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.
14 public bills, H.R. 6992- 7005; and 3 resolutions, H.J. Res. 139; and H. Res. 984-985, were introduced.
Pages H614-615
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Guest Chaplain: The prayer was offered by the Guest Chaplain, Major General William Green, Jr., Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Army, Washington, DC.
Page H593
Affordable Housing Over Mandating Efficiency Standards Act
The House passed H.R. 5184, to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from enforcing energy efficiency standards applicable to manufactured housing, by a yea-and-nay vote of 263 yeas to 147 nays, Roll No. 12.
Pages H595-604
Agreed to amend the title so as to read
``To authorize the Secretary of Energy to transmit to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development recommendations for changes to preemptive energy conservation standards applicable to manufactured homes.''.
Page H604
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 977, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 4593), (H.R. 5184), and (H.R. 6938) was agreed to Wednesday, January 7th.
Page H595
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, January 12, 2026 for morning-hour debate.
Page H604
Quorum Calls: Votes
One yea-and-nay vote developed during the proceedings of today and appears on page H603. Adjournment: The House met at 9 a.m. and adjourned at 12:30 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: 81 of 116 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Recognizing National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, which is observed annually on January 9.
Established in 2015, this day allows us to recognize the brave men and women who serve and protect in the line of duty.
I extend my deepest gratitude to the more than 900,000 sworn officers serving across the United States, who dedicate their lives to keep our communities safe.
I thank the Capitol Police, the Secret Service, and the Metropolitan Police Department for their continuous efforts to keep us safe here in our Nation's Capital. I am grateful for the law enforcement officers in my home State of Pennsylvania and the local officers who safeguard the communities across Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District.
Our officers know that they can be in harm's way at any moment. They answer the calls in times of distress. They follow rules, and they wear the badge proudly.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all our law enforcement officers for answering the call to serve our communities.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning the House Abraham Accords Caucus hosted Rabbi Yehoram Ulman and Ahmed al-Ahmed, survivors of the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach last month.
When terrorists began massacring Jews during a Hanukkah celebration-- Rabbi Ulman's son-in-law among them--Ahmed, a Muslim who was at the event by serendipity, rushed to cover.
As one of the terrorists approached his position, rather than fleeing, Ahmed heroically rose to the moment, charged, and singlehandedly disarmed the attacker, saving countless lives.
The Abraham Accords are premised on a simple tenet. Arabs and Jews belong to the same land and that, by elevating the people, we will separate the land and bring peace to the entire region.
Today, Rabbi Ulman and Ahmed al-Ahmed showed that the spirit of the Abraham Accords extend far beyond the Middle East.
As I told Ahmed, he not only is a hero to us all, he teaches us that love of the stranger will lift us all and defeat hatred. Rabbi Ulman and Mr. Al-Ahmed have titled their visit around the world: ``The Light Will Win.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of former United States Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado who passed away at the age of 92.
Senator Campbell lived a remarkable life. He was a decorated veteran, a champion for Native American communities, and a trailblazer in Congress. He was the first Native American elected to the Senate in more than 60 years, and he never forgot who he was or who he served.
He represented Colorado's Third Congressional District in this Chamber and then served two terms in the Senate. He was always guided by integrity, independence, and a deep sense of duty. He didn't care about party lines. He cared about doing what was right.
Colorado has lost a great leader. Our country has lost a great public servant. I join many in keeping his wife, Linda, and their family in our prayers.
Mr. Speaker, our dynamic band, die-hard fans, Steve the Pirate, Pirate Marissa, and ECU brought it in Annapolis.
I am honored to recognize Coach Blake Harrell and the entire East Carolina University football team. Their remarkable back-to-back Military Bowl wins make eastern North Carolina incredibly proud.
These victories reflect the hard work, discipline, grit, resilience, and heart that define Pirate football. They represented eastern North Carolina with toughness and determination against a well-respected, well-coached, and talented Pitt football team.
Their success is a testament to teamwork, leadership, and the unshakeable belief in one another. Pirate Nation stands united in celebrating what they have accomplished and what is still ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act. I thank Representative Houchin for her leadership in advancing this important piece of legislation.
Housing affordability is one of the top issues that I hear about in western North Carolina. Working families, seniors on fixed incomes, first responders, and young people are often priced out of the communities where they live and work because housing supply just hasn't kept up with demand. This bill will help change that.
It cuts the unnecessary red tape that slows construction and increases costs. It modernized outdated regulations and gives local communities greater flexibility to build the housing that they need.
For western North Carolina, that means more workforce housing, attainable options for seniors, and fewer workers forced into long commutes.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation focuses on solutions and not bureaucracy, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5184.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Food Market La Chiquita on their 40th anniversary. In 1986, Alfredo Linares, an immigrant from Mexico, took a chance. He got a loan and bought a corner store in my neighborhood of Little Village.
Four decades later, you can find La Chiquita stores throughout the metro Chicago area, and it continues to be a family-owned business that makes each customer feel welcome and part of the family.
When you walk into any of their stores, you are greeted by the vibrant colors of the fresh produce and the unmistakable aromas coming from the kitchen, an invitation not just to shop but to feel at home.
It is almost impossible to go shopping and not get some tacos from La Chiquita's in-store restaurants. Some days, you will find me chowing down on a torta and chatting with constituents on their break from work.
The secret to their success is simple but powerful: high-quality products, exceptional service for their customers, and a deep understanding of the community.
I look forward to many more decades of success for La Chiquita. I congratulate them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life and legacy of Mr. Darrell Walker, who dutifully served his Sublette County community across many roles for over 50 years.
As the longest serving conservation district board supervisor in Wyoming, Darrell showed a lifelong commitment to conservation, ranching, and many of the values we hold near and dear in the Cowboy State.
In recognition of Darrell's decades of selfless leadership, the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts named the Darrell Walker Outstanding Supervisor Award in his honor.
Darrell leaves behind a legacy of service, dedication to conservation, and many loving children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren.
Please join me in recognizing the legacy of Mr. Darrell Walker as we send our condolences to his family.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the greatest casualty of the Donald Trump administration is the truth.
The President and the courtiers who encircle him traffic, intentionally and carelessly, in falsehoods, misinformation, and lies.
Consider just the last 7 days.
On Venezuela, they lied when they said it was about drugs. It never was. It was about oil. Witness the January and December Presidential pardons of the two biggest narcotraffickers. Whether it was the repeated murder of unidentified people in small boats or last Saturday's extraordinary capture of Maduro, they lied, saying they would not attack Venezuela before going to Congress.
On this week's fifth anniversary of January 6, the President continues his dangerous lies, supported by the Speaker of the House. The White House is going so far as an attempt to whitewash history on the official website of the White House, even blaming Capitol Police for the President's deadly insurrection.
Now, on the deadly ICE shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother in Minneapolis, they are grotesquely lying and misidentifying a woman they did not know, even before her family could identify her body.
Mr. Speaker, we are better than this. America is better than this craven crowd.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, January 10 marks the 125th anniversary of Spindletop, located in Texas' 14th District, which I am proud to represent.
In January 1901, the Spindletop gusher produced up to 100,000 barrels of oil per day and flowed for 9 straight days, making it the largest oil discovery in the world at the time and the first major oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. I should say the Gulf Coast, or should I say the Gulf of America?
That discovery launched the modern American oil industry and transformed southeast Texas into a national energy hub. Over the decades, Spindletop helped drive industrial growth, supported national defense, and built a foundation for the energy infrastructure that exists along the Texas Gulf Coast today.
My district is now home to some of the largest refineries in the U.S., three LNG export terminals, major ports, and thousands of energy workers whose labor keeps fuel moving across the country and to our allies.
That impact traces directly back to Spindletop: one discovery, one district, 125 years of American history.
Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 977, I call up the bill (H.R. 5184) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from enforcing energy efficiency standards applicable to manufactured housing, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 977, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debated for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 5184.
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, since 2020, it is estimated that America's housing market has climbed 57 percent, sidelining first-time home buyers and impacting communities across the country. In fact, polls show that more than four out of five Americans agree that housing affordability is a problem in the area in which they live, with median-priced homes costing more than 50 percent of a typical household's income.
There are many contributing factors to the surge in prices, such as a demand shift and material costs. Inappropriate and duplicative regulatory structures have compounded these issues for the construction of manufacturing housing.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required the Department of Energy to set energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing. This duplicates the Department of Housing and Urban Development's longstanding jurisdiction, first granted in the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act, over these standards.
The law also required the DOE to base these new standards on the International Energy Conservation Code, the IECC, which is intended for site-built homes. Builders of site-built homes build according to that specific region, and the IECC reflects those unique characteristics. On the other hand, manufactured homes are built without knowledge of the final location of that home.
Manufactured homes play an essential role in meeting our Nation's demand for affordable housing. In fact, the average income of a manufactured home buyer is $63,000, while the average income for a site-built home buyer is about $143,000.
We must ensure regulatory morass does not deteriorate access to these homes. H.R. 5184, bipartisan legislation led by the gentlewoman from Indiana, eliminates DOE's authority to issue energy efficiency standards for manufacturing housing. Instead, HUD will maintain full regulatory authority, and DOE may provide recommendations throughout the rulemaking process.
This legislation will not diminish the energy efficiency of these homes. Our colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Massachusetts' Fourth Congressional District, issued a Dear Colleague and put it well by saying: This bill in no way diminishes the importance of energy efficiency. It simply ensures HUD, under its affordability mission, is the authoritative voice.
Consumers will continue to be protected by HUD's existing process, and manufacturers will have a regulatory process that will facilitate the efficient construction of affordable homes in the United States.
Homeownership remains a significant aspect of achieving the American Dream. H.R. 5184 helps bring that dream closer to reality for millions of Americans.
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, the affordability crisis has spread to nearly every facet of American lives. Utility bills are skyrocketing across the country. Trump's disastrous tariffs are being passed on to the American consumer. Grocery prices are up, making it hard for families to put food on the table, and Republicans delivered their latest blow
To make matters worse, we are in the midst of a housing crisis that is crushing American families' dreams. We are witnessing historically high home prices, coupled with a devastating shortage of housing. The cost of buying a home feels out of reach for too many, while rent is simultaneously ballooning at an unsustainable rate. Manufactured homes, however, are an important component of our affordable housing stock.
We should all be concerned about the cost of buying a new home, but this bill does not solve this crisis. In fact, it only makes housing affordability worse.
First, it revokes the Department of Energy's May 2022 energy conservation standard for manufactured housing, robbing residents of $5 billion in savings. Manufactured homes are often far less efficient than other homes, costing owners about 70 percent more per square foot in utility bills. Many low-income residents have reported foregoing basic necessities like food or medicine in order to keep their lights on.
To suggest that the Department of Energy standards for manufactured homes negatively impact affordability is entirely false. As I stressed, it is entirely false. When talking about affordability, it is imperative that we also consider the cost of actually living in these homes, and energy use is a big part of that. This is even more important at a time when electricity costs are up 13 percent nationwide.
If my Republican colleagues really want to get at the root cause of the current housing affordability crisis, they should look at Trump's disastrous tariffs on essential building materials and appliances, not energy efficiency standards that actually lower monthly energy bills.
Now, this bill also strips the Department of Energy of its congressionally-directed authority to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes and sends the responsibility to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, an agency with a history of failing to protect manufactured housing residents from high energy costs.
Prior to the passage of a bipartisan bill called the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007 when George Bush was President, he signed that into law, and HUD was then responsible for setting energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes. However, the agency, HUD, failed to act, leaving residents without an updated energy code since 1994. It is no wonder that 44 percent of manufactured housing residents face a high energy burden.
Now, the Department of Energy in May 2022 set a standard that was long overdue that said that manufactured housing residents had gone without a modern standard for nearly 30 years before the Department of Energy issued a final rule, and they did so. As a result, the standard that exists now, which this bill would repeal, essentially saves about $475 a year in savings on utility bills; but this bill repeals those savings. It repeals the DOE standards, and that is what is unacceptable about this bill. We should be fighting to raise the standard of living of manufactured housing residents, not lowering it with higher costs.
