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.
35 public bills, H.R. 4214- 4248; and 9 resolutions, H. Res. 553-561, were introduced.
Pages H3031-33
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Guest Chaplain: The prayer was offered by the Guest Chaplain, Dr. Gary G. Dull, Faith Baptist Church, Altoona, Pennsylvania.
Page H3015
Condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California
The House agreed to H. Res. 516, condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California, by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 195 nays, Roll No. 185.
Pages H3016-23
Work Period Designation
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he designated the period from Friday, June 27, 2025, through Sunday, July 6, 2025, as a ``district work period'' under clause 13 of rule 1.
Page H3023
Quorum Calls: Votes
One yea-and-nay vote developed during the proceedings of today and appears on page H3023. Adjournment: The House met at 9 a.m. and adjourned at 11:48 a.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: 59 of 77 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Welcoming Dr. Gary G. Dull
The SPEAKER. Without objection, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the pastor of the Faith Baptist Church of Altoona, Pennsylvania, and the president of the Way of Truth Ministries, Pastor Gary Dull.
Pastor Dull has been preaching the Gospel since he was 12 years old. By the time he was a senior at Washington Bible College, Pastor Dull was already preaching at Morningside Baptist Church in Suitland, Maryland, right outside of Washington, D.C.
Since then, Pastor Dull has had an incredible life. He has served at four churches in Pennsylvania and Florida and is currently in his 29th year as the pastor of the Faith Baptist Church of Altoona.
Pastor Dull also founded the Way of Truth Ministries, which has missionaries on three continents. Pastor Dull has evangelized by preaching the Gospel and serving those in need in 25 different countries.
Pastor Dull has devoted his life to spreading the Word of the Lord and serving those less fortunate. Whether in his community or throughout the world, he has embodied the selfless service of Jesus Christ, his Savior.
It is a privilege to welcome Pastor Gary Dull and his wife of 50 years, Nancy, to Washington to open the floor of the United States House of Representatives in prayer.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Homeownership Month, a time to celebrate the cornerstone of the American Dream.
For generations, owning a home has symbolized stability, independence, and opportunity. It strengthens families, builds communities, and lays the foundation for long-term financial security.
Yet, today, that dream feels out of reach for too many, especially first-time buyers, young families, and those in rural and working-class communities. Rising interest rates, limited housing supplies, and increasing costs are making it harder for Americans to put down roots.
That is why we must work together across the aisle to support policies to expand access to affordable housing, invest in infrastructure, and reduce regulatory barriers that drive up costs.
Homeownership shouldn't be a luxury. It should be an achievable goal for every hardworking American.
Mr. Speaker, the United States airstrikes in Iran, which we hope to be briefed on today, is the latest in the signature chaos and erratic decisionmaking from the Trump White House.
I thank God that our extraordinary military appears to have exquisitely executed its mission. We can be grateful to our military's carrying out of a decision while we ask questions about that decision.
While the news is inundated with reports of Trump's airstrikes, there are many concerns that we are not hearing about here at home: hostages; Ukraine; Federal institutions, like USAID and NIH, gutted; the big, ugly bill that would slash Medicaid for 14 million Americans, including 110,000 of my constituents; and the cruel cuts at SAMHSA that will jeopardize the lives of those struggling with addiction and mental health.
The Trump White House leads with smoke and mirrors, but they are doing incredible harm to my constituents and Americans across this country. I call upon my colleagues to not let them be successful in their attempts to obscure and distract.
Thomas Jefferson said: When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary American and proud son of south Mississippi, Lieutenant Colonel Boyd Mason, for his nearly three decades of distinguished service to our country.
Lieutenant Colonel Mason served with courage and honor, including 2\1/2\ years doing Active Duty in the Vietnam war. His dedication to our Nation didn't end with his military service. He continues to be a guiding light in Jackson County and all across south Mississippi's Fourth Congressional District.
Today, Mr. Mason faces a new battle. The battle this time is a personal one, a fight against cancer.
Yet, his strength and spirit remain unshaken. He is a devoted father of 5, grandfather to 12, and a great-grandfather to 5 more.
Lieutenant Colonel Mason's legacy of service, faith, and perseverance reaches far beyond the battlefield. It lives on in the lives he has touched and the freedoms he helped to defend.
While our military members risk their lives every day for the sake of our great country, it is more important than ever to honor those who answered the call. Lieutenant Colonel Mason is a hero, plain and simple, and I ask all Americans to join me in keeping him and his family in our thoughts and prayers.
Mr. Speaker, we honor Lieutenant Colonel Mason today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize William Horne, affectionately known as ``Bus Dad.''
After an impressive 51 years behind the wheel of a schoolbus dedicated to transporting exceptional children within Wilson County Public Schools, Mr. Horne has recently entered a well-deserved retirement.
Mr. Horne was more than just a schoolbus driver. He was devoted to his students and their families. He warmly welcomed each child onto his bus every morning, making sure they were ready for school. His bus was more than just a mode of transportation. It was a safe haven.
Mr. Horne's dedication exemplifies a great American story highlighting the essence of public service: impactful, consistent, and full of love and compassion.
I thank Mr. Horne for his extraordinary commitment to his students over the decades. His legacy will remain with those he has touched, and I wish him a wonderful retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again stress the need for immigration reform in this country.
Just last week, back home, one of my taxpaying constituents, Narciso Barranco, was picked up by who I believe were ICE agents--they were masked--and is now sitting in an ICE holding facility in Los Angeles. Videos show him being punched by masked Federal agents, unprovoked.
Narciso Barranco has lived in my district for 25 years or more and doesn't have a traffic ticket to his name. More importantly, he has three sons--three sons--all serving in the U.S. Marine Corps.
Mr. Speaker, we make movies about families like this. He has three sons who are ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for this great Nation, and, instead, he is being held in custody in an ICE facility in Los Angeles.
Our Federal agents should be taking criminals off of our streets, not gentlemen like this.
I pray that Mr. Barranco's case is a wake-up call for all of us for immigration reform.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the 26th time to call on the Trump administration to honor its word and restore funding for lifesaving food aid around the world.
Mr. Speaker, the words from the Trump administration have been pretty good on this. Elon Musk said that funding for emergency food aid will be restored. Marco Rubio has repeatedly said he was going to do it. They even got FOX News to write a glowing online article about their plans to restore funding.
Yet, it has been 6 months since they cut this funding off. It has been 6 months, and every day that they wait is another day that children die of starvation unnecessarily.
Every day, there are children whose organs are shutting down, who are unable to eat conventional food, and who can only have their lives saved by ready-to-use therapeutic food manufactured in the United States.
Every day, the clock is ticking. The administration needs to do what it said it is going to do: restore funding for this aid. I will continue to stand on this floor every day until they do.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 516) condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
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. Res. 516.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago, the entire world witnessed horrifying scenes out of Los Angeles: Molotov cocktails and bricks being thrown at officers, Waymo cars being lit on fire, American flags being burned, and roadways being blocked.
Today, we will stand as a House to condemn these acts of violence and to condemn the irresponsible politicians who refused to adequately address them.
I think it is important to understand from the beginning the events leading to these horrific scenes.
We should first recognize that ICE was undertaking operations in Los Angeles that have been very standard across administrations, Democrat or Republican.
President Obama, after all, carried out millions of deportations, and the priority has always been to focus on those who have a criminal record and who pose a risk to the public. That is precisely what ICE was doing in Los Angeles. Among those targeted were murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers.
It should also be recognized that one of the reasons that some of these people had to be sought out in the community is that the city of Los Angeles and the State of California have chosen to enact sanctuary policies that explicitly forbid ICE from taking custody of these dangerous individuals in the safest and least disruptive setting, in a custodial setting, that is, in jails. That is the explicit purpose of our sanctuary laws.
Despite these facts, as these operations were being carried out in a standard and targeted way in Los Angeles, you had certain politicians who engaged in inflammatory rhetoric, who then had individuals gather to disrupt the activities of ICE and our Federal officers, and then you saw these extreme and horrifying acts of violence.
I will be very clear: I will defend in any way that I can the right to assemble and protest regardless of the content of what the protesters are advocating. This is foundational. It is fundamental to the American system of government, but violence is another matter entirely.
This is not just a matter of protests crossing a line. Violence is the antithesis of protests. It seeks to shut down the process of deliberation, argument, and debate. It seeks to exalt force over reason. It is an abandonment of the American experiment of self- government.
By the way, this is especially true when the very purpose of the violence is to impede the policies of a duly elected President from being carried out. It is to say that a violent agitator should be able to overthrow through force the will of a democratic majority that has been established through a democratic, free, and fair election.
That is what we bore witness to in Los Angeles. Yet, instead of doing everything possible to restore order, to protect the citizens of Los Angeles, to protect our law enforcement officers, and our Federal officers, you saw certain irresponsible vainglorious politicians in California decide that this was their star-making moment, where they would egg on the violent agitators, where they would try to pick a fight in every way they could with the President, even going so far as to file a frivolous lawsuit that was thrown out unanimously by the Ninth Circuit.
Worst of all, these politicians decided to place the blame for the violence on our incredible National Guard members, somehow saying it was their presence there that caused it. This is deeply offensive, and our National Guard members are owed an apology.
Today, I hope we can stand together, Republicans and Democrats, in making it very clear that protests and assembly are fundamental rights in this country and that acts of violence are a grave threat to those rights.
