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.
58 public bills, H.R. 8951- 9008; and 13 resolutions, H.J. Res. 189; H. Con. Res. 105; and H. Res. 1309-1319 were introduced.
Pages H3722-25
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Recess: The House recessed at 11:31 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H3682
Guest Chaplain
The prayer was offered by the Guest Chaplain, Reverend Father Andrew Aziz, Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Gilbert, Arizona.
Pages H3682-83
Recess
The House recessed at 3:18 p.m. and reconvened at 4:30 p.m.
Page H3707
Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act
The House failed to pass H.R. 1329, to permit the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to be located within the Reserve of the National Mall, by a yea- and-nay vote of 204 yeas to 216 nays, Roll No. 188.
Pages H3692-99, H3707-10
Rejected the Randall motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on House Administration by a yea-and-nay vote of 209 yeas to 209 nays, Roll No. 187.
Pages H3707-09
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House Administration now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-653, shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1300, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to yesterday, May 20th.
Pages H3692-93
Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act
The House passed 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, by a yea-and-nay vote of 216 yeas to 201 nays, Roll No. 190.
Pages H3684-92, H3710-11
Agreed to amend the title so as to read
``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, and for other purposes.''.
Page H3711
Rejected the Morrison motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs by a yea-and-nay vote of 208 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 189.
Pages H3692, H3710-11
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1300, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to yesterday, May 20th.
Pages H3684-85
Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act
The House 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, by a yea- and-nay vote of 235 yeas to 179 nays, Roll No. 191.
Pages H3699-H3707, H3711-12
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-653, shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1300, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to yesterday, May 20th.
Pages H3699-H3700
Work Period Designation
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he designated the period from Thursday, May 21, 2026, through Monday, June 1, 2026, as a ``district work period'' under clause 13 of rule 1.
Page H3716
Discharge Petition
Representative Takano presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1247) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2102) to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for concurrent receipt of veterans' disability compensation and retired pay for disability retirees with combat- related disabilities (Discharge Petition No. 22). Senate Referrals: S. 1473 was held at the desk. S. 3023 was held at the desk. S. 4460 was held at the desk. S. 4631 was held at the desk.
Page H3707
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H3707. Quorum Calls--Votes: Five yea-and-nay votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H3709, H3709-10, H3710-11, H3711, and H3711-12. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:58 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: 153 of 221 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 6, 2026, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to share with you today's remarks and to have you hear them, because on January 3, 2019, it was a special day for many of us in this very Chamber. It was my first day here.
Amid the ceremonies and celebrations and the chaos of that day, I will never forget watching my dear, sweet cousin, Brogan Dolata, who had just turned 12, run through the aisles of this very Chamber to join in the chorus of children at the rostrum and help swear in then-Speaker Pelosi.
She also sat by my side as I raised my hand and was sworn in as a Member of Congress on behalf of Michigan's 11th District to the 116th session of Congress.
Brogan helped send a message to the country that a new Democratic majority had come to Washington to protect America's children and to get our country back on track.
Seven years later, that little girl who carried her pink coin purse everywhere she went, soliciting small, dollar donations from her friends and neighbors to send her cousin Haley to Congress, is now the talented, brilliant, beautiful young woman who fills our lives with joy and hope. This weekend she accomplishes a major feat as she graduates from high school and begins her next chapter.
Brogan was born in Michigan's 11th District and raised along California's Central Coast. She is smart, funny, down to earth, and dynamic no matter what gets thrown her way. At a young age, she taught herself how to drive on her grandfather's farm and she hasn't stopped running circles around us since. That is the Michigan grit in her blood.
Brogan is also a star athlete. She found her passion in lacrosse and recently took her high school all the way to the California State championships. She scored 7 goals in the semifinals, secured a coveted spot in the northern California all-star game, and led her team to victory. Brogan knows how to win, and she does it gracefully, always looking out for her teammates and making sure everyone around her shares in success.
Brogan is the rock in our family, constantly defying expectations and making us proud. She sets her mind on her goals and works hard to achieve them. Nothing gets in her way. It has been such a treat to watch her grow into the dedicated and determined young lady she is today.
We are so excited for Brogan to pursue her dreams this fall, attending Santa Barbara City College with the plan to transfer to UCSB and become an entrepreneur just like her mother. It is only a matter of time before she takes the whole world by storm.
We know that achievements like this never happen on their own, so I congratulate my dear first cousin Chloe Dolata, and Brogan's father, Jay, on this important milestone in their lives. They have raised an exceptional daughter, and for that they deserve all the praise we have.
From her mom and dad, to her l'oncle Brendan; to Grandberry Marcie and Gramps and Auntie Maria; to her cousins, Blake and Haley, we are so proud of her. She is the pride and joy of this family. She is our future and we can't wait to see all she accomplishes.
We have always been at each other's sides through thick and thin, and I will always be there for her no matter the circumstances.
I wanted to take a moment in this storied Chamber to recognize Brogan's accomplishments and to write her achievements into our country's history books.
Congratulations on this milestone. I love you and I cannot wait to see you soon.
Mr. Speaker, this Memorial Day, I rise to remember and honor our brave servicemen and servicewomen who made the ultimate sacrifice answering the call to defend our great Nation.
Whether it is the men and women who helped us gain our independence from the British throne in the Revolutionary War or the men and women who fought bravely against Japanese imperialism, we owe all of these men and women a debt of gratitude.
I hope that we in this Chamber rise to the occasion and that we continue this tradition of this country recognizing and honoring the memory of those who gave their lives so that we could have this liberty and freedom that God entrusted to us in this Nation.
Just this year, we lost a young soul who was stationed in my district, a
Ben courageously answered the call to protect us from those who sought to do us harm, and his sacrifice is a grave and sobering reminder of the dangers that our men and women in uniform face across the globe each and every day.
Just like our police officers and our first responders, they walk out the door to deploy, sometimes a very long deployment, sometimes 9 months, 11 months, and they don't know if that is the last time they will see their spouse or their daughter or their son. We must remember this sacrifice.
Servicemembers like Benjamin remind us that Memorial Day is not only a day to mourn our fallen but a deeply personal day for our military families and for our loved ones who bear the everlasting burden. It is not about barbecues. It is about remembering those who gave their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in thanking and honoring those who have served our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the men of The American Legion Post 128 in Rye, New York, for their patriotism and their true sense of civic duty.
This post, comprised of veterans of military service, is just one part of The American Legion Department of New York, and it is led by Commander Fred de Barros and Adjutant Tim Moynihan. Their commitment to American values will be on display this Memorial Day weekend as they host the annual parade and ceremony on the Village Green in Rye.
The ceremony will feature a presentation of the annual Americanism award this year to a deserving Rye resident, Laura Pellegrini, along with high school students who have participated in the annual essay contest.
The post members last weekend placed American flags at the graves of veterans at Greenwood Union Cemetery. Every year, they conduct Veterans Day services on the Village Green in November, and also a used flag disposal ceremony and other patriotic recognitions.
From the floor of the House of Representatives, we acknowledge and recognize The American Legion Post 128 and the Ladies Auxiliary for their service to city and to country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and accomplishments of my predecessor, Congressman Eliot Engel, who passed away on April 10, with particular focus on his representation of the Bronx and Westchester, and his leadership on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
A product of the Bronx, Eliot was a fixture in New York politics for as long as I knew him and zealously represented the diverse constituencies that characterized metro New York, and at various times the Bronx, Westchester, and Rockland Counties.
Originally winning election as a third-party candidate, he first served in the New York State Assembly from 1977 to 1988, and thereafter as a Member of Congress for the Bronx and Westchester until 2020.
Eliot supported liberal policies at home. He fought vigorously to protect Kosovar Albanians and for the United States to recognize Kosovo as an independent nation.
Last week in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, at the urging of my colleague Ritchie Torres, leader Brian Mast, and Ranking Member Greg Meeks, we passed a bill to honor Congressman Engel's life and legacy by renaming the U.S. Chancery in Pristina, Kosovo, the Eliot L. Engel Building.
While naming a building for someone will never replace having them in the room with you, it is my hope that this effort will allow his work, his leadership, and his legacy to live on for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Willcox High School softball team on winning the 2026 2A State championship title.
The number five Willcox Cowgirls defeated the number two Mohave Accelerated in Bullhead City with a score of 5-3 to claim the championship and finish the season with an impressive 16-3 record.
This victory marks the Cowgirls' first State softball title in 16 years, an accomplishment certainly to be celebrated. This championship didn't come easy, though. On their way to the game, the team's bus broke down, but the Cowgirls didn't let this setback get in the way of the most important day of the season.
Instead, they crammed into parents' cars to make it to the game, and they made it on time, prepared to play their absolute best.
During the game, Willcox put one on the board in the fourth inning and maintained their lead, scoring 1 in the fifth, and then 3 in the seventh.
Freshman pitcher Hattie Macumber earned the MVP of the 2A tournament after an impressive seven strikeouts and two runs.
Congratulations to Coach Trevor Ward, the whole team, and everyone who made this win possible. Their hard work has made their school and their community very proud.
To the Cowgirls, may they enjoy their victory. They have earned it.
Here is to another successful season and many more to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor a dear friend, Chris Sheafe. He and his beloved wife, Jacque, tragically and unexpectedly passed earlier this month.
My wife, Laura, and I are deeply saddened by this loss, a loss to us personally and a loss to our entire community.
Chris was a special person, a wise and thoughtful man, who generously shared his time with people and the causes that he believed in, as well. Chris devoted decades of his life to making the American Dream a reality as a successful homebuilder.