That is why I strongly oppose the bill. The affordability crisis is quite literally hitting home for millions of Americans, and H.R. 5184 would only saddle residents with even higher utility bills at a time when they can least afford it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been working to make sure we bring down utility costs and energy costs across this country, and that means making sure that we have that energy that has been given us.
When we look at what we have been able to do, especially in oil and natural gas production, from the days of Jimmy Carter when we were told that we were supposed to shut down our thermostats, make sure you put a sweater on, walk to work, well, Republicans did something about it and put the laws and regulations into place to make sure.
However, people who live in certain States are going to see their prices going up. Looking at this chart, what we see is when you look at California, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, their prices have gone up. We also know that we had the Governors up in New England this year who stated that they were fearful that their consumers were going to pay 40 percent more for power this winter.
Republicans want to do something about that in this country and make sure we get the permitting laws done that we have been working on in committee.
At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for hosting us today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Affordable HOMES Act.
Manufactured homes are an essential part of our effort to meet the demand for affordable housing in America. Unfortunately, manufactured homes are currently subject to burdensome and unnecessary Biden-Harris regulations that are raising prices.
This commonsense bill would eliminate the Department of Energy's duplicative authority over manufactured home energy efficiency standards while ensuring the Department of Housing and Urban Development maintains full regulatory authority. This creates less red tape without sacrificing quality and efficiency.
When energy efficiency standards are streamlined, it can lower costs and ensure that more Americans can afford homes.
Congress owes it to the next generation of Americans to make buying a home as affordable and accessible as possible, and this bill helps to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Representative Houchin, for introducing this bill, and I urge its immediate adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5184 because it will lead to higher costs for hardworking American families, especially higher electric bills that are spiking under Republican policies.
Despite President Trump's promise that he was going to lower electric bills, he was going to cut them in half, electricity prices are up by over 13 percent over last year and much higher in many places. Americans have been hammered with about $86 billion in rate increases. In Florida, the Republican utilities commission just passed along the highest rate increase in the history of our State. Some are characterizing this as the largest rate increase in the history of the country.
The Republican big, ugly bill is also driving prices higher, along with Trump's illegal interference with clean energy projects that were ready to come on line and help lower prices. That is just not smart, and neither is this bill that would gut the Department of Energy's ability to set energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes. These were goals given by Congress in a bipartisan way years ago to help our neighbors save money back home.
Yes, Americans are facing a housing affordability crisis, but they are also facing an energy affordability crisis. Republicans are using this bill to try to prevent a false choice between tackling both of those problems, but Republicans have done nothing to address the economic instability of hardworking American families.
Just ask my neighbors back home in Florida. Florida has more manufactured homes than any State in the country, about 800,000 manufactured homes, so that is 10 percent of all manufactured housing in the United States. What the Republicans will not tell you is that manufactured homes often have very poor insulation. They use about 50 percent more electricity than other types of construction.
Utilities in Florida do not offer any efficiency programs designed for manufactured homes, so there is no help there. As a result, it is incredibly difficult for the people living in these homes to pay their electric bills. It is only getting worse with longer, hotter summers fueled by climate change.
At the end of the year, my hometown newspaper actually took a look at the soaring electric bills for manufactured homes. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Tampa Bay Times article of December 30, ``For Tampa Bay's mobile home residents, high electric bills can be a crisis.''
For Tampa Bay's Mobile Home Residents, High Electric Bills Can Be a
Mr. Speaker, it says: ``Energy efficiency standards for mobile homes haven't been updated in decades, allowing leaky walls to sap budgets.''
They profile an older woman, a retiree on a fixed income in St. Petersburg, who lives in a 960-square-foot manufactured home. After Hurricane Helene, she has really been struggling. She lost her car. She lost her furniture, her washer and dryer, and her air-conditioning.
Now, her electric bills are soaring because of the costs of hurricane recovery and these longer, hotter summers. Her electric bills this year went from $170 in May to $258 in June to $314 in July. That is not affordable. Energy efficiency standards are needed for future residents so they can save money over the long term.
In this story--and I will recommend it to everyone that is concerned about this issue--there is one expert that goes into this and says that in terms of their energy equipment and components, manufactured homes are not built very well. ``The Federal code hasn't been changed since 1994--and it wasn't very strong then.''
It goes on and says: ``Unlike other types of housing, mobile homes are only subject to Federal energy standards, not State building codes. In 2007, Congress recognized that these requirements were way too weak and passed a law directing the U.S. Department of Energy to update them. That still hasn't happened.'' And it needs to happen.
This expert says that people are saying we need more affordable housing, but if you let folks off the hook for future improvements to manufactured homes, you are simply going to weigh down the people who live in them over time. You are not doing them any favors.
This expert says that every year there's tens of thousands of new homes that stick their residents with these bills for decades. That is not right. We can do better than that.
This bill also would move the authority to set these standards from the Department of Energy to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Well, HUD hasn't set energy standards for manufactured homes since 1994, and it was a bipartisan Congress that moved it back to DOE where they have the expertise to do it.
If these standards were to take effect, the DOE standard would save residents an estimated $475 a year on their electric bill. That is not peanuts, especially for that retiree in St. Petersburg who could use every cent right now.
If anything, Congress should be pressing DOE to strengthen standards. Energy efficiency standards are not the barrier to building affordable manufactured homes. Mr. Speaker, more than 58,000 homes already have been built to higher DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes criteria, most in 2025, because many want to do better for their residents. The technology is there and the building materials are there.
These are the people also mostly being hurt primarily by the Republican policies raising the cost of living, whether it is arbitrary tariffs--and maybe the Supreme Court will give us a little relief from these arbitrary tariffs. People are paying, according to one analysis, up to $1,200 to $1,600 more because of arbitrary tariffs every time they go to the grocery store or for construction materials, canceled energy projects, and the big, ugly bill and cuts to healthcare.
While speaking of healthcare, thanks to the American people speaking out, along with hospitals, doctors, and nurses, every House Democrat and 17 Republicans yesterday voted to extend the ACA tax credits and lower costs. I hope this is catching. I hope this would catch on with our Republican colleagues because people are feeling very insecure when it comes to their family budgets.
You add on something like this where there is no hope for the future to help save money if you are going to live in a manufactured home, your arbitrary tariffs, all this is weighing down on people. If Republicans actually wanted to lower household costs, they would restore tax credits, as well, related to residential clean energy that they gutted as part of the big, ugly bill. They were working to help people save on the high cost of electricity, saving them thousands of dollars on appliances like their AC and heating systems and helping them install solar and batteries or helping them make other home efficiency improvements.
But the Republicans have rejected all of that. They said that is not important. It is more important to give a pass or do a favor for Big Oil companies or the Big Utility companies. Well, we are on the side of the people because they deserve so much better.
Unfortunately, we know the tone the Republicans set last year. I just hoped at the beginning of the year the Republicans would turn the page. Mr. Speaker, 17 did yesterday on healthcare tax credits. I would hope on energy bills they would also look to partner with us to help lower the cost of living. That may be too much to ask for, otherwise they wouldn't be offering bills like these that heap more costs and pain onto our neighbors back home.
Mr. Speaker, American families deserve so much better. This bill needs to be rejected. You need to stand on the side of the people and their pocketbooks for a change.
I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act.
Mr. Speaker, for many years, including when I first got started in my career in the construction industry, buying and owning a home was reachable and a significant achievement for American workers. In fact, just 6 years ago it was achievable, but unfortunately, in today's economic conditions, many young Americans are realizing that the dream of homeownership has become just that: a dream.
This all happened in the 4 years of the Biden-Harris administration. In fact, if you were born after 1982 in this country, you had never seen inflation before. It created high interest rates. Simply, these people don't know what they are talking about.
Like I said, I come from the business world. I lived through these last 4 years, and it has been devastating to this country.
What we are trying to do here is turn the tide. For example, in the State of Georgia, the average home is valued at over $320,000. Just 6 years ago, you could buy that home for $250,000. It is just simply out of reach for countless young families.
Under current law, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Energy have the authority to set energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes.
Authorizing two Federal agencies to accomplish the same goal only serves to create conflicting standards and confusion, overcomplicating the regulatory process for builders, and making it more difficult to construct and ultimately purchase affordable homes.
We are listening to the housing industry.
Mr. Speaker, with my over 40 years of experience in the construction industry, I can tell you firsthand just how overbearing and expensive and burdensome Federal regulations can be. Let's listen to the American people. Let's listen to the people that build these homes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, the Affordable HOMES Act, offered by my friend Representative Houchin, is a commonsense bill that removes duplicative housing regulations and will decrease housing costs in America.
Specifically, it eliminates DOE's authority to issue energy standards for manufactured houses while maintaining HUD's full regulatory authority. In doing so, we will streamline the standard-setting process, which will lower the cost of manufactured housing.
We should be able to agree in Congress that we need to take this action to address rising costs. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5184.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act. This bill does not make housing more affordable. Instead, it will lock in higher utility bills.
We know and we understand there is an affordable housing crisis, and that is true in the district I represent in the State of Oregon and across the country. Too many people cannot afford homes, but here is the truth: Low-cost homes with expensive utility bills aren't affordable.
Manufactured homes are a critical source of affordable housing, and that is especially true for seniors, veterans, and working families.
These homes might cost less upfront, but monthly utility bills can determine whether families can afford to stay in them.
Before I came to Congress, I served in the Oregon legislature, and I chaired the Senate Consumer Protection Committee. I had in the district I represent, and still have in my congressional district, the largest manufactured home park in Oregon, with more than 450 homesites. Back then, and it is still true today, the largest complaint was about utility costs. Once people get in their homes, they can't afford rising utility costs.
In Oregon, demand for energy is rising. We have colder winters and hotter summers. Sometimes, wildfire smoke can trap families indoors, forcing air systems to run longer and harder. Oregonians may need more energy, but they certainly don't need higher costs.
When homes are energy inefficient, families pay more. However, energy efficient homes mean lower costs and homes that are safer, healthier, and more resilient.
This legislation will increase costs, reduce protections, and shift responsibilities away from manufacturers and onto families who are already struggling with high costs for groceries, healthcare, and housing.
I understand the concern about HUD because they have had the responsibility since 1994. Finally, DOE enacted some standards. Giving that responsibility to HUD is not reassuring.
Mr. Speaker, let's defeat this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, let's work together. Let's defeat this bill today. Instead, let's consider legislation that will really lower costs, not raise them. Let's ensure that the standards are enacted before we start passing these costs on to consumers.
Housing affordability is the number one issue in the United States economy right now, and manufactured housing is part of the solution. It is housing in the range of $100,000 to $200,000. New manufactured homes are HUD energy code compliant, and some of them even are meeting Energy Star certification standards.
However, we have a challenge. In 2022, under the Biden administration, with the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development sharing enforcement authority for energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing, the Department of Energy put forward energy efficiency standards that the Biden-era HUD said they could not enforce.
I want to reiterate that for my Democratic colleagues. The Biden-era HUD said they could not enforce because of what they would do to housing affordability with manufactured housing.
It was projected that at least 25,000 fewer homes would be constructed over the next 10 years, and one Biden-era Office of Management and Budget official said it could add $5,000 to $10,000 of additional costs per key for manufactured housing, all to save what could be a teaspoon of greenhouse gas emissions, about what one Ford F- 150 would emit on one visit to a construction worksite.
This is not a workable scenario because when you have shared enforcement between two agencies that disagree, nothing happens. What this bill does is it puts accountability for housing affordability with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development still needs to incorporate the expertise of the Department of Energy. I want to be clear about this. This does not necessarily lower energy efficiency standards. In fact, HUD could very well decide that they want to raise energy efficiency standards, but they are going to make that decision holistically. They are going to look at the costs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
They are going to look at the total cost of ownership, including the initial purchase price plus the cost of utilities over long-term usage, understanding that many purchasers of manufactured housing don't live there for the 30 years that the Department of Energy was using to amortize the energy costs.
