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.
37 public bills, H.R. 8914- 8950; and 6 resolutions, H.J. Res. 188; H. Con. Res. 103-104; and H. Res. 1306-1308 were introduced.
Pages H3668-70
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 301, to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to establish a deadline for processing applications related to geothermal leasing (H. Rept. 119-654); H.R. 398, to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to provide cost- recovery authority for the Department of the Interior (H. Rept. 119- 655); H.R. 1077, to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas (H. Rept. 119-656); H.R. 1687, to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to increase the frequency of lease sales, to require replacement sales, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-657); H.R. 3831, to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prohibit feeding sharks in the exclusive economic zone off the State of Florida (H. Rept. 119-658); H.R. 5617, to direct the Department of the Interior to identify and publish standard procedures and guidelines for geothermal leasing and permit issuance for environmentally responsible geothermal operations on Federal lands, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-659); H.R. 5631, to appoint a Geothermal Ombudsman and establish a Geothermal Permitting Task Force from within the Bureau of Land Management, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119- 660); H.R. 5638, to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to require royalties on production from leased geothermal resources to be based on production from each electric generating facility, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-661); H.R. 5911, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the City of Ouray, Colorado, certain land managed by the Forest Service, together with a reservoir, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-662); H.R. 6162, to transfer certain Federal land into trust for certain Indian Pueblos in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-663); H.R. 7618, to amend title 54, United States Code, to modify certain cost-sharing requirements for grant programs under the American Battlefield Protection Program, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-664); and H.R. 7831, to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to extend the period of time during which the Secretary of the Interior is required to collect a fee for each new application for a permit to drill, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-665).
Page H3668
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Crawford to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H3631
Suspensions: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and agree to the following measures. Consideration began Tuesday, May 19th. Providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6644, with amendment: H. Res. 1299, providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6644, with amendment, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 396 yeas to 13 nays, Roll No. 176;
Pages H3643-44
Keeping Deposits Local Act
H.R. 3234, amended, to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to modify the amount of reciprocal deposits of an insured depository institution that are not considered to be funds obtained by or through a deposit broker, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 405 yeas with none voting ``nay'', Roll No. 177;
Pages H3644-45
American Access to Banking Act
H.R. 4544, amended, to direct certain Federal banking and credit union agencies to promote the formation of de novo regulated institutions through the review of application processes, the review of capital raising by de novo regulated institutions, and the establishment of various outreach programs, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 405 yeas to 4 nays, Roll No. 178;
Page H3645
Community Bank Deposit Access Act
H.R. 5317, amended, to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to ensure that certain custodial deposits of well capitalized insured depository institutions are not considered to be funds obtained by or through deposit brokers, by a \2/3\ yea-and- nay vote of 393 yeas to 16 nays, Roll No. 179;
Pages H3645-46
Fiscal Year 2025 Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Authorization Act
S. 2393, to authorize a major medical facility project for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2026 in St. Louis, Missouri, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 405 yeas to 6 nays, Roll No. 180; and
Pages H3646-47
25th Anniversary of 9/11 Commemorative Coin Act
H.R. 1993, amended, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and to support programs at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 415 yeas with none voting ``nay'', Roll No. 182.
Pages H3659-60
Suspensions
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure: Lulu's Law: S. 1003, to require the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order providing that a shark attack is an event for which a wireless emergency alert may be transmitted, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 401 yeas to 6 nays, Roll No. 181.
Pages H3642-43, H3647
Order of Business
Agreed by unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 86 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.
Pages H3647-48
Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran
The House considered H. Con. Res. 86, directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Further proceedings were postponed.
Pages H3648-52
Recess
The House recessed at 2:54 p.m. and reconvened at 4:30 p.m.
Page H3659
Parental Rights Over The Education and Care of Their Kids Act
The House passed H.R. 2616, to require public elementary and middle schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before changing a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms, by a recorded vote of 217 ayes to 198 noes, Roll No. 184.
Pages H3652-59, H3660-61
Rejected the Balint motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Education and Workforce by a yea-and-nay vote of 207 yeas to 208 nays, Roll No. 183.
Pages H3658-59, H3660-61
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-26 shall be considered as adopted, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in the bill.
Page H3652
H. Res. 1224, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to Wednesday, April 29th. Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, and Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act--Rule for Consideration: The House agreed to H. Res. 1300, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1041) to amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the national instant criminal background check system; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6047) to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the dollar amounts for the payment of certain disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1329) to permit the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to be located within the Reserve of the National Mall; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, by a recorded vote of 208 ayes to 207 noes, Roll No. 186, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 209 yeas to 207 nays, Roll No. 185.
Pages H3632-42, H3661-63
Senate Referrals
S. 790 was held at the desk. S. 603 was held at the desk. S. 3966 was held at the desk.
Page H3659
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H3659. Quorum Calls--Votes: Nine yea-and-nay votes and two recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H3643-44, H3644-45, H3645, H3646, H3646-47, H3647, H3659-60, H3660-61, H3661, H3662, and H3662-63. Adjournment: The House met at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 6:07 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: 136 of 218 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Congratulating Four Outstanding Young People on Graduating the Coast Guard
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate four outstanding young people from my district, the Northern Mariana Islands, who are graduating from the United States Coast Guard Academy Class of 2026: Pution Palacios-Camacho, Seiji Suzuki Gonzales, Noah Fleming Mesa, and Kyle Peter San Nicolas.
Their graduation is a proud and well-earned achievement, reflecting years of discipline, perseverance, and commitment to service.
As they prepare to serve as officers in the United States Coast Guard, they carry with them the values that define our islands: family, humility, resilience, and responsibility to others.
For the Northern Marianas, their accomplishment reminds us that our young people can rise to serve at the highest levels while carrying with them the spirit of our island community.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Pution, Seiji, Noah, and Kyle. The CNMI is proud of them and thanks them for their continued service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Alice Mann for her dedicated service to Minnesotans and her commitment to improving the health and well-being of communities across our State.
She immigrated to Minnesota from Brazil as a child and has been a fierce champion of human rights her entire life.
Driven by her experiences with patients struggling to access affordable care, Dr. Mann ran for office and was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives where she championed policies to expand access to healthcare, lower costs, and improve outcomes for families.
After caring for patients during the pandemic, Dr. Mann returned to public service and was elected to the Minnesota Senate where she has been a leading voice on healthcare policy and the chief author of legislation establishing paid family and medical leave.
Her unwavering advocacy as a legislator and her dedicated care as a physician have changed the trajectory of many people's lives.
Dr. Mann is a dear friend to many, a devoted wife to her husband, Elliot, and a caring mother to Maxwell, Alexander, and Marcelo.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Minnesota, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Mann for her care of patients and her contributions to our State.
Mr. Speaker, roughly 16,000 young adults age out of the child welfare system annually, and far too many of them face significant challenges in reaching their full potential.
Tragically, nearly 35 percent, a full third of these young adults, also experience homelessness by age 21.
To address these challenges and to improve outcomes for children and young adults across America, this week the House passed H.R. 7432, the Fostering the Future Act.
This bipartisan legislation equips young adults with the tools to succeed and the skills for in-demand jobs.
By expanding education and training vouchers to include short-term workforce training and apprenticeships, we increase both opportunity and educational support for at-risk members of our society.
Additionally, this bill better aligns Federal housing programs so that we can reduce homelessness among those exiting the foster care system.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the House take this bipartisan action for the first time in more than 25 years to help our young people build a brighter future.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of an extraordinary woman from my beautiful New Mexico, Sarah Ghiorse.
Her family and all who knew her were touched by her life and grieve her passing from cancer at the untimely age of 52.
Sarah was rooted in love, love of her family, her colleagues, her communities, and our beautiful State.
She led the amazing organization NewMexicoWomen.org with her fierce advocacy for justice. Sarah believed that the work for women and girls in these difficult political times must be rooted in and convey connection to love, that in building together in community, we all have a role and belong to this ecosystem.
Sarah was the heart of her organization, moving with ease, grace, and integrity between multiple worlds, all connected by her commitment.
She was as comfortable in staff and donor meetings as she was at ceremonies or in the streets for marches, parades, or protests.
At the same time, she was a dedicated mother, a daughter, a sister, a partner, and a friend. Her light, love, and powerful legacy will continue and live on in those who loved and cared for her.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two young leaders from the Chattahoochee Valley: Frank Lumpkin IV of Columbus, Georgia, and Justus Armstrong of nearby Phenix City, Alabama, whose work over the last 9 years has advanced the effort to expand Interstate 14, more commonly known as I-14, from Texas to my home State of Georgia.
Known as the Forts to Ports Highway, I-14 will connect military communities from Fort Hood in Texas to Fort Benning in Georgia and spur economic growth across the Southeast.
In 2017, at just 19 years old, after graduation from Columbus High School, Frank founded the Chattahoochee Valley Infrastructure Coalition, recognizing the need to build support across the community for the expansion of Interstate 14.
Today, Frank is an attorney and serves our country as a captain and a Judge Advocate General in the United States Army Reserve.
Frank's relentless advocacy has led to congressionally authorized studies and I-14's designation as a congressionally authorized future interstate.
Strong bipartisan support exists at all levels for dedicated Federal investment and congressionally authorized future interstates, including I-14. These high-priority corridors have received further congressional authorization underscoring their national significance.
Because of this groundwork, Columbus, Georgia, a city I represent, has the opportunity to receive the first piece of I-14 outside of Texas. I-14's expansion to Georgia will provide interstate access to impoverished communities and create high-quality, blue-color jobs across the Southeast.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of Frank Lumpkin's work, and I look forward to supporting his coalition's inspiring advocacy.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1041, Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6047, Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule providing for consideration of a few measures.
First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides for the flexibility to consider a rule related to reconciliation on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules in order to expeditiously consider such legislation if it is received from the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, passage of my resolution today allows us to take important action this week. My resolution allows us to consider legislation affecting veterans, military families, and future generations.
This week, the House has an opportunity to take action on behalf of those who answered our country's call to serve, the families who stand beside them, and the stories that help define who we are as Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us also provides consideration of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), my friend and colleague.
Chairman Bost has long been a strong advocate for veterans and military families. Yesterday, during discussion of this legislation, we spent time talking through the practical consequences of an issue affecting veterans across our country.
Mr. Speaker, I thought Chairman Bost helped paint an important picture, and I believe it is worth sharing with the House today, while certainly to address the 250,000 veterans who have been affected by this issue, but sometimes understanding legislation begins by thinking about just one person and sharing their story. Picture for a moment a veteran navigating the lasting effects of military service. Maybe they are balancing appointments, recovery, family responsibilities, and challenges associated with service-connected injuries. They are not a danger to themselves. They are not a danger to anyone else, but they simply reach a point where they recognize something many Americans recognize from time to time: I just need a little help. Maybe they speak with fellow veterans at The American Legion, a local VFW Post, or another veterans service association. Maybe they visit Veteran Affairs seeking support, and maybe they are having difficulty managing finances while focusing on their recovery.
The VA then determines a fiduciary may help manage their benefits. This isn't uncommon. A fiduciary is exactly that--someone assigned to help oversee financial matters.
Under the current framework, assignment of a fiduciary results in veterans being reported by VA bureaucrats to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, otherwise known as the NICS list, despite never being determined to be a danger to themselves or anyone else.
Once entered into that system, veterans can lose their Second Amendment constitutional rights, despite never receiving the same process or legal findings applied to nonveterans.
Mr. Speaker, that is the issue before us.
Earlier this year, President Trump's Department of Veterans Affairs, led by a great Georgian, the Secretary of Veteran Affairs, Doug Collins, took important steps to restore fairness for veterans. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act builds on that progress by establishing lasting protections under law.
Simply put, this legislation ensures veterans seeking support through the VA are not subjected to different treatment solely because they sought assistance while navigating the lasting effects of military service.
The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act consists of several important provisions.
Section 2 restores due process protections and ensures that the assignment of a fiduciary alone cannot automatically result in placement onto the NICS list, which prohibits firearm access. If you are a veteran at home seeking assistance from the VA, this means asking for help no longer creates uncertainty surrounding your constitutional rights that you defended in uniform. You can seek support. You can focus on recovery. You can continue moving forward with the benefits the Constitution affords you.
Section 3 ensures that veterans previously affected have their records corrected and updated. It rights a wrong and corrects an injustice. If this issue affected you or your family, this legislation creates a path to address concerns that may have followed you for years.
Section 4 clarifies that assistance in managing financial matters alone cannot serve as the basis for different treatment. Seeking support should never result in different treatment.
I applaud the many organizations that have stepped up to help us consider this legislation and advocated for its passage, including the National Rifle Association, the Gun Owners of America, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Their leadership and partnership throughout the consideration of this legislation will yield success today. Their advocacy helped elevate this issue and move it forward, beyond just a concept and a debate, for families and military families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us also provides for consideration of H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026. While military service may come to an end, for many veterans and families, the responsibilities and challenges associated with that service can continue for years.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to think back to the veteran we were just discussing. Now, imagine that
For veterans and families, that reality continues for many years after military service ends. That is exactly why Congress must act.
Mr. Speaker, legislation receives a name for a reason. This legislation before us bears the names of Sharri Briley and Sergeant Eric Edmundson because their experiences help explain why stronger support matters.
