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.
47 public bills, H.R. 6074- 6120; and 7 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 62; and H. Res. 886-891 were introduced.
Pages H4768-70
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 1669, to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Training Program (H. Rept. 119-381); and H.R. 2319, to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a review to evaluate the status of research on lung cancer in women and underserved populations, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-382).
Page H4768
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Taylor to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H4709
Recess
The House recessed at 11:04 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H4716
Committee Resignation
Read a letter from Representative Velazquez wherein she resigned from the Committee on Natural Resources.
Page H4718
Committee Election
The House agreed to H. Res. 886, electing a member to a certain standing committee of the House of Representatives.
Page H4718
Committee Election
The House agreed to H. Res. 887, electing Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.
Page H4718
Suspensions
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure: Epstein Files Transparency Act: H.R. 4405, to require the Attorney General to release all documents and records in possession of the Department of Justice relating to Jeffrey Epstein, by a \2/3\ recorded vote of 427 ayes to 1 no, Roll No. 289.
Pages H4725-33
Disapproving the behavior of Representative Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia of Illinois
The House agreed to H. Res. 878, disapproving the behavior of Representative Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia of Illinois, by a yea-and-nay vote of 236 yeas to 183 nays with four answering ``present'', Roll No. 292. Consideration began yesterday, November 17th.
Pages H4736-37
Privileged Resolution: Intent to Offer
Representative Clarke (NY) announced her intent to offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 889) censuring Representative Cory Mills.
Pages H4757-58
Recess
The House recessed at 6:26 p.m. and reconvened at 8:16 p.m.
Page H4758
Requesting the Secretary of the Interior to authorize unique and one- time arrangements for displays on the National Mall and the Washington Monument during the period beginning on December 31, 2025, and ending on January 5, 2026: The House agreed to discharge from committee and pass H.J. Res. 133, requesting the Secretary of the Interior to authorize unique and one-time arrangements for displays on the National Mall and the Washington Monument during the period beginning on December 31, 2025, and ending on January 5, 2026.
Pages H4758-59
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'': The House passed H.J. Res. 130, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 214 yeas to 212 nays, Roll No. 294.
H. Res. 879, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 80), (H.J. Res. 130), (H.J. Res. 131), the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 58), and the bills (H.R. 1949), (H.R. 3109), (H.R. 5107), and (H.R. 5214) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 217 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 291, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 290.
Pages H4718-25, H4734-35, H4735-36
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision'': The House passed H.J. Res. 131, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 yeas to 209 nays, Roll No. 295.
H. Res. 879, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 80), (H.J. Res. 130), (H.J. Res. 131), the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 58), and the bills (H.R. 1949), (H.R. 3109), (H.R. 5107), and (H.R. 5214) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 217 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 291, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 290.
Pages H4718-25, H4734-35, H4735-36
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision'': The House passed S.J. Res. 80, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision''by a yea-and-nay vote of 216 yeas to 209 nays, Roll No. 296.
H. Res. 879, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 80), (H.J. Res. 130), (H.J. Res. 131), the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 58), and the bills (H.R. 1949), (H.R. 3109), (H.R. 5107), and (H.R. 5214) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 217 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 291, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 290.
Pages H4718-25, H4734-35, H4735-36
Censuring and condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett and removing her from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for conduct that reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives for colluding with convicted felony sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing: The House failed to agree to H. Res. 888, censuring and condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett and removing her from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for conduct that reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives for colluding with convicted felony sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing, by a yea-and-nay vote of 209 yeas to 214 nays with three answering ``present'', Roll No. 297. Earlier, the Clark (MA) motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on Ethics failed by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 214 nays, Roll No. 293.
Pages H4737-46, H4761-62
Member Resignation
Read a letter from Representative Sherrill, wherein she resigned as Representative for the Eleventh Congressional District of New Jersey, effective November 20, 2025, at 11:59 p.m.
Page H4767
Quorum Calls: Votes
Seven yea-and-nay votes and two recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H4733, H4734-35, H4735-36, H4736-37, H4738, H4759, H4760, H4760-61, and H4761- 62. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 189 of 352 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Thomas A. Parham, president of California State University, Dominguez Hills, as he retires after an extraordinary career in higher education.
Affectionately known as Dr. P, he has been a visionary at Cal State Dominguez Hills since 2018, elevating academic excellence, expanding opportunity, and strengthening community partnerships across the South Bay and beyond.
Dr. Parham has inspired generations of students through his commitment to equity, empowerment, and educational success. Under his leadership, California State University, Dominguez Hills, has become more than a university. It has been a launching pad for dreams, empowering students to succeed academically and personally.
As Dr. Parham embarks on his well-deserved retirement, his legacy will continue to uplift the Toro community and the broader higher education landscape for years to come.
On behalf of California's 44th District, I congratulate Dr. Parham and wish him continued success, happiness, and fulfillment in this next chapter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life and legacy of an environmental champion in my district, Jesse Marquez.
Jesse was a passionate leader who fought tirelessly for environmental justice. As a student at Banning High School in Wilmington, California, he was a record-setting track athlete.
Tragically, disaster struck his neighborhood when explosions occurred at a refinery across the street from his family's home. Fortunately, Jesse survived the fatal incident, which injured over 150 neighbors. It led him to establish the Coalition For A Safe Environment in 2021, a community-based organization that successfully advocated for stronger rules to protect residents from pollution and chemical disasters.
Jesse also established the first community-led air monitor network in Wilmington, California, and he successfully prevented the expansion of highways and rail yards next to homes and schools.
I thank Jesse for his tireless advocacy for safer, healthier communities.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans in Congress shut the government down for 43 days to avoid spending a dollar on healthcare for hardworking Americans.
When they finally voted for a partisan spending bill, it lined the pockets of eight Republican Senators with millions of dollars in taxpayer funds.
This is corruption, plain and simple. If anyone else in government gave themselves millions of dollars in taxpayer money, they would go to prison.
It also speaks to the misplaced priorities of Republicans who cannot be bothered to support affordable healthcare for Americans, but they can find money to reward Senators over taxpayers.
Senators may not like to be treated like everybody else, but subpoenas and nondisclosure orders are a routine part of grand jury investigations. No one has an absolute right to be notified that their call records have been subpoenaed. No Senator should have a guaranteed right to self-deal themselves a million dollars if a lawful search happens.
Now, the American people may hear House Republicans say they will pass a bill this week to undo what they voted for last week, but talk is cheap. They could have stopped this corrupt provision before it became law, and they didn't. That was the action they took. It is now the law, and unless the Senate is going to take up whatever the House passes, if it does, the vote this week will have all been for show.
It is to save face, but it doesn't save taxpayers a dime from the payday coming to Senate Republicans. The Republican Senator from South Carolina said he is already preparing to sue so he can cash in.
Republicans did this at the same time they threw Americans off their healthcare. Imagine that, doing this at the very same time.
While Republicans take away the lifesaving care you need and deserve, they are getting rich with your hard-earned tax dollars.
House Democrats will keep fighting to protect your healthcare and make life more affordable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the Senate or individual Members of the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lisa Yanney Roskens, a true leader whose vision, dedication, and compassion have touched the lives of tens of thousands of military families and veterans across our Nation.
As the chief executive officer of Burlington Capital, Lisa has spearheaded initiatives focused on affordable housing for veterans, contributing to programs designed to help individuals break the cycle of poverty and lead healthy, productive lives.
Lisa embodies what it means to lead with both intellect and heart. A proud graduate of Stanford University, where she earned her bachelor's degree and juris doctorate, Lisa brings not only deep business acumen but also a strong sense of service and purpose.
Lisa has guided Burlington Capital to become a national model for purpose-driven investment. This company demonstrates that you can achieve financial success while positively impacting communities and transforming lives.
Under Lisa's leadership, Burlington Capital has made an extraordinary commitment to those who serve the United States of America, both Active-Duty servicemembers and the veterans who have sacrificed for our freedom.
Lisa's belief has always been simple yet powerful: The people who defend our Nation deserve quality homes, supportive communities, and a true sense of belonging.
One of the most outstanding examples of this commitment is at Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, Nebraska. There, Burlington Capital partnered with the United States Air Force to redevelop and manage the base's military family housing community. Through a long-term public- private partnership, Lisa and her team delivered $240 million in redevelopment that transformed outdated housing into modern neighborhoods where military families can thrive.
The results speak for themselves. Nearly 2,000 obsolete units were replaced, and hundreds more were renovated. New homes were built to meet the needs of today's airmen and their families.
The community now known as Rising View was recognized for its strong partnership, its service to tens of thousands of families, and its unwavering commitment to quality of life for those in uniform.
Lisa's impact doesn't end there. She saw another pressing need in our community, the need to provide housing and stability for our Nation's veterans, especially those who have faced homelessness.
In 2013, Lisa and Burlington Capital partnered with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to create Victory I Apartments, a community built on part of the former St. Joseph Hospital site. It provides 90 permanent, supportive housing units for formerly homeless veterans. This project was more than a renovation. It was the creation of a lifeline for men and women who once protected our Nation but returned home to uncertainty.
Building on that success, Lisa led the charge for Victory II Apartments, which opened in 2020. This second phase added 60 more apartment homes dedicated to veterans and their families who earn at or below 50 percent of this area's median income. These homes are designed with dignity in mind, paired with access to health, wellness, and job readiness services.
Together, Victory I and II provide 150 safe, stable homes for men and women who once wore our Nation's uniform. The apartments offer not only a safe place to live but also access to onsite supportive services from the VA and local agencies, helping veterans rebuild their lives with dignity and purpose.
Victory Apartments earned national recognition, receiving the Charles L. Edson Tax Credit Excellence Award for outstanding affordable housing that serves special needs populations. Just as importantly, it has become a model for how public, private, and nonprofit sectors can come together to change lives.
Lisa expanded that vision even further with the creation of Victory Park in Lincoln, Nebraska. On the VA campus, Burlington Capital developed 70 new apartments for veterans and partnered with the VA to deliver a new community-based outpatient clinic for Lincoln's veteran population. Victory Park combines housing, healthcare, and supportive services in one location, a community that restores independence, connection, and pride for those who once served our Nation.
Through efforts like these, Lisa Roskens has demonstrated what it means to not only be a successful business leader but also somebody who is deeply committed to making a difference in the communities where her organization operates.
Mr. Speaker, after 9 months of delay, I rise today to recognize an important victory for the United States and for thousands of children around the world who have a new chance at life.
Finally, after months of advocacy and struggle, funding has been restored for global emergency food aid for children. You see, malnutrition is the number one cause of death for children under 5 globally, and when children are on the brink of starvation, their organs break down, and they cannot even digest food if it is given to them.
There is a proven treatment: ready-to-use therapeutic food, also known as Plumpy'Nut, a shelf-stable peanut paste. It does not need to be refrigerated. You don't need to add water. It has the nutrients that children need to survive and grow back from the brink of starvation.
Edesia Nutrition in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, is one of the two organizations that manufacture Plumpy'Nut. Since their founding, they have saved over 25 million lives.
Earlier this year, in January, funding for Plumpy'Nut was cut off by President Trump's DOGE initiative. New Federal orders were halted. Production ground to a halt. Boxes of lifesaving food aid sat in warehouses while children starved to death.
This was not just cruel. It was short-sighted.
America's reputation as a global leader suffers when we fail to deliver international aid. Our adversaries--China, Russia, terrorist organizations--fill the abyss when the United States pulls out.
A broad coalition of Americans fought back. In April, I made a commitment that I would speak on this floor every legislative day until funding was restored. I ended up speaking here 42 times in total to demand that emergency food aid for children be restored.
I wasn't alone. My colleague from Rhode Island, Representative Amo, made his voice heard on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Representative Austin Scott from Georgia, whose district hosts the other organization that manufactures Plumpy'Nut, was a vital partner. Of course, Navyn Salem, the CEO of Edesia, never gave up her mission to help starving kids in need.
Last month, the administration finally listened, and the program was restored. A few weeks ago, Edesia was able to resume regular shipments. I was there at the loading dock in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, when the first new shipments went outbound for children whose small bodies were struggling on the edge of starvation and who now have a chance to survive and grow. I will never forget that moment.
This is proof that, even in these challenging times, it is possible to get good things done. This victory wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the advocacy of people at all levels, all across the country, making their voices heard. It is a monumental step toward
While I am very glad that this program is restored, that Edesia is up and running again, and that funding for food aid is back, none of this should have ever happened.
Make no mistake, children died needlessly because President Trump and an unelected tech billionaire cut off their supply of food before eventually reversing course. This is a lesson in the devastating consequences of the chaotic slash-and-burn style of government that we have seen too much of over the last year.
Nevertheless, today is a day for celebration, as Americans came together to do the right thing, to advocate for those who couldn't advocate for themselves, and to deliver a victory for countless children around the world who now have a chance to grow and thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with both gratitude and a heavy heart to honor the extraordinary life of a dear friend, a devoted public servant, and a guardian of our community, former Buffalo Police Commissioner Rocco J. Diina, who passed away on October 5 at the age of 75.
Commissioner Diina was a pillar of western New York, a man whose leadership, character, and compassion shaped our great city. His legacy is etched in the lives he protected, the hope he restored, the community he made safer each and every day, and the family and friends that he loved.
Rocco grew up on Tacoma Avenue in north Buffalo, the middle of three brothers, in a proud, hardworking family rooted in faith, service, and devotion to community. Those values guided his life and charted the course of his calling.
At just 18 years old, he walked through the doors of the Buffalo Police Department as a cadet. He wasn't drawn to the badge for prestige or distinction. He answered the call out of duty, earning a reputation for trust and honesty.
After two decades in uniform and a distinguished career of serving and protecting the great City of Good Neighbors, Rocco retired, though anyone who knew him knew he would not stay away for long.
In 1994, his lifelong friend, Mayor Anthony Masiello, called him back to serve, this time as deputy police commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, 4 years later, he became the city of Buffalo's police commissioner. In that role, Commissioner Diina didn't just lead the department; he transformed it. He brought innovation and modernization to the department and streamlined precinct operations. He opened doors once closed, appointing the city's first African-American woman to serve as deputy commissioner, an act of leadership that strengthened both the department and our city.
Among his proudest achievements was reopening the Buffalo Police Athletic League, a program built on the belief that trust is forged not through authority but through relationships.
Through sports, mentorship, and guidance, PAL created a bridge between law enforcement and young people who were yearning for opportunity and connection. Today, it serves more than 20,000 children each year, a living testament to the enduring impact of Rocco's vision.
For Commissioner Diina, public safety was about restoring hope, investing in youth, and strengthening the bond between community and those sworn to serve it.
Beyond every title and every professional achievement stood the role he cherished most: that of husband, father, and grandfather. He met the love of his life, Anna Marie, at a hot dog stand at Crystal Beach, and the rest was history.
For more than 50 years, they built a family grounded in love, laughter, and loyalty. Together, they raised two exceptional children, Rebecca and Rocco Jr., and delighted in the joy of five grandchildren, the light of their lives and the pride of their hearts.
Rocco was a steadfast leader who was tough when duty demanded it and compassionate when humanity required it. Even after stepping out of public office, his mission never changed. Rocco founded RJD Security, growing it from a small startup into one of western New York's most trusted security firms. In doing so, he continued to do what had always driven him: protecting people, supporting local businesses, and safeguarding the places that make community possible.
We honor Commissioner Rocco Diina for the department he strengthened, the neighborhoods and the city that he made safer, and for reminding us what true leadership looks like: service before self, strength without ego, and kindness without hesitation.
Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his remarkable life. We offer our deepest condolences to the Diina family, who shared him so generously with all of us.
May we strive to emulate his leadership with integrity, his service with humility, and his love and unwavering devotion to our community.
On behalf of the grateful city of Buffalo, the western New York community, and the Nation, may Commissioner Rocco J. Diina rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Sidney Davidoff, a towering figure in New York's political life and a true son of the great city of New York, who passed away Sunday at the age of 86.
Born in Brooklyn, Sid served 7 years as administrative assistant to Mayor John Lindsay. He went on to become one of New York's most respected government affairs attorneys.
As founder of Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, he built a firm whose 50 years of work stands as part of his extraordinary legacy. A frequent lecturer at Yale and NYU and board member on countless city initiatives, Sid earned the distinction few can claim: He was respected on both sides of the aisle.
Beyond the title, Sid Davidoff was a true New Yorker: brilliant, tough, generous, and kind. He worked right up to the end, always thinking about what more he could do for the city and State he loved.
Today, we mourn his loss and celebrate his life. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Linda; his family; and to all who knew and loved him, especially his colleagues at Davidoff Hutcher & Citron.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the outstanding career of George Gaine, a dedicated educator, mentor, and longtime boys' basketball coach at Tappan Zee High School in Orangeburg, who recently announced his retirement after an extraordinary 22 years of leading the Dutchmen.
During his tenure, Coach Gaine built one of the most respected basketball programs in the region, guiding his teams to an impressive 301-47 record, four section I titles, two Rockland County championships, and the 2023 New York State Class A crown. His leadership, discipline, and passion for the game inspired not only his players but the entire Tappan Zee community.
In addition to his success as a coach, Coach Gaine served as a physical education teacher at Tappan Zee, shaping generations of students with his commitment to excellence, integrity, and personal growth.
May we commend Coach Gaine for his years of service, mentorship, and dedication to young people. May his next chapter be as fulfilling as the impact he left on his players, his school, and his community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Tim Idoni of New Rochelle on his retirement after more than 40 years of extraordinary public service to Westchester County.
Tim's career has been defined by a deep commitment to his community.
Over the last two decades as Westchester County clerk, Tim modernized the office in ways that have saved taxpayers millions of dollars, made local government more efficient, and improved services for countless families.
Beyond titles and offices, Tim has been a tireless advocate for affordable housing, open space, and community organizations throughout Westchester. His service leaves a lasting mark not just on New Rochelle but on all of Westchester County.
I thank Tim for his decades of dedication and his commitment to public service. He was a great colleague in government, and I congratulate him on his retirement. I wish him and his family continued health and happiness in the years ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Terry Martin Hekker, who passed away in her home on October 20, just weeks before her 93rd birthday.
A Brooklyn native, Terry grew up with the lively spirit of two large Irish families. Her father's work brought the family to the Bear Mountain Inn, where Terry's earliest encounters included visiting athletes and politicians, like Jackie Robinson.
A graduate of Pratt Institute, Terry married and eventually settled in Nyack, New York, where she raised five children. Terry authored two best-selling novels, which brought her national recognition and led her to a long career in local politics.
Terry served on various boards, including the Nyack Chamber of Commerce and as village trustee, before making history as the first female mayor of the village of Nyack, one of her proudest achievements being advocating for the creation of the Nyack Community Center.
May God bless the memory of Terry Hekker and continue to comfort her family and friends during this time of loss. Our community will miss her.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Farley of Pearl River, who passed away this summer at the age of 84.
John grew up in Rockland County. He served our Nation proudly in the United States Navy and built a career as a member of Steamfitters Local 638 in New York City. To those who knew him best, he was simply ``Pop.''
John had a quick wit, a love of sports, and a gift for coaching. More than that, he had a way of seeing the best in people and encouraging them to see it in themselves. That is the mark he left on his family, his friends, and his community.
John's legacy lives on in his children and grandchildren and in the many lives he touched in Pearl River and beyond. May his memory be a blessing, and may we honor him by carrying forward the kindness and generosity he showed every day.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the celebration of the Reverend Troy DeCohen, senior pastor of the Mount Vernon Heights Congregational Church, in this year completing his 25th year of pastoral leadership.
Reverend DeCohen has a distinguished clerical career. He was called to the ministry in 1988, was active in churches in New Jersey and New York, and is now approaching his fourth decade.
He holds master's degrees from Fordham University and Mercy University, and he has shown a skill and achievement in dealing with real-world congregational problems: substance abuse issues, conflict resolution, homelessness, HIV and AIDS, and mental illness.
Complementing his pastoral service, he serves as director of housing operations for the Westchester County Department of Social Services. He has been recognized with awards by Governors, county executives, State and Federal legislators, and organizations across the spectrum.
Along with his wife, Reverend Viviana DeCohen, he has led his home congregation in worship, Bible study, and community outreach to those in need in the Mount Vernon and surrounding communities. He serves as president and chair of the United Black Clergy of Westchester County.
He is living Matthew 25's spiritual direction every day to show faith in the Lord by doing good for his people, including for the least of his brothers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great concern over recent changes to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Continuum of Care Program.
This program is one of the largest sources of resources, including 900 units of housing in my district, that is involved with funding to combat homelessness, especially for seniors, domestic violence victims, and people with disabilities. There are nearly 700 units of permanent housing involved in this program.
In 2024, Congress approved a 2-year funding cycle to promote greater program stability. However, last week, HUD announced a new funding competition with substantial changes that could delay funding awards for months. The announcement also slashes how much funding may be used for permanent housing.
Such drastic changes could result in a significant reduction in services, forcing local partners to cease operations and reexpose hundreds of my constituents to homelessness.
As this majority continues to pursue drastic cuts to affordable food and healthcare, it is critical that we protect access to housing.
I urge the administration to immediately reconsider this decision and prevent a new wave of homelessness across the counties of Westchester, the Bronx, and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, we are nearing 1 week since the end of the needless, 43-day-long Democrat government shutdown. That shutdown was a monumental waste of time that hurt a lot of people across the country.
I am grateful that the families in eastern Washington can now breathe easier knowing their paychecks, benefits, and livelihoods are no longer being used as political bargaining chips.
The House passed three appropriations bills providing full-year funding for agriculture, the FDA, military construction, and the legislative branch.
I am especially proud that three priorities I fought for were included in the agriculture appropriations bill: $1 million for Washington State University's ARS building project, $2 million for NEW Health's Chewelah expansion and regional workforce center, and $1 million for TriState Health's Family Medicine Residency program.
These are meaningful wins for eastern Washington families and our rural economy.
Our budget also delivered more than $13 million for Fairchild Air Force Base, strengthening mission support and fueling operations to keep our Nation secure. Had the vote gone differently and the Democrats succeeded in pandering to their radical base, we might still be in a government shutdown and these critical victories for eastern Washington and the Nation might never have happened.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are getting back to what matters: delivering results for the people we serve.
Mr. Speaker, few moments as a Member of Congress are more meaningful than helping a hero receive long-overdue recognition. Recently, my office had the privilege of assisting Vietnam veteran John Gilman in securing the Silver Star Medal he earned more than 50 years ago, an honor long delayed but deeply deserved.
On Veterans Day, I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Gilman at the Heroes Awards night in Spokane. The event,
Surrounded by his family, friends, and fellow veterans, Mr. Gilman finally received the medal that reflected his courage and selflessness in Vietnam.
Mr. Gilman of Airway Heights served valiantly in the American Division during the 1969 Tet Offensive. Amid intense combat near Phuoc Hoa, South Vietnam, his company was ordered to relieve a friendly unit under fire. Though wounded in action, Mr. Gilman refused to fall back. He steadfastly manned his M60 machine gun and continued providing suppressive fire, even while receiving medical treatment. Thanks to his courage under fire, his unit closed with and ultimately destroyed the insurgent force. For these extraordinary acts, the Army approved Mr. Gilman for his Silver Star. Yet despite that honor, he was never officially presented the award.
Earlier this year, Mr. Gilman contacted my office. Through the persistent efforts of my staff working hand in hand with Army Personnel Command, we confirmed that his Silver Star had been authorized decades ago but never delivered.
Last Tuesday night, more than 50 years after his acts of valor, Brigadier General Paul Sellars, Commanding General of the Washington Army National Guard, had the honor of presenting the Silver Star to Mr. Gilman.
The Silver Star is the Army's third-highest award for gallantry in combat, given only to those who display extraordinary heroism under fire.
Mr. Gilman's story is a powerful reminder of the courage that defines our veterans and our Nation's sacred duty to ensure their service is never forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate John Gilman and thank him for his bravery, his sacrifice, and his continued example to us all. As we approach America's 250th birthday, let us honor veterans like John Gilman not only with medals but through our daily commitment to live up to the freedom they fought to defend.
Mr. Speaker, as families in Ohio's 13th Congressional District get ready for the holiday season, I will talk about something that is weighing on many of them.
The cost of everyday life keeps going up and people feel it every time they shop for groceries, pay their utility bills, fill up their gas tanks, or try to plan for the weeks ahead.
Across Ohio's 13th District, people are telling me the same thing: Their paychecks are not stretching the way they used to and they are working harder and getting less in return.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, food costs have increased nearly 3 percent over the past year and the cost of meat, poultry, fish, and coffee grew more than 5 percent.
The Department of Agriculture expects grocery prices to rise again this year. These cost increases amount to grocery bills that are hundreds of dollars higher for less food. This is compounded by the SNAP cuts in the one big, ugly bill and cuts to food banks all across this country.
However, it is not just food and groceries. Families are feeling the squeeze in multiple ways. Healthcare premiums, copays, and prescription costs have climbed, leaving families with difficult choices about their care. Energy bills from heating homes in winter to cooling them in summer are also rising, stretching budgets even further.
These are not small inconveniences. They shape every decision families make about what they can afford. As people question whether they can cover the basics, it affects how they plan their days, care for one another, and participate in their communities. Something as simple as sitting down together for a meal or planning a gathering can become harder to manage.
These costs do not rise in a vacuum. The decisions made here in Washington shape the choices people face at home. When policies put pressure on working families instead of supporting them, the impact shows up in higher bills and tighter budgets. A strong economy is one that gives families the confidence to meet their needs and build toward the future. It starts with people who feel secure enough to gather, share a meal, and look ahead with some peace of mind.
That is why I continue to fight for policies that put people first. I am working to lower healthcare costs. I am working to bring down everyday expenses, including energy, utilities, and food costs. I am committed to supporting the creation of good-paying jobs so families in Ohio's 13th District and all across the country can worry a little less and hope a lot more.
As we enter this holiday season, we should remember what keeps our communities strong: fairness, opportunity, and support for one another. Let us, as Members of Congress, make choices that help families meet their needs and stay connected.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Aarit Koul as the champion of the week for Ohio's 13th Congressional District.
Aarit, a freshman at Jackson High School, recently won the 2025 National Civics Bee. He competed against finalists from 38 other States in five rounds, including one in which he presented a societal problem and offered his suggestions for solving it.
Aarit discussed the healthcare system in the United States, timely and appropriate, especially considering our current state of affairs.
With this win comes a $100,000 college fund, which will go a long way to help him attend his dream school, Yale University. Aarit aspires to become a lawyer and ultimately land an appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have come to the floor to recognize Aarit's talents, nor is it the second. This is actually the third time Aarit has been recognized before this body.
In 2023, he was the Congressional App Challenge Winner for Ohio's 13th District when he was in middle school. His app, Care Civics, was designed to encourage young people to become civically engaged. He was inspired by his time studying for the Ohio Civics Bee, which he went on to win in 2024. Now, just a high school freshman, he has come out on top at the national level, and I could not be more proud.
Mr. Speaker, I also had the honor of first meeting Aarit at Jackson Memorial Middle School when he served as the Speaker of the Little Congress. Aarit is a shining example of why Ohio's 13th Congressional District is known as the birthplace of champions.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to all that he accomplishes in the future, and I thank Aarit for his dedication to civics in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Opera Roanoke on the momentous occasion of its 50th anniversary.
Founded in 1976 as the Southwest Virginia Opera Society by a group of dedicated volunteers, the company staged its first production of ``The Consul'' in 1978, and in 1991, became the fully professional organization we now know as Opera Roanoke.
For five decades, it has been a cornerstone of cultural life in Roanoke and across Virginia's Blue Ridge, presenting compelling performances and fostering a broader appreciation for opera in western Virginia.
Over the years, the company has benefited from remarkable artistic leadership and the guidance of legendary mentors, such as Eleanor Steber and Irene Dalis. A special thank you to the board of trustees, who have contributed to the success of the opera: John Johnson, President; Krista Vannoy, Immediate Past President; Frank Giannini, Treasurer; Jim Dubinsky, Secretary; Isabel Ditzel; and Eric Monday.
This anniversary season opened with ``Love and Sacrifice: A tribute to the Heart of Opera Roanoke,'' which also marked the retirement of Maestro Steven White, whose more than 20 years of service have profoundly shaped the company's artistic excellence.
As Opera Roanoke looks ahead to its 50th anniversary season and upcoming
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Robert Holland of Roanoke, Virginia, who will celebrate his 100th birthday this Thanksgiving Day, November 27, 2025.
Mr. Holland is a proud World War II veteran who enlisted in the United States Army at just 18 years old. He spent his 19th birthday in France, serving as a Staff Sergeant with the 381st Battery. He worked as a powder man and also served in supply operations, roles vital to our mission's success in Europe.
After the war, Mr. Holland returned to his home State of West Virginia before settling in the Hollins area of Roanoke County in 1950 to be near family. He went on to enjoy a long and honorable career with the General Electric Company and has been a valued member of the Roanoke community ever since.
