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.
54 public bills, H.R. 3323- 3376; 1 private bill, H.R. 3377; and 6 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 31-32; and H. Res. 404, 406-408, were introduced.
Pages H1998-H1200
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H. Res. 405, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2240) to require the Attorney General to develop reports relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2243) to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2255) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-95).
Page H1998
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Miller-Meeks to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1951
Recess
The House recessed at 12:30 p.m. and reconvened at 2 p.m.
Page H1954
Privileged Resolution: Intent to Offer
Representative Thanedar announced his intent to offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 353) Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Pages H1955-59
Governing Board of the Office of Congressional Conduct: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following individuals to serve as the Governing Board of the Office of Congressional Conduct: Nominated by the Speaker after consultation with the Minority Leader: Ms. Karen L. Haas of Maryland, Chair; Mr. Leon A. Westmoreland of Georgia. Nominated by the Minority Leader after consultation with the Speaker: Mr. William P. Luther of Minnesota, Co- Chair; Ms. Lorraine C. Miller of Texas.
Page H1960
United States Holocaust Memorial Council: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following Members on the part of the House to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council: Representatives Schneider and Frankel (FL). Board of Trustees of the Harry S.
Page H1960
Truman Scholarship Foundation: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment following Member on the part of the House to the Board of Trustees of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation: Representative Amo.
Page H1960
United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following individual on the part of the House to the United States- China Economic and Security Review Commission for a term expiring on December 31, 2026: Mr. Joshua Hodges of Batavia, Illinois.
Page H1960
United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following individual on the part of the House to the United States- China Economic and Security Review Commission for a term expiring on December 31, 2026: Mr. Christopher Slevin of Washington, DC.
Page H1985
Recess
The House recessed at 5:46 p.m. and reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
Page H1985
Suspensions
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measures: Calling upon local communities to support organizations that provide resources and aid Gold Shield Families in their time of need: H. Res. 364, calling upon local communities to support organizations that provide resources and aid Gold Shield Families in their time of need;
Pages H1960-61
Expressing support for local law enforcement officers
H. Con. Res. 30, expressing support for local law enforcement officers, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 411 yeas to 1 nay, Roll No. 123;
Pages H1961-65, H1985-86
Amending the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for lifetime National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes for family members of members of the Armed Forces who lost their lives while serving their country: H.R. 1682, to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for lifetime National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes for family members of members of the Armed Forces who lost their lives while serving their country;
Pages H1965-66
Flatside Wilderness Additions Act
H.R. 1612, to designate the Flatside-Bethune Wilderness in the Ouachita National Forest;
Pages H1966-69
Amending the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes
H.R. 331, amended, to amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes;
Pages H1969-70
Community Reclamation Partnerships Act of 2025
H.R. 167, to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to authorize partnerships between States and nongovernmental entities for the purpose of reclaiming and restoring land and water resources adversely affected by coal mining activities before August 3, 1977;
Pages H1970-72
Providing for a memorandum of understanding to address the impacts of a certain record of decision on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund
H.R. 1001, to provide for a memorandum of understanding to address the impacts of a certain record of decision on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund;
Pages H1972-73
Expedited Appeals Review Act
H.R. 677, amended, to establish a process to expedite the review of appeals of certain decisions by the Department of the Interior;
Pages H1973-74
Strengthening America's Turning Point Act
H.R. 1550, to redesignate Saratoga National Historical Park as Saratoga National Battlefield Park;
Pages H1974-75
Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2025
H.R. 1829, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest;
Pages H1975-76
South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act of 2025
H.R. 531, amended, to amend the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988;
Pages H1977-79
Redesignating certain facilities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr
H.R. 249, to redesignate certain facilities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr, by a 2/3 yea-and-nay vote of 362 yeas to 50 nays with two answering ``present'', Roll No. 124;
Pages H1979-80, H1986-87
Apex Area Technical Corrections Act
H.R. 618, amended, 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;
Pages H1980-82
Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act
H.R. 952, to convey the reversionary interest of the United States in certain land in Sacramento, California; and
Pages H1982-83
Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2025
H.R. 2492, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to permit removal of trees around electrical lines on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands, respectively, without conducting a timber sale.
Pages H1983-84
Suspension: Proceedings Postponed
The House debated the following measure under suspension of the rules. Further proceedings were postponed. Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act: H.R. 2215, to redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park''.
Pages H1984-85
Quorum Calls: Votes
Two yea-and-nay votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H1986 and H1986-87. Adjournment: The House met at 12 p.m. and adjourned at 8:54 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: 196 of 263 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 1:50 p.m.
Madam Speaker, for the last 5 months, across the country, people have been waiting with bated breath to see what this big, beautiful bill is that the Republicans have been working on behind closed doors, much of it down in Florida putting it together, particularly America's healthcare sector. It has been clear from the outset that the Medicaid program, the program which provides more coverage for more Americans than any other program, 72 million Americans, was a target in this budget reconciliation bill.
Over the weekend, the measure had been released and we finally get to see what, in fact, it looks like. The chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who is a good friend and a good guy, came right out and said that Democrats are going to use this as an opportunity to engage in fear-mongering and misrepresent our bill as an attack on Medicaid.
Madam Speaker, it is not just Democrats and Republicans that have an opinion about what is happening here, it is about the people that the Medicaid cuts are going to impact, particularly our healthcare sector, particularly the hospital sector.
This morning, Politico's headline shows what their reaction has been over the last 48 hours, which is ``Hospital groups slam cuts to Medicaid in megabill.''
This is a sector that has many trade associations, the biggest one, the American Hospital Association, came right out and said that it will lead to millions of Americans losing access to healthcare and leaving many of our hospitals struggling to maintain services and stay open for their communities.
The Catholic Health Association said, Congress has a moral obligation to consider the harm that this would have for America's most vulnerable communities, cascading effects of lost coverage and cost-shifting will impact nearly every American.
Children's hospitals, who depend on Medicaid, can't cost-shift to older patients on Medicare. They have been blasting this proposal from day one and they have continued it.
Essential hospitals, which are the safety net hospitals for this country, have also said that it is going to lead to closures of hospitals as well as the private-sector hospitals.
The Federation of American Hospitals, Director Chip Kahn, came right out and said that it is imperative that congressional Republicans go back to the drawing board. Too many lives depend on it.
The American Cancer Society, not a Democrat organization, said the results of these Medicaid cuts will be devastating. Lives will be lost and State economies will suffer.
It is not too late for this Congress to finally engage in a bipartisan negotiation about ways that we can address the budget deficit and protect the most vulnerable people in our country, but unfortunately, part of this plan, this, megabill, is a tax cut, and this chart shows who benefits.
This bar here, that is the rich folks in this country, the top 20 percent; everybody else gets peanuts. That is what this cut is aimed at trying to offset, the impact, the fiscal impact, on the deficit that these tax cuts will produce over the next 10 years.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget issued their report last night and they conclude that this plan is going to add $4 trillion to the national debt. That is even with the cuts that were part of the Medicaid plan, which I talked about a little bit more. We have a bill, which is going to cut services, basically put one of our most vulnerable sectors in our economy which we all rely on, our hospitals, at greater financial risk all for the benefit of the small slice of America's population and it is going to add to our national debt, which according to what the committee said is now $36.2 trillion.
Last month, we paid $89 billion in interest on that national debt. That is the second biggest expenditure for the Federal Government. It is bigger than the Department of Defense last month in terms of what was paid, and that is what we are faced with.
This is a gut check moment for this country in terms of where are your values? Where are your priorities? Are you going to listen to the caring professionals, the people who are the nurses and the people that take care of us in times of healthcare crisis? Are we going to listen to that top 1 percent who are clamoring to make sure that their tax cuts--the Bezoses, the Musks, the Gateses--they don't really need the help. The people who are working their butts off every day in hospital wards making sure that we are all healthy and safe and cared for, they are the ones that need the help.
We need to reject these Medicaid cuts and reject this plan. Let's go back to the drawing board, as Mr. Kahn said from the Federation of American Hospitals, and do it the right way. Let's protect our values and protect our priorities, which all Americans depend on.
Madam Speaker, the House Energy and Commerce and the House Ways and Means Committees will hold markups on their respective portions of President Trump's big, beautiful bill this week.
This bill is our chance to lock in the agenda that the American people voted for in November by cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse, supporting small businesses, and supporting the American working class.
This legislation that we have produced in the Energy and Commerce Committee will strengthen Medicaid for low-income children, for pregnant women, for the elderly, and for those with disabilities. For far too long, illegal immigrants and able-bodied Americans, who can return to the workforce, have been draining funds from the citizens who deserve and need Medicaid.
This ends now. The Ways and Means Committee is also delivering on President Trump's agenda by permanently extending the President's 2017 tax cuts. Our small businesses will continue to prosper. Also included in this big, beautiful bill is the removal of taxes on tips. It removes taxes on Social Security. It removes taxes on overtime, finally giving relief to the American middle class.
Additionally, this legislation also removes the tax-exempt status on university endowments like the more than $50 billion endowment that Harvard controls. The American people voted for an agenda that roots out waste, fraud, and abuse of our programs and gives the middle class the economic boost that they need.
Today, marks the beginning of delivering on President Trump's agenda.
Madam Speaker, this week is National Police Week, where we have an opportunity to honor the courageous law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line each and every day to protect us.
On the House floor this week, we will address the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Reform Act, legislation to allow our active and retired law enforcement officers the ability to conceal carry firearms where it may normally be restricted.
Our law enforcement officers are committed to protecting their communities and their fellow citizens, and they receive rigorous training throughout their careers. By allowing these brave men and women the opportunity to conceal carry where it is normally restricted, these local heroes will have the ability to respond to emergencies whether they are on duty or not.
Last Congress, I proudly supported this legislation on the House floor, and this Congress I look forward to seeing this commonsense legislation pass the House and the Senate so that President Trump can finally sign this into law.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the service of Gettysburg Police Chief Robert Glenny as he makes the next step in his career.
Chief Glenny attended Juniata College before beginning his 35-year career as a law enforcement officer with the last 6 years spent as the chief of police in the Gettysburg Police Department.
Before arriving in Gettysburg, Chief Glenny started his career in the Ferguson Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department, where he spent 26 years on the force.
During his time in Ferguson Township, Chief Glenny held roles that included patrol officer, traffic enforcement, and police sergeant.
Then, after a brief stop in Colorado to serve as the police chief there, Chief Glenny returned to Pennsylvania to proudly serve the people of Gettysburg.
During this time, Chief Glenny worked tirelessly to improve public safety and to build strong relationships within the community. As he moves on to his next position, the chief of police is held in high esteem in Gettysburg.
Madam Speaker, I thank him for his leadership and his ability to serve his community and wish him all the best in his next endeavors.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of the president of WellSpan Chambersburg Hospital, John Massimilla.
For 35 years, John has worked in Pennsylvania healthcare, working to ensure that patients throughout the Commonwealth have access to the care that they need.
Throughout my time in Congress, I have had the privilege of visiting John Massimilla and the WellSpan Chambersburg Hospital multiple times, and I am always thankful for his insight and commitment to the community.
John always looks to increase the hospital's ability to implement innovative treatments, truly elevating the level of care at the hospital. Additionally, under John's leadership, the WellSpan Chambersburg Hospital has implemented state-of-the-art security systems.
Throughout his career, he has exemplified what a true healthcare administrator brings to the equation.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate John on his retirement.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Tom Nichols, a longtime radio host and owner of KVRE, a beloved radio station in Hot Springs Village, Arkansas.
Through nearly seven decades on the radio, Tom has done more than inform and entertain. He has a trusted voice, a steady presence, and a true reflection of the character and kindness that define Arkansas at its best.
His show, ``Ask Your Neighbor,'' has been on the air for 45 years. It is a daily reminder of the value of connection, offering a place where neighbors can come together, share what matters, and strengthen the bonds of community.
Therefore, it is with great pride that we recognize Tom Nichols today for his induction in the Arkansas Walk of Fame, an honor that he has earned many times over for his outstanding contributions to our community.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late Raye Montague, whose creativity has earned her a place on the 2025 American Innovation $1 Coin, representing our State of Arkansas.
In 1972, Mrs. Montague made history by creating the first computer- generated rough draft of a naval ship, the USS Oliver Hazard Perry. This was a groundbreaking achievement that revolutionized ship design.
Mrs. Montague's work has not only reshaped the U.S. Navy's approach to engineering, but demonstrated the transformative power of technology in the defense of our country.
Ultimately, for Mrs. Montague's efforts, she was inducted into the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame and the Arkansas Women's Hall of Fame. In addition, she was awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award by the U.S. Navy.
Upon her return to Little Rock, I was pleased to meet Mrs. Montague and hear her inspirational story firsthand. Montague's visionary coin design was chosen by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. The coin depicts Mrs. Montague and the ship that she crafted with her groundbreaking model.
It is fitting that we celebrate Mrs. Raye Montague's legacy. Years later,
Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Dr. Christina Drale, the chancellor of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock for receiving the E. Joseph Savoie Chief Executive Leadership award.
This prestigious honor recognizes presidents and chancellors who demonstrate exceptional leadership in advancing innovation and collaboration within their institutions. Dr. Drale is the first Arkansan in over a decade to receive and earn this recognition.
She became the chancellor 5 years ago after serving as the interim executive vice chancellor and provost at UA Little Rock.
From the beginning, she led with purpose, implementing significant changes to strengthen the university, such as implementing a partnership program with local businesses, offering employees scholarships for tuition, and other education opportunities at the university. Additionally, under her leadership, UA Little Rock has seen historic enrollment growth and improved retention rates.
These are just a few of the examples that highlight her outstanding service, accomplishments, and visionary leadership in higher education in central Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I offer congratulations to Dr. Drale.
Madam Speaker, when I was sworn into office, I took an oath to protect the Constitution of this great Nation.
I am an immigrant who came to this country with just $20 in my pocket. The United States has given me so much. I love America, and I will do anything to protect our Constitution and our democratic values.
President Donald J. Trump has been committing crimes since day one: bribery, corruption, taking power from Congress, creating an unlawful office in DOGE, violating First Amendment rights, ignoring due process, and, finally, refusing to abide by a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.
Just as I stand here in the House of Representatives, Mr. Trump is traveling to the Middle East to accept a gift worth $400 million from a foreign government. I have spoken with Americans all over the country. They asked me: What will you do as President Trump continues his unconstitutional activities? Well, Madam Speaker, I rise today to hold this President accountable.
The fact of the matter is, the President has committed crime after crime. I am not concerned about whether this is the right time or if there are enough votes from my colleagues across the aisle. I rise today to do my duty and uphold my oath to protect the Constitution.
The effort is not about partisanship. It is about principles. If we don't draw the line now, we risk losing the rule of law entirely. If we don't act today, we are complicit in letting democracy erode on our watch.
That is why I introduced H. Res. 353 to impeach Donald J. Trump, outlining seven Articles of Impeachment because when a President violates the Constitution, Congress must act.
My seven Articles in H. Res. 353 are as follows:
1. Obstruction of justice and abuse of executive powers. Trump denied due process and defied Federal court orders.
2. Seizing Congress' power of the purse. He froze funds and dismantled agencies without congressional approval.
3. Abuse of trade powers and international aggression. His reckless tariffs hurt American families, and he even threatened military actions against our allies.
4. Violation of First Amendment rights. Trump retaliated against journalists and critics for speaking out.
5. Creation of an unlawful office. He gave Elon Musk unconstitutional control over government agencies and American people's personal data.
6. Bribery and corruption. Trump dismissed criminal cases and accepted foreign payments for personal gain.
7. Tyrannical overreach. His actions reveal a dangerous attempt to consolidate unchecked power.
This is not leadership. This is dictatorship. We have Presidents, not kings. If we allow this to continue, we are telling the American people that the Presidency is above the law and that the Constitution is optional.
When Trump ignored Court rulings, we called it out. When he threatened the peaceful transfer of power, we pushed back. When he tried to dismantle Federal institutions, we said: No more.
Now we are fighting--in the courts, in Congress, and in the court of public opinion--because the truth still matters. I call on my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to do what is right: Impeach Donald J. Trump. Let's keep fighting.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Illinois Trooper Clay Matthew Carns, who was tragically killed in the line of duty on December 23, 2024.
Clay Carns was born on October 23, 1989, in Carbondale, Illinois, to Danny and Patricia Carns. First home schooled, he later graduated from Pinckneyville High School and went on to earn a communications degree from the University of Illinois. He proudly answered the call to public service and joined the Illinois State Police in 2014.
On December 23 of last year, Trooper Carns stopped to remove roadside debris along Interstate 55 when he was struck by a passing motorist and tragically killed.
Throughout his dedicated years of service, Trooper Carns embodied the highest standard of a law enforcement officer. He was awarded a Medal of Honor Department Commendation, a Unit Meritorious Performance award, and many other commendations for his commitment to public safety.
Beyond his service, Trooper Carns had a strong devotion to his family. He was a devoted husband to his loving wife, Meghan, and a proud father to Gray and Ally. Trooper Carns took great delight in fatherhood, describing his family as the light of his life.
He is also survived by his parents; as well as his siblings, Erica, Chad, and Elyssa; and a large and loving extended family.
Madam Speaker, Trooper Clay Matthew Carns embodied the heroism and devotion to others we expect from our finest law enforcement officers. He committed his life to serving and protecting.
While we mourn the loss of a precious life gone far too soon, I know he leaves a legacy that lives on in the hearts of those he loved and who loved him.
Madam Speaker, in addition to honoring Trooper Carns, this week we also honor those police officers who have served around this Nation as they come here to Washington. We say thank you and remember that they served us every day. This week, we also will honor those like State Trooper Carns who fell in the line of duty. Please, Madam Speaker, we must remember those who serve us so well.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Nonnie Alvis ``Whitey'' Smith of Rogers, Arkansas, who passed away on April 25, 2025, at the age of 88.
Anyone with connections to the athletic programs at Rogers High School either knew him personally or fully recognized what he has meant to Mountie athletics. No one I know or have ever known has done more for the program--not a coach, not a player, not anyone.
It all started back in the 1950s when Whitey himself was a Rogers Mountie. Playing tackle on the football team, he was the team's most valuable player in 1955. In that same year, he became the first from Rogers to play in the Arkansas All Star football game.
While his athletic pursuits were quite enough to make him a Rogers Mountie Hall of Famer, his greatest contributions, Madam Speaker, came over the next nearly 70 years as a friend of the program.
First, it was as a volunteer, working with and for the program to make sure every athlete had what they needed to succeed. The passion was intense. The ingredient? Chicken. Yes, chicken.
For 55 years, Whitey's Chicken Cookin' Crew gathered at a pit near the tracks on Locust Street, and over that span raised an estimated $1.5 million. The aroma emanating from the pit had a unique and mysterious way of slowing traffic to a halt. Passersby knew two things: Five bucks would get you a delicious meal, and those dollars would flow right back into the community. Like Whitey always said: It is for the kids.
Whitey Smith was also a businessman, having owned and operated Ozark Fence Company for over 50 years. The headquarters was a favorite gathering place for those in his circle. The potluck events were a regular happening. It became a who's who of the community who joined in the fun.
I also knew when I drove down Cherry Street and saw his pickup between the tracks and the shop, Whitey was there, likely planning his next benefit.
Madam Speaker, I know that in every community big and small there are individuals who have a special fondness for serving. In Rogers, that guy was Whitey Smith.
Inducted into the Rogers High School Hall of Fame in 1990, he was a staple in the community, and today the football stadium and a scholarship bear his name.
Whitey was well into his public service when I played against Rogers in the 1970s, but after moving to Rogers in 1979 and for 12 years as its mayor, I can attest to the tireless and selfless work of this pillar of the community.
It is my high honor to recognize him here on the floor of the House of Representatives for his contributions to the kids and his personal example.
To Janice, Becky, Tim, and his extended family, our heartfelt sorrow for their loss. May Nonnie Alvis ``Whitey'' Smith rest in eternal peace. May his legacy of service and compassion always inspire and be remembered.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful President Donald Trump announced the United States will now mark May 8 as Victory Day for World War II to commemorate the anniversary of the American and Allied triumph over national socialism and fascism.
Aligning with the annual commemorations held by our Allies in Europe, the victory largely was due to American Armed Forces, with nearly a quarter of a million killed, 250,000. Without the sacrifice of our soldiers, this war would not have been won, according to the White House proclamation.
Victory Day reaffirms American courage today and defeats the insane propaganda of war criminal Putin, where his stooge, Dmitry Medvedev, denounced the truth of President Donald Trump as ``pretentious nonsense.''
Stooge Medvedev should remember September 17, 1939, when Moscow, allied with Hitler, invaded Poland, killing 60,000 Poles in just 5 weeks, dividing the country in half.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Open borders for dictators put 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 lies with fellow dictators at his Red Square military parade instead of agreeing to Trump's request for a cease-fire, saving Ukrainian lives.
Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Police Week and recognize the law enforcement officers and first responders who put themselves in harm's way each and every day to keep our community safe, we must remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
I rise today to honor three fallen heroes from Minnesota's Second Congressional District who lost their lives in the line of duty last year: Officers Paul Elmstrand and Matthew Ruge and Firefighter/ Paramedic Adam Finseth were shot and killed while responding to a domestic violence call in Burnsville.
Their deaths have left a gaping hole in the Burnsville community and especially in our local law enforcement agencies. They will never be forgotten.
However, telling their stories is not enough. As Members of Congress, we must also recommit to making sure our officers have the resources they need to stay safe on the job so that a tragedy like this never happens again.
Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness today that I rise to honor the life and legacy of former U.S. Senator Christopher ``Kit'' Bond of Missouri.
Leslie and I join the Bond family, the Show Me State, and a grateful Nation in mourning the loss of one of Missouri's favorite sons.
Kit was a true statesman and a mentor to many, including myself. He represented the highest ideal of public service.
Having served for more than 40 years, including as Missouri's youngest-ever Governor and later as United States Senator, Kit's impact can be felt all over Missouri and across America.
