law in our country and his enunciating that political dissent in our country is not a crime.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari).
Mr. Speaker, last week, I traveled to El Salvador, along with three of my colleagues, to see firsthand the chaos unleashed by the Trump administration through its unconstitutional and illegal deportations of U.S. residents to third-party countries.
I represent a beautifully diverse district in which 64 languages are spoken and where families of immigrants like mine thrive. I have heard more about this issue from my constituents than any other during my time in Congress.
In El Salvador, we met with the U.S. Ambassador and demanded that the Trump administration facilitate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in compliance with the 9-0, unanimous Supreme Court decision of the United States and the lower Federal court judges.
Mr. Abrego Garcia and many other wrongfully deported individuals were
It is outrageous and indefensible that the Trump administration continues to defy a Supreme Court ruling to return this man to his family. In fact, it is a full-blown constitutional crisis.
There are other people--including Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist and legal asylum seeker, and Merwil Gutierrez, a teenager who was mistakenly picked up by immigration enforcement--languishing in El Salvador.
Now, the Trump administration is admitting to deporting a 2-year-old U.S. citizen with cancer. It is cruel, it is despicable, and it is totally illegal, no matter what Stephen Miller or Tom Homan may say.
These cases are not just about these specific people or children sent on planes to foreign prisons by the U.S. Government. Our entire system of justice hinges on the rights afforded to us by the Constitution, the rights of due process, access to legal representation, and the ability to be heard in a court of law.
It is a dark day for our democracy when the Federal Government snatches people off of the streets, flies them out of the country secretly in the dead of night, and sends them to a foreign prison to be detained indefinitely with no legal recourse or chance to prove their case.
Who is to say that it couldn't be you or me next? I will continue to speak out for due process and our constitutional rights.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Ansari. I want to thank her for traveling with three other of our colleagues to El Salvador last week. I know that she traveled at her own expense. I am very proud that we have members of this caucus who care so deeply about people who have been treated so unjustly. Nobody should be disappeared out of our country without habeas corpus hearings.
I also thank Representative Carter for his efforts, along with, I believe, other Members of Congress to visit the graduate students held in a New Orleans jail.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
Mr. Speaker, I am here today as a Representative of a community that is deeply alarmed by the actions of this administration.
Just weeks ago, the Trump administration defied a unanimous--we didn't think this was possible--but a unanimous Supreme Court order by refusing to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father wrongfully deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Despite the Court's clear directive, the administration continues to ignore the rule of law, undermining the very foundation of our democracy.
In my own district, the situation is equally troubling. A graduate student at the University of Minnesota was detained by ICE agents without warning. Despite having no involvement in political activism, he was taken from his home, held without immediate explanation, and had his visa retroactively revoked. This action not only disturbed his education but also instilled fear in our academic community.
These are not isolated incidents. Across the country, people are being detained and deported without due process, often based on tenuous and/or unverified allegations.
The administration's use of obscure laws, like the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to justify these actions is a blatant abuse of power. We must ask ourselves: If the rights of noncitizens can be so easily disregarded, whose rights will be next?
Our Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection under the law to everyone in this country, not just citizens. If the government can silence you, detain you, or deport you while defying court orders, then none of our rights are safe. If we let this slide, we are saying the Constitution is optional. It is not.
What we are seeing is authoritarianism creeping in through the backdoor, one ignored ruling at a time.
My colleagues and I are ready to fight back with everything we have got.
Mr. Speaker, the sign behind me says ``9-0.'' ``9-0'' is the order of the Supreme Court. They ruled 9-0 that Kilmar Abrego Garcia must be brought back or must be facilitated back into the country. This 9-0 Supreme Court order is being defied by the President. No one in our country, no person, no man, is above the law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for leading us in this Special Order hour today.
Mr. Speaker, fear, anger, terror, sadness, these are the emotions that just scratch the surface of what my community and our immigrant neighbors are feeling. Why should we expect anything less? This is exactly what this administration wants: to force immigrants into the shadows, to break their spirit, and to disrupt our communities.
When you come for immigrants, you come for small businesses. When you come for immigrants, you come for our farmworkers and for our fish processors. When you come for immigrants, you come for nurses, doctors, and caregivers. When you come for immigrants, you come for the very identity of what makes this country America.
Last week, I met with immigrants' rights advocates and toured the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma. The detainee population has doubled in the last few months. The average time detained has extended. Discretionary releases are now uncommon, even for detainees without violent criminal records. Folks are being detained and disappeared for nothing more than political speech.
Mr. Speaker, what this visit reaffirmed for me is that any immigration policy rooted in hate and fueled by chaos doesn't make our immigration system more efficient or safe; it overwhelms the system. We don't fix a broken system by breaking people.