Specifically, this resolution recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully, condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against Federal, State, and local law enforcement, calls on local and State-elected leadership to work with the Federal Government to end the violent riots and restore peace, and expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol, Orange County Sheriff's Department, and other local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, including the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for keeping our communities safe in the face of danger.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the California Democratic Delegation who leads the 45 Democrats in the California delegation.
Now, had it just condemned violence and thanked the National Guard and the Marines, who did not ask for this assignment, I think we would all be on board.
Instead, the resolution really is engaging in partisan games with misleading and inflammatory provisions.
Trump said he was going to go arrest and deport violent criminals. People are okay with that. Instead, armed, masked ICE agents, some refusing to identify themselves, aggressively, and
Unfortunately, there were some hooligans and rowdies who infiltrated that group, and they committed violent acts and vandalism. For that, they should be prosecuted. They should be brought to justice and condemned, which we do.
However, the resolution really creates a misleading picture of what happened. On the first page, it says: ``Whereas these protests quickly escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction . . . lighting streets on fire. . . . '' The fact is that these demonstrations were largely confined to about a 10-block area in downtown Los Angeles.
The police, LAPD, had the situation under control. There is an elaborate system of mutual aid in California, and had they needed additional forces, it was readily available under mutual aid.
I will point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in case they need a reminder, L.A. County is 4,060 square miles, not the 10 blocks. When President Trump deployed the Marines and National Guard in L.A., it was not at the request of local officials, the chief of police, or the Governor. It was unprecedented, unnecessary, and a clear attempt to take over the State's law enforcement authority. In fact, I think it did aggravate tensions in the area.
Now, the National Guard remains in Los Angeles to this day. They have nothing to do. We heard a report from a former commander that less than 20 percent are doing anything and they have been taken away from jobs where they were needed; for example, helping in efforts of forest fire prevention and the like.
As the elected chair of the California Democrat delegation, I was proud to join my colleague (Ms. Barragan) in introducing a resolution that, unlike this one, is based in fact.
Our resolution condemns the President's authoritarian response to First Amendment expressions of dissent, unlike the Kim resolution. It expresses support for law enforcement and for the National Guard and for the Marines, and it condemns violence by those who committed it.
Now, why is this important? In the resolution, it is so partisan. It says: ``Whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens.''
That is absurd. That is insulting to our elected officials, but it is right in keeping with what the President has said. He has indicated publicly that he intends to target cities and States that are democratically elected, that have Democrats elected in government.
What a strange thing to say.
The executive order that nationalized the California National Guard applies to anywhere in the United States. It is not just L.A. It is not just California.
I think this resolution really, as false as it is, is serving as a predicate, as a foundation for the military to be used in places all over the United States on any pretext, so that the military can go in and assume civilian authority away from those who are democratically elected.
That is why it is important that we do not approve this resolution with its false whereases, and that we do not participate in a scheme to replace the democratically elected officials in cities and counties and States across the United States.
I will just end with this: Who should we be more concerned about? What should we be more afraid of: the gardeners that are being arrested by ICE, the busboys, the farmworkers, or the concept that the administration may be taking the steps to replace, with the military, civil authority that has been duly elected around the United States?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's make sure that we are dealing with the facts as they actually occurred. The assertion the LAPD had the situation under control; we all saw otherwise on our television sets. The LAPD chief himself said that every person in Los Angeles should be disgusted by what occurred.
The Governor has, himself, in the past, recognized the virtue of using the National Guard when you had situations that required reinforcement.
This notion that somehow the President was taking over the State's law enforcement authority, the Ninth Circuit said otherwise unanimously. Even a Biden-appointed judge said: The President was exercising his authority to prevent the disruption of the enforcement of Federal law.
As to this notion that the violence was largely confined to downtown L.A., I can't agree with the assertion that it is somehow less objectionable to have violence occur within a concentrated area than on a more diffused basis.
Finally, this disparagement of our ICE officers for wearing masks. I think that this is outrageous. We have seen threats against our ICE officers absolutely skyrocket. It is very ironic for folks that had no problem forcing 2 year olds to wear masks all day, in defiance of even the World Health Organization's guidelines, that are now somehow objecting to Federal officers who feel the need to do this in order to protect themselves and their family.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Kiley for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 516 to condemn the violent riots in Los Angeles this month, and I thank our brave law enforcement officers for keeping us safe.
I appreciate the heated debate and the conversation. I thank my colleague (Mr. Kiley) for leading on the groundwork and for explaining what led to the events that occurred last month in Los Angeles, which explains that Federal agents were conducting immigration enforcement, according to the law.
Mr. Speaker, protecting public safety should not be controversial. This resolution is very simple. It recognizes a right to assemble and protest peacefully, and it condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against Federal, State, and local law enforcement. It calls on local and State-elected leadership to work with the Federal Government and restore peace. It also expresses gratitude to our local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers for bravely keeping our communities safe in the face of danger.
That is what this is about. Do you stand with our law enforcement officers working to keep our communities safe and have the common sense to call out rioters who commit vandalism, violence, property damage, and other crimes in our streets?
Mr. Speaker, like others in the Chamber and many across this country, I am an immigrant who came here legally in pursuit of the opportunities that this country provides. I am proud to be an American, and I am paying it forward to keep the American Dream alive for my children and grandchildren.
Peaceful protests are a constitutional right we all cherish, and our communities should not be living in fear. But peaceful protests and freedom of assembly gave way to chaos in Los Angeles, as we witnessed a few weeks ago.
We saw acts of arson, looting, property destruction, vandalism, blocking streets and highways, lighting cars on fire, shooting fireworks, throwing rocks at law enforcement vehicles, and even assaulting Federal and local police officers. As a result, we saw more than 500 rioters were arrested, and at least a dozen LAPD officers were injured.
Local and State leadership clearly could not contain the chaos. The riots have cost at least $30 million to pay overtime and repair property damages to city buildings. This doesn't include the small businesses and other private entities whose businesses fell victim to the destruction.
We also know that the riots were enabled by California's soft-on- crime policies that have allowed for lawlessness and endangered public safety.
Again, this resolution recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully, condemns the violence against law enforcement, and calls on local and State officials to work with the Federal Government to restore peace. We thank our law enforcement. This is not controversial.
Mr. Speaker, I ask, what happened? My hometown, Santa Ana, California, is predominantly Hispanic Latino. Factory workers live there. Remember, we are the biggest manufacturing State in the Union. Nearshoring, guess where it is happening?
California is the largest ag State in the Union. There are a lot of farmworkers in my district. What happened? One day, we are going about our business in Santa Ana, Orange County, masked Federal agents start going into our neighborhoods, picking up hardworking neighbors. Oh, yeah, you bet, people were concerned, scared, and nervous.
A lot of people expressed their First Amendment rights. We got the National Guard. Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes did not call for the National Guard. Local police chiefs did not call for the National Guard. We get the National Guard.
President Trump promised to deport criminals, those with deportation orders, those here less than 2 years, but now it is hard workers, people who pay taxes that are being picked up. Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of those being picked up are now people without criminal records.
Orange County didn't have any violence. We had masked officers coming into our neighborhoods.
I bet President Trump would want to know what is going on on Main Street. One of the constituents that just got picked up I talked about a minute ago, Narciso Barranco. He has been in the U.S. for 25 years. He is a gardener and a father of three marines. We make movies of people like this. This gentleman is a hero. His family are heroes. Instead, he is in an ICE holding facility in Los Angeles.
I am hearing more stories coming, more Barranco-type families being broken up, military families being separated from their loved ones by ICE. I do not believe President Trump would want his legacy to be that he deported military family members like Mr. Barranco.
Let's use common sense here. This resolution is not prime time for a vote. There are a lot of inaccuracies. I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am moved by the comments of the distinguished gentleman from California, and I wonder what our colleagues think the value is other than of a purely political nature to a resolution that purports to be honoring law enforcement when it is set up on a completely partisan basis. I wonder what the value of that is.
I especially wonder what the value of that is when the majority doesn't even stand by actual law when it comes to honoring law enforcement because this body on March 15, 2022, passed a resolution to put up a plaque, a simple plaque to honor the noble and brave police officers who battled for 4 or 5 hours to stop a violent riot and insurrection unleashed against this Chamber and against the Senate in an attempt to overthrow a Presidential election.
We voted to erect a plaque in their honor. That was on March 15, 2022. It was supposed to have been put up on March 15, 2023. We are now more than 2 years overdue in honoring those police officers, 140 of whom were wounded, injured, disfigured, and many of them permanently disabled. Several lost their lives in the days to follow that atrocity, attack on this body.
There is a law which says put up the plaque, and Speaker Johnson and the majority will not put the plaque up which is why you walk in the House Office Buildings now, everywhere there are poster replicas of that plaque being put up.
Now they want to pass a resolution deploring violence that took place thousands of miles away from here, and it is just a resolution, a hortatory resolution. They can't even get bipartisan support because of course they have to set it up on a polemical, partisan basis instead.
What is the utility of that resolution when they won't even follow an actual law to honor police officers who put themselves between us and a bloodthirsty mob?
That is not a partisan point because the Republicans denounced it at that time as terrorism, as an attack on this institution, as intolerable, as unacceptable.