Through various roles, Senator Bond prioritized improving care for our Nation's veterans, providing support for a strong and well-equipped U.S. military, and delivering for the residents of his beloved Missouri. We are proud to continue his legacy of service on the Appropriations Committee today.
It brings me hope to know that Kit now rests with his Heavenly Father, and we are eternally grateful for his lifetime of service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American hero, a distinguished resident of Indialantic, Florida, Lance Corporal Carl Miller.
While serving in Vietnam, he was critically wounded by a mortar but survived through remarkable courage. For his valor, he received the Purple Heart and was later inducted into the Florida Veterans Hall of Fame.
However, his service did not end on the battlefield. Corporal Miller continues to lead and inspire. He has served as commander of the Space Coast Chapter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and he actively mentors Brevard County JROTC programs and students, shaping the next generation of proud Americans.
Mr. Speaker, Lance Corporal Carl Miller exemplifies the very best of our Nation's values. I am proud to honor his service and his lifelong commitment to his fellow veterans and our home community. I salute my friend, Lance Corporal Carl Miller.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Lynn Minges as she steps down from her role as president and CEO of the North Carolina Restaurant and Lodging Association.
We worked together during my time as speaker of the North Carolina House, and I have seen her fight for the folks who run our restaurants, hotels, and other institutions during some of the industry's biggest challenges like the COVID shutdowns when so many were just trying to stay afloat.
One of her biggest wins with her team was helping pass the brunch bill, which gave businesses more flexibility and modernized some of our State's regulations. She was also a major advocate for recovery funds to help restaurants and hotels hit hardest by the pandemic. That kind of support made a real difference for people across North Carolina.
She has had a steady hand in the industry for job creators that mean a lot to our State's economy. I wish her well in this next chapter, and I thank her for her years of service.
Mr. Speaker, when I was sworn into office, I took an oath to protect the Constitution of this great Nation.
I am an immigrant who came to this country with just $20 in my pocket. The United States has given me so much. I love America, and I will do anything to protect our Constitution and our democratic values.
Donald J. Trump has been committing crimes since day one: bribery, corruption, taking power from Congress, creating an unlawful office in DOGE, violating First Amendment rights, ignoring due process, and finally refusing to abide by a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.
Just as I stand here in the House of Representatives, Mr. Trump is traveling to the Middle East to accept a gift worth $400 million from a foreign government.
I have spoken with Americans all over the country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 353: Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolution: Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
article i: obstruction of justice, violation of due process, and a
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. Further, Article II of the Constitution states that the President ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'', the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states that ``The right of the people . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated'', and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states ``No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law''. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--Donald John Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
Using the power of his high office, Donald John Trump has engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:
(1) By his orders and directions to subordinates, obstructed the administration of justice and embarked on a scheme to destroy and corrupt the legal system and the powers of the courts under Article III of the Constitution. Specifically, he has done the following:
(A) Directed and permitted his subordinates and attorneys at the Department of Justice to violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, laws of the United States, and the rules of professional ethics by adducing misleading and willfully false representations to the courts of the United States, and to otherwise abuse their official powers. Specifically, he has--
(i) sought to dismiss, without prejudice and under false pretenses, the bribery and fraud charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, in an unethical quid pro quo exchange for the Defendant's cooperation with the Administration's political priorities, thus abusing the criminal laws to unconstitutionally commandeer a State officer and unit of government in violation of the sovereignty thereof; and
(ii) terminated and purged career Department of Justice attorneys without reasonable cause and in violation of the law in retaliation for their legitimate investigatory and prosecutorial
On May 13, 2025, beginning near the bottom of the middle column of page H1955, through the third column of page H1959, the following appears: Impeaching Donald John Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors . . . Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The online version has been corrected to reflect the bill text of H. Res. 353, as introduced, verbatim.
(B) Directed and permitted the evasion and defiance of binding court orders. Specifically, he has--
(i) removed persons from the United States to El Salvador despite an order from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for which said Court has found probable cause that the Government committed acts of criminal contempt;
(ii) removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador despite a binding Withholding of Removal order prohibiting the government from removing him to El Salvador;
(iii) defied court orders, upheld by a unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court, to facilitate the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia, and related orders to provide information to the court and opposing counsel, while publicly flaunting their refusal;
(iv) acted in contempt of court for violating a court-sanctioned settlement agreement; and
(v) conducted enforced disappearances of persons without due process and without disclosing their fate and location to their families and legal counsel, in violation of the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court, as well as the foundational principles of due process and the rule of law.
(C) Directed and permitted the deliberate and systematic violation of laws duly enacted by Congress. Specifically, he has--
(i) terminated Inspector Generals, the officers responsible for detecting and preventing waste by auditing and investigating their respective agencies' operations and personnel, in violation of the process stipulated by the Inspector Generals Act of 1974, as subsequently amended;
(ii) terminated a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, a tribunal created to address widespread public concerns about the Federal civil service; and
(iii) unlawfully transmitted sensitive personal information of private citizens and government employees in violation of, among other Federal laws, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In all of this, Donald John Trump has willfully disregarded Federal laws and the Constitution, imperiled a coequal branch of Government, and threatened the integrity of the democratic system. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, abused the powers of the Presidency, acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and has committed the High Crimes and Misdemeanors of obstruction of justice and effecting a wide-ranging scheme to destroy and corrupt the legal system and the powers of the courts under Article III of the Constitution.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a Nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. Further, Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution states that ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law''. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--Donald John Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
Using the powers of his high office, Donald John Trump unlawfully usurped Congress and its power to appropriate funds, thereby nullifying the Appropriations Clause in the Constitution and violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since taking office, he has signed numerous Executive Orders directing agencies to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. The President does not have the power to override spending laws or impound appropriated funds, a principle affirmed by numerous Supreme Court rulings.
Donald John Trump has withheld funds and terminated en masse Federal employees and numerous Federal agencies and departments, including the following:
(1) Directed the dismantling of the Department of Education.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend momentarily.
For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan was recognized for 1 minute. He has substantially exceeded 1 minute with absurdity.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Actually, the gentleman had been recognized for a 1-minute speech. He then was recognized subsequently to give notice under rule IX for a resolution, so the gentleman has the floor for that purpose.
As enacted in the Department of Education Organization Act, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, the Department of Education was established by Congress to create reform in the education system throughout the country, distribute Federal aid to students and places of learning, and prohibit discriminatory practices. The President does not have the authority to dismantle the Department of Education, and his signing of Executive Order 14242, which aims to ``Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities'', violates the law and the Constitution.
(2) Unlawfully directed the elimination of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). As enacted in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, signed into law by President John F. Kennedy, USAID plays a crucial role in delivering foreign assistance worldwide, including disaster relief, conflict relief, combating global diseases, promoting educational programs, and enhancing food security in developing countries. By dismantling USAID and freezing foreign assistance, he has severed the United States from its humanitarian role as directed by Congress, leaving other countries and potentially our adversaries to fill in the role the United States has abandoned.
(3) Created the so-called ``Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'', which has imposed payment holds and rescinded funds after disbursement. Donald John Trump has utilized DOGE to unlawfully block or impound appropriated funds to dozens of Federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. By impounding congressionally appropriated funds, Donald John Trump and DOGE have not only violated the law, but have negatively impacted the American people by cutting jobs, halting critical services, and rescinding grants for programs, in defiance of the express, constitutionally binding will of Congress.
Using the powers of his high office, Donald John Trump has unlawfully withheld congressionally appropriated funds and attempted to dismantle congressionally mandated agencies. By withholding funds and crippling agencies, he has prevented the Federal Government from performing critical duties here and abroad. He has threatened the well-being of United States citizens through the gross misconduct of his office, resulting in dire and life-threatening consequences on the world's most vulnerable populations.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a Nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
article iii: abuse of trade powers and international aggression
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall have
On May 13, 2025, beginning near the bottom of the middle column of page H1955, through the third column of page H1959, the following appears: Impeaching Donald John Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors . . . Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The online version has been corrected to reflect the bill text of H. Res. 353, as introduced, verbatim.
Using the powers of his high office, Donald John Trump abused trade powers by imposing unjustifiable and unreasonable tariffs on foreign nations, causing a sharp decline in the United States economy and the economies of countries around the world, and declaring the false existence of a national security emergency to justify his actions. Donald John Trump's tariffs contradicted trade agreements established by his Administration and other administrations, including the duly ratified and binding treaty obligations of the United States, thereby breaking international laws and norms, leading to countries around the world to enact damaging tariffs on goods and services originating from the United States. His ``Liberation Day'' scheme, which imposed 10 percent tariffs on all countries, as well as additional tariffs based on a formula for ``reciprocity'' widely mocked as nonsensical, led to the most significant drop in the financial markets since the 2020 crash triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, Donald John Trump has threatened foreign nations with invasion, the annexation of territory, and the occupation of sovereign territory through the use of military action. By doing this, he has implicated the United States and himself in violation of constitutionally binding treaty obligations, to include the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy of 1928, the Charter of the United Nations of 1945, and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of 1947. Donald John Trump threatened the following:
(1) Annexation of the sovereign country of Canada. Donald John Trump has negatively impacted the deep and historic relationship between the United States and Canada by stating numerous times that Canada should become the 51st State, under the threat of both economic coercion and military force.
(2) Unlawful and aggressive military action within Mexico, to include drone strikes and the use of special operations military personnel, ostensibly against drug cartels, in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country and without any congressional authorization to use military force.
(3) Annexation of Greenland, an autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark. Donald John Trump has continued to use hostile language aimed at taking control of Greenland, stating that the United States will ``go as far as we have to go'' to obtain control of Greenland. He has refused to rule out military action to gain control of the territory, in violation of international law and despite Denmark's longstanding alliance and friendly relations with the United States.
(4) Annexation of the Panama Canal, owned and controlled by Panama. During a joint session speech to Congress, Donald John Trump stated that his Administration ``will be reclaiming the Panama Canal''. He has refused to rule out military or economic action against the sovereign country.
(5) Annexation of the Gaza Strip, involving the forced resettlement of the Palestinian population to the surrounding countries. Donald John Trump has stated that the United States ``will take over the Gaza Strip'' and ``own it''. His proposal of taking over the Gaza Strip and the expulsion of its population violates international law, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, would be unconstitutional absent the approval of the United States Congress, and is profoundly unserious in light of the grave humanitarian situation and ongoing armed conflict in Gaza.
Using the powers of his high office, Donald John Trump has unlawfully conducted himself, bringing shame and embarrassment to the office of the Presidency and the people of the United States. He has betrayed the trust of the Nation to conduct meaningful diplomatic negotiations as its chief diplomat and failed to maintain peaceful economic and defense relations with foreign countries. He has threatened the security of the United States through gross misconduct of his office, prompting hostilities towards Americans here and abroad, as well as foreign nations warning their citizens against visiting the United States, further harming the Nation's economy.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a Nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. Further, the First Amendment of the Constitution states ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances''. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--Donald John Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
By his orders and directions to subordinates, retaliated against law firms and attorneys who have advised or represented, or been associated with those who advise or represent, litigants who displease him, in violation of the Constitution's prohibition on retaliation against individuals for engaging in First Amendment-protected conduct, including the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Specifically, he has, barred attorneys at certain law firms from access to Federal buildings, arbitrarily revoked security clearances without a reasonable basis, threatened to cancel Federal contracts with any entity engaging the targeted attorneys and firms, and demanded pro bono services from law firms in exchange for the discontinuation of the punitive Executive orders.
Additionally, Donald John Trump has engaged in a pattern of unconstitutional, unlawful, and corrupt retaliation against critics and political opponents, a flagrant violation of constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment. He has weaponized the Department of Justice and other agencies to engage in spurious investigations and harassment, with no basis in law, of public figures and his perceived political enemies.
Since taking office, Donald John Trump has directed the Department of Justice to dismiss more than a dozen prosecutors who were involved in investigations against him after he left office in 2021. The Department of Justice has subsequently launched investigations into officials involved in prior probes against Donald John Trump, in some cases against individuals specifically named and accused in flagrantly improper Executive orders.
Furthermore, he has made direct and unambiguous public statements threatening media outlets, current and
On May 13, 2025, beginning near the bottom of the middle column of page H1955, through the third column of page H1959, the following appears: Impeaching Donald John Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors . . . Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The online version has been corrected to reflect the bill text of H. Res. 353, as introduced, verbatim.
For example, Donald John Trump has repeatedly threatened members of the House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, which investigated the attack on the Capitol that Donald John Trump instigated. Donald John Trump has sought to intimidate the members and staff of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack, stating that they ``should fully understand that they are subject to investigation at the highest level'' and expressing a desire to remove the pardons they received, stating ``The `Pardons' that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared [void, vacant, and of no further force or effect]''.
Donald John Trump has made it clear that he will not rest until all of his perceived political enemies are eliminated. In a speech addressing his Department of Justice subordinates, Donald John Trump further laid out his fascist vision for the Department of Justice. He has targeted watchdog organizations like the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, calling them ``scum'' and independent media outlets like CNN and MSNBC, labelling them as organizations that ``literally write 97.6 percent bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they are really corrupt and they are illegal. What they do is illegal.''. He has stated that newspapers critical of him are ``really no different than a highly paid political operative. And it has to stop. It has to be illegal. It's influencing judges . . . it just cannot be legal.''.
By these and many other actions, he has sought to outlaw dissent, opposition, and criticism of himself and his Administration. This attack on the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, and of association, and of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, is wholly incompatible with the rights and liberties of the People of the United States as a self-governing people under the rule of law.
In purpose and effect, he has attempted to suppress dissent and opposition, casting a chilling effect over the public discourse, and striking at the core freedoms essential to a free society and democratic elections under the Constitution.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a Nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. Further, Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution states that the President ``shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . . but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments''. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed-- Donald John Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
Using the powers of his high office, Donald John Trump has, through unlawful orders and directives, created an unlawful office, the so- called Department of Government Efficiency (``DOGE''), and assigned an extensive range of unlawful powers, effectively granting this flagrantly unconstitutional creation significant control over the executive branch. Donald John Trump has appointed Mr. Elon Musk as the de facto head of this contrived entity, which was not created or funded by any law, without a formal title or office. These actions have been in direct violation of the Constitution's requirement that principal officers of the United States must be created by law and their appointees confirmed by the Senate, and that inferior offices must be created by law with their appointment vested as Congress may determine.
Additionally, he has vested these powers in Mr. Musk without complying with the constitutional requirement that all officers of the United States be commissioned by the President and swear an oath of office to support the Constitution. Mr. Musk has been designated as a special government employee of the White House Office, in violation of statutory authorization and restrictions on such designations. This false claim has also been used to commit violations of the ethics, disclosure, and conflict-of-interest laws applicable to government officers and regular employees.
Contrary to the Government's claims in court, Mr. Musk has exercised de facto control over DOGE and, through it, control over a wide range of Government departments and agencies. This unmistakable reality has been repeatedly and openly stated by the Trump Administration, including by Donald John Trump's own address to Congress on March 4, 2025. In this capacity, Mr. Musk and his subordinates have undertaken numerous violations of the Constitution and laws, including by--
(1) impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress;
(2) violations of privacy and security laws with respect to sensitive information systems, personally identifiable information, and classified material; and
(3) termination of government employees under false pretenses and in violation of civil service laws.
These actions have vastly exceeded the terms of the formal executive orders purporting to create DOGE under the direction of a ``U.S. DOGE Service Administrator'', an office which remained vacant for several weeks, with the Government's own attorneys claiming in court that the official head of DOGE was unknown to them. Since that time, a nominal Administrator has been named, despite the repeated avowals from the President and his Administration that Mr. Musk controls and directs DOGE, as confirmed by ample public reporting and Mr. Musk's own statements.
Donald John Trump has abused the powers of his high office and breached the public trust by establishing the so-called Department of Government Efficiency and unconstitutionally placing Mr. Musk in control of this entity, knowingly provided false testimony to the court regarding the leadership of the said entity, and directing the unlawful entity to implement his agenda, in violation of the Constitution's objective of establishing Justice and fundamental rules for how the executive branch of the United States is to be structured and how persons may be appointed to public office.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a Nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
On May 13, 2025, beginning near the bottom of the middle column of page H1955, through the third column of page H1959, the following appears: Impeaching Donald John Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors . . . Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The online version has been corrected to reflect the bill text of H. Res. 353, as introduced, verbatim.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. Further, Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution states that ``no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any . . . foreign State''. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--Donald John Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
Donald John Trump has engaged in a pattern of unlawful corruption for the personal profit of himself and his associates, soliciting and accepting bribes in exchange for official actions, policy influence, and favorable treatment from the Administration. In so doing, he has, beyond a reasonable doubt, profiteered from public office on a scale unprecedented in American history.
Donald John Trump has engaged in fraudulent con artist schemes through ``pump and dump'' or ``rug pull'' tactics for cryptocurrency tokens he has created, and at the same time, enabled a direct conduit for bribes paid to him in exchange for official actions.
Donald John Trump has also leveraged the threat of hostile government action and the corresponding offer of preferential treatment in order to extract large payments in the form of settlements for meritless and vexatious litigation he pursues in his personal capacity, thereby corrupting both the executive branch and the judiciary. To advance this end, Donald John Trump solicited and received $940,000,000 in pro bono services from prominent law firms to help causes he personally supports.
Donald John Trump has refused to divest himself or take any steps to prevent conflicts of interest in his substantial personal business ventures, creating another conduit for the payment of bribes.
Donald John Trump has permitted and encouraged his subordinates to violate laws regarding ethics, disclosures, and self-dealing, and through these actions, he has enabled and encouraged corruption and graft by his relatives, associates, and political allies.
Donald John Trump has, in these ways and others, solicited payments from foreign governments for corrupt purposes and in flagrant violation of the Constitution's prohibition on foreign emoluments.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a Nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. Further, the system of checks and balances, as well as the separation of powers, as defined in the Constitution, work to ensure that the Office of the President does not become tyrannical. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed-- Donald John Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
He has, by his actions and statements, sought to establish himself as tyrant, dictator, and autocrat over the People of the United States, usurping unto himself the constitutional powers of Congress, the courts, and the States, and powers illegitimate and beyond the scope of lawful government altogether.
He has claimed for himself absolute and arbitrary power, the ability to suspend laws at whim, and utterly disregarded and betrayed his oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
He has denied and violated the right of the People of the United States to freedom of speech, and of assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
He has denied and violated the right of the People of the United States to due process of law and equal protection under the laws, to fair and impartial independent courts, and to legal counsel.
He has sought to intimidate and coerce, by means including the threat of unlawful prosecutions and by encouraging violence and threats of violence, the Representatives and Senators in Congress.
He has denied and violated the separation of powers and the Constitution's system of checks and balances, arrogating unto himself the legislative and judicial powers, including the power of Congress to levy taxes, appropriate public funds, direct the organization of officers and agencies of the executive branch, and to make laws.
He has sought to intimidate, coerce, and extort the officers of the several States, including those elected by the People thereof, and thereby sought to commandeer the several States, in violation of their sovereignty and the system of federalism established by the Constitution of the United States.
He has sought to abrogate the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, by means including the issuance of an executive order that directs executive departments and agencies to withhold citizenship from certain classes of persons who are born within the United States.
He has repeatedly threatened and suggested that he intends to violate the Presidential term limits established by the 22d Amendment to the Constitution, and adopted overtly monarchical aspirations and affectations, including by invoking and endorsing theories that he is above the law or that his personal will constitutes the law.
In all of this, Donald John Trump has willfully disregarded Federal laws and the Constitution, imperiled a coequal branch of Government, and threatened the integrity of the democratic system. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, abused the powers of the Presidency, acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors in attempting to establish himself as a lawless tyrant to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a Nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
On May 13, 2025, beginning near the bottom of the middle column of page H1955, through the third column of page H1959, the following appears: Impeaching Donald John Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors . . . Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he is unfit to govern a nation by and for the people, has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law, and will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The online version has been corrected to reflect the bill text of H. Res. 353, as introduced, verbatim.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from Michigan will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the State College Kiwanis Club for reaching a remarkable milestone, 100 years of service to children and families in our community.
Since 1925, the club has lived out Kiwanis International's mission of improving the world one child and one community at a time.
Children are our future, and too many face challenges they cannot overcome alone. It is our responsibility as a community to step in, and the State College Kiwanis has done just that.
Through initiatives like its annual blueberry sale, the club provides over $30,000 in scholarships and grants each year. Over the past century, they have raised more than $1 million to support organizations such as Centre Volunteers in Medicine, the Tides Program, the Jana Marie Foundation, and Centre Safe.
Their impact goes far beyond fundraising. Whether promoting literacy, supporting youth mental health, or investing in dental care, their work ensures our children have the chance to thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the State College Kiwanis Club for a century of service and wish them continued success for the next 100 years.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 364) calling upon local communities to support organizations that provide resources and aid Gold Shield Families in their time of need.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder) and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Pou) each will control 20 minutes.
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 into the Record on H. Res. 364.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 364 calls on local communities to support organizations that provide resources and aid to Gold Shield families in their time of need. This is a commonsense resolution that recognizes the families of fallen servants of public safety as revered Gold Shield families.
These Gold Shield families deserve support from their communities in their time of need. This resolution honors the ultimate sacrifice that their loved ones made in the line of duty.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) for his leadership on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 364, which calls on local communities to support organizations that provide resources and assistance to the Gold Shield families.
Gold Shield families suffer tremendous, heartbreaking loss when their loved ones--police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and corrections officers--are killed while serving their communities.
Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 364 because Gold Shield families deserve recognition and need assistance. I am speaking of families such as those of Captain Basil Pizzuto of Saddle Brook and Sergeant Robert Miller of Clifton, both from the State of New Jersey.
Yet, I must also highlight that the Department of Justice recently terminated 365 competitive grants totaling $811 million. This is funding that Congress provided to the Justice Department to help prosecutors, police, and sheriffs' departments protect and enhance public safety.