After losing her husband, Army Chief Warrant Officer Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, during the battle of Mogadishu, Sharri Briley experienced responsibilities no military family should have to navigate alone. At just 24 years old, while serving our country near the Iraq-Syria border, Sergeant Edmundson's vehicle struck an improvised explosive device, an IED. The blast caused catastrophic injuries that fundamentally changed the course of his life. By the grace of God, Sergeant Edmundson survived.
Today, years later, Sergeant Edmundson and his family continue navigating the lasting effects of injuries sustained in service to our country. Their experiences remind us of an important reality: Military service often creates responsibilities carried not only by veterans but by entire families.
Simply put, H.R. 6047 strengthens support for catastrophically injured veterans, caregivers, surviving spouses, and military families. The Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act consists of several important provisions.
Section 2 increases compensation for catastrophically injured veterans requiring regular in-home care. If you are that veteran at home, navigating daily care, appointments, adaptive equipment, and financial strain associated with severe service-connected injuries, this legislation provides approximately $10,000 annually in additional support. That support helps offset costs that families experiencing such burdens carry every day.
Section 3 strengthens support available to caregivers and military families. If your spouse, parent, child, or loved one helps care for you each day, this legislation recognizes an important reality: Military service often affects entire families.
Section 4 ensures these reforms are implemented effectively.
Section 5 expands eligibility requirements for Guard and Reserve servicemembers by reducing qualifying Active-Duty requirements for VA home loan eligibility. If you are a Guard or Reserve servicemember at home, this legislation expands opportunities for homeownership and helps more military families achieve the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, finally, the rule before us provides consideration of the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, introduced by my colleague, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, one of the most respected members of the House Republican Conference.
The vision for the Smithsonian American women's history museum is straightforward but important: to preserve, research, and share the stories, experiences, and contributions of women whose leadership, sacrifice, and service built our country.
On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed legislation into law, taking an important step toward making that vision a reality. That reflected something many Americans already understand: The story of our country cannot be fully told without the stories of the women who shaped it.
While Congress and President Trump established a path forward for the museum, the project stalled because one important piece remained unfinished: The museum still does not have a permanent home on The National Mall because the original law prohibited it from being located within the Reserve. The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act helps complete that work.
Mr. Speaker, all of us can think of women whose strength, sacrifice, and example led us to who we are today: a mother, grandmother, teacher, mentor, leader, or someone whose example shaped our own story.
In many ways, these stories became part of our country's story, too. For generations, American women shaped our country through military service, public service, education, science, innovation, leadership, and sacrifice. That is why Congress must act.
Mr. Speaker, simply put, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act moves this project from authorization toward reality by providing a path for the museum to be built alongside other Smithsonian museums at a place of historic and national prominence.
The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act consists of several important provisions.
Section 2 removes restrictions preventing the museum from being located within the Reserve on The National Mall, designates the south monument site, and allows the Smithsonian to move forward with planning and construction.
Section 2 also facilitates transfer of the land to the Smithsonian Institution and establishes planning and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability as the project moves forward.
If your family visits our Nation's Capital years from now, a child walking through those exhibits may learn about a scientist, teacher, servicemember, entrepreneur, or national leader, and even be inspired to change our country, too.
I applaud Representative Malliotakis for her leadership on this effort.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the House has an opportunity to act on behalf of veterans seeking fairness, military families carrying lasting responsibilities, and future generations who deserve to understand the stories that helped shape our country. These measures address different issues, but they are connected by a simple principle: We should honor service; we should support families; and we should preserve the stories and values that continue shaping our country.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my resolution, which is provided for consideration in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
President Trump has not used his first 18 months in office to reduce costs or end foreign wars like he promised--quite the opposite. Last week, he said he doesn't ``think about Americans' financial situation.''
His priorities have never been the American people. His administration's priorities are the Trump name, his wealth, his war, and his profits. Everything he does costs Americans more money and more pain.
Let's recap the administration's actions in just the last few days. They created a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay off January 6 insurrectionists, who beat law enforcement officers in this very building. Taxpayers will foot that bill. Trump toured his dream ballroom that will cost taxpayers at least $1 billion. He traded stocks worth up to $750 million and then promoted the companies he bought.
We are in the 82nd day of Trump's war that is costing Americans over a billion dollars a day. Because of his war, gas prices have skyrocketed to $4.55 a gallon. Farmers are going bankrupt, and Americans can't afford groceries.
Trump gets away with all of this because House Republicans stand hip to hip with him. House Republicans' bills this week are proof, once again, that Trump calls the shots in this House.
Some of these bills had bipartisan promise, but Republicans poisoned them. For instance, for more than a decade, a bipartisan group of our colleagues fought to establish the women's history museum and put it on The National Mall. Women led this fight. We worked across the aisle because of our shared belief that women's history is integral to our Nation's story. Then, after decades of working together on building both a women's history museum and a Latino history museum on The National Mall, Republicans suddenly changed the bill.
The White House directed Republicans to amend the bill, so Trump and
Yesterday in the Rules Committee, I asked the Republican chair of the House Administration Committee why he gave Trump this control. He refused to answer my questions because there is no good reason.
Before they hijacked the museum, 127 Democrats proudly cosponsored that bill. Now 146 Members of Congress have signed a letter opposing it until it is restored to its original version. These Members--these Members want us to tell a story of how women marched, protested, and were jailed so that they could vote and the story of women who fought in our Revolutionary War and continue to defend our country today.
Women deserve to be the ones to tell our story, not Trump and his ballroom buddies.
My colleagues should reject this partisan bill and return to the original, bipartisan version that honors the diverse contributions that women made to this country. One man should not dictate what women's history looks like.
This rule also makes in order two bills from the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Democrats and Republicans agree that we should increase benefits for disabled veterans and their surviving family members. These soldiers gave their limbs, vision, and mobility for our Nation. We owe veterans the benefits that truly reflect their sacrifice. But we should reject Republicans' choice to pay for those benefits by making it more expensive for veterans to stay in their homes.
That is what the Republicans' Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act does. It pays for the needed increases in disability benefits by making housing more expensive for veterans. Republicans' choices are all wrong.
Now is not the time to make housing harder to get when, thanks to Trump's war, tariffs and inflation, mortgage rates are averaging at 6.75 percent, the highest rate since last July; when gas and utility bills are skyrocketing; and when more than 10,000 veterans have lost their homes since Trump's administration shut down a VA program that helped veterans avoid foreclosure. There are another 90,000 veterans currently behind on their mortgages or in the foreclosure process who, thanks to Trump's administration, won't be able to use that program.
Now more than ever, we should make it easier for veterans to keep their homes. Yet, instead of pushing back against Trump's attacks on veterans' housing, Republicans chose to make housing more expensive.
Republicans have the money for tax breaks for billionaires but not veterans' housing, money for a White House ballroom but not veterans' housing, money for a $1.8 billion slush fund but not veterans' housing. Those are Republicans' priorities, and they are all wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure everybody at home knows what is before us. I find it notable, and I am sure we will debate H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, but just to comment on H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, this bill has meaningful, meaningful reform, and it enables veterans to live a much better life.
It significantly increases the monthly benefits rate for catastrophically, service-connected disabled veterans with a traumatic brain injury or other service disabilities that require regular, around-the-clock, in-home medical care, offering an additional $10,000 annually. It raises survivors' VA benefits by an extra 1.5 percent over 2 years, providing an extra couple hundred dollars to over 500,000 survivors.
Since 1993, Congress has not adjusted DIC aside from inflation. This is meaningful, and it has a great impact on veterans across the country, notwithstanding the fact that it also expands the eligibility requirement for National Guard and reservists from 90 days of Active Duty service to 14 days of Active Duty service with a 1 percent fee. This would allow more Members of the Guard and Reserves, generally younger members, to be able to live the American Dream by owning their first home.
Over 500,000 survivors, National Guard and reservists, and thousands of catastrophically disabled veterans and their families will be positively impacted by this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we think that we should do all of these. We think we should increase the disability benefits for veterans. We agree on that.
Yet, what we are taking issue with is just the additional disability compensation, if you look at the score, what do they cost? It is $1 billion.
What else costs $1 billion? It is that ballroom. What else costs $1 billion? Actually, more than $1 billion--$1.8 billion. It is their slush fund. That is where we have a disagreement. We think we should do this, but we don't think we should cut veterans' housing to pay for it.
They are willing to pay for ballrooms and slush funds, but they want to cut veterans' housing in order to provide these needed benefits. We agree that these are needed increases in benefits.
Mr. Speaker, to address this issue more fully, I suggest that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt an amendment to H.R. 6047, authored by Ranking Member Takano, which would strike the sections of the bill that would raise fees on veterans who want to refinance their homes and replace these fees with a reduction in the estate tax exemption from $15 million to $14.5 million.
There is an easy question: How do we pay for this? How about asking the millionaires to help out a teeny bit for our veterans. Yet, under this Republican-controlled government, there is always money for the tax cuts to the rich, funding illegal wars, forking over $1 billion for Trump's ballroom, or the latest insanity of creating that $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out to January 6 insurrections and other Trump allies.
Yet, none of that spending by Republicans is paid for. It is on the backs of American taxpayers. It is on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Yet, when it comes to veterans, Republicans say that we have to offset the bill's cost by jacking up their home loan fees.
Scaling back the estate tax exemption by $500,000 after Republicans tripled it in their big, ugly bill isn't going to make a big difference to the heirs of all of those wealthy parents, but that alone would fund the benefit increases for disabled veterans and survivors in this bill without penalizing veterans who are just trying to stay in their homes and afford their mortgages.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the sponsor of this important amendment and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that if we move forward with this bill without my amendment, 100 percent of the very much-needed money, the $1 billion to help our catastrophically disabled veterans who deserve our help--it is long overdue, but we are paying for it 100 percent with other veterans' money. Let me say it again: 100 percent of this bill is being paid for off of the backs of other veterans.
Let me explain.
Veterans are experiencing record foreclosures. Unfortunately, it is not hard to explain why: the Trump administration's assault on VA loan assistance options. Just months into the Trump administration's second term,
The VASP program was a lifeline offered to veterans by President Biden that served as the last-resort option for veterans before foreclosure. It is no surprise that foreclosures for veterans have doubled since that action.
Mr. Speaker, 10,000 veterans have lost their homes in the last year, and tens of thousands more are set to be foreclosed on in this Trump economy. The last option for these veterans is to refinance their loans.
This legislation puts that relief further away. Refinances will be more expensive, which makes them no longer a viable option for some veterans and servicemembers.
Veterans have fewer options than they did a year ago, and this bill will reduce those options even more. Therefore, we must find a better way to pay for this bill that doesn't raise costs on struggling veteran and Active-Duty homeowners.
As I have said before, and I will say it again, spending by Congress is a statement of our collective priorities. However, in a majority rule system like ours, the reality is that the work of Congress isn't a true reflection of shared goals, as the Founders intended. Rather, it is often simply a reflection of what the majority chooses to force on everybody else.
Case in point: I very much disagree with the majority's choice to include billions of dollars' worth of tax cuts for millionaires in the big, ugly bill. I especially disagree with the majority's decision to triple the exemption from paying estate tax from $5 million to $15 million. That is not my priority nor is it the priority of most Americans who are struggling to get by.
I, and Americans in my estimation, would much rather see that money spent on those who are in more dire need than millionaires and billionaires. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we may consider my amendment, which would direct just a fraction of that wealth to pay for benefits for the catastrophically injured veterans, their caregivers, and the survivors we are discussing today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, no one in this Congress can say with a straight face that there is a material difference in someone inheriting $14.5 million in property tax-free and $15 million tax-free. The change contemplated in this amendment would not appreciably affect the quality of life of a single individual and is only a temporary change, but using that money instead to achieve the benefits increases in H.R. 6047 most definitely will, in a very positive way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to list some of the organizations that stand with us, hoping this bill is considered for debate and final passage later today.
It is helpful for the Record to note that The American Legion endorses this legislation. The Wounded Warrior Project endorses this legislation. Paralyzed Veterans of America endorses the legislation. Vietnam Veterans of America endorses this legislation.
AMVETS, the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc., the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the USA, National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, The Independence Fund, Quality of Life Foundation, Veterans Multiple Sclerosis Alliance, and National Military Family Association all support this legislation, which to me illustrates why its passage is so important. Again, I stand with those groups, as do many of my colleagues.
I suspect this will receive wide bipartisan support. What we are doing today is debating the rule, the resolution that enables us to consider that legislation. We can have that debate, but we can't do it unless we pass the rule, which is why our side feels so fervently responsible for helping move this issue forward to solve these issues for veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the April 6, 2026, NPR article, ``Trump's VA killed a home loan program. Vets are now losing their homes because of it.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the issue we have. We are supportive of increasing disability benefits. We started out with that. We believe this is long overdue. Our problems are with the choices Republicans make. Now, at a time when veterans are losing their homes--90,000 veterans are headed toward foreclosure--is not when you should actually make it more expensive for them. This comes after a yearlong debacle inside the Department of Veterans Affairs has whiplashed thousands of vets between various enacted and canceled programs.
Trump's VA is really beating up our veterans as they have tried to stay in their homes. These are the choices they are making: Let's make it harder on them. We shouldn't be doing that. We should make it easier on our veterans to stay in their homes. What happens? Are we going to kick them out? Are they going to be shivering? Are they going to have to be moving in with others? That is not the answer.