This bill streamlines bureaucracy, and it clarifies accountability. It does not lower energy efficiency standards, but it does lower prices. This is why the National Housing Conference, which is a continuum of affordable housing stakeholders, has endorsed this legislation. I encourage my Democratic colleagues to do so, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that my colleague from Massachusetts offered an amendment to improve the bill during the subcommittee markup, unfortunately, his amendment fell short of addressing the fatal flaws in this underlying bill.
The amendment allows the Department of Energy to make efficiency recommendations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development on energy conservation standards. While this change is better than completely writing the Department of Energy out of the process like the original bill did, the fact of the matter is that this bill still nullifies the Department of Energy's manufactured housing rule standard for energy efficiency and, therefore, jeopardizes billions in savings for American families.
Additionally, the bill, as amended, does not specify what HUD should do with the recommendations from the Department of Energy. Even if the Department of Energy submitted recommendations, HUD is likely to ignore them. Let us not forget that when HUD had sole authority to issue energy codes for manufactured housing prior to 2007, the agency failed to act.
Again, it is important to ask: Why should we entrust HUD to act differently now?
This bill undermines the Department of Energy's authority to set efficiency standards and will rob much-needed and long-overdue savings from manufactured housing residents. I still strongly oppose the bill, as amended. Families who live in manufactured housing deserve to have efficient and safe homes. Let's fight to raise their standard of living, not lower it.
My colleague from Massachusetts mentioned support from the housing group. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from five major organizations that deal with manufactured homes: Americans for Financial Reform, Grounded Solutions Network, National Association for State Community Service Programs, Next Step Network, and ROC USA.
I don't want to read the whole thing, but this was addressed to the House bipartisan leadership.
It says: ``We write to you as representatives of organizations that advocate for and support the production of affordable homes for lower income families, urging you to oppose H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act. This bill would result in high energy costs for families who live in new manufactured homes, undermining their affordability at a time when those families are having trouble paying their bills.''
I won't get into the rest of it, but I just wanted to point out that many more organizations that deal with manufactured homes, than what was cited by my colleague from Massachusetts, oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, right now, the median cost of a new home in Michigan is over $430,000, and more than 78 percent of households cannot afford it. Nearly 8 in 10 Michiganders are losing their shot at homeownership. They are locked out, priced out, and pushed away from the American Dream.
Now, after 4 years of Bidenflation, which saw home costs double, Michigan Democrats are pushing new building codes, expecting to add another $15,000 to the cost of a new home. Regulatory costs already add $93,870 per home, and for every $1,000 increase, Mr. Speaker, 3,393 households are already priced out of the market.
That is why I am very pleased that my colleagues and I on the Energy and Commerce Committee are taking this issue seriously and advancing real, practical solutions.
Through efforts like my Path to Affordable Homes Act and the important legislation that Congresswoman Houchin introduced today, we are working to cut unnecessary regulatory barriers, expand housing affordability, and ensure families, seniors, and future generations have a fair shot at homeownership and building generational wealth.
Mr. Speaker, this is how we restore common sense. This is how we restore affordability. This is how we give the American people a chance to get ahead, stay ahead, and have an ownership stake in their future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5184.
Mr. Speaker, the American Dream starts with owning a home, but today families are being priced out by unnecessary Federal regulations.
The Affordable HOMES Act fixes a simple but costly mistake in Washington: two Federal agencies regulating the same homes in different ways.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has regulated manufactured housing for decades. It knows the market, and it understands how these homes are built and the families who live in them.
However, in 2022, the Biden administration layered on a new Department of Energy rule that raised costs on manufactured housing without regard for any of these factors.
The rule raised costs by $5,000 to $10,000 per door, with little to no environmental benefit. It simply made homes harder to afford. I ask my Democratic colleagues: What difference does it make if a home is more energy efficient if you can't afford to buy it?
For families looking to buy a manufactured home, affordability comes down to one thing: whether the monthly payment fits their budget and whether they can actually qualify for a loan. Even a few thousand dollars in added up-front costs can be the difference between owning a home or being shut out entirely.
When a policy raises costs and locks families out of homeownership without improving outcomes, it is a failure. The Cicero Institute said it well in a 2021 article critical of the Biden-era rule. It stated: ``The government isn't magically providing consumers `savings'; it is merely forcing them to buy more expensive things.''
The bill restores clarity and common sense. HUD sets the standards as Congress intended while the Department of Energy maintains and continues to provide technical expertise.
The bill eliminates overlapping mandates that drive up prices and slow construction, which is why it passed the Energy and Commerce Committee with strong bipartisan support. We aren't aiming to weaken standards. We are ensuring as standards are enacted they work for the people they are meant to serve.
When regulations price families out of homeownership, Congress has a duty to step in.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Affordable HOMES Act. Housing affordability is top of mind for my constituents, and this bill helps deliver.
It cuts red tape by streamlining duplicative regulations for manufactured homes, which improves housing affordability for millions of Americans.
This commonsense approach is the exact opposite of what Colorado Democrats have done. Last year, Colorado adopted the Model Low Energy and Carbon Code, which forces homebuilders into electricity-only for residential energy, along with demand response controls.
What is demand response control? Literally, the government requiring utilities have the power to lock you out of your thermostat, freeze your water heater, and turn off your lights in response to energy efficiency mandates.
Mr. Speaker, that is government overreach my constituents cannot afford. Bills like the Affordable HOMES Act help fix the problem by cutting red tape, lowering costs, and increasing the inventory of affordable homes.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I listened to the gentleman from Colorado, but I just want to stress that this bill isn't about resolving conflicting standards or regulatory confusion on the part of the Federal Government.
This is about the fact that the Department of Housing and Urban Development failed to act for decades on energy efficiency, leaving a 1994 energy code untouched for over 30 years.
Now, when the Department of Energy is seeking to put in place a standard, well, what happens? First of all, when it was supposed to go into effect, President Trump this summer basically postponed it.
Now, they are trying to remove the standard entirely, but removing the Department of Energy's authority to set efficiency standards will only leave residents unprotected from high energy costs.
The Department of Energy is required by statute to consult with HUD in setting efficiency standards, and
Technically, HUD can still update the energy code for manufactured homes, but they have been severely delinquent in doing so. Just as I mentioned, HUD has had over 30 years to set a stronger standard, and they just choose not to.
H.R. 5184 does not magically rewrite history. Giving HUD sole authority now does not take away the fact that the agency left manufactured housing residents with energy bills that are 70 percent more per square foot compared to site-built homes for decades.
DOE's energy sector experts are best positioned to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes, and it is the only agency that has successfully produced modernized standards. Those standards would save $475 a year on utility bills and have a real impact on Americans' wallets, safety, and security. Of course, though, President Trump doesn't want that, so he set aside the standard, and now they want to eliminate it completely. All that is going to do is raise utility bills tremendously for people who live in manufactured homes.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act.
This bill fixes a broken Federal process that has stalled sensible updates to housing standards for years. While the issue is clear in manufactured housing energy standards, the lesson applies across the housing market: Overlapping regulations increase costs without delivering better outcomes for families.
As a champion of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, I fought to deliver real relief for hardworking families by raising the State and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 so families can keep more of what they earn and finally afford to buy a home.
We must also bring the Housing for the 21st Century Act to the House floor as soon as possible to help working-class American families get ahead.
The Affordable HOMES Act is a practical step forward that helps families without sacrificing safety or efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, first I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin), my friend, for her leadership on this very important issue. It has been an absolute pleasure working with her on this bill, which makes manufactured housing less expensive and more accessible to Americans.
I also serve as the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee chairman with the Financial Services Committee. Our Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is responsible and should be solely responsible for manufactured housing codes.
Manufactured homes are more affordable than site-built and even modular homes, in part because they are built to one single Federal code. Regulatory streamlining isn't just a bonus for manufactured housing; it is at the core of what makes these homes cost effective.
That is why this legislation is so important. Inviting a second regulator into the business of manufactured housing codes really undermines a key value proposition for manufactured housing.
Since legislation passed in 2007 mandating the Department of Energy establish energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes, the Department of Energy has struggled to effectively craft and implement these standards.
They released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2010, and it took them 6 years to propose draft standards in 2016. The final standards were released 15 years after enactment in 2022, but then the Department of Energy delayed implementation of the rule because they were unsure of how they would even enforce the rule. We are now approaching 19 years since enactment, and the Department of Energy is still behind schedule.
Unfortunately, the actual content of the final rule is also problematic. The Department of Energy has been sued for this rulemaking for both failing to coordinate with HUD, which was mandated in the statute, and failing to adequately consider costs.
The Department of Energy even admitted in their final rule that their analysis has not ``included any potential associated costs of testing, compliance, or enforcement'' of the mandate.
That is downright embarrassing from an agency tasked with taking cost into account when implementing these standards.
Suffice it to say, the Department of Energy's entry into manufactured housing standards has not gone very well. Their standards are a decade behind schedule, and their rulemaking would significantly increase the costs of these homes. This bill fixes the problem. It puts HUD back in charge of manufactured housing standards, including those related to energy efficiency while still giving the opportunity for HUD to look into this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time this morning.
Mr. Speaker, Indiana is proud to have manufactured housing facilities across the State that build hundreds of thousands of homes for Americans.
Manufactured housing is critical to giving Hoosier families affordable housing. It gives options and supports our domestic manufacturing economy. It makes homeownership attainable, particularly in rural areas.
Democrats have allowed the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to regulate these homes. This has led to unnecessary and sometimes conflicting regulations, which drive up costs for homeowners and creates confusion for manufacturers.
The Affordable HOMES Act, led by my friend and Hoosier colleague, Erin Houchin, eliminates this redundant regulation and allows HUD to be the sole regulator of manufactured housing.
Homeownership is the cornerstone of the American Dream. We need to get the government out of the way so that housing is more affordable and more Americans can achieve that dream. This is a commonsense bill that will lower housing costs.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to voting in favor of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we need to do a lot more to address housing affordability, but let me assure everyone that this bill is not the solution because it doesn't do anything to bring down costs. In fact, it only raises costs on hardworking American families, particularly hurting low-income, rural, and senior households.
I think there is a misunderstanding on the other side of the aisle about the Department of Energy's process in setting efficiency standards for manufactured homes, so let me just clear a few things up.
The Department of Energy would not issue an energy conservation standard if the benefits of the rule did not far outweigh the costs. DOE is required by statute to consult with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is also specifically required to ensure that the standards are cost effective based on the impact on the purchase price of the home as well as the total life cycle construction and operating costs.
Affordability is really at the core of the statute that directs the Department of Energy to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes, and as such, affordability is a guiding principle in the Department's May 2022 final rule that set the efficiency standards.
In fact, in order to accommodate price-sensitive, low-income purchasers, DOE adopted a tiered approach in the
In fact, in the first year of home ownership, energy savings greatly exceed the marginal increase that might come from the initial purchase. The bottom line is that the benefits in energy savings to the consumer immediately offset any increase in purchase price. I think it is important to reiterate that affordability is about more than just the purchase price.
A lower purchase price doesn't mean anything if you are spending 70 percent more per square foot on energy bills like manufactured housing residents currently are. Over 40 percent of manufactured housing residents face a high energy burden, meaning that more than 6 percent of their income is going toward energy costs.
Given the recent trends in energy costs, it is more important now than ever that we maintain the Department of Energy's standard to protect these residents from even higher energy bills.
I think if my Republican colleagues really wanted to address housing affordability, they would be speaking out against Trump's tariffs. These are tariffs that the President has put on essential building materials. That is the problem right now. Hopefully, today, the Supreme Court eliminates these tariffs, but right now the increased costs of manufactured housing is primarily based on the tariffs. That is what is driving up the costs.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act.
H.R. 5184 would eliminate the Department of Energy's authority to impose redundant energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing that are already undertaken by other Federal agencies. The cost of living is on everyone's minds right now, which makes this bill especially timely.
Let's be clear, overburdensome and duplicative Federal regulations make life more unaffordable for all Americans whether it is housing, energy costs, or everyday necessities. Meanwhile, demands for affordable housing persist across the country, particularly in rural communities in Wyoming where my State continues to attract new industries and our reliable energy sector expands.