While the Trump administration and my friends across the aisle call for law and order and public safety, the Department of Justice is terminating funding for congressionally authorized grant programs that keep our communities safe.
Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution before us today. I also urge my colleagues to express their opposition to the elimination of congressionally authorized public safety grant programs at the Department of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud support of H. Res. 364, recognizing the Gold Shield families resolution. I thank my colleague, Congressman Meuser, for his leadership in reintroducing this important measure.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution honors the families of fallen first responders, those who paid the ultimate price while protecting and serving our communities.
These families, often referred to as the Gold Shield families, carry an unthinkable burden of loss. It is our duty not just as lawmakers but as fellow citizens to ensure that their sacrifice is never forgotten and see that their families are taken care of after they are gone.
An astounding example of this mission and inspiration for the resolution is right in my congressional district. Camp Freedom in Carbondale, Pennsylvania, provides meaningful outdoor adventures that promote healing for disabled veterans, first responders, and their families, including the families of the fallen.
By passing H. Res. 364, we send a clear message that the sacrifices of these families do not go unnoticed. We acknowledge that behind every fallen officer, firefighter, or EMT is a family--spouse, children, and parents--who bear the weight of that loss every day, yet continue to honor their loved one's legacy through quiet strength and enduring service to their communities.
This resolution sends a clear message: We recognize them. We honor their sacrifice, and we stand with them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H. Res. 364, making it the first step in broader efforts to support Gold Shield families through both our words and our actions.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder) for his leadership, and I also thank my good friend and colleague Congressman Rob Bresnahan for his participation and great work and support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this is National Police Week, and I rise in support of my legislation, H. Res. 364, the Gold Shield families resolution. Out of all of the priorities that we face in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, none is more fundamental than ensuring public safety and protecting human life. It is the foundation for everything else--our economy, our freedoms, and our way of life--so the people on the front lines of that effort are our first responders.
Police officers, firefighters, EMTs, correctional officers, and dispatchers are the tip of the proverbial spear. They put themselves in danger, often on a regular basis, in order to keep the rest of us safe. They are the thin blue line, the thin gold line, and the thin red line that holds society together. They serve not for accolades but out of duty and honor.
Mr. Speaker, I know this personally. My father was a police officer and a detective, while my grandfather also was a firefighter. He was the captain of his house.
I remember clearly the risks that my father took every day he walked out the door. I remember well what it meant to be a police family, and I know the courage it takes not just for the officer but for the family members who stand behind them.
When the worst happens, when a first responder is lost in the line of duty, it is the family who bears the burden of that sacrifice for the long term. They are the ones picking up the pieces, mourning their loved ones, and carrying their legacy forward.
The term ``Gold Shield families'' is modeled after the Gold Star families, which honors the families of fallen military servicemembers. Gold Shield families are those whose loved ones wore a different kind of uniform and who served in our communities rather than abroad but whose sacrifice was no less significant.
The resolution simply acknowledges that reality, Mr. Speaker. It affirms that these families who have lost a loved one in the line of duty deserve the respect and support of the communities that they served. Their sacrifices and their struggles will not be forgotten, and our local communities must play their part to support nonprofit organizations that serve Gold Shield families during their time of grief and hardship.
H. Res. 364 encourages Gold Shield families to turn on these trusted groups for connection, care, and healing as they navigate life after loss. This resolution was inspired by one such organization, Camp Freedom in Carbondale, Pennsylvania. Their executive director, my good friend Matt Guedes, is in the Chamber with us tonight. He brought this idea forward, and I thank Matt very, very much for a great idea and for helping us see it through.
Mr. Speaker, Matt is a veteran and a passionate advocate for those who serve. He saw firsthand the need to give proper recognition to the families of fallen first responders, especially those who had once served our country in uniform and continued that service here at home.
Camp Freedom provides outdoor healing experiences for disabled veterans, first responders, and their families. Their mission is rooted in community, connection, and recovery. I thank Matt and all of his team for all that they do to support those who served our country.
To date, Camp Freedom has served more than 12,000 veterans', first responders', and servicemembers' families from across Pennsylvania and the country.
Mr. Speaker, I also recognize Bill Bachenberg, who founded Camp Freedom. His passion and vision have made Camp Freedom what it is today: a special place for many.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is only two pages long, but its message is powerful. It recognizes these families. It thanks them and affirms that their sacrifices are worthy of our continued support.
This resolution has strong bipartisan backing, and I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined as cosponsors.
During National Police Week, let me say this to every police officer, firefighter, EMT, dispatcher, and emergency responder: I thank them for their service. They are the thin gold line that separates us from chaos. They are the reason that our Constitution is more than words on paper.
Mr. Speaker, to every Gold Shield family, their loved one's service mattered. The sacrifice of their loved one will not be forgotten, and neither will theirs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 364. Let's pass this resolution and give these families the recognition and community support that they have long deserved.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, H. Res. 364 is a commonsense resolution that honors the sacrifices of our brave public servants and helps to ensure the welfare of their families.
I urge support of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 364.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 30) expressing support for local law enforcement officers.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 20 minutes.
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 H. Con. Res. 30.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate National Police Week. In so doing, we honor those officers who have been killed in the line of duty, as well as those who bravely serve their communities every single day.
More than 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation that designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that day falls as Police Week.
Thousands of law enforcement officers are visiting Washington, D.C., this week to honor their colleagues who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I extend my sincere gratitude to all local law enforcement officers and their families for their sacrifice and their service.
These police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities, and they do this despite the obstacles and dangers that we all know that they face. Police officers rush into harm's way out of duty and devotion to their sacred oath: ``To Protect and Serve.''
The families of law enforcement officers also bear the burden of service through missed birthdays, school events, and sports games. This resolution is a small way in which we can show our thanks. I encourage all Members to take time to pray, show their support for, and say thank you to our local law enforcement heroes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), who served in law enforcement as a sheriff, for his work in putting this together and sponsoring the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we welcome thousands of law enforcement personnel to Washington for National Police Week. We remember officers who lost their lives in service to our communities and our country, and we thank all officers who work to keep us safe while reflecting on how we can invest in law enforcement to better serve our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support this resolution because we strongly support our local law enforcement officers. Yet, we also strongly support our State, Federal, and Tribal law enforcement officers, as well. Why are these brave officers not part of this resolution? This is a strange development.
In the last Congress, the 118th Congress, we passed H. Con. Res. 40 to honor local law enforcement. We also passed H. Res. 363 in 2023 to recognize the police lives lost that year and the importance of funding and supporting all law enforcement, Federal, State, county, and local. These were followed by H. Con. Res. 106 and H. Res. 1213 in 2024, which did the same.
This year the majority has chosen to have us solely recognizing local law enforcement. Why is that? What explains this strange omission of the Federal police officers who serve us?
With President Trump back in office, the majority apparently now sees fit to honor only local officers and not the Federal law enforcement officers who fought so valiantly to protect every Member of this body and the Senate, our staffs, and our democracy on January 6, 2021. Apparently, their commitment to backing the blue is so weak that they now won't even mention Federal officers because they have to maintain the pretense that Capitol officers did something wrong by defending us against the violent rampage of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and other extremist marauders who stormed the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.
Is that right or will the majority please prepare a resolution honoring Federal law enforcement, as well that we can bring to the floor?
This is one troubling sign among many of an ideological abandonment of our Federal law enforcement officers and there are more than 137,000 of them, not just the Capitol Police.
Speaker Johnson still refuses to hang a simple plaque honoring those officers as is required by Federal law. The bill mandating the creation and placement of the plaque, H.R. 2471, was signed into law on March 15, 2022, and the plaque was supposed to have been erected within 1 year of that, March 15, 2023.
The plaque is finished, it is ready to be placed, and it looks like this. It reads: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6th, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.''
Well, it seems it is already being forgotten by the GOP majority or at least they want us to forget it. Are my friends so captive to conspiracy theories and revisionist fantasies about January 6 that they will not do the bare minimum to honor the police officers who fought tooth and nail to protect every person in this room who was there, including Members on my side of the aisle and Members on the other side of the aisle?
The people we are failing to honor by not hanging this plaque include at least 140 police officers who were beaten with poles, bats, American flags, Trump flags, Confederate battle flags, and their own shields. These are people who lost fingertips. They suffered concussions, broken jaws, and broken ribs. They had heart attacks and strokes. They sustained multiple other violent injuries and suffer from them, many of them, to this day, in one of the worst days of injuries for law enforcement officers in the United States in this century.
This affront is now adding further symbolic insult to the grievous injury that began at the beginning of this administration. President Trump granted full pardons to more than 1,500 insurrectionists and rioters and commuted the sentence of the rightwing extremists who spearheaded the attack on this Chamber and on the police officers who defended us.
More than 600 of those defendants whose pardons are full, complete, and unconditional were charged with assaulting or obstructing law enforcement officers. Now President Trump, backed by his own Justice Department, thinks that the violent insurrectionists should be compensated, not the police officers, but rather the people who perpetrated this assault on America.
President Trump said: A lot of the people in the government really like that group of people. He is creating a compensation fund not for the officers
That is the decision, to cast his lot with the Proud Boys and other extremists that he incited on that day.
Many of the officers who served on January 6 feel betrayed by the officials whose lives they saved that day. Take former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell who was nearly crushed to death on January 6.
Sergeant Gonell is an Army veteran from the Iraq war and was upholding his oath to defend and protect the seat of our Nation's government. He said he saw violence on that day here at the Capitol far worse than anything he experienced fighting for America abroad.
Despite the fact that he and many other officers nearly lost their lives and now face lifelong injuries that have forced him out of the line of police work, they still cannot get approved for Public Safety Officers' Benefits, which provide disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty.
As Sergeant Gonell recently told my staff, Trump is treating the rioters like they were the ones defending the Capitol. He noted that at every turn when Republicans could honor the bravery of law enforcement officers that day, they have instead chosen to do nothing.
Of course, if my colleagues across the aisle want to focus on local law enforcement, then I might ask why we are simply honoring them with this concurrent resolution and not taking more meaningful action, like restoring millions of dollars in Federal grants that help support them that were recently terminated by the Department of Justice at the direction of DOGE and Elon Musk.
Those grants supported programs like the rural violent crime reduction initiative, which delivered financial assistance directly to dozens of rural law enforcement agencies across America and allowed agencies to upgrade technology and equipment, hire and deploy personnel, support victim services and crime prevention programming, and fill in other gaps in policing for small, rural, underfunded police agencies.
We should be grateful for all of our officers, Federal, State, county, and local, who help keep us safe while people are in their communities and while Members of Congress come to Washington, D.C. We should be grateful for all of them.
Let's join together to uplift all law enforcement officers whether they are local or State, Tribal, or Federal, and let's support them symbolically with our words but more importantly with our actions. Let's restore all of the funding, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been cut or that face cuts by this new administration.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans honor local law enforcement, Democrats defund them. Five years ago this summer, they spent the whole summer doing that. That is all you would hear from Democrats, got to defund the local police. We have been consistent. We have condemned violence every single time it happened whether it was January 6 or the summer of 2020. They haven't.
The summer of 2020, I still remember the guy standing in front of the burning building on CNN saying, this is a mostly peaceful protest. They spent the whole summer trying to defund the police, so don't give us the lecture.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), the fine gentleman who served in local law enforcement, who was a sheriff, and who knows what it is like to go out there and protect his community, for sponsoring this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan resolution honoring the brave men and women who serve in local law enforcement.
These officers work tirelessly to protect and serve, putting their lives on the line every day to uphold the rule of law.
As a former sheriff, a son of a police officer, and a 42-year career police officer, I have walked in their shoes. I know the toll it takes on them. I know the long hours, sleepless nights, and time spent away from family. I know this stuff.
I know what it means to respond to a tragedy, to console a grieving victim's family after a horrendous crime has happened to them involving tragic accidents. I have seen things most Americans will thankfully never have to experience.
When others run away from danger, law enforcement and first responders run toward it. They fight crime, protect the innocent, and too often, make the ultimate sacrifice.
During my time in Congress, Mississippi has lost too many heroes: In June 2023, Madison Police Officer Randy Tyler was shot and killed while responding to a hostage situation. In January 2024, George County Sheriff's Deputy Jeremy Malone was shot and killed during a traffic stop on a rural highway. In August 2024, Summit Police Patrolman Troy Floyd was shot and killed during a regular, routine traffic checkpoint. Earlier this year, Hinds County Sheriff's Deputy Martin Shields, Jr., was shot and killed after responding to a domestic violence dispute.
These officers represent the best of our State and our Nation. Fallen heroes like these officers are being honored this week during National Police Week as thousands of law enforcement officers come to the Nation's Capital together here in Washington. That is why there is no better time for us to pass this resolution and make it clear that we stand for law enforcement.
My resolution expresses our gratitude to local law enforcement and their families for their service and sacrifice. It calls for stronger partnerships between officers and the communities they protect, and it honors the memories of those who never came home.
We have seen targeted, ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers. We have seen departments struggle to recruit and retain talented officers because they were vilified for deciding to serve their communities.
Mr. Speaker, this is the time for Congress to take the lead. It is time to make clear that we stand with the men and women of local law enforcement who protect each and every one of our communities with honor and courage.
I am proud that this resolution passed last Congress with overwhelming support. This police week, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution to send a clear message that Congress backs the thin blue line.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee denounce the assault, the violent assault, on Congress, the Capitol, our police officers on January 6, 2021. I wonder if he would work with me to help enforce the law that was signed on March 15, 2022 by President Biden for a plaque to be placed in honor of the police officers who served us so valiantly and so bravely and saved our lives on that day.
It was supposed to have been up by March 15, 2023, and the Speaker simply has remained noncommittal and indifferent. The plaque is actually completed. It is ready to be put up. We can show it again. It is not as big as this poster, but it is the smallest token of recognition and honor that we should be able to extend to the Capitol officers, many of whom are still with us on the force, for their sacrifice and the sacrifice that their families made based on their work that day defending us.
I wonder if the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would follow through on his very impressive statement that we all denounce the violence of any kind against officers, including the more than 140 Capitol officers who were wounded, injured, hospitalized, some of them permanently disfigured and maimed on that day as well as officers around the country.
Now, on the point about defunding the police. Look who is defunding the police: Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and their silent partners in Congress are defunding the police. They just terminated $500 million worth of grants, lost funding from the Department of Justice providing Federal support for local violence reduction by community police, community policing and prosecution, victim services, juvenile justice, child protection, substance abuse and mental health treatment, corrections and reentry, justice systems enhancements, research and evaluation, and
I brought this to the attention of the Judiciary Committee because, again, this was an operation by DOGE. We have got a Federal District Court opinion from northern California saying that DOGE basically has no legal status because it wasn't created by Congress. It might be a completely renegade operation in an attempt to create a fourth branch of government.
In any event, those of us who voted for the money, and that is people on both sides of the aisle, voted for the money to be distributed by the Department of Justice to local grantees didn't even know about this. I shared with the chairman and with all the members of the committee, the one name of the DOGE employee, an unelected bureaucrat, a juvenile bureaucrat from Silicon Valley who worked his way up through Tesla and so on, and they ended up in DOGE, cut hundreds of millions of dollars to local police. They defunded the police.
DOGE defunded the police. Donald Trump defunded the police. I introduced an amendment to try to restore every single grant that they cut off in severing that Federal investment in local police.
My colleagues uttered not a word, not a word in opposition to my amendment, but they all voted against it simply because they are walking the line with Elon Musk right off the edge of the Constitution because there is no constitutional grounding for anything that guy is doing.
They walked the line behind Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and they just defunded hundreds of millions of dollars from community law enforcement and public safety, so don't give me that lecture about defunding the police, which our side has never supported, but their side has just colluded in right now in terms of what the Department of Justice did.
That doesn't even get into their attempt to dismantle completely the ATF, shut down critical functions in the Department of Justice that protect us from foreign involvement in our elections, to take down the kleptocracy task force and so on. I don't want any lectures coming in our direction, either.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you can try to rewrite history, but it just doesn't work. Let me just read off the Democratic-run cities that did defund the police.
Here is the game the Democrats want. All during the summer of 2020, they were saying: Defund the police. Democratic-run cities all over the country were doing so.
Now they say: Oh, but because crime went up when we defunded the police, we want Federal taxpayers to send us money to make up for the cuts we did there and spent the money elsewhere. That was the game.
If you don't believe me, here is the list:
Austin, Texas, $150 million cut;
Boston, Massachusetts, $12 million cut;
Burlington, Vermont, $1.1 million;
Denver, Colorado, $55 million;
Eureka, California, $1.2 million;
Hartford, Connecticut, $2 million;
Kansas City, Kansas, $42 million;
Los Angeles, $150 million;
Madison, Wisconsin, $2 million cut;
Minneapolis, $8 million;
New York City, $1 billion cut that summer;
Norman, Oklahoma, $865,000;
Oklahoma City, $5.5 million;
Philadelphia, $33 million;
Portland, Oregon, $16 million;
Salt Lake City, $5.3 million;
San Francisco, $120 million;
Seattle, Washington, $69 million;
Washington, D.C., $15 million--we know about the crime that has happened in this city; and of course, in the ranking member's home State of Maryland, Baltimore cut their police department $22 million. Now they are saying: Oh, make sure the Federal money keeps coming.
Look, I am not against some of these grant programs. We will look at all those. However, don't say you didn't defund the police. You did. Everyone knows you did, and you all talked about it, and you cheered it on. For the bad guys who harmed the police that summer when you were encouraging cities to cut the police, you were raising money to bail them out. Your Presidential candidate was raising money to bail them out. You can have all the revisionist history you want. The facts are the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I will start just by asking my friend from Ohio whether he is referring to me when he uses the word ``you'' or if he is referring more generally to some other people because I would categorically deny having done any of those things.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, the gentleman refers exclusively--and I think he is aware of this because he is an extremely clever debater--to things that different local governments did or did not do. I don't know what Denver, Colorado, or Burlington, Vermont, did. I know what the United States Congress does, and we never defunded the police, and we never tried to defund the police.
On the other hand, my good friend, I believe, participated in--and if he didn't, I am happy to stand corrected, but I know a bunch of his colleagues said they wanted to defund the FBI, just like those who want to defund the ATF and shut it down right now, so that is a reality.
In any event, why don't we talk about what Congress can actually do? The President's new budget proposes to cut--so this is something that my colleague and I could agree on--$1 billion across 40 Department of Justice grant programs which support local police departments to reduce violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women.
Would my colleague work with me to oppose that suggestion in the President's budget? They want to cut $646 million from FEMA for violence and terrorism prevention. Why do they want to do that? I have no idea.
They want to cut $545 million from the FBI, cutting its workforce by more than 2,000 personnel. That sounds like defunding law enforcement to me.
I know they don't seem to be as fond of Federal law enforcement as they are of local law enforcement, but do they really want to cut more than half a billion dollars from the FBI to be fighting criminals and terrorists? For the life of me, I don't understand how they can do that while they swear fealty to law enforcement. It just makes no sense.
They want to cut $491 million from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, making our cyber and physical infrastructure far more vulnerable to attack by foreign bad actors like Vladimir Putin and President Xi and Kim Jong-un. I know there are some people in high levels of office who are fond of those people, who write valentines to Kim Jong-Un, but the rest of us would like to be protected from them. We shouldn't be dismantling the cybersecurity infrastructure of America.
They want to cut $212 million from the DEA. Can you imagine? If a Democratic President had proposed any of this, they would be screaming, their hair would be on fire, but Donald Trump proposed it, and they just mumble along like it is no big deal.
What about all of these efforts to defund Federal law enforcement, like the DOJ, FEMA, FBI? Will our colleagues work with us to restore that money?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have not said I was for defunding the ATF or the FBI. What I have said, what the American people have said clearly is they don't want these agencies weaponized against the very people they are supposed to serve. We all know about that. Think about this, though, when you think about the FBI's budget, it is like $12 billion. More than half of that budget, more than half of the personnel at the FBI are focused on intelligence and counterintelligence.
I think most Americans probably think the FBI should spend most of its
How about the ATF? We all know the example of the ATF raiding Bryan Malinowski's home. Bryan Malinowski was the highest paid official in the Little Rock, Arkansas, municipal government. He ran the Bill and Hillary Clinton airport. He was a gun hobbyist. The ATF thinks he has done something wrong. Instead of just going and visiting him, coming to see him, picking him up at his work, taking him back to his house to execute the warrant, the search warrant, no, they had to kick in his door, predawn raid, 10 cars pull up. The first thing you see on the doorbell cam is them putting tape on the camera. Mr. Speaker, 53 seconds later, Bryan Malinowski has been shot in the head and subsequently dies.
I am for these agencies actually serving the taxpayers, not being engaged in things like that. We respect the police and want it done right. At the local level, God bless them. I have not been for defunding them. We are for honoring local police, like this good sheriff, this Member of Congress, and what they do day in and day out. That is what this resolution was about.
The other side, they want to come here and start talking about all kinds of things I didn't intend to. You heard my opening statement. You heard the gentleman's opening statement. However, the other side wants to go start attacking things.
Okay, fine. We are just setting the record straight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Yes, the record is becoming increasingly clear here. My colleagues don't want to do anything about the dismantling of hundreds of millions of dollars of funds that we appropriated at the Department of Justice that have been mysteriously deleted by a DOGE employee from local law enforcement. These are grants that go to local police departments and victim assistance agencies all over the country. They got rid of that.
Then the President comes forward with a budget that will cut more than $1.5 billion, maybe $2 billion from local law enforcement to go after violent crime, hate crime, to defend the victims of rape and sexual assault, and my colleague changes the subject once again to talk about weaponization.
We have never seen weaponization of the government like what we have seen under Donald Trump and his Department of Justice. The first thing they did was they got rid of a dozen experienced veteran criminal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice simply because they had worked to prosecute January 6 insurrectionists and rioters.