The answer is what we propose. There are other ways to pay for this, but Republicans won't go there because they are always protecting the wealthy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).
Mr. Speaker, I came down today to talk about the trans bill that the majority is pursuing this week. This is one of a ton of trans-obsessed bills.
I am struggling, Mr. Speaker, because this is another bill where the Federal Government is going to tell schools what they can and can't do. They are worried about bathrooms and pronouns. I just don't get it because, as a kid, when I was growing up, I remember thinking when I learned about this, that Democrats were for the little guy and for empathy, but I liked that Republicans were for local control. They didn't want a big Federal Government being intrusive in our lives. That is just not the case anymore.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is focused on bathrooms and pronouns, and it is a crazy turn of events for the party to be telling local communities what they can and can't do, and it is one of 126 trans-obsessed bills introduced in this Congress. That is an insane number. The majority has already passed nine. If this bill passes, it will be the tenth trans- obsessed bill that the majority has passed.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if the majority put a few bills on the floor to expand childcare, to expand preschool, to improve reading and math scores, to improve graduation rates, to improve enrollment in college and career training. That would really help schools.
Leave these trans kids alone. Stop going after schools because of their bathroom and pronoun policies. It is mean. It is expensive, and it is a distraction from the work of improving our schools and improving our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Representative is referring to with respect to trans-obsessed bills. This resolution has nothing whatsoever regarding that legislation. That was passed 2 weeks ago. I assume the Representative is just 2 weeks too late.
That having been said, I do want to spend a little bit more time talking about H.R. 1041, Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. I think this is owed a lot of contemplation, deliberation by people watching at home. As I mentioned before, 250,000 veterans, a quarter of a million people, who served our country in uniform, have been subjected to an injustice. We have the ability to correct that today.
I walked you through, the viewer at home, but just picture a veteran who is navigating those lasting effects of military service, and they may be having a hard time trying to pay for their bills or trying to figure out a way to make ends meet. So they reach out to The American Legion, the VFW, many of the organizations, by the way, who endorse the other veterans legislation that we discussed and the other side so passionately opposes.
However, nonetheless, take yourself into this picture. The veteran is going into The American Legion hall, having a conversation, and they say: Hey, why don't you reach out to the VA?
They do so, and the VA says: Okay, let's see what we can do.
They end up appointing a fiduciary to help them manage their benefits. For over 30 years--I should say, 28 years, but nearly 30 years, that veteran has then been subjected to an unconstitutional process that we can correct today because when that happens and when someone is appointed a fiduciary to help them manage their benefits, they have been sent to the NICS list, which is administered by the Department of Justice, the FBI, which prohibits the owning and ownership of a firearm. To me, that is a grave injustice. The people who put on the uniform of our country and served our country to defend our constitutional rights should be afforded the exact same constitutional rights that we have.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to encourage everyone to remember reading this resolution, there are three bills we are just looking to have a vote on today. The other side is trying to block consideration of this legislation. I hope some will cross the aisle and help us achieve this later. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, Republicans voted down Ranking Member McGovern's amendment, which was intended to stop what might be the most dangerous corruption scheme in modern American politics, the abuse of the Judgment Fund, the little known government account that is now being turned into a political slush fund.
Yes, I am talking about the $1.8 billion, you know, almost twice as much as we need to pay for the disability benefits. It is a $1.8 billion slush fund.
Before yesterday, most Americans might never have heard of the judgment fund. It is something that was created that is funded by the taxpayer, so I want Americans to know a little bit more about this.
It is intended to fund legitimate legal settlements, but Republicans are now blessing a system where a President and his own Justice Department, his Attorney General, his private lawyer, can create a law, make a deal, settle that lawsuit, and then send Americans' money wherever they want without congressional oversight.
That is what we were saying yesterday. It is like, no, Congress, under our Constitution, controls the purse. We are the ones who decide where America's money goes because we have to stand up in front of them every 2 years and explain ourselves. Well, Republicans never have townhalls, so they never stand in front of their constituents, but we do.
What they have just done is say: No, we are going to bypass that, and we are going to send $1.8 billion to Trump's allies. We control the money. You don't have a say, and we are going to make all of those men and a couple of women who came in here, who beat our law enforcement officers, the same people you walk before every day--those Capitol Police were beaten, and 140 of them
I think it is important that Americans know what they are blessing. They are blessing a slush fund that any President can just make up a lawsuit, enter a settlement, and have collusion. This is how the Mafia works. You hand out money. The problem is that the Mafia, in this sense, is getting their money from your taxpayer dollars.
Let's sound the alarm. This is corruption of the most egregious manner. We should not operate like a Mafia in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to debate this resolution before us today, but I will comment briefly. With respect to President Trump, first and foremost, over the 4 years of his first Presidency, he was subjected to persecution unlike any President before, which probably led to the now at least three assassination attempts.
I welcome the other side joining us in not just condemning those but helping us ensure that he is not subjected to that type of threat going forward.
What I will say, with respect to the ballroom, is that there was a bipartisan group of individuals who came down and said this was necessary. Presidents from both parties have extolled the virtue of having a safe space not just to host functions but to ensure that the President and members of our country, who serve our country, are protected in those environments.
We saw that, unfortunately, on full display just a month ago when a shooter tried to rush a dinner, at which the President and many other Republicans and Democrats were congregating, with the explicit purpose of assassinating members of President Trump's administration. I welcome the calls of condemnation from the other side and look forward to hearing them in the gentlewoman's rebuttal.
What I would say is the issue before us today, just a good reminder, there are three bills on which we are seeking to have a vote. We are seeking to have a voice and an opportunity to vote on this legislation today. You can vote however you want. This rule allows us to have that opportunity.
As I mentioned before, this gives us a chance to help veterans who have suffered catastrophic injuries. That is one of the pieces of legislation we are voting on today. This has the ability to restore the constitutional rights of 250,000 veterans who have had their rights stripped from them because of legislation that was passed 28 years ago that has been interpreted in a certain way ever since. This legislation enables us to build a museum honoring America's women and all the contributions they have made to this incredible country that we all enjoy today.
I just remind folks that that is what we are debating, and that is what we are voting on. I welcome conversations about each, but that is the question before us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We are debating today what Republicans' priorities are and what we are going to be voting on this week in the House.
That is the question I ask: Where are Republicans' priorities? Their bills highlight where their priorities are, and what is coming up this week highlights where their priorities are.
We have already talked about how they are going to be taking from Peter to pay Paul, except Peter and Paul are veterans who deserve both their housing and their disability benefits.
They are also going to be bringing to the House floor this week--not through this rule, but probably another one--maybe $72 billion worth of spending that is not paid for.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's May 5, 2026, article: ``CBO Scores FY 2026 Reconciliation at $72 Billion.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, the article details that the Congressional Budget Office--they are the ones that tell us how much everything costs--estimates the bill would add $72 billion to the deficit over the next decade--actually, about $94 billion with interest.
Part of that is the ballroom, so I think it is important to say where they are willing to spend the money. Are they willing to spend the money on disability benefits or on a ballroom? They have just told us they are willing to spend money on a ballroom, with interest, that is not paid for, but not on disability benefits.
These are where we get to where the issues are that we are addressing and what we are going to take up on the House floor. They are not taking up the issues that Americans are facing, which are the economic failures of this administration and of these Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a May 17 Time magazine article titled: ``Americans Sour on Trump Over Inflation and the Iran War.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, the new polling data and the story show that Americans have caught on. Republicans promised to lower costs on day one. Where are costs? Up.
Gas is up. Groceries are up. Inflation is up. Look at the numbers. America is hungrier and sicker, deeper in debt, and deeper in war than the day Donald Trump took office.
The nationwide average for gas is $4.55 a gallon. That is $1.35 higher than last year. For families in Santa Fe, Farmington, or Roswell, in my district, that means filling up your pickup truck costs $147.
Do you know how many times we have to fill up our trucks to be able to get around our district to check on the cattle, to deliver feed, to actually just maybe even take the trash to the dump? We use our trucks, and they are costing us so much money just to fill up, let alone how much it takes when we get to that grocery store and buy those groceries that cost so much. From meat to poultry to everything else in between, it is more expensive because of the policies of the Trump administration.
Are we addressing that? No.
I think I can quote Donald Trump. His quote was: ``I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.''
Clearly. The 57 percent of the people who now say his economic policies have made their families worse off, who is thinking about them?
Millions of American families have been kicked off their health plans. Healthcare premiums have risen constantly because of decisions that Republicans have made that have been signed into law by President Trump that he trumpeted.
Mr. Speaker, 88 percent of the largest corporations, including Tesla, paid zero, nada, in Federal income tax last year, thanks to Trump and Republicans' tax giveaway in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Their billionaire-first policies are driving up costs for American families at the fastest rate in years, and it is affecting everybody, including our veterans.
Republicans said they would lower costs. Instead, they raised them through the roof. Now, our families are paying for their incompetence and greed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Representative mentioned, or rather alleged, that the legislation before us this week is not an American priority, so I think we should just dissect the three bills under consideration.
First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, is it not a priority for us to ensure that the constitutional rights our veterans fought to defend are conferred on to them?
Is that not a priority for us to correct an injustice inflicted upon our veterans?
Is it not a priority for us to pass legislation that will help strengthen benefits and help catastrophically injured veterans that is broadly supported across the veterans community including veterans service organizations like The American Legion, Wounded Warrior Project, and Paralyzed Veterans of America?
Those groups and those associations support our legislation.
How is that not a priority?
Lastly, how is it not a priority to ensure that we honor America's women by building the museum that has rightly deserved to be built for many years?
We are going to take action to do that today.
I will just note, too, the Representative mentioned many things about President Trump. But, yet, I still wait to hear from the other side the broad condemnation of the relentless persecution that has led to attack after attack, after attack on President Trump and his family. It is unfair to him, and it is one of the reasons why, as the Representative noted, later this week we may be considering--we will see what happens in the Senate--but we may be considering legislation that is going to help pay our law enforcement officers in the Federal Government. That is a priority for us and always has been for us.
Again, Mr. Speaker, when you look at what we are debating this week, we are trying to help veterans get their constitutional rights back. We are trying to help veterans through bills that are endorsed by every veteran service organization that serves our Nation's veterans, and we are trying to build a museum that we have been trying to build for 6 years. I think all three are priorities for our country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's go through sort of where we have Trump's name.
Trump's name is now on the Kennedy Center without congressional approval. Trump's name is now on the United States Institute of Peace, and Trump has destroyed part of the White House without congressional approval, and he is putting up his ballroom.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?
These places don't belong to Trump or any President. They belong to the American people. As Judge Leon said when he ruled against the White House ballroom construction: ``The White House does not belong to any one man--not even a President.''
I think that the women's history museum does not belong to Trump. It belongs to the American people and the women whose blood, sweat, and tears paint the picture of America, and to the Haudenosaunee Clan mothers who controlled decisions over war and the economy.
Mr. Speaker, for those of you who don't know who those are, that was the Iroquois Federation. They were the inspiration for our Constitution. The only thing that was different was our Constitution didn't include and recognize women the way that the Haudenosaunee Clan mothers were recognized.
I want to have a museum where Deborah Sampson, a woman who disguised herself as a man to fight in the Revolutionary War, is discussed, not divided, but discussed about this was the fervor of those women during the Revolution who served as spies, who served as soldiers, and who served to actually win our Revolutionary War.
I want to honor Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman to serve in Congress who served before women were even allowed to vote.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?
She was a Republican. Let's honor her.
Their stories deserve to be told, but they deserve to be told in a museum that is designed, that is built, that is located, and that talks about issues that the women of America have decided, not any one President.
That is why we are rejecting their partisan proposal and we are urging a return to the original bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), who is one of the most respected voices in the House Republican Conference.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment to talk about this bipartisan effort to build the women's history museum. The reality is this was a museum that was first authorized in 2020 with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
Now, this measure that I am proud to be a cosponsor of had 232 sponsors, an overwhelming number of Republicans and Democrats who support this legislation, and it had the support of President Donald Trump.
It is set up in a way where there is an advisory council which is already appointed, people can go see who those members are. It is basically evenly split, Republicans and Democrats, who advise on the content and the exhibits that will be in this museum.
So for anybody to stand up and say that somehow this legislation would allow the President to dictate the content and what will be displayed in this museum is simply untrue.
Now, there was an amendment that was made in the House Administration Committee that added one simple thing regarding content, and the simple thing is simply to add a sentence that said that this was a museum dedicated to biological women. That came out of a concern from people out in the community, women's organizations. Yes, the White House agrees with us that it should be restricted to biological women and many Members who brought up questions during the hearing of that bill when it was in the Natural Resources Committee.
Now, simply adding the word ``biological'' to this museum should not make it a deal-breaker for my colleagues on the other side. I don't understand why they are all refusing to now support a bill when we had, again, well over 100 sponsors from the Democratic Party. They can't say that that is not the reason that they are not supporting this. I mean, the Democratic Women's Caucus put out a memo. In there they said that it ``Adds a discriminatory provision intended to dictate what the museum can and cannot say about women's history, for example, language about biological women.''
That is the reason. They have said it. I think that is a disgrace that the Democrats will stand in the way of a national women's history museum being built by the Smithsonian, a reputable institution, simply because that sentence was added to the legislation.
This certainly can be a bipartisan, and should be, a bipartisan effort moving forward.