Manufactured housing is one of the many innovative solutions that can help bridge the gap and provide hardworking families and growing communities with access to quality housing.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Houchin and Chairman Guthrie for their steadfast leadership on this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the Affordable HOMES Act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Affordable HOMES Act. Indiana ranks fourth in the Nation in manufactured home production and in Indiana's Sixth District, 7,000 manufactured homes provide key housing to our citizens.
For Hoosier families, the dream of owning a home has slipped out of reach. To right this ship, we need less Washington red tape in our own backyards and the freedom for families to choose the type of housing that works for each of them.
That is what this bill does. It cuts unnecessary Federal regulation. It streamlines the rules. It lowers the cost of manufactured housing, thereby making the American Dream a little more attainable for more families.
I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Erin Houchin, for leading on this legislation. She and I know Hoosiers want common sense coming out of Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side keep talking about efficiency standards driving up costs but, in fact, it is not the case. The costs that are driving up manufactured home prices is because of Trump's disastrous tariffs.
President Trump has issued tariffs on essential building materials on inputs, like lumber, gypsum, steel, and even appliances and cabinets. These tariffs are driving up the costs of new construction, renovations, and affordable housing development.
Tariffs are raising construction and renovation costs and disrupting supply chains, placing upward pressure on home prices. Trump's tariff policies are not only undercutting the supposed goal of reducing the cost of living for Americans but they are also exacerbating the housing crisis by slowing the production of housing and adding exorbitant costs to the process.
The ever-changing tariff landscape, because we don't even know what it is from one day to the next with him, is creating uncertainty for homebuilders and putting the dream of buying a new home out of touch for perspective home buyers. Even the National Association of Home Builders has criticized Trump's tariffs as harming housing affordability and driving up costs. American consumers are feeling the pinch and paying the price for Trump's tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for my Republican colleagues to look in the mirror because what is really contributing to the housing crisis in a major way is Trump's tariffs, not energy conservation standards that save American consumers money. Stop demonizing efficiency standards, not only in this bill but on so many occasions, and start addressing the root of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, that is President's Trump's bad policies. I don't know if anything has come forward yet. Hopefully, today the Supreme Court is going to throw these tariffs out, and maybe we will have some relief. That is the problem here.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5184, the Affordable HOMES Act. America is facing a substantial housing shortage. Right now, we are short more than 8 million homes nationwide. In North Carolina alone, that gap is projected to exceed 750,000 homes.
The reality is simple. The only solution is to build our way out of the problem. Building new housing right now is slower and more expensive than it should be, largely because of regulatory costs and outdated Federal requirements.
Regulations now, Mr. Speaker, add over $93,000 to the cost of building a single new home. The Affordable HOMES Act takes a step to address this problem by eliminating the duplicative Department of Energy regulations that drive up costs for manufactured housing.
Affordability requires more homes to be built faster at a lower cost. I am proud to support the Affordable HOMES Act because I believe it makes it easier for Americans to achieve the dream of homeownership.
Mr. Speaker, I wasn't planning on speaking on this bill this morning, but I have to say that I cannot stand when politicians come into the Chambers of these hallowed Halls to represent the people of this country, pretending to represent the hardworking poor and working families of this country, and actually are doing the bidding of corporations and industries that are asking them to do things to cut cheap deals for them.
This is not about poor people. This is not about working people. This is not about making manufactured homes and trailers better for people that live in them. This is about doing the bidding of corporations that ask them to carry this bill.
As a low-income person who actually grew up in a trailer, let me tell you that efficiency standards and efficiency programs and support programs that make it possible for low-income people to actually have high-quality utilities and to be able to afford their utility bills is what actually helps working people.
We are tired of your hypocritical and cheap bills that you are running on the floor.
I just want to say this, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday was a good day for the American people. What it looks like when you work for working people is you get shit done. Yesterday we passed for the first time this Congress an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies so that hardworking Americans can actually--actually afford healthcare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded the use of profanity on the floor is not within the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress again the nature of this bill is totally the opposite of what the Republicans say. It should be titled the unaffordable homes act because electricity prices are rising across the country. Americans are going into debt to heat their homes this winter.
President Trump has failed on his day one promise to bring down prices for American families. Instead, his big, ugly bill is projected to increase electricity prices by an additional 61 percent.
How are American families supposed to shoulder the financial burden as they struggle to afford the cost of their daily necessities that have been inflated by his senseless tariff policies?
I hear from my constituents every day that affordability is their top concern, and we should be focused on advancing bipartisan legislation to end this affordability crisis. Instead, my Republican colleagues are trying to repeal the Department of Energy's energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing through this bill.
Mr. Speaker, these standards were thoughtfully developed in consultation with HUD to balance upfront costs and long-term affordability. These standards are sorely needed as energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing haven't been updated for over 30 years.
As a result, electricity bills for manufactured homes are 70 percent higher than site-built homes. It is cruel and senseless to try to overturn energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing as families are facing unprecedented increases in their electricity bills.
The Department of Energy's manufactured home efficiency standards are estimated to save homeowners $475 per year on their utility bills. Collectively, these standards would save 17 million Americans $10 billion over 30 years.
These efficiency standards are good for our wallets, and they are good for the economy. It is really unconscionable for Congress to consider overturning these standards amid this affordability crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Energy and Commerce has been working on for years is to make sure that we have more power out here for the American people. Just this week in the Energy Subcommittee, we had another hearing on nuclear power to make sure that we are bringing nuclear power back online in this country.
We have got to make sure we have energy out there for the American people so they can go out there and make sure that when they turn on that switch, it is not too expensive.
Once again, let's look at this map of the United States. It is kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker. If I live in California or Michigan or from Maryland up to Maine, why is it that their kilowatt hours are more expensive than the rest of the country?
It needs to be talked about, Mr. Speaker. They need to talk to their State Governors, and they need to talk to their legislators and regulators. They are raising the prices for their citizens in those States. We have to make sure we understand what is happening here.
We have to do our part this Congress, but let's look at these States. We are making sure we are working hard in the Energy and Commerce Committee to ensure those rates are low for Americans.
As we have heard from both sides of the aisle today, H.R. 5184 is a commonsense reform to unlock the construction of manufactured housing and increasing housing affordability for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5148, the Affordable HOMES Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 977, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill 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 bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 263, nays 147, not voting 21, as follows:
Messrs. MIN, SUBRAMANYAM, Mrs. McCLAIN DELANEY, and Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. BOEBERT changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize the Secretary of Energy to transmit to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development recommendations for changes to preemptive energy conservation standards applicable to manufactured homes.''.
Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call No. 12 on H.R. 5184, my vote was incorrectly recorded as NAY. Had it been recorded correctly, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 12.
Stated against:
Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 12.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of Donald ``Chip'' Stuckey from my hometown of Howe, Indiana. Chip was a beloved member of our community, who was known for his warm, outgoing, and generous nature.
Chip worked at the Howe Military School and Bobilya Ford in LaGrange, Indiana. I will always remember him as one of the salesmen who sold me my first new truck.
In his later years, he owned Happiness is Ice Cream, a summertime favorite of many families in our hometown.
In all that he did, his commitment to excellence and his care for others left a lasting impact on everyone that he met.
Chip was a dear friend and the first person to get me involved in politics back in 2001. He led a life dedicated to what is truly important: family, community, and finding joy in the simple things. He never met a stranger and was the kind of friend you could always rely on for an encouraging word.
Chip's legacy is one of compassion for his fellow man, which inspired all who were fortunate enough to know him. We will miss Chip dearly. Rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Frank Banales who has been a longtime community leader and organizer in the interfaith partnerships and the Chicano culture.
Through his career, he has worked with both Chicano and Muslim community activists who have been committed to preserving their cultures and helping improve their neighborhoods to make them a better place.
As chairman of the Hispanic Business Council of Santa Barbara, he helped local businesses adapt to modern technology, plan for the future, and succeed.
In 2001, he became a member of the Islamic Society of Santa Barbara, where he eventually became key to the development and construction of a local mosque.
Today, Frank sits on the board of the Interfaith Initiative of Santa Barbara County, and Frank continues to give and give and give to make his community much, much better.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my friend Congressman Doug LaMalfa, whose impact touched our Nation, his community in northern California, and this very Chamber.
Doug filled every room he entered with life, passion, and personality. Above all else, he was authentic and unapologetically himself. That is exactly what made him such an effective leader and beloved colleague. He gave me guidance when I first arrived in Congress and reminded me to never forget where I came from and who sent me here to lead.
Whether he was conversing with constituents, passionately defending farmers from this very podium, or getting to work on complex legislation, Doug brought a genuineness to Congress. Everyone felt heard and valued by him.
Doug's big heart matched his personality. Not only did he lift up farmers across America, but he treated everyone with the same respect and dignity, regardless of politics. My colleague, Zoe Lofgren, said yesterday he was someone you could disagree with but he was not disagreeable. That is certainly the mark of a true leader and a good man.
To his wife, Jill, and their four children, I am terribly sorry for your loss. We all mourn his death. May you find peace in his memory and strength in our words. We are here for you just as Doug was here for all of us. May God bless Doug and his family.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the charitable work and the great generosity of those in the Pelham community that are the leaders and volunteers for The Danny Fund.
The Danny Fund was formed over 30 years ago initially to raise needed funds to help a young boy, Danny Potocki, suffering from a rare form of leukemia that was at the time considered fatal. Danny's family could not manage the mounting medical bills, the need for donated blood, and so much more to protect the young life of their son.
Pelham came together on an ad hoc basis to help Danny with fundraisers and emotional support. Years later, that young boy survived and grew up as a man to have a family of his own.
The spirit that saved Danny was channeled into a nonprofit organization that raises funds for many other such children who face similar issues today.
On this day, The Danny Fund kids come from all walks of life as young as day-old infants who are diagnosed with severe conditions that require assistance, as did Danny all those years ago.
In early February, on February 7, The Danny Fund will celebrate at their annual gala at the Surf Club On The Sound in New Rochelle, raising funds to continue to help those in severe need.
From the floor of the House of Representatives, we salute The Danny Fund and the people who work with it and express our appreciation and gratitude for their charitable work.
Mr. Speaker, North Carolina teen Christian Sturdivant pledged his allegiance to ISIS at just 14 years old.
Christian, now an 18-year-old, planned to use knives and hammers to attack people at a grocery store and restaurant on New Year's Eve in Mint Hill, North Carolina, a suburban town in my district.
I thank the Lord that his plan was intercepted and thwarted by the FBI and United States Attorney Russ Ferguson, with the help of Mint Hill law enforcement and the mayor of Mint Hill, Dale Dalton. As a result of their work, they were able to stop Christian before he could act.
This foiled attack should concern us all. An impressionable American teenager was influenced by violent Islamist ideology.
Let me be clear: Radical Islam is not just a danger in places like Mamdani's New York. It is in my home State, and it is quickly spreading across the United States.
Mr. Speaker, imagine almost losing your life on New Year's Eve just for celebrating in America. That is what almost happened in my district.
This is the type of hate that radical Islam inspires. It has no place in America. We must do more to push back and stand up to hateful ideologies that espouse violence against innocent people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address ICE's horrific killing of Renee Nicole Good.
Like so many Americans, I am outraged by Renee's murder, and I am disgusted by the disinformation campaign the Trump administration has waged to cover up their actions.
Secretary Noem called Renee a domestic terrorist, falsely claiming she tried to run over an ICE officer, yet the many videos of the incident clearly disprove this. This is a pattern, not an isolated incident.
This administration has repeatedly turned official channels of communication into engines of disinformation. I saw it in my own district last summer after I investigated a violent ICE raid. They tried to muddy the waters then, and they are trying to do it now.
Their attempt to smear Renee while her loved ones are grieving is outright cruel and outrageous. We must continue to shine a light on these abuses and hold this administration accountable.
Today, I stand with the people of Minnesota and every community that has experienced ICE brutality.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize a great achievement by a student in Virginia's Fifth District, one that honors both his college and his country.
Ryan Sigsbee, a junior at Hampden-Sydney College, won gold while representing the United States in Panama at the World Union of Karate- Do Federations' Latin American Open Tournament this fall.