I am happy to share with my colleague, who I know wasn't in Congress at the time, all of the statements made by Republican leaders at that time begging Donald Trump to send in the National Guard, which he controlled because it is the District of Columbia National Guard, and he didn't do it. He sat and watched it, eating hamburgers or whatever, in the White House on TV, ignoring all of the appeals to send the National Guard to come and defend Republican and Democratic Members of Congress.
Now we have got a law which says put the plaque up in honor of these officers, and they can't do it, but they want to bring a totally partisan resolution to the floor deploring violence thousands of miles away, and you have got Members of Congress from California saying that they are not capturing what actually happened there.
However, no, it has got to be another opportunity for partisan division. Why? Why can't we honor law enforcement together and follow through on our word?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As to the comments of my colleague from California, he set forth his view as to what the priority and the limitations ought to be when it comes to deportation policy. He is, of course, acting appropriately in doing so. That is his right, and that is his prerogative as a Member of Congress, as it is for any citizen.
This resolution does not have anything to do with the merits of his view. This resolution simply states that one should not use violence in order to advance that view. I would hope that this should be a principle we should be able to agree on on a bipartisan basis.
As to my colleague from Maryland's claim that this resolution is somehow set up in a partisan way, nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution simply condemns acts of violence. We are opposed to sanctuary policies. We are opposed to putting a target on the back of our Federal officers, and, frankly, to defunding the police.
It is not our fault that those who have allowed this violence, who have promoted sanctuary policies, who have put a target on the back of our officers, and who have called for defunding the police all happen to belong to one party.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. Speaker, many Democrats in this House have called the L.A. riots peaceful, even while Americans watched with their own eyes as marauding mobs under foreign flags set cars on fire, threw concrete blocks at police, terrorized motorists, and vandalized and looted local shops.
The Democratic vice mayor of Cudahy has called on criminal street gangs to attack Federal law enforcement.
The Democratic mayor of Los Angeles said that for the riots to stop, the Federal Government had to stop enforcing Federal immigration law. You just heard the same sentiment expressed on this floor a few minutes ago.
The Democratic Newsom administration has paid millions of taxpayer dollars to one of the principal organizers of these riots.
I have news for the Democrats: The doctrine of nullification died with the Confederacy. States are not permitted to obstruct the enforcement of Federal law. In a humiliating slap-down of Mr. Newsom, even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the President has the clear authority to federalize the National Guard to restore order whenever State or local officials are derelict in their duty to protect the public and enforce the law.
Remember how all this started: ICE agents attempted to execute court- ordered warrants on criminal illegal aliens. When a mob intervened, ICE called for local law enforcement. The mayor reportedly stopped them from responding, and the Governor did nothing. Now, we saw during the George Floyd riots what happens when leftist officials refuse to counter violent mobs: American cities aflame, billions of dollars of damage, and 19 people killed.
This resolution condemns the violence, but there is something far more sinister afoot that strikes at the very foundation of a constitutional Republic: the rule of law. As Abraham Lincoln told the Democrats long ago: ``There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law,'' and this generation of Americans is taking note.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague invoke Abraham Lincoln in the rejection of disunion secession and violent attack on the Federal Government.
Neither of my colleagues who is on the floor has said a word explaining why they won't put the plaque up to honor hundreds and hundreds of police officers on the Capitol Police force, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Montgomery County Police throughout the region who came to defend us. Why won't they put the plaque up if they are really such big supporters of the police? That is a law.
They just want to pass a resolution. Their resolution, of course, is completely political. One of their whereas clauses is: ``Whereas, California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over U.S. citizens.''
That is just defamation of the law enforcement officials in California. It is defamation against the Governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, the sheriff in Los Angeles County, the chief of police in L.A., all of whom fought to put that violence down when riots broke out, something Donald Trump never did when the riots broke out that he incited against us.
Remember, he was impeached by this body for inciting a violent insurrection against us. Not only did he not do anything to defend us, but he was the one who caused the whole chain of events that led to the deaths that took place that day and the violence that took place that day. My colleague won't utter a word about it. He won't say a word about it.
All of the attempt to focus everybody over there is a distraction from the fact that they still, to this day, are defending what Donald Trump did with January 6. Why? It is because they also defend his lie that he won the 2020 Presidential election, which he lost by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the electoral college.
I don't know what the meaning of their totally partisan resolution is when they won't even stand by the law--it was signed into law by the President--to put up a plaque, a simple plaque honoring police officers who fought tooth and nail for hours against the most bloody, vicious, violent insurrectionist mob ever to attack the Capitol of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this extremely partisan resolution that seeks to legitimize President Trump's baseless attacks on Los Angeles and our elected leaders, including Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass.
This administration's mass ICE raids by masked agents who will not identify themselves have trampled on our rights and left our community shaken but not defeated.
The President manufactured a crisis in Los Angeles and then blamed our constituents for it. He induced ICE to terrorize our community, detaining hundreds of hardworking residents at places like Home Depot and car washes, including U.S. citizens like Job Garcia, a doctoral student in my district at Claremont Graduate University. He was manhandled, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed.
For this, the President called in the National Guard and Marines?
This resolution only gives credence to Trump's dangerous rhetoric. Instead, we should be considering the resolution introduced by California's Democratic delegation, which condemns anyone engaged in violation of the law, violence, or vandalism. Most importantly, it stands up for our constitutional rights to due process and free expression and shows our appreciation to local law enforcement for upholding public safety.
Rather than feed into the President's cruelty, we are standing up for the communities we were elected to represent.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent point. The California delegation has advanced, with Ms. Lofgren, a truly bipartisan resolution that deplores all violence because the political violence is getting out of control in America.
We just had colleagues in Minnesota who were the subject of assassination attempts, and, of course, the former speaker of the Minnesota House was killed, along with her husband, and a State senator was wounded, along with his wife.
We deplore all the political violence across the board, and we defend the right to speak. We look for policies from the Federal Government that will not exacerbate conflict but will reduce conflict.
This resolution is far from being nonpartisan, as my distinguished colleague argues. In fact, it attacks the Governor of California, Members of Congress, California leadership, and the mainstream media. I mean, come on.
We know the difference between what is a partisan, gotcha resolution and a resolution that actually attempts to unify people around common values.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this notion that the President manufactured a crisis is simply asking us not to believe our eyes. You actually had Members of Congress from California who said that there was no violence, even though we all saw on television cars being lit on fire, Molotov cocktails, and bricks being thrown at officers. Among many other acts of violence, we had several officers who were injured during the process.
What did the President do? He asked our dedicated National Guard members to come in to protect Federal property and Federal officers.
To say that this somehow was what caused the crisis is not only completely at odds with the facts as we all witnessed them but is incredibly offensive to our dedicated National Guard members who went there and have successfully managed to keep the peace.
As to my colleague from Maryland who has now accused us of defamation with this cause, whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens, that is simply the very purpose of a sanctuary law, be it California's sanctuary State law or Los Angeles' sanctuary city law.
The entire purpose of these laws, their explicit effect, is to provide special protection for those who have not only come into the country illegally but have committed crimes.
I will give you an example of how sanctuary policies work in practice. We had a case not far from Sacramento where there was an individual who was in police custody for assaulting a peace officer. He had been arrested and was in custody. This is during the Biden administration, by the way.
ICE saw that he was in custody and asked to take custody of him from the sheriff's office so that he could be deported. The sheriff's office had to say, no, sorry, we are not allowed to do that under the sanctuary State law.
The next week, that man murdered his own three daughters as well as their chaperone, a horrific crime that never would have happened if not for California's sanctuary policies.
In a similar vein, many of the operations which ICE conducted in a targeted and standard way in L.A. would have been unnecessary if it were not for a sanctuary policy that forbade them from taking custody of these individuals within a custodial setting.
I would simply ask my colleague from Maryland: Are we to take it from his remarks that he would support reversing the sanctuary policies that have caused so much harm in California and Los Angeles?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California talks about defunding the police. He might want to update his talking points because look who is defunding the police. President Trump and the
His DOGE agents, back when Elon Musk was still in town before he got run out of town by somebody, DOGE said a guy in the Department of Justice cut out an estimated $500 million in community project funding to police departments across America, victim rights organizations, and others receiving those grants. They have not been able to explain it. They didn't even know it was happening.
Of course, they unleashed DOGE on the Department of Justice and hundreds of millions of dollars in State and local law enforcement, victim assistance, rape survivor organization grants, all of that was cut by them. Of course, they are also cutting more than a billion dollars in law enforcement funding in the DOJ appropriation this year.
We don't need any lectures about defunding the police from people who are actively defunding the police and people who are refusing to follow the law in honoring the police. My friend from California refuses to utter a word about that.
Could somebody please explain why they are not following the law and putting a plaque up to honor the officers who came to save our lives on January 6?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in fierce opposition to this performative and misleading resolution that reads like a cheap script treatment looking for a second-rate director.
H. Res. 516 is not about public safety. It is about fear, scapegoating immigrants, and gaslighting the American people into believing that Los Angeles is some so-called hellscape. If it is such a hellscape, I want to know why Republican Members of Congress have been flying into Los Angeles over the past few weeks attending fundraisers. Nobody is showing up in a hazmat suit or combat gear.
If it is such a hellscape, pull back the cameras and release the drone footage so we can see what is happening across the entire city.
This resolution ignores the fact that the violence didn't start in a vacuum. It was sparked by the Trump administration's provocative, aggressive immigration raids across the State.
ICE agents were in neighborhoods, grocery stores, and churches. I have never seen a segment on TV about an MS-13 cartel boss in the third grade. That is what we are seeing.