As I said, it is the advisory council that is evenly split Republicans and Democrats that will come up with the content when this museum is built. By the way, it will be a long time before it is built, and it will be longer if this bill fails because you guys decide to stop a women's history museum from coming to the floor.
The bill simply transfers land. So let's get that land transferred. Let's get the process going, and let's honor the women of America who have contributed so much and deserve to be recognized.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning we heard my colleague talk about the fact that Republicans seem to be trans-obsessed. He said they had 126 bills, trans-obsessed bills, and this is one of them.
The women's history museum bill was a simple bill that said: Let's make sure that the museum is placed on The Mall. You all amended it, not just to address your trans-obsession, but then to also give the authority to President Trump's committee to decide where it should go and what it should look like. We do not agree with that. We do not agree with that, which is why you have 146 Members who have signed a letter in opposition to the amendment.
It was a simple bill. You kind of ruined it with your trans-obsession and your culture wars.
Why don't we go back to the simplicity of what the bill was: Put the women's museum on The Mall, and let's move forward.
Mr. Speaker, first, I would say the colleague to whom my colleague from New Mexico referenced was speaking about a bill that already passed 2 weeks ago, so I think he was 2 weeks too late for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the party that is opposing a women's history museum on The National Mall because they want to have transgender exhibits, maybe they are the ones who are trans-obsessed. That is the reality.
This bill does nothing other than simply make clear that it is biological women who are in a women's museum. I don't understand that.
In terms of location, there is no committee. There is no Presidential committee that is set up to possibly change the site. In fact, the amendment clarified the location. Before, we did not have the specific South Monument site location, which is bordered by 14th Street Southwest, Jefferson Drive Southwest, and Independence Avenue Southwest specifically listed in the bill.
Now, it is specifically listed. Yes, the President may designate an alternative site within 180 days if there is an issue for some reason with that particular land. If we find out there is a particular issue and you can't build on that land, wouldn't you want to have the option not to have to do this all over again and pass another bill but instead allow for an alternative location to be set?
This bill further clarified that location as the chosen location, which the advisory council--made up of bipartisan women, not President Donald Trump or his commission--established.
I just think it is ridiculous that we are arguing over this when this is clearly something that was authorized by Republicans and Democrats under President Trump in 2020, and now the land should be transferred so it can be built with bipartisan support and President Trump, once again, here we are in 2026.
By the way, you had 4 years under the last President to do something about it. This was authorized by President Trump in 2020, and for 4 years you guys did nothing to move it along and get the Biden administration--which I had repeatedly lent my support to that effort to try to help.
So here we are. President Donald Trump is the President. He will be the one who will break ground on this museum, and I know that bothers you that it is going to be President Trump that delivers the women's history museum, but that is the reality because your President did nothing for 4 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, again, that is one of the reasons why my colleague is one of the most respected voices in the House Republican Conference, one of the best debaters we have.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this week has been about what Republicans value and who they are willing to hurt to give Trump more power and more money.
In July, Republicans found money for billionaire tax breaks when they passed the big, beautiful bill. They found money for another war in the Middle East. Now, they want us to vote for a billion dollars for Trump's ballroom and more money for ICE's terror campaign, but when we need to increase benefits for disabled veterans, Republicans say veterans have to pay for it themselves.
When women want a museum that tells their own story, Republicans hand control to Donald Trump. When families struggle with groceries, rent, gas, and utility bills, Trump says he doesn't even think about their financial situation.
That is the Republican agenda: everything for Trump, everybody else on their own.
Republicans in Congress refuse to stand up to Trump. They refuse to stand up for their constituents. They have no courage.
Now, Republicans want to give Donald Trump power over where the Women's History Museum should be located, what it looks like, and what we talk about.
A museum dedicated to the story of American women should not be controlled by a man who is mentioned more than 38,000 times in the Epstein files. It should not be controlled by a man who was found guilty of sexual abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, the rule I have presented today, House Resolution 1300, enables this House of Representatives to carry out its responsibilities and consider legislation affecting veterans, military families, and future generations.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to think one more time about that veteran we discussed today. Think about the veteran who walks into the VA simply looking for support. Think about that veteran navigating recovery, appointments, and the lasting effects of military service. Think about the spouse, the parent, or the loved one who quietly stepped forward and carried responsibilities that military service brought home. Think about the families who continue showing up every day with strength, perseverance, and grace because for many military families, service does not simply end when the uniform comes off.
Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, we discussed different bills addressing different issues, but each measure before us reflects a simple principle: When the brave men and women of our country answered the call to serve, they did so without hesitation. When they return home, they should know their country will stand beside them with that same commitment.
That means protecting constitutional freedoms. That means strengthening support for veterans and military families, and that means preserving the stories and experiences that help tell the story of our country.
To the veterans and military families watching today, these issues are not abstract. They are your lives. These are your experiences, and these are the responsibilities Congress has an obligation to take seriously.
Mr. Speaker, this rule allows this House of Representatives to move forward and continue delivering on those responsibilities. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:
An Amendment To H. Res. 1300 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1003) to require the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order providing that a shark attack is an event for which a wireless emergency alert may be transmitted, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1003, Lulu's Law. This legislation is named after a courageous young woman from Mountain Brook, Alabama, Lulu Gribbin, who suffered serious injuries in a shark attack nearly 2 years ago, losing her left hand and part of her right leg.
She was rushed to the hospital suffering from severe loss of blood, which raised grave concerns as to whether or not Lulu would survive.
When she finally woke up in the hospital and saw her family, the first words she spoke were, ``I made it.'' What makes this even more heartbreaking is that a shark attack, possibly the same shark, occurred just a mile or two away only 90 minutes prior. Had an alert gone out warning of a shark attack nearby, these attacks might have been avoided because the victim's friends and family would have received notice prompting them to pull their loved ones from the water. But no such warning was sent.
Lulu's Law provides a commonsense solution. State and local authorities can use wireless emergency alerts to notify the public when a shark attack has occurred or when dangerous conditions are present along the shoreline.
Lulu has inspired many in Alabama and across the entire Nation by her response to her attack. She has turned a tragic experience into an effort to help others by advocating for this bill and by founding the Lulu Strong Foundation to assist other amputees. I commend her for her resilience and determination to use her experience to help others overcome life-impacting injuries.
While we cannot undo what happened to Lulu, we can honor her strength and leadership by taking steps to better protect beachgoers and prevent another shark attack from happening in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help keep American beachgoers safe, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1003, the Senate companion to H.R. 2076, Lulu's Law, named after Lulu Gribbin of Alabama, who was attacked by a shark in 2024.
It was not long ago that Americans received emergency alerts exclusively over broadcast television and radio channels. In the last 10 to 15 years, our emergency alerting capabilities have improved significantly as a direct byproduct of innovation and breakthroughs in wireless technology.
Prior to 2012, Americans needed to practically seek out emergency warnings via broadcast programming to receive alert information being distributed for any number of important situations. That is why the creation of the Wireless Emergency Alert, or WEA, system in 2012 marked a significant leap forward in our ability to disseminate warning and alert messages to the public.
All across the Nation, natural disasters like tornadoes, wildfires, and flash floods show up with little or no warning. One tragedy after another has demonstrated that being able to push emergency warning information out directly to cell phones in the danger zone is one of the most powerful tools that we have to save lives.
The WEA system allows alerting authorities at nearly every level of government the ability to reach Americans where they are. Cell phones are ubiquitous today, and the WEA system will only continue to be more effective as wireless providers and alerting authorities take steps to improve geotargeting and location accuracy.
These tools can also be utilized to protect beachgoers from threats to life and safety posed by sharks.
This is especially important for me as I represent the Jersey Shore towns that attract millions of visitors and billions in economic activity during the summer months. As we approach the Memorial Day weekend, the unofficial start to New Jersey's beach season, this reminds us of the importance of being vigilant in and near the water while at the beach. It is particularly timely because, just yesterday in my district, a great white shark appeared off the coast of Asbury Park. We know that dangerous circumstances posed by sharks or rip currents leave even the most prepared swimmers in harm's way.
This bill directs the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order that drives home the point that potential shark attacks are permissible uses of the WEA system. This is important because local authorities can and should use every tool at their disposal to keep the public informed of developments with clear actionable instructions for how to respond safely.
I strongly support the passage of S. 1003, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I say, I did not realize that she was up in the gallery. I appreciate all the help that she has done in moving this legislation because it is important. As I mentioned, this weekend is Memorial Day weekend. We just had a huge shark actually appear off the coast of Asbury Park, one of our premier beach destinations in my district.
Mr. Speaker, I can't stress enough the importance of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on a bipartisan basis. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support. This is another example of how in a bipartisan manner we can do good.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote favorably for S. 1003, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 1003.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Providing for the Concurrence by the House in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6644, With Amendment
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1299, providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6644, with amendment on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 396, nays 13, not voting 21, as follows:
Mr. HARRIS of Maryland changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CARSON and Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3234) to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to modify the amount of reciprocal deposits of an insured depository institution that are not considered to be funds obtained by or through a deposit broker, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405, nays 0, not voting 25, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is 1 minute remaining.
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4544) to direct certain Federal banking and credit union agencies to promote the formation of de novo regulated institutions through the review of application processes, the review of capital raising by de novo regulated institutions, and the establishment of various outreach programs, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405, nays 4, not voting 21, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is 1 minute remaining.
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5317) to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to ensure that certain custodial deposits of well capitalized insured depository institutions are not considered to be funds obtained by or through deposit brokers, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 393, nays 16, not voting 21, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is 1 minute remaining.
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Fiscal Year 2025 Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Authorization Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2393) to authorize a major medical facility project for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2026 in St. Louis, Missouri, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405, nays 5, not voting 20, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is 1 minute remaining.
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1003) to require the Federal Communications Commission to issue an order providing that a shark attack is an event for which a wireless emergency alert may be transmitted, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 401, nays 6, not voting 23, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is 1 minute remaining.
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I missed a series of votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 176, YEA on Roll Call No. 177, YEA on Roll Call No. 178, YEA on Roll Call No. 179, YEA on Roll Call No. 180, and YEA on Roll Call No. 181.
Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of H. Con. Res. 86, Directing the President, Pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to Remove United States Armed Forces from Hostilities...
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of May 20, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 86) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me what exactly my colleagues are trying to do. We were on this merry-go-round last week, and last week my colleagues across the aisle here voted to say let's remove all U.S. forces from any hostilities with Iran, while at the same time they acknowledged the imminent threat that Iran poses against us. They said Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and Iran wants to attack the United States and our allies with ballistic missiles, terrorist proxies, and obtain a nuclear weapon to do so, as well.
They acknowledge all of these things, but then they say let's be a United States of America that does not respond to threats against the United States of America. I don't understand it. I look forward to hearing the explanation from my colleagues, although it will be unexplainable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my War Powers Resolution. Yes, here we go again. Today marks the fourth time this body will vote on a resolution to end President Trump's hostilities against Iran. After months of war, I ask the question: What has changed?
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that certainly nothing has changed for the better. Gas prices are now approaching $5 a gallon. Airlines are cutting routes and struggling under rising fuel costs. The price of groceries, Mr. Speaker, and everyday goods continue to climb as more families are struggling to make ends meet.
Why? It is all because the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war, now sits at the center of escalating disruption and economic uncertainty.
When the President of the United States was asked whether he was thinking about the financial struggles of everyday American people, not the ultrarich like him and his buddies, he doubles down on a failed war. What was his response? ``Not even a little bit . . . I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.''
Here is what else hasn't changed, Mr. Speaker: The same Iranian regime remains in place. Iran retained its coercive capabilities, and Iran's nuclear program remains where it stood after the so-called 12- day war. Iran still possesses its highly enriched uranium and nuclear know-how. Much of its missile and drone capability remains intact, and Tehran retains leverage over the global economy.
Trump started this war, and he started it without congressional authorization and without a credible endgame. He still cannot explain how it ends, and the situation grows worse by worse every day.
Yet, my colleagues across the aisle continue to repeat the same argument. Perhaps for me the most absurd is that Iran posed an imminent threat. We have heard Mr. Mast, the chairman of the committee, say that Iran has posed an imminent threat for 47 years. Mr. Speaker, 47 years is not imminent.
The administration has not even attempted to demonstrate any imminent threat existed, let alone one that would have justified launching this war under the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution.
The law is very clear: If the President wishes to continue hostilities beyond 60 days, Congress must authorize them through an authorization for use of military force. If my Republican colleagues believe this war is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor. Yet, they have not. Absent congressional authorization, President Trump, by law, is required to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities.
It is clear to the entire world that even without a deep-water Navy, Iran is still capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz.
None of this war's shifting objectives have been achieved. If and when Republicans try and claim, as Donald Trump sometimes does, that somehow killing the 86-year-old Khamenei, only to replace him with a much younger Khamenei, is proof of regime change, I would invite them to explain that to their constituents at a townhall meeting and see how seriously it is received by their constituents.
We have heard my Republican colleagues say that we should trust the Commander in Chief. Mr. Speaker, no President, Democrat, or Republican, deserves a blank check, especially one who has said Iran's nuclear program was ``obliterated'' and then used that same threat to justify this war.
This Commander in Chief has said the war is over, the war is won, that it is not a war, it is a war, that it is a mini war or an excursion. All of these things are what this President has said.