Yes, let me repeat that. They fired prosecutors for doing nothing more than their jobs to prosecute the criminals who beat the daylights out of our police officers, and they sacked all of those prosecutors. They were some of the most experienced veteran prosecutors that we have in the U.S. Attorney's office. Then he named to be the acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin. He was just forced to withdraw that nomination because he was standing by a Neo-Nazi Holocaust revisionist who said that Hitler's problem was that he didn't finish the job. He also said that those who are born with disabilities should be killed at birth. Ed Martin called him a great man and a great leader.
He withdrew the nomination, but still he put Ed Martin in the Department of Justice in a position that is not subject to Senate confirmation. They have weaponized the Department of Justice. They have weaponized the Department of State. They are going after anybody they describe as a political enemy. Ed Martin was writing letters to Members of Congress when he didn't like what they had to say.
We have never seen weaponization of the government like what is taking place right now. They took the U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer, and they sacked her because she refused to take the position that Mel Gibson should get his guns back. That wasn't part of her job, but they tried to conscript her to it. The pardon attorney refused to do it because she said that was not her job and there were too many questions about domestic violence episodes.
If you want to have a separate hearing on weaponization of the government under Donald Trump, let's do it. In the meantime, let's support local law enforcement and let's support Federal law enforcement. Let's have another resolution praising all law enforcement for what they do, and let's get that plaque up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize what a fine resolution we have here sponsored by the gentleman from Mississippi, and we do. We all do appreciate the work of our law enforcement men and women who put that uniform on every day, risk their lives to protect our families, our communities, all the things that we care about.
We hope this resolution is a unanimous vote. We hope both sides support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) that the House suspend the rules and pass the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 30.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1682) to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for lifetime National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes for family members of members of the Armed Forces who lost their lives while serving their country.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1682, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1682, the Benefits that Endure for Lifetimes Of Service Act, or BELO'S Act.
This bill, led by Representatives Evans and Panetta, expands access to free lifetime passes to our national parks and public lands to Gold Star next of kin and families of veterans who pass away due to a service-related illness or injury.
Across our great Nation, military families play a vital role in safeguarding our freedoms. They provide unwavering support to the courageous
While nothing can replace a lost loved one, outdoor recreation has a proven track record of providing at least some measure of relief in times of profound tragedy.
In 2021, Congress permanently codified free lifetime passes to our national parks and public lands for Gold Star families in the Alexander Lofgren Veterans in Parks Act, a bill I proudly cosponsored and helped champion through the Natural Resources Committee.
Unfortunately, the eligibility for these passes did not include families whose relatives were killed in incidents such as hazardous training accidents or due to a service-related illness.
H.R. 1682, however, would expand access to free lifetime America the Beautiful passes to Gold Star and next of kin family members and family members of fallen veterans. This legislation is a meaningful way to support families whose loved ones were lost in selfless service to our Nation.
I commend Representative Evans for spearheading this noble effort. As a former captain in the Army National Guard, Representative Evans understands the sacrifices of our servicemembers and their families. In fact, the namesake of this legislation honors a former soldier of Representative Evans, Marc Belo, who dedicated over half of his life to serving our country in the Marine Corps, the District of Columbia Army National Guard, and the Colorado Army National Guard. Marc was one of the first responders to the Pentagon on 9/11.
Just months after his swearing in, Representative Evans is already delivering for the people of his district and military families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my strong support for his bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1682, a crucial measure that would guarantee free access to our national treasures for all Gold Star families.
To honor the sacrifice and service of their loved ones, Congress has provided Gold Star families with a free America the Beautiful pass that covers entrance fees and standard day-use fees for national parks and other Federal recreation sites.
However, eligibility for this program is limited and leaves some families out because of a technicality. This bill would fix that oversight by broadening access to include families of servicemembers who died during inactive or Active-Duty training, as well as travel to and from training or duty stations.
These families have already made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, and they deserve for us to fix this technicality. I thank Representative Evans for bringing this forward and everyone who worked on this in a bipartisan way to make this happen.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill, H.R. 1682, the Benefits that Endure for Lifetimes Of Service Act, or BELO'S Act, named after Marc Belo, a fellow veteran, aviation legend, and friend with whom I had the great honor of serving.
This bill would honor our Nation's fallen heroes and their loved ones by expanding free access to national parks to the families of veterans who pass away from a service-related illness or accident.
As a former Army Black Hawk helicopter pilot, I had the blessing of serving with countless men and women across the Active-Duty, Reserve, and National Guard components of our Armed Forces. During that time, I took on many roles, from supporting wildfire fighting efforts to deploying as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Mr. Speaker, any soldier or veteran will tell you that service to the Nation takes many forms, but that also means sacrifice does, too.
When I learned that, under existing law, only the families of soldiers who died in Active-Duty combat operations were eligible for free lifetime national parks passes, I immediately thought of my friend and fellow veteran, First Sergeant Marc Belo.
I served alongside Sergeant Belo for a decade in the Colorado Army National Guard. Belo was already a senior sergeant and crew chief when I was a young lieutenant. He took me under his wing from day one. Whether it was a domestic operation, including fighting fires and conducting search and rescues, or whether it was deployment overseas to the Middle East as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Marc and I were in it together.
He was the heart and soul of our company, Alpha Company ``Wolfpack,'' and the 2-135th General Support Aviation Battalion ``Blackjacks.'' An amateur photographer and a true patriot who was a 9/11 first responder and who gave his life to his Nation for more than 30 years, the passage of this bill could not come at a more timely, if tragic, moment.
Unfortunately, 1 year ago this week, Marc passed away from cancer related to his military service. His family, friends, and all who served with him were devastated.
Mr. Speaker, a friend you served with being taken far too soon by a service-related illness or injury is a story that, unfortunately, sounds all too familiar to veterans all across our country. The circumstances of their deaths can never minimize the magnitude of their sacrifice.
That is why I am so proud to sponsor the bipartisan BELO'S Act, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta). This ensures that the families of servicemembers who die in circumstances not related to combat, like training accidents or service-connected illness, are still honored with free lifetime passes to enjoy America's beautiful national parks.
While this will benefit military families from coast to coast, it will especially make a difference for the military families in my district, who are blessed to live so close to some of the most beautiful public lands and national parks in the country. It is truly the least that we can do to thank these veterans' families for serving right alongside their loved ones.
Veterans and military families often find solace, peace, and healing in the great outdoors. Whether it is coping with PTSD, undergoing physical training, or coming to terms with the loss of a loved one, national parks play a vital role in their health and well-being.
It is my sincere hope that this bill can play a small role in helping military families, like the Belos, find peace in their loss and honor their loved ones who are taken from them too soon.
This week marks 1 year since Marc left us, but his legacy lives on and is now helping other veterans to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring American heroes like Marc Belo and their families by passing this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank Representatives Evans and Panetta for their efforts to introduce this meaningful legislation.
This bill would reduce the financial burden on our military families who want to visit our national parks and expand their access to the healing powers of outdoor recreation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1682.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1612) to designate the
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1612, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Hill's legislation, H.R. 1612, which would add four parcels totaling 2,215 acres of Ouachita National Forest lands to the Flatside Wilderness Area in his district.
The Ouachita National Forest is the oldest and largest national forest in the Southern United States, spanning nearly 1.8 million acres across Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Managed by the U.S. Forest Service, it is a true multiple-use forest, supporting timber harvesting, wildlife conservation, and a wide range of outdoor recreation opportunities, such as hiking, hunting, camping, and fishing.
Arkansans take great pride in this forest, which draws more than 670,000 visitors each year. Currently, only 3.6 percent of the Ouachita National Forest, including the existing Flatside Wilderness Area, is designated as wilderness.
The Flatside Wilderness was expanded by 640 acres during the 115th Congress. The Forest Service also studied the potential designation of the parcels included in today's legislation.
This bill has strong local support and has been endorsed by Arkansas Governor Sarah Sanders; the Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism; and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Representative Hill for his efforts on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1612, the Flatside Wilderness Additions Act, introduced by my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
This bill would expand the boundaries of the Flatside Wilderness Area in the Ouachita National Forest by approximately 2,212 acres and redesignate the area as the Flatside-Bethune Wilderness.
Representative Bethune represented Arkansas here in the House of Representatives, and he was a strong champion for conservation. He sponsored the first bill to designate the Flatside Wilderness back in 1984, so the redesignation included in this bill is a fitting tribute.
Wilderness areas hold immense importance for a variety of reasons. They support and provide essential ecosystem services, including clean air, water, carbon sequestration, and critical wildlife habitat.
Protecting the wilderness is not just about preserving pristine environments. It is also about safeguarding our national heritage and ensuring a healthy planet for future generations.
I thank Representative Hill for his work on expanding the wilderness area in his State. I and many of my Democratic colleagues also have bills we would like to advance to provide conservation protections for special areas in our congressional districts. This bill demonstrates that we can and should work in a bipartisan manner to protect and conserve public lands.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Westerman, and my colleagues in the House who serve on the Natural Resources Committee for working with me on the Flatside Wilderness Additions Act over the past 5 years.
I stand in strong support of H.R. 1612, which I think is a model for how to go about considering recreation conservation lands in our national forests.
The Ouachita Mountains and the surrounding forest sit in the southwest corner of Arkansas. It is the oldest and largest national forest in our southern region. It has origins in my district of central Arkansas and stretches some 220 miles west into eastern Oklahoma through my good friend, Mr. Westerman's district.
It encompasses nearly 10,000 acres of rugged terrain, and the most treasured views in the Ouachita region are in Flatside Wilderness. For those visitors that Congressman Westerman referenced, the area also includes the challenging and very popular Ouachita National Recreation Trail, which bisects Flatside Wilderness.
Back in 1984, under the leadership of former Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers and my predecessor, Congressman Ed Bethune, the Arkansas Wilderness Act was passed and signed into law by President Reagan. This legislation designated Flatside as one of the first Arkansas wilderness areas to be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. At the time of its passage, the Flatside area was intended to be larger than what was ultimately designated.
In 1984, the Forest Service and its Flatside advocates were not able to craft a strategy where all the studied and preferred acres of the forest could be included. As such, Mr. Speaker, when I joined Congress in 2015, I set out to complete that original designed 1984 plan for Flatside.
In 2019, with the help of Arkansas Senator John Boozman and Chairman Westerman, we were able to add 640 acres to Flatside, which was signed into law by President Trump.
That same year, Senator Boozman and I collaborated on an appropriation measure that directed the Forest Service to complete a study on which the surrounding lands that were eligible to be added to Flatside would be carefully studied.
Mr. Speaker, it is the results of that 2019 legislatively directed study that was published in 2021 that are the basis for the law proposal before us today.
With the help of my colleagues, this bill will finish the work started some four decades ago in which I have been personally dedicated since joining this House.
With this final addition, the Flatside Wilderness area can continue to serve central Arkansas as a place of economic, recreational, and historic importance.
First, as Chairman Westerman noted, this is not creating a new wilderness area but simply designating additional land. It has wide support, as noted by my friend, including our local county and city officials in the county where it is located: Governor Sarah Sanders, Arkansas Parks & Tourism, the leadership of our Game and Fish Commission, and many other local
Rest assured also, Mr. Speaker, the current forest management plan for Flatside already includes prescribed burns, fire suppression techniques, and reiterates the authority of management to protect the area from fire, insects, and disease.
So, I thank my friend, Mr. Westerman, for working with me on this. I think it should be supported by all the Members in the House. It is a model, as we have talked about before, for how we bring local officials, outdoor recreation, conservationists, and forest land management people together to advance something that is sought by our local leadership in the State.
So I thank Mr. Westerman, Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, and Representative Emmer, as well as all the members of the House Natural Resources Committee for working with me on this proposal.
As I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that for four decades this has been an important place in my life. It reminds me of John Muir's famous poem:
Mr. Speaker, I hope future generations of Arkansans and a lot of Texas visitors will enjoy those glad tidings from Flatside.
I include in the Record an article titled: ``Opposites Attract: How a Conservative Texan Helped a Liberal Arkansan Enact the Sweeping Arkansas Wilderness Act of 1984.''
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would like to, once again, thank my colleague from Arkansas, especially Representative Hill, for his tireless efforts on this piece of legislation and for the diligence in the process that he labored through to get to this point today. I appreciate him bringing forth this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1612.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 331) to amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to clarify a provision relating to conveyances for aquifer recharge purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 331, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 331, sponsored by Congressman Fulcher. In 2020, Congress passed the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act. The intent of that law was simple. It allowed existing irrigation canals to be used for conveying aquifer recharge water without requiring additional authorization from the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, the implementation of this law has been bogged down by bureaucratic red tape. Despite the plain wording of the law, the Bureau of Land Management has asserted that the law does not apply to third parties, only to the right-of-way holders of record.
As such, H.R. 331 amends the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to further clarify that an existing right-of-way, easement, permit, or other authorization can be used to recharge aquifers on behalf of State, Tribal, and local governments, without getting additional authorization or paying additional rents.
The aquifer recharge and storage are already complicated matters that depend on a variety of natural characteristics, including soil type and underlying geology, which influence water retention and the ability to recover stored water. There is no need for the Federal Government to add further complexity to this important work.
Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 331 would amend the Aquifer Recharge Flexibility Act to allow third parties to utilize an existing right-of-way, easement, permit, or other authorization for aquifer recharge without further authorization from the Secretary of the Interior.
Underground aquifers play a key role in sustaining water supplies for groundwater-dependent irrigation, municipal water use, and ecosystems. This is especially important in areas experiencing drought and constrained surface supplies.
This bill will support aquifer recharge projects, in turn, strengthening water security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, out West, the development of an aquifer recharge program generally includes using existing irrigation canals and ditches to seep and percolate water into the aquifer. Much of this infrastructure crosses land owned by the Bureau of Land Management, requiring additional authorization for aquifer recharge activities, even when conducted on behalf of public entities. Cutting red tape for such activities is simply common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 331, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 167) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to authorize partnerships between States and nongovernmental entities for the purpose of reclaiming and restoring land and water resources adversely affected by coal mining activities before August 3, 1977, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 167, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative LaHood's bill, H.R. 167, the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act of 2025.
This bill would revise the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program by allowing third-party organizations to clean up coal mines that were abandoned before modern environmental regulations. These organizations would be granted protection from liability so they can assist in the cleanup of acid mine drainage without fear of frivolous lawsuits.
While Good Samaritan remediation laws have been successful in States like Pennsylvania, there is currently no similar Federal framework for third-party protections. As a result, would-be reclaimers are often deterred from cleanup projects due to fear of assuming liability for conditions caused by prior operations.
H.R. 167, however, would recognize nongovernmental organizations as community reclaimers, and States would assume responsibility for all community reclaimer cleanup projects, just as they currently do for approved AML contractors. This bill also establishes approved practices for these reclamation projects and a process for agreements between States and Federal agencies on mine drainage remediation.
Many third-party organizations support this legislation, as they need this liability protection in order to operate efficiently and effectively.
The Community Reclamation Partnerships Act passed the House in the 115th Congress and has moved through committee for the last three Congresses. It is time we passed this commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation that will help reclaim abandoned mine lands and clean up our local estuaries.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 167, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague, Representative LaHood's bill, the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act.
This legislation would amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to allow States to partner with third-party groups like environmental and wildlife protection organizations, to clean up abandoned coal mine sites. Qualifying projects would be exempt from certain legal liabilities that have stood in the way of cleanup.
Right now, there are many thousands of abandoned coal mine sites across the country, many located in Appalachia, from before the industry was federally regulated. These sites will sit for years, with rivers and streams running over them, polluting waterways in perpetuity, unless taxpayers shoulder the cost of cleanup.
With limited government funds and personnel to clean up these mines, many sites are left polluted for decades. To make matters worse, even if a Good Samaritan group wants to volunteer to help clean up the pollution themselves, current law requires them to take on full liability for the site under the Clean Water Act.
That means raising funds to cover all the bonding and liability costs. Even if the groups manage to do that, it is nearly impossible to get a permit for this work because of the high standards in the Clean Water Act.
This bill would address these issues by empowering communities to help clean up polluted sites.
This isn't a get out of jail free card for polluting companies. This is a tool that gives communities more agency to care for the places they live, work, and play.
On both sides of the aisle, we agree that Good Samaritans shouldn't face these barriers to completing honest and necessary work. However, this bill is only part of the solution to the abandoned coal mine problem. There is more to do to hold the industry accountable, but this is a good bipartisan step to cleaner water for our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill will ease the process for reclaiming abandoned mine land
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman LaHood for bringing H.R. 167 to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 167.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1001) to provide for a memorandum of understanding to address the impacts of a certain record of decision on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1001, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1001 sponsored by Congresswoman Hageman. This bill requires the Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration, or WAPA, to enter into a memorandum of understanding aimed at addressing the impacts that bypass flows at Glen Canyon Dam have had on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.
These flows are an attempt to manage an invasive smallmouth bass population that imperils the federally listed humpback chub below the dam. While well-intentioned, this action comes at a steep cost.
In 2024, the bypass flows produced $20 million in lost hydropower generation, which instead had to be replaced with power purchased on the open market.
WAPA makes these purchases using the Basin Fund, which is funded by hydropower revenues, not appropriations. In other words, utility customers end up footing the very expensive bill to address the impacts of predatory smallmouth bass.
The loss in revenues not only means higher electricity prices but also negative impacts on the Colorado River system, as the Basin Fund is the primary source of funding for operations and maintenance of the system's critical infrastructure.
I want to be clear: H.R. 1001 does not prevent bypass flows. It does, however, require the agencies to fully cooperate to minimize the impacts of these flows on the grid and its customers. It also requires coordination with hydropower customers and other stakeholders, including the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group.
I support this legislation and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1001 would direct the Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to evaluate the potential impacts of the 2024 supplement to the 2016 Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Record of Decision on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.
The Colorado River is an essential water resource, supplying water for municipal and agricultural uses, energy production, and fish and wildlife habitat. However, persistent drought, over-allocation of water resources, and the escalating impacts of climate change have placed unprecedented strain on the basin.
The record of decision was an important step in addressing species' needs below the Glen Canyon Dam, and preliminary data showed promising results in protecting native fish species.
As drought conditions worsen and water demand continues to increase, it is more critical than ever to ensure water management appropriately balances agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental needs.
This legislation will direct Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration to analyze how the record of decision may impact the fund's resources, hydropower generation at the Glen Canyon Dam, and endangered species.
I hope to work with my colleagues across the aisle on advancing meaningful legislation to safeguard environmental and cultural resources while addressing the long-term challenges of drought and climate change.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 1001, which requires the Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration, or WAPA, to enter into a memorandum of understanding to address the impacts that bypass flows at Glen Canyon Dam have had on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.
It is worth taking a moment to highlight why we are here today. Under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Reclamation wanted to rush to implement bypass flows to prevent smallmouth bass and other warm water invasive nonnative fish from becoming established below the Glen Canyon Dam outlet works.
This action, however, comes at significant costs as it would mean foregoing hydropower generation for the majority of these releases.
The Bureau of Reclamation initiated its record of decision, or ROD, over Glen Canyon Dam's long-term experimental management plan supplemental EIS this past summer. It was signed on July 5, 2024, with implementation beginning just 3 days later on July 8. Pretty doggone quick.
The ROD calls for higher flows at the dam to combat the presence of predatory smallmouth bass which threaten the federally protected humpback chub. These higher flows bypass hydropower generators in order to cool the river temperature below the dam in an attempt to disrupt smallmouth bass downstream.
While this ROD was well-intentioned, it comes at a very serious cost to communities and power customers. Due to the bypass requirements, the lost hydropower generation must be replaced with power purchased on the open market.
WAPA makes these purchases from the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund which is funded by power revenues or, in other words, by the customers. WAPA's preliminary estimate of energy replacement is about $20 million more than it would have been without the bypass requirements. Going forward, it projects the impact on customers to be even significantly more.
The American people are fed up with these heavyhanded decisions by the Federal Government that makes it increasingly difficult to get by in this country, particularly if you are trying to raise a family. Water is the interior West's most important resource.
For over 60 years, Glen Canyon Dam has been producing hydroelectric power, providing reliable, flexible, low-cost, emission-free baseload energy across the entire region. That is why this bill is important.
My bill requires the Bureau of Reclamation to acknowledge the effect of the decision through a memorandum of understanding that measures the economic, environmental, and reliability impacts of the action. I am grateful that this important legislation is being considered today.
Mr. Speaker, again, H.R. 1001 would bring WAPA, the Bureau of Reclamation, and local stakeholders together to produce an action plan to address the effects of the bypass flows on the Basin Fund, as well as the impacts of diminished hydropower generation at Glen Canyon Dam on grid reliability.
The plan will also require the Federal agencies to identify the impacts of these actions on any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
I again thank Representative Hageman for tackling these important issues.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1001.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 677) to establish a process to expedite the review of appeals of certain decisions by the Department of the Interior, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
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 H.R. 677, as amended, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 677, the Expedited Appeals Review Act, introduced by Representative Hageman. This bill addresses critical flaws currently plaguing the review process of the Interior Board of Land Appeals, or IBLA.
The IBLA functions as an appellate review body within the Department of the Interior. It is tasked with resolving the many disputes that arise in connection with the public lands and natural resources under the Department's jurisdiction.
With over 600 appeals pending before the IBLA, however, many cases go undecided and are simply left to expire. This effectively results in automatic denials even though no substantive decisions have been rendered.
Thankfully, H.R. 677 offers a needed off-ramp for appellants that the IBLA has left in limbo. Starting 1 year after filing the appeal, an appellant may submit a request that requires the IBLA to decide the case within 6 months.
If the IBLA fails to meet the new deadline, the case automatically becomes eligible for de novo judicial review outside of the Department. This solution will reduce the existing backlog while ensuring stakeholders receive their day in court.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 677, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hageman for drawing attention to the issues with the Interior Board of Land Appeals.
The IBLA resolves disputes related to public lands and natural resources under the Department of the Interior. However, the IBLA can take too long to decide these cases, leaving people waiting for years for a decision.