The safety, shelter, and financial security that comes from owning your home, Chris helped make that possible for so many people throughout his life. He was also a driving force in shaping Tucson's hospitality industry as a partner in the company that constructed one of the signature resorts that our desert community is famous for: Loews Ventana Canyon Resort.
His work with organizations like Rio Nuevo, the Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association, and the Tucson International Airport Authority was a true expression of how intentionally he cared about the Tucson community which he called home for the past 50 years.
Chris devoted his career to work and shaping southern Arizona, improving our community for those who live there today and for our next generation as well. He was a man of integrity, a man true to his word, and a man who you wanted close to you all the time.
Chris and Jacque's love for the Lord was truly evident. They both always took time to greet each one of my kids and make them feel special. I have six kids, Mr. Speaker, so that took time every single Sunday when we saw them at church.
They brought joy into every room they entered, and together they led a life marked by service and by passion.
Laura and I are keeping the Sheafe family in our thoughts and prayers as we all grieve this heartbreaking loss.
We are grateful for all he gave to our community. He will be deeply missed, and his legacy will live on in the lives that he touched.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank my former legislative director, Naomi Lake.
Naomi is a Chicago native who worked in my congressional office since my first day in Congress in 2019.
When I was elected to Congress, she packed her bags and moved to Washington, D.C., excited to help me shape my work and represent our beloved Chicago.
Over the years, she rose from legislative correspondent to legislative assistant to legislative director. She leaves my office as an LD who is appreciated by her team, admired by her peers, and respected by members, staff, and advocates alike.
There is no task she doesn't do well, and Congresswoman Summer Lee is very lucky to have Naomi as her new legislative director.
Naomi is a brilliant young woman, passionate about social and economic justice, and deeply interested in the impact that U.S. policies have on our relationship with other countries, particularly throughout the Americas.
Her strategic policy mind has helped make my role as a Member of Congress and whip of the Progressive Caucus more impactful, as she always puts her interests of working people first.
She is an exceptional thinker, a gifted writer, and a thorough editor who helped my team be more effective in expressing my policy positions and serving the residents of Illinois' Fourth District. She is a dedicated and intelligent advocate who cares deeply about our community, my team, and the progressive movement.
Naomi has many talents beyond her role on the Hill. She is an experienced ballet dancer. She wakes up at the crack of dawn to row in the Potomac and is captain of her team. She has recently completed a half-marathon, while still managing a heavy legislative portfolio and leading our policy team.
In addition, Naomi is the type of person that I always want on my team--generous, thoughtful, funny, and humble.
Every congressional office would be lucky to have someone as talented and kind as Naomi. Whether discussing IMF surcharges, sanctions, or appropriations, I have always admired her sharp intellect and her quick and calm strategic sense in high-stake situations.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful for Naomi's work for the constituents of the Fourth Congressional District, for her exceptional leadership in my office, and for consistently advocating for the needs of my constituents, working families across the country, and for humanity itself. I will miss her.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach Memorial Day, I rise to honor the Aztec Eagles, known in Spanish as ``Escuadron 201,'' a legendary fighter squadron of the Mexican Air Force, whose members volunteered to fight alongside the United States during World War II.
These brave fighters--36 pilots and 264 ground personnel, including electricians, mechanics, and radiomen--answered the call to defend freedom and served in the Pacific theater. Seven of those pilots made the ultimate sacrifice.
The Aztec Eagles were part of the Mexican Expeditionary Air Force, which assisted the Allied war effort, and were attached to the 58th Fighter Group of the U.S. Air Force. They flew more than 90 combat missions and played a critical role in the liberation of Luzon in the Philippines in 1945.
For their heroism, they were awarded the Philippine Presidential Unit Citation, the Philippine Legion of Honor, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal.
Today, I remember the Aztec Eagles with gratitude and pride. Their courage, determination, and sacrifice and commitment to freedom will never be forgotten.
Mr. VAN EPPS. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to honor the Tennessee National Guard, not just for their strength and readiness, but for their extraordinary volunteer spirit. I know the sacrifices they make to keep our country safe, and our Nation is grateful.
I recently had the honor of attending President Trump's roundtable on the Memphis Safe Task Force. I am beyond impressed with the work of this task force and am grateful for the Tennessee National Guard's role in making Memphis safe again.
In 2024, Memphis had the highest rate of violent crime per capita, including elevated rates for murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and property crime.
As of March 20, 2026, the Memphis Safe Task Force has made 7,342 arrests, including 44 for homicide, 812 for controlled substances, 6,402 for firearm violations, and 94 for sex offenses. The task force has also returned 142 missing children and recovered 1,023 illegal firearms.
Because of President Trump's involvement, the crime rate in Memphis dropped drastically in 2025 compared to 2024, with a 26 percent decrease in murders, a 22 percent decrease in aggravated assaults, a 31 percent decrease in robberies, and a 48 percent decrease in carjackings.
Federal, State, and local partners have demonstrated what is possible through strong coordination, with Memphis serving as a model of successful partnership. The results would not have been possible without the guardsmen who have stepped up to help patrol our communities and keep Americans safe. I thank them for creating a place for families to thrive, businesses to succeed, and workers to make a good living.
I also recognize the Tennessee National Guard for its actions during Winter Storm Fern. As an active member of the National Guard, I am proud of how these men and women stepped up when Tennesseans needed them most.
Across 15 States, more than 5,300 National Guard members assisted in the aftermath of these storms. In Tennessee alone, 170 soldiers and airmen assisted stranded motorists, transported first responders, delivered critical supplies, and cleared debris.
Their assistance was invaluable. Tennessee National Guard members logged more than 10,000 man hours across multiple mission types, demonstrating both scale and commitment.
They conducted 44 cut-and-toss missions, clearing nearly 960 miles of critical routes and infrastructure to keep roads accessible and communities connected. They completed 757 civilian assistance missions, 601 medical and personal transport missions, and 497 health and welfare checks, ensuring that vulnerable residents were safe and that first responders could continue their lifesaving work.
This response reflects the National Guard's unwavering commitment to serving communities, even at great risk to themselves.
The Tennessee National Guard's volunteer spirit reflects the very best of Tennessee: courage, resilience, and selflessness. They remind us that service means a willingness to answer the call at any time, and that is exactly what these brave men and women do every single day.
Lastly, I recognize the National Guard Association of Tennessee for its continued commitment to supporting National Guard members. For over 100 years, they have supported military preparedness and the well-being of National Guardsmen. I thank them for serving those who serve.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the educators of Chicago High School for the Arts, known across our city as ChiArts, located in Illinois' Third.
As Chicago's first and only public arts high school, ChiArts develops the next generation of diverse artists, while preparing our students with the comprehensive education for the next steps in their life.
The teachers of ChiArts believe that the arts belong to everyone, regardless of background, ZIP Code, or status. Thanks to their leadership and thanks to their organizing, ChiArts remains open today.
Like many public schools around the country, ChiArts faced the threat of closure last year, but it was the teachers who organized the Save ChiArts
Today, as ChiArts faces new threats to its unique existence, teachers and parents are organizing to protect their school: a center where our young artists can grow, our young artists can learn, guided by teachers and artists who believe in the power of art to bring our communities together.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my sincere honor to commend the ``teachers,'' ``maestras'' of ChiArts for their unwavering commitment to Chicago's young people and to public, quality education for all. ``We continue in the struggle''; ``Seguimos en la lucha.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marcos Ceniceros for his unwavering commitment to labor rights, racial and economic justice, and workers' solidarity.
Born and raised in Chicago by immigrant parents from Mexico, Marcos witnessed firsthand the struggles and resilience of working-class families fighting for a better life. It was these early experiences that motivated his 15 years of organizing for social and economic justice.
As a campaign organizer of the Grassroots Collaborative and a community organizer with the Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, Marcos organized with young people and community members to defend their immigrant communities, expand access to education, deliver government budgets that center working people, and build community power.
Today, Marcos serves as the executive director of Warehouse Workers For Justice, where he organizes with warehouse workers across Illinois to win safer workplaces, fair wages, and dignity on the job. Marcos' leadership reminds us of the power of solidarity.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my privilege to commend Marcos Ceniceros for his dedication to building working people's power across our intersections. ``Long live the working families and our immigrant communities''; ``Que vivan los trabajadores siempre, que vivan los inmigrantes.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Sonia Cortez, whose career and leadership have reshaped our school communities in Illinois' Third Logan Square community.
As a young girl in Puerto Rico, Sonia learned at an early age the transformational power of education. After moving to Logan Square, she saw firsthand how systemic and persistent inequities in schools left so many students without the resources and support that they need to be able to thrive.
Rather than accepting those circumstances, Sonia changed them. You see, for over 20 years, Sonia served as the parent mentor coordinator with Palenque LSNA, training parents to become partners in their schools, advocates in their communities, and leaders in education.
Today, more than 30 parent mentors have earned their teacher assistant licenses, with 20 currently serving at Avondale-Logandale School, supporting the growth and the development of our community students.
Last week, Sonia graduated her last class of parent mentors, marking a significant milestone in a long and impactful career that has changed lives, reshaped educational opportunities, and demonstrated the power of community in Logan Square and beyond.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my honor to recognize the remarkable legacy of Sonia Cortez for decades of mentorship, leadership, and community building that have reshaped Logan Square and the city of Chicago.
``Thank you and congratulations''; ``gracias y felicitaciones,'' Sonia.