Mr. Speaker, as he marks a century of life, service, and devotion to family and country, I am proud to join his loved ones and neighbors in wishing Mr. Robert Holland a very happy 100th birthday and thanking him for his steadfast service to our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Warren County's history, a middle school FFA chapter has earned the highest honor possible from the National FFA Organization. Receiving the National Chapter Award with a gold three-star rating places Warren County Middle School's FFA among the very best agricultural education programs in the Nation.
A testament to the hard work, leadership, and community spirit of our students, these young people are not only learning about agriculture but also taking initiative to serve their neighbors, strengthen their school, and build a brighter future.
Led by adviser Lynne Phillips and officers Harlie Brooks, Madison Ballard, Bella Kaplan, Allie Englert, Camberlee Lockhart, Cadence Flint, Alexis Clark, Silas Dutton, and Lex Flores, alongside all other members, planned and carried out projects that range from food drives to environmental cleanups, demonstrating that middle school students, when given the tools and the trust, can rise to extraordinary heights.
Mr. Speaker, fewer than 10 percent of FFA chapters nationwide receive this distinction. Warren County's students have set a new standard of excellence, and they remind us that the seeds of leadership, once planted, can grow into something that lifts up an entire community. I am proud to honor them today.
Mr. Speaker, socialism has left a long trail of suffering across the globe. Wherever it has taken root, it has brought economic collapse, political oppression, and the deterioration of freedom.
Despite this record, we are seeing a troubling rise in socialist rhetoric here at home, especially among younger Americans and in major cities like New York City where these ideas are becoming increasingly mainstream. At the same time, support for the free-market principles that built our Nation has declined. This shift endangers the core values handed down by our Founding Fathers: liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government.
We cannot ignore these warning signs. We cannot allow the failures of socialist systems abroad or here in the United States to be rewritten, dismissed, or forgotten. That is why House Republicans are set to vote on a resolution that firmly rejects socialism in all its forms and reaffirms our commitment to the American ideals of freedom and self- governance.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know where their elected officials stand. House Republicans will choose freedom, and we will stand for the principles that are the foundation of this great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, we are at a unique moment in our history. A technology straight out of science fiction is now becoming an increasingly ubiquitous aspect of daily life.
Artificial intelligence is here, and it is reshaping nearly every aspect of modern life: how we work, how we learn, and how we communicate.
AI-generated content is becoming more prevalent in healthcare, housing, education, entertainment, and even public service. If we do not have a standardized plan to become proficient in AI literacy today, we will not be ready to handle the challenges that AI can pose in the future.
This is why I am introducing the AI for ALL Act. The AI for ALL Act develops a national strategy for the Federal Government to improve AI literacy in education. By understanding how AI has evolved and is expected to evolve, we can be better prepared to embrace the opportunities AI presents and address the challenges that can and will arise in the future.
As lawmakers, we have a duty to ensure emerging technologies like AI are used responsibly, safely, and effectively so it does not harm public safety or infringe on our rights. The AI for ALL Act allows us to fulfill those duties and ensure that the United States will continue to be a global leader in AI.
With strong AI literacy and education guidelines, we can lead with clarity, govern with integrity, and ensure the innovative breakthroughs AI brings can continue serving the public good.
Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago, I shared the story of Benjamin Guerrero-Cruz, a senior at Reseda High School, who was detained by ICE while walking his dog.
Benjamin is an older brother, a loving son, and a valued member of the community. He is a child. For the past 3 months, Benjamin has been in ICE detention at the Adelanto Detention Facility. ICE has been forcing his family to live a nightmare. Benjamin was transferred between two States and three detention facilities in 24 hours without his family knowing. If that was happening to Benjamin, imagine who else it is happening to.
That is why I introduced the INFORM Act. My bill holds ICE accountable for the nightmare they are forcing families like Benjamin's to live through.
Many immigrant families in my district do not know the whereabouts of their loved ones after they are detained by ICE. I have been urging ICE leadership to answer for their chaotic, inconsistent, and cruel decisionmaking policies that have torn apart families across the country. My bill respects the dignity of immigrant families and promotes government transparency.
I will continue showing up to detention facilities and working with my colleagues to hold ICE accountable, promote government transparency, and respect the dignity of immigrant families.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sergeant Scott William Heimann, a loyal husband, a devoted father, a beloved son, and an invaluable member of the Hays, Kansas, community. Scott paid the ultimate price, sacrificing his life for the community he loved and served.
On Sunday, September 28, 2025, Scott's watch ended far too soon. He was shot and killed while responding to a domestic violence call. On behalf of Kansans in the Big First District, I thank Scott for his service.
Scott served with the Hays Police Department for 9 years. Throughout his time, he served on the Special Situation Response Team, High-Tech Crime Unit, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, and the Honor Guard.
Scott took pride in wearing the Hays Police Department uniform. He was never above serving the community he lived in, whether his task was reading books to students at the library or responding to the most dangerous threats that posed a risk to his neighbors. There was no task too big or too small in his eyes.
Audrey and I mourn with the Hays community, and I continue to pray for them as they come to terms with this tragedy. We especially pray for Scott's wife, Beth; his beautiful children, Victoria and Patrick; and all his loved ones who he left behind.
The Bible tells us in Psalm 34 that the Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. As the reality of Scott's untimely passing sets in, I ask that the Lord be close to his family, wrap His arms around this grieving community, and provide comfort.
I say well done to Sergeant Heimann. May he rest in peace. I thank him for his service and for giving the ultimate sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, this Thursday, America will celebrate National Rural Health Day. As a Representative of 60 primarily rural counties and the congressional district with the most critical access hospitals than any other district in the country, I understand full well the importance of adequate, quality healthcare for all communities.
Earlier this year, I proudly supported the working families tax cut, which established the Rural Health Transformation Program. This legislation made the single largest investment into rural healthcare in nearly two decades and will be life-changing for the men and women who call rural communities like the ones I represent home.
The $50 billion in the Rural Health Transformation Program will better position rural healthcare facilities to embrace innovative technologies while improving the way healthcare is delivered, strengthening health outcomes, and ensuring the health of rural Americans reaches its full potential. The quality of care that Americans receive should not and cannot depend on their ZIP Code.
By investing in the Rural Health Transformation Program and putting safeguards around the Medicaid program to guarantee it serves the vulnerable patients it was intended to serve, this Republican majority has taken historic strides to strengthen rural healthcare. Rural communities are the backbone of America, and I am proud that I have supported this legislation to ensure that they have access to the highest quality care.
This National Rural Health Month, I recognize and thank the dedicated rural healthcare providers, hospitals, service providers, clinics, and community health centers that serve as pillars in providing health services and lifesaving care to Kansans in rural America and work to ensure that they receive the care that they deserve.
I ask that they keep up the hard work, and I thank them again for all that they do for their neighbors in rural America. Happy National Rural Health Month.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of the frontier spirit that is core to the American identity.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S.J. Res. 80 and H.J. Res. 131, two proposals that would forever alter the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge and the special areas of the western Arctic in the great State of Alaska.
Let me tell you a little bit about this special place, a place in which I have had the privilege to spend time. The Arctic refuge, the homeland of Gwich'in and the Inupiat people, offers unmatched, truly wild fishing and hunting opportunities for all Americans.
It is the only national wildlife refuge that protects an entire Arctic ecosystem, and it stands as a profound source of pride for this Nation.
These lands, the birthing and calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, have been at the center of national debate for more than a century, ever since Republican President Theodore Roosevelt established the National Wildlife Refuge System and dedicated himself to protecting wild places and the wildlife that depend on them.
These lands are where Americans hunt caribou, grizzly bear, and Dall sheep, where Americans trap wolverines, and where anglers can catch their first Arctic char.
Most importantly, these lands have provided sustenance to the Gwich'in and Inupiat peoples since time immemorial.
For the last century, bipartisan lawmakers, including both Republican and Democratic Presidents, have agreed to protect this place, safeguarding it from destructive development with a firm resolve and a desire to leave something behind for the next generation.
That same commitment to conservation has been carried on by bipartisan leaders in Congress for generations. Today, this tradition of conservation is being threatened by a careless proposal to roll back established protections for our wildlife, our waters, and our public lands, threatening indigenous livelihoods and sovereignty, the recreational and scientific value of these lands, and an iconic symbol of American wilderness.
I believe that, in this body, we must preach hope and possibility and that we must defend our values and the American way of life that has been meticulously built over centuries, and both parties must work together to protect the things we love.
These two proposals before you are misguided. This Chamber should not deepen the chaos it has already created. Instead, we should be working together to pass legislation that resolves land management conflicts and restores stability to our public lands planning system. We should also adequately fund our land management agencies.
That is why, as a hunter, an angler, and someone who cares deeply about our Nation's incomparable system of public lands and wildlife habitat, I can't support the reckless destruction of the Arctic tundra and the Coastal Plain.
For the many private interests that have sought to exploit these sacred lands, it would be much easier if these species and Tribes never existed. It would be much easier for them if the last remaining musk ox hadn't survived the Ice Age or if the Porcupine caribou herd simply went extinct, just to add a few dollars to their pockets today without giving a damn about tomorrow.
The truth is, in my district back home in New Mexico, the Permian Basin is a domestic energy powerhouse, fueling America's energy independence and bolstering New Mexico's economy, but there are some places that ought to be left alone because their quality, history, and identity to us as Americans is far too valuable to be measured on a balance sheet.
Now, much to my dismay, this administration has already issued an executive order to rescind the Coastal Plain leasing program, and the Department of the Interior has already done just that.
Given that the administration has already taken action to overturn responsible management plans, these bills only make it more challenging to manage these special lands. It will also expose any future decisions related to oil and gas in the refuge to significant legal uncertainty.
This is a losing proposal. Simply put, it is bad legislation, no matter what side of the issue you stand on.
If, like me, you still believe in bipartisanship and revere the greats like Teddy Roosevelt, who fought to protect special places like America's Arctic, and you dream that someday you or one of your children can hunt wild ptarmigan on the Coastal Plain, catch an Arctic char on the Canning River, or harvest caribou in the Brooks Range, you should vote against these bills and honor the voices of the indigenous communities and American citizens who depend on this land for survival.
From New Mexico to the Arctic, people who live in small communities take care of themselves, and they want to keep it that way. Surely, anyone who represents a rural district in this Congress can appreciate that.
I encourage my colleagues to look at this landscape and examine these bills and their impacts before voting, to see the value of the Arctic and its worth to all Americans, not to simply brush this off as a party-line vote.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 131.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize and honor the life and legacy of Bradley Schenck, a devoted husband, father, marine, master sergeant in the Air National Guard, and law enforcement officer.
Brad served his country in the U.S. Marine Corps and the Air National Guard and dedicated 16 years to law enforcement, including a decade on the Red River Valley SWAT Team. His colleagues knew him for his courage, integrity, and commitment to keeping his community safe.
Nine years ago, Brad faced brain cancer with extraordinary resilience. He turned his struggle into inspiration, sharing his journey in his memoir ``No Easy Way Out.''
Above all, Brad was a family man. He leaves behind his wife, Sara; their three children, Colby, Bentley, and Mackenzie; his parents and siblings; and his entire military and law enforcement families who carry on his legacy of strength and hope.
Brad's life was defined by service, resilience, and joy. I honor his memory today and extend my deepest condolences to his family, friends, and community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ed De La Hunt, a pioneering broadcaster whose voice and vision shaped northern Minnesota for nearly seven decades.
Ed and his wife, Carol, founded KPRM Radio in Park Rapids in 1962. His familiar voice on the program ``Coffee Time'' and his Sunday night music shows became part of daily life for countless listeners.
Beyond the microphone, Ed was an engineer, mentor, and builder. He trained and inspired generations of broadcasters. His dedication to local radio, his commitment to technical excellence, and his belief in the power of community storytelling left an incredible mark on Minnesota broadcasting. Ed leaves behind a legacy of service through the airways and through his family.
Today, I honor his career and the joy he brought to listeners across Minnesota.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with truth and justice, to stand with every survivor of sexual assault, and to demand the release of the Epstein files now. I say to the one man on planet Earth who has the power to do so, Mr. President, it is time to release the files.
Today, we vote on a resolution to release these files, but we have already subpoenaed them, and the President has refused to comply, engaged in a monthslong coverup right before our very eyes, threatening and pressuring Members of Congress, and even calling his own allies traitors, and this legislation a hostile act.
Well, Mr. President, the irony is not lost on us that such desperate attempts to evade accountability are at the heart of the matter itself, as the Epstein case is, at its core--its dirty, rotten core--about rich and powerful men who abuse the system to avoid accountability and who engaged in unspeakable crimes and believed that they could do anything to any woman or any little girl and get away with it because they knew their friends in powerful places would protect them or they could simply buy their way out of the justice system.
Well, we are here today to stand up with the survivors and say: Time is up. We demand accountability.
Now, it is also not lost on me that I am standing in this Chamber, in this seat of power from which wars have been launched and the fates of millions have hung, a Chamber where in the nearly 250 years of this great Nation, only 3 percent of the people who have ever stood here on this floor have been women. That is why we must stand up, why we must demand accountability, why we are not saying ``pretty please.'' We are engaged in a criminal investigation of criminal behavior in a justice system that has failed women and girls who were raped and who were abused and of the powerful people who never were held to account.
We are not, Mr. President, as you have asked us, just going to move on. We will continue to pursue justice to the end.
Let me tell you about this investigation, about the evidence that has come in just in the last week from documents produced by the Epstein estate, including over 1,600 mentions of you, Mr. President. There are emails, court documents, and statements about a lawsuit by a woman accusing Donald Trump of rape at Jeffrey Epstein's house, whether it happened or not. There is a sexual assault suit against Epstein in which Donald Trump appears to have been subpoenaed, served, and deposed. There are sworn statements and court documents from a 16-year- old who was recruited at Mar-a-Lago and then raped and groomed, not only by Jeffrey Epstein, but his rich and powerful friends.
There were statements from Epstein himself, who said Trump knew about the girls. In fact, Trump, by his own admission, knew that Epstein and Maxwell were recruiting young girls from Mar-a-Lago. There were also statements that Trump was at Epstein's house, including with girls, in which Epstein bragged about having pictures and passing a woman to Trump, and noted that Trump spent hours with one of the victims and was the ``dog that hasn't barked.''
These files also include financial transactions between Epstein and Trump. There are discussions of financial affairs, potential money laundering, including in real estate deals. There was also an admission by Jeffrey Epstein himself that he was facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years in Federal prison, yet the DOJ failed to prosecute him. There are statements by Epstein that he believes that Donald Trump was involved in the case.
I say to the American people: There is a mountain of evidence in front of your very eyes. Believe your eyes. It is right there in front of us.
Mr. President, let me say this to you: You can run, but you cannot hide because the survivors know what happened.
To every woman and little girl who has wept or felt shame or believed that you were alone or that the system had failed you, to every parent who has feared the absolute worst, and to every survivor who believed the system was rigged against them, know that you are not alone. We see you. We are fighting for you, and we will not stop.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair rather than a perceived viewing audience and to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, the Schumer shutdown was proven irresponsible, achieving nothing and hurting American families.
Last week, I joined with Republican colleagues in voting to open the government, as Republicans originally voted in September to keep it open.
Now that the 43-day Democrat shutdown, the longest in history, is over, the government can get back to work on behalf of the American people.
The Democrat shutdown caused the loss of paychecks, destroyed jobs, delayed services to our military, and included the inconvenience of delayed and canceled flights worldwide.
I am grateful for the leadership of President Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson for promoting families first over failed political stunts.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and yesterday attacking a Turkish- flagged tanker, causing evacuation in Romania, both NATO allies that we so value.
Our prayers for the recovery of South Carolina native Jesse Jackson.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have to decide if they are going to protect pedophiles or seek justice for survivors of sex trafficking and abuse.
I sat across from survivors--some of them were as young as 13 and 14 at the time--and they told us over and over again to follow the money.
The Treasury Department, Mr. Speaker, is sitting on suspicious activity reports on Epstein's financial network, detailing thousands of transactions totaling more than $1.5 billion. In fact, J.P. Morgan knew about these suspicious transactions for more than a decade. He had 134 accounts with J.P. Morgan, but they chose to look the other way and continue to profit.
The corrupt administration would rather protect the rich and powerful, their billionaire donors, and stop the truth from coming out.
Survivors of this horrific and systematic sexual abuse deserve justice, and the public deserves to know the full truth.
Don't be fooled. President Trump has the power to release the full, unredacted files right now without congressional action and end the coverup today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Ric Trimillos for his extraordinary dedication and service as Scoutmaster of Troop 66 in Colorado Springs.
For years, Ric has served as a mentor and a role model to the Scouts of Troop 66. His commitment to the principles of scouting has created a nurturing environment where Scouts are encouraged to grow into responsible, competent leaders.
Ric's ability to connect with youth, guide them through challenges, and celebrate their achievements is a testament to his deep compassion and unwavering dedication.
Under his guidance, Troop 66 has thrived. Ric has led countless campouts, service projects, and leadership training events, always with a focus on building resilience, teamwork, and respect.
His mentorship has helped many Scouts earn the rank of Eagle Scout and, more importantly, has instilled in them a lifelong commitment to service and integrity.
On behalf of all of those whose lives he has touched, I extend my deepest gratitude and heartfelt recognition.
Mr. Speaker, under Donald Trump, America is joining the ranks of other countries in all the wrong ways. Freedom House now lists us among nations where judges and prosecutors face political attacks.
Reporters Without Borders says that our press freedom has sunk to a historic low.
Now, Trump has crossed a line that no U.S. President ever dared cross: He withheld food assistance that Americans were legally entitled to, blocking nutrition benefits not because the country can't afford them but because he thinks it helps him politically.
In my work as co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, I have seen brutal regimes use food as a weapon and leaders starve their own people to hold on to power. I never ever thought I would see a U.S. President try to rip a page from the same playbook.
What a shameful moment in our history, and I will continue to fight to end hunger now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished public servant from Hancock County, Mississippi, Brian ``Hooty'' Adam, who will retire on December 21, 2025, after more than four decades of serving his community.
Hooty began his career in 1985 as a firefighter, answering the call when his neighbors needed him most. In 2003, he became director of Hancock Emergency Management Agency, a role he has carried with steady leadership for 22 years.
During that time, he guided the county through countless emergencies; destructive storms; and, most notably, the unimaginable challenges of Hurricane Katrina. Through every crisis, Hooty was a source of strength--calm, prepared, and fully committed to protecting the people of Hancock County, Mississippi. His leadership saved lives, strengthened emergency response across our region, and set a standard of service that we should all admire.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Hooty Adam for his extraordinary dedication and in wishing him the very best in his well-earned retirement.
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate Midland High School principal Tiela Schurman for being named the Michigan 2026 High School Principal of the Year.
Principal Schurman's compassionate and hands-on leadership sets an example for schools across the country. She is an extraordinarily gifted leader who inspires those around her to stand up for every child in all of our communities.
It is her passion for education and her fervent belief in every child's potential that guides the work she does every day. She encourages collaboration and teamwork among educators, making Midland High School a safe space that uplifts everyone under its roof.
Principal Schurman pushes her students to dream big, asking them every single week, ``Chemics, you determine your legacy. What will be it?''
There are years ahead in her leadership journey in education. I have no doubt that she will leave a legacy of educational excellence, deep caring, and a spark of hope for every student she encounters.
Mr. Speaker, as we recently celebrated veterans across the country, H.R. 5939, the USMC Helicopter Support in Vietnam Congressional Gold Medal Act, would award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Vietnam-era Marine Corps and Navy veterans who performed vital helicopter support missions.
These flight crews executed incredibly risky and dangerous operations. They successfully carried out lifesaving medical evacuations, transporting approximately 189,000 servicemembers.
Recognizing those who put their lives in harm's way to help out our wounded is long overdue. With the enactment of this bill, Congress can and must take the crucial step toward finally giving these brave veterans the hero's welcome they so deserve.
Resignation as Member of Committee on Natural Resources
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is accepted.
There was no objection.
On November 18, 2025, page H4718, in the second column, the following appeared: COMMUNICATION FROM THE HONORABLE NYDIA M. Velazquez, MEMBER OF CONGRESS The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Honorable NYDIA M. Velazquez, Member of Congress: . . . NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, Member of Congress. ---------------
The online version has been corrected to read: RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following resignation as a member of the Committee on Natural Resources: . . .NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, Member of Congress. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is accepted. There was no objection. ---------------
Providing for Consideration of S.J. RES. 80, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 879, providing for the House's consideration of eight separate measures.
The rule provides closed rules for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective designees, for each joint resolution. The rule provides each such joint resolution one motion to recommit.
Further, the rule provides closed rules for the consideration of H.R. 1949 and H.R. 3109 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees, for each bill. The rule provides each bill with a motion to recommit.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 58 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their respective designees.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107 under closed rules with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their respective designees, on each bill. The rule provides for one motion to recommit for each bill.
Finally, the rule tables H. Res. 581 upon the transmission of a message to the Senate that the House has passed H.R. 4405.
Mr. Speaker, after over 40 days of the Democrat government shutdown, the House has returned to regular order, and this majority is continuing to push forward with the America First agenda, the American people's agenda.
All of these pieces of legislation we are considering today are in alignment with the American people's demand and President Trump's executive orders that we maintain a robust posture of American energy dominance.
You know, Mr. Speaker, our Democrat colleagues have developed a strong proclivity to thumb their noses at the development of energy that comes from American soil. One must wonder why they choose to do that. They pay lipservice to environmental protections and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is just a fact that American oil and American natural gas are cleaner and more environmentally friendly than any from our global competitors.
Why would they cede our dominance on the global stage in favor of hostile actors who lack even the most basic environmental protections?
We are blessed as a nation to have vast repositories of natural resources that we can draw from and utilize accordingly. When we ignore the opportunities to harness these resources for our benefit, we deny ourselves the opportunity to grow more self-sufficient.
H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107, two measures reported from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, focus on restoring law and order in our Nation's Capital City, a city that ought to be a model for the rest of the Nation to follow.
H.R. 5214 would revoke cashless bail in the District of Columbia and would require mandatory pretrial and postconviction detention for crimes of violence and other dangerous crimes.
H.R. 5107 would repeal the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 enacted by the District of Columbia Council. This act targeted police officers in D.C. for simply doing their duties, and it led to over 1,600 officers being removed from the city's force.
Thanks to President Trump's efforts, the streets in D.C. are safer, and we have the opportunity through these two measures to add to that progress.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H. Con. Res. 58, a resolution denouncing the horrors of socialism. Most of us here in this body recognize how dangerous the plague of socialism really is. We understand its history of failure and oppression. Throughout history, this ideology has collapsed into the most brutal of dictatorships, communist regimes, and outright totalitarian rule.
Many are quick to avert their eyes and cover their ears when presented with facts about the horrors of socialism, how many individuals across the world have suffered and died because of it. This resolution will put everyone in this body on record. The American people will see who espouses this caustic ideology and those who reject it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are working more and more for less and less.
Almost every day, I speak with young people who can't afford to start a family, can't buy a house, and can't get ahead. I hear it from seniors who are struggling to survive on fixed incomes. I see it with my own eyes. Moms and dads are putting items back on the shelves in the grocery store because they can't afford them. Parents can't go back to work because they can't afford childcare. People's health insurance premiums are doubling and tripling because this majority has failed to act.
During election season, we heard from Trump and Republicans who swore up and down they would bring down prices. They promised the American people they would reverse inflation and focus like a laser on affordability. They have broken that promise. They have betrayed the American people.
If you want more evidence of that, look at the bills on the floor today: more garbage, more culture war crap, more bills written by this Republican majority of, by, and for the billionaire class.
Republicans moved Heaven and Earth to give tax breaks to the rich and powerful. That got done in a nanosecond.
If you are a regular person staring down next year's healthcare premium hikes and deciding whether to pay a thousand bucks more or put food on the table, the answer you get back from the Republicans is: Let them eat cake.
We are barreling toward another shutdown at the end of January. We could have spent the last 2 months working on passing the nine appropriations bills Republicans still need to pass to stop another shutdown. Instead, they went on a taxpayer-funded paid vacation for 8 weeks.
Let me just say, because we are debating a rule to consider these eight bills, this rule sucks. There are eight closed rules, no amendments, no changes allowed on the floor, take it or leave it. If you are keeping count at home, that is 80 completely closed rules this Congress, the most ever in a year.
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the gentlewoman because last night in the Rules Committee she said that five of these bills didn't receive any amendments. That is because she didn't ask for any. When you don't send an amendment deadline, everyone knows you are doing a closed rule.
My Republican colleagues have been complicit in these 80 closed rules. Nearly 9 out of 10 times, the majority party has not been allowed to bring amendments to the floor. They are getting blocked by their own leadership time and time again. How does that feel?
Again, this is a terrible rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while it is true there have been 80 closed measures, this number needs context. Twelve of the closed rules were in the rules package, which passed 2 weeks before the 119th Rules Committee even organized to begin meeting. Additionally, 25 measures were CRAs. They don't allow for an amendment. Sixteen were bills that received no amendments, meaning 41 measures were closed by definition. It is also important that four of the closed rules are duplicates from a previous failed rule. In reality, only 27 measures have been closed by discretion of the Committee.
Additionally, the Rules Committee under Republican control has simply been more productive, producing more total rules than our colleagues ever did. For example, during the most recent Democratic-controlled Congresses, the Rules Committee produced 127 total rules in the 116th Congress and 163 in the 117th Congress. Contrast this to the 200 total rules in the Republican-led 118th Congress. For the 119th, we are on pace to once again produce nearly 200 rules for the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, we are doing our job. We are not closing out debate. We are having plenty of debate. There are plenty of opportunities for our colleagues to offer amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, those are a lot of words to justify the most closed Congress in history, the most authoritarian Congress in history. It would make Putin blush.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 6074, which would extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits for 3 years, through 2028.
We are in the midst of a healthcare crisis. More than 20 million Americans who get their healthcare on the ACA exchanges are going to see their premiums skyrocket next year. That includes 250,000 people in my home State of Massachusetts, who are paying lower premiums and copays due to these tax credits, which Democrats created in 2021 and which are set to expire at the end of the year.
Let me read you some of the stories from folks in my district: I just received my letter, and my monthly costs have gone from $1,287 to $3,026 for next year. As a working family with a daughter who has an autoimmune disease, we are struggling, and I am working 50-plus hours a week just to pay the insurance.
Here is another one: With the Health Connector, I was paying $264 per month, acceptable seeing that I am healthy but not young. Without the advanced premium tax credit, my monthly premium will be just over $800 per month. I can't and I won't pay that. I will go without.
This is happening across the country, and for the sake of millions of Americans and their healthcare, I urge my Republican colleagues to support this bill and vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, after blatant obstruction and prolonged delay on the part of congressional Democrats for over 40 days, the House has returned to regular order. It is good to be back, and it is about time.
Today, we are here to advance eight separate measures that meet the demands of the American people and strengthen President Trump's successful America First agenda.
My constituents voted for the dissolution of the Biden bureaucratic barrage and for safety in their communities. From bolstering American energy dominance to upholding law and order, strengthening the criminal justice system in our Nation's Capital to rejecting the failed ideology of socialism, House Republicans continue to deliver measurable and substantive progress.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the eight underlying pieces of legislation. Let's continue delivering wins for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, shortly on the floor, Republicans are about to finally bring up the Massie-Khanna bill to release the Epstein files. We had to drag this leadership here kicking and screaming.
I appreciate their sudden and stunning change of heart on this issue, but I state for the record that the Republican leadership has tried to block this day for months and months and months.
I also want to state for the record that Donald Trump could release these files on his own, today, right now, right this very second. He doesn't need to wait for Congress to pass the bill. He could release the files himself, but he won't. That is why we are here, because he refuses to act.
Meanwhile, the Republican majority has blocked transparency at every turn. They stonewalled in committee. The gentlewoman from North Carolina and every Republican on the Rules Committee voted nine times to block my amendment to release the Epstein files, nine times.
Republicans were so afraid of my amendment that Speaker Johnson shut down the Rules Committee and sent us home early in July, and then he refused to swear in a new Member of Congress for weeks because she promised to be the 218th signature to force this bill forward. Only four Republicans signed the discharge petition. Every single Democrat signed on.
In a few moments, I am going to yield time to Representative Massie, who has been the Republican leader of this effort alongside Representative Khanna on the Democratic side. Here is why I am doing that: This bill should be getting a full hour of debate on the floor, but Speaker Johnson, I guess at Donald Trump's direction, is throwing every procedural gimmick at the wall to see what sticks, and he is trying to limit debate on the floor because for some reason he is very, very afraid of talking about this. That is why I am donating a significant chunk of my time to Members who have been silenced by the Speaker for the terrible crime of demanding truth and transparency.
If I had to guess, most Republicans will probably vote in favor of releasing the files, but they are not voting ``yes'' because their conscience changed. They are voting ``yes'' because Donald Trump tells most of them how to vote, and he realized he has lost on this one.