For example, at the end of fiscal year 2023, the IBLA had cases on their docket from fiscal year 2017. The Expedited Appeals Review Act would attempt to address this problem by creating an optional process for appellants to get expedited review from the IBLA.
Under this bill, if the IBLA does not make a decision by the expedited review deadline, the appellant can take the case directly to district court. The court would start the case de novo, compiling the facts of the case without deference to the original agency's decisionmaking.
While I agree with Representative Hageman that the IBLA timelines are a problem, I do have some concerns that the proposed solution doesn't get to the root of the problem. The underlying cause behind the IBLA's delays is a lack of capacity and resources.
The Board has stated it does not have the resources needed to resolve every appeal filed every fiscal year. Instead
Additionally, I am concerned this bill will create a fast-tracked review procedure that advantages wealthier appellants. Taking the case to district court is time-and resource-intensive, so only the wealthiest appellants are likely to use the expedited review process.
By making the IBLA focus its limited resources on expedited appeals, anyone without the money to take their case to district court may have to wait even longer.
I hope my Republican colleagues will work with us on providing the IBLA with the resources that would address the underlying problem here while also having an expedited review process.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of my bill, H.R. 677, the Expedited Appeals Review Act, or EARA. This bill addresses the backlog of appeals before the Interior Board of Land Appeals, or IBLA.
The IBLA is an appellant review board within the Department of the Interior, and it is tasked with resolving disputes involving public lands and natural resources under the Department's jurisdiction. This includes appeals involving the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
It considers appeals dealing with grazing, mining, energy development, wildfire management, timber harvesting, trespass, and more.
The IBLA's stated mission is: ``to provide an impartial forum within the Department of the Interior for the fair resolution of disputes involving public lands and natural resources under the Department's jurisdiction.''
There are, however, longstanding inefficiencies in the appeals process. When combined with the high volume of cases, it has resulted in a backlog of over 650 pending appeals dating all the way back to 2014.
The IBLA receives on average 290 appeals per fiscal year. Of those cases that are not resolved on jurisdictional or procedural grounds, only 2 percent are decided in favor of the appellant and against the agency.
As instituted, the IBLA is not only falling short of its stated mission for impartiality, but creating further burdens through its extensive backlog.
The EARA creates an alternative path for expedited review, allowing stakeholders to request an accelerated decision of their appeals within 6 months of such a request. Failure to meet this deadline then makes the decision immediately eligible for de novo judicial review outside of the Department.
This bill will alleviate the backlog in the IBLA, put the appealing entities on a level playing field with the Department and promote efficiency.
I am proud that this bill passed out of committee by unanimous consent, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide a more efficient and predictable form of recourse for those facing extended delays with their IBLA appeals.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman) for her work on this important subject. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 677, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 677, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1550) to redesignate Saratoga National Historical Park as Saratoga National Battlefield Park.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
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 H.R. 1550, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Stefanik's bill, H.R. 1550, which will redesignate the Saratoga National Historical Park located in her district as the Saratoga National Battlefield Park.
Saratoga County, New York, is the fastest growing county in New York State and features a robust economy and world-class tourist destinations for families and history buffs alike. However, this prosperous community in upstate New York would not exist if not for a series of legendary events that took place nearly 250 years ago.
In September 1777, General Horatio Gates led Continental Army troops against the British empire in present-day Saratoga County. In the ensuing Battles of Saratoga, American colonists forged a turning point in the Revolutionary War by routing the British invasion force.
Today, this 3,400-acre site is considered a unit of the National Park System. There, visitors can explore trails and experience the historic battlefield, which includes landmarks, fortifications, and other important structures.
Representative Stefanik's legislation would redesignate this hallowed site as the Saratoga National Battlefield Park, thereby recognizing its significance as a historic battlefield and highlighting the sacrifices made by the soldiers who fought there.
While this area was originally named Saratoga Battlefield Park by the State of New York, the battlefield nomenclature was dropped in 1938 when the area became part of the National Park System. With the battles' upcoming 250th anniversary, however, residents of Saratoga County and New York State have called for renaming the park to clarify its place in the heroic struggle for American independence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Stefanik for her leadership on this issue. She is a longstanding advocate for honoring America's history and protecting hallowed battlefields. Her leadership was crucial in ensuring the passage of the bipartisan American Battlefield Protection Program Enhancement Act, which was signed into law earlier this year.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1550 redesignates Saratoga National Historical Park as the Saratoga National Battlefield Park.
The site in Stillwater, New York, marks the location of a critical pair of battles known as the turning point of the American Revolutionary War.
American forces defeated the British in the Battle of Saratoga in October 1777, which the National Park Service notes renewed the patriots' hope for independence and helped secure foreign recognition and support for the American Revolution.
This truly was a turning point that helped invigorate the fight for our independence.
As a testament to the importance of this monument, Congress has on permanent display in the Capitol rotunda, just steps away from here and to the left of the monument of three great suffragists, a famous oil painting by John Trumbull of the surrender of the British General Burgoyne at Saratoga.
The State of New York began efforts to preserve the battlefield in 1927, establishing a park known as the Saratoga Battlefield Park. However, the site's name changed to the Saratoga National Historical Park when Congress designated it as part of the National Park System in 1938.
Today's bill would restore the use of the term ``battlefield'' in the park's name to reflect the site's significance in the American Revolution. This is a fitting tribute as we prepare for next year's 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for yielding me time.
I rise today in support of my legislation, the Strengthening America's Turning Point Act.
I am always proud to share with my colleagues in Congress and with the American people that upstate New York and the North Country are known as the cradle of the American Revolution, home to numerous battlefields and historic sites that were critical in shaping our Nation's founding and history.
As we approach the U.S. semiquincentennial and the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Saratoga, there is no better time to recognize the pivotal role this site played in our Nation's war for independence.
The Battles of Saratoga were the most significant turning points and one of the most decisive American battles of the Revolution. British General Burgoyne tried to seize control of the strategically important Hudson River Valley, but his campaign ended in defeat at the Battles of Saratoga, where he surrendered to General Horatio Gates.
The American victory against British forces at the Battles of Saratoga marked a changing of the tide in the Revolutionary War, hence, the turning point, securing foreign support from France and bolstering domestic support for the American patriots and their righteous cause.
This bipartisan legislation would rename Saratoga National Historical Park to Saratoga National Battlefield Park to more accurately reflect the historical significance of the site and emphasize the crucial military engagement that took place there.
The historic site was originally actually named Saratoga Battlefield Park, but when it became a national park in 1938, the word ``battlefield'' was left out of the name.
Unanimously supported by the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors, this significant fix will help increase public understanding of the deep significance the site holds in our military history and honor the site where so many gave their last full measure of devotion.
Mr. Speaker, I express my gratitude to my great friend and classmate, Chairman Bruce Westerman, for his partnership in ensuring our battlefields and historic sites in upstate New York and across America are preserved and protected for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill, the Strengthening America's Turning Point Act.
Mr. Speaker, this bill by Representative Stefanik acknowledges a significant site for its pivotal role in American history as we approach our Nation's 250th anniversary.
I urge the adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1550.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1829) to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
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 H.R. 1829, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Congressman Crane's bill, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2025. This legislation would transfer small parcels of Federal land to Apache and Navajo Counties to expand existing cemeteries.
Located in eastern Arizona, the communities in Pinedale and Alpine are surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Given the large Federal footprint, both communities have struggled to expand their respective cemeteries, which are currently located on U.S. Forest Service land and operated under a special use permit. If the cemeteries are not expanded, families will be forced to travel long distances to distant cemeteries to visit their deceased relatives.
To address this need, Pinedale and Alpine have worked with their respective counties to identify additional land to expand their cemeteries.
This bill provides a straightforward, commonsense solution by transferring U.S. Forest Service land adjacent to the cemeteries to the respective counties.
While this is a straightforward bill, I think many of us can attest to the invaluable role a burial place can play in the grieving process. Burial sites are sacred, eternal resting places that provide closure for the families of the deceased. Families should not be forced to travel long distances to lay their loved ones to rest due to the red tape of Federal land ownership.
As chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I fought to elevate the voices of rural communities and highlight their unique challenges. This bill addresses one of those unique challenges.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Crane for his work on this legislation. I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1829, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2025, a commonsense bill that will help rural Arizona communities meet an essential public service need.
This legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey small parcels of land within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest to Apache County and Navajo County for the expansion of existing cemeteries.
These cemeteries are running out of space. Without this bill, local families face serious barriers in accessing burial services close to home.
This bill would ensure the land remains dedicated to cemetery use. It also protects Federal interests through a reversion clause and places the costs of surveys and environmental review on the counties.
This is a respectful, efficient solution that reflects both local priorities and responsible Federal land management.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of my bill, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2025.
This legislation would transfer Federal land currently under the purview of the U.S. Forest Service to Navajo and Apache Counties.
For more than a decade, the communities of Pinedale and Alpine have struggled to find appropriate cemetery space to meet the needs of family members wishing to enter and pay respects to their loved ones.
My bill would expand the land adjacent to the Alpine Community Cemetery, preventing the need for members of the community to be laid to rest in a distant cemetery.
These communities have storied histories dating back to the pioneers, and they deserve to lay their loved ones to rest in a place that means so much to them.
My primary objective as a public official is to remain principled and effective for the district that I represent, ensuring that rural communities are not forgotten by the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Westerman, Navajo County Supervisor Seymore, and Apache County Supervisor Nelson, and also my colleagues on the other side for their support and their leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this sensible solution.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1829 will ensure that two rural communities in eastern Arizona have the space to lay their beloved community members to rest. I thank Congressman Crane for spearheading this critical issue on behalf of his constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1829.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 531) to amend the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 531, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act of 2025, introduced by my friend, Congresswoman Radewagen from American Samoa.
This legislation, which was adopted by voice vote in the House in the 118th Congress, codifies updates to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty that were first agreed to in 2016 and later adopted by the United States Senate in 2022.
The United States first entered into this treaty with 16 Pacific Island nations under President Ronald Reagan. It gives the United States access to some of the most fertile fishing waters that are found anywhere in the world.
This strengthens the United States' tuna fleet, which has experienced a rapid decline in recent decades, while also bolstering the United States' presence in the South Pacific.
The 2016 amendments improved the treaty's execution and clarified specific provisions. However, these important updates have not been codified, which has caused regulatory uncertainty.
Mr. Speaker, adopting this legislation will bring about the next chapter of the United States' engagement in the South Pacific. I thank Mrs. Radewagen for her leadership on this important issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 531, the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act of 2025, will help sustain American tuna fisheries and the conservation of marine resources in the South Pacific.
This legislation would implement the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, a multilateral treaty between the United States Government and the Pacific Island states.
This treaty authorizes the small U.S. purse seine vessel fleet to fish in specific and exclusive economic zones in the Pacific Island countries that are part of the treaty. These parties include Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, and many more island nations.
The exclusive economic zones of these nations are very close together and not far from American Samoa. There is little international water between them.
Purse seine fishing often uses fish aggregating devices, or FADs, which are large, circular nets that drift independently through the water for hundreds of miles until they catch fish. They have sonar and GPS, so the fishing boat knows where they are and when the net is full.
The nature of this fishing method, combined with the proximity of these countries, means that FADs can be released in international waters but float through other countries' EEZs while catching fish along the way. Without access to these EEZs, the U.S. purse seine fleet cannot retrieve the fish that they catch.
The South Pacific Tuna Treaty provides the U.S. fleet with access to these lucrative tuna fishing grounds and facilitates cooperation on various issues. It has been vital for almost three decades, fostering a mutually beneficial, strategic, and economic relationship between the United States and the Pacific Island countries.
The treaty was entered into force in 1988, was extended in 1993, and then again in 2002. Most recently, the parties began renegotiating the treaty and its annexes in 2009 and reached agreement in 2016.
The bill today proposes adjustments to the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 to implement the amended treaty, mainly providing more flexibility for U.S. vessels and the Pacific Island countries to negotiate access levels
This legislation will enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to implement annual access and fee agreements and new operational requirements efficiently, provided we still have enough staff to operate NOAA efficiently.
It will allow the United States and its vessels operating under the treaty to better utilize these benefits. This bill will benefit U.S. fisheries and help maintain a strong U.S. presence in the South Pacific region.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act.
I represent the beautiful islands of American Samoa in the South Pacific. This bill implements into statute the most recent changes to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty that was negotiated between NOAA and other signatory countries to the treaty.
These changes are important to support the American fishing fleet in the South Pacific, of which many boats call American Samoa home. These changes improve the operational conditions and flexibility for the fleet, which is America's last true distant-water fishing fleet.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the bill's cosponsor, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), for his support of this legislation.
``Live long and prosper.'' ``Soifua ma ia manuia.''
Mr. Speaker, on April 17, American Samoa celebrated 125 years as a territory of the United States. As we observe this historic milestone, enacting this legislation will ensure that the United States will continue its strong presence in the Pacific region.
When President Reagan first signed the legislation that established this treaty in the 1980s, he spoke of the bonds of friendship and affection that unite our people. This bill will ensure that these important partnerships will continue for years and decades to come.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Radewagen once again for her tireless work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Congresswoman Radewagen's South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act. I am an original cosponsor of this bill because we urgently need this update to U.S. law that will strengthen our national tuna fleet, restore regulatory clarity and reinforce America's presence and partnerships across the Pacific.
The South Pacific Tuna Treaty, first signed in 1987, has long been the cornerstone of U.S. access to the tuna-rich waters of sixteen Pacific Island nations. This access supports the operations of American purse-seine vessels, ensuring that our fleet can remain competitive in a region that is both economically and strategically vital.
The amendments enacted in 2016 provided much-needed updates, including clearer access terms and more flexible mechanisms for engagement with Pacific Island countries. But nearly a decade later, these improvements are still not reflected in U.S. law.
This legal disconnect has left the American fleet, including vessels operating out of Hawaii, in a state of regulatory limbo. Operators are forced to navigate conflicting rules between what the treaty allows and what our domestic regulations enforce. It's a situation that adds unnecessary risk, uncertainty and cost to an industry that is already facing tight margins and fierce international competition.
This uncertainty has serious consequences, particularly for Hawaii. My home state is not just a waypoint for the U.S. South Pacific fleet, it is a central base of operations, home to many of the crews, companies and services that keep the industry running. The fishing industry supports good-paying jobs across the Hawaiian Islands and ensures our communities have access to healthy, locally sourced seafood.
The impact is equally critical in American Samoa, where the tuna industry forms the backbone of the territory's private sector and plays an essential role in supporting families and sustaining the local econony.
Passing the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act today will eliminate this long-standing regulatory conflict, bring our domestic laws into alignment with the amended treaty and restore stability to a sector that is vital to the economic wellbeing of Hawaii and American Samoa. It provides the clarity our fleet needs to operate effectively and the consistency our Pacific partners expect from the United States.
The significance of this legislation extends well beyond economic benefits. The treaty itself embodies a broader commitment, one rooted in decades of cooperation, mutual respect and shared responsibility for the stewardship of ocean resources. By fully implementing the amended treaty, we not only support our fishermen and industry partners but also reaffirm the United States as a trusted ally to Pacific Island nations, help strengthen regional stability and reinforce our leadership in a part of the world where long-term relationships are built on trust, continuity and cultural understanding.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation--for the future of American fisheries, for the strength of our partnerships across the Pacific and for the communities in Hawaii and American Samoa that depend on this industry.
Mahalo.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 531, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 249) to redesignate certain facilities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 249, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 249, introduced by Representative Pallone, which would redesignate
Specifically, this bipartisan bill would rename two sites within the historical park as the Bill Pascrell, Jr. Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge and the Bill Pascrell, Jr. Overlook Park.
Paterson, New Jersey, was home to Congressman Pascrell, a former Member of this body and, before that, a high school teacher and college professor.
Congressman Pascrell was instrumental in the designation of the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in 2009. Known for his plainspoken demeanor and deep commitment to his constituents, Congressman Pascrell served our Nation in the U.S. Army and in this body for nearly three decades, until his passing last August.
Overlook Park is a 2.5-acre area providing panoramic views of the falls and the gateway to the larger historical park.
The Great Falls Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge is one of two year-round pedestrian bridges connecting visitors to the falls. It serves approximately 300,000 visitors annually and links the park's visitors center to the falls' viewing platform.
Mr. Speaker, this straightforward and bipartisan legislation has the full support of the entire New Jersey delegation. I commend Representative Pallone for his work on this legislation. I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 249, a bill that would ensure that the name of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr., will forever be etched into the landscape of the city that he so passionately served.
This legislation would rename two beloved landmarks within Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, the Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge and Overlook Park, as the Bill Pascrell, Jr. Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge and the Bill Pascrell, Jr. Overlook Park.
These places offer sweeping views of the Great Falls, a symbol of American ingenuity, labor, and power.
There could be no more fitting a tribute to a man whose career reflected those same qualities. For decades, Bill Pascrell fought for the people of Paterson and the State of New Jersey. Anyone who visited Paterson, as I have on many occasions, knew that he lived, ate, and breathed Paterson. That man loved Paterson and was Paterson.
Mr. Speaker, it is also fitting that, on the week that we honor police officers, who put their lives on the line to protect and serve us, this is the time that we will pass this bill honoring Bill Pascrell. He never backed down from standing up for working people and for first responders. From the halls of city hall to Congress, he was a tireless advocate for working families, veterans, public health, and local infrastructure. Yet, what defined him was his unshakable belief in the potential of his hometown, a city that helped build America and the city that he never stopped believing in.
By renaming these park features in his honor, we are not just commemorating his public service. We are linking his legacy to a history of American industry, immigration, and a resilience that Great Falls represents.
Bill Pascrell deserves this legacy. He was a legacy. He had a great sense of humor, and when he walked in, everyone knew he was in the room. We miss him dearly here, and his name belongs in this place not only in the official record, but in the very landscape of the community that he loved.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help ensure that this legacy stands as strong and enduring as the Great Falls themselves, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 249, a bill to redesignate parts of the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of the late Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.
I thank my friend and fellow New Jerseyan, Congressman Frank Pallone, for leading this effort. I am a proud original cosponsor of this important measure to honor the legacy of one of Paterson's greatest sons, Congressman Pascrell.
Congressman Pascrell was my dear friend and a mentor to me. He was known throughout our State for his closely held convictions. He spoke up and spoke out for what he believed in, and he never ever backed down from a fight.
Many years ago, Bill had a vision for the Great Falls. He knew that, with adequate Federal resources and funding, the Great Falls could be an anchor for Paterson's rebirth and revitalization.
Once he arrived in Washington, he rolled up his sleeves and got to work.
Bill fought relentlessly to secure the designation of the Great Falls as a National Historic Park in 2009. When it was signed into law by President Obama, it was a proud day for our city and our entire State.
This designation unlocked a flood of new rehabilitation and expansion projects that have transformed the Great Falls into a hub for tourism and recreation.
This includes the expansion of the park's boundaries to encompass the historic Hinchliffe Stadium. The Great Falls is the crown jewel of our great city. After Niagara Falls, by volume, it is the largest set of waterfalls east of the Mississippi River. Hundreds of thousands of tourists come from all over the world to be inspired by the beauty of its roaring water.
Additionally, our Great Falls are unique as both a historical and national landmark. Alexander Hamilton used the power of the falls to help start the industrial revolution right in the heart of Paterson, New Jersey.
Overlook Park is the center of our national park. This part of the district is where you get the classic view of our famous falls. The pedestrian bridge is another favorite part of the park, a place where you can get a topside view of the falls and can physically feel its majesty, along with the mists from the mighty Passaic River.
Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this measure into law to rename these two locations, Bill Pascrell's tireless advocacy will be rightfully remembered by generations of Patersonians. As a proud Patersonian, let me just say, I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward, bipartisan bill that renames beloved sites for the late Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr. I urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 249.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (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, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 618, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Horsford's bill, H.R. 618, the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act.
H.R. 618 is a bipartisan bill supported by the entire Nevada delegation that would streamline permitting in the Apex Industrial Park in North Las Vegas to encourage new business development and economic growth.
Specifically, the legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant utility and transportation rights-of-way to the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association, the city of North Las Vegas, and Clark County for electric, power, water, natural gas, telephone, railroad, or highway facilities.
Congress created the Apex Industrial Park in 1989 by authorizing the sale of roughly 21,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land to Clark County, Nevada, to establish a new area to attract businesses and create jobs.
While the original law directed BLM to issue utility and transportation rights-of-way for Apex, businesses seeking to start construction or expand operations currently face a complicated permitting process. The delayed installation of utilities has stalled the growth of existing businesses in the Apex area. Additionally, the prolonged permitting process deters new investment and hinders economic development in North Las Vegas.
Removing bureaucratic delays by the Federal Government is necessary for the growth and prosperity of North Las Vegas.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Horsford and the entire Nevada delegation for their work on this issue. I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 618, the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act, a forward-looking bill by my colleague Representative Horsford that will strengthen economic opportunity and improve land management in southern Nevada.
This bill would update the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989 to provide the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association with improved access and management authority in the Apex Industrial Park.
The Apex Industrial Park is a critical driver of job creation, logistics, and advanced manufacturing in southern Nevada and the critical update provided by this bill would open the door to more efficient growth, infrastructure investment, and regional coordination.
This bill reflects how modern public-private partnerships should work, by empowering local governments and stakeholders to align Federal resources with local needs.
The bill would maintain full compliance with Federal environmental standards, including NEPA and FLPMA, ensuring that responsible growth and environmental stewardship go hand in hand.
Finally, the bill would simplify mineral sales during land grading, cutting delays when competition is not feasible while protecting Federal interests and upholding transparency.
This is exactly how Congress should tap into the potential of utilizing Federal lands and resources to support local communities. There has been a transparent process with multiple hearings and significant stakeholder engagement.
This is the way the legislative process should work, and I thank Representative Horsford and Representative Lee for leading the effort, along with the support of Representative Titus. I know their constituents back home in Nevada appreciate all the hard work and effort that has gone into this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 618. I thank Ms. Hoyle, the floor manager for the committee as well as the chairman, for the courtesy.