Mr. Speaker, in honor of Memorial Day, I rise to recognize a true gentleman who lived a life of honor and service to the Nation and the community of Spokane, Mr. Jack Daniels Holsclaw.
Mr. Holsclaw was born in Spokane and, from a young age, demonstrated excellence. As a 15-year-old, he was the first African American to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout in Spokane. Attending North Central High School, he excelled academically in sports and later attended both Whitworth College and Washington State University, where he played baseball for famed coach Arthur ``Buck'' Bailey.
On October 5, 1942, Jack enlisted in the Army as a private and later entered flight school. He trained at the Tuskegee Army Airfield in Alabama and received his wings and commission in the Army Air Corps in 1943.
In December 1943, his squadron was shipped overseas to Italy, where he became part of the famed 332nd Fighter Group. The aircraft of the 332nd had distinctive red tails to differentiate them from other P-51 outfits, leading to the nickname ``Red Tails.''
Lieutenant Holsclaw fought his most memorable aerial battle on July 18, 1944. That day, all four squadrons of the 332nd Fighter Group, each composed of 16 P-51s, were providing protection for B-17 bombing runs on German targets. The group leader was forced to return to base due to engine problems. Lieutenant Holsclaw, without being ordered, took over command.
A German fighter force of nearly 300 ME-109s attacked the bomber formation. Three squadrons stayed with the bombers while Lieutenant Holsclaw, as flight leader of the day, took part in a mission. They were able to pursue in certain circumstances in the battle. Eleven German planes were shot down. Lieutenant Holsclaw shot down two ME- 109s. The effective 332nd Fighter Group reaction allowed the bombers to hit their targets with no losses.
For his actions of taking the lead on July 18, 1944, and downing two enemy aircraft, Jack Holsclaw was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. By December 1944, he had completed 68 combat missions.
Captain Holsclaw returned to the United States in June 1945 and continued on with service in what became the United States Air Force. He would rise to the rank of lieutenant colonel.
On December 31, 1964, Lieutenant Holsclaw retired and received the Distinguished Service Medal for his accomplishments. Jack and his wife, Bernice, ultimately returned to Spokane, where he completed a second career in banking in 1983.
Mr. Speaker, it is exemplary men like Lieutenant Colonel Jack Holsclaw who built the Air Force of today. Our Nation owes him and men like him a debt of gratitude. I would say, as a father of children who attend North Central High School, I hope that they one day grow up to be citizens like Lieutenant Holsclaw.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the remarkable service of Phil Kowzan, an 88-year-old Spokane resident who spent 25 years honoring our veterans with the solemn sound of taps.
For 3,335 funerals at the Washington State Veterans Cemetery, Mr. Kowzan stood in all weather to ensure every servicemember received a live, personal tribute. He began this mission in 2001 when he refused to let a friend's funeral rely on a recording, choosing instead to play taps himself.
In March, Mr. Kowzan performed the melody for the final time, closing a quarter century of quiet, steadfast service. Though his bugle will now fall silent, the dignity he brought to each farewell will endure.
Mr. Speaker, join me in honoring Phil Kowzan for his devotion, humility, and unwavering respect for those who served our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary heroism displayed by a group of individuals from Spokane, including four remarkable teenagers whose quick thinking and selfless action saved a man's life on April 18.
While swimming at the Mirabeau Park Hotel pool in Spokane Valley, Ben Wagele, Weston Collins, and siblings Rae and Ethan Overby noticed a man unconscious in the water and immediately sprang into action. Together, they pulled him to safety. Rae Overby began prompt administration of chest compressions.
They were soon joined by hotel employees Tammy Hall and Donoven Bond, who assisted in performing CPR until first responders arrived on the scene.
According to the paramedic captain who responded, the patient likely would not have survived were it not for the group's awareness, immediate response, and remarkable teamwork under pressure.
In recognition of their lifesaving efforts, these six individuals were honored by the Spokane Fire Commissioners. I am proud to recognize them for their courage and commend each for their exemplary actions here on the floor of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach Memorial Day, I also encourage families across the country to celebrate safely. May this inspiring story serve as a reminder of the profound difference ordinary people can make.
Mr. Speaker, this week marks 61 years of Head Start, one of the most transformative antipoverty programs in our Nation's history.
For more than six decades, Head Start has given millions of children a fair shot by providing early education, meals, healthcare, and support for working families. It showed that every child, no matter their ZIP Code or income, mattered.
Today, Republicans have cut and chronically underfunded this program, threatening the lifeline for families across the country. Instead of investing in billionaires and endless wars, we should be investing in our children.
I am calling on my colleagues to support and pass our Head Start for America's Children Act, as we mark 61 years of this successful program.
This bill would expand access to 11 million more eligible young children nationwide. Eleven million children across our country are eligible, but there are not enough spots. We would also be raising wages for our educators and strengthening support services for our families.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that Head Start works, so let's invest in this program. It is an anchor, not only for the child but for the whole family.
Mr. Speaker, over 3,000 people in Lebanon have been slaughtered since the start of the Israeli apartheid regime's brutal war on all of Lebanon.
More than 1.2 million people have been displaced violently. That is over 20 percent of Lebanon's entire population.
We cannot stay silent while innocent civilians are being exposed to white phosphorus bombs that melt flesh to the bone.
Inaction is not an option, Mr. Speaker. That is why I will be forcing a vote on the War Powers Resolution to end U.S. support of Israel's indiscriminate bombings in Lebanon.
We all know what doing nothing looks like, and we are witnessing right now a repeat playbook of the Israeli military's actions in Gaza. Entire families are being erased in Lebanon, villages and cities turned into rubble. Targeting of civilians has continued to be increasing, as well as the targeting of medics and journalists.
The United States is not a bystander to these war crimes. It is an active participant. Our government is providing intelligence and coordinating strikes, and the American people are tired of watching their tax dollars fuel death, destruction, and endless war. They are tired of hearing that we don't have money for healthcare or childcare at home, while watching U.S. bombs destroy hospitals and steal the futures of children abroad.
Mr. Speaker, this war powers vote is clear, and it is a moral choice. Do you stand for saving lives, or do you stand for endless wars?
Mr. Speaker, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we have some of the highest rates of poverty among our children. As of 2024, more than 9.7 million children have lived in poverty in the United States. That is a 154-percent increase since 2021.
Imagine if our government invested in the well-being of our children like they invest in wars?
Congress has the power and the money to end child poverty today, feed every single one of our children today, and make sure that every opportunity that they need to succeed is available today.
Instead, we are debating $1 billion to Trump for a ballroom that no one asked for, while defunding and destroying Federal programs that help our children get fed, clothed, housed, and educated. The hardship, food insecurity, health issues, and instability that poverty causes is impacting families throughout my district and throughout our country.
Mr. Speaker, I am calling on my colleagues to support Representative Jacobs and my end poverty resolution and support the most vulnerable population.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Darrel Thomas, who passed away on May 13, 2026.
A proud U.S. Navy veteran, Darrel proudly served our Putnam County communities throughout his life. Darrel was a former member and president of the Putnam County Council. He served the 4-H community in numerous capacities, was a 4-H Hall of Fame inductee in 2021, and worked for 31 years as a 4-H extension agent for Putnam County.
Darrel also served on the parks and recreation board. For his service in his community, he was the recipient of the State of Indiana's Sagamore of the Wabash Valley Award.
Darrel is survived by two daughters and his many grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Darrel for his tremendous service to Putnam County and to our outstanding students. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Lynne S. Taylor, the Retter Distinguished Professor of Pharmacy at Purdue University, who recently received the prestigious Research Ireland St. Patrick's Day medal for 2026.
This is an award given to permanent academic and industry leaders and researchers with strong Irish roots. The Irish leader, Taoiseach Micheal Martin, said Professor Taylor is ``helping to shape the future of medicine and strengthen international relationships.''
Professor Taylor's research has been foundational for solubility- enabling technologies, helping develop lifesaving treatments for diseases like hepatitis C and cancer. She has become an international expert in drug formulation science, and her work will surely save and have an enduring impact on the world.
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud that this outstanding scientist is getting her recognition for her work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Richard McClain. Rich McClain was born and raised in Logansport, Indiana, served in the U.S. Navy from 1964 to 1968, and graduated from Purdue University in 1970.
Rich was an active member of his community, volunteering at his church, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, the Neal Home Board, the Mental Health Association, and as the chairman of the Iron Horse Festival in 1985.
Rich served at the Indiana State House from 1994 to 2012, where he was known as ``Squeezer'' because he printed toothpaste squeezers during elections.
Rich is survived by a loving family, his wife, Barrie; sons, Jeff and Nate; and five grandchildren, Brandt, Lauran, Clark, Katie, and Saylor; a great-grandson, Warner, as well as siblings and extended family.
Mr. Speaker, my prayers are with the family and friends of Rich. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, as Memorial Day approaches, I am reminded of those whom I served with in Vietnam. Two have names etched in the Vietnam Memorial, Richard Frazier and Robert
We were in a convoy hauling supplies on the road to Khe Sanh. My unit, the 523rd Transportation Company, used 5-ton gun trucks mounted with .50 caliber machine guns in order to protect the convoys. These gun trucks were made with scrounged-up armor. You could take an armor plate, then a layer of sandbags, and then another set of iron plates to make them work. We had to do with what we had.
Richard Frazier was a gunner on a truck called Satan's Lil Angel. He was killed in action on February 20, 1971, during an ambush near the DMZ in South Vietnam.
Robert Thorne was a driver for a truck named Proud American. I was riding with Robert on March 3, 1971, when two B-40 rockets hit the truck.