He says that people who support this bill ``betrayed the entire Republican Party.'' Really, really? How is accountability for a pedophile, something Donald Trump campaigned on, how is that now a betrayal? This was his issue, his idea. He ran on releasing the files.
By the way, to those who say that Biden should have released these files, let me just address that right now. You are right, he should have, but he didn't make it his number one issue, and he is not the President right now. Donald Trump is. He could have released the files at any point over the last 11 months, but he has not.
Republicans have had months to sign the discharge petition. They had months to bring this bill to the floor, but this leadership has chosen obstruction. They don't want to pass this bill. They don't even want to talk about it on the House floor, and so that is why debate matters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans don't oppose the full transparency of the Epstein files. We embrace the Oversight Committee's task of doing just that. We embrace Representative Massie's legislation here today by putting it up for a vote under suspension. I will be voting for it.
We already have a House investigation that carries the full force of law, and there is no opposition to respecting the majority's wishes to get this codified into law. Let's get to it. Let's get to the vote and end these false debates, straw man arguments, and non sequiturs.
We tried to pass this bill last week, but Democrats wouldn't agree to doing so. Let's vote now. Democrats should stop, listen, and take yes for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman doesn't oppose this? Boy, she has a funny way of showing it. I gave the gentlewoman nine opportunities in the Committee on Rules to bring this measure to the floor. I gave her nine opportunities. Every time I brought up an amendment, she voted it down. There were nine opportunities. To say that somehow this is always what they wanted, I don't know, but that doesn't pass the smell test.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership over the last 5 months to make sure that this bill came to the floor. I thank also Don Sisson for his leadership and understanding of all the rules to make this possible.
As we are here today, I saw on CNN that the President is meeting with the Saudi prince. What does America First mean to me? How about meeting with the survivors? How about making sure that America's girls are not being raped? That is what it means to be America First. It doesn't mean going and meeting with Saudi princes.
I am so honored to be here and to work together with Congressman Thomas Massie, who has shown so much courage and principle. I am so honored to be here next to Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Congresswoman Nancy Mace.
Someone ask me what I learned through this process. I said that sometimes we have to see people not just through their caricature. I had caricatures of Representative Greene, Representative Massie, and Representative Mace.
What I saw was they cared as Americans and human beings. They stood with courage. They looked at this not from politics, but they looked at this as what is right. I am proud today to be a Member of Congress. I am proud to work with them. I am proud of what we are showing this country is possible.
If we actually care about American values, maybe we can overcome some of the bitter divides in this country. If we didn't care about just getting the credit and maybe worked together, we could actually care about forgotten and abandoned Americans like the survivors that testified today. I was so moved by their testimony.
How can we hear their testimony, as all of us have heard, see their tears, see them hold up photos at the age of 14, and think they are not telling the truth? This is not politics. This is humanity.
Sometimes we get into these Chambers, and we forget what happened. We forget how we grew up. When most of us grew up, we went to barbecues. We went to Little League games. We went to church or temple. We didn't fly around in private jets and go to a rape island. We didn't buy off politicians and tell them to keep quiet. We didn't think that it was normal to abuse or rape young girls.
Then they say they don't know if they were 18 or 22. Come on. It is rotten. Then they say to just care about the price of eggs. Care about the price of healthcare. What is more important than that? American values are more important. These rich, greedy men abused American values. They abused what is sacred about this country. They abused what built this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, it is time. They are going to have a reckoning. The Epstein class is going to go. The reason they are going to go is because the progressive left and the MAGA right and everyone in between is finally waking up against this rotten system.
When people are united and when people work across the aisle, amazing things can happen because the American people are kind and good and decent.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to have worked with Congressman Massie. I particularly salute the courage of Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace. None of this would have been possible without their courage in standing up on the petition and for what they did.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
At the top of this page, I have written: ``Democrat hypocrisy on Epstein.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what we are hearing today.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I am proud to have supported the full investigation into the Epstein files on that committee.
Furthermore, I am proud to have supported formalizing that investigation by taking the decisive step in directing that investigation by a special rule provided by the Rules Committee. This gave the Oversight Committee's investigation the full weight of the House of Representatives behind the committee's existing subpoena power. It is very important in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, let's get things straight here. In just a matter of hours, we will vote on the Massie bill. That won't preclude the existing House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation in any way. That is a great thing because that investigation is yielding results.
We now know that one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest confidantes was apparently Larry Summers, a Cabinet member in the Clinton administration. We now know that a Democrat Member in this body, Stacey Plaskett, was colluding with Jeffrey Epstein in real time during a hearing. The subject matter was how to take down President Trump. We can't make this stuff up.
We now know that Epstein himself hated President Trump. It is in black and white. We now know that one of the chief Epstein victims stated that President Trump never acted inappropriately.
Don't forget that oversight investigations specifically subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton for their ties to Jeffrey Epstein. They haven't been quick to step into the breach and exonerate themselves, have they?
The truth will continue to come out, as it has, because of Republicans and a current Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation, one that already carries the full force of law. Let's see where that leads.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman says that we should just trust her and Republican leadership. After what I saw unfold over these last several months, I can't. There was obstruction and the use of every maneuver possible to avoid this moment we have here today.
I say for the record: It doesn't matter whether there are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents implicated in these files. We believe in accountability for everybody who abuses young women. We believe in justice. That is kind of what is uniting many of us on this side of the aisle here today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Khanna for his leadership. I thank Representative Massie, Representative Greene, and Representative Mace for their courage and for their willingness to stand up for what is right. We don't agree on very much, but we do agree there ought to be accountability when young women are abused. That is what this is about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) to control the time.
Mr. Speaker, today is an extraordinary day in this Chamber.
If my colleagues will vote for this measure, then we will see justice triumph over politics. Truth will triumph over deception and obfuscation. Transparency will triumph over dark money. Partisanship will fall away to bipartisanship, and grass-roots, the people, will reclaim the people's House with this vote.
It is going to be a victory for survivors; not just survivors of the Epstein sex trafficking scandal, but the 1,000 survivors who exist. Some of them are victims. They are no longer alive, and some have committed suicide. They share one thing in common: Their youth was robbed from them, and much of their lives were robbed from them. But they are claiming it back. We are going to help them claim that back.
However, it is not just a victory today if this vote prevails for those survivors. It is a victory for every person, man or woman, boy or girl, who has been victimized sexually in this country. Anybody who has been a victim of sexual assault, or maybe they have been victimized by a family member, maybe it is not a billionaire, but they are all waiting and watching to see what we do today.
They are wondering: If I go to mom or dad, will anything happen?
If I go to the sheriff, will anything happen?
We have a chance today to make something happen, something that has not happened, something that should have happened decades ago, and that is to get justice for these victims and survivors, and transparency for America.
That is what this vote is about today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today in a bipartisan effort to release the Epstein files finally after five administrations have covered it up.
Earlier today, I attended the press conference where the survivors-- they are not victims--the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse and sex trafficking told their stories. They told stories about how it started back in 1991 and 1996, and they continued on through the decades. They told stories about how they told someone and tried to get help. They told the FBI, and they weren't listened to. They told law enforcement, and no one did anything.
These women don't just number a few. These women number around 1,000 women, and they are victims of something that is unthinkable. This should have never, ever happened. This was the biggest fight I think I have seen in Washington, D.C. This is my fifth year here, and this was a fight that we should have never had to wage.
It should have been the easiest thing for every single Member of Congress. It should have been the easiest thing for the Speaker of the House. It should have been the easiest thing for the President of the United States to release all the information, every single file, on behalf of these American women.
These American women aren't rich and powerful elites. They do not have someone paying for their airline tickets or paying for their trips or paying for their expenses every time they try to do something to get this information out. These are your average Americans.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to know what the Epstein files represent, the coverup represents, to average Americans?
It represents the failures of the Federal Government in Congress to the American people, and that is what people rose up about in 2024. They wanted and demanded transparency from their government and for Americans; finally, to be put first.
Today, with this vote, we are finally putting these victims and these survivors of Jeffrey Epstein first and the cabal of rich and powerful elites that expands not just here in the United
You see, Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Americans have been put last, and they are sick of it. They are sick and tired of it. This is why they don't trust Congress. This is why they don't trust the government.
Here is the problem: All of these women are women who have suffered in shame for years and years and years. These are women who were terrified, women who were intimidated, and women who were threatened just like Virginia Giuffre, and now she is dead. These women should have never faced that for this information to come out.
We, especially the four Republican Members of the House of Representatives, should have never faced intimidation and threats for us to get this vote to come to the floor.
Never forget there were four: Thomas Massie, myself, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. We had to sign a discharge petition. We had to fight through intimidation, and we had to endure it for months to push that discharge petition finally to 218 to get this vote to come out.
This is what the American people are sick of, and rightfully so.
Now where does this go from here?
The question will remain: Will the Department of Justice release all the information?
Will the judge in New York release the information?
Will the CIA release the information?
Will foreign governments release their information?
Or will this continue after this vote today to be a coverup, a coverup of the rich and powerful elites who bond together in sex and human trafficking abuse and all types of global business that enriches them but never serves Americans?
The American people will know, and the victims--actually the survivors--of Jeffrey Epstein will know, because they know the list of names. I remain dedicated to my promise to read those names here on the House floor if those women ever find themselves in a place where it needs to be done.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the generosity of Representative Jim McGovern for granting us this time.
I am embarrassed for my own party today. I am embarrassed we withheld swearing in a duly-elected Representative of the people for 49 days just to avoid this vote that is finally going to happen today.
I am embarrassed that my own party isn't going to yield me time to debate this. Even though they say they support it and I authored it, they don't even want to yield me time to debate this during the bill debate.
However, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you whom I am thankful to: these three brave women, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. They have been threatened, and they have been intimidated physically and politically--it is disgusting--not by the far left. They have been intimidated by people in our own party.
For what?
It is for seeking justice for these victims.
So my hat is off. I congratulate them for standing strong.
I have always wondered: Where were the Republican men during this battle?
We have taken 5 months. These three women and I have had to drag our party to this floor today to even vote on this.
Ro Khanna is the most to be thanked here. In an extraordinary display of bipartisanship, he did not hesitate when I asked if we wanted to bring this bill to the floor together, if he would stand in the trenches with me. He said yes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we need to get facts straight here. President Trump's Department of Justice in his first term arrested and prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein. We, on our side, want justice to prevail in this case and in every case.
Speaker Johnson has always been clear that if the discharge petition reached the necessary signatures, then the House would consider the legislation, and that is what we are providing for in our rule today.
In fact, as soon as the petition hit 218 votes last Wednesday, House Republicans offered a unanimous consent request to pass the legislation then.
However, the Democratic leader would not give consent to do that last week.
Why?
It is because they are not really interested in this. They are interested in some other things.
Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the Record.
Mr. Massie did not request time from me. I am the person who controls the time on the Republican side. He did not request time from me. I would have given him time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Khanna, today for the time, for the 5 minutes on the floor to speak about an issue that is not political for me. Helping the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and his horrific, gruesome, brutal sex trafficking ring is deeply personal. While we often have many disagreements about a lot of issues, maybe most issues, today, they are allowing us to speak on the floor. My colleagues, Congressman Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert, the four of us, we are making history today over the discharge petition and delivering justice for those who have desperately fought for it for, in some cases, almost 30 years.
I wore white today because I wanted to reflect on the innocence of the young women who had their innocence stolen by a demon named Jeffrey Epstein, from demons, friends of his, rich and powerful people who stole their innocence at as young as 14 years old. It was taken from them, and they have never gotten it back.
I am also wearing white today to recognize the courage that it takes for women to come forward, the sacrifices of them personally, professionally, and financially. There is embarrassment, humiliation, and shame that we still deliver on the backs of women who have been brutalized, who have been raped, and who have been assaulted. There is shame that the media pours over their heads. Their colleagues, their friends, their neighbors, their loved ones--because you come forward and because you talk about sexual assault, you are not a slut. It is not because of what you wore. You are not a whore. That is how women are treated. You are not lying.
I want every woman to know, every Epstein survivor to know, every woman across the country who is a survivor, who is a victim of assault, that today, we see you. This fight and this vote tonight, I see it is about the Epstein victims, but it is about much more than the Epstein victims. This is about the powerless taking power away from the very powerful. This is about giving women who never had a voice a voice, giving a voice to the voiceless.
This is about their sacrifice. This is about having and recognizing their courage. This is about justice for the Epstein victims, but it is also about hope.
Earlier this year, I gave a speech right here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives detailing trauma that I experienced, endured, and am a survivor of that I accidentally uncovered 2 years ago, almost to the day. Today, I still don't have justice, like millions of women across the country.
When I spoke out, I got attacked. When I spoke out, I was shamed. When I spoke out, I was defamed and smeared. That goes on today, right now, in the present.
God sure has a funny way of working through us. Like many of the Epstein survivors and many other survivors across the country, I don't think I will ever heal from the destruction that abuser did to me. I can heal by being a vessel and being a voice for all those who need it, and that is why we are here today. That is why I will never abandon a single survivor ever, and I will never waver.
I spent my morning talking to law enforcement and others about another
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our colleagues want Americans to believe that this discharge petition and underlying legislation are the be-all and end-all in this investigation. However, it is House Republicans who have worked tirelessly to achieve true justice for victims.
To date, the significant information that has come out has come from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as a result of it issuing 13 subpoenas. We have released 65,000 pages of documents from the Department of Justice; the Epstein estate, which was not mentioned in the underlying legislation; the former U.S. attorney; and others.
Let me say it again. The unanimous-consent request to pass the legislation immediately last week was blocked by the minority leader, full stop. If Democrats truly cared about finding justice immediately for victims, this legislation would have been passed last week. Instead, they want political theater to capitalize on.
House Republicans, on the other hand, remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein's victims, not political points.
Mr. Speaker, all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, and we have had a lot of good men doing a lot of nothing on the other side of the aisle until we did something. Three brave women, myself, and the Democratic Caucus, we did something. Then, what did they do? They have opposed us every step of the way. They have lied about the legislation.
Let me tell you some of the lies they have told. They have said that it doesn't protect victims. Well, if that is so, why were dozens of victims with us today at a press conference, urging this body to pass this legislation? It is because this legislation specifically protects victims.
They have said this legislation does not prevent the release of child pornography. Of course it does. We have a specific provision in our legislation to prevent that.
They have said so many falsehoods about this legislation, but now they are going to vote for it--hopefully enthusiastically. Really, they have been drug to this.
Our judicial system is broken. If it were working, there wouldn't be a thousand victims who haven't seen justice yet. They are victims of the Epstein class.
I begrudge nobody's success if they become a billionaire, but if you think being a billionaire or buying politicians keeps you out of the judicial system, lets you rape young women, lets you traffic women, you have another thing coming when this bill passes.
Do not let the Senate muck this up. There have already been efforts to derail our discharge petition. The Oversight Committee has released thousands, tens of thousands of documents. That is fine. Keep working. How many names have they released? Zero.
They are still protecting, or the DOJ is protecting, pedophiles and sex traffickers. The time for that to stop is now.
Our Speaker says: Oh, this bill needs to be amended in the Senate, and specifically, he is trying to create a loophole. He is trying to categorize the pedophiles as victims. He is saying: Oh, we don't want to embarrass the people who went to the rape island. We should protect those names against unreliable accusations. Is he calling all of these victims unreliable?
They have testified to the FBI. The FBI has these names in their possession.
I asked the FBI Director in a hearing: Have you looked at the documents?
No. He trusts everybody who has been there for decades.
That is wrong. Do not let the Senate muck this bill up. If Senators are a party to that in the Senate, they are part of this coverup that we are trying to expose. I am sorry if one of their billionaire donors is going to get embarrassed because he went to rape island.
That is what they have coming. In fact, they need to be on the other side of bars, a lot of them. Some of them will be embarrassed, but some of them need to go to prison, and the survivors know that.
Mr. Speaker, how will we know if this bill has been successful? We will know when there are men, rich men, in handcuffs being perp-walked to the jail. Until then, this is still a coverup.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Senate colleagues: Do not muck up this bill.
The President has already said that he will sign it. That means that he will sign the bill that we have here today.
Do not change this bill. He is ready to sign it. Give it to him. Put it on his desk. Let's get justice for these victims.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first, let me say how much I admire the courage of my Republican colleagues who are beside me here today.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is not about us, and it is not about politics. This is about the survivors, young girls who were exploited by powerful men. These were men who used money and power to take advantage of girls, some as young as 11 years old.
The President of the United States calls it all a hoax. Can you imagine that? What an evil and disgusting thing to say. These young girls, now women, the survivors, what happened to them was horrific. They were sexually abused, many of them for years, and the President of the United States calls it all a hoax.
What kind of messed up, sick-in-the-head, immoral person says something like that? This bill is about making sure that powerful men are held accountable. It is about demanding truth and transparency for the American people.
Republican leaders in this House lost control of the story. They lost the ability to hide behind procedure, and they lost the luxury of pretending that they were ever on the right side. The American people see it. Survivors see it, and history will see it.
Listening to the Speaker of the House's press conference today, it sounds like he basically wants to kill this whole thing. He is trying to obstruct and derail the process.
Why the hell is he fighting so hard to do the opposite of what the survivors want? What an awful, awful thing to do.
Let us release the files. Let's give survivors the transparency they have long been denied. Let us take back power from the rich, billionaire elites who think that they can do whatever they want with no justice or accountability. Let's remember exactly who had to be dragged here under duress and who stood up from day one to demand the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who did not sign the discharge petition are just as concerned about the victims or, as some are calling them, survivors as our colleagues who signed the discharge petition.
We share contempt for anyone who abused anyone else. I have stood on this floor many times, Mr. Speaker, to speak out for victims and survivors of people who have been abused and against anyone who breaks the law or takes advantage of an innocent person.
We will not be characterized as insensitive to that, but House Republicans
Again, I will point out that it was under President Trump's Department of Justice that Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and tried. We have not tried to avoid this situation. We want things done the right way. We want maximum justice for these victims and survivors.
Our rule today simply expedites consideration of the Massie-Khanna legislation. As I said, we would have liked to have seen it pass last week when we gave an opportunity for it, but it was blocked by the Democratic minority leader.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for support for this rule and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 879 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4405) to require the Attorney General to release all documents and records in possession of the Department of Justice relating to Jeffrey Epstein, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4405.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we all support holding bad guys accountable, and we are all going to vote for this resolution, but I think a little perspective is important.
Democrats have spent 6 months talking about Epstein, even though they had 4 years to do something about it.
Mr. Speaker, why would they do that? Why would they do that? Maybe
For the past decade, there has been one constant for Democrats: Go after Trump.
They spied on his campaign. Then it was Mueller. Then it was impeachment one. Then it was impeachment two. Then it was all the lawfare: Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Letitia James. Then it was the Arctic Frost investigation at the Justice Department, surveilling United States Senators and Congressmen and a whole host of other Americans. Then it was Jack Smith and his gag orders and his raiding President Trump's home. Then it was a 43-day shutdown. Now it is Epstein.
By the way, the same party that did all that, they were also the ones who were texting with Mr. Epstein during a hearing where Michael Cohen was their witness in another effort to go after the President.
Americans see through it all and, frankly, it is actually kind of sad. This obsession, this syndrome, this mindset that says, we have to go after President Trump no matter what that they have.
Actually, when I think about it, I think it is because President Trump and Republicans have accomplished so much that they told the voters they were going to accomplish in the 2024 election. We are actually doing what we said we are going to do.
President Trump said he was going to cut taxes, and he did. President Trump said he would secure the border, and he did. President Trump said he would get men out of women's sports, and he did. President Trump said he would make sure Iran doesn't have nuclear capability, and he did. President Trump said he would get the hostages out of Gaza and back into Israel, and he did. He did this all in 9 months. I don't know what causes this mindset, this syndrome that the left has, but I know one thing: It is real.
Which brings me to last week.
Let's think about what the Democrats did last week. The Democrats released an email that the Oversight Committee had obtained from the estate, an email from Mr. Epstein to Ms. Maxwell. When the Democrats released it, they redacted the victim's name. That is something we all support, something everyone supports, except in this case, no court had ordered that name redacted. No agency had redacted it. The estate didn't redact it. The victim had already went public, so why black out a name? Why black out a name? Mr. Speaker, because she had said in her book and had testified under oath that she never saw any wrongdoing by President Trump.
Let's think about what they did. In an email between two criminals, Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, they hide the name of an individual who had went public and exonerated the President, and we know why: to distort and twist the message because they thought it might harm the President.
Their position: Cover up the names of people who are already public, but don't worry about other innocent people who the court said should remain private.
Again, I think the American people see through it. They see through what the Democrats are doing. The American people know what this is. They know Democrats have nothing else to run on because of the success of this administration.
Mr. Speaker, I say let's vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and then let's get focused on making sure we are doing what the American families elected us to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, 4 months and 3 days after Mr. Khanna and Mr. Massie introduced their discharge petition, perhaps the most famous discharge petition in American history, the people's House unites across party lines to draw a moral line. We draw a line against the rape and sexual violation of children. We draw a line against the global criminal trafficking of girls and young women to service the pleasure of rich and powerful men who believe they are beyond all law and all morality. We draw a line to put the voices of the victims and the survivors first.
We ask the Senate to join us without changes rather than obstruct this bill with dilatory amendments, legislative graffiti, and self- dealing, million-dollar jackpot provisions for lucky Senators.
Just pass the bill.
We are finally voting today because a bipartisan discharge petition, led by Representatives Massie and Khanna and signed by 218 of us, overthrew the determined obstruction of the Speaker. This forced vote means the House will no longer acquiesce in this astonishing real-time coverup of a multibillion-dollar global sex trafficking and child rape ring that has ravaged the lives of more than a thousand girls and young women.
We are here today because these victims, these survivors, these citizens, these inspiring women who have come to Washington are demanding nothing less than justice and the complete truth about who is responsible for their vicious abuse, including those responsible for enabling it, ignoring it, bankrolling it, and covering it up.
We join them today in rejecting any more dangerous lies about the crimes they suffered. No, child sex abuse is not a hoax. It is a crime. Human trafficking is not a hoax. It is a crime.
These crimes are a curse on children and young people across America, in universities and elementary schools, in churches and mosques and synagogues, in Boy Scout troops and college sports teams, in summer camps, anywhere the powerful and the rich believe they have the opportunity and the impunity to exploit the young, the poor, the powerless, and the vulnerable.
We must face the truth and find the coconspirators still at large in one of America's most extensive and sophisticated sex trafficking and child abuse rings in history.
Release of the file will expose the role of everybody who facilitated and covered up these crimes like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of New York Mellon, which executed billions of dollars in transactions related to these offenses, as well as any bank executives who participated in the sexual abuse of girls and young women.
We must expose everyone who covered up these crimes like Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami, Donald Trump's Labor Secretary, who gave Jeffrey Epstein an unbelievable sweetheart plea deal, immunized unnamed conspirators, and killed an investigation into Epstein's financial crimes that could have brought down the entire criminal network.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, I have always believed that sunshine is the best disinfectant. For years, the American people have demanded transparency about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's horrific crimes and about the Federal Government's failure to protect the victims.
The House Oversight Committee is conducting a thorough review of the Federal Government's investigation into Epstein. Our work goes far beyond the legislation before us today. We are committed to accountability, transparency, and justice for the American people and for the survivors of these appalling crimes.
To date, the Oversight Committee has released more than 65,000 pages of documents, issued 13 subpoenas, and conducted interviews with two key witnesses, both of whom were Republicans.
The Trump administration has provided us with Department of Justice materials and access to suspicious activity reports. Unfortunately, throughout this investigation, Democrats have chosen to manufacture yet another anti-Trump hoax instead of pursuing justice. They have mischaracterized witness testimony and selectively released documents, complete with targeted redactions in an effort to smear President Trump.
For example, former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, who oversaw the 2019 Epstein investigation, stated clearly under oath that the prosecution team found no evidence that President Trump committed wrongdoing.
Despite this simple and straightforward fact, Ranking Member Robert Garcia moments after that deposition, tiptoed out and publicly claimed that ``Barr could not clear Trump of wrongdoing.''
That was a lie, and we have the transcript to prove it. I invite the media to read the transcript.
When the Oversight Committee interviewed former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Alex Acosta, Democrats whipped themselves into a frenzy trying to manufacture a ``gotcha'' moment, but they failed.
Mr. Acosta dismantled the Democrats' narrative. His testimony confirmed there was no contact between President Trump and Mr. Acosta and no connection between President Trump in the Epstein case.
Next, Democrats resorted to selective leaks and doctored documents to mislead the American people.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Republicans have posted 65,000 pages of documents we have received to date. Democrats, by contrast, have released fewer than one dozen.
In their latest selective leak, Democrats released just 3 of the 23,000 pages of documents from the Epstein estate, and they made redactions to two of those emails that changed both the context and meaning of the three pages they released.
When CNN called them out for their deceptive redactions, Representatives Stansbury and Crockett tried to blame Republicans for their own edits, for the Democrat Committee on Oversight and Government Reform edits.
After Democrats released only 3 emails, Republicans released over 23,000 pages. What did Democrats say in response when we released every single document that we got? They claimed full transparency was meant to ``disorient'' or ``distract'' from their manufactured narrative. These are the same Democrats who chanted ``release the files'' every day--until the files contradict the story they want to tell. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
In contrast, full transparency exposed how Epstein appears to be TDS Patient Zero. The emails reveal that a journalist coached Epstein to blackmail then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, the files also show that a House Democrat colluded with Epstein during the 2019 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing with a discredited witness with a vendetta against President Trump. Unsurprisingly, Democrats have been silent about their colleague's coordination with Epstein.
Another email shows Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to an event or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries as part of their 2013 effort to win a majority. Hakeem Jeffries' campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein. That is what we found in the last document batch.
The files underscore why former President Bill Clinton must appear for his deposition. We have subpoenaed him. To date, the Democrats have done nothing to help us secure his appearance.
I support full transparency. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will continue to work to get the truth to the American people and to get justice for the victims. That is our goal of this investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I should just point out that we have heard now from the two distinguished chairmen of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and they have spoken almost exclusively to denounce Democrats.
We have a bipartisan coalition here demanding the truth about the largest child sex abuse and trafficking ring perhaps in American history, certainly in this century, and they want to just throw stones at the Democrats. What a remarkable failure of leadership we are seeing from the other side.
I imagine that the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will follow up his spectacular failure in trying to impeach President Biden with his spectacular failure in trying to block the resolution we brought to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia), the very distinguished minority leader on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear Republicans, and certainly the chairman of our committee, finally want transparency on this issue. It is time to end this White House coverup now.
We know that Donald Trump has tried everything to kill our Jeffrey Epstein investigation. He has failed, and now he is panicking. He is about to lose this Epstein vote to force the Department of Justice to release the files.
Let's be crystal clear. Trump has the power to release the files today. He does not even need a vote. He continues to defy the subpoena of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to release all the files. What is Donald Trump hiding? What is Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, hiding? Why won't they release the Epstein files right now?
He must explain to the public why he moved sex trafficker and monster Ghislaine Maxwell to a cushy, low-security prison after her interview with Trump's personal lawyer. He should declare, and every Republican should say, that she does not deserve a pardon or commutation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, we don't care how much money you have, what party you are in, or how powerful you are. We should get justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein.
Our work on the committee is not over. Next steps are the bank and financial records to follow and expose Epstein's network.
Today, there should be a unanimous vote on releasing the files, and we will get justice.
Mr. Speaker, I have consistently called for the maximum possible level of transparency when it comes to the heinous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. That is why I have consistently said that I am inclined to vote for this bill, and it is why I will be doing so today.
The victims deserve the truth. They deserve justice. They deserve closure.
For months, they have had to wake up every day to see the name of their tormentor on the front page of every newspaper, on every TV channel, as has the broader American public.
This issue has been so politicized by so many people in so many ways, which is deeply unfortunate when we are talking about matters of the highest sensitivity and untold suffering.
It is my hope that the passage of this resolution today, together with the work of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, will lead to the expeditious release of all pertinent material so that we can move on.
Let's get accountability. Let's get answers. Let's get this over with.
Mr. Speaker, thousands of girls, children, were abused by Jeffrey Epstein and his massive and powerful ring of pedophiles and protectors of pedophiles. We can't say all their names here. We don't have time. Let's at least bring a few of the courageous survivors and their names onto the House floor right here as we debate this: Haley Robson, Jena-Lisa Jones, Michelle Licata, Ashley Rubright, Annie Farmer, Marina Lacerda, and Rachel Benavidez.
These women have carried a burden that they never should have had to bear. Today, they demand, we demand, and the American people demand that we answer their clarion call to justice.
To be clear, there is no protection for pedophiles, no protection for the rich and powerful men of either party who participated, who turned a blind eye, and who winked and grinned while witnessing the horrific abuses of young children. Release all the damn files now.