Of course, we came out and protested. That is what democracy looks like. Of course, our communities are terrified across Los Angeles, across the State, and across the country.
Instead of listening to us, the people from L.A., the President escalated this drama, deploying the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles without a request from local law enforcement, the Governor, or the mayor.
Why? To launch a pathetic, made-for-TV reality TV show to justify authoritarian crackdowns and to divert from the real violence, the violence of cutting $880 billion from Medicaid, the violence of kicking people off of healthcare, and the violence of tanking our economy into the gold toilet.
That is what we should be talking about. That is what this President doesn't want us to talk about, so he turned the cameras and the manufactured, fabricated violence onto Los Angeles.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an odd notion that we have heard repeatedly, that the violence was only concentrated in part of L.A. and that we need to zoom out and look at the city as a whole.
For the folks who had to deal with this chaos in downtown L.A., it is little comfort to them that things might have been more serene in Beverly Hills.
My colleague from California uses the term ``hellscape'' for L.A. I am not sure I would use that term.
I can say that L.A. has had a lot of problems, so much so that the sheriff's department even had to come out and tell folks not to wear their jewelry when they go outside, to just put it on after they get to their destination.
As to the assertion that somehow this is a made-for-TV spectacle created by the President, I ask what made for more sensational TV images, the Waymos being set on fire and the Molotov cocktails being thrown at officers, which is to say that the things that happened before the National Guard got there, or our dedicated National Guard members standing outside Federal buildings, making sure that no further damage to property and life occurred?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has engaged in a spirited defense of the immigration policies of the administration. I wonder if he would clarify for us what the policy is this week, or at least today, with respect to agriculture in California or any other State.
President Trump heard from the Secretary of Agriculture and large agrarian interests saying that his immigration policies were destroying agriculture in America by getting rid of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who work there and that they are disrupting the entire agricultural economy.
Then, Donald Trump announced that there were some very fine, good workers within the agriculture sector, and they would not be enforcing the law there. That lasted for several days, and then there was a reversal. They went back to saying, yes, we will be doing ICE immigration crackdowns again.
Then, Donald Trump heard again from the Agriculture Secretary, as I understand it, and other interests, and he said no, they would be leaving some of these people alone.
I wonder if the gentleman could clarify that for us, and I wonder whether it causes him to second-guess in any way his absolute support for these policies. Maybe it suggests that there is something wrong with what they are doing and that the administration could go back to the drawing board.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this partisan and misleading resolution under consideration.
We have heard our colleague distort the facts already through this debate. I want to remind the American people and everybody that it was local law enforcement that got the situation under control before the National Guard and the Marines showed up. I know because I was on the phone with the sheriffs and local law enforcement who said, no, they don't need anybody, that the situation was under control.
This resolution distorts the facts of what happened in Los Angeles. It falsely paints a picture of widespread chaos across Los Angeles to justify and legitimize Donald Trump's dangerous decision to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines on American soil, all without the consent of California's Governor or a request from local leaders and law enforcement.
That is why I worked with Representative Zoe Lofgren to introduce a resolution that condemns violence, supports peaceful protests, and sets the facts straight.
Angelenos have exercised their First Amendment right to peacefully protest Federal ICE raids that have terrorized our communities. Unfortunately, there have been a small handful of troublemakers who have taken to the streets to cause destruction and physical confrontation.
Mr. Speaker, they should be arrested and prosecuted, something that the Governor, the mayor, and L.A.'s congressional delegation have called for from the start.
Let's remember, though, how we got here. What we have seen on our streets
People are being stopped and detained because of the color of their skin. These are not violent criminals. The majority of the people have no criminal record.
They are taking the parents, and they are leaving the kids stranded. They have set off flash-bang grenades in crowds. ICE even arrested U.S. citizens based on how they looked.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, it is this conduct that is causing people to go out in the streets and peacefully protest.
President Trump's deployment of troops only escalated tensions and caused further unrest. Democrats have been clear. Anyone who commits violence must be held accountable. We must recognize that peaceful protests are patriotic. Deploying troops to silence dissent is not.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution ignores those facts to score political points, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the assertion has been made repeatedly that the President's deployment of the Guard escalated tensions. We have seen zero evidence for that. We all saw the images of the horrifying violence that occurred before the Guard came in.
For my colleagues who continue to assert that there was something untoward about the President deploying the Guard, I would also remind them that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled otherwise.
In a unanimous decision, the court analyzed the relevant statute which provides that the President has the authority to make use of the Guard in order to stop the execution of Federal law from being disrupted.
The judges looked at the facts on the ground and said when Molotov cocktails are thrown at officers, when a commercial dumpster is used as a battering ram in order to break into a Federal office building's parking lot, when roadways are shut down, this looks a lot like there is a disruption of the ability to carry out Federal law.
Again, it is not me saying this. This is a unanimous panel of Trump- appointed and Biden-appointed judges who came to that determination.
I will happily answer the question of my friend from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) about what is the question when it comes to agriculture. Here is what the law says. The law says that coming into this country without authorization is categorically illegal.
Then it is within the discretion of the executive branch how to prioritize deportations. Across party lines, there has always been a strong focus on prioritizing those with criminal records. Beyond that, different Presidents have chosen to exercise that discretion in different ways.
For example, President Obama chose to deport millions of people during his time in office. It is ultimately a matter of how the President chooses to carry out that policy.
Here is the important point for purposes of today's debate. Whatever a person's views are on that matter, whether they favor deporting everyone in the country illegally or whether they favor deporting no one in the country illegally, we should not, cannot, and absolutely must not use violence in order to advance that point of view.
That is the principle at stake in today's debate. To vote against this resolution is to countenance what happened with the horrifying events we saw in my State.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are getting somewhere in this debate. The gentleman concedes that it is within the discretion of the administration to decide where to target resources.
I was just trying to find out where the administration is this week because we are getting conflicting accounts of whether or not they are still targeting farmworkers. We are getting reports from California, Texas, and New Mexico that entire farms are shut down because there have been ICE raids. The other workers are afraid to come to work.
They are begging the President to do something. The President then said we would stop doing that. Then they reversed it when Stephen Miller got involved. I think now the agriculture interests are getting involved. They should get the policy together.
It speaks to an underlying problem here, which is that the overwhelming number of arrests now are not of people who are criminal suspects for anything. Mr. Speaker, 65 percent of the people who have been taken by ICE since this administration began had no criminal convictions at all.
That is why we read articles in The Wall Street Journal about small, rural towns that voted for Donald Trump. They are up in arms and are in an uproar because people who have done nothing wrong and are pillars of the community are being taken away from their workplaces, their farms, their restaurants, their businesses, and their homes.
I ask the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), who I know to be a serious student of the law because he was a student of mine of the law when we were at Yale Law School together: What authorizes the government to send people out who are not identified with any law enforcement insignia, who are masked and who are in unmarked cars, to arrest people? Doesn't that set the people up for danger in America?
That is what the assassins in Minnesota were doing. They showed up, dressed like some kind of vague police person without any law enforcement insignia, and in an unmarked car. That sets us up for danger.
Doesn't my colleague think the law enforcement norm is for people to know who police officers are so that they know they have to submit to their authority? I would inquire if my colleague would like to answer the question.
Mr. Speaker, if it is true that law enforcement is somehow never allowed to be in something other than their uniform, I think there are a lot of people who have gotten tickets for running a stop sign, when there was an unmarked car there, who would be happy to hear that. They now have a new basis to challenge that.
I think we are all aware that there are circumstances, like when someone is undercover or when they are doing a stakeout, in which it doesn't make sense for the official to identify himself as an officer.
Of course, that is neither here nor there because in these very targeted operations, we have seen that these folks are very clearly identified. To the extent that some have chosen to not have their faces revealed, it is because we have seen the threats against ICE absolutely skyrocket over the last several months.
It is, again, quite ironic when there were folks on that side of the aisle who were all about masks in the most absurd of settings during the COVID years. We had people playing singles tennis or out on the ocean paddleboarding required to wear a mask. There were 2-year-olds wearing a mask all day when no other country did this.
Yet when Federal officers, undertaking dangerous activity, trying to do their jobs, yet facing threats, being doxed and feeling like they and their family are at risk, choose to take this protective measure, now my colleague has a problem with it?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.
Mr. Speaker, there are masked agents in unmarked cars sent out, violating people's due process rights, as the courts have found. This includes all the way up to the Supreme Court. They are arresting Members of Congress. They are prosecuting Members of Congress for doing their jobs. They federalize the State National Guard when the police in Los Angeles and the elected officials are doing their jobs.
This is an authoritarian attack on constitutional democracy. We must get back to the rule of law.
If nothing else, the Republicans should put up the plaque they committed to put up, honoring the police officers who defended American democracy, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and everybody in this room during the January 6 violent insurrection which Donald Trump was impeached for having incited.
Mr. Speaker, what happened in L.A. put on stark display years of reckless and failed policies, starting with the millions of people who came across the border illegally during the Biden years and then the sanctuary policies that California has enacted, not to mention the countless people who have been released from prison early thanks to reckless crime policies.
Today's resolution is not about any of that. Today's resolution is about something much simpler, a notion that I would hope would be unobjectionable: that in this country we settle our differences through reasoned arguments and debate and not through force and violence, that we make political decisions through elections and not through riots.