Ryan joined nearly 900 competitors from 25 countries, with participants ranging in age from 10 to 60 years old.
In an interview for his college paper, Ryan said, ``Global competitions are incredible,'' and require a lot of persistence while training for them. ``Representing the United States and Hampden-Sydney was an unforgettable experience. . . . As president of [my fraternity], it also meant a lot to see my fraternity brothers . . . cheering me on.''
It is an honor to represent students like Ryan and their outstanding accomplishments that they contribute to our great Nation and Virginia's Fifth Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the incredible accomplishments of one of my district's most talented public servants and the amazing organization that she helms.
Monique Lopez was recently appointed as CEO of UMOM New Day Center. UMOM New Day Center was founded in 1964 and has grown into one of the largest and most sustained providers of services for people experiencing homelessness in the Phoenix metro area.
Every night, UMOM provides safe shelter and supportive services for nearly 800 individuals, including 155 families and 130 single women, while offering more than 900 units of affordable housing across the valley.
UMOM also provides employment and job support through readiness programs, case management to help navigate the complexities of the housing crisis, and onsite services for childcare and healthcare.
By combining shelter services with jobs, housing support, and wraparound services, UMOM helps clients not just survive crises but build sustainable and happy futures.
Monique has been an incredible leader. Under her leadership, UMOM will continue to shine in its mission to restore hope, rebuild lives, and end homelessness in Maricopa County.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the retirement of Walter S. Mitchell, Jr., a pillar of the Bear Creek Village Borough community and an exemplary public servant.
For 32 years, Mayor Mitchell provided extraordinary leadership, guiding the borough through its formative years and decades of growth. As its first and longest serving mayor, he has demonstrated a deep commitment to historic preservation, responsible governance, public safety, and environmental stewardship.
Mayor Mitchell's service reflected his understanding that great leadership extends beyond the office to fostering community built on connection, tradition, and shared experiences. He is widely known for his personal contributions to community life through his involvement in theater and a barbershop quartet, as well as his legendary homemade pecan pies.
During his tenure as mayor, Bear Creek Village achieved many important milestones, including placement of the Bear Creek Village Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places, major flood mitigation and roadway projects, and the preservation of 139 acres of land surrounding the borough's lake, just to name a few.
His conservation efforts were recognized in 2013 with the North Branch Trust Community Stewardship Award. In 2018, Mayor Mitchell received the Carol Sambol Award from the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs for his outstanding public service.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mayor Mitchell for his tireless commitment to serving the people of the Bear Creek Village
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate my constituent of the week, Professor Anand Rao, on launching the Center for AI and the Liberal Arts at the University of Mary Washington.
As director, Professor Rao will lead this new initiative, positioning UMW as a leader in the national conversation around artificial intelligence.
Professor Rao is an emerging expert in blending AI with the humanities and ensuring AI is shaped in ethical, thoughtful, and humanistic ways.
Students who take courses through the center will have the opportunity to build their own chatbots, conduct research, and contribute to building the future of AI.
Mr. Speaker, again, I congratulate the professor on all of his accomplishments. It is a privilege to highlight his story on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Greg Biffle, who passed away last month.
Greg was known internationally for his NASCAR career, but back home in North Carolina, people came to know him for his heart and specifically his actions after Hurricane Helene.
When roads were washed out, and communities were cut off, Greg used his own helicopter to reach the hardest hit areas. He flew multiple missions a day, delivering generators, food, water, and medical supplies, and he helped evacuate people who could not be reached by any other means. Volunteers on the ground have said that when they told Greg a family needed help, he made it happen, often within hours.
Greg's life was centered on his family, and this loss also took his wife, Cristina, and his children, Emma and Ryder, as well as three friends. They are all deeply missed by everyone who knew them.
As we are here in Washington today, our hearts are back home. On the racetrack or in the air, Greg Biffle will be remembered exactly as he should be, as a hero.
Mr. Speaker, tonight the Oregon Ducks are fighting for their first-ever national championship. After dominating Texas Tech in only the third shutout victory of all 49 college football playoff games, the Ducks are only two wins away from celebrating in Eugene.
I want to shout out to Head Coach Dan Lanning. In four seasons, he has posted an incredible 48-7 record, and our team has shined through his leadership.
Our quarterback, Dante Moore, has thrown more than 3,200 yards this year, and a true freshman, Brandon Finney, Jr., is one of the Nation's elite corners.
I am proud to say the Oregon Ducks have one of the best records in the country, 13-1, and that one loss was to the Hoosiers. Tonight, we get to set that record straight. We will be cheering them on against Indiana tonight, and Go Ducks.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to be able to recognize and appreciate our dear friend, Doug LaMalfa, who served so well here in Congress. He was such a patriot that we all could appreciate.
He was a fourth-generation rice farmer from northern California; a champion for the people of northern California. I had the opportunity to campaign for him several years ago, and I saw his love and appreciation of the people of northern California. He never gave up.
I am grateful, too, for the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, our vice chair, Blake Moore, and the different tributes that have been paid to Doug's service, how important it is. Then putting that in context, too, President Donald Trump issued a heartfelt statement of love and affection for our departed congressional Member.
With that in mind, Doug LaMalfa is always going to be treasured as a champion for limited government, expanded freedom, and peace through strength.
Mr. Speaker, college has become outrageously expensive and forced students and families to take out huge loans or forgo higher education entirely. That is why many high schoolers choose to take AP and IB exams, where they can earn college credit at much less expense.
Unfortunately, it is hard for students to find information on which colleges award credits for certain AP and IB exams. A lot of students show up to their chosen school and only then realize that their credits are worthless.
That is why I am introducing the COURSE Credit Act with Representative Jeff Van Drew. This commonsense, bipartisan legislation directs the Department of Education to collect and publish detailed information on AP and IB credit policies at colleges and universities.
It also requires colleges and universities to publish the same information on their own websites. This will give students, families, and counselors a quick and easy way to see how much credit they will receive for their AP and IB exams at any given college, allowing students to choose a school where they can make the most of their hard- earned credit.
Mr. Speaker, ICE has gone rogue. I was sickened to see an ICE officer shoot a 37-year-old mother, leaving her 6 year old an orphan. That officer needs to be arrested and prosecuted.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the human rights of people in ICE detention facilities. I visited the California City Immigration Detention Center and spoke with 47 detainees. They talked about rocks in their food. They talked about having blood in their urine and not being able to see a doctor. They talked about freezing in the night because they didn't have clothes.
These are human rights violations. This is not the way America acts. We need accountability to ICE, and we need to act with our values.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the House's extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits for an additional 3 years. Bravo, House. Thank God we exist.
Please allow me to thank Leader Jeffries for his ability to work across the aisle to get this crucial vote passed.
However, the majority leader should never have played politics with millions and millions of American people's healthcare. There are 24 million Americans who face doubling of their insurance premiums. These tax credits will help Americans who work in small businesses and farmers to lower their costs and be able to afford health insurance for their families. The majority refused to act for America's working people.
Meanwhile, just months ago, these same Republican leaders gave an average tax cut of $80,000 to every millionaire in this country. Do you think they really need more? Yet, when the time to came to stand up for hardworking families, they ran away.
President Trump's $40 billion bailout of Argentina alone could have paid for nearly 2 years of these tax credits.
Bravo, House of Representatives. What an honor it is to serve with people who care about the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I could not leave Washington this week without calling out House Republicans for their hypocrisy.
They have been silent while DHS agents shoot Americans in broad daylight and then smear them as domestic terrorists. At the same time, they try to vanish the memory of January 6 from our collective memory, refusing to put up a plaque to honor law enforcement officers who defended them from actual domestic terrorists in this very building.
They won't hold this administration accountable because it would make them feel as unsafe as many Americans feel right now. They all saw what happened when Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Trump's staunchest supporters, opposed the President and in doing so saw her and her family's safety threatened. This is the culture of fear this President has created and which House Republicans have been complicit in.
The American people deserve better, and I will keep coming down here until House Republicans finally speak up for the American people and hold this administration accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about betrayal. Nearly 14,000 veterans who served this Nation will sleep unsheltered tonight, not in beds. They will sleep on concrete, in cars, and under bridges.
There are 37 million American children who depend on Medicaid for their healthcare, and this Congress just signed $1 trillion in cuts to that lifeline. Also, 12 million Americans will lose their health insurance, the largest rollback of healthcare in American history.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon just failed its eighth consecutive audit. There are over $4 trillion in assets that they cannot account for. They are the only Federal agency who has failed to ever pass an audit, not once. We have got money for war, but we can't feed the poor. We refuse to fully fund cancer research. We refuse to house low-income elders in their final years, and we refuse to shelter the very soldiers we sent to die in wars that we keep funding.
Mr. Speaker, as they say, follow the money: invading a foreign country, stealing their oil, extortion, violence, giveaways to corporate America, American oil and gas companies, and, yes, Trump donors.
What is going on here? Today, Donald Trump will convene the CEOs of some of the largest oil and gas companies in America, the same individuals who promised to raise a billion dollars in campaign donations for him when he was a candidate.
In fact, this week I was shocked to learn that the White House and the President are not only planning to sell the oil of Venezuela, but to place it in foreign bank accounts that only the President controls.
We are asking what is going on here: endangering the lives of our servicemembers, unauthorized use of the military, extorting foreign countries, invading foreign countries and taking their leaders, and, yes, stealing their resources.
I will say this to you, Mr. President: We are watching. We will follow the money, and we will hold you to account.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of West Virginia.) Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and still I rise, a liberated, unbought, unbossed, unafraid Democrat.
And still I rise, and I rise today because I have grave and great concern for the American people. I fear for the lives of the American people.
I do so, Mr. Speaker, because if the President of the United States and his underlings and his persons who are in charge of very powerful agencies within the Federal Government can convince this country or some significant portion of the people in this country that Ms. Renee Good was a terrorist, I fear for the lives of the people in this country.
In fact, I fear for my own life. I am not afraid to speak truth to power. I am not afraid to speak truth about power. I am going to speak truth about power today, but I can tell you that I fear for our lives because if you can justify what happened to Ms. Good after seeing with your very own eyes what took place, and if we can allow the king's men to conclude that only they can investigate this and remove the local constabulary from the process, if this can happen, I fear for our lives.
We are now living in a country where people are expected to believe that this mother of three, a Christian woman, seated in her vehicle-- yes, the vehicle was across the roadway--that somehow she was a terrorist. The head of Homeland Security has as much as said so, a terrorist.
Mr. Speaker, I fear for our lives because what we saw when this lady, this woman, was accosted--and I say ``accosted'' because men who had on masks in police regalia, I suppose, approached her rather aggressively, it seems to me, and one of them, in approaching, said: ``Get the f out of the car.'' I am not using the profanity, but that is what was said.
You can see it for yourselves, and you can hear it for yourselves. That is what was said: ``Get the f out of the car.'' When men can approach a female in a car and say this to her and expect her to immediately respond in a positive manner, and if she does not and attempts to drive away, if they can take her life, I fear for our lives.
Do not assume that it can happen only to her. They aggressively approached her. Cars were going around her in various ways, but when she made her move to extricate herself, to move along, to move her car, officers started to shoot. She was shot. One officer shot through the side window as she was moving away.
You don't have to know this lady. I don't know her. I don't know who she was other than what I have seen and what I have read, but the truth is, officers ought not be allowed to do what was done to this lady. There should be an investigation that includes the local constabulary.
If you truly want to be transparent, if you truly believe in liberty and justice for all, if you want the people in this country to believe that what occurred was the right thing, then you would want the local constabulary to be involved, but no. This administration is shutting out the local investigation, and they are including only the Federal investigation, which means, by some thought processes, that they have no desire to let this go to trial.
There are people who believe that this administration has no desire to let this case go to a trial. For edification purposes, I am one of them. I don't believe that they want this case to go to a trial.
I think that this is why they have decided that only the Federal authorities will investigate. I also believe that if the case goes to a trial and if there is
Mr. Speaker, I fear for the lives of the American people, and again, I say that includes me. I think we have a reckless, ruthless outlaw who has found his way into the Presidency.