Mr. Speaker, I have been very supportive of this effort, specifically to bring justice to the victims of this horrific series of crimes. However, I have worked behind the scenes to raise concerns with this petition as it is currently drafted.
Specifically, I believe that there is a grave risk of harming innocent people, and I repeat, harming innocent people. When innocent people are harmed, that is not furthering justice.
With an investigation of this size and a file that is as large as the Epstein files and as poorly defined as that is in this petition, there will invariably be people who are released, pursuant to this discharge petition, who had nothing to do with criminal activity. Imagine, if you will, a bellman, a waiter, some type of doorman, a mere social attendee who had no impact whatsoever on the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein, no participation. Their lives are forever ruined.
I am reading specifically from the petition's language that ``prohibited grounds for withholding'' information in this file are ``embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.''
I would just submit that if you were going to be embarrassed, if you were going to suffer social harm, and that is all the encompassed activity that you were a part of, you will be named in this petition.
I resent that. Innocent people should not be harmed when we are pursuing justice.
I understand the political nature of this petition. I resent the fact that there was not room for good faith amendments, and I urge the Senate to protect innocent people.
Mr. Speaker, one in three women and girls around the world are physically and sexually assaulted each year. Of the 152 women in this body, that means 51 women. It includes your daughters, your sisters, your nieces, your mothers.
With the Epstein files, we have a chance to change that. However, real talk: The administration doesn't need a discharge petition. It has not complied with the subpoena, and it has the power to release the files today.
Instead, the man in the most powerful position in the world has used the full weight of the government to block, obfuscate, and deflect the full release of the files. It is the same person who intimidated female Members of Congress to withdraw their names from the petition, who responded ``Quiet, piggy'' to a female reporter who asked about the files, and who nominated an alleged sexual predator to be our AG. It is the same person whose name appears more than any other in the Epstein emails.
In the pantheon of violence, a sexual predator is the worst of the worst, so why protect him? It is also curious that the Judiciary Committee is managing this debate and has not even had this come before the committee. I wonder why. Release the files now.
Mr. Speaker, today a united Republican Party and a bipartisan supermajority is going to pass a bill to increase transparency regarding the egregious abuses by Jeffrey Epstein, a goal that anyone of conscience desires. That is in totality an important statement to check the rich and powerful.
Remember how we got here. After decades, it was President Trump's Department of Justice that indicted Jeffrey Epstein in July 2019. It was President Trump's DOJ that arrested and indicted Ms. Maxwell. It was the Republican-led Oversight Committee, through 13 subpoenas, that has released 65,000 pages of files in just 10 months.
Meanwhile, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have largely ignored this issue. It was Democrats who redacted an email to mislead the American people about the truth of a witness that exonerated President Trump. It was a Democrat, Representative Plaskett, who literally texted with Jeffrey Epstein as we questioned Michael Cohen. It was Democrats who shut down the government, resulting in the delay of swearing in of Members.
As we vote to pass this legislation--and it will pass--it is impossible, however, to avoid problems with its politicization. One colleague has offensively gone so far as to say that to oppose this bill means you support pedophiles. Yet, I know good public servants, former law enforcement, and former prosecutors who never knew Epstein and never knew any visitors to his criminal enterprise who have genuine concerns about supporting this bill out of fear of creating new victims or harming existing victims or both.
That is what we have reduced Congress to, inserting itself into the prosecutorial process for political motivations, driven heavily by hatred of President Trump.
We should be concerned about victim privacy, risking disclosure of noncredible allegations of child sexual abuse materials, and future investigations. However, here is the deal: The leaders of this Nation must expose abuses by the rich and powerful. That is why President Trump and the House have been working for full transparency, but we should be motivated by truth and justice for all, not politics.
Mr. Speaker, this should be an easy vote. This is about justice for the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. This is about every victim of trafficking and sexual abuse, monstrous crimes that thrive in secrecy and fear.
Yet, instead of shining a light on that darkness, just moments ago, Donald Trump defended the continued obstruction of releasing these files. Even as House Republicans prepared to vote ``yes'' today, Speaker Johnson is calling this a show vote. He is calling it dangerous. He is signaling the U.S. Senate to block it.
Republicans continue to use their power to shield rich pedophiles from justice. If you can't stand up for these survivors, how can anyone trust you to stand up for them?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just very quickly, what happened under the Biden administration? Well, under the Biden administration, Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted for conspiring to sexually abuse and traffic girls in 2020. In 2021, she was convicted, in December of 2021, after a month-long trial in Judge Nathan's courtroom. In 2022, Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison under the Biden administration for sex trafficking and sexual abuse of minors.
When President Trump took office in January of 2025, they killed the investigation. They assembled all the materials, they got all the prosecutors together, and they terminated the investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support to release the Epstein files. First, this issue is beyond party. It is a question of justice. Survivors have waited too long. Stop the delay. This is not a hoax. Release the files.
Second, we must face a hard truth. Silence that shields the powerful is a betrayal of those they hurt. Congress must reject any attempt, including a Presidential pardon or any form of clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell. This cannot be done. This would be a coverup. We cannot allow clemency of any kind for Maxwell, not now, not ever.
Survivors deserve justice. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, there were thousands of girls and young women abused, trafficked, and used by Epstein and the elite and the powerful who believed they could get away with it.
Epstein told the young victims that he controlled the banks and the government.
Those women refused to be silenced. Today, they have pierced the dark with their light.
Anytime any girl is trafficked, molested, or abused, the world must stand up. Today, the House proves Jeffrey Epstein wrong. The Senate must do the same tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, a minute and a half or an hour, the words would still have to be the same. We have all said that this will pass the House, perhaps unanimously, today.
I think all of us who have looked at the details of this particular bill know that it is flawed and that before it goes to the President's desk it has to be amended, as it can be amended in the Senate. We call on the Senate to amend it so that we protect the innocent, so that we have the provisions that were intended, perhaps, to be in this bill but are not properly written.
With that, President Trump has said get it to his desk, and he will sign it. President Trump has said he will do it. However, I am going to say to all of us: It is also important that we remember that Epstein is dead, but people live on, people who were innocent, people who, in fact, should not be named.
We are not talking about the rich and the powerful. We are talking about the very victims. That is what we need to make sure is amended before it goes to the President's desk.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his time. I think no more needs to be said. This body will vote for it all. But let's not kid ourselves, it has to be changed so that it properly protects both the tradition of the grand jury and, clearly, those innocent people that would otherwise be swept up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This whole bill is about protecting the innocent. Mr. Speaker, the Senate must pass the bill, as we are passing it today and as the President has said he would sign it, after changing his position on the bill over the weekend when he could see the tidal wave of public opinion moving against him. Let's pass this bill. Pass it in the Senate. Sign the bill, and let's go ahead and release the complete file.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari).
Mr. Speaker, the walls are closing in on Donald Trump and his rich and powerful friends who either abused or raped children or who were enabling and complicit in these heinous crimes for decades.
This vote today matters, but here is the truth: Donald Trump could direct the Department of Justice to release the files today. He is choosing not to. Led by Oversight and Government Reform Democrats, they are already under subpoena and have refused. This is an ongoing cover- up by the Trump White House. Mike Johnson and the White House have been complicit.
Mr. Speaker, what is Trump hiding? Why not release the files today? Release the files today.
Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about hypocrisy. Let me be clear. I was a cosponsor of this very bill from the beginning, from jump start, because we should never protect pedophiles.
For months, my Democratic colleagues have done what they think is politically convenient through all the yelling, through all the tears, and through all the sadness.
They say releasing the Epstein list is of grave concern to them. If that was true, where were they during the 4 years of the Biden Presidency? Why didn't they demand the release of these files from jump start in year one? Mr. Speaker, why didn't they ask for them in year two? If that wasn't good enough, why didn't they ask for them maybe in year three? They had control. They didn't even ask in his final year of office.
Other than a single letter the ranking member wrote in 2019, a single letter, not one Democrat on the committee spoke out about Epstein or his victims of this very terrible tragedy, other than to say he didn't like the plea deal.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this: When they stand here today, insisting how badly they want these files released, why didn't they do it? Yet they stayed silent for year after year after year under Joe Biden.
It is impossible. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to see that as genuine. What I see is a group more focused on scoring political points and drama than protecting abused children.
Mr. Speaker, the record is clear. Under Republicans, far more information has been released in the last 6 months than was done during all 4 years of the previous Presidency under Joe Biden. We have actually been the party of transparency. We have released the information. We have told the truth. Unfortunately, and I am sad to say it, they have been the party of hypocrisy.
Mr. Speaker, I have never heard a more defensive presentation in my life than we are hearing from over there. The gentleman should spend a little less time pointing out hypocrisy and a little more time trying to ferret out cruelty, humiliation, and rape. That is what we are working on.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Min).
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues we are all here voting on the bill because President Trump, who has the power to release the Epstein files at any time, has refused to do so. He called this a hoax.
We are here because Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to kill and delay the discharge petition, including refusing to seat Adelita Grijalva for over 40 days and threatening House Republicans who signed on.
Several of my Republican colleagues have accused us who support justice here of having Trump derangement syndrome. They suffer from something much worse, which is pedophile protection syndrome.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stop protecting pedophiles. Release the Epstein files. The victims deserve justice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, for years, we have watched dangerous conspiracies like Pizzagate and QAnon shape our political landscape. They helped fuel the rise of President Trump and were built on baseless claims about secret pedophile rings, while the real documented case of child sex trafficking involving Jeffrey Epstein remains shrouded in secrecy because President Trump refuses to release the files.
Mr. Speaker, what is President Trump hiding? Why won't he release the files? The House finally has the opportunity to act. Release the files, and let the American people see the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva), who is finally with us, the Representative from Arizona's Seventh Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the survivors, family members, and advocates who are here today and have never given up.
The legislation in front of us at its core is about something very simple. The survivors deserve justice. The American people deserve the truth.
To every survivor watching, their courage is inspiring. They are the reason why this vote is happening today. Protecting women and children from pedophiles should not be a Democratic issue. It should not be a Republican issue. It should be a human rights issue and a matter of justice.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Epstein File Transparency Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, for far too long, the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse were failed by a justice system that minimized their suffering and prosecutors who treated young girls as if they were criminals. That was wrong.
I am here with my colleagues to promise that we will get to the bottom of why the Epstein survivors were treated so badly, who made those decisions, and who they were protecting. There will be no more secrecy and no more excuses.
Mr. Speaker, we all deserve the truth, and I thank the survivors for their courage and perseverance. Their voices are being heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for doing such an extraordinary job on all of this.
Mr. Speaker, for 43 long days, the Democrats held this House and the entire country hostage. Finally, with the lights back on, this body is returning to our regular legislative session. We have a lot of work to do.
My colleagues on this side of the Chamber are ready and eager to get back to our urgent legislative work we promised the American people we would do.
Just to name a few of those priorities, we have to continue lowering the cost of healthcare. We have to bring down prices for American families. We have to finish the regular appropriations process.
I wish I could say that our first order of business would be to get to those urgent priorities. However, of course, we are spending time on the floor about something else. This is something we could have resolved last week when we brought a unanimous consent to pass this discharge with the full support of the body.
Mr. Speaker, our friends over here, who are arguing today, stalled that. They objected to it. They wanted to have this exercise instead. That is why we say that this is a ``show'' vote. That is what this is. They are making a show of it, and it really is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, we have some heroic women in the Chamber today. I met with many of them a while back. They are here in the gallery. They have come forward. They have shown their faces. They have used their names to share the unspeakable tragedies that many of them were subjected to, some of them when they were very young. It is a heroic service to the country.
They are seeking justice, and justice has been delayed for too long. The Department of Justice many years ago should have brought these charges. It took too long to do it.
Now we are in this process of making sure all the American people get the information, but we have to do it in the right way.
After 4 years of Democratic control under President Biden, they were not truthful with us about a lot of things. The Democrats insisted the border was secure. We knew it wasn't. They insisted that inflation was transitory. We knew it wouldn't be. They misled the American people about the obvious mental and physical decline of the previous Commander in Chief. Now those same Democrats are demanding transparency. Suddenly transparency is their new word.
Out of nowhere, they have taken a curious concern in the Epstein investigation, all in the name of transparency.
However, the question has been asked here many times during the debate on the floor and everybody is questioning why it is that the Democrats have done this right now. We have to look at the obvious facts.
The Democrats had all the Epstein files in their possession for 4 long years under the Biden Presidency. The Biden Department of Justice had these files, and no one on this side, who is breathless today about the urgency of this release, ever said a word about it. It was the Democrats who could have urged President Biden's Department of Justice to go beyond prosecuting just Epstein and Gislaine Maxwell, but they didn't do it. It is a fair question to ask today: Why now? Why the sudden urgent interest in Jeffrey Epstein?
We know why. It is because the Democrats were never interested in transparency or executing justice or protecting the victims of this unspeakable tragedy before. The simple truth is obvious for everybody to see. This is a political exercise for Democrats. It pains me to say it. I wish that was not the truth, but it is, and it is undeniable. This is as deceitful and dishonest as their pointless stunt was to shut the government down.
Democrats are using the Epstein tragedy, the unspeakable evils that this guy committed with his trafficking ring and all of the abuses that they made these young women go through, they are using that as a political weapon to try to distract from their failures as a party and to try their best to try to tie President Trump somehow into this wretched scandal.
The President had nothing to do with it. He has been very clear. He has nothing to hide. That is why he endorsed the vote today. I suspect this vote will be probably unanimous.
Here is the important point that everybody needs to understand: We have been advocates of maximum transparency, but we have also insisted that the victims be carefully protected. The Oversight Committee has been doing extraordinary work. We have got some of the most vigorous advocates on the Republican and Democrat side on the Oversight Committee. They have been working in earnest to deliver transparency for the American people and to do it in a responsible manner.
What do we mean by that?
The bipartisan effort over there is already producing all the results that the discharge petition seeks and much, much more. Chairman Comer and all of these advocates over there have been releasing thousands of documents, for example, from the Epstein estate. By the way, in my view, that has been the greatest treasure trove of information because it has yielded for us Epstein's own personal flight logs, his financial records, his daily calendars, and so much more.
Importantly, none of that was addressed or is addressed in the legislation that is being voted on today. The estate files wouldn't even have been encompassed in that. It goes to show that the Oversight Committee is doing it in the right way.
From the very beginning, we have been insistent that this matter be handled carefully and with the utmost caution and care for the people who have been harmed. They should not be made to suffer any longer.
We are talking about real people's lives at stake here and young victims who don't want to be dragged into this political game who could get hurt further. However, the Democrats are rushing to release the thousands of unsubstantiated documents that may be included in this that may be in the public domain with the passage of this bill.
There are serious deficiencies in the legislation that I have noted at length,
I stood before the American public today at our press conference, and I explained in detail the dangers of the discharge petition. We have posted it at my website, speaker.gov, a summary that the legal counsel, a small army of lawyers, have put together. I used to be a Federal Court litigator. Many of my colleagues who have spoken today were. We understand the dangers of how this was haphazardly drawn up.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document titled ``How the Flaws of H.R. 4405 Could Revictimize Epstein's Victims, Create New Victims, and Damage the Judicial System''.
It summarizes just five or six of the major concerns.
Among them, it fails to fully protect victim privacy. It could create new categories of victims. It potentially jeopardizes grand jury secrecy.
It fails to prohibit release of child sexual abuse materials that are not appropriately defined in the legislation. It jeopardizes future Federal investigations. Moreover, we have national security concerns regarding classified information.
We will put this in the Record because we need the legislative Record to reflect what is the legislative intent behind this vote. I used to litigate cases. We used to litigate Federal statutes and whether or not they could survive, and legislative intent is important.
We need to state clearly for the record, and as Speaker of the House, I am saying to you this legislation that will pass today is flawed, and it must be amended.
The question is: Why didn't we amend it here before we passed it?
It is because the authors won't allow it.
It is because under the rules of the House under a discharge petition, they have to agree to consent for the legislation to be amended, and they are not doing that. Now we rely on our partners in the other Chamber to get that done, and they need to do that.
The victims deserve our utmost respect. In fact, they should be saluted for their courage. The young women who have not come forward, and some of them are middle-aged women who have not come forward, also deserve our respect, and they deserve to be protected.
Republicans support transparency. We want maximum transparency, especially when it comes to disclosing the names of anybody who had anything to do with these evils, anybody who conspired with or aided in any way Jeffrey Epstein must be brought to justice.
We want the bill to be amended so it doesn't at the same time violate victim privacy, create new victims, disclose the names of any whistleblower or informant, cause the release of grand jury materials or child sexual abuse materials, or undermine our national security. If and when the Senate takes this up, we will work with our colleagues over there to make sure that these things are corrected.
I will just close with this simple thought.
We have been at this a while, and it has dragged on for a while, but it is time for this to come to light.
I expect that this will be a unanimous vote, and it will reflect what I think every Member in this Chamber--
I told all my Members today I will be voting ``yes'' on this, and I suspect almost everyone will. We will send it to the Senate, and I hope it is corrected.
Is this an appropriate time to point out that the Republicans named children's savings accounts in their so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act after Donald Trump, someone connected to--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman is no longer recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity of the Speaker's presence to respond to some of the things that he said. In the very presence of the victims and the survivors who have come to join us today, the Speaker said that now would be the time we should be working on urgent legislative work.
Mr. Speaker, justice is urgent legislative work. The truth is urgent legislative work.
The Speaker says: Why now? Why now?
Mr. Speaker, you were the one who refused to swear in Adelita Grijalva for 50 days. We would have done it 50 days ago, but she provided the 218th signature on the discharge petition.
So why now?
It was because of your dilatory tactics, your delay, your postponement of it.
Now the gentleman says that there are not sufficient protections. There are protections in the bill for the victims to make sure that their names will be redacted. Yet, we hear even the Speaker of the House of Representatives openly inviting the U.S. Senate to start finger painting on this bill which we have waited more than 5 months to bring to the floor.
The Senate should pass the bill exactly as it is written. The President should sign it exactly as he said he would when he finally changed his mind, and the Epstein file must be released. Moreover, if the President is serious about what he is saying, he has got the power to release the Epstein file right now. Nobody is stopping him. It is within his possession. It is within his control. He can release the whole thing, and he can redact the names of the victims and others who are innocent in this process.
Mr. Speaker, Speaker Johnson said that these are unspeakable evils. However, because of the bravery and the invincible courage of the women who joined us today, they are no longer unspeakable.
They are spoken. They are articulated. The cat is out of the bag. We know what has been going on for decades. It has been a double standard of justice going all the way back to Alex Acosta, who got later rewarded with a Cabinet appointment in the Trump administration.
Alex Acosta had a 60-count Federal indictment ready to go against all kinds of people for an interstate sex trafficking conspiracy, with solicitation, child sex abuse, all of it. He traded that 60-count Federal indictment for 1 count in State court.
Jeffrey Epstein ended up getting the sweetest of sweetheart deals ever on the plea bargain front. He was free from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. to do whatever he wanted in continuing to perpetrate his crimes and run his conspiracy. Then he would come and would watch TV and spend the night in jail. It was over in about a year. This was after the rape and sexual abuse of hundreds and hundreds of girls. He kept going, and he kept at it.
We want the whole truth to come out.
This is the United States of America. Even the British monarchy wouldn't put up with this. How about the American democracy? How about we say: No way. We are not going to allow this coverup to go on for 1 day more.
I am glad the President changed his mind after pulling out all the stops to try to get one of our Republican colleagues to change their mind, to remove their name from the discharge petition. He gave up.
I want to salute the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) for having the courage to stand her ground in the Situation Room in the White House and say, no, she wasn't going to be bullied.
I am glad the President changed his mind, but let's be clear: Mr. President, you have the power today to release the entire file. That is what you called for. That is what Pam Bondi called for. That is what Kash Patel called for. We don't need anybody calling for the Senate to slow things down for more weeks and more months.
The American people have had it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair and not to their colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party, with help from the dishonest media, used the Epstein files not to seek justice for the victims but to smear President Trump, and it is sickening, quite sickening.
The Democrats have used the Epstein files to distract the American people from the wins President Trump and his administration have delivered for the American people for the last 11 months.
I am proud to work with my Republican colleagues on the House Oversight Committee, in coordination with the Justice Department. Mr. Speaker, 65,000 pages of documents related to Epstein have been released.
What have my Democrat colleagues done? They have selectively leaked and altered documents to mislead the American people.
As President Trump has stated, we have nothing to hide, nothing to hide here. I am voting to release the files so that we can move on from this smear campaign the Democrats have manufactured. God bless Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank all of America for tuning in to this. I thank Representatives Massie, Khanna, and Greene and all of those who have insisted upon bringing the truth forward and a reckoning with the reality of one of the worst international child sex trafficking rings ever to exist in the United States and the coverup attendant to it.
We have the opportunity today to do justice for the victims, for the survivors who have come forward to say that the voice of the victims and the survivors must be put at the very center of our deliberations, not shunted off to the side, not submerged, not subordinated, but put at the very center. We must hear from the people who themselves were victimized by this nightmare.
Now, our colleagues across the aisle seem to want to make this into some sort of partisan contest. I haven't heard so much talk about the Democrats since the Democratic National Convention. All that we have done here is to say we want to bring the truth forward, along with a bipartisan group. We don't want the Senate monkeying around with this in order to slow things down. We want it passed in the Senate. We want it signed.
Before that, if the President is true to his word, and he wants to see all of this come to light, he can release it now instead of fighting, kicking and screaming every step along the way. I am glad he has changed his mind, and I hope he maintains the momentum he has to stick with the vast majority of the American people who want to see that the truth is done here. While he is at it, the administration could reconsider their terrible policies gutting Federal offices and programs designed to combat violence against women.
The DOJ terminated hundreds of grants to police departments, defunding the police when it comes to investigating violent sex crimes and to support victims. His DOGE destroyed programs to combat international human trafficking rings. Let's get back on the side of the women.
Mr. Speaker, Speaker Johnson said it right: Why now after 4 years of doing nothing? It is because going after President Trump is an obsession with these guys.
The best example is that John Brennan testified in front of our committee under oath and said he was not involved with the dossier. The only problem is, Tulsi Gabbard declassified a report, released that report, and it said exactly the opposite. She related a story in there where a CIA official went up to Mr. Brennan and said: We shouldn't include this in the report. John Brennan's response was: Yeah, but doesn't it ring true? Forget the facts. Forget the truth. Go after Trump. Put it in. The same dynamic is at work here.
We are all for protecting innocent victims. We are all for exposing the bad guys who did bad things, but this is an obsession with the left. For 10 years, they have been going after President Trump.
Vote ``yes'' to make sure the bad guys are held accountable. We all want to do that. Speaker Johnson is right. I think it is going to be unanimous, but understand what they are doing because they had 4 years and didn't do a darn thing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4405.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules will be followed by 5- minutes votes on:
Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 879;
Adoption of House Resolution 879, if ordered; and
Adoption of H. Res. 878.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 427, noes 1, not voting 5, as follows:
Messrs. JACKSON of Texas and DAVIS of Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Providing for Consideration of S.J. RES. 80, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 879) providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 80) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 130) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision''; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 58) denouncing the horrors of socialism; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1949) to repeal restrictions on the export and import of natural gas; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3109) to require the Secretary of Energy to direct the National Petroleum Council to issue a report with respect to petrochemical refineries in the United States, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5107) to repeal the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 enacted by the District of Columbia Council; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5214) to require mandatory pretrial and post conviction detention for crimes of violence and dangerous crimes and require mandatory cash bail for certain offenses that pose a threat to public safety or order in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 211, not voting 5, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize a man whose dedication, steadiness, and wisdom have shaped not only my work in this Chamber but the work of this institution itself. I am talking about my chief of staff, Brett Horton.
There are few people who know Capitol Hill more intimately than Brett. For 15 years, he has been by my side. He began as my counsel in 2010 and worked his way through some of the most demanding, consequential roles in the House: policy director at the Republican Study Committee, floor director in the majority whip's office, and for the last decade, my chief of staff in both the whip's office and the leader's office.
To me and to countless Members of Congress and staff, Brett Horton has been far more than a colleague. He has been a trusted adviser, steady in his approach, wise in his counsel, and deliberate in his words and actions.
When the stakes were the highest, Brett's voice was the one you wanted in the room. His fingerprints are on every major Republican policy victory we have achieved in the past decade, but perhaps more importantly, he has been by my side through tough personal and professional challenges that extend far beyond legislating.
In the aftermath of the congressional baseball shooting, an event that shook my family, my staff, and this entire Conference and Congress, Brett's leadership and friendship were unwavering. He helped carry us through one of the most difficult and unprecedented challenges we ever faced.
Mr. Speaker, public service at this level demands trust, character, and unwavering duty for the institution that is this United States Congress. Brett Horton embodies all of these qualities. I am profoundly grateful for his years of service to me personally, to this House, and to our country.
As Brett begins his next chapter, I have no doubt he will continue to serve with the same excellence that has defined his entire career. The United States House of Representatives is a stronger institution because of Brett Horton's distinguished service here.
I wish Brett all the best in his future endeavors, and I thank Brett for his personal friendship and for his service to this great United States of America and this great Congress. Thank you to Brett Horton.
Providing for Consideration of S.J. RES. 80, Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 879) providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 80) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 130) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision''; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 58) denouncing the horrors of socialism; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1949) to repeal restrictions on the export and import of natural gas; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3109) to require the Secretary of Energy to direct the National Petroleum Council to issue a report with respect to petrochemical refineries in the United States, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5107) to repeal the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 enacted by the District of Columbia Council; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5214) to require mandatory pretrial and post conviction detention for crimes of violence and dangerous crimes and require mandatory cash bail for certain offenses that pose a threat to public safety or order in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; and for other purposes, on which a recorded vote was ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, noes 210, not voting 6, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Disapproving the Behavior of Representative Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia of Illinois
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 878) disapproving the behavior of Representative Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia of Illinois, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, nays 183, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 10, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)1 of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Censuring and condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett and removing her from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for conduct that reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives for colluding with convicted felony sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing.
Whereas Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate representing the United States Virgin Islands in the House of Representatives, inappropriately coordinated with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a congressional hearing in February 2019;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett was actively coached by Epstein during the hearing, received instructions on specific lines of questioning, and was congratulated afterwards with the message ``Good work'';
Whereas Jeffrey Epstein was a known, convicted felony sex offender, having pled guilty and been convicted for procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute in a plea deal in 2008, and served a 13 month sentence;
Whereas in the course of that investigation, the FBI compiled reports on dozens of confirmed minors who credibly alleged sexual abuse by Epstein;
Whereas Epstein was under further Federal investigation beginning in November 2018, two months before Delegate Plaskett's recently revealed text exchange during a congressional hearing, following investigative reporting by the Miami Herald detailing Epstein's controversial 2008 plea deal and highlighting accounts of his victims;
Whereas Epstein was arrested in July 2019 and charged with one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors, and he was later found dead in the New York Metropolitan Correctional Center;
Whereas according to documents released from Epstein's estate, during a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing featuring testimony from Michael Cohen, disgraced former attorney to President Donald J. Trump, Delegate Plaskett coordinated her line of questioning with Jeffrey Epstein in real-time over text message while the hearing was underway;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett, who previously served as an assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, is known to have had extensive political, personal and professional connections with Epstein after his conviction as a sex offender up to the time of his arrest and then death in 2019;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett's relationship with Epstein stands in stark contrast to the public image she has curated for herself as a defender of justice and accountability while secretly collaborating with an individual whose crimes against vulnerable women and children shocked the nation;
Whereas Delegate Plaskett's willingness to receive instructions on official congressional proceedings from Epstein, a convicted felony sex offender with deeply concerning international associations, is especially alarming and inappropriate given her own past service in the U.S. Department of Justice and her current role on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and raises serious questions about Delegate Plaskett's judgement, integrity, and fitness to serve; and
Whereas such associations erode public trust in Congress, particularly when they involve using input from a sex offender to advance partisan attacks during official proceedings: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved,
Section 1. Censure of Delegate Stacey Plaskett.
The House of Representatives--
(1) censures and condemns Delegate Stacey Plaskett for inappropriate coordination with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a Congressional Hearing, which reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives; and
(2) directs the Committee on Ethics to conduct a full investigation into the extent of Plaskett's ties to Epstein and any potential further improprieties.
SEC. 2. Removal from House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The following named Member be, and is hereby, removed from the following committee of the House of Representatives:
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: Ms. Plaskett.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina to offer the resolution just noticed.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina offer the resolution?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have finally taken a vote that recognizes the need for the survivors and victims of Jeffrey Epstein to have justice and transparency. Not minutes later, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) is filing yet another partisan resolution.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this motion to refer this to the Ethics Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to refer.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 289, AYE on Roll Call No. 290, AYE on Roll Call No. 291, AYE on Roll Call No. 292, and NAY on Roll Call No. 293.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the House of Representatives has a responsibility and a duty to protect the integrity of this institution. What we learned from the documents released by Jeffrey Epstein's estate is nothing short of alarming.