I hope that this resolution will receive strong bipartisan support on the floor today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the previous question is ordered on the resolution and the preamble.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I was was unavoidably detained due to illness and was not able to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 185. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 185.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Hillsboro High School Lady Indians softball team.
The Lady Indians had a historic season this year that saw them achieve over 20 wins and secure the Division 4 regional championship for the first time in 23 years, finishing the year as State runner-up.
Teamwork propelled them to great achievements as the Lady Indians consistently had great performances on the mound and in the batter's box.
Along the way, the Lady Indians were supported by a dedicated fan base of parents and alumni that fueled their desire for victory. Without the fan support and the support of their coaches, none of this would have been possible.
I will always be grateful for the parents and coaches that pour so much of themselves into our student athletes. The great achievements of the Lady Indians belong to them as much as they belong to the players.
Mr. Speaker, all of southern Ohio is proud of our Lady Indians' accomplishments, and I look forward to another great season next year.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the LGBTQ community to celebrate Pride Month, and to call out President Trump's reckless decision to shut down the 988 specialized LGBTQ youth hotline. This is a devastating decision that will affect people in every corner of our country.
I will put this into perspective: In 2024, 12 percent of LGBTQ youth attempted suicide, while nearly 40 percent seriously considered it. In comparison, the national average for students contemplating suicide is 20 percent, which is still far too large.
Additionally, many of these young people are left without critical support from caring adults, leaving them nowhere to turn when a crisis happens. We cannot deny the fact that this hotline is a vital service.
Mental health is not a partisan issue, and our children should not be used as pawns in the President's purely political game. As the co-chair of the bipartisan Mental Health Caucus, I am committed to expanding access to specialty mental health care by training qualified professionals to provide culturally relevant care and ensuring that high-quality, affordable services are available to all who need them.
Mr. Speaker, I will not remain silent in the face of President Trump's targeted attacks, and I will continue to fight for the LGBTQ communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of our Nation's greatest World War II museums, the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force.
The museum, located just outside of Savannah in Pooler, Georgia, received a preserved B-24 Liberator from the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base.
The aircraft is one of the three remaining B-24 relics from World War II, originally named Rupert the Roo II.
Rupert will undergo a brief restoration process and will join a B-17 Flying Fortress to become the newest centerpiece of the museum.
These two machines represent the complete collection of the aircraft flown by the Mighty Eighth throughout the Second World War in both the European and Pacific theaters.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Barksdale Air Force Base for reallocation and preservation of these historic planes. Efforts like these allow the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force to fully educate the public on the Nation's most storied Air Force division ever known.
Mr. Speaker, we often speak about how Congress can help small businesses grow, but the true hard work is being done on Main Streets across this Nation.
In the Sound Shore region of Westchester, businessowners are advancing their own businesses and finding time to lead local Chambers of Commerce, implementing programs and events that promote their business districts. From Mistletoe Magic in Rye to the downtown farmers market in Scarsdale, sidewalk sales in Larchmont and Mamaroneck, these entrepreneurs are driving revenue and profits with creativity and energy.
Let me recognize the work of these local leaders: Catherine White, New Rochelle; Michael Murphy, Mamaroneck; Brian Jackson, Rye; Ralph Karkout in Harrison; Cammie Morrissey and Fritz Falanka, Port Chester, Rye Brook, Rye Town; Gina Proia and Nancy White, Larchmont; Marcy Berman-Goldstein and Ken Giddon, Scarsdale Business Alliance; Anne Gold and Marc Jerome, New Rochelle Business Improvement District.
Mr. Speaker, in future speeches, I will recognize leaders in the Bronx and along the Hudson River communities of Westchester. We salute them all.
Mr. Speaker, there are good days and bad days in this building. Today, we have a little bit of a happy day and sad day in the Grothman office.
John Nagle, part of my policy shop, is leaving today. He is a great guy. He is the pride of Poway, California. While it is our loss, it is going to be the gain of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
I will say one more time, I thank John for all the help he has given me. He is welcome to come back to our office again and again when he is on the Hill.
Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago, on June 28, 2018, a gunman who should never have been able to purchase a firearm, walked into the Capital Gazette and killed five members of our hometown newspaper: Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, John McNamara, Rebecca Smith, and Wendi Winters.
Amid the shock and horror, just hours after the shooting, the Capital issued a simple statement: We are putting out a damn paper tomorrow, and that they did.
These journalists made clear that the fourth estate cannot be silenced, and they made Maryland damn proud.
On this tragic anniversary, I will make it clear on this House floor that as elected officials, we were not sent here to look away, to give up, or to offer our thoughts and prayers alone. That is why I rise today to remember the journalists we lost, to continue the fight for full freedom of the press, and for commonsense gun safety legislation that protects all of our communities.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have passed legislation that delivers on the promises made, promises kept of President Donald Trump by stopping wasteful spending with the big, beautiful bill, eliminating taxes on tips and overtime.
This bill secures the border, unleashes American energy, delivers the largest tax cut for working- and middle-class families ever, creates jobs, and brings common sense to government. Medicare and Social Security will be protected, while Medicaid will be guarded against waste, fraud, and
This is important to everyone. A family with two children in South Carolina will receive higher take-home pay, between $7,000 to $10,000, with the new, beautiful bill.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin's lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump, with Putin allied with the murderous regime in Iran who proclaim death to America.
Mr. Speaker, as chair of the New Dems' Rural Broadband Task Force, I rise today to highlight the incredible progress we are making, and yet the critical work that remains to close the digital divide in our country.
This is a personal passion of mine, as I spent years as a nonprofit advocate, and then had a tenure at NTIA to roll out the broadband BEAD program.
This past Monday, I had the honor of hosting my colleague Representative Budzinski in Frederick, Maryland, for the fourth stop on the New Dems on the Road Tour. We visited a fiber installation and sat down with local leaders, government officials, and industry experts to talk about what is working and what remains in the way of delivering high-speed affordable internet.
We also discussed the challenges facing broadband deployment, including new rulemaking efforts, potential disruptions and BEAD implementation, Federal funding freezes, and the incredible risks posed by the AI moratorium linked to the BEAD funding in the budget package.
I have just seen how transformative broadband access can be, from telehealth to learning, to also our U.S. competitiveness and emergency public communications. Just as rural electrification lit up America in the 20th century, broadband is the key to unlocking opportunity in the 21st. Let's finish the job.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Sister Rosemary Connelly of Chicago, Illinois, who passed away on June 19 at the age of 94.
During her extraordinary life, Sister Rosemary served with unmatched devotion as the longtime executive director of Misericordia, a home for children and adults with developmental disabilities on Chicago's north side. She started her work in 1969, when Misericordia was a small and underresourced institution caring for about 50 children with profound challenges.
Sister Rosemary brought a bold vision rooted in compassion and dignity, and over the next five decades she transformed Misericordia into one of the Nation's most respected care facilities, serving hundreds of residents and employing over 1,200 staff and volunteers. She spearheaded fundraising, created jobs through social enterprises like the Hearts & Flour Bakery, and expanded the campus to include community-integrated homes.
Revered across northern Illinois and beyond, Sister Rosemary was widely recognized for her impact on families and her unshakable belief that every life has purpose.
I extend my condolences to all of Sister Rosemary's family, friends, and colleagues on this immense loss.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Republicans' so-called big, beautiful bill is wildly unpopular. Every poll, including FOX News, shows that Americans think it is rotten, and it is.
That is why Trump is trying desperately to rehabilitate the bill in the eyes of the public, but Americans aren't stupid. They don't want their healthcare taken away. They don't want us taking food away from hungry people. They don't want our rural hospitals to close. They don't want to add trillions of dollars to the debt, and they sure as hell do not want the wealthy to continue to get rich off the backs of the rest of us.
This is not rocket science. They want a tax code that doesn't screw us over. They want affordable rent and mortgages. They want lower healthcare costs. They want to see us fighting for a better future for their families.
All this bill does is take and take and take away from working people and provide it, once again, to the billionaires who do not need it. They see right through it, and so do we.
Mr. Speaker, today I celebrate the storied career of Officer John Salb, who will be retiring today after proudly serving the Capitol Police for over 30 years.
Officer Salb first joined the Capitol Police in 1993 when he was hired as a security aide, before being hired as a full-time officer the following year. Working in Capitol Divisions 2 and 3, Officer Salb has protected this Capitol and its millions of visitors and workers with honor. After 30 years, he likely has enough stories to fill this House Chamber. A number of those include his brother, William, as the two served together from 1994 until 2008.
In 2011, John made his way down to the House Intelligence Committee, where he spent every day for the last 14 years securing our Members and staff. For over a decade, John has been a valuable asset to our intelligence team, not only providing security but also serving as the committee expert on all things Capitals and Commanders.
While everyone at Intel will miss our friend, we wish him the best as he embarks on his next great journey. May John enjoy his retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Steven ``Chaos'' Camou, a vibrant soul from Blythe, California, whose life reminds us of the urgent need for compassion in mental health care.
Steven was a talented hairdresser with a bright personality and deep love for his mother, Angela Colangeli. He faced incredible challenges: addiction, stigma around his queer identity, and schizophrenia, yet he fought to find peace, often without the professional help he needed.
On October 27, 2021, Steven tragically took his own life, but even in his darkest moments, he dreamed of helping others not to feel alone in their struggles.
In his memory, his mother and his father, George, founded Peace from Chaos, a nonprofit supporting those living with mental illness, addiction, and social rejection.