In 1989, Congress enacted the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act, directing the sale of 21,000 acres of Federal land to Clark County for the establishment of the Apex Industrial Area.
This law permits only the Bureau of Land Management and Clark County to issue utility and transportation rights-of-way.
Originally, Clark County had this authorization in order to make the permitting process shorter. In recent years, however, the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Owners Association primarily manage the site, not Clark County.
The result is that this law has had the opposite effect and leads to a longer permitting process for businesses that need to construct sewer, gas, and power, as well as broadband infrastructure.
Amending the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act to include the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Area Industrial Owners Association as permittees would allow the original congressional intent of expediting the permitting process to be fulfilled.
H.R. 618 is an extremely simple fix to a complex problem that plagues Apex and causes major slowdowns at the Southern Nevada Bureau of Land Management and stifles economic growth in the county.
I thank Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Jared Huffman as well as Representative Hoyle and the rest of the Natural Resources Committee for allowing this measure to pass through committee and to come to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members support this legislation on economic development, expediting the permitting process, and ensuring that the lands in our community are decided by the residents who use them.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation would support economic growth, create jobs, and attract new businesses to North Las Vegas by streamlining permitting and cutting Federal red tape. I commend Representative Horsford on this bill, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 618, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 952) to convey the reversionary interest of the United States in certain land in Sacramento, California.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 952, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Matsui's bill, the Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act. This legislation previously passed the House by voice vote last December.
This bill resolves the stubborn property law issue afflicting a small parcel of land in California. The current owners of an eight-acre property in Sacramento recently discovered a reversionary interest on their land, which a railroad company originally conveyed. The reversionary interest, which dates back to the days of the transcontinental railroad in the 19th century, requires the land to revert to ownership by the United States since it is no longer used for railroad purposes. Because of this outdated encumbrance, the owners of this property are limited in their ability to develop or sell the land.
The Bureau of Land Management, which would inherit the property through the reversion, does not want to manage the land in question. Since the agency can't extinguish the reversionary interests unilaterally, the BLM has encouraged Congress to address the issue through legislation.
H.R. 952 would resolve this conflict by requiring the Bureau of Land Management to convey the reversionary interest to the private landowners for fair market value. This bill will free up the land for economic development and prevent further Federal interference. It is a good governance bill that supports the local community, encourages economic development, and reduces the burden on the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Matsui for this effort on behalf of her constituents. I support this bill and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act, introduced by my colleague from California, Representative Matsui.
This legislation would authorize the conveyance of certain reversionary interests in approximately 8.43 acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Sacramento.
Development at this site is currently hindered by reversionary interest that dates back to the 19th century. The original conveyance of this land from the Federal Government stipulated that it must be used for specific stated purposes or ownership would revert back to the United States.
Lands with reversionary interests like these have what is called a clouded title, which limits allowable uses and development. In this case, the reversionary interests originate from the initial conveyance that provided public land for railroad purposes in the 19th century.
Making matters worse, the land changed hands over the years eventually without the knowledge of this requirement.
This bill would finally clear up the landownership by resolving the Federal Government's ownership claims in
The bill will allow the city of Sacramento and Sacramento State University to move forward with the development of an innovative and dynamic research park.
This bill includes standard conveyance language, including the requirement to sell the reversionary interests at fair market value. The conveyance is supported by the Department of the Interior.
This transparent and targeted land conveyance would be a win-win for the Federal Government and the community in Sacramento.
I thank Representative Matsui for her leadership. She has been working on this bill for several years. I know her constituents appreciate the hard work and perseverance.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
This is straightforward legislation that will help private property owners develop their land without interference from the Federal Government. I support this bill and note that it unanimously passed the House last Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 952.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2492) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to permit removal of trees around electrical lines on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands, respectively, without conducting a timber sale, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
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 H.R. 2492, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2492, the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2025, led by Representatives Carbajal and Valadao.
This legislation would allow the U.S. Forest Service to permit utility companies to fully remove hazard trees and other vegetation near power lines without requiring a separate timber sale. The legislation also includes provisions ensuring a fair return to the Federal Government when the timber is sold.
Currently, utility companies are allowed to fell hazard trees in their rights-of-way but are not permitted to remove them without going through the timber sale process. This unnecessary bureaucratic step leaves timber piled up in the rights-of-way for long periods, creating a significant wildfire risk, especially near communities in the wildland-urban interface.
Hazard trees near power lines have proven to be a serious fire threat. In fact, the largest single wildfire in California history, the Dixie fire, ignited when a tree fell onto electrical lines. As we enter into what is predicted to be another devastating fire year, it is more imperative than ever that we take every step to manage our forests and reduce wildfire risk.
In January, the world watched as communities in southern California were virtually leveled by catastrophic wildfires. In the wake of that tragedy, the House came together to pass the Fix Our Forests Act on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. The legislation we are considering today was included as part of the Fix Our Forests Act. Today is another opportunity for Congress to meet the moment and pass commonsense forest management policy.
I commend Representatives Carbajal and Valadao for their bipartisan collaboration on this legislation and on the Fix Our Forests Act. I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2492, the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2025, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
This bill would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to permit electrical utilities to remove trees and vegetation near power lines on National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands without the need for a timber sale.
This bill addresses a critical public safety issue, preventing wildfires caused by overgrown vegetation near electrical infrastructure, particularly in high-risk areas of the West.
Current requirements for timber sales can delay essential maintenance and fire prevention efforts. This legislation would streamline that process while maintaining environmental safeguards under existing land management plans and Federal law.
Importantly, the bill would ensure taxpayer fairness. If utilities sell any of the removed material, they must return the net proceeds to the Federal Government. Altogether, this bill provides a commonsense, bipartisan solution to reduce wildfire risk, improve grid safety, and enhance coordination between Federal land managers and utility providers.
The bill respects environmental protections, avoids unnecessary bureaucracy, and promotes responsible land stewardship. I thank Representative Carbajal for his hard work on this bill. It will support community safety in his district and throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I extend my thanks to Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman for their support in advancing my bipartisan legislation, Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act, which I introduced with Representatives Valadao, Costa, and Fitzpatrick.
My Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act is a commonsense solution to help us reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. It simply allows the United States Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management to approve the removal of hazardous trees or vegetation near power lines on Federal land without the need for a timber sale.
Unfortunately, catastrophic wildfires continue to ravage the Western United States, and we need commonsense solutions that balance sustainable forest management practices with reducing wildfire risks. My legislation strives to find that solution and that balance.
Currently, the United States Forest Service allows utility companies to cut down trees and branches in existing utility corridors. However, the dead vegetation cannot be removed from Federal land without a timber sale. This has created unnecessary red tape and led to the buildup of dry fuels around utility lines.
We cannot continue with the status quo. Inaction can be deadly. I know because we have seen it. The 2017 Thomas fire, which created the conditions for the deadly Montecito debris flow that killed 23 people in my district. The 2018 Camp fire and the 2021 Dixie fire were all started by electrical equipment. These fires were some of the largest and most destructive fires in California's history.
If we can take action to help save lives and protect property, we should. While there is more work ahead of us to continue to reduce the risk of wildfires, this is an important step. I am glad to be able to work with my colleagues across the aisle to get this done.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, passing H.R. 2492 would be an essential step toward reducing the urgent threat that wildfire poses to communities nationwide. Once again, I thank Representatives Carbajal and Valadao for their leadership on this vital issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2492.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2215) to redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park'', and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
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 H.R. 2215, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Moulton's bill, the Salem
Known for its rich history dating back to the colonial era, this area was the first historic site to be included in the National Park System in 1938. Today, the historical park includes 12 historic structures, a downtown visitors center, and a replica of a famous sailing ship, the Friendship of Salem. The site attracts over 800,000 visitors annually and showcases over 600 years of New England's maritime history.
Since most historical sites focus on a singular historical feature, designating Salem Maritime as a national historic park would align with the naming conventions of other National Park System units around the country. Community leaders in the area also hope the redesignation will lead to more visitors by highlighting the various attractions.
In addition to the redesignation, this legislation also requires the National Park Service to conduct a boundary study of related sites to assess their feasibility for future inclusion in the historical park.
I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
This bill would redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site in Salem, Massachusetts, as the Salem Maritime National Historical Park, and it would require a study into including additional sites and resources.
The Salem Maritime National Historic Site preserves more than 600 years of our history, documenting the development of international maritime trade and the journey to American economic independence following the Revolutionary War.
Due to the importance of preserving the maritime history of New England, Congress chose to designate a piece of the Salem waterfront as the country's first national historic site in 1938. The site has since grown to nine acres of land, 12 historic structures, and a visitors center hosting an average of over 300,000 visitors per year.
The bill before us today would redesignate the site to more accurately reflect the scope, scale, and significance of the resources managed there by the National Park Service.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important update to an important historical resource, and I thank Representative Moulton for his leadership on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for supporting this legislation, especially my good friend and workout buddy from Arkansas.
I urge support for my bill, H.R. 2215, the Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act. Salem Maritime was established in 1938 as the Nation's first national historic site. It has spent the ensuing 87 years preserving and interpreting over 600 years of American history. This redesignation is overdue.
National historic sites tend to contain a single historical feature and focus on one theme or period of time, but the Salem Maritime National Historic Site contains a dozen historical structures across nine acres. These sites preserve and share diverse histories, ranging from early American maritime trade to slavery and emancipation to the creation of the National Guard.
In many ways, Salem's history is our Nation's history. Take, for example, the Salem Gunpowder Raid of 1775, which was the first armed resistance to the Royal authority, laying the groundwork for the Battles of Lexington and Concord and, later, the American Revolution.
Mr. Speaker, this is history that our children and our communities should learn. The Salem Maritime National Historic Park does that critical work.
This redesignation will also help to bring more visitors to Salem, including to the city's many small businesses, promoting year-round stability in a city that receives a third of its tourism revenue in 1 month.
As America's 250th anniversary approaches, we should expand Salem Maritime's capacity to share our region's rich history with visitors from across Massachusetts and the country.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will more appropriately reflect the varied and unique history of the timeless landmarks in Salem, Massachusetts.
I thank my friend and acknowledge Representative Moulton for his work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and acknowledge Representative Moulton for his work on this bill, and I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2215.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Expressing Support for Local Law Enforcement Officers
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 411, nays 1, not voting 21, as follows:
Mrs. FOUSHEE changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to vote today, as I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 123, H. Con. Res. 30.
Redesignation of Paterson Great Falls Nhp Facilities
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 249) to redesignate certain facilities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr., on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 362, nays 50, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 19, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Messrs. CLINE and CARTER of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Heather Davenport, USOA Ms. Pennsylvania, and founder of We Are Strong LLC, a nonprofit committed to breaking the cycle of domestic abuse and offering hope to those affected.
Since earning her title in November, she has volunteered at food banks, supported pediatric cancer families, honored veterans, and raised awareness about domestic violence throughout the State. She has used her role as USOA Ms. Pennsylvania to represent our community with compassion and purpose.
Heather, a proud resident of the Greater Lehigh Valley and a mother of five, has used her platform to give a voice to those who are often overlooked and to strengthen the support systems for individuals facing abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate her and thank her for the incredible work that she is doing. Her nonprofit, We Are Strong, is a traveling domestic violence clinic that provides essential resources such as housing, clothing, and emotional support to individuals in need throughout the State.
This work is urgently needed. In Pennsylvania alone, more than 100 victims lost their lives to domestic violence last year, and nationally, one in four women experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime.
I appreciate the work that Heather has done and want to continue to extend heartfelt gratitude for all of her work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize National Salvation Army Week and to honor an organization that has been a pillar of support and hope in communities all across this country.
Since its founding in 1865, the Salvation Army has provided food, shelter, and hope to millions, responding to disasters, helping individuals overcome addiction, and supported families in times of crisis. The Salvation Army is a beacon of hope across this Nation.
H.R. 404 recognizes and celebrates National Salvation Army Week and also commends the Red Kettle Campaign and honors the countless volunteers, donors, and officers who make the Salvation Army's mission possible.
I have seen their impact firsthand in eastern North Carolina, where they bring disaster relief, dignity, and compassion to those who need it most.
Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartfelt thanks and commit to continuing our support. I thank the Salvation Army for lifting our communities daily and doing the most good.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Ann Poppell, who passed away peacefully on May 3.
Ms. Poppell was a trailblazer in many ways, having served as the clerk of Superior Court of McIntosh County for many years, a successful Realtor, and a full-time mother to three boys.
She was a beloved member of the community, exemplifying kindness, resilience, and generosity, leaving an enduring impact on everyone who knew her.
She had many hobbies, including cooking, painting, traveling, and gardening, but nothing came before God and family.
Ms. Poppell's legacy of compassion and selflessness inspired those around her to lead with purpose and integrity.
She will be greatly missed by her family, friends, and all who had the privilege of knowing her. As we remember Ms. Poppell, let us celebrate her profound impact on her community and the example that she leaves behind.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the New York Post Editorial Board wrote about President Trump's plans to accept a free gift from Qatar of a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jet.
The New York Post said: ``What is President Trump thinking? He's bragging of winning a $400 million `gift,' a `palace in the sky' . . . from Qatar that, in effect, he'll eventually own personally.
``Sorry, this `gift' is from far free; Qatar will surely expect something in return.
``And the optics are beyond awful, especially as Congress mulls hundreds of billions in Medicaid cuts.''
The New York Post continues: ``That not only looks bad; it creates all kinds of conflicts of interest and runs smack into the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which prohibits foreign gifts.''
The Post Editorial closes: `` . . . but given all the foreign investments and conflicts of interests--and now a $400 million plane-- they seem designed to benefit the President more than anything.''
This from the New York Post editorial board. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Mr. Speaker, the moment of reckoning for California Governor Gavin Newsom has arrived. While I have been fighting to protect Medicaid benefits for Californians, the Governor's irresponsible actions are now threatening deep cuts for Medicaid in California.
Mr. Speaker, Newsom has made California the only State that offers Medicaid to everyone in the State illegally. It has already cost us $9.5 billion just this year in State funds, and now it also threatens to cost us even more in Federal funds.
Governor Newsom faces a very clear choice: He can continue a policy that no other State has and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid benefits that could have gone to legal California residents over the next decade, or he can act now to reverse this irresponsible policy.
Mr. Speaker, I am strongly urging the Governor and the legislature to do the latter immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I am a history teacher so I know that we have to do everything we can to document what is happening right now because we are at a very dangerous moment, and it requires courage from every single one of us.
Here is the truth of it: This national nightmare started with a series of lies, the first one being that Barack Obama was not born in this country. Then the second one, the ridiculous, easily disproved claim was that the 2017 inauguration broke records that no one had ever seen before. Then there was the lie about the weather map and the Sharpie, and then so many other lies building up to that one big lie that you all have heard about the 2020 election. It was an obvious lie, and yet he lost over and over and over in court and continued to lie. There was no evidence, but it didn't matter.
Why didn't it matter? It didn't matter because it wasn't about the evidence. It was actually a test.
It was a test to signal your willingness to be loyal. If you promise to spread our lies, you can be on the team. It was a qualification for being able to work on that team. Slowly, like the rot in the foundation of an old farmhouse, it continues to let the decay set in.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life and legacy of Vincent C. McMahon, a proud son of New City, a veteran of the United States Army, and a decorated lieutenant of the FDNY.
Vincent lived a life of service to his country, his city, and his community. He was a member of the elite 75th Ranger Regiment, a 25-year firefighter with the FDNY, and a first responder at Ground Zero after the attacks on September 11. Vinny never turned away from a call to serve. He gave everything, including his health, for the safety and well-being of others.
Beyond the uniform, Vincent was a brother, a husband, a neighbor, and a friend. He was a fixture at the Pearl River Elks, The American Legion, and the Knights of Columbus, and he never stopped giving back.
To his wife, Haley, and his entire family, on behalf of a grateful community and Nation, thank you for sharing Vinny with all of us. We will never forget his sacrifice, and we will carry forward his example of courage and commitment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the President is out here in these streets cutting funding for programs that support a lot of things Americans care about: Survivors of sexual assault, programs that offer mental health care for police officers and keep hotlines to victims of crime open, programs that assist law enforcement in rural communities, provide guidance on finding safe housing, and offer care and counseling for children facing abuse.
Mr. Speaker, local organizations have been sounding the alarm of what these cuts would mean for our communities, and today I am joining them. In some situations, these services are make or break, and we just can't let our communities and our neighbors down.
Mr. Speaker, this week is Police Week, and if the President is truly supportive of safer communities, he should quit cutting funding for programs that work to keep them that way.
Mr. Speaker, there is a fund called the Secure Rural Schools. It was enacted by Congress decades ago to replace the timber receipts we used to have when we had a strong forest industry, especially in the West. It has been run out by a lot of environmental policies that turned out to be erroneous, see the spotted owl.
In Congress, we have had to put forward this Secure Rural Schools funding in order to backfill what local counties, local school districts used to have from timber receipts.
The good news is that this piece is in the House Agriculture reconciliation bill, so it is good news for these rural counties that have been waiting for a long time, since it has already expired back in March. It is a lifeline for many areas in rural America where the Federal Government controls so much land.
In some States, it is somewhere between 40 and 80 percent of the land that counties can't collect property taxes on when the timber harvest isn't happening anymore like it used to. For some reason, the United States is the number one importer of wood and wood products. Instead, we burn millions of acres every year in the West. SRS was created as a promise. If Washington is going to tie up these lands, it needs to help fund the basic services these counties still have to provide.
Mr. Speaker, recently I was privileged to join members of the United Steelworkers Local 1010 in Hammond, Indiana, to commemorate Workers Memorial Day.
During the proceedings, I shared how when the steel and manufacturing industries of northwest Indiana were beginning more than a century ago, the workers labored in long hours and extremely dangerous conditions and were regretfully considered expendable.
Today, through the power of collective bargaining, our workforce has the ability to negotiate with management and enact workplace protections that say we value labor and we value safety.
As a Federal legislator, I am committed to building on the progress and am very concerned about proposals to cut back the ability of the Department of Labor to implement Federal workplace protections. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I will make every effort to ensure that OSHA and the National Labor Relations Board have the resources and direction they need to ensure that all
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the life and service of Police Officer Garrett Swasey to the Colorado Springs community.
On November 27, 2015, Officer Swasey, a member of the University of Colorado Colorado Springs Police Department, responded to a call of an active shooter at the Planned Parenthood office. Officer Swasey, who was one of the first officers on the scene, boldly and courageously engaged the shooter and was fatally shot.
Officer Swasey had been a police officer for 6 years and was a copastor for Hope Chapel in Colorado Springs. Officer Swasey left behind his wife, Rachel, and his children, Elijah and Faith.
Officer Garrett Swasey represented the best in all of us and faithfully and heroically served the Pikes Peak region until his final moments. On behalf of Colorado's Fifth Congressional District, I thank Officer Swasey and his family for their service to our community and our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the recent news on Ukraine: Zelenskyy is set to meet Putin. Putin must immediately agree to a 30-day cease-fire. To force that, the United States and President Trump must increase the pressure on Putin.
This is not a regional fight. Ukraine's sovereignty is a U.S. national security issue. It is also a humanitarian crisis. As of 2023, the U.S. State Department had documented the abduction of approximately 20,000 Ukrainian children. That number has only increased. The program that was keeping track of those children has recently been cut.
These Russian abductions represent a deliberate effort to eliminate Ukrainian national identity, destroy family ties, and are a specific element of a genocide crime under international criminal law. The Russians claim, further, that 700,000 children have been seized. None of this can stand.
As someone who has traveled over a dozen times to Ukraine in order to investigate war crimes, I know how important it is that we make a stand now, not later. We must uphold our American values by seeking peace in the region and demanding the immediate return of Ukraine's missing children.
We will see this week whether Mr. Putin shows up for peace talks with Ukraine in Turkiye or remains an international pariah and coward.
Mr. Speaker, today in a committee hearing, in which there were probably very few people in the room, the Republican majority voted to expand the low-income housing tax credit.
First of all, the low-income housing tax credit doesn't really benefit a lot of low-income people, but in any event, the way it works, we give 70 percent of the cost of a developer's project to him in tax credits. That seems a strange way to solve the housing crisis in this country for a Democrat. It is even stranger for a Republican.
In any event, I think people should look at this. We are spending $13.5 billion every year on this credit and, like I said, you can get it on all sorts of think tanks. The primary beneficiary is the developer. Probably the number two beneficiary is the biggest banks in the country. It is something that ought to be reviewed.
Mr. Speaker, many across our Nation are outraged at the $400 million luxury airplane, the palace in the sky, that President Trump just accepted from the Nation of Qatar. That is against the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. He took the bribe in plain sight.
Meanwhile, our Nation is very short on air controllers who are trained. Look at Newark, New Jersey. They have had radar failures and repeated flight delays due to serious staffing shortages. This is true across our country, but what did the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Duffy, say? He said: What you see in Newark is going to happen in other places across the country. My reply: Excuses aren't an answer.
Going forward, what do we need to do? As of May 1, we are 3,000 air controllers short in this country. The workforce is aging. They are stretched thin and understaffed, exacerbated by DOGE buyouts and firings. The FAA just simply doesn't have the people, and it is going to get worse as people travel this summer.
While Newark grabs headlines, the pain is felt across America. Mr. Speaker, let President Trump sell the plane, $400 million, and put that money into training more air controllers for their safety and for the safety of this Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate Marilynn Weber, a remarkable leader whose impact on Kaiser Permanente Northwest and our community cannot be overstated.
Marilynn served Kaiser Permanente Northwest for 35 years, including 8 years as the Northwest Permanente chief financial officer. She expertly guided the company through challenging and innovative times. She is a mentor, adviser, and friend to me and many others.
I saw firsthand her unwavering commitment to the mission to deliver the best care possible to Kaiser members across Oregon and southwest Washington. Marilynn connected finances to people, ensuring that decisions supported healthcare.