Those documents show that Delegate Stacey Plaskett, a sitting Member of Congress, coordinated her questioning during an official oversight hearing with a man who is a convicted sex offender, a man whose crimes against minors shocked this entire Nation.
Let me be clear: This was not just casual contact. There were deliberate communications, and they shaped her official line of questioning in a congressional hearing.
The American people expect honesty. The American people expect integrity
This resolution does not accuse. It acknowledges what is documented. It censures Delegate Plaskett for her conduct; removes her from the Intelligence Committee, where her judgment is paramount; and directs a full investigation into the extent of her relationship with Mr. Epstein.
Some will try to spin this as politics, but protecting the honor of this body is not partisan. It is not Democrat. It is not Republican. Standing against a convicted predator's influence in our proceedings is not partisan. It is basic decency.
We cannot pretend this didn't happen. The American people deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. We are here today on the floor to support the complete disclosure of information related to Jeffrey Epstein and his billion-dollar, international child sex-trafficking ring. Our side of the aisle, at least, supports the release of information relating to anybody who had anything to do with it, whether they are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or what have you, period. We insist on complete, full disclosure.
This resolution has nothing to do with that. This seems to me to be one more pathetic effort to distract and divert attention from the fact that the President's name appeared more than 1,000 times already in the small fraction of material released on Epstein and from the failure of the majority to move to disclose this information.
It is this bipartisan group that we have had behind the discharge resolution, which has insisted on bringing this to the floor, and we have gotten nothing but obstruction, opposition, resistance, evasion, distraction, and diversion from the other side, and now we get one more resolution like this.
The resolution actually proposes a disciplinary censure against Representative Stacey Plaskett but, amazingly, alleges no misconduct. It does not allege a violation of the Constitution. It does not allege the violation of a Federal law or a State law or a local law. It does not even allege a violation of the ethics rules of the House of Representatives. Yet, they want to censure her and throw her off of her committee--this, a distinguished former Federal prosecutor, diligent public servant, and Representative of the people of the Virgin Islands.
Mr. Speaker, criminal justice has two parts to it. One is insisting upon legal accountability for people who do wrong. The other part of it is due process, which may be the two most beautiful words in the English language, certainly the two most beautiful words in the Constitution of the United States. It is due process that protects all of our freedoms and our rights against the arbitrary power of government and the will to just punish somebody without any process at all.
That is exactly what is going on here. Think about it. Ghislaine Maxwell had due process. She had a right to counsel. She had a right to hearings. She had a right to hear the evidence against her. She had a right to put on her case. She had a right to cross-examine. She had a right to a neutral, impartial tribunal. She had a right to a unanimous verdict of a jury.
All of that she had, and she was found guilty. That is why she was sentenced to jail for 20 years, even though Donald Trump has transferred her from a real prison to a prison camp, where she has gotten very special, pampered treatment, like she is in a Trump hotel. She gets room service to her cell. She gets gym privileges that other inmates don't get. She gets to use the warden as a go-between with people outside of the institution.
Mr. Speaker, she had due process. Donald Trump had due process. He was convicted on 34 felonies, but he had the right to counsel. He had the presumption of innocence. He had a unanimous jury trial. They had a right to cross-examine everybody and put their own witnesses on.
Mr. Speaker, now they want to take a former United States prosecutor, the Representative of the people of the Virgin Islands, and without even going to the Ethics Committee, much less a court, they want to arraign her on some charges based on a newspaper article that she did something lawful. However ill-advised it may have been, she took a phone call from one of her constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is the position of the very distinguished gentleman that, if we find Jeffrey Epstein on the phone with Donald Trump, he should be impeached for it, or is that his position? Is his position that anytime Jeffrey Epstein got somebody on the phone--and he got a lot of people on the phone--that person is suddenly guilty? That sounds like guilt by association. That sounds like collective guilt.
Our minority whip introduced a perfectly reasonable amendment to say: Let's refer this to an Ethics Committee. Let's have a real hearing. They didn't want to have a real hearing. They want to rush to judgment. Why? It is so there can be some headline that will please Donald Trump tomorrow instead of a unanimous statement--or forgive me, I think the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana may have dissented, but an otherwise unanimous verdict of the House of Representatives that the American people want all the files open.
We have had enough of the coverup. We want all of the truth. We want the survivors and the victims to have the possibility of accountability. Well, they want to give them another headline, which is that they have arraigned a Democratic Member for taking a phone call from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein, in the middle of a hearing, and, of course, I don't think there is any rule here against taking phone calls in a hearing.
Now if you want to actually give her the chance to explain what happened, then we would take it to the Ethics Committee. I still don't see what the charge is. Where is the ethical transgression? Where is the legal transgression? Are you saying anybody on your side of the aisle who had a phone call with Jeffrey Epstein should be censured?
Be careful of your answer there because there is a lot more that is about to come out, right? You should think about what is the principle behind this rush to judgment.
Mr. Speaker, I will close just with this thought because I know there were a lot of people in the Chamber who were here when this happened and a lot who weren't.
There was a move to expel George Santos. He was a Republican Member of the House from New York. It was the same kind of rush to judgment, absolute political frenzy. I looked at it for about 60 seconds.
I was a professor of constitutional law, so call me a legal nerd, but I said, wait. This guy has not been convicted of anything. Well, he is a Republican. I know he is a Republican. He was not convicted in criminal court, to my knowledge. He had not been arraigned yet or convicted of anything in the Ethics disciplinary process. They just said, well, there is bad press. We want to get rid of him.
Beware of what you wish for. Is that the rule that you want here in the House of Representatives, that you can just draw up a Member of Congress in 24 hours or 48 hours because there is a bad newspaper article without asking any questions, without giving that person any due process at all? Is that what it has come to at this point?
All we are asking for in the Epstein files is, release the materials so we can check it out. They want to go ahead and censure and remove from a committee a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives with no due process at all.
Mr. Speaker, I reject this. I hope the whole body will reject this just like I voted and spoke against removing George Santos, a Republican on the other side of the aisle, because he had gotten no due process. I hope all our colleagues will reject this absurd rush to judgment in an attempt to change the subject.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my good friend from Louisiana, to Representative Raskin, I will
It is ironic that you are taking up by defending Ms. Plaskett, which is going to the Ethics Committee, but she has lost her willingness or lost her ability to serve because she got irrational judgment by taking money from a convicted pedophile of young children. It is unfathomable that you are taking the position that you are. These are facts.
You mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell. She is not a sitting Member of Congress.
She, as a sitting Member of Congress, has relinquished any sense of duty to serve on these committees.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to avoid engaging in personalities and to direct all comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for yielding, and I thank my colleague Mr. Raskin for the salient points that he has brought to this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I also defended George Santos on this floor and opposed the means by which he was expelled. I think it was beyond the pale. A responsibility that we bear in this body is to determine the means by which our colleagues shall be reprimanded or disciplined.
The Constitution is clear on this. My friend Mr. Raskin knows full well that this body controls the means by which and the rules by which the Members of Congress shall be disciplined.
We have had variances of opinions regarding the exact disciplinary actions that should be embraced or rejected Member by Member. Let me say that, in this case, Ms. Plaskett's receiving text messages--this was so alarming to me. When I saw this and read it, I didn't believe it. I say to my friend, I thought perhaps it was media from a satirical site. It couldn't possibly be true because we all know that a text message, a text exchange, is rather intimate in the realm of communications. To pierce into an actual congressional hearing, for a Member of Congress to receive and respond to a text message during a hearing, that is quite familiar, is it not?
This was shocking to me that a Member of Congress would be exchanging text messages directly with Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, at which time he was being prosecuted, federally, by the first Trump administration. He had received some nature of a sweetheart deal back in 2007 and avoided Federal prosecution by pleading no contest to some level of State prosecution where he was sentenced, Mr. Speaker, to 13 months. My understanding is, he did 11 months and at the easiest time that could be done. He walked every day during the day on the work-release program.
That sweetheart deal, let me say, should be looked at. Now, to my horror, who has come to light that should be looked at, what was their involvement? Was there some involvement then? She is a good lady from the Virgin Islands. Where did Jeffrey Epstein live? In the Virgin Islands. He was a constituent in 2019. Was she a friend in 2007 during her service to the DOJ, which my friend has brought up? Was there any interactions?
These are the questions we have. The good lady from the Virgin Islands has crossed the threshold of reasonable suspicion and, therefore, she should be investigated by Ethics, by DOJ, and I would recommend by the Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Meanwhile, she should absolutely be removed from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This, Mr. Speaker, is my position. I present it without note for the betterment of the debate of this body.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my friend from Louisiana.
Both of the Republican speakers have said this demands an Ethics investigation. I think Mr. Higgins just said it should be investigated by Oversight and by Judiciary, as well as by Ethics and others.
This resolution censures her and punishes her before there has been one day of investigation. There has been no investigation at all. That was the whole burden of the minority whip's amendment. It was to say let's have an investigation, refer it to the Ethics Committee.
That is why the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana and I both voted against, and we got a majority to vote against censuring, or expelling even, George Santos without any ruling by our Ethics disciplinary body.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? I don't get it. I wish one of you could explain that to us why we should censure her before there has been one day of actual investigation. If being on the phone with one of our constituents, even an evil sinister force like Jeffrey Epstein--and, of course, he has said that he considered Donald Trump the most evil person he ever met, without a redeeming bone in his body.
I agree people can say different things, but Jeffrey Epstein, to me, disgraced himself. In any event, people want to know what were the contents of that conversation. Why was Ms. Plaskett doing that? I am sure she has a good explanation. We are talking about a distinguished lawyer and Federal prosecutor who was in the middle of a hearing, which is something that Members do all the time is to talk to people in hearings about different things.
Let me ask, if it is now the standard that just to be on a phone call with somebody establishes guilt by association, what about all of the Members of this body or of the U.S. Senate who were on the phone with January 6 insurrectionists and President Trump and his associates who were trying to block the certification of the election as people were chanting, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' There were a lot of phone calls, a lot of traffic going on.
In fact, that is why our Republican colleagues dealt themselves a million-dollar cash payoff bonanza provision in the most recent Republican spending bill.
They put that in there because their phone records had been subpoenaed lawfully by a grand jury. They were treated like every other American citizen because their names came up as potentially being involved in that conspiracy to somehow shut down proceedings in the House and the Senate.
Now, are we saying just because they were on a phone call that they are guilty of something, that we should strip them of their committee assignments, that we should censure them? Have we gotten to that point? I mean, come on. This is the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Let's stick by the Constitution. Let's stick by due process. Let's go through the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak today about Jeffrey Epstein or January 6. I am going to confine my remarks to two things that I know about.
I am going to take a deep breath right now because to stand here and have to listen to the gentleman from Louisiana, in the guise of just asking questions, besmirch one of the finest Members I have had the honor of serving with, I think, would offend the sensibility of anybody in this Chamber.
I am going to limit my remarks to two things I know very well: number one, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and what we need to do to preserve that very special environment; and, number two, the character of Delegate Stacey Plaskett. On HPSCI, I have served for 10 years, and with Chairman Turner and now with Chairman Crawford, we have fought for that decade to keep the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence immunized from the sewage that flows through this Chamber, the partisan attacks, the hideousness. By and large, we have been pretty successful, with one exception, when that committee got involved in the political investigation around Ukraine in the first Trump administration.
Every single day, the leaders of that committee work hard, establish friendships, and do the work we need to do to make sure that the toxicity and the sewage that we are hearing right now
This effort put forward by a bunch of people who haven't served on that committee and who have no idea the comity and the grace with which that committee serves, you, sirs, will hurt this committee badly.
I expect every Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--and I will say it again--I expect every Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who knows Ms. Plaskett and knows the committee to vote ``no'' on the idea that, without evidence and without due process, Ms. Plaskett should be removed from that very special committee.
This resolution would strike a devastating blow to HPSCI's ability to work effectively. By removing a member in good standing based on a newspaper article about texts--no due process, no evidence, nothing offered other than a newspaper article which has moved the gentleman from South Carolina--a member who has consistently engaged in a bipartisan and productive way with the committee's work, to make some unrelated political statement will do profound damage to this essential committee.
Now, let me just talk for a moment about Ms. Plaskett. I have served in this institution for 17 years, longer, I think, than most people in this Chamber. I have not had the honor of serving with somebody with the integrity, the commitment, and the hardworking bona fides as Ms. Plaskett.
We can argue about the wisdom or the judgment associated with those texts. I am told that, apparently, Mr. Epstein was a constituent.
For any one of us, on our worst day, our biggest misjudgment is not to be judged without any due process, especially in the context of this superb Member, this critical, critical member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The result of this resolution, if it were to pass, will be to undo the efforts of the Republican Speaker and the Republican chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Crawford, to restore the committee to what it was intended to be.
While the bill for that decision won't come due immediately, it will come due over time in the form of a less accountable and less effective intelligence community with less effective oversight for Congress.
I don't expect the gentlemen who have offered this up to back down now, but I do expect every single member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that elect, those few who understand what it is we need to do, to close the door on the flow of partisan sewage, which we see now threatening the critical work that we do.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say for my good friends on the left, you know, we are hearing words. That is all this is, words. You are taking the side of a young lady who should have known better. She served for 11 years. She disparaged herself. She did it to herself.
This is not smoke and mirrors. These are actual texts that pretty well indict Ms. Plaskett. Would she probably take it back? Yes, but it is too late now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I thank him for bringing forward this important resolution before the body.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland, his commentary about the vote on removal, and his considered judgment with respect to Santos. I agreed with him at the time and made the same points.
I want to align myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana, but I want to note in doing so--and I think the gentleman from Maryland has shown respect to, I think, the judgment of the gentleman from Louisiana about his being the sole vote on the issue before this body before with respect to what we are making public because of the gentleman's, I think, very real concerns about what it might mean for victims.
We had that debate and a colloquy back and forth in the Committee on the Judiciary a few hours ago, about what we can do to ensure victims are protected and so forth, as we all go forward on what I believe is a unanimous view that we should go seek out truth and justice here with respect to Epstein and anybody associated with him, and them, and the nefarious affairs involving Jeffrey Epstein.
The reason that I support this resolution is--and I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could have tabled this resolution. They chose not to table it. They chose to refer it, which would suggest to me that there is a recognition that something here is not particularly good; that we have a sitting Member, in this case, a Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, who was sitting in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform--and I actually have particular interest here because I was the one doing the questioning. Apparently my questioning was so riveting that she was engaging in text messages back and forth at that moment. While I was questioning Mr. Cohen, the gentlewoman was engaging in this back-and-forth on text messages with Jeffrey Epstein.
Again, I have listened for months as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle disparage and try to impugn the character of the President of the United States and other members of the administration in connection to an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, which the President's administration in 2019 indicted Epstein. They actually moved forward and federally indicted him in 2019. Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested by the Trump administration.
I know the gentleman from Maryland will go on to say that the Biden administration then carried forward that arrest, indictment, and prosecution. True, but it was, in fact, the Trump administration that did what had not been done for a long period of time by taking forward that indictment.
I have been listening to all the preaching by my friends on the other side of the aisle about how any association, anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein, is somehow the dispositive moment here in terms of determining the character of this administration or what they are doing or not doing when they are leaning in to try to seek the truth.
Tens of thousands of pages have been released by Jamie Comer, and 13 subpoenas have all been put out.
Now the House just voted to have greater transparency. Time will tell what that means in terms of what the court does and how they deal with the grand jury secrecy and what they do to continue to redact and protect victims' names under existing laws and how the courts treat that. That is going to be a process, as the gentleman likely knows. This is going to be determined as to what gets released and how.
Here we have the gentlewoman sitting in the Oversight Committee texting with a known convicted felon, a convicted pedophile, that was very public and known, had served jail time, and is engaging not just in texts that were trivial, but texts involving advice about her questioning of Michael Cohen, all designed to figure out how to get Michael Cohen to be able to somehow go after Trump or Trump's advisers or people around the President.
That, to me, is what we talk about with censure, which is contemplated, of course, in our rules and in the structure. The gentleman talked about the Constitution. We are not removing her. We are simply saying censure. We are saying it is censurable conduct to say that this individual sitting on a committee taking advice from a known convicted pedophile, convicted felon, that that is conduct unbecoming of a Member of the United States Congress, engaging in real time, taking advice from someone that we have been listening to--being lectured to as someone deserving of all of the scorn of the entire world. He is. That is why we are here.
If my colleagues didn't think this was a concern, they would have simply made a motion to table, but my colleagues decided to refer it to committee because they know this is a problem. They know this is not the kind of conduct you want in a Member of this body.
I think that the gentleman from South Carolina is right to have brought this forward. I think that the body should hear this debate and that we should vote tonight to censure and refer to the Ethics Committee for further consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend from Texas for those remarks. I am afraid all of them dance around the central issue, which is the good Congressman knows how due process works in America. There are facts that are adduced first. There is an opportunity to be heard on both sides. There is due process. There is consideration. Then there is judgment.
The gentleman has flipped the whole thing on its head. He has said we are going to judge her guilty before anybody has an opportunity even to hear what the charges are, much less answer the charges, much less do any kind of analysis.
I am sorry to hear that the text exchange that seems to be at the heart of people's consternation here took place during the distinguished gentleman's questioning, but that is not a Federal offense nor is it an ethical violation in the House of Representatives. You don't get to have the undivided attention of all of your colleagues.
The gentleman says that he thinks that our position is that any association with Jeffrey Epstein is a dispositive moment of judgment for people. That is not the position we have advanced.
We have taken the position with the survivors that we want to end the coverup of what happened and then let the chips fall where they may. If there are people who were actually engaged in crime, as Ghislaine Maxwell was, as Epstein was, then they should be charged with every element of due process.
If they happen to be a waiter or a waitress who worked at an event, they are not guilty of anything. That is what due process is, we are able to sift through and figure it out.
However, your rush to judgment isn't even giving anybody a chance to know what the charges are here. It is the most extraordinary thing I have ever seen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).
Mr. Speaker, this is a distraction to take away from the fact that the guardians of pedophiles is literally trying to protect pedophiles. The President is a convicted felon and an accused sex offender.
Stacey Plaskett hasn't been accused of either.
What are we actually here talking about? Trump and Epstein were besties. We have all seen the pictures of them. We saw the birthday book. So why are y'all more interested in talking about Stacey Plaskett than Trump's relationship with the man?
When did y'all become so moral? I can remember when y'all wouldn't sign the discharge petition. All of a sudden, everybody wanted to vote for this, but you wouldn't sign the discharge petition.
Until we decide that we are going to go after the actual rapists and pedophiles, miss me with your moral high ground.
Folks who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein, as I had my team dig in very quickly: Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin, George Bush, WinRed, McCain-Palin, Rick Lazio.
I just want to be clear: If this is the standard that we are going to make, just know we are going to expose it all, and just know that the FEC filings are available for everybody to review.
This is absolutely ridiculous. You decide that you want to punish a sitting Member of Congress because you are concerned about her text messages. Well, maybe you should be more concerned about those sex tapes that we still haven't gotten access to. Maybe you should be more concerned with the fact that the President's name is mentioned in the files way more than Stacey Plaskett's name.
Listen, I am not saying that anything is right or wrong. But if you are trying to figure out what is going on with somebody that is a criminal, then maybe you need to talk to their associates. That is exactly why maybe she was getting text messages. I am not saying she was or wasn't, but considering the fact that they were talking to another associate of the President's, and maybe she needed intel, you would have to go talk to somebody who maybe knows what he is up to.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Norman for raising this issue.
To me, this is an interesting issue because I am hearing the argument that is coming at us, and it says, well, there is no due process.
Well, debate is a part of due process. A part of due process is to have this debate. You get to stand up and defend, and you get to raise your issues. The Democrats chose to take it back to committee, which as Mr. Roy said, that kind of indicates that maybe you know that there is something that is not great about this.
I am looking at this, and here is at least one of the exchanges that seems to have taken place. Maybe we will hear some comment about it. That would be good. They can make some comment about it.
In this exchange, Mr. Epstein sent a text message to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands. This is the quote: He brings up Rhona, keeper of the secrets.
Who is he referring to? Rhona Graff. That is a Trump assistant.
Plaskett responds: Rhona? Quick, I am up next. Is that an acronym?
She wants to know what Mr. Epstein wants her to talk about. Don't you find that interesting? I find that really intriguing, especially since we know what Mr. Epstein was.
Mr. Epstein responds: That is his assistant.
He doesn't really say much more than that.
Then Plaskett starts questioning Mr. Cohen and asks about Graff. Not only was she texting, having this communication with Mr. Epstein, she is asking Mr. Cohen what Mr. Epstein wants her to ask.
Another text from Epstein says: Good work.
That is after she wraps it up.
All of this seems to be very interesting. I am sorry that I don't breathe the rarefied air of the Intelligence Committee. I don't. I am just a regular guy and a Member of the House, that is all, so I don't know about that rarefied air.
I guess I am part of the sewage that Mr. Himes said. Yeah. Thanks for agreeing with me, Ms. Plaskett. She has got us down. Unless you are in the Intelligence Committee, you are crap. That is what the Intel Committee says.
But here is the deal: When you are sitting there in a sitting committee, and you are having communications with a convicted sex offender, and you are taking their advice on how to ask questions, maybe you have a problem. Maybe your problem is that you brought disrepute on the House.
This isn't from the articles. This is from the 10,000 pages or so released last week from the Oversight Committee that they received from the Epstein estate. This isn't fishing around. This is coming from real evidence.
Mr. Speaker, I sit here, and I listen: Oh, she is the finest Member that ever walked the planet.
That is what we heard. The bottom line is she is sitting there, seeking advice and counsel on how to ask questions from Jeffrey Epstein, who this entire body, save one, just condemned. We want all of the evidence. It is a shame to be here but for one thing, which is: She made the choice.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone in this body to support Mr. Norman's resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Before I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, please remind yourself,
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remark that yet one more Member says we should go ahead and censure her and we then should do a complete investigation. I think any fifth grader in America knows that is the exact opposite of what due process means in America. We don't punish people before we have an investigation and an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin, my former professor in law school.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the body. I first want to give my colleagues a sense of what was happening that day. Everyone knows at that hearing in February the entire country was watching as Michael Cohen decided he was going to finally give up information about what was happening in the Trump world, the Trump enterprise.
At the beginning of that hearing, Ranking Member Jim Jordan disrespected Elijah Cummings--may he rest in peace and his name be a memory--after not allowing Mr. Jordan to shut the committee hearing down.
I turned to Mr. Jordan and told him to have respect for the chair and to basically shut up. That moment went viral. I began to get innumerable texts from friends, from foes, and from constituents about what was happening in that hearing.
Mr. Speaker, I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein who at the time was my constituent, who it was not public knowledge at that time he was under Federal investigation, and who was sharing information with me.
Mr. Speaker, I heard recently from someone that I was seeking advice from him. Let me say something. I don't need to get advice from any individual on how to question anybody. I have been a lawyer for 30 years. I have been a narcotics prosecutor in New York City. I have had the honor of being a political appointee at the Justice Department after September 11, as a Republican appointee in the Bush administration.
I know how to question individuals. I know how to seek information. I have sought information from confidential informants, from murderers, and from other individuals because I want the truth and not because I need them to tell me what to say.
If my colleagues look at the transcript, they will see that I questioned Michael Cohen for 5 minutes. The Washington Post only shows you 30 seconds and took from it one individual's name that I got from Jeffrey Epstein and didn't know who the individual was. I put that individual with a host of other individuals that I felt the committee should subpoena. They have never been subpoenaed. They have never been questioned.
At the end of the day, I know that in the Trump administration, and with my colleagues over there, it is not about sexual assault. It is not about support of victims. It is about money.
Mr. Speaker, I have consistently stood against sexual violence and the exploitation of women and children in previous years, as well as here in this body. We all know that Jeffrey Epstein's actions were absolutely reprehensible.
As a constituent, as an individual who gave donations to me, when I learned of the extent of his actions after his investigation, I gave that money to women's organizations in my community. I didn't give it back to him but to women in the community who needed that support. That is what I think should have been done, and that is what I did.
Mr. Speaker, they have taken a text exchange, which shows no participation, no assistance, no involvement in any illegal activity, and weaponized it for political theater. That is what this is.
This has been reviewed by Federal courts. Victims who initially brought charges and a case against me dismissed it on their own without prejudice.
My colleagues don't want to talk about what is really happening here. They don't want to discuss their attacks on working families and their protection of powerful predators and corporate criminals. If my colleagues want to talk about texting and texting felons, how often do my colleagues text Donald J. Trump? That is the individual we should be concerned about.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this. I am not going to support the wealthy and connected who continue to exploit workers and evade taxes, powerful figures with credible allegations who face no consequences, and corporate interests profiting from human suffering, while families struggle.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the people of the Virgin Islands--
Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for my colleagues and for what is happening here. I feel sorry for this body. I see Members coming in and speaking against me, and I have never even had a conversation with them. They don't know me. They don't know the work that I have done. They don't know the support that I have given to families and to individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I worked a full-time job with children under the age of 5 while going to law school at night. Do my colleagues think I would risk my law degree for any individual, never mind a reprehensible individual like Jeffrey Epstein? I would not. What I am about is the truth.
Let me tell the people of the Virgin Islands. This attempt at intimidation will pass. We in the Virgin Islands do not back down from a fight. That is how we won our freedom, and that is how we will continue to grow our equality.
If my colleagues censure me or take away a committee, I will still do the work. I am here to support people and to support this great Constitution, which I have sworn numerous times to uphold.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I recognize Mr. Clyde, let me just say I don't know Ms. Plaskett. My overall impression of her has been good. She gives these words about protecting families and children. Where is that demonstrated when she took money from a convicted pedophile that had served time? Where was that?
The words are beyond believability. I think she is a nice person, but she missed the boat. She lost her--I don't know the word to describe it. For what she has done, she deserves to come off of the committees.
Let me remind you, we want to go to the Ethics Committee. To those listening, the Ethics Committee is five Democrats and five Republicans. Let them find it, but in the meantime, you do not deserve to serve on a committee, a national committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will be reminded, again, to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Norman from South Carolina, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution censuring and condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett from the U.S. Virgin Islands for inappropriate coordination with convicted
After 4 years of silence on this matter, there was not a peep during the entire Biden Administration. Let me repeat that. After 4 years of silence on this matter about Jeffrey Epstein, House Democrats are now demanding transparency and accountability surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.
While their fake outrage is clearly just another disgusting attempt to smear President Trump, House Republicans are taking this matter seriously and are working toward delivering the much-needed transparency and accountability that the American people deserve.
This resolution is accountability page 1. During the House Oversight Committee's ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, emails obtained by a congressional subpoena--that is right, it was a congressional subpoena--by the House Oversight Committee, not the discharge petition that just got voted on, but this is the Oversight Committee's congressional subpoena--has brought to light that in 2019, Delegate Stacey Plaskett coordinated her line of questioning with Jeffrey Epstein in real time over text messages during an Oversight Committee hearing featuring testimony from Michael Cohen.
Now, who is Michael Cohen?
Michael Cohen was the disgraced former attorney of President Donald Trump.
She was asking input from Jeffrey Epstein on how to best question Cohen, and Cohen was himself at that time a convicted felon from 2018.
So now that Republicans are exposing Democrat ties to Jeffrey Epstein and his vile crimes, the other side of the aisle has flipped. They apparently no longer want transparency or accountability.
Why?
It is because they don't want the truth. They want to weaponize a serious matter into a distraction all in an attempt to take down President Trump and to hurt his administration and what he is doing to Make America Great Again.
The actions taken by Delegate Plaskett reflect poorly on the House, and this body needs to hold her accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote to adopt this resolution to show the American people that those who colluded with Mr. Epstein, including Members of the House, will be held accountable, and this resolution is the beginning of that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from the great State of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition.
This resolution, this effort to censure Delegate Plaskett and to rip away her membership on the Intel Committee, is nothing more than a political stunt by a desperate, failed candidate for Governor trying to pander to the people back in South Carolina. It is nothing more than that.
You want to make the statement about who has brought disgrace to the House. The actions of this House Republican majority have brought disgrace to the House of Representatives from day one of this Presidency.
The reality is, if you want to talk about fealty to the Constitution and things of that nature, the House is a separate and coequal branch of government. You don't seem to understand that.
You have functioned from the very beginning of your so-called majority, Mr. Speaker, not as a check and balance on an out-of-control administration, but as a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda, and you are failing the American people.
You failed to keep your core promise. Your core promise to the American people was that you were going to lower costs on day one. Costs haven't gone down here in the United States of America. Costs have gone up.
The Trump economy is a complete and total failure. It is a disaster. The American people are hurting, and so every week, you come to the House floor now that you have returned from your 7-week, taxpayer- funded vacation and come up with another stunt to try to distract the American people. Or perhaps you were ordered by your puppet master, Donald Trump, who wants to distract the American people today.
That is because his effort to suppress the Jeffrey Epstein files has failed spectacularly.