As Men's Mental Health Awareness Month comes to an end, let's honor Steven by fighting for a world where no one suffers in silence, and everyone has access to care, support, and dignity.
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the world once again witnessed a shocking act of terrorism committed against innocent civilians in Syria.
Those who attended Sunday mass at the Mar Elias Church were not combatants. They were members of the community who sought to live in peace and
In the shadow of relentless terror and violence, it takes enormous courage to do many of the things that we take for granted. We can take inspiration from those who face down the cowardly perpetrators of destruction with faith and hope as they work to rebuild their nation.
I join the Greater Lehigh Valley Syrian community in praying for the victims of this attack and for peace to return to Syria. May God bless all of those who stand up in the face of terror and violence.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize three outstanding police officers from the Fairlawn Police Department as this week's Ohio's 13th Congressional District Champions of the Week.
Last month, Officers Francisco Corona, Brian Buskirk, and Hannah Plant exemplified the best of public service when they jumped into action to save the life of a woman in distress.
On May 23, 2025, Officer Buskirk noticed a car stopped on the sidewalk, where he found a woman unconscious and unresponsive. With the assistance of Officers Corona and Plant, the officers broke the car window and extracted the woman, then quickly initiated CPR while preparing the automated external defibrillator. Their teamwork and rapid response made the difference in a critical life-or-death situation.
I extend my sincere gratitude to Officers Corona, Buskirk, and Plant, and the Fairlawn Police Department and Fire Department for continuing to keep our communities safe. Their actions and bravery do not go unnoticed.
On behalf of Ohio's 13th Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I thank them for their service to our community.
Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to visit the Midvale Boys & Girls Club recently to speak with the youth about success, grit, and the power of their dreams.
This summer, over 200 young people, supported by 17 dedicated staff members, will be granted an environment where they can have fun. In the process, they will build character, learn leadership skills, and develop healthy relationships.
Many of the youth will take part in activities like the run club, where the benefits of competition can be experienced. They are also learning the importance of goal setting, the pain of preparation, and the tenacity to push through the pain.
They are in the process of learning one of life's more important lessons, which is that we cannot control the scoreboard, but we can control the hustle. These tenets are the heart of meritocracy and what I observed during my visit to the Midvale Girls & Boys Club.
I thank the staff for their commitment. I hope the young people enjoy the experience, remember what they are learning, apply what they have learned, and, more importantly, pass it on.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of a remarkable daughter of northwest Ohio, Diana ``Dee'' Heywood Talmage.
While her passing leaves a deep chasm in our community, Dee was a formidable force for good. She was a Republican, and I am a Democrat. Her patriotism, philanthropy, good sense, and elegance bestowed a living legacy that serves as an example of an exemplary life well lived.
Dee embodied the very highest aspirations for northwest Ohio. A product of Toledo's DeVilbiss High School, a proud Ohio State Buckeye, and a Toledo Rocket, she used her education to give back to the community that raised her.
Dee served on the Ottawa Hills School Board, the boards of Owens Community College and Woodlawn Cemetery, and helped guide the University of Toledo Alumni Association.
Dee always led with vision, clarity, courage, and compassion, and her inspired leadership drew from all walks of life to make a difference. She mentored generations of new leaders, many of whom sit on boards, serve in office, or volunteer today because of her example.
To observe Dee barreling down the street in her convertible, broadly smiling and waving, was to feel the heart of Toledo itself. Her love for our people, progress, and potential was boundless, and her life was not just one of service but of joyful commitment to her family--I will put their names in the record at a later time--including her beloved husband of 63 years, Brigadier General Dr. Lance Talmage, a dedicated community and military leader alongside her.
May Dee's legacy of character and commitment continue to inspire generations to come. She surely will be missed. She was one of a kind.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this morning's ruling from the Supreme Court that will greatly reform the ability of rogue district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
According to a Politico article this morning, with this ruling, the Supreme Court said that in most cases, judges can only grant relief to the parties who brought a particular lawsuit and may not extend those decisions to protect other individuals without going through the process of converting a suit into a class action.
I have been fighting for this day for years, including introducing legislation in multiple sessions of Congress that would curtail the ability of rogue district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, often at the behest of special interest groups that shop around for a friendly district court judge.
This is a good day for democracy. Please join me in congratulating the Supreme Court for this outstanding ruling.
Mr. Speaker, as Black Music Month comes to a close, I rise in the House today for 1 minute to honor my dear friend, D'Wayne Wiggans.
D'Wayne Wiggans passed away on March 7, 2025, and my community of Oakland, California, and the world continues to grieve. We are mourning not only his significant contributions to the Black music community, but we knew D'Wayne as a legendary musician who gave as much of his voice as he gave to community.
D'Wayne made and produced music that uplifted so many. Moreover, we know him as a monumental soul of good. He mentored countless artists and young people, including Destiny's Child and Beyonce, helped to start the career of Alicia Keys, and was on the Grammy stage every year for decades.
D'Wayne opened up many spaces for young people in my community in California's District 12 to thrive. He was incredibly generous.
Moreover, we know that there is no dying when it comes to D'Wayne's voice. You cannot kill culture. Our community loves him and his family, and I am so thankful for what he has
Throughout American history, immigrants of all kinds have made our country great. Sergey Brin invented Google, and Madeleine Albright blazed trails as the first female Secretary of State.
Instead of celebrating this diversity, many Republicans want to shame immigrants. On Tuesday, Zohran Mamdani, an immigrant from Uganda, won the New York mayoral primary. Representative Andy Ogles promptly went on an unhinged, anti-immigrant, racist rant throughout yesterday and today, calling this freely elected man and U.S. citizen ``Little Muhammad'' and called for revoking his citizenship and for him to be deported with no just cause.
We must always condemn hate. I have introduced a censure resolution, H. Res. 553, against Andy Ogles for his horrific anti-immigrant sentiment. Immigrants make our country great.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the amazing life of Sallye Ruth Moore, a trailblazer in education, a fierce advocate for equity, a beloved daughter of Grand Prairie, and a pillar of the community in Dalworth on San Antonio Street.
Ms. Moore passed away this year at 91. She leaves behind a major legacy of education in the north Texas community.
For over four decades, she devoted her life to uplifting students and breaking barriers, becoming the associate superintendent in the Grand Prairie ISD. Her journey began as a teacher, counselor, and principal, where she received numerous accolades for her excellence in the classroom and for shaping and forming students for generations.
Ms. Moore's leadership wasn't just about academics. It was about dignity, discipline, and love. She was just an amazing person. A school was named after her, Sallye Moore Elementary, in the Dalworth community in Grand Prairie in 2001. Her legacy will live on for a very long time. She leaves behind a son, Greg.
If she looks familiar, it is because she was the last remaining sibling out of the four Johnson kids. Eddie Bernice Johnson, our former colleague, was her sister.
We remember Ms. Moore today as a servant leader, a giant in Texas education, and a beacon of hope. May her memory be a blessing, and may we all strive to follow her excellent example.
I say ``and still I rise'' because I have been censured, but I would like to assure people that I have not been silenced; censured but not silenced.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, proud to say that I am an ally of the LGBTQIA+ community, an ally. I rise as an ally, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge that H. Res. 550, the original LGBTQIA+ Pride Month resolution of 2025, is a part of the history of the records of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a resolution that I am honored to present annually, and it speaks to the accomplishments of the community. It also addresses many of the things that are shortcomings in our society as they impact the community.
I am proud today to rise and say that as an ally of the community, this resolution has 125 cosponsors. For many, that might not seem like a lot. I can recall a time when we had many, many persons who wanted to sign on. For reasons that were associated with elections and politics, they would not sign on.
I think people are overcoming those concerns and those fears, and they are recognizing the fact that we should not discriminate against people because of who they are.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be beneficial for people to talk to people who are from the community before drawing conclusions. I especially say this as it relates to the trans community. There are many issues to be discussed about the trans community.
Today, having talked to people from the trans community, having had an opportunity to have dialogue and ask questions and get answers from the people themselves, I acknowledge that I have come to the conclusion that this community exists because people literally want to be themselves.
I spoke to a trans person who informed me that this person--without giving any hint as to who it is because the person had spoken to me in confidence--this person indicated that since the person could recognize the image in a mirror, the person realized that there was a need to have a different image. The person wanted to be of a different sex than the person was assigned at birth.
I have talked to more than one person who has given me similar evidence. I think we ought to believe people when they say this. I just don't think that people would go out of their way to try to convince us that this is appropriate and would do some of the things necessary to identify themselves properly just to get attention.
Nobody wants to get attention by having surgery that costs thousands of dollars. Nobody wants to get attention by facing a society that rejects, too often, people because they don't understand who they are and what they are all about.
We are talking about people who just want to live their lives and be left alone. They are not trying to impose themselves upon other people. These are decent human beings who just want to be left alone and be allowed to be themselves.
I cannot for the life of me understand how someone could see this as harmful to society in the main. I myself have been discriminated against. Having been born a son of the segregated South, having been born an African American, I have been discriminated against.
I can remember when I had to go to the back door to get food simply because of how I looked. It had nothing to do with any behavior that I exhibited. It was just because of the color of my skin I had to go to back doors.
I had to drink from a filthy colored water fountain with a pristine White water fountain next to it simply because of the color of my skin and how I looked. I had to sit in the balcony of the movie and the back of the bus simply because of how I looked.