We are trapped in a war that won't end because an incompetent President launched it thinking of only his own ego, while failing to prepare for the consequences.
Diplomacy is the only exit from this, not more bombing, not more bluster, not waiting for the President to stumble into a cease-fire he can brand as a victory. That doesn't work. Yet, my Republican colleagues are just sitting on their hands doing everything they can to cover for this President.
Mr. Chairman, what I would love to do on the Committee on Foreign Affairs is to at least hold a hearing. We have not held one single public hearing, not one witness, not 1 hour of testimony on a war that has cost the
Congress cannot abandon its constitutional responsibility over matters of war and peace, and we should not be reducing ourselves to be a rubber stamp.
That is why we must vote ``yes'' today: for our brave men and women in uniform who are in harm's way; for the family paying almost $5 a gallon who can't wait another week; and for the small business owner watching their costs spiral because this President started a war with no plan, with no authorization, and with no end in sight.
All the polls show that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, the American people, want this over. They are concerned about another forever war.
Mr. Speaker, above all, and most importantly, the Constitution of the United States of America, what we swore an oath to--not to a President, not to anyone, to the Constitution of the United States of America. That Constitution requires us to take action, to have a vote on this floor, and let the American people know where we stand.
Mr. Speaker, this week, my colleague wants to make the argument about an imminent threat. I am glad he wants to have that debate. Last week, my colleague voted, as I outlined already, to say literally that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and Iran wants to attack the United States and our allies with ballistic missiles, terrorist proxies, and, if obtained, a nuclear weapon.
I would ask my colleague across the aisle: You voted to say Iran was an imminent threat. How do you define an imminent threat? You voted for it last week.
Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating something that is not debatable. It is in the Constitution that every single one of us pledges to uphold. You can read it. It says that the Congress authorizes military action.
It doesn't matter how good or bad or evil or close to a nuclear weapon a foe is. What matters is that the Constitution says we debate and approve military action.
Today, of course, we are well beyond the 60 days of the start of this hostility. Not only is this action unconstitutional, completely unapproved by the Congress, but it is now illegal. The War Powers Act requires that troops be withdrawn, absent the approval of Congress, after 60 days.
The chairman says over and over and over again that the Democrats said that it is an evil regime. Yes, we can all agree that it is an evil regime, but the chairman knows that the world is full of evil regimes. It doesn't, therefore, follow that you declare war and go to war and raise Americans' gas prices by $1.50 a gallon and spit in the face of the Constitution just because we all stipulate that the Iranian regime is evil.
Let's take a quick tour backward here. We have had no explanation for this war, beyond the fact that we all understand that the regime in Iran is evil. The President himself told us that the nuclear program was obliterated 9 months ago. Iran, as awful and as dangerous as they were--which, again, isn't a license to go to war--was perhaps in the weakest position it had been in a generation due to the war of 9 months ago, so the notion of imminence is absurd. You are hearing that from the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.
Where we find ourselves now is that gasoline prices are up $1.50; food prices are rising; the inflation print of last week was pretty terrifying; and my friends in the majority know how utterly politically toxic this war is. They will not do their constitutional duty because they saw what we all saw, which is that this President decides who amongst Republican Members of the House and the Senate get to survive.
The Senator from Louisiana crosses the President; he is gone. The gentleman from Kentucky crosses the President; he is gone. As a political matter, it is fascinating to me that any President has that kind of choke hold over his party, but that is not a reason to spit in the face of the Constitution.
Lose your job for what you pledge to uphold and defend. No career is worth abnegating a pledge you took to the Constitution of the United States, especially when it is creating massive economic hardship for the people who we represent.
Do you think this is ending quickly? It is not. The Iranians are now in the strategic position to decide when this is over because they know the pain that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is causing.
The only responsible action, the only legal action, and the only constitutional action is to debate this war and to stop it in the meantime.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I see the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee running off. I don't think he wants to stay to answer questions.
Good, please stay.
Number one, imminence matters. My colleagues--this being one of them--voted last week to say--let me read it again here: Iran wants to attack the United States, our allies, with ballistic missiles, terror proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear weapon. That, to me, is the definition of ``imminence.''
I see him running off. I guess he doesn't want to explain whether that is a vote to say they are an imminent threat. I am happy to yield him a couple of seconds.
I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield more time because I think he is going to run out.
I didn't say ``evil.'' You are still saying things I didn't say. I read what you voted for last week: Iran wants to attack the United States--``wants to attack'' means imminent--and our allies with ballistic missiles, terror proxies, and, if obtained, with a nuclear weapon.
They are certainly not. Does the gentleman, therefore, believe that we should take military action against all the other regimes that would like to attack America?
What I would give you is this, to present, again, imminence of them. I just gave you some examples. We will say just before this began in February, they attacked a U.S.-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Just before that, they attacked--IRGC, I am talking about when I say ``they.'' They attacked another oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Just before that--I am in December now--attacked another one. Just before that, IRGC attacked one in the Marshall Islands. Just before that, IRGC attacked an MSC ship and raided with a helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. I have pages and pages of these. It is the definition of ``imminent.''
As you know, before that, they killed three Americans at Tower 22 in Jordan. It is imminent.
Sir, the definition of ``imminent''--and you can look it up--is that they are about to attack us. I can tell you, as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee who did not leave, that they were not about to attack us. You can make up a different definition for ``imminent,'' but that does not make it correct.
They attacked us literally just before our operations began. I gave you one example. To me, being a servicemember, if I see a foxhole and one or two enemies in that foxhole with the barrel of a .50-cal pointed at me, just because they don't have two fingers on the trigger playing with that trigger doesn't mean that it is not an imminent threat. If they are aiming it at me, that is an imminent threat. They are aiming it at us.
If I could point out to the chairman--and I respect his military service--if he were, in fact, in a foxhole facing a .50- caliber machine gun, at least for the last 100 years, he almost certainly would have been in that position pursuant to an Authorization for Use of Military Force by this body.
Thankfully, we have had a cease-fire since, I want to say the date was April 7, April 8. We are not in hostilities. We are out there with almost the exact same number of forces that we continually keep in the region.
It brings me to another question I would love to ask you as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, because the bill literally calls for the removal of U.S. forces from the region, other than those that ``may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack.'' That is what the bill says you are voting on today--probably, you will vote for it. I would love to know which military assets you would like to remove.
Well, I think what we should do is pause our military activities while we exercise the constitutional and just the smart act of debating a war which has now affected every single--
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, if the majority is so confident in its position, I don't know why we wouldn't be debating this in a regular debate around the authorization of use of military force.
Mr. Speaker, we have been in this illegal, unconstitutional war for 81 days. We have spent at least $29 billion of taxpayers' money. While Trump says that we have no money for healthcare or housing, inflation is at a 3-year high. Gas in my home State costs $6 a gallon. Travel costs are up right now in the summer months when American families are hoping to go on vacation.
Iran now more clearly controls the Strait of Hormuz and the flow of oil than ever before. We are in a worse place than we were during Barack Obama's Presidency, when we had the Iran nuclear deal in place, until Donald Trump pulled us out of it.
The reality is that, meanwhile, we have lost 13 U.S. troops. Thousands of Iranian and Lebanese civilians have died. Millions more have been displaced, and there is chaos across the region and across the world.
More Republicans need to step up and vote with us to stop this illegal war and force this President to focus on the needs of the American people right here at home, even though he keeps doubling down on his own comments that he doesn't care about or doesn't think about the financial situation of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has the sole authority to declare war. I don't understand why my Republican colleagues across the aisle don't want to hold the constitutional powers that are granted to this body in Article I. Why not stand up for the things that the Founders put into the Constitution to assure that there would be a debate, that there would be checks and balances, and that there would be authorization from this body to declare war?
Why not stand up for the people at home who are wondering when on Earth we are going to stand up and fight for their price of groceries to go down and the price of gas to go down? The fact that Americans have had healthcare stripped away from them, this is a clear ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I find this debate incredibly disappointing because it is an intellectually bankrupt one.
For 4 years under Joe Biden--I looked it up--he engaged in 500 unique airstrikes. He engaged in some level of operation in 78 countries.
If there was a consistent view that Congress ought to weigh in every single time that force is used, then the argument--that I would still disagree with, but it would at least be an intellectually honest one-- it is not. In this case, it is even worse because I believe that, in proffering these resolutions, the other side extends the war that they say that they want to end.
Mr. Speaker, we may debate in this Chamber, but folks around the world watch what we say, and it is my view that the Iranians would have already surrendered and given up what it is that we want--the ability to create a nuclear weapon and fire it at the United States--if what was being done in this room did not give them hope that we would not have the confidence and the fortitude to see it out.
Every one of these debates and every one of these votes gives them hope that maybe America will choose to stand with them--them, who, for 47 years, have killed Americans all over the world. There have been imminent threats constantly for 47 years. From the hostages who were kept in Iran to the American soldiers who were killed in Iraq, to those Americans who lived in Israel who were targeted by their missiles, to the military members who they have attacked repeatedly over 47 years, it has been one constant imminent attack.
We should vote this down today, and we should stop doing this so that we can say to the Iranian people and the Iranian regime, in clear and unambiguous terms: No Member of this body is okay with you having a nuclear weapon and one that you could use to attack the United States, and until the President gets that job done, we are all going to stand with him.
These resolutions extend the conflict. They do not hasten it, and that is why we need to vote this down and stop doing this.
Mr. Speaker, I am here on behalf of the millions of working-class Americans who have had it and are fed up with an endless cycle of unaccountable conflict in the Middle East.
I started my service to this Nation in uniform, like the chairman. I honor his service, like all of our brothers and sisters. I am proud of that service, as should all of my brothers and sisters who took the oath I took, stood up when our country called, and did our duty honorably.
What is abundantly clear is that our system is broken. Working-class Americans, like the kids who I grew up with, deployed with, fought with, and suffered with, are the ones who have to do the fighting, the dying, and the paying for of these conflicts. They see that the burden of these wars falls on them, while the elites, the rich, and the powerful in this country get richer, more powerful, and more comfortable. The burden is not equal in this Nation. It is because the system is broken.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that this isn't about process to me. Yes, there are important constitutional checks and safeguards at play, but this isn't about inside baseball, notification, and process. The Americans' eyes glaze over when people talk about that under this dome. What it is about to me is accountability.
When I did my combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, combat mission after
That has stopped. The debate isn't happening. We are paying for these wars with debt, $5 trillion to $8 trillion, 7,000 American lives, and on and on it goes.
It is not just our right. It is our duty. It is our job under this dome to take votes, to appropriate money, to ask tough questions, to hold people to account, and then go home and stand in front of high school gymnasiums, stand in front of our constituents, go to Rotary Clubs, and explain those votes, why we should send our sons and our daughters and our money to the Middle East again and again and again.
That is what our system requires. That is what Americans deserve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, this is not optional. The Framers dedicated this responsibility to us because they knew that the decision to send our sons and daughters into war and to spend taxpayers' money was our most solemn responsibility, and no one person should make that decision.
The system is broken. It is our duty to take it back. That is what this vote is for.
Maybe we should go to war in one instance, but the debate must happen. The vote must happen.
I encourage--I demand that my colleagues step up and take this vote and retake our constitutional duty and to get this done. It is what our servicemen and -women deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is still an argument from my colleagues over there about imminent threat, imminent threat, whether it is an imminent threat. I will just give them one other important piece of information they might want for the debate that was just so passionately spoken about.
Before Epic Fury began, 30 months--the 30 months within, not 30 months just beyond that--30 months within Epic Fury, that time before it, there were 350 attacks against the United States of America. That is not just imminent. That is continuous.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask how my colleagues on the other side to not equate continuous with imminence. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line: President Trump started a war. Congress never authorized it. I don't think anybody can dispute that. He started a war. Congress never authorized it. Sixty days have gone by. He still has not come back to Congress. That is the basic responsibilities that we have.
Other than that, we should make a motion, and I would join, love to have a debate on the floor on an AUMF. Again, that is our constitutional authority. Again, the President has to come to us.
Why don't we do our constitutional responsibilities? Why do we want to give it away?
Well, actually, we are not even giving it away. We are not doing what the law says for us to do, what the Constitution says for us to do, what we took and swore an oath of office to do.
The President did this. If he had a clear objective, he didn't bring it to Congress. If he had a credible endgame, he didn't bring it to Congress. However, most importantly, he didn't bring it to the American people, either.
The way our system works, we are supposed to be representatives of the people. If you are going to bring it to the people, you have to bring it through this House or he should be making some public statements of that nature. He has yet to give us a clear objective, he has yet to give us a credible endgame, and he has yet to give us an honest accounting to how much this is costing the American people in dollars and cents.
We can see it with our own eyes. I mean, I know I do. I know that when I go back home and talk to my constituents, they make sure to bring it up. One would show me the gas station, and then he shows me the price of gas. He knows that the price of gas was not that prior to this war of choice.
If you go to a grocery store to buy food, you see the increase in cost. Those who were planning vacations for the summer now can't afford to fly or drive. Why? It is because of the rising costs. The danger is spreading. The President has, in fact, made America less safe, not more.
My colleague keeps talking about imminent.
Here is what the President of the United States said: All three nuclear sites in Iran have been completely destroyed or obliterated. He said it would take years to bring them back into service, and if Iran wanted to, they would be better off starting anew in three different locations prior to those sites being obliterated, should they decide to do so.