We believe in transparency, we believe in accountability, and we believe in due process. That is the opposite of what is happening on the floor today.
Let me be very clear about Stacey Plaskett. She is a woman of great intelligence and a woman of great integrity, and she deserves better than what she is receiving from House Republican extremists. She deserves the opportunity to be heard. She deserves due process. She deserves the ability to make her case, not to be prosecuted by pettifoggers playing lawyer on the floor of the House of Representatives. Google that if you don't know what it means.
The so-called Freedom Caucus wants to lecture us about proceeding at this moment.
The actions that you continue to engage in will have consequences: consequences today, consequences tomorrow, consequences next week, consequences next year, and certainly consequences when the American people throw this House Republican majority out in the aftermath of the election next November. Be very careful about the extreme actions that you continue to engage in.
Now, it is extraordinary to me week after week, censure after censure, and I wonder: Is it just coincidence that the last three censures we have had on the House floor happened to involve--first you tried to censure LaMonica McIver, and then, Mr. Speaker, Republicans tried to censure Ilhan Omar. Now we are on the floor, and you are trying to censure Stacey Plaskett.
What is it exactly that those three individuals have in common?
House Republicans are going to have to answer for the extreme things that you continue to do.
The American people know this is a phony majority. It is a fake majority. It is not a real majority.
Republicans aren't doing anything to make life better for the American people, and that is why we are on the floor right now. There is nothing that House Republicans can do to disgrace Stacey Plaskett because House Republicans continue to disgrace themselves. So whatever happens later on this evening, the American people will hear from Delegate Plaskett beyond this making her case. The people of the Virgin Islands, I am confident, will continue to stand behind her.
We will never be lectured on issues related to accountability, transparency, principle, and ethics from this group of extreme House Republicans who continue to visit a national nightmare on the American people, bending the knee to a wannabe king and doing real harm in real time. At the end of the day, your time is coming as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I find it interesting that the minority leader mentioned that we aren't really a majority. I will tell you, 77 million people are a majority. They rendered the consequences to elect the President that has revived this country from a disaster, 4 years under the Biden administration.
Let's go back into a little bit of history here about the hearing. The messages show that Plaskett texted Epstein before the hearing that started that day, at 7:55. She texted him, the sex offender, the predator on the children she says she protects. They had comments like he told Ms. Plaskett to
At 10:40, a broadcast feed cut to Ms. Plaskett, showing her moving her mouth as if she was chewing something.
Ms. Plaskett mentioned that she had multiple, multiple texts. According to the records--and I don't know how many of her texts came from those convicted of felonies, but at 2:25, minutes before Plaskett began questioning Cohen at 2:28, Epstein messaged back ``Good work'' at 2:34, 1 minute after Plaskett finished her questioning of Cohen. So the whole 5 minutes was pretty much conducted under the direction of a convicted pedophile.
Ms. Plaskett was reached by phone Thursday. Plaskett declined to answer questions about the text messages and directed all inquiries to her congressional staff. Plaskett's chief of staff said Thursday she was ``not in a position to confirm or not'' whether the Congresswoman was texting with Mr. Epstein at the hearing. She did not respond to follow-up questions.
Bottom line, these are facts. These are text messages. This wasn't smoke and mirrors, so it is interesting that they are taking that tact.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, the conscience of the Congress, in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is a blatantly partisan, shameless attack.
As we sit here today, Donald Trump is still the single person in this country with the authority and the ability to deliver justice to survivors and truth to the American people by just releasing the files. So instead of answering why Donald Trump chooses every single day not to release the Epstein files, they are pointing fingers at this side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the President, Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has committed no crime, violated no rule, and broken no promises.
There has been no investigation, no due process, no inquiry into whether the Congresswoman had any connection whatsoever to Epstein's despicable and disgusting criminal conduct.
This resolution would have us remove a capable and hardworking member of one of the most serious working committees in this body on the basis of a conversation from more than 6 years ago, which broke no rules, broke no laws, and has no connection to any criminal activity.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this partisan resolution, this sham.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to start by addressing the young people who appear to be in the audience this evening because I am afraid some of my arguments are lost on some of our colleagues across the aisle suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. It seems to have completely warped their minds today, and they are not thinking clearly about the Constitution or the rule of law.
The young people here will recognize, if they read this resolution, immediately what is wrong with it because it is replete with phrases like this, that this one incident that they are referring to raises serious questions about the judgment and the integrity and the fitness to serve. Well, I think that is absurd, but in any event, if you think it raises serious questions, presumably you would want the answers to those questions. You don't get answers by rushing to judgment and turning the whole process upside down.
This resolution starts by saying that we censure her, that we remove her from committee. The very next component of it says that we direct the Committee on Ethics to conduct an investigation. That is the opposite of due process, and I hope at least future generations will understand that is not how we hold people accountable, whether it is under criminal law, under civil law, or under an ethics process, which they purport to want to be launching here.
Again, go back to the George Santos standard. The reason we voted against just hanging him out to dry, censuring him, and expelling him is because the process hadn't happened yet. Democrats and Republicans together did it, but they are thinking in solely partisan terms.
Even Matt Gaetz, accused of having sex with a 17-year-old, was never censured by the House of Representatives. Even with Speaker McCarthy and others condemning him for what he did, we did not censure him.
Think about what you are doing to the precedents of this body by trying to attack Ms. Plaskett.
Let me just close with a personal thought. I wasn't going to bring it up because I didn't want to embarrass her, but she was one of the three finest students I ever had in constitutional law. She was a straight-A student in the early 1990s. She is a straight-A student in the 21st century. I am proud not only that she was my student but that she is my friend and that she is my colleague. She doesn't disgrace us in any way. She goes to work every day for the people of the Virgin Islands, and we are proud of her.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the President is occupying the minds of my good friends on the left rent-free, and essentially, they bring him up every time. Keep doing it. Keep doing it.
This President has a record that is second to none. I hope my listeners in the audience can distinguish between just words and babbling on when they reject the facts of what has been presented. Texts don't lie. They can offer all the excuses--and I do think Ms. Plaskett is a nice lady. She made a mistake here, a bad mistake. She took advice from a convicted pedophile. That is indefensible in this discussion here today.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleagues defend the indefensible. I have heard everything from this is old news to this is just politics. Not a single person has disputed the key fact: written records in Epstein's own estate documents show Delegate Plaskett sought his input for an official hearing.
This is the issue, that alone. Everything else is just noise.
This Chamber cannot overlook that a sitting Member of Congress coordinated with a convicted sex offender to prepare questions for an official proceeding. Imagine telling the American people that that is acceptable. Imagine explaining to parents all across this country that Congress sees no problem with relying on the counsel of a predator of our innocent children.
Some of my colleagues want to blur the edges, soften the facts, or bury this under procedural fog--noise, as I call it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and accountability is not optional.
This resolution is not excessive at all. It is appropriate. It is measured. It is necessary at this time.
The question before us is very simple: Do we uphold a minimal--a minimal--standard for ethical conduct, or do we just shrug and say: Well, maybe next time?
Mr. Speaker, the public deserves better. The House deserves better. The American people deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment"
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 130) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 130.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 130, which would repeal the Bureau of Land Management's misguided resource management plan, or RMP, amendment for the Buffalo Field Office in Wyoming, which was finalized in the twilight hours of the Biden-Harris administration.
Wyoming's Powder River Basin currently supplies 40 percent of the Nation's coal. The RMP amendment in question effectively halted future Federal coal leasing across a region in Wyoming larger than New Jersey and located in the heart of America's coal country. Without repeal, the RMP amendment will end coal production in the region entirely by 2041 and close 12 active mines.
The RMP amendment is a death blow to America's energy security, Wyoming's workers, and the economic backbone of the State itself.
It is projected that U.S. electricity demand will grow by as much as 128 gigawatts through 2029, and global energy demand is expected to double by 2050.
Coal is reliable, affordable, and essential to meet the increasing power demands of the AI revolution and advanced manufacturing. The RMP amendment locked up an astonishing 48 billion short tons of coal. That is enough to meet U.S. coal demand for the next 116 years.
Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of Wyoming's coal is exported to other States, helping keep the lights on and utility prices affordable in distant places as far as Texas, Illinois, and my home State of Arkansas.
Nationwide, residential electricity prices have increased by 13 percent since 2022, and overturning misguided policies like this RMP amendment will help make the cost of living more affordable for families across America.
It is time to unleash our domestic resources to put this money back into the pockets of American families by repealing the Biden administration's anti-American energy policies. What is more, instead of working with the State, the Biden administration blatantly ignored local opposition at every stage of this process and rammed this RMP amendment through to appease environmental extremists.
The Biden administration provided a limited opportunity for public comment or engagement on this RMP amendment. Wyoming's Governor, a unified congressional delegation, locally elected officials, Tribes, and local communities all expressed strong opposition to this plan amendment. The previous administration ignored them all.
According to local representatives, it is suspect and disturbing that such a dramatic change to the current land use plan would solicit such little engagement during the public comment period. Campbell and Johnson County commissioners who represent the local communities affected by this plan stated that whatever information they provided to the BLM in this process was ignored by the Federal agency.
Overturning the RMP amendment takes power from bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and returns it to the people of Wyoming.
The BLM also ignored Tribal input in developing this RMP amendment. The Navajo Transitional Energy Company, which is wholly owned by the Navajo Nation, provided detailed comments opposing this amendment. They were all dismissed by the BLM.
In a letter they submitted to the agency, they stated:
``BLM consistently downplayed the reasonably foreseeable negative impacts of the mines' closures on the surrounding social justice communities. And it did not even consider the jobs lost in the downstream communities that rely on the [Powder River Basin] coal.''
Energy security is national security, and Wyoming's energy industry remains indispensable to ensuring that America stays energy dominant. Wyoming's Powder River Basin, with its low-sulfur coal, produces the world's cleanest burning coal. We should be focused on exporting this abundant natural resource to our allies abroad, not burying this baseload power under layers of bureaucracy.
By passing this CRA today, we are advancing President Trump's executive orders on unleashing American energy and reinvigorating America's coal industry. We are also restoring hundreds of millions of dollars in future revenue for Wyoming's K-12 public education system and protecting more than 4,000 high-paying jobs in rural Wyoming.
In conjunction with the pro-energy policies included in the working families tax cut law, this CRA also has the potential to generate more than $260 million for the Federal Treasury.
This CRA helps the U.S. remain energy dominant and will lower prices for families, strengthen our economy, and boost real wages for hardworking men and women. I urge my colleagues to stand with Wyoming, stand with American workers, and stand for energy security by supporting this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wish Chairman Westerman a happy birthday, but even that goodwill does not change the fact that this is bad legislation. So, unfortunately, I am going to have to rise in opposition to the bill while wishing the gentleman a happy birthday.
Mr. Speaker, we are all grateful that the Republican shutdown is finally over, but millions of Americans are still on the cusp of losing healthcare. They are struggling to put food on the table. After their 7-week paid vacation, I can't imagine anything more disconnected than for House Republicans to come back here and make their first priority not helping working families to make ends meet but jamming through more favors for their billionaire buddies.
These three Congressional Review Act, or CRA, resolutions treat America's public lands like they are just lines on a balance sheet. They silence
Americans want clean air, clean water, and accessible public lands, not handouts to polluters. Overturning balanced, forward-looking BLM plans in Wyoming and Alaska is a colossal mistake.
Across the Federal land management agencies, plans like these are the foundation for responsible, sustainable management of our public lands. RMPs are the product of extensive public input, rigorous scientific reviews, and meaningful Tribal consultation. Balancing the activities on our public lands from energy development to recreation is what these plans do.
They reflect the needs of communities, industries, and ecosystems. They outline a clear vision for the stewardship of millions of acres of public lands.
Let's look at the Buffalo Field Office RMP targeted by this particular resolution. It was developed after a court found that the previous plan failed to address the public health and climate impacts of unfettered coal mining in the region. Importantly, the current RMP was also developed after robust Tribal consultation and public input. Are we just going to throw that all away?
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 130, which would repeal the current balanced RMP for BLM's Buffalo Field Office in order to prop up the coal industry in Wyoming's Powder River Valley. The plan targeted by this resolution ended new coal leasing in the region because of its harm to the climate and public health and because of decreasing demand for coal.
At the same time, the plan allowed existing mines to continue to operate through the end of their current leases. Rescinding this plan means locking us into unnecessary emissions and energy costs at a time when the planet and the American people cannot afford it. It also puts us on a treadmill of litigation and uncertainty, sending us back theoretically to a plan that was already adjudicated to be illegal. Maybe Republicans are waiting for a new plan to come forward from the Trump administration, I guess, hoping that a future court will decide that it is not substantially similar to the ones that have been thrown out with your CRA. This is something that my friends across the aisle simply haven't thought through. There is so much chaos and uncertainty when the sledgehammer of the CRA is used in this reckless manner.
House Republicans already passed, and the administration implemented, unprecedented giveaways to the coal industry through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including slashing the royalty rates for coal from 12 percent to 7.5 percent and opening more than 13 million acres of public lands for coal leasing.
Yet, even with these handouts, it is not enough to reverse decades of market contraction in the coal industry. The coal industry is dying. What Republicans don't mention is that BLM's coal lease sales this year have either failed to reach market value, been indefinitely canceled, or received little to no bids.
Rather than simply redoing this RMP through the well-established public process, which the Trump administration is already doing, House Republicans want to overturn it using the CRA, again an extremely blunt instrument, that will throw us into great uncertainty and litigation for sure.
This choice would lock out the perspective from previous Tribal and public engagement and ban the agency from ever again issuing a substantially similar RMP, leaving land policy frozen in time and frozen in some kind of a limbo with incredible uncertainty and chaos.
House Republicans want to permanently enshrine fossil fuel extraction as the top priority for millions of acres of public land across the country, no matter the cost. They are picking winners and losers here, blocking affordable renewable energy projects, and sacrificing our public lands in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these reckless resolutions that would upend millions of acres of public land management and reject this entire familiar playbook from congressional Republicans.
They are trying to deepen our dependence on dirty fossil fuels that pollute our air, contaminate our water, and harm the public health while doing everything possible to slow, stop, or sabotage the development of affordable renewable energy. Our constituents deserve a lot better than this. We deserve clean, affordable, and reliable energy. We deserve good-paying jobs and affordable healthcare. We shouldn't sacrifice America's health, environment, and livelihoods in order to do it.
This legislation and my friends across the aisle are on the wrong side of history trying to prop up the dying coal industry. They are on the wrong side of public land management. They are on the wrong side of the American people's pocketbooks as they face rising electricity costs.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the birthday wishes from my friend across the aisle. That means a lot to me.
If I had a birthday wish of my own, it would be to make energy more affordable for the American people, to help the good folks of Wyoming to have a livelihood and to not only keep prices down, but keep good- paying jobs across this country that are in the energy industry. We know that we need more energy going forward. We need more electrons on the grid. We need a larger grid. We need to all work together to do those things, but if this resource management plan amendment by the previous administration was balanced, I would hate to see a heavy- handed resource management plan amendment by the previous administration because this took a sledgehammer to an established industry in the State of Wyoming.
I am sure my distinguished colleague from the great State of Wyoming, Representative Hageman, who is the lead sponsor of this legislation, will go into detail what this would mean to Wyoming if this plan amendment stays in place.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation, H.J. Res. 130, which utilizes the congressional disapproval procedure under the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, to restore coal leasing in Wyoming's Powder River Basin.
Many on the East Coast of America might be surprised to learn that the Federal Government owns massive amounts of the western States.
In Wyoming, the Federal Government owns about half of our surface estate and 60 percent of the subsurface estate, or our minerals. In northeast Wyoming, the Bureau of Land Management's Buffalo Field Office owns and manages over 780,000 acres of land and 4.7 million acres of our mineral estate.
Notably, this land encompasses Wyoming's share of the Powder River Basin, North America's largest coal deposit responsible for the production of 40 percent of our Nation's coal.
Wyoming is the largest coal producer in the Nation. We, in other words, are responsible for ensuring that you can turn on your lights and heat your home. The BLM manages its public lands pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which is implemented pursuant to what we refer to as resource management plans, or RMPs.
These RMPs are designed to maximize resource values for the public. The BLM is required to comply with a multiple use mandate, ensuring that these combination of uses meet current and future needs of the American people.
In its waning days, the Biden administration issued an RMP amendment for the Buffalo Field Office which pursued the no new leasing alternative, pulling 481,000 acres of America's largest coal reserves and resources offline, making 48 billion short tons of coal unavailable and ending leasing in the Powder River Basin.
Such a decision cannot be considered a legitimate or legal RMP pursuant to
The Biden RMP is instead very clearly a mineral withdrawal enacted by climate activists in direct violation of the law.
The Biden administration's decision to terminate mining in Wyoming's PRB is not only irresponsible and harmful but downright illegal, a mechanism used by the governing elite to inflict harm on every single citizen of this great country to further climate change lunacy.
If this RMPA is allowed to continue, it would risk 4,122 jobs in rural Wyoming, $1.9 billion in labor output through 2048, and millions of dollars in State revenue used to fund public K-12 education.
This seemingly localized decision has national repercussions, as well. In 2024, Wyoming produced 191 million tons of coal, 171 million tons of which were shipped to 26 different States for producing electricity.
At these rates, Wyoming produces about 40 percent of the Nation's coal and about 80 percent of all Federal coal production.
With coal generating as much as 23 percent of America's electricity at any given time, Wyoming coal supplies as much as 9.2 percent of the electricity produced in this country.
Watching the arguments in the Committee on Rules last night and on the floor today, it is clear that ``affordability'' is the word of the day for my colleagues across the aisle. If utility bills for Americans are something they genuinely care about, then I encourage them to vote for H.J. Res. 130 and to not turn off the Powder River Basin coal, which accounts for so much of American energy and could generate even more if Washington, D.C., had not waged a war on coal for the last three decades.
In short, it is policies such as no new coal leasing contained in this Buffalo RMPA that reduce affordability, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be supporting if they continue to oppose H.J. Res. 130.
This vote today is a vote to shore up the grid, which will have positive impacts on the utility bills of Americans. When combined with what this majority did for energy development in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we are shoring up centuries of energy production.
We cannot survive in this country without Wyoming coal, the majority of which is produced in the Powder River Basin. Demand for Wyoming coal is only increasing, both here and abroad. If you turn out the lights on one of Wyoming's most important industries, you will also be turning out the lights on America.
The Biden administration knew this and pursued this harmful policy anyway, and they did so in violation of the law.
On September 18, 2025, the Government Accountability Office determined that the Buffalo RMP was a rule subject to the CRA on the grounds that it is an agency statement, is of future effect, and it implements, interprets, or prescribes law and policy.
This decision is in line with previous GAO decisions on similar land management plans and RMPs, several of which this body has passed in the 119th Congress.
A vote today for H.J. Res. 130 has many positive implications.
First, it would overturn this harmful plan and revert to the 2015 RMP, thereby protecting access to 481,000 acres for coal leasing.
Second, it would provide certainty to countless Wyomingites who rely on our good, clean coal for jobs and for revenue that funds the schools that our children attend.
Third, it is a vote for the millions of Americans who continue to rely on Wyoming coal--and who always will.
Fourth, it is a win for Congress, reminding the agencies that we are the primary policymaking branch of government and that we will hold the agencies responsible for bad, unlawful regulations.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 130.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that as we are having this debate, pretty much the rest of the world is in Brazil right now for the climate conference. Of course, the Trump administration has disgracefully pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement once again, and we have no Federal delegation at all.
As the rest of the world convenes to accept the reality of the climate crisis and to accept the related reality of coal being the biggest contributor to carbon pollution, and the entire world is talking about how to phase down our dependence on coal pollution and fossil fuel pollution, we are here in this alternate reality of the Republican majority, where my colleague from Wyoming calls it climate lunacy.
It is a sad, sad testament to, frankly, the disgraceful leadership of this Republican majority that propping up the coal industry with discounted royalties, massive subsidies, millions of acres of land giveaways, and now this misuse of the Congressional Review Act is the official policy of the Republican majority. It is just almost unthinkable, yet that is where we are.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time.
Mr. Speaker, first, coming from New Mexico, let me tell you that I have gone through the RMP process firsthand in my own Las Cruces district, the TriCounty RMP, and those are long and painful processes. They take a lot of public input and a lot of painful meetings. Those plans are developed with the input from residents from all sides of the aisle who represent different parts of what are our public lands and that mandate to have multiple-use lands. They are not meant for just one industry. They are meant for everybody that uses those public lands.
When I served on the U.S. Federal committee to advise the Forest Service, we got all of these stakeholders together to implement the 2012 planning rule, and it was the same deal. We did it deliberately. We did it with all stakeholders at the table. These RMPs are actually developed with public input from every community, not from one single stakeholder group. That is the painful process that it takes to update these plans, many of which haven't been updated since the 1980s.
It is important that we take into account the time and effort of not just the agency staff and those folks who show up to those hard meetings and hear the public out, but the public who comes out, in my district sometimes driving 30, 40, 50 miles, just to attend one of those meetings so that they can eventually get to an RPM, knowing that that will be the law of the land.
Today, I rise in opposition to all the CRAs, but in particular, I want to talk about one very special place.
In 2017, when the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain was first officially opened to drilling, supporters promised that the sale would raise significant revenue. Instead, only three bidders emerged. The first mandated lease sale brought in less than 1 percent of the $2.2 billion that Congress was told to expect, less than 1 percent. That burdened taxpayers with an additional $2 billion in national debt.
Why? Well, because the Arctic is one of the most expensive places on Earth to drill, and investors in the oil industry know this. In fact, BP and Shell already abandoned their Arctic proposals, even paying to exit those leases. Financing has dried up completely, with nearly every major U.S. bank and 20 global insurance companies having publicly pledged not to finance Arctic drilling projects. Yet, here we are.
The Coastal Plain is too remote, too costly, and too risky to make drilling financially feasible, especially when we already produce record oil and gas volumes elsewhere at a far lower cost to taxpayers, including in my district, the Permian Basin.
Let's be clear, Arctic drilling will not lower gas prices. With no existing roads, pipelines, or infrastructure, any Arctic oil would take years to reach the market, if it ever does.
I know this myself because this is a picture from when I was in the Arctic.
This is also a question of what we value. The Arctic refuge is the only national wildlife refuge that protects a complete Arctic ecosystem. It is called the crown jewel of our public lands, and it is called that for a reason. I saw why firsthand when I was there last summer.
This special place offers unmatched, truly wild fishing and hunting opportunities for all Americans. When you catch your first Arctic char in the Canning River on the Coastal Plain, it is a moment you will never forget as an American. These lands have provided sustenance to the Gwich'in and the Inupiat peoples for millennia.
The bottom line, setting the unique wildlife and recreation values of America's Arctic aside, using the CRA to overturn land management plans is bad policy, bad economics, and bad land management. Truly, it is a disrespect to the constituents who showed up to those meetings to create that RPM in the first place, year over year over year.
By treating every resource management plan as a rule that is subject to the CRA, Congress is throwing the legal status of every oil and gas lease, every grazing permit, and recreational activity across the West into question.
I ask my Republican colleagues: Why pursue the CRA process when this administration has already revised the plan in question? They have already opened up the Coastal Plain, so why do this?
We should vote ``no,'' not to score a political point, but because this proposal simply doesn't make sense and won't work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned that U.S. coal is dying. U.S. coal is being murdered. There has been an attack on it for many years, and some people will not stop until they see it gone. That would be to our own demise because we depend so much on the energy not only from coal but from natural gas.
We need more nuclear power. We need more hydropower. We need all kinds of new power, and this isn't the time to be attacking our fuel sources. We will have a debate on the Arctic Slope and the Coastal Plain, but when we are talking about Wyoming, we are talking about coal and really the backbone of our electrical generating and distribution system.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this CRA resolution introduced by my good friend and colleague from Wyoming, Representative Hageman. This resolution overturns the Biden administration's actions to lock up public lands in Wyoming from responsible coal development, all part of the Democrat and President Biden's agenda, which was anywhere but America, any worker but American energy agenda.
Last year, I had the opportunity to join Representative Hageman on a tour across the Powder River Basin, where we visited the coal mines and met the proud men and women who have been working there for generations.
While I visited one of these mines, I met a union electrician, third- generation miner, who raised his hand and stated: Please don't take our jobs away. I am working here, and my son just got hired here.
The passion he had for the industry and these jobs was incredible. He and now his children work in that coal mine. That gentleman told me his family's story with a lump in his throat. Like generations before him, he and now his children had access to good-paying union jobs in the coal mines across the Powder River Basin, but thanks to the Biden administration's continued war on coal, his job and his livelihood was on the line, as the mine he worked in was set to run out of coal reserves in just a few short years.
Thanks to the Biden administration's resource management plan that blocked new coal leasing, the mine wouldn't be able to access additional reserves and would have to close. In doing so, the mine would have to lay off hundreds of workers and devastate the surrounding communities that depend on the coal mining industry to drive their local economies.
With tears in his eyes, this electrician asked me to save his job and save his livelihood so he could continue to provide for his family and energy for America.
Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to do just that. By voting in favor of this CRA, we will be able to roll back the disastrous Biden administration's anti-American energy policies and keep the Powder River Basin alive. Through the CRA, we will stop future anti-American energy administrations from taking similar steps to shut down the Powder River Basin.
I thank my colleague from Wyoming for introducing this important CRA resolution on behalf of the hardworking men and women that make up Wyoming's coal industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich to hear all of this concern about jobs and the poor electrician who is going to lose a job and to hear all of this concern about the energy that we desperately need to meet projected demand increase.
What we are really hearing across the aisle is a very selective concern about some jobs and about some types of energy. At the same time as we are having this debate about a desperate scheme to try to prop up the dying coal industry, not just with this CRA but with the discounted royalties, the massive public land giveaways, and all of the other favors that have been doled out to this industry, the Trump administration is trying in every way it can to kill off the clean energy industry, which generates far more jobs than coal. Far more people stand to lose their jobs, far more electricians, like the one my friend was just so concerned about a moment ago, stand to lose their jobs because of this war on clean energy that my friends across the aisle are just fine with.
Now, Chairman Westerman said we need all types of new energy. I guess we will have a chance this week to find out if that, too, is just more happy talk, more hollow words because there will be a markup on his legislation on permitting. Democrats have been asking for meaningful changes to this war on clean energy as the first item to have a serious negotiation and discussion about. We will find out.
I hope that Mr. Westerman delivers on his promise to work in good faith with Democrats and to do something about the war on clean energy. Unless and until he does and unless and until my colleagues across the aisle stop pretending that an entire industry with far more jobs than coal and far more energy that can be brought to bear to meet rising demand at far less cost, until they stop pretending that that war on clean energy is not happening, all of this, frankly, is just political theater.
Mr. Speaker, to the point about the so-called viability of coal, let's just zoom in on the coal industry in the Powder River Basin, the very place that would be impacted by this CRA. On October 6, the Bureau of Land Management held a lease sale for 167 million tons of coal on public lands on the Montana side of this specific basin. The BLM received one bid that valued each ton of coal at one-tenth of one penny.
The administration rejected that bid and canceled the lease sale because that abysmal price did not meet the requirements of fair market value outlined in the Mineral Leasing Act. That is the reason that the BLM came together to finalize the Buffalo Field Office RMP amendment, to address decreasing demand for coal, which is both the dirtiest and the most expensive form of energy.
House Republicans would give away our public lands and waters to big coal for pennies, fractions of pennies. The coin that they are phasing out as practically worthless is about as valuable as the coal they are trying to subsidize.
This resolution will do nothing to address skyrocketing energy bills in Wyoming or anywhere else. A conservative former Wyoming State representative recently penned an op-ed that really speaks to what is happening on the ground: ``We need responsible legislators, who do not rely on wishful thinking, to make long-term policy decisions. It's time to take off the aluminum foil hats filled with wishful thinking, and make some real decisions based on responsible prediction.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly oppose this resolution.
Using the CRA to overturn this RMP and the others that we are debating this week will throw our public lands into chaos. It completely sidelines the input and perspectives of local communities that have spent years working with BLM on this plan. It is another reckless attempt to prop up the fossil fuel industry and line the pockets of polluters, all at the expense of affordable energy and good- paying jobs.
The Buffalo Field Office RMP allows existing coal leases to continue with reasonable safeguards to reduce emissions and protect land and water. Congress should not be overturning this plan with the sledgehammer of the CRA.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to think twice about the consequences of this action and setting this chaotic precedent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Since my colleague mentioned the SPEED Act, which we will be marking up in committee on Thursday, even though it is not on the floor today, I will put in a shameless plug for our bipartisan legislation that is not only tech neutral, but it is agnostic to the project, the project type.
It would definitely help us produce more energy in America, and it will also help us to build things in America again, something we desperately need to do. We will debate that Thursday, and, hopefully, some day we will be out here debating it on the floor.
This particular RMPA that is on the floor today is because the Biden administration, on their way out, pushed something through by rule that they could never get passed into law. The CRA, I remind you, is so that Congress can exert its legislative authority over an administrative agency or over an administration.