To further validate my thinking, I have here the words of the President of the United States of America, Donald John Trump. Here are his words when asked if there were any limits on his international power. I know what happened within the country was national. This deals with international power. Give me just a moment, please, of your time so that I might connect these dots.
When asked if there were any limits on his international power, here is his response: ``My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me.'' Some things bear repeating: ``My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me.''
Mr. President, what about Congress? What about the Constitution? What about the power to declare war and where that power is vested? What about it, Mr. President? Only your mind? Only your morality?
I won't go into the President's moral standards. I will leave that to you.
Mr. Speaker, what the President is saying is, this joint resolution, S.J. Res. 90, over in the Senate--here is a copy of it--permit me to read some excerpts.
Mr. Speaker, it reads: ``Joint Resolution--To direct the removal of the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.''
S.J. Res. 90, it goes on to say: ``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives.''
Eventually, if it passes the Senate, it has to come to the House for our approval.
``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
``Section 1. Findings. Congress makes the following findings: (1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause II of the United States Constitution.''
Mr. President, the Constitution still has some relevancy. The Constitution is not meaningless.
It goes on to say: ``(2) Congress has not yet declared war upon Venezuela or any person or organization within Venezuela, nor enacted a specific statutory authorization for use of military force within or against Venezuela.''
Mr. Speaker, it is only his mind and his morality. That is the only thing that can stop him. This resolution won't stop him.
Here is what he knows. He knows that if it passes the Senate and he knows that if it passes the House, he knows that he has a vote. He knows that if he votes ``no'' with his veto, he knows or believes that it will not be overridden.
Mr. Speaker, I still say this is the right thing to do. I say this because you cannot allow a President to do what he has done in terms of going to another country, bombing the country, to do this and not put some check on him. At least you have to try. You can't just allow it to happen and decide we will wait until we can override his veto.
Pass it in the Senate even if it never passes the House. You ought to pass it in the Senate. The House should pass it. If the House doesn't, the Senate is doing the right thing. Pass it. Let him know that there are some people who are watching.
By the way, the President has also gone on to say that the five Republicans who voted for this to move forward shouldn't hold public office again. Threats and intimidation, this President spells the word ``respect'' f-e-a-r. That is respect. He wants people to fear him.
I don't fear you, Mr. President. I am concerned about your behavior. I am concerned about what you might have your underlings in some way do to me. I want you to know I will not be deterred, just as these Senators are not being deterred. Yes, they are doing the right thing, notwithstanding the fact that you have a vote in this process. They did it, and they are doing it. I support what they are doing.
In doing what he has done, the President is doing the following. He is using the noble ends--not always noble--to justify ignoble means. They are noble ends to justify ignoble means. That is what is happening in Venezuela. Only it is noble ends to justify unconstitutional means.
I think some Senators seem to agree with me on that: Unconstitutional means to justify what are perceived to be ignoble ends. The President of Venezuela is a part of this, but it is not about him. It is about the Constitution. It is about whether we will have a Constitution.
If we are going to allow what are perceived to be noble ends to justify unconstitutional means, at some point the Constitution of the United States of America will become meaningless. He is using noble, perceived ends to justify unconstitutional means.
The President should have brought this to the attention of the Congress. He did not do so. He did, however, bring it to the attention of the oil companies. Have the oil companies replaced Congress in the United States of America? Is what they think more important than what we think, given that the Constitution has given us the authority to declare war?
I know that this is a difficult topic for some people to embrace, but this is where we are. Congress has become irrelevant in the mind of this President. It is not relevant. It is not. His own morality, his own mind is the only thing that can stop him.
Well, Mr. President, you are wrong. Congress is relevant. Just as the Senate took this action, Congress, meaning the House of Representatives, should take action. By definition, the House and the Senate make up the Congress. The House of Representatives should take action. We have the power to do what has to be done. We have the power. Before I go further with that power, I want to come back to, if I may, Ms. Good.
If the President believes this about international law, if the President believes that the only thing is his mind, I believe he believes the same thing about domestic law. I think he believes that the only thing that he has to concern himself with is whether he agrees, whether he thinks it is right.
I believe he thinks that what those officers did can be justified simply because they are officers of the law. I support officers of the law. I don't support outlaws who are pretending to be officers of the law when they are committing crimes.
My uncle was a deputy sheriff. I support officers of the law, but I am not going to support officers who would do what happened to this lady and the President is then going to immediately back them up. The head of Homeland Security immediately backs them up. The Vice President of the United States immediately backs them up.
They set the narrative to allow the exoneration of the persons who did these dastardly things. They have put in motion immediately without an investigation.
Well, you say: Al, you didn't investigate.
No, but I am investigating by virtue of seeing what happened and having read news articles and having looked into it. They didn't do as much. They just immediately concluded that this lady was a terrorist.
I am not a terrorist, but if you can conclude that she is, I am not sure that anybody is safe from being captioned, labeled, or designated a terrorist. I am not sure.
I am standing up for her today. I am standing up for the American people today. I am standing up for those good law enforcement officers who would have approached that lady with a kinder gesture and not as bullies. They would have approached her and simply said: Ma'am, would you please step out of the car.
What is wrong with being kind? You have got the gun. What is wrong with being respectful? No, the President as a bully has passed on his tendencies to those who are under him. It starts at the top. The tone and tenor starts at
Now, you have officers who believe that they can bully people into doing things. I imagine this lady was frightened. I would have been, rushing up to me, mask on, ``Get out of the f'ing car.'' That may have been the last thing I would want to do. It may have been the last thing she wanted to do.
The President, in his thinking, believes he is above and beyond the law, whether it is international law or whether it is domestic law. That is his thinking.
I come back to where I was when I said the Senate is doing the right thing, and they are. I said the House should do the right thing, and we can.
The President fears what the House can do. He fears it because he knows that this is where an indictment can take place, right here in this House. He knows it. He knows that that indictment can be very harmful to him, very harmful to him.
He is afraid of what the House can do. He has as much as said it without using those explicit words. He said it. He has said it. He said that they will find some reason to impeach him, find some reason.
Mr. President, it is easy to find the reasons because you have given them to us. Venezuela is a reason. We don't have to look very far or very hard to find a reason. It is right before our eyes. The reasons are there. It is not about whether we can find the reasons. The question is whether we can find the will. It is the will. Do we have the willpower to do what should be done?
I am talking about bipartisan effort. It should be bipartisan. But if it can't be bipartisan, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop this reckless, ruthless President.
If the Senate can go forward knowing the rules and how things are likely to play out, if we can pass legislation here just yesterday that I supported going over to the Senate--there is a good likelihood that their behavior is not going to be acceptable to me. If we can do this, we can also do the same thing with the one thing that can stop a reckless, ruthless, outlaw President, the one thing. That one thing, my friends, is what the President fears most. He fears even having votes on it take place.
There are people who will say: ``Well, if you can't pass it, why vote on it?'' Because the American people need to know that there are some people who see the wrong and who are willing to take a stand against the wrong. They see the injustice, and they are willing to take a stand against the injustice, even when that stand may not result in what is the desired end. A noble end, a noble cause, ought not be avoided simply because you can't bring it to fruition today. It ought not be.
Yes, this thing that we can do is almost sacred. Yes, it requires considerable thought. Yes, it is something that we should do when we have the evidence. Well, friends, I guess the evidence is comparable to the evidence that we had on January 6 when we saw it before our very eyes. After all, this is an indictment here. The trial will take place in the Senate.
There is this one thing that he fears, and he is very much concerned about it and what we will do.
I can't speak for anybody else. I don't speak for any of my colleagues who are in Congress. I don't speak for anybody outside of Congress. I speak for one person, so do not now say that the Democrats are doing something. Just say Al Green. Tell the truth.
On some issues, I believe that it is better to stand alone than not stand at all, so I am going to take a stand. I am going to agree with what the Senate has said. By the way, I would invite you to read all of it because there is much more to it than what I read to you.
I agree with what the Senate has said when they said that Congress has the power to declare war. They go on to say Congress has not yet declared war. You had no right, under the Constitution, to do what you did, but you do have the right to do it if the standard is your mind and your morality.
We should not assume that this applies only to international affairs. It applies to domestic affairs as well. I am going to do what the Senate has done, as best as I can, but it will just be me. It is not the Democratic Party.
I believe that these are votes of conscience. Let your conscience be your guide, Members. Don't follow my lead, Members. Don't do it because I am doing it. I don't think that there are very many who would. Do it because you believe. If you don't believe, do not do it.
I am not asking anybody to vote for it when I bring it to the attention of Congress. I am not asking you to. Don't vote for it if your convictions don't command that you do so. Do what you think is right.
The Senate has done what they believe to be correct, and I assure you--without question, I assure you of this--I will bring Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States of America for taking our military to war against Venezuela, for doing it based upon some theory that in and of itself does not align with the Constitution, some theory that if you have an indictment, you can now send in the police or the Justice Department and various officers associated, you can send them in to do something--in this case, to seize the President of a country--and use the military to back them up.
I marvel at how people will say: ``Well, they did it in Panama. If we did it in Panama, we can do it here.'' God, the list is endless of things that have been done that were wrong that at some point we had to stop. It was wrong to bring folks to this country in chains. They thought it was lawful at the time, I suppose, in their minds, but we stopped it.
Regardless as to what has happened prior to this second in time, I say to you the Constitution still rules. The Constitution is above indictments. The Constitution is above the things that are in the mind of a President that he believes would give him the authority to do these things. It is the Constitution that counts.
If you are going to have a Constitution, you have to make it count. It doesn't count because the words are on paper. It is how we react and behave in response to the words that are on paper. It is the Constitution that counts.
An indictment is no constitutional reason to send the military, to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, to send planes in large numbers, or to send other military paraphernalia. Indictments don't accord you that, Mr. President.
The only way we can stop this is with impeachment because that is the only thing. Why is it impeachment? Because, friends, it would say to the next Donald John Trump we will not tolerate unconstitutional means that are justified. You can't decide that you are going to use some sort of means-justifies-the-ends theory to go to war. He needs to be impeached. He needs to be convicted, and he needs to be removed from office; impeached, convicted, and removed.
However, if we can't do it now, that doesn't mean that the process can't start now. If we can't do it now or sometime in the near future, it doesn't mean that we should not let the American people know that we know that what has been done is wrong. We should protect the Constitution, not allow this to happen. The only way we can do it-- while I believe that this is good and I support it, S.J. Res. 90. I support it. I believe it is good; but the real remedy, the remedy that can make the difference is to impeach, convict, and remove Donald John Trump from the Presidency.
Friends, this is where I stand. I don't do these things to make friends. I do them because I care about my country. I do it because I believe it when I salute the flag in liberty and justice for all. I do it because I believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people, and that includes the people who have the authority to enforce the Constitution. We are the people. We are the ``we'' in we the people. I believe we have to do whatever we can when we can, and this is something I can do, and I will do.
By the way, those who say: Well, you are just taking up time. We take up more time in between votes than it takes to vote on Articles of Impeachment. We took up more time just recently in between votes than it takes to vote on Articles of Impeachment. It
All of these things that people will say now in terms of why we can't do it, when we get the opportunity to by their standards, they will push all of these things aside and move forward. Well, I will be there with you. I am not asking you to be here with me, but I will be there with you. I will be there because it is the country, it is the Constitution, and it is the Republic that we must protect.
I promise you, friends, I will not be deterred. There is no need, not that anybody would, but there is no need to try and dissuade me. What happened in Venezuela was an act of war. The President doesn't have the authority to do that without consulting with the Congress. The Congress may very well conclude that you shouldn't do it. Maybe the Congress doesn't want to take over Venezuela. Maybe the Congress doesn't want to do this to provide the oil companies with greater revenues. Maybe the Congress has a different point of view. Your point of view is but one. The Congress has the right to have its point of view recognized as well. I must--others can do what they may. I must take this stand. I will take this stand.
This President will face Articles of Impeachment for his declaration of war based on his moral standards and his mind, based upon what he thinks he can do without congressional input. I will take a stand. I will bring the Articles of Impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the President and direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional public servant, a trusted leader and a dear friend to myself and everyone around him, Alachua County Fire Chief Harold Theus.