Most of our origin stories, even as Members of the House in this body, begin as immigration stories. It is past time that all of us remember that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Takano for recognizing me and for hosting this important discussion in front of the American people.
Our country was founded on the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but who are we as a country if we backtrack on those founding values? We would not be the country that inspired our parents, our neighbors, and our grandparents to make a dangerous and brave journey in the hopes that their children will have a better life than they did.
Everyone has a story that they can relate. Mine is about my mother, who emigrated from Mexico in the 1960s. She raised me and my sister on her own, taking multiple jobs to make ends meet. It was not until the late 1980s when she finally got her green card. She was so happy, and I remember feeling relieved because she was safe and could live in this country without fear.
Today, that fear has returned. Donald Trump is blatantly pushing aside the Constitution and the rule of law to deport anybody at will. I am here because I am fighting for my mother and many like her who came to this country in search of a better life. I am fighting so our immigrant communities can, once and for all, live without fear that their livelihoods would be taken away at a moment's notice.
I am fighting with my Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus colleagues against this administration's attempts to strip away a person's right to due process.
Donald Trump is criminalizing people like Abrego Garcia and denying him his due process. Yet, it is not just Abrego Garcia. This administration is also deporting children.
Last week, this administration deported a 2-year-old child and a 4- year-old child who are battling stage IV cancer, both of whom are U.S. citizens. What is happening to Garcia and these children is a travesty, and they need to come home.
Sending them without due process to countries like El Salvador and Honduras is a shameful assault on our human rights and a betrayal of the ideals that our country was founded on.
His policies are also unpopular across the country, and the polling proves it. After 100 days, Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating of any President in at least the past 80 years. The American people see through his cruelty, and they are with us.
We need to confront the cruelty from this administration head on and seek justice for all of those who have been unfairly targeted.
I stand united with my colleagues in stopping this administration and holding this President accountable for his actions.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Rivas for her comments and bringing to light the tragic stories of children who are citizens with cancer being deported from our country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Takano for bringing us together this evening for a very important discussion.
Kilmar, Andry, Jefferson, Kevin: a devoted father married to an American citizen, a makeup artist who faced persecution in his home country because he is gay, a man with a valid work authorization and pending asylum hearing, and a son of a government worker attacked for his opposition to a corrupt regime.
These are just a few of the hundreds of men who have been sent to a foreign prison with conditions so inhumane that El Salvador's Justice Minister has said that the only way out is in a coffin.
These men came to our country, in many cases through approved legal pathways, seeking a better life for themselves and their families. In response, we sent them to another country without any due process to be abused and tortured, and we are paying that government $6 million to do so.
These are not deportations, but they are government-enforced disappearances. They are illegal. They are horrific. They are the tactics of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
We cannot let them get away with this. This is the red line that they cannot be allowed to cross.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Tonko for his comments. I agree with the gentleman. This is a red line that cannot be crossed. We cannot permit a President to defy a 9-0 order of the Supreme Court. No person and no man is above the law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), my tremendous colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Takano for holding this Special Order. This is very important.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the Trump administration is carrying out a campaign of reckless cruelty with zero accountability.
Last week, the home of a woman from Oklahoma was mistakenly targeted by ICE agents. They broke into her home, forced her and her children outside at gunpoint in their underwear, and proceeded to ransack their home.
The people who ICE were looking for didn't even live there, but that didn't stop them from traumatizing the current residents, confiscating their life savings, and fleeing the scene without leaving any contact information or instructions for how this innocent family could get their belongings back, including their money.
More recently, over the past weekend, we learned that Trump administration's police deported a 4-year-old American citizen who has stage IV cancer, and then they lied about it. On Monday, Trump's deportation czar claimed that the child's mother chose to bring her son with her when she was deported without any kind of due process.
Let me be clear. That is another boldface lie. The truth is that this woman did what any mom would do when faced with such a terrifying situation. She tried desperately to protect her child. She pled with the Trump's deportation police to let her contact her family to arrange care for her son and make sure that he keeps receiving the medical treatment that he desperately needs.
Yet, Trump's police said: No. They denied this basic right. They would not let her call her family, nor her lawyer. As a result, her son no longer has access to his lifesaving cancer treatment.
It is a confounding degree of evil that we are dealing with in the Trump administration and this Republican-controlled Congress that fails to find its spine and do the right thing for the people of this country.
I truly cannot comprehend the heartlessness that is required to do these things like this, and I am praying for all of the victims of this administration's campaign of terror in my country.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Watson Coleman for informing the Nation about what happened earlier today with that family in Oklahoma.