I would remind future administrations not to make dumb rules when they are going out the door or somebody in Congress will be standing here maybe on the other side of the aisle doing a CRA to turn back the rulemaking ability that is not lawmaking, as we are instructed to do in the Constitution as the legislative branch.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the actual RMPA that we are talking about, the CRA on it today, now is the time to unleash American energy. The Buffalo Field Office resource management plan would not only devastate Wyoming's energy workforce but it would raise prices nationwide.
We are in a competition. We are in a competition with China that certainly hasn't backed off on building coal-fired plants. As a matter of fact, they are building at a rate of about one every 2 or 3 days coming online because they know they need reliable energy. They need affordable energy. They need that to establish their manufacturing dominance and to beat us in the race for AI.
Mr. Speaker, we can't allow that to happen. Even though China produces twice as much electricity as we do today, we shouldn't discriminate against any energy source. We should try to produce as much energy as we can so that we can win in that competition.
By passing this CRA, we are restoring the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mandate and preventing future administrations from locking up America's natural resources. The era of curtailing multiple uses of our Federal lands hopefully is over. It is time to usher in a golden age of unleashing our energy and mineral resources.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision"
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
The joint resolution shall be debated for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 131.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 131 which would repeal a Biden administration-era Record of Decision, ROD, restricting oil and gas production on 1.16 million acres within the 10-02 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR.
The 10-02 area of ANWR was specifically set aside by Congress for its oil and gas potential and is estimated to hold anywhere between 4.25 and 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Prior to the passage of the Working Families Tax Cut law, which requires four lease sales to be held over a 10-year period, Congress had previously mandated energy leasing in the area, an action that has the support of local North Slope communities and Native Villages.
Last Congress, we held a bipartisan legislative hearing on H.R. 6285, ``Alaska's Right to Produce Act,'' where we heard from Tribal representatives, including Inupiat leadership from the Native Village of Kaktovik, the only indigenous Tribal community within ANWR.
In that hearing, Doreen Leavitt, Director of Natural Resources for the Inupiat community of the Arctic Slope said:
Instead of working with Arctic Slope communities to create economic opportunities, the Biden-era ROD further limited the economic prospects available to those in the region, reducing investment and cutting off essential new infrastructure that would support resource development.
During President Trump's first administration, consistent with Federal law and local voices, the Department of the Interior finalized plans to make all 1.56 million acres of the Coastal Plain available to oil and gas leasing.
Lamentably, in 2024, the Biden administration disregarded local Tribal voices and reversed course, implementing a new Record of Decision that chose the most restrictive alternative, making available the minimal amount of acreage for energy leasing.
The Biden administration also included energy-prohibitive stipulations in the ROD designed to undermine energy lease sales in the 10-02 area. These provisions were horrifically successful, as the last lease sale held received no bids.
The Biden administration's anti-energy decisions limit economic opportunities for local Alaskans and Alaska Natives living within ANWR.
Congress must move to repeal the Biden administration-era ROD that runs counter to congressional intent and unfairly reduces economic opportunities in the region.
I thank Representative Begich for his work on H.J. Res. 131 so we can restore common sense to the management of ANWR's vast resources and, again, unleash American energy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 131. The Congressional Review Act resolution here would overturn BLM's Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision.
My Republican colleagues are, once again, pursuing policies that expand our Nation's carbon pollution and expose our communities to future disasters. Not only would this legislation grant access to one of the most ecologically sensitive and, yes, incredibly difficult regions to drill but it would reverse significant strides that Democrats have made to protect lands that Tribal Nations have occupied since time immemorial.
This misguided bill would lock in oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area known to the Gwich'in people as the sacred place where life begins. The Coastal Plain is the heart of the Porcupine caribou's calving grounds. It hosts nearly 200 migratory bird species annually, connecting the rest of the United States and also the world to this cradle of our natural heritage.
Equally vital, the 9,000-strong Gwich'in Nation, whose subsistence and culture depend on the caribou herd, reside along the herd's migratory route, making any disruption not only a threat to biodiversity but also an assault on indigenous livelihoods and traditions.
Let me read a quote from the Executive Director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, Kristen Moreland. She says: ``It is unthinkable that our congressional decisionmakers continue to push to exploit the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge for oil and gas drilling.''
She continues: ``We rely on the caribou, not only spiritually and culturally, but for our survival and subsistence. This action from D.C. is an insult to the Gwich'in people and ignores those realities.''
Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic also oppose this proposal. They said:
Mr. Speaker, these words remind us that the climate crisis is here, it is real, and it is exacerbated by this administration's relentless push toward fossil fuels.
In the Arctic, temperatures are rising four times faster than the global average.
It is the indigenous communities in northern Alaska and in the refuge that are disproportionately feeling the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. Melting permafrost and changing species migration patterns are threatening food security, cultural traditions, and their ways of life.
Mr. Speaker, you will hear my Republican colleagues argue that increased oil and gas development in the Arctic will be good for America's bottom line, but that is patently false. Let me take you back to 2017 when Republicans cut a backroom deal to help pay for Trump's billionaire tax cuts the first time around by drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
Two Arctic Refuge lease sales were included, in part, to offset the cost of those tax giveaways for the wealthy. Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration promised that these lease sales would bring in $1.8 billion in revenue for the Federal Government and the State of Alaska.
Well, when the first lease sale finally took place in 2021, guess what happened, Mr. Speaker?
It generated less than $15 million, that is around 2 percent, of what the CBO had estimated. In 2022, two of those lessees actually asked BLM to cancel and refund their leases.
Separately, in 2021, two development companies actually paid $10 million to walk away from their legacy leases in the Arctic Refuge. That is about the only revenue we have been able to generate in this spectacularly difficult place to drill.
Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group focused on deficit reduction, recently said that drilling in the refuge has never be a credible revenue offset, and it isn't now. They even found that new leasing in the area would only raise, at most, $30 million. That is a drop in the bucket, Mr. Speaker, when you consider my Republican colleagues' big, ugly bill will cost American taxpayers $3.4 trillion.
This resolution is the latest attack from my Republican colleagues to undercut our public lands, to prop up fossil fuel polluters, and the expensive energy sources that they peddle and leave people out of the decisionmaking process, all while driving up energy prices for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in the longstanding, bipartisan support for protecting the Arctic Refuge by opposing H.J. Res. 131, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as the sole Representative of Alaska in the United States House, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 131, a resolution to overturn the Biden administration's 2024 Record of Decision, an action that severely restricted energy development on the coastal plain of Alaska's North Slope.
For Alaskans, this issue is foundational--economically, strategically, and culturally.
The 10-02 area of ANWR, the coastal plain, is the most studied piece of land in Alaska and one of the most resource-rich energy basins in North America. Congress set this area aside specifically because of its oil and gas potential, and Congress has twice mandated that it be leased for energy development.
Yet in December 2024, in the final days of the outgoing administration, the Department of the Interior issued a new Record of Decision that made only 400,000 acres available, a mere 25 percent of the legally designated coastal plain, effectively shutting down 1.16 million acres that Congress expressly told the Department to lease.
That Record of Decision ignored Congress. It ignored the statutory mandate in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and it ignored the voices of the people who actually live on Alaska's North Slope.
Thanks to a request from Alaska's delegation, the Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion on August 25 confirming that this 2024 Record of Decision is a rule under the Congressional Review Act. That opinion, printed in the Congressional Record in September, triggered the CRA window that allows Congress to act today.
Congress must act because Alaskans have spoken clearly, and they have spoken loudly.
The North Slope Inupiat leadership, including the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the North Slope Borough, and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, have consistently supported responsible development in the 10-02 area of our North Slope. For decades, they have supported balanced development because they know how vital it is to sustain their communities, maintain their way of life, and fund essential public services.
Oil and gas development on the North Slope provides 95 percent of local tax revenue, which pays for schools, clinics, utilities, public safety, and infrastructure in some of the most remote and high-cost communities in America. Without development, those services disappear.
Mr. Speaker, the law is clear. The science is clear, and the economic reality is undeniable. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the coastal plain contains 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, a resource that can strengthen America's energy security at a time when geopolitical instability is rising and global energy demand is surging.
President Trump recognized this on day one, issuing executive order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, directing the Secretary of the Interior to restore the lawful 2020 framework.
The Bureau of Land Management is already implementing that directive, working to reinstate the 2020 Record of Decision and moving forward with the four statutorily required lease sales mandated by the American working families tax cut.
However, unless we disapprove of the 2024 ROD today, regulatory whiplash will continue, investment will remain frozen, and local communities will shoulder the burden of Federal indecision.
H.J. Res. 131 ends that uncertainty. It restores the legally compliant 2020 Record of Decision. It restores the full acreage Congress authorized for leasing, and it restores, importantly, the voice of the North Slope residents in Alaska.
Mr. Speaker, Alaska has the energy the world needs. America has the workforce to develop that energy responsibly, and Alaska's communities, from Utqiagvik to Kaktovik, have been asking for consistency, partnership, and respect from their Federal Government.
Today we can answer that call, and I urge my colleague to vote ``yes,'' and support Alaska, support American energy security.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the CRA resolution introduced by my good friend and colleague Representative Begich. This resolution overturns the Biden administration's actions to prevent the great people of Alaska from accessing and responsibly developing their abundant oil and gas resources on the North Slope.
Yet again, these actions were just another part of the Democrat and President Biden's anywhere but America, any worker but American agenda.
This was put out by the Biden administration, Mr. Speaker, on December 8, mere weeks before the transition to the Trump administration.
Last Congress I was proud to introduce the Alaska's Right to Produce Act which reversed many of these same anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration and passed the House with bipartisan support.
Alaska is blessed with a tremendous wealth of natural resources. In fact, when Alaska was admitted to the Union, there was a specific condition laid out that the new State would develop these abundant natural resources for the benefit of all Alaskans and all Americans.
The Biden administration took step after step to block the Alaskan people from developing these resources. The Biden administration levied more sanctions on the State of Alaska than they did on Iran. Congress time and time again has passed laws to encourage and even require oil and gas leasing and development in the 10-02 area of ANWR. The Biden administration's Record of Decision runs completely counter to the laws that Congress has enacted, and they played games to discourage development like only offering unfavorable acreage in their lease sale.
These policies run counter to the wishes of the Alaska Natives across the North Slope of Alaska. I had the honor of leading a bipartisan delegation of my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee to the North Slope last year to visit with these Alaska Natives and see the responsible oil and gas operations firsthand.
These individuals depend on revenues from oil and gas development for their everyday lives. In fact, Alaska Natives who are enrolled shareholders of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation collect nearly $30,000 a year thanks to responsible oil and gas development on the North Slope.
The Biden administration failed to properly consult with the people of the North Slope when they decided to lock up ANWR and the NPR-A. Former Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland refused request after request to meet and hear from them. This was told to us in a meeting in the Natural Resources Committee.
The CRA resolution will correct this by giving Alaska and the Alaska Natives of the North Slope the opportunity to responsibly develop the 10-02 area of ANWR, which was set aside by Congress for this direct purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this important CRA resolution on behalf of all Alaskans, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution. I look forward to this passing this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I strongly oppose this resolution. It would open up ecologically sensitive, culturally important, and incredibly remote regions of the Arctic to oil and gas drilling.
Drilling proponents have grossly overstated how much oil industry interest there is in drilling in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge. The Arctic is an extremely remote and harsh environment requiring specialized equipment and infrastructure, making it one of the costliest places to drill in the entire world.
There have been multiple lease sales held in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I want to emphasize is a wildlife refuge, and still no legitimate oil and gas company currently holds a lease there.
Even during President Trump's first term, no oil and gas company kept their leases. In fact, a recent report from Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the lack of economic viability for any oil and gas development there, citing astronomically high costs in this remote region.
Let me be clear. House Republicans' actions today will do absolutely nothing to lower your energy bills, but it will allow for the sell-off of some of our most special and sacred public lands. That is why I oppose H.J. Res. 131 and all the CRA resolutions on the floor today.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank my colleagues for supporting this critical legislation and engaging in this meaningful discussion.
Before I close, I want to highlight another statement from Director Leavitt, which she offered during a Natural Resources Committee hearing last Congress. Mr. Stauber, in his testimony, talked about how the locals in the area just wished someone would listen to them. Director Leavitt said this: ``Had the administration acted according to the Indian Reorganization Act or its own orders, its leadership and staff would have made allowance for the fact that the ICAS [the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope], alongside many other North Slope Tribes and entities like the Native Village of Kaktovik, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and more, have a long history of supporting responsible resource development projects in ANWR. The Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, of which ICAS is a member, has a standing resolution supporting the responsible exploration and
H.J. Res. 131 responds to the wishes of the local people who call ANWR home and unleashes the region's bountiful natural resources for the benefit of U.S. energy security and the economic well-being of local communities.
I again urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision"
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 80) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 80.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 80, which repeals the Biden administration's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan, or IAP, for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, also known as the NPR-A.
Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, the approximately 23-million-acre NPR-A was designated by Congress due to its vast energy resources. In 1980, Congress amended the act and directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct ``an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.''
In 2020, in President Trump's first administration, the Bureau of Land Management released its IAP for the NPR-A. The 2020 IAP listened to local voices and opened up access to over 18.5 million acres of the NPR-A for oil and gas leasing. Over 13 million acres were made available for new infrastructure development.
Nagruk Harcharek, president of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, stated in a September 2023 Natural Resources Committee hearing that: ``We also felt heard when BLM released an NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) in June 2020 that considered the interests of our communities, including future community infrastructure needs.''
The IAP outlining management activities for natural resources throughout the NPR-A was thoughtfully crafted by the first Trump administration, taking into account the voices of local indigenous Tribal communities.
Regrettably, in 2022, the Biden administration replaced the 2020 IAP with a new one, reducing the available acreage for oil and gas leasing by 37 percent and reducing areas available to new infrastructure by over 2.3 million acres.
In November 2023, during another hearing on the matter, we heard from Commissioner John Boyle of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, who expressed concerns about the Biden administration's NPR-A rulemaking process. ``The process to date has been confusingly deficient as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has scheduled and canceled public meetings on short notice, avoided consultation obligations, and attempted to avoid procedural safeguards that are meant to keep rulemakings of enormous public cost and consequence from being hastily and arbitrarily implemented. Neither comprehensive environmental nor economic reviews have been completed for a proposal that will dramatically change environmental and economic management in what may be the largest Federal petroleum asset in the country.''
In that same hearing, Mr. Harcharek shared:
``This decision, coupled with further `protections' for NPR-A, will undoubtedly shrink the economic opportunities available to the North Slope. It virtually guarantees to set us back on our journey toward self-determination by requiring further reliance on the Federal and State government to provide for the basic needs of the people on the North Slope.''
Ultimately, the Biden administration stymied energy production within the NPR-A and failed to offer leases in a manner that would boost revenue and provide economic stability to the region and the State.
The most recent lease sale in the NPR-A took place in 2019, when the BLM leased over 1 million acres, generating more than $11 million, including roughly $5.6 million for the State of Alaska.
Revenue from developing these resources is essential to the livelihoods of all Alaskans. For example, in fiscal year 2022, Alaskan oil and natural gas production, largely driven by the consequences of the pro-energy policies of the first Trump administration, generated $4.5 billion in State and local revenue and supported over 69,250 direct and indirect jobs.
Alaska's role as a leader in unleashing American energy dominance will continue. In the Working Families Tax Cut Act, Congress highlighted the importance of the NPR-A and required five lease sales to be held in the area over the next 10 years.
To ensure our energy independence, we must unleash American energy and ensure access to our own resources here at home. This legislation is an important step in doing just that.
I thank Representative Begich and Senator Sullivan for their work to bring S.J. Res. 80 to the House floor so that we can nullify yet another misguided Biden-era action and take another step to put our Nation's energy policy back on the right track.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I oppose S.J. Res. 80, which would overturn the BLM's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision for the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, more commonly referred to as ``NPR-A.''
Now the name National Petroleum Reserve is more than a little misleading. This is not some industrial sacrifice zone. It is not some untapped oil field just waiting to be developed. On the contrary, the NPR-A is the largest contiguous unit of public lands in the United States. It spans 23 million acres, and this area of the western Arctic is home to a diverse ecosystem, where iconic species like wolves, polar bears, and caribou roam. Beluga and bowhead whales shelter in its coastal waters. Millions of migratory birds rely on this intact landscape and the critical waters and wetlands that are the NPR-A.
The legislation before us today would withdraw a smart and well- thought-out plan to balance conservation and development in the NPR-A. The 2022 NPR-A plan was developed over more than a decade of engagement with a variety of stakeholders: scientists, experts, indigenous communities, NGOs, and industry.
It aimed to limit the disruption and ecological harm from existing oil and gas development while also designating special areas to protect habitat for the many species that call this amazing place home.
I respect that there are a variety of views on how to manage our Nation's public lands, but it won't be possible for future administrations to incorporate feedback and comments on proposed actions in the NPR-A if Congress approves the resolution before us today.
The CRA, as we have said several times in the course of this debate, is a blunt instrument. It would prevent BLM from ever issuing a substantially similar replacement, and so this path would strip local land managers of the ability to respond to on-the-ground changes and needs for the future of the NPR-A.
My friends across the aisle don't need to do this. There are already processes in place for administrations to propose new management decisions if they don't like this plan. The Trump administration is doing just that already: pursuing updates to the land management plans that we have been debating here using the standard, inclusive mechanisms that allow for public input.
Interior Secretary Burgum withdrew conservation protections for the NPR-A in July. Just last week, the Interior Department finalized a new rule that overturned the previous plan.
The Congressional Review Act is simply the wrong tool to address any changes to management of these lands, and it is not even necessary.
Why do my Republican colleagues need to take up our valuable floor time here debating a rule that their friends in the administration have already rescinded? They just returned from a 53-day, taxpayer-funded vacation, canceled 5 weeks of votes, and still have a long to-do list before the end of the year. That list, I hope, includes figuring out how to avoid another government shutdown in January.
You may wonder if my colleagues are spending time on polluter giveaways to maybe distract from something; maybe something like the fact that President Trump has been mentioned more than 1,000 times in the Epstein emails.
President Trump and House Republicans continue to push their drill, baby, drill agenda even though it makes no sense for people, for the planet, or for our pocketbooks.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this distraction, this S.J. Res. 80, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that, while the current administration did recently rescind the 2024 rule this month, passage of a CRA is still necessary to prevent a future administration from, again, weaponizing IAPs similar to this one that ignore congressional intent. By replacing the 2022 IAP, BLM wouldn't be left in limbo. They would revert back to the initial IAP finalized under the first Trump administration, which did take into account Native Tribal voices, and it is consistent with the requirements included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the lead sponsor of the House companion to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 80, legislation to disapprove of the Bureau of Land Management's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Let me be very clear. This is not an abstract policy debate for the people of Alaska. This is about whether the Federal Government will honor both the law and its commitments to the people who call Alaska home and whether America will choose energy independence over energy uncertainty.
The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, an area the size of Indiana, was set aside more than a century ago to ensure that the United States had a strategic domestic energy supply. Congress reaffirmed that purpose in the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an ``expeditious program of competitive leasing'' in the NPR-A, but the 2022 Integrated Activity Plan issued in the final stretch of the last administration turned that congressional mandate on its head.
It shut the door on 48 percent of the reserve, reducing available acreage from 18.6 million acres to just 11.8 million acres, and restricted infrastructure corridors across millions more. In effect, the plan attempted to create a wilderness area in a petroleum reserve, and it did so without listening to the people who actually live there.
Alaska is asking us to act.
The Inupiat people who live in the area have spoken, and they could not have been clearer. Through the North Slope Regional Trilateral--the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the North Slope Borough, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, we have heard that the Biden administration's 2022 plan imposed ``sweeping restrictions that curtail responsible development, undermine congressional intent, and disregard the well-being of the people who depend on these lands for both subsistence and livelihoods.''
These communities are located in an area nearly the size of Minnesota with no highway connections, extreme transportation costs, and a cost of living among the highest in the Nation. Oil and gas development funds their schools, their public safety, their utilities, their clinics, basic services that most Americans assume that their local government can provide. On the North Slope, that stability exists because responsible development exists, and we have a duty to ensure that it continues.
Alaska's business community stands with them. The Alaska Support Industry Alliance, representing 547 companies and 35,000 Alaskan workers, warned that the 2022 plan jeopardizes the jobs and investment that their families depend on. National organizations from the National Federation of Independent Businesses to the American Exploration & Production Council to the American Petroleum Institute have also voiced their support for reversing this restrictive rule, and the administration itself has made clear that restoring access to the NPR-A is a priority.
President Trump's Executive Order No. 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, directs the Secretary of the Interior to review and rescind the 2022 decision and reestablish a balanced framework consistent with the 2020 plan.
This statement of administration policy strongly supports this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Alaska is ready to power America. We are ready to help lower energy costs for families and small businesses. We are ready to strengthen national security by reducing our reliance on foreign nations. The people who live in Alaska's Far North, the people whose ancestors have called the region home for 10,000 years, are asking us to restore the balanced, lawful management framework that they helped shape.
S.J. Res. 80 does exactly that. It restores congressional intent. It restores certainty for Alaska's communities. It restores America's strategic energy reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S.J. Res. 80, and
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, ICAS, the North Slope Borough, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, ASRC, that specifically states BLM failed to engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation with ASRC, the Borough, and ICAS.
This admission contradicts Federal consultation requirements and disregards the voices of the very communities most affected. Our leadership has consistently raised concerns about this process and its outcome, yet those concerns were ignored.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, the plan that this resolution targets for disapproval is not in place. It has been rescinded by the Trump administration. If ever there is a case for a misapplication of the CRA, it would be this right here.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is an important time for us to step back and consider why using a CRA for any, frankly, public land management plan, but certainly for one that has already been rescinded, is just a recipe for uncertainty and conflict and litigation.
Nearly a third of our Nation's land mass, 640 million acres, is managed by the Federal Government. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres. BLM manages 244 million in addition to 713 million acres of Federal minerals.
For nearly 50 years, BLM and the Forest Service have managed these lands under management plans required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act. These plans, known as resource management plans, or RMPs, establish safeguards for watersheds and recreation areas. They facilitate energy development and grazing and logging and other commercial activities and provide a mechanism for harmonizing the needs of local communities with our national goals and perspectives.
Now, just a few months ago, we debated some other CRA resolutions targeting management plans, and we explained at that time how unprecedented that was. We still don't know the extent of chaos that is going to result from these actions that have already been taken, but we do know this: Under the CRA rules and ``rules'' is a technical term of art here, normally cannot go into effect unless they are submitted for congressional review.
Here is the problem, BLM and the Forest Service have never considered RMPs to be rules that they would submit to Congress. They have just never done that, and that has long been the case under both Democratic and Republican Presidents with precedence being set by those Presidents.
Now that Congress has decided apparently to disapprove of individual RMPs, what does that mean for every other plan that is in place that wasn't submitted to Congress? What does that mean for the small businesses, the local communities, and other public land stakeholders who depend on a stable and predictable land use planning process? If the validity of these land use plans is challenged, then leases, permits, and other authorizations that depend on those plans could be called into question.
This is already creating uncertainty and delays, making it nearly impossible for new projects to proceed on time.
Here are a couple of examples for consideration. What would happen to the White River oil and gas resource management plan in Colorado, which authorizes 15,000 oil and gas wells? What about the Rosemont Copper plan amendment for Forest Service lands in Arizona, approving a 5,000- acre open pit mine in the Coronado National Forest? What about the TransWest Express and Gateway South RMP amendments for three transmission lines through Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah?
Does Interior now need to go back and submit all of those RMP amendments to Congress for approval under this new Republican interpretation of the CRA? Is Congress prepared to take on day-to-day management of public lands and minerals, thousands of miles from Washington, D.C.?
I don't think so, but I am not the only one who has concerns about this treadmill of litigation and conflict and uncertainty that is being created here.
Let me read a quote from Kathleen Sgamma, President Trump's first nominee for director of BLM. She said: ``There are some additional legal risks that can arise from the CRA. It's uncharted ground, and if not used wisely, there could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent.''
Just a few months ago, the House passed several other CRA resolutions, overturning land management plans. As we said at the time, that was unprecedented. These resolutions before us continue to chart unprecedented ground, and I don't think anyone, including my colleagues across the aisle, have thought a heck of a lot about where it leads.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit that a recipe for disaster is when an administration goes out on their own, goes around the laws that Congress passed, and implements bad rules on their way out the door and expects no repercussions from that.
I would say a recipe for good governance is when Congress acts within their power to disapprove of these rules, and that is exactly what we are doing with the CRA to make sure that these rules are followed.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out that we have heard a number of times now that more drilling is necessary in the name of energy independence. I want to remind my colleagues that the United States is already the number one producer of oil in the world and the number one producer and exporter of gas in the world, but you would sure never know it when you look at the energy bills that are facing families all over this country.
It is abundantly clear that the drill, baby, drill agenda is not working for everyday Americans. As long as we are dependent on the fossil fuel roller coaster, American consumers will be at the whim of the global oil and gas market, but if we want energy independence and if we want lower utility bills, we need to get back on track with the transition to clean energy.
It is cheaper. It is safer. It is generated entirely here at home instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas just inherently are. Instead, this legislation would make us more reliant on fossil fuels and more entangled with the price effects of this fossil fuel roller coaster. Plus, oil from America's Arctic will not come online for many, many years.
The Willow project, for example, won't start until 2029. Meanwhile, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. Even at the Willow project, developer ConocoPhillips will use artificial chillers to freeze melting permafrost before drilling for oil. That is the kind of complexity and additional cost that is inherent in drilling in these remote pristine parts of the Arctic.
The project itself will release nearly 300 million metric tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere over its lifetime, the equivalent of at least 66 coal-fired power plants.
Again, Mr. Speaker, if we want true energy independence and security, we need to combat the climate crisis and transition to clean, renewable energy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly oppose this resolution.
The three Congressional Review Act resolutions that we have been considering here today are going to strip local land managers of the ability to respond to future challenges, changes,
These CRA resolutions are completely unnecessary because the Trump administration has already acted on their own to replace these plans.
Even oil and gas industry experts across the political spectrum agree that the use of the CRA on land use plans creates regulatory and legal ambiguity. In fact, Kathleen Sgamma, as I just told you, President Trump's former nominee to lead the BLM, recently said--and it is a quote worth repeating--``There could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent'' when using CRAs in this manner. Yet, apparently, my friends across the aisle are just going to do it anyway.
Sgamma led the Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry trade association. She has testified for the House Committee on Natural Resources majority many times.
This misuse of the CRA will create regulatory chaos for everyone, including the industry, so I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why pursue it?
House Republicans are continuing to lock the American people into higher energy costs by pushing their fossil fuel playbook and sabotaging clean, renewable energy.
Our constituents deserve better. They deserve a future with clean and affordable energy, where utility bills aren't skyrocketing and where we know our lands and waters won't suffer as a result.
That is why I oppose this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it has been stated that gas and energy prices won't be reduced by passing this CRA, and I contend that they will because overturning these rules would incentivize much-needed investment throughout the State or the entire North Slope.
The regional impacts of increased energy production in Alaska cannot be overstated. Refineries in the region, including California and Washington, are equipped to handle Alaskan oil, and the refinery in Kenai produces most of the State of Alaska's gasoline. The North Pole refinery provides jet fuel for our military, amongst other aviation fuels. Two other refineries located in Valdez and near Fairbanks also produce diesel and heating fuels.
Let me point out that 3 out of 10 State households in Alaska rely on fuel oil, kerosene, or propane for home heating. You may ask why they would rely on these fuels that are traditionally more expensive when Alaska has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. That is because that natural gas is on the North Slope, and even in the city of Anchorage, they are running out of natural gas because they can't move the gas from the North Slope and can't develop infrastructure. Not only can they not meet their own needs with that gas, they certainly can't export it to our allies.
As many have shared, the NPR-A is essential to unleashing American energy dominance and sustaining economies throughout Alaska.
Congress must also act to undo the harm that the previous administration imposed, and we must work to unlock the estimated 8.7 billion barrels of oil and 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas the NPR-A holds.
By repealing this decision, we can help uphold Tribal voices and revert to the 2020 IAP that considered their meaningful input.
Letting these plans to shut down energy production in the NPR-A linger would be devastating to Alaskans, especially the Native communities on the North Slope. Without jobs, people may leave these communities, jeopardizing the culture and social fabric of the region. We cannot afford to let this happen. We must pass S.J. Res. 80.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Censuring Representative Cory Mills.