Chief Theus was recently named Florida's Career Fire Chief of the Year, an honor that truly reflects his lifetime commitment to service, leadership, and his community.
For many years now, Chief Theus and I have worked side by side on issues that matter deeply to our Alachua County community. Whether it is public safety, emergency preparedness, disaster response, or ensuring that our first responders have the tools, training, and support they need to do their jobs safely and effectively, Harold is there. Through hurricanes, wildfires, medical emergencies, and moments of unimaginable loss, Chief Theus has been a steady and trusted presence, quite literally the definition of a phone call away.
Under his leadership, Alachua County Fire Rescue has set a standard for excellence, emphasizing readiness, innovation, and above all, care for the very people who wear the uniform every single day. Chief Theus understands that a strong department is built by investing in people, by mentoring young firefighters, prioritizing safety, and fostering a culture where every team member knows that they matter.
That kind of leadership doesn't happen by accident. It comes from lived experience, from showing up day after day, and from the understanding of the weight of responsibility that comes with the badge.
I also want to speak personally for a moment. As the wife of a first responder, I know the quiet sacrifices that families, particularly fire families, make, the missed holidays, the overtime shifts, the late- night calls, the constant awareness that danger is just always part of the job. Leaders like Chief Theus don't just protect communities, they look out for our fire families too. Chief Theus understands that behind every firefighter there is a family praying for his safe return.
Mr. Speaker, Florida's Career Fire Chief of the Year is simply not an award for operational excellence. It is a recognition of character. It honors someone who embodies integrity, resilience, and service above self. With Florida being the third most populous State in the Union, that is one heck of an achievement.
For the people of Alachua County, Chief Theus is more than just the fire chief. He is a leader in a time of crisis, a team builder, and man who has earned the trust of the community that he serves.
For me, he is a friend, someone whose counsel I value, whose commitment I admire, and whose example reminds us all of what public service is meant to be.
Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Fire Chief Harold Theus on a well-earned recognition and thank him for his service.
On behalf of the families that he protects, the firefighters that he leads, and the community that is safer because of his service, I thank Chief Theus. May his example continue to inspire the next generation of first responders.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a remarkable public servant, trailblazer, and beloved member of our Ocala community, former Ocala councilmember Mary Sue Rich.
At the end of last year, at the age of 85, Mary Sue Rich passed away. Ms. Mary left behind a legacy that helped shape the city of Ocala for generations. She was a woman of courage and conviction, and her life reminds us that progress is often driven not by loud moments but by steady, faithful service over time.
In 1995, Mary Sue Rich made history when she became Ocala's first Black councilmember. At a time when representation mattered deeply and change did not come easily, she stepped forward with grace and determination. She was ready to serve her community, but more importantly, she opened doors.
Mary Sue Rich remained on the Ocala City Council until 2019, becoming the longest serving councilmember in the city's history. Her longevity was not just a matter of years but a testament to the trust that her community placed in her and the respect that she had earned through her leadership.
Ms. Mary was a mentor, a role model, and a living example of what it means to lead with integrity. She believed that progress comes when we bring people together, not when we divide them. Her leadership style was always rooted in listening, collaboration, and, of course, with a deep love for the city that she called home.
Her impact is not measured in titles alone, but it is reflected in the strengthened institutions that she helped guide, the voices that she elevated, and the countless residents whose lives were improved because she cared enough to serve.
I remember meeting her for the first time many years ago. I was a young, freshly elected Congresswoman, and she was just so gracious and kind. I recall thinking to myself how remarkable she was, someone whose tiny shoulders--she is not that tall--had been so small, but she carried so much. She was a force, a tiny titan, if you will.
That meeting that we had was actually a groundbreaking for a building that today bears her name. The dirt that we dug that day still sits on my desk.
As we extend our sincere condolences to her family, her friends, and the entire Ocala community, we mourn her passing, but we choose to use this as a moment to celebrate a life well lived and a legacy that will endure long after this moment.
Mr. Speaker, Mary Sue Rich's story reminds us why public service matters, and I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering and honoring the extraordinary life of Ms. Mary Sue Rich.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to remember the life and service of James Bennett, a devoted public servant from Baker County, Florida, whose life was tragically cut short. His sudden loss is a painful reminder for how fragile life can be and how deeply one's individual service can touch the lives of so many.
James Bennett was first elected as a Baker County commissioner in 2014, and he approached that responsibility with seriousness, humility, and an unwavering commitment to the people that he served.
He understood that local government is where public service is most personal. It is where decisions affect families, neighborhoods, and livelihoods very directly.
As a commissioner, he worked diligently to represent the interests of Baker County, always striving to do what he believed was right for his neighbors.
In addition to his service in Baker County, James was also the chief operating officer for JAXPORT. In that role he played a key part in supporting one of Florida's most vital economic assets. The port of Jacksonville is not only a driver of commerce and trade but a source of countless jobs, thousands of jobs, and the support system for families all across northeast Florida.
James understood the importance of that mission and brought his skills and leadership to bear in service of our State's economic future, and he always did it with a smile.
In fact, I will never forget on my last trip to JAXPORT, James put on a good smile, one that he probably would have busted into laughter if he could have, as I drove one of the cranes in a dress. For those that know about those cranes in our Nation's ports, they are very tall, and they tend to have some interesting components. He was a great sport showing me all of the latest things that they were doing at JAXPORT.
Beyond titles and positions, James will be remembered most for his character. He was somebody who believed deeply in public service, and he respected his fellow elected officials. More importantly, he listened to his constituents, the people who had elected him. He was always working to try to find a solution or an opportunity that would make Baker County stronger.
His passing is felt deeply by his family, his friends, his colleagues, and, of course, Baker County. They have lost a leader, a neighbor, a friend, someone who cared deeply about a place that we call home.
To his loved ones, I extend my deepest condolences and prayers for them during this very difficult time. No words will ever do justice for their pain and loss, but I hope they find comfort in knowing that James' life and his service truly mattered, and that his contributions will not be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, today we pause to remember James Bennett not only for how he died but for how he lived: dedicated to service and dedicated to his community. His legacy is reflected in the work that he did and the people he served. May we honor his memory by continuing to serve with the same integrity, humility, and dedication that James demonstrated throughout his life and his career.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life and legacy of Floyd Tillman, or as most of us know him, ``Sonny.''
Sonny Tillman, a Gainesville native, a visionary entrepreneur, and a man who knew his barbecue was a deeply beloved member of our Florida community whose impact will be felt for generations to come. You can't drive through south Georgia or north Florida without driving past Sonny's BBQ.
In 1968, Sonny Tillman opened a small family-owned barbecue restaurant on Waldo Road in Gainesville, Florida. In fact, it is still there today. What began as a humble neighborhood gathering place where you have picnic benches became something that was greater than just a menu. It became something where people gathered and talked about values. It was a place where people would share not just a good meal but a great meal.
Sonny believed in good food made the right way. He believed in hard work, and he believed in treating customers like family. Those simple but powerful principles became the foundation of what we now know as Sonny's BBQ.
Just 9 years later, that single Gainesville restaurant grew into not just a small franchise but a big franchise, and today, Sonny's BBQ is now recognized nationwide for its signature barbecue, southern hospitality, and commitment to quality. Yet despite the company's growth and success, Sonny never lost sight of what mattered most: community, family, kindness, and connection.
Sonny's story is a powerful reminder of the American Dream that with determination, integrity, grit, and heart, one person can create something lasting that brings people together. Those who knew him remember him not just for his vision but for his warmth, his generosity, his ability to make people feel welcomed and valued. It became more than a business. He created a place where families gathered, where momentous occasions took place, friendships were formed, and memories were made.
On behalf of Florida's Third Congressional District, I want to extend my deepest condolences to Sonny's family, to his friends, and all those that were touched by his life. We are so grateful for his contributions, more proud than you can imagine to call him one of our own, and committed to remembering the example that he said.
May we honor Sonny's memory by carrying forward the values that he lived by: hard work, generosity, grit, and love for community and some good barbecue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life and legacy of former TV20 Chief Meteorologist Bill Quinlan.
Bill joined the TV20 family in 1996 and dedicated 27 years of service to the north central Florida community. For many families in our region, Bill was more than just a weatherman. He was a familiar face that became part of people's childhoods, like my own husband's. He grew up watching Bill every single day.
Quite literally, generations of viewers have grown up watching Bill. They trusted his forecast before school and planned weekends around his predictions.
Beyond the forecast, Bill was a trusted voice and steady presence during moments of uncertainty. In a region and neighborhood like ours, which is often impacted by severe storms, hurricanes, and extreme weather, meteorologists play a vital role in protecting lives and property. They are educators, scientists, and public servants who help communities prepare, respond, and recover.
Bill was unique because he not only embraced that responsibility with great care, knowing that his work was making a real difference for families across north central Florida, but he was committed to accuracy, warm professionalism, and friendly public service and mentorship.
Bill helped our neighborhoods stay informed for nearly three decades. When storms threatened, Bill's steady demeanor and calm smile brought reassurance and clarity to countless households.
Bill also understood that mentorship was important. He took pride in explaining complex weather systems in ways that were accessible and engaging, inspiring curiosity and understanding among viewers of all ages. Many young people who watched him on TV grew up knowing that Bill was a trusted teacher and role model, and some went on to pursue that interest in science and meteorology because of him. I know today my husband has a weather app on his phone because of Bill.
We honor Bill today not only for his remarkable career but for his compassion and dedication to the people around him. He took great pride in educating viewers, and he inspired many young people. His legacy will continue across our community for years to come, leaving a lasting impact on his colleagues, viewers, the TV20 family, and friends alike.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor the life and service of
Doug LaMalfa was about as salt of the earth as you can get. For him, farming was not just something he talked about in speeches. It wasn't a paycheck. It was something that he lived. For the last few days, I have been looking back on our text exchanges and have watched and rewatched the videos that he sent me from the tractor while he was harvesting rice and being a bit of a goofball.
That was what was unique about Doug. He understood the dignity of hard work because he did it himself. Long days, unpredictable seasons, and quiet responsibility of caring for land and providing for others formed the foundation of who he was. That background grounded him. It gave him patience, perspective, and a deep respect for the people who keep this country fed and moving forward.
The same principles he embodied as a farmer and steward of the land were in the same sense of stewardship that guided him here in public service. He approached leadership the way a farmer approaches the land: thoughtfully, practically, and with an eye toward the future. He believed that you leave things better than you found them, Mr. Speaker, not just for today, but for the next generation.
I truly believe that what set Doug apart was his kindness. Every time I saw him, I was greeted with a loud and booming--if you knew Doug, Mr. Speaker, then you know it was going to be a booming voice: ``Hey, Kat Cammack.'' He also made a point to say my name right, and he put an emphasis on the ``mack'' because he was always flustered and frustrated when he would hear other people say it and couldn't say my name right.
When he wasn't doing that, he was asking me about how Big Daddy Garlits was doing, the drag racing titan who calls my district home, or how sweet baby Auggie, my newborn daughter, was doing. He was always teeing up some goofy story or taking a funny selfie, and it was those same goofy and wholesome selfies that have dotted the photo album on my phone for the last 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, those who knew him best will tell you that his compassion was quiet but genuine. He listened more than he spoke, and he treated people with respect, regardless of who they were or where they came from. Whether he was meeting with a constituent, helping a neighbor, or working alongside our colleagues, Doug never forgot that public service was about people, not politics.
When the news broke about his passing, a constituent of his wrote a note to me, sharing a story of how she had just lost her husband and was in shock. She had ordered a flag to be flown over the Capitol in honor of the birthday of a friend who had been with her through the loss of her husband, but due to a mixup, her flag had never arrived. She said she had ``given up on it.''
Fast forward to a Sunday morning. She answered a knock at her door. She was in her PJs and a hoodie, and she found Doug LaMalfa standing there, flag in hand. He explained it had been returned to his office due to a mixup in the mail, but he knew that she would want it. She was so impressed that not only did he get her the flag, but that he delivered it personally and on a weekend.