I am so grateful to God for giving me those experiences because it gives me some sense of appreciation for what others go through simply because of who they say they are.
We cannot have the great country that we claim we are if we continue to discriminate against people because of who they say they are. This is the United States of America with liberty and justice for all. That has to include the trans community.
It really does have to include it to the extent that they can walk the streets and not be in fear. There are still people who will harm members of the trans community if they can catch them at a certain place and at a certain time when nobody is looking just because of who they are.
We talk about other people living in fear, and I think we should because there are others living in fear, as well. Little attention is given to this community and the fear that it has to live and coexist with simply because of who they say they are.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this resolution today. I plan to continue to introduce the LGBTQIA+ Pride Month resolution. I have been doing so for some time now.
I had the honor of serving with the Honorable Barney Frank when I was in Congress. The Honorable Barney Frank, a Member of Congress from 1981 to 2013, is recognized in this resolution as an honorary cosponsor of the resolution.
This resolution tracks the history of persons having the opportunity to first embrace themselves with the protestations that started and to move on to the point where now persons can actually embrace marriage and live with the person and love with the person that they choose.
As an ally of this community, I find none of this offensive. I find all of this to be natural for human beings who want to just simply be themselves.
I am also honored to say that in Houston, Texas, not only will this resolution be celebrated but also there is a Pride parade that would rival any parade in this country. People show up in the thousands, the tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands. They line the streets, and they celebrate. To a certain extent, some commemorate lives who have been lost simply because they are a part of this community.
This is something that I would hope we could see around the country to a greater extent than we see it. Houston, Texas, has embraced it. Many other places have.
Until it is embraced in the small towns, in the boroughs, in places where people are now at some point in some places afraid to announce who they are, until this attitude of pride is embraced by the workplace--workplaces where people cannot indicate who they are because if they do, they are likely to lose their jobs--until that same level of pride, that same spirit of embracing people for who they are, judging them by the content of their character, not what they believe them to be within, I think we ought to believe people when they tell us who they are.
Today, my prayer is that this LGBTQIA+ Pride Month resolution will inspire people to do more than simply say hello, but they will become an ally. I am recruiting. The Pride community needs allies.
It needs people who are willing to stand up publicly and say: I am an ally of the community.
Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleagues that when we do this, we are doing what is expected of people of good will who want to see people simply live their lives, enjoy who they are, and just simply be themselves, we will promote and will help to cause a good many people that we may never meet and greet to benefit from another person becoming an ally of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Mr. Speaker, I close with this: The LGBTQIA+ community does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a country that prides itself in pledging liberty and justice for all. This is an opportunity for every person who has never had the opportunity to talk to a person from this community to just do so.
I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, if you do so, you will leave with a different attitude. I absolutely believe this. I also say to you, Mr. Speaker, don't worry about the pride community trying to impose anything on you. If you don't know a person from the community, you are not likely to be invited to a wedding, so you don't have to worry about some imposition. Just worry about making America all that it claims it is.
I plan to do it, and I invite others to do so, as well.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to let people know this not just for the Honorable Chip Roy, but I have relationships with people across all lines in this Congress. When he comes to the floor and says that he wishes me safe travels, I want to let people know that I will extend that to him, but also that notwithstanding what others may think, I have great respect for the gentleman. I don't have to agree with him to have great respect for him, and the gentleman doesn't have to agree with me, but at some point, we have to do what we are doing now and let people know that we have respect for each other notwithstanding these differences.
I really appreciate the way the gentleman has called for regular order. That means something to me. So while I have not been on the floor with the gentleman when he has done it, I want him to know that I have noticed that he has done it. I appreciate the gentleman, and I consider him a friend.
I appreciate those kind remarks from the gentleman. I consider the gentleman from Texas a friend, and I am sincere in wishing him safe travels and well wishes heading back home. We throw a lot of barbs around this Chamber, for good reason, we are here. Everybody always says how crazy it is and how divided we are, and I always remind people that when was the last time you had a Secretary of the Treasury and Vice President dueling in the street?
That has happened in our past, not now, that was 200-and-change years ago. We have differences of opinion, and that is the reason this body exists. We represent our constituents, and we are supposed to express on their behalf our views consistent with the Constitution in our republican form of government.
I am here today to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about what has been known now as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which is, in simple speak, a reconciliation package which is supposed to be designed to reconcile current policies, tax and spending, to achieve a reduction in deficits, or make sure that we are not adding to the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, here we are.
The House of Representatives worked together and passed a bill. We passed a budget, we then passed a new budget, and then we passed a bill. We sent it to the Senate.
The House bill was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination from my perspective. The House bill didn't do enough on many things that I think are important. However, the House bill had core components of tax-cut extensions for hardworking Americans. The House bill had core components to give resources to the President, the administration, Tom Homan, Stephen Miller, and Secretary Noem to secure the border, and, importantly, to remove people through ICE and enforcement.
The House bill had core components to make sure our defense can modernize. The House bill had core components--and this is where it gets important--to terminate the green new scam subsidies, but not all of them. That is why I said the bill wasn't perfect.
I think we should repeal them all and save over $1 trillion. We should stop subsidizing China. We should stop subsidizing big corporations. We should stop subsidizing unreliable energy, and stop interfering with the market. We only terminated about 60 percent of the green new scam. I think we should have done better.
The House had core components in it to reform Medicaid. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle were saying we are going to be taking Medicaid away from people. Medicaid goes up between 20 and 30 percent under our budget over the next 10 years.
Medicaid under our bill would be focused primarily on the vulnerable population more than the able-bodied. I think the bill should have gone farther. I think we should reform more of the money laundering scam that the FMAP seven times multiple giving more money to the able-bodied than the vulnerable. I think we should stop the scam of blue States taking more money from red States and nonexpansion States and giving it to hospitals and insurance companies. I think we should have ended that and done more.
We took a giant step forward to have work requirements to ensure that Medicaid could actually be solvent. It has gone up another $1 trillion just under the Biden administration in terms of overall baseline costs.
That is all in the weeds. People watching this at home don't know what is going on. They are going about their lives. All they know is that there a big bill, there is some tax stuff in it, there is some spending stuff in it, and there is some border stuff in it. That is about all they know.
Mr. Speaker, so why am I here?
It is because the House passed that bill--imperfect but I will call it passable by definition. We sent it to the Senate. The Senate is making the bill worse as we speak. The Senate is making decisions, both policy decisions and what is called going through a process over there to see if it is language that is supposed to be in a budget-related reconciliation package. We call it the Byrd process. They are pulling pieces out of it. The bill is getting worse.
Let me see if I can put it in basic terms.
This chart is not going to mean much to most people back home. Mr. Speaker, you don't even need to look at all the bars. It gets kind of complex. I just want to be real simple. This orange line on this chart--people in the gallery can't see it, but imagine an orange line on an X-Y graph.
That orange line says that under the House bill on a dynamic basis-- what does that mean?
It means, that accounting for economic growth, accounting for the tax policies, and accounting for what we believe will happen, we would have about an additional $72 billion of deficit spending over 10 years. Sadly, $72 billion is kind of a rounding error when we are talking about 10 years.
In other words, it is close to breakeven. We would cut taxes, we would reduce spending, and we would get economic growth. We believe we would add nothing more to the deficit.
Here is the problem. Adding nothing more to the deficit means we still have deficits. We still have $1.8 trillion to $2 trillion a year in deficits.
I voted for a bill that will perpetuate $1.8 trillion deficits, and I hated doing it. I did it because in this process, in this political environment, to get the reforms that we were getting to Medicaid, to get the reforms that we were getting to terminate 60 percent of the green new scam subsidies undermining our grid, and to get the tax cut extensions for hardworking Americans, to me it was worth doing that when I thought credibly and believably we would not be adding to the deficit and get those important reforms.
Here we are. The Senate, in its infinite wisdom over in the house of lords, they are embarking on focusing on what we would have anticipated they would focus on, which is just the tax-cut side, for the most part. They are backing away from the spending cuts, the spending restraints. They are backing away from the reforms that we think makes the math work, and therein lies the problem.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to know why we are $37 trillion in debt as a nation?
It is because too often my Republican colleagues have never met a tax cut they didn't want to advance while then campaigning on balancing the budget and cutting spending that they never want to vote for.
We can't do that.
We have to actually lead. In a Republican form of government there are 435 of us representing 300 and, what, 30-something million Americans. I represent about three-quarters of a million people. In a Republican form of government I am supposed to take the hard votes. I am supposed to go back to my constituents and say: Well, we are doing this and this and this. We think it is good. I know you wanted this, but we can't have that because we are $37 trillion in debt.
I go back to this chart. There is a big yellow bar over here with flames on top. It shows almost a trillion dollars of additional deficit that the Senate bill would add if the policies they are currently debating in the Senate are adhered to. That means they got rid of a lot of our savings, and they made certain tax cuts more permanent. They extended them. I support making those tax cuts permanent and extending them but not without the spending reductions necessary to get us back to deficit neutrality or deficit savings.
Why does this matter? It matters because Republicans will go around all the time and say: Don't worry. All tax cuts pay for themselves.
Let me be very clear. Not all tax cuts pay for themselves. They just don't.
I grew up a child of the eighties. I grew up on studying supply-side economics. I believe in leaving money in the hands of the American people to produce wealth. I believe that does create more revenue the Treasury can bring in with lower rates on a bigger pie. I think that is important.