Whereas Representative Cory Mills has on several occasions conducted himself in a manner that reflects discredit upon the House of Representatives;
Whereas on February 19, 2025, Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department officers were called to resolve a private matter at Representative Cory Mills' residence, where officers were called to the 1300 block of Maryland Avenue, Southwest around 1:15 p.m. for the report of an assault;
Whereas police reports obtained by NBC4 Washington confirmed that the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department was investigating Representative Cory Mills for an alleged assault of a 27-year old woman that took place on February 19, 2025, at the residence of Representative Cory Mills;
Whereas the first police report, provided to NBC4 Washington by a source and confirmed by a second source familiar with the investigation, said that the 27-year-old woman accused her significant other for over a year of having grabbed her, shoved her, and pushed her out of the door, and also said that the woman involved showed the officer ``bruises on her arm which appeared fresh'';
Whereas NBC4 Washington also reported that the Metropolitan Police Department identified Representative Cory Mills as the significant other of the alleged victim of assault--which alleged victim was a 27- year-old woman who was not the wife of Representative Cory Mills--and that the alleged victim ``let officers hear Subject 1 [now identified by MPD as Mills] instruct her to lie about the origin of her bruises . . . Eventually, Subject 1 made contact with police and admitted that the situation escalated from verbal to physical, but it was severe enough to create bruising'';
Whereas on February 21, 2025, the Washington post also confirmed two DC police officials said that the alleged victim of assault initially told a 911 operator and police that she had been assaulted and that officers said she also had what seemed to be visible injuries, and that while a supervisor initially classified the offense internally as a family disturbance, police commanders later learned of the incident, reviewed the reports and body camera footage from the responding officers, and reclassified the case as a domestic violence assault;
Whereas on February 21, 2025, NBC4 Washington also reported that the Metropolitan Police Department determined that probable cause to arrest Representative Cory Mills for misdemeanor assault existed and sent an arrest warrant for Representative Cory Mills to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia; however, then-Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin refused to sign the arrest warrant for Representative Cory Mills and instead returned the case to the Metropolitan Police Department for further investigation;
Whereas on July 14, 2025, a different former romantic partner of Representative Cory Mills, who was apparently in a relationship with Representative Mills from November 2021 to February 2025, reported to authorities in Florida that Representative Mills threatened to release nude images and other intimate videos of her and threatened to harm her future romantic partners in retaliation for her decision to end a relationship with Representative Mills after seeing the public reports described above concerning the alleged February 2025 physical assault;
Whereas on October 14, 2025, the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Columbia County, Florida, issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Dating Violence against Representative Cory Mills, based on a finding that his former romantic partner was a victim of dating violence or had reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of becoming a victim of an act of dating violence;
Whereas in August 2024, the Office of Congressional Conduct adopted and transmitted to the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives a report indicating that there was substantial reason to believe that Representative Cory Mills may have omitted or misrepresented required information in his financial disclosure statements, accepted excessive contributions to his campaign committee in the form of personal loans and contributions that may not have derived from Representative Cory Mills' personal funds, entered into, held, or enjoyed contracts with federal agencies while he was a Member of Congress, and may have accepted through his campaign committee in- kind contributions or other contributions not lawfully made;
Whereas individuals who served with Representative Cory Mills have called into question the veracity of the account of events which formed the basis of a recommendation that Representative Cory Mills receive an award of a Bronze Star, bestowed in 2021, for his service under enemy fire in Iraq in 2003;
Whereas in August 2024, Representative Cory Mills provided the Daytona Beach News with documents purporting to prove that he earned a Bronze Star with heroism, including a Department of the Army Form 638 recommending Representative Cory Mills for a Bronze Star which includes a signature from then-Army Brigade Commander Arnold N. Gordon-Bray; however, Retired Brigadier General Bray told the Daytona Beach News- Journal in August 2024 that he did not sign a Bronze Star recommendation for Representative Cory Mills;
Whereas five people who served with Representative Cory Mills, including two men who were reported as having been personally saved by Representative Cory Mills at great risk to his own life as a basis for the recommendation for his Bronze Star in the Department of the Army Form 638, disputed that Representative Cory Mills was involved in their rescue or provided life-saving care;
Whereas one Private First Class cited as having been involved in one of the listed achievements on Representative Cory Mills's Army Form 638 recommending him for a Bronze Star denied that Representative Cory Mills provided him any aid and also denied that his injuries were life threatening;
Whereas one Sergeant cited as having been involved in one of the listed achievements on Representative Cory Mills's Army Form 638 recommending him for a Bronze Star called the account a ``fabrication'' and claimed that he ``was not involved in any claims that Cory Mills makes about me''; and
Whereas despite the numerous available contradictions of the accounts forming the basis of the recommendation for his Bronze Star, Representative Cory Mills described the legitimate factual disputes raised by individuals he purportedly served with and rescued as ``slander and defamation'' in a statement to the Daytona Beach News Journal: Now, therefore, be it
(1) Representative Cory Mills be censured;
(2) Representative Cory Mills forthwith present himself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure;
(3) Representative Cory Mills be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker; and
(4) Representative Cory Mills is hereby removed from the following standing committee of the House of Representatives: the Committee on Armed Services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution by the gentlewoman from New York will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this time determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
Requesting Secretary of the Interior to Authorize Unique and One-Time Displays on the National Mall and Washington Monument Beginning December 31, 2025, and Ending January 5, 2026
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 133) requesting the Secretary of the Interior to authorize unique and one-time arrangements for displays on the National Mall and the Washington Monument during the period beginning on December 31, 2025, and ending on January 5, 2026, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RELATING TO "BUFFALO FIELD OFFICE Record OF DECISION AND APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT"
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 130) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, nays 212, not voting 7, as follows:
Mr. PANETTA and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GARBARINO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision"
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 209, not voting 7, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision"
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 80) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, nays 209, not voting 8, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Censuring and Condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett and Removing Her From the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for Conduct That Reflects Discreditably on the House of Representatives...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 888) censuring and condemning Delegate Stacey Plaskett and removing her from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for conduct that reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives for colluding with convicted felony sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, nays 214, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 7, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent and unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 294, YEA on Roll Call No. 295, YEA on Roll Call No. 296, and YEA on Roll Call No. 297.
Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Speaker of the House of Representatives can explain why leadership on both sides, both Democrat and Republican, are cutting back-end deals to cover up public corruption in the House of Representatives for both Republican and Democrat Members of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago tonight, our community of Louisville, our State of Kentucky, was absolutely rocked when a cargo plane taking off from Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport bound for Hawaii crashed.
Mr. Speaker, 38,000 gallons of jet fuel exploded in our community in a scene that can only be described as apocalyptic.
All three crew lost their lives, as well as 11 people on the ground. Mr. Speaker, 14 of our neighbors, 14 of our community, gone.
The first responders were incredibly brave, rushing headfirst into the inferno to save everything they could. Our community, our State, our delegation, we did what Louisvillians and Kentuckians do and lifted each other up as best as possible.
Tonight, we want to express our gratitude for those who went headfirst into that danger, for those who lifted each other up, and we want to offer a moment of silence for the 14 people who lost their lives.
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by my colleagues from Michigan as we honor the community of Grand Blanc and the victims and families of the shooting and fire at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
On the morning of Sunday, September 28, families, friends, and neighbors gathered to worship when a gunman crashed his car into the church, set the church on fire, and began shooting into the congregation.
Ultimately, four members of our community were taken from us that morning. Today and for many days to follow, we will mourn for each of them, their families, every congregant of the church, and all of those impacted by this senseless act of violence.
This kind of violence, specifically in a place of worship where we go to pray and reflect in peace, is despicable, and no one should ever have to go through this.
We also extend profound gratitude to the heroic first responders: the law enforcement officers who responded to the scene within seconds; the 911 dispatchers who coordinated an instantaneous response; the firefighters who got people to safety; and the local EMTs, nurses, and doctors who treated the injured. Their bravery and quick action saved lives.
As the community heals from this moment of incredible darkness, they unify and find light under the motto: Grand Blanc, Better Together.
Residents specifically asked me to bring this message to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Today, may the whole Nation learn from their example, and may we always stand better together with Grand Blanc. They remind us that it is our differences that make our country stronger and that it is the way we love one another that will define us.
For them, may we all seek to bring peace, understanding, and love to this world, and let us never forget their loss.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence.
Mr. Speaker, Thursday marks National Rural Health Day.
Nearly 60 million Americans live in rural areas, and they too often encounter limited access to primary care specialists and health services. These gaps are worsened by transportation barriers, doctor shortages, and hospital closures. These challenges don't just affect individuals; they affect entire families and communities.
Before coming to Congress, I spent nearly 30 years in the nonprofit healthcare field, assisting those with life-changing diseases and disabilities.
Most of my congressional district is rural, and many constituents must drive long distances to get the care that they need. Some do not have broadband access. Some have limited transportation options. Thankfully, telehealth has added tremendous reach and value to communities across the country.
That is why I reintroduced the bipartisan Helping Ensure Access to Local TeleHealth Act, or the HEALTH Act, which cuts red tape and allows community health centers and rural health clinics to provide telehealth services to their patients. Telehealth makes life simpler for rural and underserved communities, especially for our seniors. Telehealth is an essential part of healthcare that expands access to care for all Americans, regardless of location.
Mr. Speaker, given the President's disturbing and counterfactual defense of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman today, I feel compelled to speak up on behalf of Mr. Khashoggi and his family and the American people.
During my tenure on Trump's White House National Security Council staff, I reviewed many of Trump's calls with foreign leaders. Of all of the calls I reviewed, two stood out as the most problematic.
The first, we all know. It was between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, which resulted in President Trump's first impeachment. The second was between President Trump and Mohammed bin Salman.
After the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, I reviewed a call between the President and the Saudi Crown
If history is any guide, the receipts will be shocking. I call on the President to release that transcript.
Honestly, does anyone believe that the Zelenskyy call was the only problematic conversation Donald Trump had with a foreign leader?
Mr. Speaker, in small towns and communities across America, rural hospitals are critical lifelines. They provide emergency care, support seniors and veterans, deliver behavioral health services, assist mothers who are giving birth, supply pharmacy services, and serve as major local employers.
Yet, many rural hospitals are under serious strain. Nearly half are operating at negative margins. Since 2010, more than 150 rural hospitals have cut inpatient services or closed their doors permanently, including some in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.
These closures aren't happening because communities don't need care but because the financial reality of providing it in rural America keeps getting tougher.
When a rural hospital closes, families face hours-long drives in emergency situations, expectant mothers lose access to obstetric care, and seniors suffering from a heart attack or a stroke may arrive too late.
As we mark National Rural Health Day this week, we must renew and strengthen our commitment to rural hospitals by ensuring fair reimbursement, strengthening telehealth and infrastructure, and preserving access to critical resources like the 340B drug program, a key revenue stream for rural hospitals.
Rural hospitals must not only survive but thrive. We need to keep that because it is not about ZIP Codes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to bring attention to the Senate's despicable decision last week to sneak in a self-serving provision into the bill that was used to reopen the government.
While 42 million Americans on SNAP were denied their benefits, Senate leadership added a payout provision to eight Senate Republicans whose phone records were subpoenaed in the January 6 Capitol riot investigation by the Department of Justice.
While American air traffic controllers worked without pay, Senators gave themselves the ability to sue for at least $500,000 if their electronic records were seized.
American taxpayers should not be footing the bill for this Republican windfall provision. I am proud of my House colleagues for acting quickly to address this dishonest and embarrassing display.
I will be voting to repeal this provision when it comes in before the House this week because these eight Senators should not be putting themselves ahead of the American people.
I call on the Senate to take up this legislation as soon as it is received from the House and to right this wrong immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend Mayor Kevin Cotton of Madisonville, Kentucky, who was recently honored as the 2025 Elected City Official of the Year by the Kentucky League of Cities.
Mayor Cotton's exemplary leadership, dedication, and service to his community have left an indelible mark on the city of Madisonville and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Selected from nominations all across the State, Mayor Cotton stood out for his innovative, hands-on approach and tireless commitment to making a positive difference. He received a record 12 nominations, many from city staff, who praised his unwavering dedication and lifelong commitment to the city.
His peers and colleagues see him as a humble leader whose focus on Madisonville's growth and success goes far beyond the expectations of his role.
In addition to this remarkable honor, Mayor Cotton was recognized for his 4 years of dedicated service as a member of the Kentucky League of Cities Executive Board and was presented with a copy of the Athenian Oath in recognition of his commitment.
On behalf of Kentucky's First Congressional District, I join with Mayor Cotton's family, friends, and citizens of Madisonville in celebrating his outstanding leadership and dedication.
Mr. Speaker, rural Georgians and rural Americans are older, sicker, and less likely to have health insurance than those in our cities. In fact, compared to urban areas, rural Georgians are nearly five times more likely to die early from cancer.
However, access to care is collapsing. Over 20 percent of rural counties in Georgia have no doctor or only one doctor, and 200 counties across America have no doctor at all.
When rural hospitals close, the community loses not only healthcare but jobs, restaurants, banks, and hope. When Southwest Georgia Regional Hospital closed, the nearest ER became 40 miles away, a life or death distance.
Rural healthcare is not just about hospitals and doctors. Clean drinking water, wastewater upgrades, and broadband are necessary for health and survival. Rural areas simply don't have the tax base to modernize these systems alone, so Congress must invest funding in rural development, energy, and healthcare to ensure they can thrive.
Mr. Speaker, rural health is not partisan. We must work together to make access to care a reality for rural Americans everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, this is the moment to bring the senseless redistricting war to an end.
Today, a Federal District Court tossed out the gerrymandered map in Texas with an appeal headed straight to the Supreme Court. California's gerrymandered map is facing a similar legal challenge. We don't know how these cases will turn out, so there is uncertainty at this moment whether the whole redistricting war is going to end as a wash or with a modest advantage for one party or the other.
Now, it really shouldn't matter. I am against gerrymandering wherever it occurs no matter which party stands to benefit, but this present uncertainty has created a window of opportunity for a bipartisan agreement to bring this madness to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 4889 to ban mid-decade redistricting in every State in the country. I am calling on House leadership to do the right thing and bring this bill to the floor for a vote. Not only is it supported widely by Members in this body but a poll showed that the American people support this proposal by a 3 to 1 margin. Let's pass this legislation and restore a dose of sanity to politics in this country.
Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National Health Month, let me put some quotes out there from individuals that I represent.
Just in Ohio, we know health insurance will become unaffordable for tens
Please let me share some examples. A constituent from Clyde, Ohio, said it clearly: High insurance prices will allow people to die by making healthcare unaffordable. It was terrible before the ACA. We need affordable health insurance.
Another citizen from Edon in Williams County shared how their medications had become so costly that they now have to seek out patient assistance programs. Their prescription insurance has increased by $119 a month, which is unmanageable on a fixed income.
A Toledo resident told me that everything is going up. Groceries cost more as well as childcare and rent. Unless Congress acts, health insurance premiums for us will double. Our family cannot make it. We don't have an extra $100 per month.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you are listening to these pleas because unless we address the cost of health insurance in this country, too many people are going to die.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Rural Health Day to honor the millions of Americans who rely on rural healthcare systems and to shine a light on the unique challenges faced by our rural and territory communities.
In places like Guam, distance is not measured in miles but in oceans. When a family needs specialty care, when a child requires emergency service, and when one of our manamko seeks follow-up treatment, the nearest option may be thousands of miles away.
Hospitals and healthcare facilities across our Nation, including Guam Memorial Hospital, bear tremendous responsibility with limited resources. It is the doctors, the nurses, and allied health professionals at Guam who meet the responsibility every day. They provide lifesaving care despite higher costs, workforce shortages, and outdated reimbursement formulas.
Financial sustainability for these institutions is not just about healthcare. It is about equality, economic stability, and national security. That is why I am working on policies to strengthen reimbursement, modernize Federal support programs, and expand workforce pipelines so every community, no matter how remote, can count on its providers and hospitals for quality care.
Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of a district full of forests, mountains, and rugged coastlines that are beautiful but often mean a long drive to the hospital, I know that preserving rural healthcare access is literally life and death in our communities.
Tribal health clinics, federally qualified health centers, rural hospitals, and independent providers are facing challenge upon challenge upon challenge. At Grays Harbor Community Hospital, I saw firsthand how tariffs are driving up costs for medical devices and supplies, adding financial strain to already stretched rural facilities.
The hospital recently invested in a new MRI machine, a critical upgrade that offers faster scans and higher resolution images, but because of tariffs, they had to pay significantly more money to purchase this machine. That is money they now can't use for other things.
Advanced medical equipment like this is increasingly expensive under the Trump administration. Add to that the Medicaid cuts in the big, ugly bill and the end of the ACA tax credits, the strain and uncertainty is challenging.
On National Rural Health Day, we should be working together to expand care, not making it more difficult for rural communities.
Mr. Speaker, every time I come on to this floor, I marvel at the fact that I get the opportunity to serve here, but today it means a lot more because 35 years ago as a page in this institution, my mom used to come and watch me every day.
She would come and sit in the gallery over there never knowing that 35 years later, her son would ultimately serve in Congress. Frankly, had you asked me 1 year ago today, I would have told you that I would not expect to be serving here.
However, it was 1 year ago today that my mom died. It was 5 days after that that President Trump asked me to run. Today, as I mourn my mother on the 1-year anniversary of her death, I think of all of the things that I can do to make sure that I make her proud in how I served her every day because as I often say to my constituents, I won't let you down because I am not going to let her down.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of Syracuse Police Officer Wallie Howard, Jr.
Officer Howard was a son of Syracuse, a Henninger graduate, a Syracuse University student, and a respected member of the Syracuse Police Department.
He dedicated his life to protecting our community, serving with distinction on the Central New York DEA Task Force.
On October 30, 1990, during an undercover narcotics investigation, Officer Howard was ambushed and killed in the line of duty. His death marked the first line-of-duty death for a Syracuse officer since 1929.
For decades, his legacy has guided law enforcement training across the country, and awards in his name continue to honor excellence, bravery, and service.
It is time to bestow another lasting honor on this Syracuse hero. That is why I have introduced bipartisan legislation to rename the post office at 2200 South Salina Street in Syracuse as the Officer Wallie Howard, Jr. Post Office Building.
This designation ensures that in the everyday life of the city he protected, Syracuse, New York, Officer Howard's name, sacrifice, and example will never be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the overwhelming majority of the New York delegation that are cosponsoring this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support it and to help a great American city honor a great American hero who gave everything for his community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to remember and make sure we don't forget the name and the likeness of Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee who successfully made it safely to this country, to North Carolina, where she innocently one evening was riding a transit train and had her life brutally taken away from her by a 13- or 14-time arrested criminal for no reason other than a thrill kill.
We need not forget, as it doesn't seem to be playing very far into the news, this tragic loss. Remember the name, the face of Iryna Zarutska, and hope that she gets justice from the prosecution of this animal currently in court.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a legend in Arlington, Texas, who passed away, the former mayor of Arlington, Elzie Odom. He was 96 years old. Mayor Odom was a trailblazer in every sense of the word. Born in east Texas, he moved to Arlington and made his mark in the city very quickly.
His journey was a testament to a determination of dignity and faith. He was an elected official in Arlington for 14 years and very active in the Mount Olive Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, where he and his wife, Ruby, of 78 years spent most of their time worshipping.
He was very instrumental in making sure that we kept General Motors in Arlington. We almost lost the plant back in the 1990s, and it was Elzie's leadership that helped us keep the plant. He kept the Texas Rangers baseball club there as well. He talked about bringing the Olympics to Arlington, and people didn't believe it would happen, but then it got serious consideration, and we were on the short list.
This was an incredible man.
His daughter, who is on the city council, Barbara Odom-Wesley, said that he taught others that ``service is the price you pay for the space you occupy.''
I have to tell you there are so many things that I can say great about Mayor Odom, but this man absolutely loved his family. His grandkids called him Grandee, and he and his wife of 78 years had one of the most beautiful relationships in all of the Dallas-Fort Worth- Arlington area.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that not even 7 weeks have gone by since Charlie Kirk was savagely murdered in Utah.
I am, quite frankly, a little bit disappointed at the degree to which I do not feel that this body is doing enough to memorialize this great man's short life. I, myself, am reading books by Charlie Kirk to familiarize myself with what drove him to be such an active force in American civil life.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the rest of this body familiarize themselves with the books and familiarize themselves with why so many Members on the left could not contain themselves, apparently even horrifically with glee, that Charlie Kirk was shot.
I ask particularly my Republican colleagues to familiarize themselves with his writings and let his writings inspire us for the next 13\1/2\ months of this term so that we can begin to accomplish all of the wonderful things he wanted us to accomplish, which he so eloquently pointed out where we were failing to accomplish them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the growing mental health care crisis in rural America.
Nearly one in five adults live with a mental illness, yet rural communities lack the providers, facilities, and resources to meet their needs. In my own district, an entire county has only one child and adolescent psychiatrist. For families seeking timely specialized care, that is not just an inconvenience. It is a barrier that can mean the difference between preventative help and a crisis.
Communities across the country face the same impossible math: too many needs and too few providers.
That is why I have introduced legislation to support clinicians who commit to practicing in rural areas and to expand telemental health services tailored to farmers, fishers, and foresters, the people who power our rural economies.
Access to quality care should not depend on your ZIP Code. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring rural Americans are no longer overlooked or underserved.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Hawaii?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate National Rural Health Day here on the House floor, standing shoulder to shoulder with our colleagues in the Bipartisan Rural Health Caucus. I am very humbled and honored to be here with my friend and fellow co-chair, Representative Diana Harshbarger.
A big mahalo, as we have just heard from Members on both sides of the aisle, who took to the floor to raise up the needs, the challenges, the hopes, and the dreams for healthcare in rural America.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor National Rural Health Month and to honor the men and women who keep healthcare alive in America's small towns and rural communities.
As co-chair of the Congressional Bipartisan Rural Health Caucus, I am proud to join my colleagues in leading an effort to ensure the millions of Americans who live in rural areas, including the hardworking people of Tennessee's First District, receive the same quality of care as anyone else in the Nation.
In northeast Tennessee, rural healthcare is a lifeline to people, especially those who live in remote areas and are limited or have no mode of transportation. They depend on a nurse to drive during the night and before dawn to check on a patient or the pharmacist who knows every family by name and stretches every dollar to keep medicine affordable. It is the doctor who stays late to see one more patient because there is no one else to take the next shift.
These are the people who form the backbone of our rural healthcare communities, and they deserve a system that works as hard for them as they do for us.
The truth is, rural healthcare has always faced an uphill battle. When a rural hospital shuts down, it just doesn't take away healthcare. It takes away jobs, stability, and peace of mind.
It means longer drives for emergency care, fewer options for expectant mothers, and limited access for seniors and veterans who depend on those services the most.
The systems that are supposed to support them is too often buried in bureaucracies.
Pharmacy benefit managers are manipulating drug prices, restricting choices, and squeezing out small-town pharmacies that are fighting just to survive.
These PBMs never see a patient, but they control what medicines people can get and at what cost.
That is wrong, and I have been proud to lead bipartisan legislation to bring transparency, accountability, and fairness to that system because patients and pharmacists alike deserve better.
I have made it my mission to champion these policies that put people, not politics, first. Under President Trump's leadership, we signed the Working Families Tax Cuts Act into law this year. This critical legislation included the single largest investment in rural healthcare in history. That is $50 billion for a Rural Health Transformation Fund to reinvest Federal savings directly into the communities that need it most, expanding telehealth, and recruiting and retaining rural healthcare workers.
We are committed to ensuring telehealth remains an option for those living in rural communities. Telehealth provides expanded access to specialists, closes the distance between patients and providers, and gives families faster, more reliable care.
I have legislation, the Rural Physician Workforce Production Act, that would help bring more doctors to rural communities by giving rural hospitals the resources they need to train and retain more physicians.
I have fought to strengthen our Nation's drug supply chain by supporting domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing, including facilities like USAntibiotics in Bristol, Tennessee, where we are proving that these lifesaving antibiotics can and should be made right here in the United States and not halfway around the world.
Mr. Speaker, these aren't abstract policy debates. They are about real people and real places. They are about the mom who drives an hour to find a pediatric specialist. They are about the veteran who can't get his prescription filled because his local pharmacy closed. They are about the nurse who works back-to-back shifts because there aren't enough hands to go around.
Those stories are what drive my work every single day. That is why I have joined my co-chair, Representative Tokuda, in introducing a resolution to recognize November 20, 2025, as National Rural Health Day. This resolution recognizes the challenges we face, but more importantly it affirms our commitment to solving them.
I thank Representative Tokuda for her continued commitment on working together to address the pressing healthcare issues facing our rural communities. We must fight for a healthcare system that serves patients, not big insurance companies; that values rural providers, not red tape; and ensures no community, no matter how small or remote, is left behind.
We thank the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and first responders who keep rural America healthy. Their work saves lives. Their compassion gives hope, and their dedication holds our communities together.
As long as I have the privilege to serve the people of Tennessee's First District, and as co-chair of the Rural Health Caucus, I will continue that fight. We are united in our shared mission to strengthen rural healthcare, protect patient access, and preserve the small-town values that make this Nation strong.
Mr. Speaker, National Rural Health Day is a chance to honor the communities that keep this country moving: the farmers, teachers, ``seniors,'' ``kupuna,'' health workers, first responders, small business owners, and families who fuel our local economies and preserve our way of life. It is also a moment for Congress to recognize that rural communities face challenges that are different not because they are less but because they are often asked to survive systems that were not built for them.
What some in Washington call innovation is really rural America being forced into a constant state of adaptation, forced to make do, to improvise, and stretch thin resources even thinner simply to maintain basic access to healthcare.
Every day in Hawaii, I see mobile clinics reaching isolated communities, school-based health centers stepping up for low-income children, and community health workers bridging cultural and geographic divides. Rural communities everywhere are pioneering models of behavioral health integration in telemedicine, not from a place of creativity or convenience but necessity and survival.
We have proven we can adapt to impossible situations, but extraordinary flexibility cannot and must not replace true investment. Ingenuity cannot replace Federal partnership, and resilience cannot continue to be a substitute for resources.
We have unfinished business here before us in Congress, but what gives me hope is that we have allies and advocates on both sides of the aisle ready to lead.
Across the country, from the volcano-lined communities in my district of Ka'u to the farming slopes of Upcountry Maui, to the taro patches that I see on Kauai, one truth is crystal clear: Rural America is tired of being resilient.
When people call us resilient, what they are really saying is we have been forced to survive hardship. Resilience means we are struggling. Resilience means we are being asked to endure what no community should ever be asked to endure.
Our people cannot survive on resiliency alone. Rural America is tired of being tired. Rural America is tired of jumping from one difficult situation to another. Rural America is tired of learning to bend without breaking due to a lack of resources, investment, and support.
What rural America needs is an immediate, revolutionary, transformational investment, a historic top-to-bottom overhaul that rebuilds the healthcare system from the inside out. Rural America needs a profound change on a scale that we have not yet seen before and, most importantly, rural America, where we all live, needs a chance to be known as more than just resilient. It deserves a chance to thrive.
We cannot rely on Band-Aids, small steps forward, and short-term pilot projects, especially when we know families are driving hours or having to even get on a plane for care. Hospitals are closing, behavioral health crises are going untreated. When the difference between life and death is the difference between one rural town and the nearest city, this is unacceptable. Our people will literally die without bold, immediate, systemic action on rural health.
Today, we still lack long-term stability for community health centers, teaching health centers, and the National Health Service Corps. Critical workforce and training programs remain stuck in reauthorization limbo, and bipartisan bills to strengthen EMS capacity, expand telehealth, and improve behavioral health access still await action.
We said these issues were urgent last year when we were on the floor. They are even more urgent today. Rural communities cannot afford another year of waiting. That is why we are pushing forward with real, bipartisan solutions that simply cannot wait another Congress to be enacted into law.
My rural health clinic modernization package, including the Rural Behavioral Health Improvement Act, cuts red tape and strengthens reimbursements so rural clinics can stay open.
The HEALTH Act protects telehealth access, including audio-only visits for families who lack broadband or live hours away from their care.
The Community TEAMS Act and Strengthening Pathways to Health Professions Act rebuild the rural workforce pipeline, supporting students and providers and keeping scholarships and loan repayment programs accessible and tax free.
The Rural Health Care Technical Assistance Act gives rural facilities the tools they need to prevent closures and stay financially stable.
These are practical, bipartisan solutions built for lasting impact, not another short-term fix to grab a headline. That is why caucuses like ours, the Bipartisan Rural Health Caucus, and Special Order hours like the ones that you have seen tonight matter. They remind America and this Congress that despite everything going on in our politics, there is still a path forward. There is still work we can only accomplish together.
In closing, I thank all of my colleagues who joined us tonight to give their speeches and to the over 70 Members, Republicans and Democrats, who make up our caucus. Their presence sends a clear message: Rural communities matter.
The voices of my constituents in Hawaii and rural Americans across this great country keep us grounded. Every nurse, doctor, EMT, pharmacist, community health worker, and small clinic team show us both the urgency and the solutions every single day. This work is not just policy. It is people. It is families. It is the future of rural America.
Let's continue to listen, to act, and deliver together because when rural communities thrive, all of America thrives.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