Robert Thorne steered Proud American into a mountain bank rather than going over an embankment down to the river below. That saved all of us.
Unfortunately, Robert Thorne lost his life. He was 21. It was in this truck that I was wounded, and I lost my arm.
There are no words to describe the loss of those men. I strive every day to honor their memory and sacrifice, and to live my life as a testament to theirs.
I love this country, and I feel duty-bound to keep America free and prosperous. On this Memorial Day, we honor those who fought and died so that we can live in freedom.
We cannot forget the sacrifices of men like Robert and Richard. They saved my life and the lives of fellow soldiers. They are heroes, and their courage is an example to all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Konstantinos ``Kosti'' Kostibas.
Born on October 24, 1978, Kosti was a proud Texan who graduated with a bachelor of arts in international studies from Baylor University and a master of arts in international relationships from St. Mary's University.
After graduating from Baylor University in 2002 with the rank of second lieutenant, Kosti served in the United States Air Force as an intelligence officer until 2006. Kosti continued to serve our country throughout his career, working in cyber operations at the Department of Defense.
During his time with the U.S. Cyber Command, where he played a critical role in advancing our Nation's cybersecurity interests, Kosti was selected to serve as a legislative defense fellow for the 2023 Department of Air Force fellowship program.
My colleagues and I will forever be grateful for the years that he spent with our office. Never failing to be the first person in the office every morning, Kosti not only brought his expertise in cybersecurity and intelligence matters but also his steadfast work ethic.
He also incorporated a wry wit and an unwavering commitment to improving the lives of all of those around him. He had the unique ability to easily connect with anyone he crossed paths with and make them instantly feel as though they were speaking to an old friend for life.
Sadly, we lost Kosti too soon at the age of 47 on April 22, 2026, after a hard-fought battle against glioblastoma.
Above all, Kosti was a devoted husband to his wife, Megan, and a proud father to his children, John and Samantha.
From his service in the United States Air Force and his years working for U.S. Cyber Command, to his time spent in Nebraska, Texas, and Maryland, Kosti will be deeply missed by all who had the good fortune of working with him and spending time with him over the years.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Kosti Kostibas, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing his commitment to advancing the safety and security of our country, as well as the positive light he was in the lives of so many.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary coach, mentor, and pillar of the Roanoke community, Bill Pope, upon his retirement from Northside High School.
For more than four decades as head coach and an incredible 46 years in total, Coach Pope has shaped generations of young men both on and off the basketball court. Under his leadership, the Northside Vikings achieved 680 wins, one of the highest totals in Virginia High School League history.
His teams captured 17 district championships, 8 regional titles, and 3 State championships, including remarkable recent titles in 2019, 2023, and 2024. These achievements speak not only to his excellence as a coach but to his consistency, discipline, and enduring commitment to his players.
In recognition of his lasting impact, the school fittingly named its gymnasium in his honor, a testament to the legacy he has built and the lives he has touched.
As he steps away from the game, we thank Coach Pope for his service, his leadership, and his unwavering dedication to his community. May his legacy continue to inspire future generations of student-athletes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary group of young women from Clarke County, whose teamwork and determination led them to victory in the Virginia High School League Class 2 State championship.
The Clarke County girls' basketball team defeated Union 67-55 at VCU's Siegel Center and earned their second State title in four seasons and the third in program history.
This 27-2 team was powered by the talent and unity of all of their players. Five players earned All-Bull Run District honors; and standout senior Alainah McKavish, the Class 2 Player of the Year, capped her career with over 2,200 points and a powerful performance in the title game. Teammates Anna Taylor, Paige McKavish, Savannah McCaw, Kendall Harman, Haley Foltz, Eryn Demko, Emmerson Kennedy, and Paige Stemberger also rose to the challenge.
Coach Shadd McCaw guided the team to a nearly flawless season, which earned him the Class 2 Coach of the Year honors from the VHSL and Basketball Coaches Association of Virginia.
Please join me in congratulating the Clarke County Eagles on their hard work, resilience, and success.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the John Handley High School boys' basketball team on capturing the program's first State championship.
Located in the city of Winchester and led by Head Coach Zach Harrell- Zook, along with Assistant Coaches Jason Combs, Trey Brisco, Donald Finley, Taralle Hayden, and Michael Brown, Hanley defeated Hampton in the Virginia High School League Class 4 championship game.
The team earned not only the program's first State title but also the school's 50th State championship overall.
Christian Dinges led the way and was recognized as the Class 4 State Player of the Year, with full support from teammates: Isaiah Baxter, Will Braun-Duin, Jaevon Brisco, Kyren Oglesby, Amari Brown, Silas Miller, Joaquin Pearce-Gonzales, Timothy Campbell, Asher Mattison, Aaron DeChristopher, Keon Ulmer, and ZeQuon Williams.
Coach Harrell-Zook was also recognized as the Class 4 State Coach of the Year.
I proudly commend this team for not only winning a State title but for making history in Handley's 103-year legacy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my dear friend, Chelsea Dolinar-Hikawa.
Chelsea and I grew up together in Chicago and attended Francis W. Parker School. She was my classmate and friend for 14 years.
I admired Chelsea's effortless brilliance, basked in her artistic talents and her infectious laugh, and was most of all inspired by her kindness.
Given her artistic talents, it was a surprise to no one that Chelsea became an artist, her love for music filling every corner of her life. She carried her vibrant passion for performance, travel, and the arts through every chapter of her life.
I rise today for her beautiful family, Nick, Atreyu, Anoki, and Suniya. I also rise today for her many beloved family members and friends who are spread as far and wide as her devotion to them. Her love for each of them is eternal.
Wherever Chelsea went, joy followed. She was melody, music, and magic. She lit up every room she entered with an unparalleled warmth and beauty.
It is with a heavy but grateful heart that I remember my beautiful childhood friend. Our senior class song by Simple Minds was ``Don't You Forget About Me.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Brother Andrew Joseph, Jr., a father, husband, advocate, and a good man.
We first met several years ago at a protest demanding an end to police violence. He, alongside his wife and partner of 28 years, Deanna Joseph, had experienced unspeakable heartbreak when their 14-year-old son, Andrew Joseph III, was killed as a result of police misconduct.
Mr. Joseph turned his pain into purpose and committed to organizing with Black Lives Matter Grassroots for justice at the local, State, and Federal level, including advocating for the passage of my legislation, the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, to hold law enforcement accountable when they violate our rights.
Our collective fight for justice was strengthened by Mr. Joseph, and he will always be remembered for his dedication to uplifting community.
In addition to his wife, Mr. Joseph is survived by his daughter Deja, who recently graduated from Howard University with honors earlier this month.
On behalf of myself, my family, and my team, I extend our deepest condolences.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Hal Warner, President and CEO of the Lehigh Valley Humane Society, and to recognize his years of dedicated service to our community.
Hal devoted his career to strengthening organizations that served others all across the Lehigh Valley. He helped advance the Lehigh Valley Humane Society's mission of animal rescue, rehabilitation, adoption, and community outreach, improving the lives of both animals and families throughout our region. His leadership reflected a deep commitment to compassion, service, and building stronger communities.
Beyond his work at the Humane Society, Hal spent years serving nonprofit organizations focused on helping vulnerable populations and creating opportunities for others. Whether supporting families, strengthening community programs, or leading mission-driven organizations, he made a lasting impact on countless lives.
Hal was deeply loved by his colleagues, staff, volunteers, and all those who knew him.
We extend our deepest condolences to Hal's family, friends, and everyone at the Lehigh Valley Humane Society as they continue his work and honor his legacy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Officer Stephen Schleig of the Easton Area School District for receiving the 2026 National Association of School Resource Officers Bridge the Gap Award.
This prestigious national recognition honors school police professionals who demonstrate exceptional leadership, mentorship, professionalism, and dedication to students and their communities.
Officer Schleig was specifically recognized for his commitment to supporting at-risk youth and helping to build positive relationships that strengthen school communities.
As a graduate of the Easton Area School District, Officer Schleig now serves in the same schools that helped to shape his own life. Through initiatives focused on school mentorship, outreach, and community engagement, he has worked to strengthen the bond between schools, families, and law enforcement.
His commitment to service extends beyond the classroom and reflects the important role that mentorship and compassion play in keeping students safe and supported.
I congratulate Officer Schleig on this well-deserved national honor and thank him for his continued dedication to students, families, and the Easton community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Coach Sue Butz- Stavin of Emmaus High School as she celebrates 50 years of extraordinary leadership and excellence in field hockey.
For five decades, she has helped to shape generations of student- athletes both on and off the field. As the winningest high school field hockey coach in the entire nation, her teams have earned district and State championships, set records, and built one of the most successful programs in scholastic sports.
But numbers alone do not tell the whole story. Her impact can be measured through the countless young women she has mentored, encouraged, and helped prepare for success in athletics, academics, and life.
For 50 years, Coach Butz-Stavin has embodied the values of dedication, perseverance, and leadership. Her influence has extended far beyond the pitch and left a lasting mark on Emmaus and communities around the Lehigh Valley.
I congratulate Coach Butz-Stavin on this incredible milestone and thank her for the lives that she has changed through her commitment to her athletes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Officer Hunter Stom of the Bethlehem Police Department for his commitment to protecting members of our community.
While off duty at a local gas station, Officer Stom noticed an elderly woman who appeared distressed while speaking on the phone near a bitcoin machine. Trusting his instincts and recognizing signs of a potential cryptocurrency scam, he stepped in to check on her well- being.