Does that sound like the President feels that there is an imminent threat right now from Iran's nuclear facilities?
He says the only thing he is concerned about--I have not heard the President say anything about an imminent threat to the United States. He talked about that he obliterated their nuclear weapons.
Therefore, it just seems to me that the bottom line here is that Congress has a constitutional duty. It has a duty to act, not to cheerlead, especially not to cheerlead an open-ended war of choice, not to outsource our judgment to one man's ego. We have a responsibility.
In the Constitution, we are a separate but equal branch of government. We are supposed to be a check and balance and oversight of the executive branch of government, not just do whatever the President says, not questioning, not having hearings, not going back and forth. Unfortunately, that is what is happening here.
We had a vote last week, and it was 212-212. We are giving--and I think my Republican colleagues deserve to have--another opportunity to speak to their constituents, to let them know where they stand, whether or not they care about their financial situation, whether or not they care about anybody, about the American people. If we are going to do this, to give them this opportunity to speak to their constituents, we know what we see and hear when we go back home.
We see this conversation is taking place not in blue States only, not only in purple States, but in red States because the truth of the matter and the bottom line, this is an American issue. It is about its institution called the United States House of Representatives and whether or not we are truly that branch of government that will exercise its constitutional responsibility and be a check and a balance on a President. Not whether or not, as the ranking member of the Intel Committee said, not whether we are just afraid of how to vote, as happens in other areas, in other countries. Many people are afraid to vote differently in Russia--so they do whatever Vladimir Putin says-- and North Korea and Iran. They are afraid. That should not be us. We should stand for the oath of office that we have taken and make sure that the American people that we represent get to hear from Congress.
Let's vote. Let's go on record. Let's make sure that we are doing our jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have probably, I don't know, maybe 100 people up in the gallery behind us. I am going to apologize to the people behind us. They came here to the Capitol of the United States of America to hear debate, but they witnessed my colleagues over here don't really want to debate.
I am always willing to give them time if they actually want to have a debate, argue facts, talk about things, but they rarely--as you all witnessed, they don't want to take my time to answer questions.
The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had a little back and forth with me for a little while. I appreciated it. I asked him very direct questions. Does continuous attacks
You are owed more than that. This is what debate is. I constantly offer them the time. They don't want to answer the questions. It is because this is all political for them. This is political. That is why they don't want to answer why they voted not too long ago to say use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. They all over there voted for that.
None of them can explain today why they don't want to use any and all means necessary, but before, that was the case. It is not convenient. It is not politically convenient for them to do that.
My colleagues over here said it is a war of choice. Yes, it is a choice. As Americans, we make a choice. If somebody hits us day after day, week after week, month after month, do we just keep getting hit, or do we hit back? That is a choice.
I can tell you, as an American servicemember, an American fighter, if somebody hits me, kills my people, I am going to hit them back.
Yes, I hate high energy prices, but not as much as I hate people who kill Americans. I hate them, but not as much as I hate those that kill my people.
Iran kills our people consistently, attacks our people consistently, and wants to seek the means to do that with a nuclear weapon. They all agreed on it prior to President Trump doing something about it. They don't want to have a debate about that.
No matter how it comes down in the end, they don't want to actually talk about the real things that are going on. They don't want to talk about the troop levels over there that are basically the same thing that they were before this conflict even began. These are things they don't like to discuss.
Again, you weren't all here in the audience a week ago when we were debating this before, but as I mentioned earlier, they all voted to say the ways that Iran is a nuclear threat: They want to attack the United States of America. They want to attack us with ballistic missiles, with terrorist proxies. They want to obtain a nuclear weapon and use that against us.
They all voted to say that a week ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
They all voted to say that, that this is the way that Iran is a nuclear--that they are an imminent threat. They won't use the words ``imminent threat,'' though, because to use the words ``imminent threat'' has some specific legal connotation to it. They know it is bad for them. They don't want to do it. It is political, too political.
It would be like I have a cough, a fever, cold sweats, but I am unwilling to say that I have the flu. They are not willing to say it. They are not willing to acknowledge what is.
People in the audience, people watching, you are owed more than that out of those who are debating national security.
I mentioned already that before Operation Epic Fury began, in the 30 months prior to it beginning: 350 attacks in 30 months. They are not willing to say that that is ``imminent.''
Examples include U.S.-flagged tankers, and Iranian forces seize Greek-flagged tanker. There was the tanker Pacific Zircon, off the coast of Oman. Iranian Navy captures Marshall Islands-flagged tanker, Advantage Sweet. Iranian IRGC seizes Panamanian tanker. IRGC seize Marshall Islands-flagged tanker. The list goes on and on, week in and week out. There was an American tanker, a tanker from another country, putting U.S. sailors on their knees on a U.S. vessel, if everybody remembers that.
I am an American. I don't believe in getting hit and walking away and pretending as though it didn't happen. I would like to think that all Americans were the same way, but I know that is not the case. There are very few that serve in the United States military, and probably even less that are capable of it, because not everybody reacts to conflict in the same way or has the same desire to deal with it.
My colleagues over here who are voting for this are the kind of Americans that get hit and pretend as though it never happened.
If you want America to get hit and pretend as though it never happened, then vote with my colleagues over there. If you want us to keep doing something about it, protecting our servicemembers in the region and our assets in the region, then vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on the adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill (H.R. 2616) to require public elementary and middle schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before changing a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms, 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 1224, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 119-26 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 debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2616.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act.
For years, concerned parents have felt ignored as education bureaucrats push radical agendas in schools without their knowledge or input.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, when kitchen tables became classrooms, parents got a firsthand look at what was really being taught. What many saw raised serious concerns. Instead of focusing on the basics like math and reading, many teachers and schools were introducing controversial lessons on gender ideology and pronouns, all while student achievement plummeted and continues to this day.
In the years since then, those concerns have only grown. Many schools are engaged in systematic attempts to erode parental rights. Schools are facilitating gender transitions or encouraging students to change their names and pronouns without telling parents.
These are enormously consequential decisions that have lasting impacts on a child's well-being and development. Parents deserve to be part of those conversations.
One study from Defending Education found that at least 21,000 schools across the United States have policies that allow or encourage staff to hide a student's name change or gender identity. This lack of transparency risks confusion, undermines trust, and weakens the essential partnership between families and schools. It also places teachers in difficult positions, sometimes expecting them to withhold information from parents or be less than fully transparent.
These policies are incredibly harmful to children and families. In fact, we are now seeing a wealth of data to prove that children and teenagers who seek out drastic, life-altering medical procedures often struggle with mental health issues now and beyond. Instead of supporting kids, these secretive gender transitions, often encouraged by radical school officials, do more harm than good.
At the same time, many parents are asking a simple question: Why aren't schools more focused on helping students recover academically?
Test scores in key subjects remain stagnant or have declined, and students are still working to overcome pandemic-era learning loss.
Parents, teachers, and school leaders should be working together to support student success, not be at odds with one another.
That is why I am proud to lead H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, alongside my friend and colleague, the vice chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Congressman Burgess Owens. This bill takes monumental strides to restore parental rights and educational sanity.
H.R. 2616 affirms the right of parents to be in charge of their children's upbringing and ensures schools remain partners in a child's education, instead of usurping the role and rights of parents altogether. The bill also establishes clear guardrails to ensure taxpayer dollars are used to support learning, not indoctrinate kids in radical ideology and agendas.
At its core, this bill is grounded in a simple principle, Mr. Speaker. That principle is that parents want what is best for their kids. Schools should be partners in that effort.
I believe Members on both sides of the aisle share the goal of helping students succeed. This legislation moves us in that direction by strengthening trust, improving transparency, and keeping the focus where it belongs: on students' education.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2616, the so-called Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, because the name bears little resemblance to what the bill actually does.
What it does is require schools to obtain parental consent before changing a student's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or changing a student's sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms, and that is for all students in middle school or elementary school.
This bill would prohibit the use of Federal funds to teach so-called gender ideology, whatever that is. Specifically, it bars any discussion of transgender people or topics in the classroom, banning books with transgender characters or that even discuss the existence of transgender people.
It is well established in statute that the States and districts determine their curriculum without interference from the Federal Government. This bill takes away State and local control of curriculum in education, the very thing that the current administration claims they are giving back to States by illegally dismantling the Department of Education.
Parental involvement is important, and I support that. It works in virtually all cases, but this bill is not about involvement. It is about Federal coercion forcing schools into situations where they may have to disclose sensitive information about a student, even when they know it could put that child's safety at risk.
It goes beyond theory. It creates absurd situations. For example, my name is Robert. I go by Bobby. Under this bill, my middle school coach would need parental permission before listing me as Bobby on the sports roster. What if they write ``Rob'' instead? Would they have to go back and get parental consent?
This bill fails to clarify key questions, such as whether both parents must be notified and give permission.
Who will oversee these requirements if this administration continues illegally dismantling the Department of Education?
What it does make clear is that if the school gets it wrong, then they risk losing Federal funding. That is not protecting kids. It won't make trans students disappear. It is just micromanaging schools and wasting everybody's time.
This bill does nothing to improve literacy, improve teacher shortages, promote safe learning environments, support student mental health, or otherwise improve education. The bill is unnecessary, overbroad, and potentially harmful.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree that this bill will promote good mental health and security and probably academic success in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), who is the bill's co-lead and vice chair on the Education and Workforce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my comments with a simple truth: There are only two sexes, male and female.
Sex is a biological fact, not an ideological whim. Yet, across our country, school districts are actively pushing radical gender ideology on children and, in some cases, facilitating social transitions without parental knowledge or consent.
I grew up in a time when most Americans, like me, knew what a boy was and what a girl was. This was not ever controversial. Unfortunately, with the rise of radical gender ideology today, many have lost what was called common sense.
Here is another truth that should not be contentious: Parents, not school administrators, should have the ultimate right to make decisions about their child's upbringing. Once again, this is common sense.
The Heritage Foundation has written: ``A century of Supreme Court jurisprudence supports the notion that parents enjoy the fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing, health, and education of their children.''
We are not talking about nicknames on football teams. We are talking adults, with no relation to a minor child, secretly transitioning a child, and then actively working to conceal it from that child's parents. That is madness. If a child is struggling with gender dysphoria, then parents should be the first, not the last, to know.
Right now, according to Defending Education, at least 21,000 schools in 1,200 districts, covering over 12 million students, have policies that prevent faculty and staff from disclosing a student's gender identity to his own parents without the student's permission. That is simply unacceptable.
If a child needs a permission slip signed to go on a field trip, a school should never think it has the right to socially transition that same child without informing his or her parents.
The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act is straightforward: Any district that promotes these ideologies in a classroom or conceals a child's gender transition from parents will lose Federal funding.
Our school system should be teaching children how to read, write, and think, not how to turn little Johnny into little Jenny. Not long ago, these ideas would not have been controversial.
Today, too many schools want to cut parents out and push their own personal ideology instead. I am grateful to Chairman Walberg for the work he has done to bring this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge every one of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I spent 24 years as an educator, as a classroom teacher, and as an adviser to my school's Gay-Straight Alliance.
During that time, I knew children who suffered physical violence at the hands of family members who found out that they were gay. I knew kids who were withdrawn from school because staff had informed their parents of their perceived sexual identity.
The story of those students is exactly what is at stake in this bill. Those of us who have taught LGBTQI+ children or who have been LGBTQI+ children ourselves know the sad reality that not all children come from homes that accept their differences.
This bill puts educators in an impossible position. Teachers would be legally required to out transgender children even if they knew that doing so would put the child at risk of physical harm or even being kicked out of their home.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of Teachers and a letter from the National Education Association opposing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will note that 40 percent of homeless youth are LGBTQI+ largely because they have been rejected by their families. Of course teachers should involve parents in their child's education, but a teacher also has a professional duty to ensure a child's safety.
This bill also forbids the teaching of any subject related to the existence of transgender people. That includes banning books, supportive student groups, or even textbooks that reference gender dysphoria.
Transgender kids do exist. They aren't products of a conspiracy or indoctrination. They are just kids, made who they are by God and by nature. They deserve our care and they deserve our respect just as any child does.
The majority is intent on making sure that transgender kids don't have anywhere where they might feel included, recognized, or safe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act. Hoosier families in southern Indiana and across this great Nation deserve to be in full control of how they guide and raise their most precious gift from God, their beloved children.
American parents must be aware and have great faith in the partnership between themselves and those teaching and counseling their impressionable child.
The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids legislation takes an important step in restoring any trust that has been broken by ensuring that parents are notified and involved in important school-based decisions affecting their children.
This bill also increases accountability for any kind of information withholding and it puts an end to any mind control efforts that are intended to force radical and ideological viewpoints inside the classroom.
At the end of the day, we all believe that a loving parent knows best how to raise their own child, and this bill reaffirms that uncontroversial principle.
I thank Chairman Walberg and Subcommittee Chairman Owens for advancing this legislation that puts families and children first.
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of parental rights of Hoosiers in Indiana and the rights of schoolchildren across this great country, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2616.
At a time when people are asking Congress to lower costs, crack down on corruption and powerful abusers, and keep children safe, House Republicans remain fixated on bullying vulnerable kids instead of addressing the real problems facing this country.
This bill forces teachers to out transgender students to their own parents even when they know it could put that child at risk of abuse, homelessness, or violence.