What Congressman does that?
While it seems like the exception today, things like that were more of a rule for Doug. His kindness wasn't performative. It showed up in small moments like taking the time to return a phone call or show up on a Sunday to deliver a flag, checking in on families during hard times and seasons, or just standing up for communities that often feel unseen or unheard.
Doug LaMalfa carried the values of rural America into the Halls of Congress: faith, hard work, generosity, and resilience. He never lost sight of who he was or where he came from, and because of that, he never lost sight of whom he served.
Today, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully every day, we remember a farmer who answered the call to serve his country, a public servant who led with integrity, and a man whose legacy will live on in the lives he touched. May we honor him by carrying forward those same values of caring deeply, working hard, and treating one another with the kindness that he so naturally gave, because Doug would want it that way.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment this morning to examine the biggest fraud scandal in the history of California and probably in the history of the United States, and that was the fraud in unemployment benefits that occurred in California during the COVID years, amounting to a minimum of $32 billion--$32 billion.
It is easy to kind of throw these numbers around and lose sight of what they really mean, so just to put that in perspective, that was one-half of the education budget in California at the time, and it is more than the entire State budget of the vast majority of States in the country.
Now, the reason that this scandal bears scrutiny right now is threefold. First, a State audit just found 2 weeks ago that this unemployment fraud in California is ongoing to this day continuing to cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Second, the Senate still has not passed a bill that we passed in the House to hold some of these fraudsters accountable by extending the statute of limitations.
Third, the Newsom administration, perhaps sensing the political peril following the events in Minnesota, has come out and absurdly tried to deny responsibility for this scheme, for this scandal, and even more absurdly tried to blame the Federal Government for it.
I want to go through exactly what happened because I believe it is important to show why taxpayers were so thoroughly defrauded and to assure that this does not continue to happen going forward.
The reality is that the fraud that occurred in California took place despite the repeated warnings of the Federal Government, and it was uncovered not by State officials but, rather, by local prosecutors.
On November 23, 2020, a group of nine county prosecutors disclosed what they called the most serious significant fraud of taxpayer funds in California history. Now, at the time, they said they could only prove $1 billion. So $1 billion was already the biggest fraud of taxpayer dollars in California history. Now we know that it was at the very least $32 billion.
Contrary to what the Newsom administration is trying to say now, at the time, the district attorney of Sacramento County, Anne Marie Schubert, said: ``We have asked and implored the Governor to turn the spigot off.'' She said the Governor's Employment Development Department was not doing commonsense things, like cross-checking claims with prison rolls, something that the vast majority of other States were doing and that the Federal Government had advised.
She said this made the scheme ``relatively easy.'' She called the Governor's response slow and nonexistent. She advised Governor Newsom to ``look to other States for solutions.''
The district attorney of Fresno County, Lisa Smittcamp, said: ``(Newsom) did nothing until the elected district attorneys brought it to the media.'' She added that she did not think the State has a handle on it. Those were comments made back in November of 2020.
The following January, the State auditor came out with a report that laid forward in very precise detail exactly how significant the failures of the Newsom administration were, specifically with their unemployment office, known as the EDD.
A heading in that audit said: ``Significant Weaknesses in EDD's Approach to Fraud Prevention Have Led
The audit goes on to list examples of where suspicious addresses were simply ignored in the claims process. In one case, more than 1,700 claims came from a single address. From one address 1,700 claims, and yet the checks were issued.
One of the problems, as mentioned, is there was no crossmatch system to crossmatch the claims against the prison rolls, so you actually had checks that were being sent to State penitentiaries, the State prisons.
Here is a timeline of the aforementioned warnings that actually came from the Federal Government. Now, this is significant, again, because the Newsom administration is now claiming somehow that it was California that warned the Federal Government when, in fact, it was exactly the opposite. Other States followed these warnings, but California didn't.
In April of 2020, the United States Department of Labor sent instructions for implementing the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program and told States to take reasonable steps to deter and detect fraud, including audits.
The following month, in May of 2020, there was a second notice from the U.S. Department of Labor, warning the States to maintain the integrity of the unemployment program.
Later that month, in May, the U.S. Department of Labor requested data from California, and the Office of the Inspector General warned California that the State was likely to see at least a billion dollars in fraud based on new claims for March and April.
During this time, the Newsom administration's EDD office had exactly two staff members who were responsible for reviewing suspicious claims.
Newsom's EDD also allowed the backdating of claims until September of that year, so if you were a fraudster, you could simply claim that you had worked a certain number of weeks, previous weeks that had already passed, and there was no verification needed at all.
The problem of suspicious addresses got even worse. The audit reports there were 26,000 addresses listed as suspicious, with more than 500,000 associated claims.
The audit concludes: Our review illustrates that EDD continues to pay claims despite having evidence that they are very likely fraudulent. Again, this is a finding. This is a talking point. This is not from the Governor's political adversaries or from people on social media, this is a report from the nonpartisan California State auditor in January of 2021 saying: ``Our review illustrates that EDD continues to pay claims despite having evidence that they are very likely fraudulent.''
The audit continues: Between March of 2020 and early January of 2021, more than 2.2 million claimants did not satisfactorily answer requests that they provide identity verification. In fact, there was another problem that then emerged from this that people became victims of identity theft, and then they ran into issues like they had to pay taxes on wages they hadn't actually received.
As mentioned, the audit also notes that ``EDD was unprepared to detect and handle the hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent claims associated with incarcerated individuals.'' I mean, how crazy is that? That you had claims coming in from State prisons, and those claims let out hundreds of millions of dollars.
As the auditor says: ``As we describe throughout this report, EDD's approach to fraud prevention and detection demonstrates the weaknesses caused by its poor planning and program management.''
Local media reports at the time substantiated all of these claims, including in publications like The Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times.
What is even worse is that the criminals who are purloining our State Treasury of these taxpayer funds in many cases were using those dollars--I mean, what do you think they are using them for? We talk about waste, as in this money is just squandered, but it is actually much worse than that because the criminals who get these funds, they are not then giving them to charity. They are using them for further criminal activities.
One example from The Sacramento Bee is about how these funds were used to buy guns illegally. For example, a report from The Bee reported that multiple fraudulent EDD cards were discovered along with firearms in the hands of convicted felons, results that law enforcement officials say leads them to one conclusion: Criminals are using funds from the growing EDD fraud scandal to buy weapons. Mind you, this was at a time when violent crime rates were soaring in California and far outpaced the rest of the country.
Just to give you a couple examples, the Torrance police found that more than two dozen people had been arrested in the fall of 2020 for alleged unemployment benefits fraud and identity theft. The 27 suspects used stolen identities to obtain over 130 EDD cards. When they recovered these, the authorities also found $150,000 and four handguns, including two without serial numbers.
The Glendale police, in early 2021, arrested a man who was in possession of a so-called ghost gun, along with ammunition, drugs, several fraudulent EDD cards, and other illicit items.
To summarize, you had the largest fraud of taxpayer dollars, likely in the history of the United States. The nonpartisan State auditor in California, along with nonpartisan prosecutors from throughout California, clearly identified the negligence of the Newsom administration as enabling this fraud to occur which far outpaced anything that occurred anywhere else in the country.
You then had the criminal syndicates and other criminals, more run- of-the-mill criminals, who obtained these funds and used them to spawn further criminal activity that victimized even more Californians.
Now, 5 years later, the fraud continues. The administration still hasn't learned its lesson. The same State auditor just found that EDD remains one of eight high-risk agencies in California, a number that has doubled during the Newsom administration, finding that the EDD continues to allow millions in fraud, alongside millions that are being lost in fraud in connection with SNAP benefits, with improper Medi-Cal determinations, not to mention community college fraud and fraud basically everywhere you look throughout the California government.
Now you have the Governor insisting that no, none of this was his fault. California did nothing wrong. He has even made up bogus numbers like he somehow prevented $125 million in fraud.
The concern is this: If the Governor and his administration are unwilling to admit any responsibility whatsoever despite the clearly established evidence of their responsibility, how can we expect this problem to ever be fixed?
I will tell you. I am working in a bipartisan way here in Congress to bring accountability for the vast fraud that continues to take place in California so that our taxpayers do not have to see their hard-earned money going to criminals and can finally start getting a reasonable return on their investment in our State government.
Mr. Speaker, U-Haul has just released its annual growth index for all 50 States, which is a measure of U-Hauls coming in versus going out. In other words, which States are people moving out of and which States are people moving into.
For the sixth straight year, 6 years running, California is ranked 50th. In other words, we rank first when it comes to people leaving the State. This is truly an astonishing fact. The greatest State in the country, the most beautiful State in the country, has become the most popular State to leave.
This is reflected in the fact that California lost a Member of Congress in the 2020 reapportionment and we are projected to lose four or five in the 2030 reapportionment.
Indeed, for 170 years of California history, our State's population grew each and every year. It was only during the administration of the current Governor that that trend reversed itself and the State continues to lose people.
It is a very sad thing when you look at the boundless potential of our State, the unmatched beauty, the incredible people and companies and culture. We have everything. Yet for too many Californians, it has become too difficult to get by in California or it is the crime or it is the homelessness. It is the inability to buy a house. It is the price of gas or electricity or water. It is the fact that our State leads the Nation in unemployment, in homelessness, in poverty, in illiteracy. These are all politically created problems.
The good news is there is a coalition for common sense emerging in California, and we have started to see progress in circumventing our State's political class and bringing real change. For example, we passed a measure in 2024, the voters did, to restore some consequences for criminal activity. It passed with almost 70 percent of the vote, despite the Governor and the State legislature's leaders opposing the measure every step of the way.
We won a decision at the Supreme Court that has restored the ability of our communities to clear homeless encampments and ensure people get into shelters and don't wither on our streets. As a result, we are starting to see some modest improvements in crime and homelessness in California, but unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in order to make sure that next year California does not, once again, for a seventh straight year lead the Nation in outbound U-Haul rentals.
Mr. Speaker, there is currently a proposed ballot measure in my State of California to impose the Nation's first- ever wealth tax. In response to this proposal, you are already seeing an exodus from California because, while the measure won't be presented until November and won't take effect until next year, the language of it ensnares anyone who was a resident of California until January 1 of this year. It would actually try to apply itself to former residents.
Now, California already has the highest income tax of any State in the country, the highest gas tax, the highest overall tax burden. However, a wealth tax is something unique because a wealth tax is not merely the taxation of earned income, it is the confiscation of assets.
They are saying it is just for billionaires. Of course, it starts with billionaires and then they continue to lower the threshold, ensnaring more and more people. Even for billionaires, presenting a 5 percent tax on all of your assets is problematic because, number one, it requires actually having liquid assets amounting to 5 percent of one's net worth, but number two, what you are already seeing happen is entrepreneurs and job creators are simply leaving the State to avoid this unique penalty.
Now, we already have the highest unemployment rate of any State in the country in California, so it really doesn't help that now the State is causing even more job creators to leave the State. But what is especially threatening about this is that our State's tax structure is essentially a house of cards. Even the Governor acknowledged in his state of the State yesterday that we have a system that is incredibly volatile, where the top 1 percent of earners account for 50 percent of the tax revenue.
If you have this wealth tax that is suddenly going to cause the highest earners not to want to have anything to do with California, the State's finances will collapse. The entire house of cards will come tumbling down.
This is not to mention the myriad constitutional problems with this proposal, not the least of which is the idea that they are going to try to apply it to former residents.
It also isn't to mention the problems of administrability, which is why if you look to other countries that have tried to impose some form of a wealth tax, they have quickly rescinded the policy because it turned out to be a disaster.
I will be fighting against this latest, misguided, insane proposal in every way that I can and that includes using the legislative authority that we have here in Congress under clauses such as the Commerce Clause to prevent a renegade proposal like this from, at the very least, ensnaring taxpayers who have already gone to other States.
Mr. Speaker, California has for too long gone down the road of overtaxing its citizens, overregulating its businesses, and overburdening its citizens. This would simply be a bridge too far.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, January 12, 2026, at noon for morning-hour debate.