Thanks to his quick thinking, Officer Stom was able to stop the victim from sending additional money to scammers and helped prevent further financial loss. He then ensured that the incident was properly documented and that the individual received assistance.
Officer Stom's actions serve as a reminder that protecting and serving is more than a profession. It is a commitment that extends far beyond the badge and beyond the call of duty. As a member of the bipartisan Stop Scams Caucus, I know how important it is to raise awareness and protect our communities from increasingly sophisticated scams that target vulnerable individuals.
I commend Officer Stom for his dedication to keeping the people of the Lehigh Valley and Poconos safe.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Daniel G. Wuchter, Sr. He is a lifetime entrepreneur, community leader, and the owner of the Allentown Fairgrounds Farmer's Market.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Caribbean American Heritage Month, a month of
Every month I try to recognize many different individuals of Caribbean-American heritage who come from many walks of life, but this month I want to focus on the accomplishments of Caribbean-American women: their accomplishments and their struggles at the highest levels of government, and at the highest levels of politics that are shaping and have shaped this country.
I stand here as a proud daughter of the United States Virgin Islands, a territory whose people carry within it the full weight and beauty of Caribbean culture.
I am honored to serve alongside my sister, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn, New York, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, who spent her entire career championing the rights of working families, immigrants, and communities of color with a tenacity that reflects the very best of the Caribbean tradition.
I am honored to serve alongside Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of Florida, a proud Bahamian American, whose bold leadership and refusal to be silent in the face of injustice has made her a force in this Congress and a hero, a shero in her community.
Of course, we remember the late Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, who for three decades was one of the fiercest advocates this Congress has ever known.
These women do not simply represent Caribbean Americans, they embody the excellence that our communities demand of them.
The story we continue to write did not, of course, begin with us. It began on the islands themselves, with women like Queen Breffu, an Akwamu woman enslaved on St. John in the Danish West Indies, who in 1733 helped lead one of the earliest slave revolts in the Americas.
It continued with Queen Nanny of the Maroons in Jamaica, a leader of a community of formerly enslaved Africans who waged war against the British empire and won, seizing their own freedom and building their own societies. That spirit of self-determination is the spirit Caribbean Americans carry with them to this day and this country.
It continued with Shirley Chisholm, the daughter of immigrants from Barbados and Guyana, who in 1968 became the first Black woman elected to the United States Congress, and who in 1972 had the courage to run for President.
It continued with Claudia Jones, a journalist, activist, and visionary whose legacy endures; Cicely Tyson, who wasn't just an actor but a great civil rights leader, an advocate not confined to the roles that were assigned to her; and, of course, Kamala Harris, the daughter of a Jamaican father who shattered what many believed to be an unbreakable ceiling when she became the first woman and the first Black American to serve as Vice President of the United States. Vice President Harris carried the hopes of Caribbean Americans with her into the White House, a reminder that children of the Caribbean do not simply contribute to this Nation. We lead. She dared to lead a nominating party 107 days. Only a Caribbean woman could do that.
Caribbean leadership extends across the region. Dame Mary Eugenia Charles of Dominica became the first woman to serve as the head of government in the Caribbean. The Iron Lady, as she was known, bent to no outside pressure. Other influential women include Dame Pearlette Louisy of Saint Lucia, Dame Cynthia ``Mother'' Pratt from the Bahamas, of course Ruby Rouss of the United States Virgin Islands, and now Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados, who stands today as one of the most consequential leaders in the world, reshaping global conversations.
When people say we are not ready for a Black woman President, a Black woman Governor or CEO, my brothers and sisters, we have been doing it all along. We just need the support for the titles that we already deserve.
I wish all of my brothers and sisters of Caribbean descent Happy Caribbean American Heritage Month.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the importance of the BUILD America 250 Act, the surface transportation reauthorization that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is marking up today during National Infrastructure Week.
This marks 70 years since President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 into law. For Kansans, that anniversary carries special meaning. President Eisenhower understood that a strong transportation network was essential to the safety, commerce, and unity of the United States. His vision helped connect a growing country and gave future generations a highway system that changed the way Americans live, work, and move.
Seventy years later, America's transportation needs have changed, but Congress' basic responsibility remains the same. We have a duty to maintain a surface transportation system that allows people and goods to move across this country safely, efficiently, and reliably.
The entire House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been hard at work for over a year to ensure the BUILD America 250 Act delivers for American travelers. This is one of the few major bills that we take up on a regular schedule, and it has historically been bipartisan because every district in America relies on roads, bridges, rail, airports, and freight movement. That is especially true in rural America.
In the Big First, our district alone has more than 83,000 miles of roads, 4,000 miles of railroads, and more than 100 airports. That infrastructure supports the farmers, ranchers, producers, manufacturers, small businesses, schools, hospitals, and families that keep our communities strong. We also have 11,172 bridges, more than any other congressional district in the country. That is why I am especially proud that our legislation provides the largest investment in our Nation's bridges in American history.
When a highway is unsafe, a rural bridge is closed, or a freight route is inefficient, the consequences are real. A farmer may have to take a longer route to get grain to market. A rancher may face higher costs of moving livestock. A manufacturer may struggle to ship products on time. A first responder may lose valuable minutes reaching someone in need.
Transportation policy in Washington has a direct effect on the daily lives of Kansans. That is why this reauthorization must get back to the basics.
In recent years, Washington has created new programs, expanded existing ones, and spent money our country does not have. This surface transportation bill, on the other hand, focuses our limited Federal resources on the fundamental needs of our transportation system: roads, bridges, freight movement, safety, and the infrastructure that helps Americans get where they need to go.
One of my top priorities is maintaining and expanding flexibility in Federal highway programs. States are best positioned to understand their own transportation needs. Kansans should not be forced into the same mold as New York or California. A rural road that carries wheat, cattle, schoolbuses, and animals serves a very different purpose than a major urban corridor. Federal policy should respect those differences.
The BUILD America 250 Act provides States and local communities with the flexibility to direct resources where they need it most. It also helps ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively instead of being tied up in Washington-driven mandates that do not fit local realities.
Finally, we are addressing the long-term solvency of the highway trust fund. The trust fund was created to provide a dedicated revenue source for the construction of the interstate highway system. It was built on a user-pays principle, with Federal fuel taxes serving as the main funding source.
That principle is still the right one, but the current model is no longer sustainable. American vehicles have become more fuel efficient, and some Americans even drive electric vehicles. That is why our legislation updates the highway trust fund, ensuring owners of electric vehicles still contribute to the maintenance of the roads they also rely on.
We are preserving the conservative idea that those who use the system help pay for it, while modernizing the way we keep our trust fund solvent and focus on our core mission.
Mr. Speaker, America is a nation that builds. That spirit helped President Eisenhower, a proud Kansan, leave a transportation legacy that still serves our country today.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is honoring that legacy by focusing on the basics, respecting States, spending taxpayer dollars wisely, and strengthening the roads, bridges, and freight networks that keep America moving. I urge my committee colleagues to support the BUILD America 250 Act going forward.
Mr. Speaker, generations of Americans fought and bled for civil rights, to make the United States of America a place where everyone's voice can be heard, regardless of the color of their skin.
However, in the last few weeks, at the urging of the President, the Supreme Court effectively overturned section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which had been the law of the land for decades. Since then, Republican Governors and State legislators across the South have been racing to break up majority Black and Hispanic congressional districts.
What a horrible state of affairs, to see the law that Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, and Lyndon Johnson fought for cast aside. What a shameful way for Republicans to try to win elections, by breaking up majority-Black and Hispanic districts, to try to rob those voters from being able to elect their chosen Representatives in Congress.
Now, these Republican politicians redrawing the maps in State after State claim with a straight face that they are not engaged in racial gerrymandering, only partisan gerrymandering. Well, then why is it that only majority-Black districts are being split up in Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, and potentially South Carolina and other States? It is only the Black vote in those States that they are trying to dilute.
Republicans, you see, have given up on trying to make the case to people of color in those States that their policies are better. They have given up on trying to persuade people and win elections through campaigning. Instead, they have resorted to splitting up those communities to rob them of their chosen representation in Congress. What a shameful way to try to cling to power.
John Adams, our second President, wrote that the House of Representatives should be in miniature a reflection of the people at large. Yet, when it comes to the Republican side of this House, their own former Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, admitted that they do not look like America. He said that his Republican Congress looks like ``the most restrictive country club in America.''
Now, the Democratic Party is not perfect. We don't always get it right. There have been times occasionally when I thought that most of my Democratic colleagues were wrong on an issue, and I voted with the Republicans, but I am a Democrat because the Democratic Party is the one party left that is still committed to government of, by, and for the people.
Seventy percent of the House Democratic Caucus are women, people of color, or LGBTQ. I am none of those things, but when I look at the two sides of this Chamber, I know what side I want to be on. I want to be on the side that looks like America. I want to be on the side with an inclusive vision of America, that wants every American's voice to be heard, not the side that is cheering the destruction of the Voting Rights Act.
I want to be on the side that honors the legacy of King, Parks, Lewis, and other civil rights heroes, not the side moving at breakneck speed to try to break up majority-minority districts and rob people of color in our country from their chosen representation.
I don't care what your politics are. There is no honor in winning that way, and it is not good for America.
Republican colleagues should think about their own legacy. If they refuse to speak out against the racial gerrymandering their party is engaged in, if they stay silent, history will see them for who they are.
At times like this, it can be easy for people of good faith to become discouraged, but I still believe in the fundamental goodness of America. I still believe that the politics of division cannot prevail over the politics of hope. As long as we are willing to do the work, we will move past this troubling chapter in our Nation's history, and our country's better angels will prevail.
Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day, we pause to honor the brave Americans who gave their lives in service to this Nation, those who wore the uniform knowing that freedom and liberty always carry a cost.
Today, I rise in remembrance of the fallen from my home State of New Mexico, a State with a proud military tradition, where generations of servicemembers have answered the call to serve from communities large and small, from Tribal communities, rural towns, land grants, and our great military installations.
In New Mexico, military service is woven into the fabric of our communities and the identities of our families. Families sacrifice together. Spouses hold households together through deployments. Children grow up learning resilience and service. Veterans continue serving long after they have hung up the uniform.
On Memorial Day, we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
This year, we are also mourning the 13 American servicemembers killed during the Iran war, Americans who stood in harm's way on behalf of this country and paid the ultimate sacrifice.
We remember: Captain Cody Khork, Sergeant First Class Noah Tietjens, Sergeant First Class Nicole Amor, Sergeant Declan Coady, Major Jeffrey O'Brien, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan, Sergeant Benjamin Pennington, Major John Klinner, Captain Ariana Savino, Technical Sergeant Ashley Pruitt, Captain Seth Koval, Captain Curtis Angst, and Technical Sergeant Tyler Simmons.
We honor these brave men and women. They were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends, neighbors, teammates, and leaders.
Behind every fallen servicemember stands a family whose life will be forever changed.
To the Gold Star families in New Mexico and across this Nation: We see you. We honor you. We carry a solemn responsibility to remember your loved ones not just on Memorial Day but every single day.
Memorial Day is a sacred reminder of the human cost of war and the extraordinary courage of those willing to defend this Nation even at the highest cost.
As we honor the fallen, we also recommit ourselves to supporting our veterans and military families who continue carrying the burdens of service today. That means ensuring veterans can access care through a strong VA system. It means supporting our military families who endure repeated deployments and long separations. It means investing in the servicemembers who are stationed today in places like Kirtland Air Force Base in my district. It means never forgetting the debt this Nation owes to those who have served.
This Memorial Day, may we honor the fallen not just with words but with action worthy of their sacrifice.
May we remember them, may we honor them, and may we strive every single day to build a nation truly worthy of what they gave for us. Amen.
Mr. Speaker, John F. Kennedy once said that ``there are few if any issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side.''
Mr. Speaker, this is one of those issues.
Five years ago, I stood here on the House floor, just a few feet from where I stand today, as the worst nightmare of our Framers and our Nation's Founders came to life, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, this citadel of democracy, attacked police officers, and attempted to enter this Chamber and subvert the peaceful transfer of power.
Donald Trump, on the very first day that he was sworn in, in his second term, pardoned 1,600 individuals who were convicted of crimes connected to January 6. Felons, people who attacked police officers here on Capitol Grounds, he pardoned them, gave them a get-out-of-jail- free card.
Now, 15 months later, he again does the unthinkable. He sues the Federal Government that he administers and attempts to secure a $10 billion shakedown from the IRS. When that fails, when he realizes that that isn't politically palatable, that the American people won't tolerate Donald Trump signing a $10 billion check of their hardworking money to himself, he dispatches the Acting Attorney General, his former personal attorney, to negotiate a so-called settlement.
The outcome? A nearly $2 billion slush fund, where the Department of Justice will pay rioters who attacked our Capitol. These individuals will be paid with your money, the money of hardworking taxpayers.
It is unconscionable. It is corrupt. My Republican colleagues in this Chamber do nothing about it.
Where is the Speaker? Where is Mike Johnson? How can he look the officers who guard him every day in the eye, knowing that the people who attacked those officers will now be paid out of this Trump slush fund?
It is outrageous. If there were ever a time for political courage, now would be it.
There are a handful of Republicans who have said publicly that they abhor what this is, just a handful. The Speaker of the House of Representatives--let me say it clearly--Mike Johnson owes the country an answer.
Will he allow these rioters, these convicted felons who assaulted Capitol Police officers, to be paid with taxpayer dollars out of this slush fund? If not, what does he intend to do to stop it?
We have a bill that has been introduced. I believe it will be bipartisan. There are Members of the U.S. Senate on both sides who are pushing to try to stop this from materializing. The Speaker could end it today.
We are not asking him for much. Show a modicum of courage.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, unbought, unbossed, liberated Democrat. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart. I rise as an ally of the LGBTQIA+ community.
I rise today to say just a few words about a member of that community who has gone on to glory. I rise to recognize the greatness and the brilliance of the honorable Barney Frank, the first person as a Member of Congress to voluntarily announce that he was a gay person.
I rise to honor him and his brilliance because I had the preeminent experience of sitting right in front of him for a good deal of time on the House Financial Services Committee.
The Honorable Barney Frank was brilliant in the sense that he knew the subject matter. Not only did he know the subject matter, but he could present it with a great degree of eloquence and a certain amount of humor.
He did it with style, and he did it without any notes. He never came to a hearing with notes. He could talk about the derivatives. He could talk about credit default swaps. He could talk about the 3/27s and 2/ 28s, all without a single note. I never saw him bring notes to one single hearing.
He was brilliant, one of the great minds of our time, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to salute him because he not only helped to shape the destiny of this country with Dodd-Frank, but also because he helped to shape the destiny of my path in Congress. He was a great mentor. He was someone who was well respected and that all the members of the committee, regardless of party affiliation, looked up to. He truly had something special--I believe the French call it je ne sais quoi--just something very unique, something that you just don't see in people, generally speaking. I am proud to call him a friend.
I am proud to say that as a friend of the community, I, Al Green, an ally of the LGBTQIA+ community, present the Pride resolution annually in the Congress of the United States of America.
In so doing, I have made the Honorable Barney Frank an honorary sponsor of that resolution. I will continue to do so in H. Res. 550. He was an honorary cosponsor, and I shall continue in his absence to do so.
Dear brother, Barney Frank, you have made a difference, and that difference is known to many; unfortunately, unknown to many others.
Today, I rise to salute you and pay you the respect that you have earned as a great and noble American.
God bless you, dear brother. Rest in eternal peace.
Mr. Speaker, some may be surprised to see me standing on the House floor today, including the person this speech is about. I felt it was necessary.
Today is a bittersweet day. For my longtime Chief of Staff, Molly Cutrona, it is her last day on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, we are losing her talent, her leadership, and her feisty energy to the private sector.
Although she is a native of Nevada's redheaded stepchild's neighbor, California--no offense to my colleagues from there who don't hold her in the same regard that we do--we consider her, after her stint in this office, an honorary, born-again Nevadan.
Molly started in my office 8 years ago as my legislative director. Over those 8 years, I have watched her grow both professionally and personally, getting married, and welcoming beautiful twins into the world.
However, Mr. Speaker, don't be fooled. I have experienced plenty of bullying from her disguised as advising. I will say this once, and only once: Some of it may have been deserved.
Those 8 years aren't defined by her antics. She will be remembered in these Halls for her ambition, loyalty, creativity, confidence, and absolute dedication to her colleagues and to the people of Nevada's Second District.
We are losing one of the best in the business. It has been an honor to work alongside her, and we have no doubt that she will continue to set a phenomenal example for her daughters, Claire and Coco.
Molly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for everything. With C- SPAN as my witness: I apologize for allowing Ken, your successor, to rearrange your office.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Father Andrew Azia, a devoted priest in the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East and a proud Arizonan.
Father Andrew faithfully serves Arizona's thriving Assyrian-American community--thousands of strong families preserving one of the world's oldest Christian faiths and their ancient Mesopotamian heritage. Like so many who came to America seeking freedom, they have brought deep faith, tight-knit families, entrepreneurial drive, and true patriotism to our State.
Through their churches and community work, they strengthen Arizona every day.
I am proud to thank Father Aziz for his dedicated service. Arizona is stronger because of leaders like him and the vibrant Assyrian-American community he serves.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary educator, mentor, and leader who has made a lasting impact at Magnolia Junior High School as assistant principal: Mr. Jason Hawkins.
A proud alumnus of Cy-Creek High School, Texas A&M, and Lamar University, Jason began his teaching career with Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, rising to assistant principal in 2011.
After years of faithfully serving students and staff there, he stepped into the role as assistant principal at Magnolia Junior High in 2018, where his impact has continued to grow.
In a world where strong role models matter more than ever, Jason represents the very best of public education. His leadership reminds us that the true measure of an educator is not only found in policy and test scores, but in the lives they influence, the confidence they build, and the example they set for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to join me in recognizing an exceptional assistant principal, educator, mentor; husband to Krystina; father to Kayla and Cody; and a friend to everyone: Mr. Jason Hawkins.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is hitting families in every corner of our country--the unyielding rise of inflation.
This month, the Consumer Price Index climbed to 3.8 percent, and that number isn't just a statistic. It shows up every time you fill your gas tank, check out of the grocery store, or open your utility bill.
The pressure on your paycheck is real, and it is growing.
Hardworking people are stretching every dollar. But, instead of tackling this affordability crisis head-on, my colleagues here in the House continue to bring forward legislation that does nothing to lower costs. We are continually obsessed with culture war and emotional issues, choosing personal political gain over good governance, and ignoring the prevailing crisis that is facing our country.
It is time to give Americans the relief they deserve and restore affordability in everyday life.
Mr. Speaker, veterans have courageously served America to protect the freedoms we enjoy. They deserve the respect of American families and must never be forgotten.