It strikes me that we are witnessing this evolution of this administration's policies that began with: We are just going to deport criminals.
It then evolved into disappearing people without hearings and claiming that the people they were disappearing were criminals, dangerous criminals, members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
They admitted that there were mistakes made, but now we are seeing actual children who are citizens being spirited out of the country. This ought to be concerning to all Americans. It is not about them anymore. It is about us. It is about every single person who is in danger of being treated in such a way that you have no way to say to a judge: I am a citizen.
How can you say to a judge that you are a citizen or not a criminal when you are not even allowed to have that hearing?
Mr. Speaker, I will now move on and yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).
Mr. Speaker, when we took office, we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It was a promise to the American people that we would uphold the law, protect their rights, and defend our democracy.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was living legally in the United States, was wrongfully disappeared to a horrific prison in El Salvador because of an administrative error.
This week, U.S. citizens in Oklahoma were dragged out of their home while ICE agents, with no warrant for them, took their phones, laptops, and life savings, even though they weren't the suspects in question.
One of the most basic rights guaranteed in our Constitution is the right to due process. The Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment and 14th Amendment demands that you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. That means a fair hearing, a chance to be heard, and a chance to defend yourself in court. That is the standard.
Mr. Speaker, our immigration system is broken, and I will work with anyone in a bipartisan way to fix it. Yet, that is not what is happening here.
Weaponizing fears and frustrations as a justification for interning innocent people in a foreign prison is unacceptable and unconstitutional. Everyone deserves due process in court with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If we don't defend these rights now, who is next: our neighbor, our family, or us?
Affording due process is not being soft on crime. It is the very foundation of American justice to ensure that the rights enshrined in our Constitution are guaranteed, as the Founders intended. Standing up for the Constitution is not partisan. It is patriotic. It is our duty, and we need to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for standing up for the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that, in this country, under our Constitution, no one is above the law, not even the President. Our President, at this very moment, is defying a 9-0 Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda), my colleague from the Aloha State.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to President Trump's unlawful and unjust deportations to El Salvador.
Earlier this year, the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th century wartime statute, to deport 137 Venezuelan men to a notorious prison abroad. This archaic law is being exploited to bypass our immigration system and deny individuals their most basic legal protections.
These deportations were not based on convictions or due process. They are based on ancestry and suspicions--tattoos misidentified, affiliations assumed, rights ignored.
The Supreme Court affirmed, by a 7-2 majority, these people deserve due process under our Constitution.
For me and for Representative Takano, this strikes painfully close to home.
During World War II, the same law was used to imprison over 120,000 Japanese Americans, including our families. My great-grandfather was taken from his home, incarcerated without cause, solely because of his ethnicity.
Now, we are seeing the same injustice unfold again. In communities like Kona, Hawaii, a child was taken from his elementary school classroom. Families are taken from their homes, and people live in fear. Children miss school. Parents avoid lifesaving care and their doctors. Faith communities grow quiet, not because of guilt but because of government overreach.
Let us be clear. These individuals are our neighbors, workers, students, and friends. They deserve dignity and due process, not detention and deportation.
Sending people to foreign prisons without a trial, without rights, and without hope is not only unconstitutional. It is un-American, and it must stop.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to honor the oath we all took in this very Chamber to uphold the Constitution, protect due process, and defend the values that define our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, this administration has thrown out the Constitution and asserted that the President has king-like power to arrest anybody in this country and deport them, even to a foreign prison for life, with no due process.
Days ago, we learned they deported a 4-year-old child with stage IV cancer and a 2-year-old American citizen.
We know that they are now going after Southeast Asian refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. They came here due to the U.S. depending on them as allies during the Vietnam war.
This was the case with Chanthon Bun, who fled to the U.S. with his family to escape the Cambodian genocide. Like many refugees, Bun found himself in an impoverished community and struggled to acclimate. He later fell in with the wrong crowd and made a mistake as a teenager. Bun has since served his time, and once granted parole, he has become a leader in his community.
In Trump's eyes, Bun's rehabilitation doesn't matter. Trump is now detaining and deporting Southeast Asian refugees who have had pauses on their deportation orders for decades and are deeply tied to their communities. Mr. Speaker, 15,000 of these refugees have deportation orders and are now being deported as they do the right thing and report for their ICE check-ins.
We will not stand for it. I will soon be reintroducing the Southeast Asian Deportation Relief Act, which would prevent the administration from deporting these refugees to countries where they have often never lived and ensure that those who have already been deported can return home to the U.S.