Think about that.
Republicans want to force teachers to betray the trust of children who likely already feel scared, isolated, and unsafe at home.
That is dangerous.
Most young people confide in their families when they feel safe doing so, but some queer kids don't have that option.
These same Republicans who consistently talk about small government cut funding to a local library in Bisbee a couple weeks ago just because it hosted a drag story time. Now, they want to control what teachers can say, what students can read, and even a name a child can use at school.
Where will it end?
This bill censors discussions about transgender people and gender identity altogether. It sends a message that trans people should be erased from classrooms, from history, and from public life. Transgender people exist. They are our neighbors, our students, our classmates, our coworkers, our friends, and our children. No bill passed in this Chamber will ever change that.
What this legislation will do is make schools less safe for already vulnerable students.
I hate to break it to my Republican colleagues, but attacking trans kids will not make groceries or gas cheaper. It will not lower rent. It will not bring down healthcare costs. It will not make anyone's life better. It will not make this Nation safer, and it certainly won't make our kids safer in school.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
It is time to stop scapegoating children, stop targeting our kids, stop obsessing about gender identity, and let's start doing the jobs that people actually sent us here to do.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the ACLU opposing H.R. 2616.
Mr. Speaker, a special thanks to Chairman Walberg and Representative Owens for leading this important bill.
As reports continue to come out from the Department of Education, we have seen that public schools are blatantly violating FERPA by secretly encouraging children to adopt so-called transgender identities behind their parents' back.
In fact, the DOJ recently announced investigations into 36 public school districts in my home State of Illinois for violations of President Trump's executive orders that affirm the biological reality of male and female and prohibit public schools from indoctrinating
H.R. 2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, takes an important step forward by codifying these executive orders and by rescinding Federal funding from any school that seeks to undermine parents.
Democrats believe children are nothing more than wards of the State to be indoctrinated as loyal foot soldiers in their march toward Marxism. They have labeled parents who are concerned about their children's well-being domestic terrorists and arrested them at school board meetings.
Parents are the only ones who have the fundamental, God-given right to raise their children as they see fit. Republicans are here fighting to protect parental rights, shield children from radical gender ideology, and restore sanity to America's classrooms.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2616.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republicans' don't say trans and forced outing bill. This misguided legislation is a cruel attack on transgender children who exist, whether the other side wants to recognize that or not, who are already among the most vulnerable in our society.
This bigoted bill not only infringes on American students' First Amendment rights by censoring curricula and banning books, but it also tries to erase American history and to erase the existence of transgender people by banning discussions of LGBTQ people and their families.
Furthermore, while many parents are aware of and supportive of their children's gender expression, in some cases, outing a student could lead to abuse or putting the child in harm's way. We should not force teachers to knowingly put vulnerable students in danger or to violate the trust they have built.
Every student deserves a safe and affirming school environment to learn, to develop social skills, and to grow. But Republicans are focused on spreading hate instead of protecting and supporting students.
Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2616.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to this bill from the National Women's Law Center Action Fund.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walberg for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act led by Chairman Walberg and Vice Chairman Owens.
For far too long, our education system has prioritized activism over fundamentals. Parents in America want their children to learn how to read, write, solve math problems, and reach their God-given potential. Unfortunately, schools across the country have abandoned biological realities in favor of curriculum that is infused with gender ideology, sexual education, and transgenderism.
Mr. Speaker, this is not education; this is indoctrination.
What is equally concerning is the effort schools have put into leaving parents out of important discussions regarding their children. Parents have the right to know what their kids are being taught and what is happening to their children in schools.
That is why I am honored to stand against the indoctrination of our kids and for parents' rights. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same by joining me in supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in fierce opposition to this harmful attack on public schools.
Republicans are losing. Gas prices are skyrocketing. They have no plan to end the illegal and unpopular war in Iran. Rather than doing the work to solve these real problems, Republicans just keep going back to the same old, tired playbook of harassing trans kids and, it turns out, calling us Marxists.
This time they want to give the Trump administration broad authority to cut off Federal public school funding if a school teaches or advances anything that the administration deems to be gender ideology.
Mr. Speaker, this could be anything.
A teacher doesn't get parental consent before using a student's nickname on a school form; a book in their library includes a transgender character; a teacher has a Pride Flag hanging in the classroom.
As the parent of two teenagers myself and as a former public school teacher, I want all kids to be protected and supported at school as they learn, as they grow, and as they figure out who they are.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
If the House rules had permitted it, I would have offered this motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would prevent this bill from taking effect until the Secretary of Education proves that the Department is taking the necessary steps to
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Vermont?
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this so-called Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act.
This bill does not protect kids. In fact, it just bullies them.
From affordability to educational achievement, Congressional Republicans won't tackle the country's real issues. Instead, they are going back to their one very weird trick that we see over and over again: bills that obsess over the genitals of children.
We have dealt with cruel policies like this in Florida for years, and it hasn't stopped Florida from now ranking dead last in reading.
This bill threatens children by forcing teachers and staff to out kids to their parents even if it puts them in danger. You call this the PROTECT Kids Act. You say this is about protecting kids. Do you want to know the biggest danger to our kids and our children? It is not trans people. It is not queer people. It is not drag queens. It is not books. It is bullets. The leading cause of death for a child in this country is to be shot.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman if he can tell me what he intends to do to protect kids from the leading cause of death for kids.
That silence that you hear, that silence means they have got nothing. This bill does nothing to protect kids. It just bullies them.
Trans people have always existed. They always will exist, no matter what bills you pass. I hope this body, if you actually care about kids and care about their schooling, will fund public education. Why don't you make sure that the leading cause of death for a child isn't to be shot in their schools, shot on their block. Stop with bullying children and our most vulnerable people.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from PFLAG. They say that this harmful bill would strip schools of Federal funds for even acknowledging the existence of transgender people and would make schools less safe for all students by putting barriers between vulnerable students, their teachers, counselors, and other trusted adults.
Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from Advocates for Trans Equality, which says, in part, the bill would harm transgender and nonbinary students in kindergarten through 8th grade by erecting barriers to best-practice student supports, such as recognizing a student's name, pronouns, and providing access to appropriate sex-based facilities. The bill would also impose broad unconstitutional limits on the speech and academic freedom of students and educators alike, while prohibiting any discussion of ``gender ideology,'' a term coined by anti-trans activists to dehumanize trans people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we should be asking who this bill actually helps. It is not needed for most situations where you can involve parents in constructive dialogue about a student, but it does not help students who confide in a trusted teacher because they feel unsafe at home. It does not help educators trying to create a supportive learning environment. It does not help students already stretched thin and trying to meet students' real needs.
What it does is impose a rigid Federal mandate that ignores context, disregards student safety, and prioritizes politics over people.
We can support parents without putting children at risk. We can respect local control without Federal overreach. We should be focused on legislation that improves students' lives, not bills that create new problems.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this issue is about parents, their children, and the protection of both.
This bill also protects teachers. It gives them the opportunity to use the resources already available to them to protect students, but not do that at the expense of parental rights.
Every parent in this country wants the same basic thing: to know what is happening in their child's life and to be able to guide them through it. That is not political. It shouldn't be. That is just being a parent.
Too many families today--and it is the majority of them--feel like they are being cut out of decisions that matter: decisions that affect their child's identity, their well-being, and their future. These are life-changing decisions that are being allowed and encouraged that are destructive. That is not how our schools are supposed to work.
Schools should be partners with parents, not replacements for them. Trust between families and educators is essential. That trust starts with honesty and transparency.
The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act is just what it says. It is about restoring that trust. It is about making sure parents are informed, respected, and involved. It is making sure kids are protected.
At a time when students are still working to recover from significant learning loss, our focus should be clear: strong academics, honest communication, and helping every child succeed.
That is what this legislation does, Mr. Speaker. It puts parents back where they belong: at the center of their child's life and education. In fact, it mandates and strongly encourages parents to be back there with their kids. That is a good thing.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2616, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2616, which does not protect kids. This bill is yet another attempt to micro- manage educators, harm LGBTQI+ students, and weaponize the federal government to discriminate against a small handful of already vulnerable students. There are real problems in our schools, yet at every turn, my Republican colleagues are choosing to scapegoat the trans community to divert attention from the fact that they are partners with the administration in undermining our public school system and actively dismantling the Department of Education. Schools should be places where all children feel safe to live and learn as their authentic selves.
Instead, this bill prevents the use of federal funds to ``teach or advance concepts'' related to gender ideology and forces schools to ``out'' students--even if it would cause harm or trauma. This bill is damaging and discriminatory to transgender students, who have constantly seen themselves attacked and erased by my colleagues' harmful rhetoric. Research shows that discriminatory policies like H.R. 2616, are associated with higher suicide risk among LGBTQI+ youth. Adults in Congress shouldn't be actively harming the mental health of our Nation's youth. I urge my colleagues to please stop picking on trans kids and oppose this harmful legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1993) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and to support programs at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415, nays 0, not voting 15, as follows:
Mr. GREEN of Texas, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Ms. Pingree changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 2616) to require public elementary and middle schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before changing a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms, offered by the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint), on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207, nays 208, not voting 15, as follows:
Mr. FLOOD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1041, Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6047, Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 1300) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1041) to amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the national instant criminal background check system; providing for consideration of H.R. 6047, to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the dollar amounts for the payment of certain disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation under the laws administered by the Secretary; providing for consideration of H.R. 1329, to permit the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to be located within the Reserve of The National Mall, and for other purposes; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, nays 207, not voting 14, as follows:
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I missed votes today due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 176 (Agreeing to H. Res. 1299), YEA on Roll Call No. 177 (Passage of H.R. 3234), YEA on Roll Call No. 178 (Passage of H.R. 4544), YEA on Roll Call No. 179 (Passage of H.R. 5317), YEA on Roll Call No. 180 (Passage of S. 2393), YEA on Roll Call No. 181 (Passage of S. 1003), YEA on Roll Call No. 182 (Passage of H.R. 1993), YEA on Roll Call No. 183 (MTR for H.R. 2616), NO on Roll Call No. 184 (Passage of H.R. 2616), NAY on Roll Call No. 185 (Previous Question, H. Res. 1300), and NO on Roll Call No. 186 (Adoption of H. Res. 1300).
Mr. Speaker, I missed a series of votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 182, NAY on Roll Call No. 183, AYE on Roll Call No. 184, YEA on Roll Call No. 185, and AYE on Roll Call No. 186.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the lives of Amin Abdullah, Mansour Kaziha, who went by AbulEzz, and Nadir Awad who were murdered at the Islamic Center of San Diego on Monday, a holy day in the final and most sacred month of the Islamic year.
I am heartbroken for their families, for all of the students who were scared for their lives and were evacuated out of the school hand in hand, and for the greater Muslim community in San Diego and across the country.
The Islamic Center is a special place for the Clairemont community, a sanctuary for peace, comfort, and safety. Unfortunately, that was ripped away from our community by two people armed with guns and hate.
This tragedy didn't happen in a vacuum. We let it happen by refusing to actually do something and stop the rise of Islamophobia and anti- Muslim hate and hatred of all kinds.
For decades, the Islamic Center has been the target of hate speech and vandalism and yelling by people driving by, so this is a very resilient community because they have had to be a resilient community, but this has to be where we draw the line. It has to be because I refuse to let Amin, AbulEzz, and Nadir's sacrifices be in vain.
Amin worked as a security guard at the center for years. He came to work every day, prepared to protect his place of worship, and when confronted by the gunmen, he gave his life to save others.
AbulEzz was the heart and soul of the mosque for nearly 40 years. He was a constant presence, a pillar of the community, and a beloved husband, grandfather, and father who treated every child at the mosque as his own. He died doing what he loved most in the world: caring for the children of the mosque.
Nadir was a devoted member of the Clairemont community who gave his life shielding others from the gunmen.
This tragedy could have been so much worse had it not been for all of their sacrifices. They had the courage and bravery to stand up in the face of danger, to distract, delay, and even engage with the gunmen to save others.
We owe it to them to prevent the next hate crime, the next attack on our Muslim community because this is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on everyone's right to gather, worship, learn, and live in peace and safety. It is an attack on pluralism, on our right to celebrate our differences and coexist. It is an attack on our entire community, and we won't tolerate it.
To our Muslim community, we are here for you. We mourn alongside you. We will honor the lives of these great men we lost by coming together and showing that our response to hate is love. It is compassion. It is understanding. It is community.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of us to join in a moment of silence in honor of Amin Abdullah, AbulEzz Kaziha, and Nadir Awad.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Cindy Hahn, executive director of C-NET Centre County.
C-NET, a local not-for-profit television and media organization, broadcasts more than 500 government and educational programs annually.
After 20 years of service, Cindy will retire on May 31. She has been fundamental in connecting community members with public information.
Cindy joined C-NET in 2006 and quickly expanded their media offerings, increasing broadcasting capabilities to Bellefonte, State College, and the surrounding townships.
Over the years, she has seen C-NET's internal infrastructure develop. From VHS to live streaming, the group continues to be a resource for thousands of residents.
As C-NET's longest standing employee, Cindy has kept residents informed and provided transparency to the region's current affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud Cindy's commitment to connecting the public with local officials.
She is a mentor to so many, including various Penn State communications students who have interned at C-NET.