This week, House Republicans will vote on multiple bills to protect the constitutional rights of veterans and expand access to benefits they have earned through service.
House Republicans believe that veterans deserve better--care they can access; veterans' benefits delivered on time; a Veterans Administration that works for veterans; real support for mental health, housing, education, and employment.
Memorial Day on Monday is a solemn day of remembrance for the Americans who have given their lives in service for our country, liberating dozens of countries from socialism and communism.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump as the Chinese Communist Party trains Putin troops to murder Ukrainian civilians where Ukrainian parents provide whistles at night to children to be heard as Putin attacks civilian apartment buildings.
Mr. Speaker, far too many Vietnam servicemembers return home without the honor and recognition their sacrifice deserved.
As Memorial Day nears, we remember brave servicemembers from eastern North Carolina who made the ultimate sacrifice, such as:
Lieutenant Eric Parker Brice of Rocky Mount was a Navy pilot flying dangerous combat missions over Vietnam. On June 4, 1968, he went down after his F-4 Phantom II was struck by enemy fire.
Army Sergeant Willie Farmer, Jr., of Pinetops, was only 21 years old when his life was tragically cut short after being struck by fragments from a downed helicopter rotor blade during combat operations on September 29, 1967.
Mr. Speaker, the stories of Lieutenant Brice and Sergeant Farmer reflect enormous sacrifice. We must always honor and remember our Nation's heroes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today supporting Congressmen Deluzio and Nehls' bipartisan Railroad Retirement Fairness Act.
This legislation eliminates outdated provisions of Federal law that unfairly reduce railroad retirement payments for certain retirees and spouses who continue to work in non-railroad jobs after retirement.
This is really important because we shouldn't be penalizing rail workers who choose to or sometimes have to continue working after retirement.
Mr. Speaker, this is also a deeply personal issue for me. My father was a proud member of BLET Local 71 out of Philadelphia and drove trains for SEPTA for decades. He provided for our family, working mostly nights and weekends, and now relies on that hard-earned railroad retirement.
I know firsthand the long hours and grit these jobs take from both railroad workers and their families, which is why I support this legislation to level the playing field and ensure hardworking rail workers keep their rightfully earned retirement benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during Mental Health Awareness Month to talk about something that impacts every family in this country.
Whether it is struggling ourselves or someone we know, all of us have been touched by mental health challenges. Far too often, people don't have access to the critical care that they need.
For me, it was my brother Justin. After years of struggling and falling through the cracks, we lost him to suicide in 2008. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about him.
Justin was one of the smartest people I have known. He was passionate, an avid reader, and was working to become a history teacher. He had recently been married and had his entire life ahead of him.
Through all the moments of our lives, big and small, our family grieves that he is not with us today.
Mr. Speaker, the most important thing we can do to reduce the stigma is to tell our stories, and that is why I am here telling mine.
To the individuals and the families who are struggling in this country, I want you to know that you are not alone, and there are so many of us here in Congress who are not going to stop fighting for you.
Mr. Speaker, families across the country are struggling to afford groceries. The costs of eggs, milk, bread, baby formula, and fresh produce keep rising while giant grocery chains and corporate executives rake in record profits.
Some of the grocery stores are now using surveillance technology and digital labels to squeeze even more money out of working people.
It is shameful that corporations would raise prices on products that they know families need to survive. For me, this is corporate greed, plain and simple.
No parent, not one individual, should be able to walk into a grocery store wondering if they can afford to feed their families because an algorithm or private data that the grocery chains got decided they can charge them more.
That is why I introduced the Stop Price Gouging and Grocery Stores Act to crack down on crooked pricing practices and protect consumers from corporate abuse. Not one person who goes into a grocery store should worry about their private information being used to jack up their prices. We all deserve fair prices, transparency, and dignity, not exploitation at the grocery store.
Mr. Speaker, I am calling on all of my colleagues to please support me on the Stop Price Gouging and Grocery Stores Act.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up 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, 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 1300, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) 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 insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1041, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 1041, as amended, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
The choice before the House today is clear: whether those who defended our freedom deserve the same constitutional protection as nonveterans.
This past February, President Trump and Secretary Collins answered that question with a resounding yes.
VA overturned a longstanding policy of automatically reporting veterans and beneficiaries to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, also called NICS, simply because they needed help managing their VA benefits.
VA reported them not because they committed a crime or because a judge or a medical professional determined they were a danger to themselves or others. VA reported them to NICS simply because they needed help managing their benefits. That was the policy for over three decades, Mr. Speaker.
I have been working on this issue for 10 years because I know that this interpretation of the law is wrong. That is why I have long- championed this bill, as well as my bipartisan provision in this, the yearly VA appropriation bill, to prohibit VA's fiduciary program from reporting veterans' names to NICS.
This is a bill about due process. Most importantly, it is about protecting our veterans' Second Amendment rights. It is time we put a permanent end to the practice of treating our veterans' Second Amendment rights as an option and pass H.R. 1041.
This bill would codify the policy rider that was included in the MILCON appropriation bill that passed the House last week.
As a veteran and sportsman, I believe it is a gross violation of due process to say that a veteran with a fiduciary should be treated as a second-class citizen. Our veterans raise their right hands to defend the constitutional rights of American citizens. I know because I was one of them, and I took that responsibility seriously.
Yet, when the question came before our committee on whether it would defend their rights, Ranking Member Takano and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact that some Members in this Chamber plan to defend this discriminatory practice. Generally, a civilian cannot lose their Second Amendment rights without involvement from a judge, but veterans did for three decades. Democrats would prefer they continue to.
A veteran goes to the VA to ask for help, and the VA bureaucracy answers ``yes,'' but only in exchange for your Second Amendment rights.
Mr. Speaker, that is not due process. This is an antigun, antiveteran agenda. If a veteran poses a legitimate threat to themselves or others, judges already have legal tools available to them. Let me say that again. Judges already have legal tools available to them. A veteran should receive the same rights as every other American.
There is also something else that I want to raise: the false assumption that disabled veterans are dangerous and the harmful assumption that the capacity to manage your finances has any bearing on dangerousness or that you are dangerous, as well. Those sorts of cartoon-like simplifications cause those with disabilities to face extra hurdles when exercising their rights. It is unacceptable, and, as a veteran, I am not going to stand for it anymore.
There is no evidence that these veterans are more dangerous to themselves or others simply because they need help managing their benefits. Holding veterans to the evidence-less standard is outrageous. Frankly, it paints the veterans' mental health issues in a way that should concern everyone. Over 200,000 veterans were reported to the NICS list under this practice. Let me say it again: 200,000 veterans.
Secretary Collins and President Trump worked with DOJ to change that, wiping the list clean. I want to be clear that no person, veteran or otherwise, reported to NICS by a State judge, law enforcement agency, or other reporting bodies for any other reason was removed.
At committee markup, Democrats also offered amendment after amendment designed to delay and weaken this bill. They wanted more studies.
Mr. Speaker, I am tired after 10 years of delays. Democrats want a system where veterans are presumed guilty and a system where veterans are forced to prove their innocence.
In America, constitutional rights are God-granted rights. Veterans should never have to choose between assistance and preserving their constitutional rights, and veterans with disabilities should not be discriminated against.
This Congress has a responsibility to protect veterans' rights just as fiercely as they protect any other American's rights.
This Memorial Day, let us not just remember those veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice. Let us also remember the freedoms and the people who they sacrificed it for.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 1041, as amended, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, as well.
May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and it also happens to be Military Appreciation Month. We are also here a few days before Memorial Day, when we honor those who gave all to defend our country, so the cruel irony of the majority choosing to consider this bill now is not lost on me.
They are here, once again, putting politics above policy, only this time Republicans are playing political games with the lives of veterans.
It goes without saying that there is a mental health crisis in this country. Americans of all stripes lack access to the resources necessary to properly care for their mental health--or fail to fully realize them--and they suffer because of this crisis.
Veterans are certainly no exception, and they face additional challenges due to service-connected mental health conditions. Many veterans can access mental health care through the VA, but those not connected to VA care may face additional challenges seeking resources and support.
Unfortunately, because of cheap, easy access to firearms in this country, our Nation's mental health crisis is one of the many contributors to the epidemic of suicide and gun violence in America.
Again, veterans are not immune to that, and where those two issues converge, veterans and their communities suffer the consequences.
Let me just cite a few examples: Lewiston, Maine; Thousand Oaks, California; Sutherland Springs and Fort Hood, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; Jasper, Georgia; and countless others. The absolute tragedy of veteran suicide remains persistent.
Despite our best efforts, the rate of veteran suicide has not declined as far and as fast as we would like it to. More than 6,500 veterans die by suicide each year, and more than 70 percent of those suicides are deaths by firearms.
In fact, veterans are three times more likely to die by suicide using a firearm than their nonveteran peers. So why, knowing all of that, do we find ourselves debating a bill today that will only lead to more firearms in the hands of the most vulnerable veterans in VA care? The answer is pure and simple: politics.
This bill is not about the Second Amendment. It is about Republicans invoking their favorite political shield whenever they need to distract from their failure to govern. They have brought versions of this bill to the floor and in committee. They have brought it up again and again for nearly a decade and usually when they want an election-year fight, not a serious veterans policy debate.
Veterans should know exactly what is happening here. The majority is using the Second Amendment as branding for a bill that has nothing to do with veterans losing rights for seeking care. That is not happening.
What is happening is that Republicans are stoking fear, feeding stigma, and using vulnerable veterans as props in a political fight. More specifically, Republicans desire to invoke the sacred Second Amendment and use the issue of access to firearms for political gain, and that is what is driving this conversation.