Her ability to turn complex financial concepts into mission-driven outcomes has empowered countless care teams, but what truly set Marilynn apart and still does is her heart, her deep belief that healthcare is about service, compassion, and equity.
I thank Marilynn for her leadership, service, and integrity to the people of Oregon. I congratulate her on her well-deserved retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to demand that Congress restore the full State and local tax deduction which would cut taxes for Nassau County residents.
On Long Island, we pay some of the highest taxes in the country, and we send far more to Washington than we get back.
For the past 8 years, this cap has hiked tax bills for hardworking families in my district and those in other high-tax States, even as the cost of living continues to rise. These families deserve real relief. It is what the President promised when he came to my district and said he would get SALT back.
Well, it is time to deliver, Mr. President.
At this very moment, the majority is advancing a reconciliation bill that fails to meaningfully lower our taxes for Long Island when we are already facing a cost of living crisis. Mr. Speaker, that is totally unacceptable.
There is bipartisan agreement among my New York colleagues that the majority's offer is a slap in the face to
I came to Congress to cut taxes and make life more affordable for my residents. I will continue to explore every possible avenue to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the month of May as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.
Virginia is home to a dynamic and growing AANHPI community, a community that across the country and in Virginia contributes in every field, including business, education, science, technology, and, of course, government.
Many leaders in our community emigrated from Asian countries in pursuit of the American Dream, like my family. Their stories and success are a testament to the founding ideals of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy AANHPI Month to everyone.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to recognize the month of May as National Cancer Research Month.
Every day, 5,000 Americans will be diagnosed with cancer. More than 1,600 will die from it every day.
Now more than ever, we must support our dedicated scientists and doctors across the country who work to treat and care for patients.
I urge everyone to support robust funding for medical research for cancer so we can find a cure and stop the cuts to cancer research.
Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy National Cancer Research Month to everyone.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sue Abderholden for her transformational leadership and advocacy for accessible mental health services in Minnesota.
During her 24 years of service as the executive director for the National Alliance on Mental Health Illness Minnesota, she helped pass over two dozen landmark laws that reshaped education, healthcare, housing, and criminal justice to better serve people living with mental illness.
Sue championed legislation to require mental health training for teachers and expanded crisis and early intervention services. Thanks to Sue's unwavering commitment to expanding culturally responsive, person- centered mental health care, our communities are safer and healthier.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for her years of service, and I hope she has a wonderful retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call out and condemn Donald Trump's astounding corruption.
Just last week, he signaled that he would change the name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf. Today, he arrived in the Middle East, where he is expected to accept a luxury 747 worth $400 million from Qatar to replace Air Force One.
From attempting to rename the Persian Gulf to accepting luxury airplanes as unprecedented personal gifts, Donald Trump would rather waste time on ridiculous political stunts designed to curry favor with foreign governments and line his own pockets than address the issues affecting the American people.
Mr. Speaker, as the first Iranian-American Democrat elected to Congress, I can tell you that the Persian community in the United States and across the world is outraged at the attempt to change the historically significant name.
That is why, today, I am proud to introduce the Persian Gulf Act to prohibit any Federal funds from being used to rename the body of water and prevent government documents from referring to the Persian Gulf by anything except that name.
As Donald Trump acts only for himself, I will continue fighting against his corruption and the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the eighth time to call on the Trump administration to restore funding for lifesaving food aid for malnourished children.
Edesia Nutrition in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, produces more than 88 million pounds of Plumpy'Nut, a peanut paste that has served millions of malnourished children around the world per year. At least they did until Donald Trump stopped that funding.
Despite Congress passing this funding that would continue this food aid, and the promises from the administration that the program will continue, Edesia recently received a notice that read: We will not be moving forward at this time.
This is despite the urgent, lifesaving need for relief around the world. While Edesia's work has been interrupted and will continue to feel the consequences of this interruption, it is not too late to restore this funding.
Congress has already appropriated this funding in a bipartisan manner. The money has been appropriated.
The Trump administration just needs to do what it said it was going to do and restore the flow of funds for this lifesaving food aid. The lives of children around the world depend on it.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump was offered this $400 million airplane. He said he thought it was a ``nice gesture.''
A nice gesture is when somebody passes the salt and pepper. That is a nice gesture.
A nice gesture is when somebody says, ``Good morning. Have a nice day.'' That is a nice gesture.
A nice gesture is when a gentleman pulls a chair out for a lady to sit down. That is a nice gesture.
To take a $400 million airplane from Qatar as the plane of the United States of America's President is cheap, demeaning, and harmful to our country that has always flown high as the finest nation on this Earth. It is also graft and corruption.
Mr. Speaker, the emperor wears no clothes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to co-anchor this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order hour, along with my distinguished colleague from the great State of Ohio, Representative Shontel Brown, who hopefully will be joining us.
Along with some of our other colleagues, she is in her committee hearing, trying to figure out if Republicans
Mr. Speaker, for the next 60 minutes, members of the CBC have an opportunity to speak directly to the American people and directly to you on the Republicans' disastrous reconciliation package. This is an issue of great importance, of utmost importance, and of perilous importance, not just to the Congressional Black Caucus but to everyone.
Hopefully, Republican Members, not just Democratic Members of Congress, will stand up with and for the American people and vote down some of this nonsense that is going to be coming before all of us in our committees. At the very least, let's not be silent. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus is here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee just released text. This is the one big, beautiful bill. This is the 386- page manifesto that killed trees and trees.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that there are only two words in that phrase that are accurate. This is a bill, and it is big, but it is not beautiful. It is a backstabbing bill because all the items in the 386 pages of this bill are about how this administration is going to backstab the American people. It is not going to feel good.
Unlike the O'Jays song ``Backstabbers,'' this doesn't have a good melody.
This is about cutting Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and benefits for veterans. This is about killing young people, seniors, and those who are disabled. This is about cutting important critical services for the American people to give tax credits to billionaires. There are a lot of B's in this statement. None of them are very good.
Let me be very clear: Republicans have barely made any attempts to support working families. Instead, they have written an economic love letter to people like Elon Musk. This is a 386-page love letter to Elon Musk.
Republicans can run from the truth all they want--they have been silent--but the truth is in the eyes of this administration: Americans don't need healthcare, but this administration somehow needs a $400 million plane gifted to them from the Saudi Government. Americans don't need SNAP assistance, but this administration and all of his billionaire buddies need millions in tax writeoffs.
Mr. Speaker, how are my constituents supposed to live? How are your constituents supposed to live? How are any of our constituents supposed to pull themselves up by those ridiculous bootstraps that people like to talk about?
This administration and the House majority are actually not just taking away their boots but taking away the leather, the rubber, the soles, and the labor that would be used to even make these boots. We are going to be spending the next hour talking about all of that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Ivey), my very good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus to address and speak to these issues because they are so timely.
There are new developments that come every day that keep us guessing as to what the Trump administration is going to do from one moment to the next. I am going to talk about this plane from Qatar toward the end.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about my deep concern about the appropriations and budget processes as established by the Constitution because they are broken. I rise out of deep concern for our institution, our responsibilities, and for the American people who elected us to make decisions.
The continuing resolutions that we have been passing are temporary stopgaps, but they have become the norm. It is not just a failure of a process. It is a failure of President Trump's leadership and House Republican leadership.
Trump's economic failures include trying to make his tax cuts permanent, the DOGE cuts, and the irresponsibility of the tariff packages. Thank goodness, I think he backed away a few days ago with respect to cutting a deal with China, but that is only for 90 days.
The challenge of the erratic and illegal behavior he has been exhibiting is that it really puts companies in a very difficult spot. Companies have to make decisions not just moment to moment, as apparently President Trump does, but over months and sometimes years, especially if they are going to make major decisions about something like investing to build a new plant. That can cost millions or even billions of dollars.
When he does things like puts up 130-something percent in tariffs against one of the main trading partners of the United States, like China, it creates a major problem for companies that trade with China and that get their materials or send their finished products to China.
Many of them are small American businesses. We have seen and heard from many of those over the past couple of days. I have been listening to some who are toy manufacturers. They talk about what has happened to their companies on the radio. They are concerned about what might happen for them during the Christmas holidays, a key time of year for their businesses.
The Trump administration didn't pay any attention to that. In fact, he just moved forward with the tariffs that he put in place. He did so not just against China, not just against our adversaries, but against allies like Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, and other countries. It has been devastating to the American economy and businesses across the country.
He ran for election telling the American people that he was going to make their economic lives better and that he was going to help them financially be better off than they were under the Biden administration. However, it is clear in the first 6 months that what he has been doing is he is not putting money in their pockets, he is taking it out.
I think it is critical for us to make sure we understand fully what is going on here with respect to the packages that they are trying to move. He is trying to do this mainly through executive order. He has been unable to move major pieces of legislation through the House, and House leadership hasn't pressed him to do it, even though we are supposed to be doing these things through the appropriations process.
As a matter of fact, the Constitution gave us the obligation to move these bills through the appropriations process, but the Republican leadership in the House has failed to do that.
The failure to pass these appropriations bills has led to things like Federal workers are being forced out of their positions. Some of them are concerned about whether their paychecks are going to come. Small businesses, we just mentioned a moment ago, especially those who are relying on government contracts, are having trouble making payroll. In some of those instances, they have already done the work that they are supposed to get paid for.
However, the Trump administration has done two things. One is it has withdrawn contracts, but it has also, even though they performed the work, refused to make the payments and forced some of these companies to shut down and fire some of their employees even though they already did the work.
We are also going to have challenges I think, too, with respect to communities who have been hit by major disasters. Unfortunately, I just saw while we were waiting to start this process a few minutes ago, we had three major natural disasters today across the country, but FEMA is under attack, and the funding is being cut.
With respect to reconciliation, as we just talked about a moment ago, the $881 billion in cuts to Medicaid are a shocking development. We know what that could mean for communities across the country is that hospitals have to shut down, medical treatment facilities might have to be closed, and people who perform medical services like doctors and nurses might not be available.
Certainly, in urban areas and suburban areas like mine, there is going to be a major impact from that, and in red States and rural districts as well.
I just heard a report on the radio last week. It was talking about a district in
With respect to the impoundment issue, I want to raise that too because the Trump administration has started making the argument that even though money has been appropriated, they don't have to spend it. The reason they are trying to do that is because they want to take control away from Congress. They want to take control of the power of the purse that was given to Congress through the Constitution. They want to do that so they can marginalize Congress and make the spending decisions that they want to make.
We saw that with the $1.6 trillion, the Trump administration decided how to spend that because we didn't pass a regular appropriations set of bills. We had to do it through the continuing resolution. It left them discretion that I don't think they should have. I have to say I am concerned about the way he has used that discretion in some of these processes.
They have made budget cuts, for example, to VOCA. That stands for the Victims of Crime Act. They are cutting grants to help people who are victims of crime.
Why would he take a step like that?
The Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, is to help women who are surviving sexual assault and domestic violence.
Why would he cut a program like that?
They cut USAID programs. One of our colleagues referenced earlier about how that has had a positive impact on the starvation issues, the USAID efforts. However, they are cutting programs that will to lead to, I saw one estimate, 1.6 million people who will die over the next year based on these cuts that he is making right now to foreign aid.
We stopped funding AmeriCorps, which means less teachers in areas that are in desperate need of teaching assistants. We have a lot of schools out there who are short on full-time teachers. They are certainly short on full-time certified teachers. Cuts to AmeriCorps just exacerbate the problem.
Cutting rental subsidies means that low-income families will have trouble keeping a roof over their heads. The Trump administration is going to make it even harder for them to do that.
Why would we take that step?
How is that consistent with the promise he made to help American people who needed help the most?
He is making cuts to mental health services. We have got kids who are struggling in school. They are bullied sometimes. We have some scenarios where we have serious violent attacks in the schools. It might be a mass shooting from a gun situation. It might be something less serious than that. We have got kids who need assistance with their mental health challenges across the country, and making cuts to those sorts of programs only makes it harder for these kids to survive and get through the school process.
There are cuts to NIH. Now, I know he had, frankly, a vendetta, essentially, against Dr. Fauci, and he is taking that out on many of the health institutions, like the NIH. However, at the end of the day, it is clear that the NIH has been and continues to be, hopefully, at least if it can survive these cuts, one of the premier institutions that do medical research that makes a difference here in the United States and around the world.
He is cutting medical research on cancer. I am a cancer survivor. It is important to folks like me, and there are a lot of folks who are cancer survivors. The only reason we are still here is because of the medical advances that were made at places like NIH based on research that was done using government funding. That is how these things happen.
Alzheimer's is another one. My father died from Alzheimer's. It is one of the most horrific diseases you can possibly imagine. Mr. Speaker, you would never even wish it on your worst enemy. It is hard to even explain how tragic it is to watch a human being slide from being the full person that they were into something ravaged by Alzheimer's. They cut funding for clinical trials for Alzheimer's at NIH. The thing about clinical trials that you need to remember, Mr. Speaker, it is not like an off switch. You don't just flick it on and off and it comes right back. If you shut down a clinical trial, Mr. Speaker, you might have to start that all the way from scratch. In some instances, the research and the projects that have been going forward under that have taken years. So he is setting that back years and months.
Why? Why would he do that?
He is making cuts to grants to help people who want to go into the science fields. The United States, certainly in the last 50 years and the postwar era, has been the premier nation with respect to science and technology and innovation.
That is how we got Apple, that is how we got Microsoft, and that is why we have quantum computing. All of these fantastic innovations and giant steps forward came from the United States, in part because of the research that was funded in part by the Federal Government. The people who developed many of those advances got their training and got their college and Ph.D.s paid for using funding that helped them get through school. They wouldn't have been able to pay for it otherwise. Yet the Trump administration is making cuts not just to those programs but also to the grants and funding that help those people get through.
To add insult to injury, he makes personal attacks on research institutions like Harvard, which has been the source of some of the best, the brightest, and most talented who have taken leadership in these fields. He is making threats to undermine those institutions and those universities just out of personal venom.
It makes absolutely no sense. It is damaging to the United States, and it undermines our leadership in science and technology in the world. He says it is America first, but sometimes it feels like China first. Sometimes it feels as if he is actually trying to help the Communist Chinese Party leadership surge ahead of the United States in its leadership role in science and technology.
Then there are $40 million in cuts for election security. I know he still says that he won the 2020 election. Okay, fine. However, one of the things we can all agree on for sure is that we know the Russians and the Chinese and, in some instances, Iran and terrorist organizations around the world are making efforts to influence our elections with misinformation, disinformation, and the like.
Why would we ever make our elections more vulnerable to those kinds of attacks by cutting the funding that helps defend against it?
I will stop with this regarding the plane. When I first saw that on the news, I thought it was a joke. I thought it was a clip from Saturday Night Live or something. I never imagined that the Trump administration or the Trump family would even consider taking a $400- million plane from a country like Qatar, which is not exactly an adversary country but certainly it is not an ally country. It is a foreign country. The reason the Emoluments Clause was put in place in the Constitution was to make sure that Presidents of the United States of America, whether it is number one or number 47, are not tempted or tested with these kinds of, essentially, bribes to try and get them to lean and issue support for their countries in making decisions. We want to make sure we have people like the President of the United States not tested by the money and not tempted by the money but always making the decisions for the best possible reasons and the best interests of the United States.
However, here we have a $400-million plane, and apparently, he will eventually own it personally.
Now, Mr. Speaker, tell me why that is beneficial for the country. It creates
How is this going to be beneficial to the United States to create these levels of conflict?
Even if he can rise above them, the appearance of the conflicts is ridiculous, it is astonishing, and it is unacceptable. The National Review, not exactly a liberal rag and not exactly a liberal bastion, has said that the swamp is under new ownership.
So much for the commitments that he made to the American people when he first ran and when he ran again to so-called clean up the swamp.
Here we are. It violates the Constitution. I think on its face he should know better, and I am sure that everybody in the Congress knows that sometimes he needs guardrails. He always needs guardrails. This is the moment we have to make sure we stand up and put the guardrails in place.
To my colleagues here in Congress: Let's get back to work. Let's stand up and address this issue. As far as the conflicts of interest with the plane, let's make it clear that we unanimously oppose him taking the plane, certainly on behalf of the United States, and certainly in his personal capacity.
We unanimously want to move forward with a budget that is fair and reasonable and helps the American people, not one that takes $881 billion out of their pockets, out of the pockets of kids, out of the pockets of seniors, out of the pockets of the disabled, and the people who need it the most.
We have to make sure that when the budget process is done, we are protecting the people who need it the most. Right now it looks like we are taking from the most vulnerable to give to the most wealthy, like Elon Musk and his allies. We have got to reverse that process.
I want to commend the gentlewoman for pulling this together, my colleagues with the Congressional Black Caucus, my colleagues in the Democratic Caucus, and, hopefully, my colleagues in the Republican caucus who will stand up and say: We can't do this. We cannot cross these lines. The plane is over the line. The $881 billion in cuts to Medicaid is over the line. The no more appropriations bills, that is over the line. Let's get back to work. Let's engage in clear and proper oversight, and let's address these problems and do the work that helps the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Ivey) for keeping it real and really underscoring the challenges that are in front of us as Americans and for really articulating why courage, backbone, and just basic common sense are so needed right now in these perilous times.
Why are these times perilous?
These times are perilous because in Congress we are in the process of debating and trying to pass this reconciliation bill.
People might be saying: Well, what is it?
It isn't actually a budget. In each of the committees, discussions are had about where to spend and where to cut. This House majority has been given marching orders, and the marching orders are to cut as much as possible and to cut until the American people bleed. The only folks who will be able to afford Band-Aids to prevent them from bleeding to death will be the richest of the rich.
Everyone else, you will have to fend for yourself. In each of these committees in which we sit, on which we sit, we are debating cuts that will hurt this economy, that will hurt constituents, that will hurt American businesses, that will hurt our standing in the world.
This is not a red or blue discussion. This is not even a Black Caucus or other caucus discussion. This is about what is at risk, who is at danger, who is being put at risk by this administration and, quite frankly, by the silence coming from this House majority.
Tonight and later on this week, Ag, Energy and Commerce, and the Ways and Means Committees are meeting, and they have been meeting earlier today, and they are also continuing to meet right now.
The challenge is meeting this late in the evening allows them to do dirty business, allows them to vote on bills and amendments that will hurt the American people without the benefit of having the news being able to report on it before people go to bed. It is almost like these dirty deeds will be happening at night when no one can see or hear what is going on.
Maybe we are spending our time talking about this $400 million bribe that was just given to this administration when we should be talking about all of the cuts that are going to be coming from these committees.
With reconciliation, Republicans want all the cuts, but they do not want the political consequences. That is why we are here tonight talking about what those consequences will be, talking about what is in these reconciliation bills, what is in this package, because we don't want anyone to get political amnesia.
We don't want anyone to forget when they are hurting, when they are trying to pay a bill, when they are trying to get gas, when they are trying to buy eggs, when they are trying to buy a home, when they are looking for a job, when they are trying to bury a loved one, why it is so hard to do any of those things, why the costs are so high.
We are going to continue to remind the American people why all of those costs are going to be so high, and it is because of the cuts that are coming in this reconciliation bill, cuts that Republicans could have stopped, but they have been too silent.
Last week we were here, and we had hearings in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Small Business, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Committee on Natural Resources, in those committees and in others.
I don't know if many of these discussions or outcomes from these committees have made it into the news cycle, so folks don't know what really happened in those committees. I am going to say, in those committees we talked about cutting State Department by close to 50 percent, terminating workers in the State Department, finalizing the shuttering of USAID.
People might say, well, what is USAID? Well, part of what USAID does is contract with American farmers. Farmers have contracts with USAID. USAID buys their product and then uses it. All of those contracts have stopped because Republicans are looking for ways to fill the gap, the big gap, the chasm that has been made by these tax cuts going to billionaires.
They have done so much at the State Department that they have even fired the people who are responsible for purchasing the tickets to bring Americans home from all of their missions around the world. You have Americans who are stuck in countries around the world separated from their families, unable to get home because the ticket agency in the State Department has been shut down.
In the Committee on the Judiciary, we talked about billions of dollars going to ICE for bonuses to buy computers and cars and deporting Americans and allowing January 6ers to be hired to work for the Federal Government, people who came in here trying to bludgeon the Capitol Police and the people who work in this very institution.
In that committee, Republicans voted to allow them to work for the Federal Government and have the authority to go after other Americans.
In the Committee on Natural Resources, they passed a bill that would allow us to sell Federal land, land that we all enjoy, parks, recreational services, and forests.
I want the people in my life, the little people in my world to be able to go and visit a natural reserve or to go to one of our national parks and monuments and see that it is still owned by the United States, that we haven't sold it to some corporation or, God forbid, some other country, someone with the highest bid.
We are selling that land, and the proceeds are going into the coffers because, remember, we have to cover the $4.5 trillion gap that House Republicans made because they want to give tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy.
What else does that mean? It means that Republicans plan to cut $900 billion to Medicaid, kicking 8.7 million people off of Medicaid over the next 10
Some say: Well, I don't have a problem with people going to work. They are also saying: We want seniors, we want folks who are disabled, we want the elderly, we want those folks to be schlepping down the street trying to find a job in this market, of course, when it is actually hard to find employment.
They have been saying: Well, you can make these cuts because there are not even that many people on Medicaid. There are these people who are 150 years old or 130 years old or they have been dead for 4 years, and they are on Medicaid. Well, the reality is that so many of us have constituents who are dependent on Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security that are going to be devastated because of these cuts.
In California, there are 470,000 people on Medicaid, and they are going to be at risk of losing their care because of what the Republican budget plans to do. This is 140,000 children under the age of 19 and 40,000 seniors over the age of 65 just in my district.
I am going to say it again. My district has the 4th highest Medicaid enrollee numbers in the country. California has 7 of the 10th highest Medicaid enrollee districts. There are poor people, there are struggling people everywhere in every district in every state who need Medicaid, who need Medicare, who need Social Security.