If the Trump administration can disappear immigrants to other countries without due process or deport refugees to places they have no memories of, we are all in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Chu for bringing to light the story of an individual who has contributed much to his community. I am very disappointed, alarmed, and, frankly, terrified by the actions of this administration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia), also a fellow Californian, a longtime friend of mine, and somebody who I admire for his courage and initiative in leading a recent delegation of four Members of Congress to the country of El Salvador.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Takano for giving me this opportunity to speak about a topic that is really important right now in our country.
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue right now that should concern Americans more than the elimination and destruction of due process, not just now for U.S. citizens but for people who are here whether it is a legal status or because they have been invited to this country to apply for asylum.
I want to go ahead and speak a little bit more about Andry Romero, this young gentleman right here. He is a gay hairstylist and makeup artist who came to the United States with an asylum appointment. The United States Government gave Andry an appointment to show up to the border so that he could claim asylum using our process that we created.
He shows up with his appointment. What happens? He gets interrogated through the process. His initial screening is positive, and then he essentially gets taken at the border from that screening directly to a prison in El Salvador, a country he knows nothing about, in a process that eliminated his right through the court and due process asylum system that we have created in this country.
What kind of America is this where we are doing this to people who are seeking asylum? We are sending them to a foreign prison.
I note that Andry's family describes him as someone who is sweet, kind, and gentle, yet we are sending him to a notorious prison in a very vulnerable position.
I also want to note that an agent said that he has some tattoos. Yes, he has a crown tattoo reflective of a festival back in his home city and state in Venezuela. It has nothing to do with gangs. He has never been convicted of anything to do with gangs.
Because an ICE agent, who was, by the way, a disgraced former police officer, made these claims, Andry is now in a foreign prison, and his family and his lawyers have not heard anything about him in weeks.
I did go to El Salvador to advocate for the release of not just Kilmar, who has been mandated by the Supreme Court to come back, but also for Andry. We told Andry's story to the Ambassador in El Salvador. It was the first time he had heard his story. After the meeting, he made a request to the government in El Salvador to do a welfare check for the first time on Andry.
We have yet to hear anything about how he is doing, his condition, if he is alive, or where he is.
This is a disgrace by President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Secretary Noem, and everyone involved in this process. We demand to know if he is healthy, if he is okay, and where he is, and that he be given the right to come back to the United States so that he can go through the process that we asked him to go through before we kidnapped him and sent him to a prison in El Salvador. We must do better in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Representative Garcia, I had not heard the story about your request to the Ambassador to do a welfare check.
This is one picture of Andry Hernandez. I have seen other pictures of him, other photographs. It is hard for, I think, anyone who looks at these photographs to believe that Andry is a dangerous member of the Tren de Aragua criminal gang.
Here is the other fact that was just mentioned. He has never once been at large in the U.S. territory, any part of the U.S. Government, or the Continental United States. From the very beginning, when he crossed the border, he was in custody. He has never been out of custody. He has never once posed any danger. He arrived with papers that show, from his native Venezuela, that he has no criminal record.
My understanding not only was that he was seeking asylum from Venezuela because of his sexual orientation but also because he would not comply with the authoritarian regime there.
Absolutely. I think that it is a shame that someone fleeing persecution for who they are and then given an appointment by us, the United States, is then sent to a foreign prison.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Garcia for traveling to El Salvador on his own resources and to our colleagues who spent their own resources
There is another compelling case we have before us. The 280 other individuals who are in CECOT prison, the government has kept those names secret. The press and others have had to do a lot of sleuthing to identify individuals who have been sent down there. For all we know, there could be citizens among those folks. We don't know because they have never been able to talk to a judge.
They have never been able to defend themselves against charges that they are Tren de Aragua criminals or otherwise dangerous criminals.
This is a travesty. I think all Americans should be outraged. All Americans should be afraid for themselves. We have now seen, in just recent days, that we have moved from noncitizens to citizens being sent out of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, over the last hour, the American public has heard directly as Members of Congress came to this hallowed floor to talk plainly about the grave constitutional crisis unfolding in our country. We have heard the names Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Andry Hernandez Romero. We have spoken of students taken off streets, court orders cast aside, and a supermax prison that now holds victims of abuse.
These are not isolated incidents. They are evidence of a pattern, a government operating outside the law, outside the Constitution, outside the decision of a Supreme Court that has ruled 9-0 that this administration must facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a government that believes that it can disappear people without charges, ignore the judiciary, and turn the Constitution into a suggestion rather than a safeguard.
Mr. Speaker, this body must exert its collective conscience. This is not who we are, and it must not be who we become. The American people are beginning to wake up. They are hungry for accountability from our government and courage from Congress.
I promise this. This is not the end of our voices. It is only the beginning.
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 move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 9 a.m.