I congratulate Cindy on this milestone and thank her for her years of service.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I stood in Montgomery, Alabama, on ground that has absorbed the blood, tears, and sweat of people fighting for equal rights and felt the full weight of this moment.
Around me were civil rights activists, elected leaders, and organizers on the front lines fighting against racist redistricting and gerrymandering, a fight the Supreme Court has made harder and more urgent.
From the Northeast to the West Coast, Members of Congress showed up in solidarity and to say: We are not going back.
The people of Montgomery courageously led this Nation in the fight against segregation and Jim Crow. They will not stand alone now.
We will fight back, and we have the playbook in front of us.
This fight is won in courtrooms, at kitchen tables, at the ballot box, and in the streets. It is won by people who refuse to be quiet. That is what Montgomery has taught us, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of S.A. White Oil Company, a family-owned business in Marietta, Georgia, that has been a cornerstone of Georgia for a century.
S.A. White Oil Company, founded in 1926 by Samuel Alfred White, has played an important role in keeping Georgia's economy moving for the past century. They have supported construction, healthcare, municipalities, emergency services, and more while also supplying fuel to dozens of locally owned businesses through partnerships with nationally recognized brands.
Today, the company's impact extends far beyond fuel, as under the leadership of Kim Gresh and through the oil company's hard work, they have donated to improve the lives of people across Georgia while upholding their family-oriented culture.
S.A. White Oil Company's fight against homelessness, domestic violence, food insecurity, and other critical social challenges facing our people today is a testament to their commitment to community.
On behalf of Georgia's 11th Congressional District and the U.S. House of Representatives, I commend S.A. White Oil Company for their service, innovation, and philanthropy and congratulate them on their 100th anniversary of service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a bipartisan effort to designate today, May 20, as National Women in Aerospace Day, honoring the extraordinary women whose talent, courage, and innovation have shaped America's leadership in aviation and space exploration.
May 20 marks the anniversary of Amelia Earhart's solo historic transatlantic flight, a defining moment that inspired generations of women to pursue careers once thought beyond reach.
From the engineers and scientists behind America's greatest achievements to astronauts leading the next era of exploration, women have long since been essential to the success of our aerospace enterprise.
This resolution recognizes not only the women who made history but also the young women and girls who will shape the future of aerospace innovation and discovery.
As ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am proud to help lead this bipartisan resolution, and I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the remarkable contributions of women in aerospace.
Mr. Speaker, today, we celebrate more than a birthday. We celebrate 100 years of American courage, sacrifice, and patriotism embodied in one extraordinary man.
Vic St. Pierre turns 100 years old today, and what a remarkable century it has been. Through war and hardship, duty and courage, Vic answered the call to serve our country time and time again.
From serving in the Marines during World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war, Vic bravely marched into combat carrying the spirit of America with strength and honor.
Born in Rhode Island and now a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina, Vic joined the United States Marines at 17 years old, driven by a desire to serve and to see the world.
What he gave in return was far greater: a lifetime of service and unwavering commitment to protecting the freedoms we cherish every day.
Mr. Speaker, as America approaches its 250th birthday, stories like Vic's remind us why this Nation remains a beacon of freedom and hope for the world. Our veterans and servicemembers are the heart of this country. They are the reason our flag still waves proudly and why generations of Americans continue to live free.
Today we celebrate Vic's 100th birthday and honor his extraordinary service and courage. May God bless him, his family, and the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express our collective national dismay over the President's big, beautiful ballroom.
While Americans struggle daily with ever-increasing bills for food, gasoline, and utilities, President Trump dishes billions in payouts to Capitol rioters and no-bid contracts on vanity projects: fountains, reflecting pools, a triumphal arch, the Kennedy Center, and, most infamous of all, the White House ballroom, a monstrous homage to the age of Emperor Nero.
Unsurprisingly, we now find the ballroom will cost American taxpayers $1 billion for the benefit of one man.
I ask myself: How can Americans be expected to keep funding the lifestyles when prices for necessities continue to climb?
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of New York, we say: Enough.
I encourage my colleagues to take this sentiment to heart and reject the latest appropriation request. This is clearly the wrong priority at the wrong time.
Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 40th anniversary of the Hughes amendment which is a stark reminder of how Congress has repeatedly infringed upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
Today, I introduced the Freedom From Taxes Act. This important legislation fully repeals the remaining excise taxes on machine guns and destructive devices under the National Firearms Act and eliminates the special occupational tax on Federal firearms licenses.
Building on the strong progress we achieved in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, this legislation completely zeros out the final NFA taxes, reducing the annual burden from $1,000 to $0 for importers and manufacturers, and from $500 to $0 for dealers.
It also ends the burdensome special occupational tax that has been weighing down small businesses and manufacturers across America's firearms industries for far too long.
I want to thank the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association for supporting this bill and defending our always under- siege Second Amendment.
The government has no business penalizing law-abiding citizens who are simply exercising their God-given Second Amendment rights. By removing these unfair taxes, we are providing meaningful relief to hardworking gun owners, hardworking manufacturers, and small businesses that form this industry.
Mr. Speaker, May is Mental Health Awareness Month, a time for us to stop and consider how mental health impacts and effects everyone in our communities. For that reason, I am going to recognize the Akron Municipal Mental Health Court as Ohio's 13th Congressional District's Champion of the Week.
This week, the court is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Founded by Judge Elinore Marsh Stormer in response to the growing number of people with serious mental illnesses entering into the criminal justice system, the Akron Municipal Mental Health Court became the first of its kind in Ohio, and one of the first in the Nation.
Judge Annalisa Williams has carried on Judge Stormer's vision and has presided over the court since 2005.
What began as an innovative idea has become a model for communities across our State and Nation. It functions under a simple but powerful truth: Treatment and support can save lives.
Since 2001, countless people have reclaimed stability, restored relationships, and built brighter futures for themselves and their families.
The Akron Municipal Mental Health Court exemplifies the very best of Ohio's 13th Congressional District and reminds us why our community is proudly known as the birthplace of champions.
I had the opportunity earlier this week to join them for their 25th celebration and recognize them in person on behalf of our district.
Again, I want to say: Thank you and congratulations. Here is to 25 more years of serving our community with justice and compassion.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life and legacy of former Mangilao mayor, Nito Castro Blas, who passed away on May 6, 2026, at the age of 89.
Mayor Blas was a proud veteran, devoted public servant, and beloved member of the island community. For nearly 28 years and seven terms as mayor of Mangilao, he dedicated his life to serving the people of Guam with humility, compassion, and integrity.
To many, he was a trusted leader, a familiar face in the village, and someone who genuinely cared for the people around him. Before entering public office, Mayor Blas proudly served our Nation in the United States Navy, carrying the values of duty and service throughout his life.
His legacy will live on through the countless lives he touched and the lasting impact he made on the village of Mangilao and our island community.
I extend my deepest condolences to the Blas family, his loved ones, and the people of Mangilao during this difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my Constituent of the Week, Chief Rebecca Davis Nelson, on her appointment as chief of police for the town of Orange.
Prior to her promotion, Chief Davis Nelson was the longest serving officer in the department, a testament to her deep commitment and steady leadership. With more than two decades of law enforcement experience, she now makes history as the first woman to lead the agency, an achievement that reflects both her dedication and the trust she has earned within the department and the community.
Since 2002, Chief Davis Nelson has devoted her career to serving and protecting her community, building a reputation for professionalism, integrity, and strong leadership.
I am confident she will continue to guide the department with distinction in her new role.
I congratulate Chief Davis Nelson on this well-deserved honor, and I thank her for her continued service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Michael Jordan.
Mr. Jordan is a 73-year-old resident of Bloomingdale, Georgia, who will begin a 950-mile bicycle journey from Bloomingdale to Washington, D.C. to honor, raise awareness, and respect American Gold Star Mothers and families as well as the law enforcement community.
His 11-day-long journey will begin following the Memorial Day service at Margel D. Winn-Lieutenant Colonel Roland E. Waller Veterans Freedom Park.
Although Jordan never served in the military himself, he said that the ride is his way of giving back.
He spent his career working as a toolmaker at Gulfstream Aerospace and says that gratitude, not personal service, fuels his mission.
During the ride, Jordan will wear a jersey honoring American Gold Star Mothers and cycling gear showing support for first responders, including law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Jordan for his service of gratitude and pray for his success on his journey.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump sued the IRS for $10 billion. Now President Trump is settling the lawsuit with the very Justice Department that he controls.
What is in the settlement?
There is a provision that says the IRS can never investigate or bring claims against the President or his family for past tax issues. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, imagine the American people getting the same deal. It would never happen.
This is corruption. It is special treatment for the President and his family. On top of that, the President asked for a slush fund of $1.8 billion paid for by you, the taxpayer, for what?
It is to pay out his friends and January 6 rioters.
What message does this send to the American people?
It is that if you are rich and powerful enough, Mr. Speaker, the rules do not apply to you.
This is wrong. Trump and Republicans are doing this while cutting healthcare and food assistance for families and raising costs for everyday Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Minnesota State Representative Sandra Feist for her incredible work serving Minnesotans in the Minnesota Legislature.
Representative Feist brought over a decade of experience as an immigration lawyer, working to enact laws to support our immigrant communities.
She passed 57 bills into law, including establishing Minnesota's Office of New Americans, which helps integrate immigrants and refugees into our State's workforce.
Representative Feist is the sort of public servant who always asks herself what is the best way to help the people. In the wake of Trump's relentless assault on immigrants across the country, she has decided to pursue immigration law full time.
Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly grateful for Representative Feist's leadership and wish her the very best as she continues to fight for Minnesotans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Garret Anderson, a Newport Beach resident and Anaheim Angels legend.
Garret was a SoCal native who grew up in the L.A. suburbs in Granada Hills.
After graduating high school, he was drafted by the Angels in the fourth round of the 1990 draft.
Over 15 seasons with the Angels, he became the franchise's all-time leader in hits and built a career defined by consistency, grit, and leadership in the clubhouse.
His most famous hit was the bases-loaded double he hit in game 7 of the
That 2002 season was a Cinderella journey for Garret and the Angels, with the Rally Monkey inspiring the team to come back in the late innings over and over again.
Garret was a two-time Silver Slugger award winner and was the all- star game MVP in 2003, but those who knew him best remember something beyond his baseball accomplishments. They remember his humility, kindness, and joy inside the clubhouse and outside.
Mr. Speaker, Garret Anderson represented what is best about baseball: dedication, teamwork, and grace both on and off the field. His legacy will live on not just in the record books but in the memories of fans, teammates, and our Orange County communities. Our deepest sympathies are with his family.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize General Robert Dutko, whose impressive career of service in the Air National Guard spanned over four decades.
General Dutko's military career began in 1954 when he enlisted in the New Jersey Air National Guard at McGuire Air Force base, where he first served as the 141st Fighter Bomber Squadron.
After returning from Active Duty during the Berlin crisis, he held assignments at the Pentagon and was later appointed Assistant Adjutant General of New Jersey Air National Guard.
General Dutko was instrumental in the success of the Armed Forces Heritage Museum, helping to secure the museum's mobile unit and sharing the history of military with countless community members.
He also shaped how his hometown honored service and sacrifice with his role in programs like Hometown Heroes, ensuring that the service of Ewing residents would be recognized in a meaningful way.
Though, we mourned his lost last month, we will be celebrating his inspiring legacy and service for many years to come.
Mr. Speaker, what should have been bipartisan effort to honor and preserve the stories of American women has been hijacked and corrupted.
The original Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act had broad bipartisan support because it was rooted in a simple idea that the stories of all women deserve to be told.
Now, it has been hijacked by Republicans to legislate identity and to erase LGBTQ+ Americans' history itself, but unfortunately, this bill is not happening in isolation.
Just before Pride Month, Republicans are voting to advance a bill that would force schools to out trans kids and take away their Federal funding.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: Bullying trans kids won't end this war. It won't address the economy. It won't make this country more free, and it won't cover up the deep corruption in the White House itself. It will only hurt our children, and that is why we are a hell, no.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Qaadia Roberts, the New Jersey Tenth's native and founder of She Is, Inc. She Is is a Jersey City-based nonprofit that empowers girls through mentorship, leadership, development, and community engagement that directly strengthens access to opportunity and workforce readiness.
Qaadia Roberts founded She Is because of the importance of instilling confidence and providing opportunities to build connections for young women.
Roberts was honored at the 2026 Black History Month Celebration with the Hudson County Positive Impact award, recognizing the decade of dedication she put in to local and State government with her nonprofit work.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New Jersey's 10th Congressional District, I am wishing Qaadia Roberts and She Is the best as she continues to provide vital mentoring to young women and girls.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, I was an advocate standing outside Delaney Hall, a detention center in Newark, New Jersey, demanding our government treat immigrants with justice and human decency.
I watched in horror as Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was dragged across a gate only to be arrested. I was appalled to see three of my now congressional colleagues manhandled with impunity. This week, when I returned to Delaney Hall with two of those same colleagues, I had my worst fears confirmed.
Injustice and suffering are visible in plain sight. Pregnant women writhe in pain without care. An injured man wept in fear for his life, and more alarming, the staff of this facility are unprepared and unable to care for those in their custody.
I may never forget the faces of those detainees begging for help. These people deserve the fullness of our Constitution and laws. These immigrants deserve humanity, and we must fight for justice if we wish to protect our own.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 7 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 21, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