You still have to do basic math. If you reduce the rate, which I want to do to be perfectly clear, for the worker, for the family, for the business, you are going to get a revenue reduction to the Treasury. Your hope is the economic growth will offset part of that.
When we do the math and we talk to every outside group and we listen to the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office gets a lot wrong--but every outside group who looks at this tells us that our assumptions that we baked in of $2.5 trillion of economic growth is a kind of reasonable sweet spot, meaning we are assuming the growth. We are already baking in that you are going to get more revenue, but when you keep extending these tax cuts and you don't do enough spending cuts and you weaken the spending cuts that we put in place, you end up with this chart. You end up with a trillion dollars of additional deficit on top of the roughly $18 trillion we are not even touching.
My question for my colleagues is: Was even the House bill good enough? Not really; it really wasn't. I held my nose and voted for it. I want to help the President. I want to move the agenda forward. I want tax cuts. I want the green new scam subsidies terminated. I want Medicaid reform. However, we were leaving in place adding another $18 trillion to $20 trillion of deficit spending, if we are lucky for it to be that low, over the next 10 years.
If the Senate is going to send the bill back to us that is going to add a trillion dollars more and not reform Medicaid properly and not terminate the green new scam that the President campaigned on terminating, then there is no way I can vote for that bill when it comes back. That needs to be said, and it needs to be clear.
The fact of the matter is our country is hanging on by a very thin fiscal thread. The bond markets are recognizing this. There was a headline in the Financial Times today that foreign markets are starting to pull out of Federal treasuries. Interest rates are doing what they are doing. You can change the Fed chairman all you want, but if you don't fix the fiscal mess we are in, the outer part of that curve, which is what sets our mortgage rates, our long-term borrowing rates, that is still going to be a mess, and the American people aren't going to be able to afford homes.
The average age of the American homeowner today is as high as it has ever been. It is up about 10 years. Now you are in your upper thirties before you are buying a home instead of your upper twenties, which it was not long ago.
We are ripping the American Dream out of the hands of our kids and grandkids because of people in this Chamber and people in the other Chamber who refuse to do the hard work of governing responsibly. I should say representing; we don't govern, but do our job.
I am blessed to be alive. I am a cancer survivor. I have talked about that before. I was blessed to have treatment at MD Anderson, and that was 14 years ago. I think it was 14 years ago this next month.
Why do I bring that up? I bring that up because I get cancer groups that come into my office all the time. Mr. Speaker, you get cancer groups, you get ALS groups, you get people who have a heart to solve a problem, and they want money. They want funding. I have to say no. If they don't come in and say: Well, we know that we are $37 trillion in debt, so we are proposing this plan, and we are proposing cuts over here in order to achieve what we want, which is $100 million for some research--they usually don't do that. They just come in and say: We need $100 million for research or $500 million for research or $1 billion for some program, and I have to say no. I always say no.
I tell my farmers who come in and are just dying for relief because we have messed up their livelihoods so much, Congress has, with a failed system. Crop insurance is important. All the things we do are important, but we include a bloated food stamp program, which is exploding off the charts in the farm bill every 5 years, and they expect me to vote to continue a food stamp program, which is often going to the able-bodied, often corrupted, often feeding our children and people in this
I have got to say there are only a handful of us in this Chamber who are willing to say no. ``No'' is the most powerful and important word in the English language when it is used the right way, which I would say in this body should be used most of the time.
Ronald Reagan famously said, I think it was on Johnny Carson's ``The Tonight Show'' interview, and they were talking and Reagan said--and Reagan hated taxes--Reagan said: That every new program that a Member of Congress brings to the floor should have a tax increase attached to it. He is correct. He was correct.
Why? He was correct because if you bring a billion-dollar program to the floor, we vote for it because the headline will say: Chip Roy opposes puppies or Chip Roy opposes cancer research or Chip Roy opposes something for veterans or for the elderly. Who can vote against that?
If the bill was billion-dollar program and needed a tax increase on every American to pay for it, well, now that vote is a little different. We don't do that. We never do that.
Now what is going to happen? Well, there is going to be a lot of posturing over the next week.
Here is something that everybody should get a bit of a chuckle out of. We had to pass the budget right before Easter. We had to pass the bill right before Memorial Day. Now, we are supposed to pass the final bill, get it through the Senate by July 4.
We had to pass the government funding bill right before Christmas. The speaker knows. Mr. Speaker, why do you think that is? Do you think that is just because everybody says, well, wouldn't it be nice to do that right at those great holidays? No. It is something called jet fumes.
Every Member of Congress has a trip, personal, business, government, whatever. They all are going to take a trip, so they always want to have these bills right before that so that everybody comes in and says: ``Yes, I will vote for it. Let's get out of here.'' Boom, they get out of town.
Mr. Speaker, here we are. Over the next week, there is going to be an enormous amount of pressure brought to bear from the White House and our leadership on both sides to get in line and say: ``We have to pass it. If we don't pass it, the taxes are going to go up. If we don't pass it, we are not going to get the border funding. If we don't pass it, we won't have a debt ceiling increase, and the bond markets are going to freak out.''
We are not going to default on our debt.
We are not going to let taxes go up in the end before this year is over. They don't go up until December. We are going to do what we need to do on the border.
I would like to do it in this bill, but I am not going to do it in this bill if this bill is adding to the debt, not doing what it needs to do on the green new scam, not doing what it needs to do on Medicaid, and not doing what it needs to do on countless other issues.
I am not going to do it if it is going to be a big giveaway to blue State tax jurisdictions in State and local taxes. My friends in this Conference who represent big tax States like New York and California want a bigger deduction for their State taxes. Why the hell should I subsidize their stupid decisions in their States for their expensive taxes? Why should my constituents have to do that?
Why should we continue to allow food stamps to go to the able-bodied? Why should we continue to have Medicaid go to the able-bodied and not have work requirements or not deal with the money laundering scam?
Why shouldn't we, by the way, have health savings accounts? The Senate bill took our health savings accounts out of the House bill.
Why should we continue to have taxpayer-funded sex-change operations? The Senate bill puts that back in.
Why should we not tax these big university endowments and these universities that are engaging in political activism and taking massive Federal money and Federal student loan support? Why shouldn't we tax them on it? The Senate reduces our tax on university endowments to raise revenue by 20 percent.
Why shouldn't we stop China from getting taxpayer dollars through the green new scam subsidies? Our bill prevented China from getting rich off of our tax dollars. The Senate bill takes it out. Why?
Why shouldn't we tax the remittances of illegal aliens who are sending money back to their home countries? Our bill did that. The Senate bill takes it out.
We are at a critical juncture in our history as a country, and the question here is: Will Republicans step up and put forward transformational reforms when we have the majority in the House, the majority in the Senate, and the White House?
Will we deliver on the President's agenda responsibly? Will we actually take this moment to change the trajectory of debt that is killing our country for our kids and grandkids, or will we continue the same game of tax cuts for everyone but spending and more spending for everyone?
We can't keep doing the same thing. We can't.
I know the American people are frustrated. I know they expect us to deliver, and we must deliver. Failure is not an option, but we shouldn't deliver for the sake of it. We shouldn't pass a bill just to check a box.
We shouldn't pass a bill that increases the deficit; doesn't terminate the green new scam; doesn't reform Medicaid; doesn't prevent tax subsidies for high State tax jurisdictions; doesn't prevent China from continuing to get subsidies for solar panels with taxpayer dollars; doesn't curb the waste, fraud, and abuse in food stamps; doesn't tax remittances for illegals who are sending money back home; doesn't include health savings account expansions for the American people; and, frankly, even in the House bill, doesn't do enough to reduce deficits.
The Senate bill was supposed to make the bill better, not worse. I voted for the House bill to move it along in the process for incremental gains and expected the Senate to step up to the plate. Right now, they are striking out.
If the Senate sends a bill over that makes this bill worse, adds to the deficit, and adds all the things I just talked about, I will vote ``no.''
No, Mr. President, it is not grandstanding. It is not grandstanding to say that I think we ought to be fiscally responsible. It is not grandstanding to say that we should honor the campaign commitment to terminate the green new scam in full. It is not grandstanding to say that we should reform Medicaid so that the able-bodied are not being subsidized by the vulnerable. It is not grandstanding. It is not grandstanding.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to make one final comment, and then I will save everybody from listening to my destroyed voice.
Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, Rhonda Massie, wife of my colleague and good friend Thomas Massie, passed away suddenly.
Thomas is a dear friend. Thomas happens to be taking some heat politically because Thomas believes, as I do, that we are not doing enough on spending and on the legislation we are talking about, but that is politics. Thomas is thick-skinned. He will take the arrows. He will keep representing his constituents.
I believe he will get reelected, and I will support him in that endeavor because he is a good man and a good friend.
I just want everyone to know that my friend is hurting today because he lost his wife 1 year ago suddenly. My prayers are with Thomas. My prayers are with his family. I know Rhonda is in Heaven looking down on Thomas, probably laughing at him a little.
I know my colleagues all wish Thomas well. He is a dear friend, and we will be thinking and praying about him today even as we go about doing our jobs.
I am proud to call Thomas a friend. I am proud to stand alongside Thomas, and I will stand alongside Thomas as a man of principle who is trying to do the right thing. I don't always agree, but I agree most of the time.
God bless him, and God bless the memory of Rhonda and Thomas' entire family.