I just have to say: If Republicans are so enamored with this big, beautiful, backstabbing bill and believe it to be the manna from heaven, then they shouldn't be afraid to go into their districts and talk about the cuts, talk about cutting Medicaid.
Look at the person in the wheelchair, look at the person who is dependent on Social Security benefits, look at the veteran who is receiving Social Security, and tell them that they don't matter. Tell them that their benefit is not as important as giving the money to Elon Musk and the billionaires. You tell them that.
If you are not telling them to their face, you are certainly going to be telling them that when you vote for this reconciliation bill.
Let's talk about education. DOGE and Musk, under the authority of this administration, have already fired half of the staff in the Department of Education. I don't know about you, but I have young people in my family who are excited about going to college, and they are also scared because they don't even know if the colleges are going to stay open.
I am not just talking about elite Ivy League institutions. I am talking about community colleges; I am talking about state colleges. I am talking about legacy institutions where parents and grandparents went to, and it means something to be able to get into that school and graduate.
I have talked to young people who don't know if there will be any money for them if they get in, even with the grades. I have talked to young people who are getting ready to graduate and don't know if there will be a job for them. And I have talked to young people who were excited about representing this country and helping us be more competitive and now don't even know if this country is for them.
News flash, all of these young people who I have been talking to are U.S. citizens, American-born, who don't even know if there is going to be a country left, who don't even know if there will be educational institutions left because this proposal includes $330 billion in cuts that will impact Pell grants, Head Start, school lunches, and more.
We are talking about a $1 billion freeze for school-based mental health. I don't know about you, but it seems like every single person in this country should be accessing mental health services right now just to make it through the day.
That is what is coming out of this reconciliation package.
Going back to student loan borrowers who saw a glimmer of hope last year, and now they are going to be tracked down like animals in the night when you have an administration that just accepted a $400 million bribe from another country. The math doesn't math up.
Why are you asking for young people to pay their fair share when it seems like not everyone else is doing the same thing? The regional Head Start office serving my district closed, and Head Start funding at roughly $12 billion annually represents less than .2 percent of total Federal spending.
Eliminating Head Start would cut childcare and supportive services for about 80,000 young children in California.
Then let's talk about ag. This proposal would halt funding for the Rural Energy for America Program. Once again, cutting a billion dollars in funding for programs that help schools and feed folks through food banks. Cutting this funding would threaten the livelihood of our American farmers and also threaten the nutrition of our children.
Let's talk about our veterans. Under this reconciliation package proposal, we are talking about firing 6,000 veterans. My God. My God. People who have served our country in wars, who have stood up for this country and the people in it, who have stood up for our Constitution, who came back from their service and were hired by the government will be fired, have been fired, are being fired.
Not only are we talking about firing 6,000 veterans, but we are also talking about cutting their services, cutting their medical services, forcing longer wait times for them because when they call, when they go to the VA to get help, there will be fewer people there to help them.
I think about the veterans in my district that I talk to, and they don't deserve to be mistreated like that.
My God, they want to come back and enter into society and be part of a thriving business, to help open a business, and they still need access to their medical care. They still need access to their mental health support, and we are going to cut that. In my mind, that is just so unchristian.
Then, we are talking about cutting Health and Human Services so that if we are trying to make sure that folks don't get tuberculosis, that we keep measles at bay, that we keep HIV at bay, well, if you are at risk, you are going to be in greater danger because the proposed cuts would be cutting NIH, the National Institutes of Health; CDC, the Centers for Disease Control; and FDA, the Food and Drug Administration--the people who make sure that the food we eat is safe, is not poisonous, won't kill us, and the people who make sure that we get accurate, nonpartisan, truthful information about the diseases and the ailments that are out here in this world so that we have the information that we need to keep ourselves and our children safe and healthy. We are not going to have access to that.
The research that is being done to help us fight against cancer and to cure so many other diseases that are out there, those research programs are going to be compromised. The clinical trials happening are going to be compromised because we have decided this reconciliation package, which is a statement of values, is going to be deciding that those things are not important. It is not important to eat healthy food. It is not important to have access to medicine. It is not important to research, to find cures for diseases and illnesses that have plagued our grandparents, our parents.
Have you gone to a children's hospital? Have you visited a child who is dying from cancer? Would you go to that child and tell them there is a higher probability that you are going to die because we are cutting the grants that would allow us to find a cure? That is what is in this reconciliation package.
Then Social Security, cutting 7,000 employees, you cut so many employees in your thirsty quest to find ways to fill this hole for these tax cuts for the billionaires, but you crashed the Social Security website. You have closed offices. You have told seniors and those with disabilities to figure out a way to get themselves to one of the few offices that are still open, but you are going to have to wait in a longer line because we have fired employees and are actually ending phone services for claims.
Really, it is a very sneaky, shady way of kicking people off of the services because you are constricting access.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to see a bunch of seniors struggling in a car or trying to get on the bus to go to the Social Security office that now has shorter hours and longer
Let's talk about the arts and cutting funding for the arts, closing down museums, grant programs, and after-school programs that teach young people how to play music, how to play an instrument, and shutting down libraries.
It is so healing when we turn on the radio. We want to go to a concert. We go to an art performance because that is meaningful, regardless of your political party. Everyone deserves an opportunity to enjoy art, to be able to go to a library and have the choice of what book you want to pick out, but you have no choice when they are all shut down. That is what is in this reconciliation package.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I almost lost my train of thought, but it has come back to me because I was talking about the arts.
The gentleman from Maryland was talking about our leadership as a country and how our leadership is in question. I would just like to add that not only is our leadership in question, but our attractiveness as a country is in question. Our competitive edge is in question. Our ability to be seen as forthright and a country of high integrity is in question.
These cuts are hurting our children. They are hurting our grandparents. They are hurting our farmers. They are hurting our small businesses. They are hurting the infrastructure in our States. They are hurting our ports. They are hurting our hospitals. They are hurting our clinics. They are hurting our parks. Honestly, they are hurting our hearts.
I think about that big red, white, and blue flag right behind the Speaker's chair and what that flag represents: opportunity, access, honesty, integrity. What we have seen last week and what we are seeing this week from the House majority when it comes to this reconciliation bill is silence. It is silent on these issues that mean so much to the people in our communities.
I can't tell you how many times I have walked down the street and have had an older person grab me and say, ``What is going to happen to my Social Security?'' Coming here to vote, I had a Capitol Police officer pull me to the side and ask me what it meant for his job, if he would have a job. Going to talk to farmers, I had them tell me that they may have to fire or lay off the rest of their employees, that they would not be able to make it. Small businesses in the community that are hiring other people from the community are concerned.
Everyone asks, ``What are Republicans doing? Why aren't they standing up for us, too?''
I don't have an answer to that question. I want an answer to that question because when you are silent, it means you are complicit or apathetic. I would hope that there would be no one here who would want to be complicit in the taking away of Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare. I would hope that no one here would want to be complicit in having young children with cancer at a children's hospital die because we have cut cancer research funding.
As I say this, I think about my mother, a breast cancer survivor who wonders every day if it will come back. Boy, how do you think it gets me right in the craw to have to tell her that this country doesn't care if she lives or dies because it doesn't care enough about finding a cure for cancer to continue to fund that kind of research?
We just celebrated Mother's Day. I wonder if people shared with their mothers how all the support that helps mothers will now be on the chopping block.
I am sharing all of this on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus because as we wait to see what comes out of the remaining committees that are meeting, just know that there is a $290 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, cutting off food assistance to thousands of families who need it.
Just know that, in these committees, they will be debating raising the age for mandatory work requirements because we want people to work longer and harder and get less while somehow billionaires make more off of the backs of these working families.
Just know that, in these committees, they are going to be talking about cutting access to school lunches. So many of us live in districts where the school district is actually responsible for feeding the children in the community because of the free lunch program.
I know that people might be distracted by the Qatar gift, the $400 million flying palace. Let's hope there are no bugs in it. I don't know. I know people want to be distracted by all the other things that seem to be coming out of the administration, but I don't want us to be distracted by that.
I want us to be talking about this reconciliation bill. I want us to remember what is going to be voted on in this package, and it is a thing. It is a thing that it is actually taking so long for this package to arrive on the floor.
Do you know why it is a thing? Because we have a House majority trying to wiggle through the truth and figure out a way to spin death, destruction, and poverty.
There is no way to spin kicking granny off of Social Security. There is no way to spin shutting down hospitals and clinics. We can demonize the folks who are on Medicaid and Medicare, but I want to also remind us that if there is a doctor, if there is a clinic, if there is a hospital that is receiving a reimbursement for taking care of a recipient on Medicaid, that doctor, that hospital, that community clinic is open to serve you, too, because that reimbursement allows that clinic, that doctor, that hospital to stay open to help and serve everyone else in the community.
A lot of this rhetoric that you are hearing from people who don't want to talk about this reconciliation bill is trying to divide us into ``us'' and ``them'' buckets. The truth is that we are all in this together. We are all in this country together. We are all in this debate together. We are all in this fight together to make sure that the people in our districts have access to the services that they deserve.
If you are not willing to stand up for Medicare--and don't sign a letter and then run and don't show up in a district. Stand up and talk about saving it, protecting it, defending it, and making it better so that it can serve more people who deserve it rather than cutting it and lying about it and running from the truth.
The truth is that this reconciliation bill, this package, is going to hurt people. It is going to impoverish people. It is going to destroy businesses because the funny thing about economies is that they are circular. Nothing happens in a silo, in a vacuum. Businesses stay open because people are able to go into those businesses, and they are able to shop and buy things. When that happens, that business is able to grow, and they are able to hire more workers. Then those workers are able to do more or produce more.
Mr. Speaker, that is how it works. Yet, when you cut off opportunity, access, incentive, and support, then you compromise that ecosystem. We all have those micro-ecosystems in our communities. That is what makes this country strong. That is what makes this country unique. That is what makes this country worthy of this kind of debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to close right now because I know the witching hour is among us. I am grateful for the time that has been given to the Congressional Black Caucus. The Speaker has heard from my distinguished colleagues about this reconciliation package and about all issues of great importance to this caucus, to our constituents, to the Congress, and to all Americans tonight.
This reconciliation bill is a big deal. It is important and it should be talked about and discussed. The best disinfectant is sunlight, and we have to stop allowing people to be so shady about
Mr. Speaker, I rise to place remarks on the Record this evening focusing on liberty versus dictatorship.
We have several Members who wish to submit comments for the Record. Congressman Mike Quigley is here this evening. Congressman Eugene Vindman is in a committee markup right now, and Congressman Steve Cohen will also have remarks for the Record.
I will begin briefly, and then I will yield to my fellow Congressman from Illinois.
China's dictator Xi was recently at the historic military parade that fellow dictator Vladimir Putin celebrated in Moscow. The purpose of the celebration was to honor the anniversary of Europe's defeat of Nazi Germany, signaling Putin's intent to actually use that occasion to turn his binoculars on capturing more free territory to control Ukraine and beyond.
Putin and Xi together in that situation was rather hard to look at. Yet, their presence underscored the danger stemming from their close and increasing cooperation, enlarging the spiderweb of tyranny led by Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, all of them acting against liberty around the world.
Xi said that Russia and China should be friends of steel. He said that they would deepen relationships in all areas, including military ties, and strengthen coordination in order to decisively counter Washington's course of dual containment of Russia and China.
What is more, North Korean troops who have been fighting against Ukraine's freedom and their freedom fighters for months were fully on display in Red Square, where Putin embraced them.
America, pay attention.
While Iran was not present at the parade, it continues to be omnipresent in the skies above Ukraine. Ukrainians can't avoid the Shahed drones that Russia is using and buying from Iran to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians who are fighting for their very liberty.
This military parade took place at a critical moment in Moscow's aggression on Ukraine as American efforts proceed to negotiate an end to it. To be clear: Vital NATO interests are at stake in central Europe, where Ukraine serves as the scrimmage line for liberty across Europe today.
Russia is the free world's only peer in terms of its nuclear capabilities, and Russia's national security doctrine declares our country and our people as its principal foe.
America, pay attention.
Putin has made clear that he wants effective political control in Ukraine and other free nations that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Putin also wants a veto over defense measures being taken in the former Warsaw Pact states that want to remain free. Putin doesn't want that. This means he wants to dictate the fate of many of our NATO allies in Europe and beyond.
Instead of strategically pushing back on Putin's unchanged goals of European and global domination, this administration has steadily given Russian exactly what it wants, both in Ukraine and well beyond. If Putin had a checklist of things he wanted America to do, I will in a brief time tell you what it would look like, and it is exactly what the Trump administration is doing.
Before I get into that, I am going to call on my dear colleague from the great city of Chicago, Congressman Mike Quigley, to enter his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, for 1,176 days, people of Ukraine have lived under constant threat of attack and attack. As the war has dragged on for over 3 years, Ukrainians have refused to submit to Putin's violence. At every turn, they have shown the world what it means to be fighting on the front lines for democracy. At every turn, the Ukrainian people have been willing to do what is necessary for protection and for peace.
When their sovereignty was threatened by Putin, they defended their country courageously. When the opportunity for diplomatic negotiations arose, they were willing to come to the table. In exchange for their bravery and sacrifice, all they have asked for is respect for their independence, their autonomy, and their democracy.
Peace between Ukraine and Russia must not come at Ukraine's expense. We want peace. Ukrainians desperately want peace, but it cannot be a Russian victory. In order to have a just and lasting peace, we must return Ukraine to its 1991 borders. Ukraine must also have serious security assurances from the U.S. and NATO so that Putin is deterred from ever threatening the country again.
Russia must alone help fund this great construction after targeting civilian infrastructure, including energy facilities, hospitals, and schools. We must also hold Putin accountable for his army's war crimes, like those in Bucha, which I witnessed, and for the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children.
As the Trump administration continues to push for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, we must all keep in mind exactly who we are dealing with. Putin has refused to negotiate in good faith, reportedly violating the very same cease-fire he unilaterally declared last week. So far, he has refused to even direct negotiations with President Zelenskyy in Turkiye.
This is the same man who has welcomed China's, Iran's, and North Korea's support for his war effort. He has shown contempt for all international democratic norms, both in his own country and in dealing with others.
This is why the only way to deal with Putin is by sending a clear message--a message of strength and of unity. As the United States has for the better part of a century, we must continue to stand up to tyrants and defend freedom. We have learned that isolationism and appeasing autocrats is a losing strategy. As President Trump and his administration continue to push for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, I encourage them to remember history. Remember the reasons we fought the Second World War and the reasons we founded NATO.
Now is not the time to abandon our values or our position as a leader of the free world. Now is the time to pressure Putin to end this brutal war for good. The future of the Ukrainian people, the future of Europe, and the future of democracy are dependent on how we meet this moment. This is a moral, tactical, and strategic imperative.
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 this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
Mr. Speaker, I will go back to discussing some of the actions the administration has taken that have undermined America's position globally.
First of all, the Trump administration has sided with Russia over Ukraine, most especially by pausing military assistance to Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of those dollars are spent in this country on weaponry to help Ukraine repel the enemy.
Ukraine has been courageously standing and fighting in the breach between liberty and dictatorship. This has come at great cost to her people, her prosperity, and her aspirations.
The poorest country in Europe, Ukraine is holding back Putin's covetousness and aggression against the Continent of Europe. Ukraine wants nothing more than to finally and permanently ascend to the community of free nations in the European Union and join as a strong ally in NATO. For that aspiration, Putin attacked Ukraine and
Despite Ukraine being aligned with our values in its historic fight to regain its freedom, President Trump has time and again spouted Russian talking points by admonishing Ukraine and falsely suggesting that she started the war.
That is false.
Russia initiated its invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the larger full scale of invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It is just amazing what the Ukrainians are doing. In trying to negotiate a cease-fire between Ukraine and Russia, President Trump and Vice President Vance have squeezed concession after concession out of Ukraine, even its mineral wealth. At times, the Trump administration has effectively held Ukraine's economic future ransom for more military aid.
This includes the dastardly moment when President Trump suddenly withheld U.S. support and intelligence sharing that Ukraine relies on to defend itself from Russia's onslaught. Such a pause undoubtedly cost Ukrainian lives.
Trump has stated that Putin wants peace in Ukraine. Surely he can't believe this. Putin has failed to uphold any cease-fire agreement, including those struck with the United States of America. Dictator Putin doesn't want peace. He wants Ukraine, all of Ukraine, and beyond.
Secondly, the Trump administration has been dividing democratic alliances.
Yesterday, President Trump astoundingly said the European union is worse than China. He even has said that the European union was created to ``screw America.''
In what world does he live? He seems not to know our history.
Our Nation and European nations that won World War II created NATO to sustain liberty's alliance and as a shield against future invasions. Together, we comprise a formidable force. In doing so America was guaranteed strong security partners to defend against a world war and new threats of tyranny like that of Putin, North Korea, and Iran today.
That is why we have the European allies. They are our oldest friends and partners and we share a love of liberty. Rather than stand united as we have been for decades, the Trump administration has threatened to--are you ready for this--annex Canada and invade Greenland, which is part of Denmark.
Both are current NATO allies. Canada fought nobly with our troops on the shores of Normandy on D-day and many other places. Both nations served honorably alongside our Armed Forces in Afghanistan in response to 9/11. Threatening our neighbors and allies in such a manner is taking a page out of the very playbook of lies Putin has used repeatedly against Ukraine. Our partnerships have been won and developed as liberty's umbrella with the democratic nations of Europe.
Putin knows that. He cannot defeat our alliance if we stand united. Instead, he now waits for Trump to break apart our own security blanket so he can pick liberty's shield off one by one.
Thirdly, the Trump administration has weakened our cyber defense. U.S. top intelligence officers recently released the annual threat assessment, which states the following: ``Russia's advanced cyber capabilities, its repeated success compromising sensitive targets for intelligence collection, and its past attempts to pre-position access on U.S. critical infrastructure make it a persistent counterintelligence and cyberattack threat. Moscow's unique strength is the practical experience it has gained integrating cyberattacks and operations with wartime military action, almost certainly amplifying its potential to focus combined impact on U.S. targets in time of conflict.''
So yes, Russia is a real threat to our freedom. Its cyber capabilities are a unique threat. Despite knowing this to be true, Trump has taken steps to tear down our cyber capabilities in a comprehensive manner. Why?
Since taking office, Elon Musk and DOGE have decimated cybersecurity, CISA, our premier cybersecurity agency, with personnel cuts and stop work orders.
Why would anyone do that?
In March, President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth abruptly ended U.S. cyber operations against Russia. This was done without warning and without consulting Congress.
Then in April, at the beck and call of a far-right, online opinion influencer, President Trump fired four-star General Timothy Haugh without warning from his position leading our military cyber forces. General Haugh--get ready for this--served our Nation honorably with distinction for 34 years.
The Trump administration has left America's cyber gates unlocked at a time when cyberattacks are rapidly on the rise. Putin will make our Nation pay dearly for that set of serious errors.
Fourthly, Trump administration policies threaten U.S. global economic standing. Through American ingenuity and hard work, the likes of wish Russia cannot compete against, our Nation's financial systems are a privileged place at the center of a global economic system.
The United States has the largest economy in the world. Most other nations rely on the U.S. dollar to hold their savings and reliably conduct international trade. Putin wants to end that. Trump's unprecedented and irresponsible reciprocal tariff regime is helping Putin achieve that goal. Not only has Trump's costly universal tariffs endangered our good trade relations with our closest economic allies, moreover, they are also making others think twice about using and trusting the U.S. dollar.
These costly economic taxes on U.S. consumers will be very difficult to reverse, even if Trump pulls back his tariffs, supply chains are clogged already.
Putin has long spoken about his interest in reducing the world's reliance on America's economic strength and the U.S. dollar. Such a world leaves each American poorer and with fewer economic opportunities. Just as Russia relies on oil exports to finance and undercut the financial sanctions that have been placed on that country due to its invasion of Ukraine, Putin has called for the world to adopt untraceable cryptocurrency to protect his assets. He prefers this unregulated alternative as he pushes the world to abandon the dollar.
Now, Trump is one of the world's biggest promoters of cryptocurrency and has even started his own cryptocurrency to avoid regulated financial markets to enrich himself and his family.
Fifthly and finally, the Trump administration's actions to date are upending America's global reputation. Perhaps most damaging, Trump has upended our global reputation as a responsible partner and guardian of liberty across our world. He leans toward dictators.
What is that all about?
It took 80 years for America, with our leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan to meticulously secure our place as leader of the free world. We didn't seek it, but we did our job.
America is the global beacon of liberty and justice for all. Our reputation has been earned by tremendous sacrifice and vision. Our commitment to liberty has been built on the sacred graves of over 500,000 Americans who sacrificed their lives for the first time in history and fought not for power or land, but for the liberation of others from tyranny during World War II.
Over 2 million of our fellow citizens bore the injuries from that conflict. In the decades that followed, our Nation and our allies became prosperous not by closing our doors to the world or hiding from the challenges of the Communist bloc, our forebearers met tyranny head- on. We met the threats that we faced and stood together on our Nation's founding commitment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, year after year, in the face of constant threats.
American liberty has been a multigenerational effort, admired around the world with each generation standing firm. In just over 100 days, Donald Trump, whose family has no record anywhere of military service or sacrifice for this Nation, is carelessly throwing liberty to the wolves. He seems to enjoy dictatorship, plutocracy, and wealth over principle. Russia celebrates as America retreats from the world, so does Iran and North Korea.
Trump has taken Putin at his word. Putin's word can never be trusted. As long as President Trump keeps trusting Putin over our allies, then he will continue to do Russia's bidding at the expense of the American people.
If America doesn't lead, then Putin and Xi and all of their dictator buddies will rule the day, and in their world, liberty cannot survive.
America must pay attention. Pay attention not just to what is happening inside our borders but outside our borders. I can tell you there are enemies to liberty across this world. We have to hold our ground. We have to tell our own President pay attention, learn from history, appreciate the relationships that had been won at such a high price.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressmen Quigley, Cohen, and Vindman, all of whom will contribute remarks to the Record this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 14, 2025, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