That they would do so by endangering veterans' lives is disgusting to me, and it should be to them, as well. What we will hear from Republicans is that fear of having their Second Amendment rights encroached upon leads to a reluctance of veterans to seek mental health care. That is true, but that very fear is being stoked by the stage that they have set for today's debate.
The constant refrain from Republicans that the VA will take your guns away if you seek help is what is fueling the harmful stigma. Under no circumstances does seeking mental health care at the VA lead to a loss of rights or firearms, and if the Republicans were interested in the truth, they would acknowledge that.
We will hear from the majority and we have heard from them already that veterans' due process rights are being violated and that veterans are having their rights stripped away unconstitutionally by bureaucrats at the VA. Again, not true and false on many fronts.
There is robust due process built into the VA's systems that passes constitutional muster. We are going to hear from Republicans that the VA's decision to assign someone a fiduciary and subsequently add their name to the NICS list is based on whether someone can balance their checkbook or whether they can manage their benefits. Again, another blatant falsehood.
The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs. Let me say that again: The VA's decisions are based on a diagnosis of severe mental illness or injury that prevents a beneficiary from managing their own affairs.
It is documented in medical records by a clinician, not just some what they would call a bureaucrat. It is documented in medical records by a clinician and interpreted by someone trained in reading those medical records. At no point is anyone just given a mere math test.
Mr. Speaker, at times I feel like we are screaming into the void regarding gun violence. How many more preventable deaths and injuries will we tolerate? How many veterans will we let languish in a spiral that leads to it? When will we stop political posturing and start making meaningful change to actually help veterans?
This bill is certainly not accomplishing that task. Unfortunately, my counterparts have lost sight of the truth at the heart of this issue. What is at the heart of this issue is the veterans' health and safety.
The majority wants veterans to believe that this debate is about protecting constitutional rights. It is not. It is about recycling a decade-old talking point, stoking fear about VA care, and hiding behind the Second Amendment because they do not have a serious governing agenda.
Today, we are debating this bill, and I want you to remember that the rhetoric of the majority is not based on the reality of the situation but, rather, it is based on their desire to use veterans as pawns in their election-year political games.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a veteran, I find this argument offensive, that veterans with fiduciaries are dangerous. This is simply not true. There is no evidence provided that veterans with fiduciaries are any more violent, suicidal, or dangerous than nonveterans.
Yet, Democrats continue to push the idea that veterans who need help managing their finances should be treated as though they were presumed dangerous. Now, he can say that that is not the case, but there are over 200,000 people who would argue differently.
Incompetence in financial ability is not and should not be something that should take away your Second Amendment right. Yes, veterans struggle with suicide and mental health greater than the rest of the population. Yes, those financial hardships often face negative thoughts, but the problem facing the veterans are separate and distinct.
They deserve to be treated as such. That is why we have a VA that spans everything from healthcare to benefits. If someone is truly a danger to themselves or others, there are medical and legal professionals who can stand by and address these issues just like it is for those people who are nonveterans. H.R. 1041 does not change that fact. It simply dispels harmful stereotypes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my good friend, who has been a veteran who served beside veterans, his combat brothers and sisters, and knows what veterans face.
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. ``A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' That is the entire text of the Second Amendment.
I would argue that this should apply to those of us who literally bore arms to protect the freedoms of our fellow Americans. It is critically important.
If a veteran who is incapable of balancing his checkbook has his right to bear arms removed, I would argue that this entire body could not legally carry arms because we are incapable of balancing a checkbook, and that has been proven over decades.
I implore the minority to look at veterans for who we are. We are patriotic, loving Americans, but this supersedes the Second Amendment. Ninety-seven percent of all referrals to the NICS database come from the VA. Sixty percent of veterans who commit suicide have not been connected to the VA, and a significant reason that our veterans don't go to the VA is because they are concerned that they are going to lose their Second Amendment rights.
With the passing of Matthew Burns, 22 of my friends have committed suicide, so I take this very seriously. I commend Mr. Takano for having the 988 veteran suicide crisis line number behind him. I thank him for that. I know my colleague does not want our veterans to commit suicide, but this is how they are going to do it because my fellow veterans refuse to go to the VA because they refuse to give up their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Again, I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support this bill, as I do.
Mr. Speaker, let me address this issue of who is actually in the fiduciary program. Let's talk a moment about the population that this bill is intended to cover, those who are actually in the fiduciary program.
These are veterans with severe illnesses, illnesses like schizophrenia, significant traumatic brain injury,
I have heard this argument over and over again by the majority. Oh, people are being denied, veterans are being denied access to firearms because they can't balance their checkbook. No, no, no. This is not to be reduced to that talking point.
We should be looking to these veterans with care and compassion. We should look at how to better serve their needs regarding access to consistent care and treatment. All these disorders are associated with elevated risk of dangerousness to self and others--suicide in particular--especially when combined with a host of other factors that are actually concentrated in the veterans population.
Moreover, we also know empirically that veterans who are found to have poor financial management abilities are also two times more likely to have substance abuse disorders, suicidal ideation, or engage in violent behavior and be in the justice system.
Drawing a distinction between those who simply cannot balance their checkbook and those who are more explicitly dangerous to themselves or others is not warranted and, in fact, could cause more veterans to slip through the cracks.
It is important to acknowledge that there are significant data gaps that exist related to the population of beneficiaries in the fiduciary program. I, for one, would like to know more about the veterans that are in the fiduciary program.
This bill addresses none of those data gaps, which is one of its many flaws. Instead of seeking to understand who is in this population, the majority rejects any attempt to know more about them.
The majority suggests that there are veterans on the fiduciary list who don't have the opportunity to get off that list, that there is a lack of a robust appeals process. He cites 200,000 veterans being named in this list because they are assigned a fiduciary and cites that there is only maybe a couple of folks who have ever appealed. He cites that as a failure of the appeals process, but maybe it is the other way around. Maybe it is not really what veterans want to do who are on this list. I would like to know that for sure, and we could study that, but the majority has rejected all attempts.
There is very limited information publicly available about the population of veterans deemed to be financially incompetent who have historically been reported to the NICS list and whether they, on average, have elevated rates of suicidality or violence.
We have no data on the desired beneficiaries in the fiduciary program to purchase or own firearms. We don't even know if people on this list actually want to own firearms.
We have no data on why beneficiaries are failing to utilize the due process afforded to them in the system already.
We have no data on if fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a major impediment to seeking help or if other factors are more important.
In other words, the claim that fear of losing Second Amendment rights is a major impediment to seeking help is a claim being made that has not been borne out by any sort of research or study.
We also don't know the long-term mental health outcomes of those in the fiduciary program.
Democrats in the past have offered amendments to address all of these data gaps, and they were universally rejected by the majority because, again, this is not about policymaking to them. This is not about really trying to understand what we can do to help veterans.
What Republicans have put forth here today is a philosophical debate about the absoluteness of the Second Amendment, and they have made this argument in the absence of data to push legislation without safeguards that will have real-life consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the ranking member of the Subcommittee for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend Ranking Member Takano for his leadership on the committee. I know he feels just as strongly as I do on this issue. That is why I must rise in opposition to this bill today.
Every day, 17 veterans die by suicide, and 13 of them use a firearm to take their lives. That number is simply unacceptable to me, as I know it is to all of my colleagues, but I am deeply concerned that, with this bill, we are about to make it worse.
The current law was written to help protect veterans. A key moment is when their doctor and care team deem that they are not able to manage their own life and are deemed to be mentally incapacitated.
At that point, the law is designed to prevent them from owning a gun and potentially harming themselves. The VA should be able to refer veterans to NICS who are at the most risk for the purpose of saving lives, but this legislation will permanently tie the VA's hands.
As the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I have opposed this legislation every time it has been attached to our bill, in the name of protecting veterans.
When I was in the Rules Committee last week and on the floor debating the MILCON-VA bill, this provision was raised multiple times, but, Mr. Speaker, I heard something different this year. There are some core agreements. There is a glimmer of hope.
We all agree that we have a major issue with getting help to our veterans and keeping them safe. While we disagree about this legislation, I think that there is a path forward to a bipartisan compromise, a compromise that could allow the VA to do the work that we need to save lives, the work that we directed them to do, and that also respects the choices of some of our veterans.
In the meantime, I must urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation that is attempting to use a sledgehammer where a scalpel can do the job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think we should go ahead and listen to what was actually said whenever we said that they actually were having some mental problems, the issue where the ranking member actually said that we only take it away and then they have an appeals process, and that that appeals process is a great appeals process. Mr. Speaker, 240,000 veterans have had their rights taken away, and through the appeals process, less than 800 got them back--less than 800.
He also said that some of them might not want to have their Second Amendment rights. There is nothing in our Constitution that forces you to use your Second Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, constitutional rights do not become less important simply because ignoring them is convenient.
In fact, moments like these are when the constitutional protection matters the most. My colleagues say we should respond with more studies. That is what they want, more studies. A peer-reviewed study is not standing for the rights granted to every American citizen of our Nation. Who should keep their rights more than the people who stood up and fought for them?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
This bill would restore Second Amendment rights to the veterans who valiantly served our Nation but whose constitutional right to bear arms has been stripped away by unelected bureaucrats.
Federal law, enacted in 1968, prohibits individuals who have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective''--and the keyword is ``adjudicated''--from possessing or acquiring firearms. This restriction is enforced primarily through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
At the same time, the Department of Veterans Affairs allows service- disabled veterans to receive their hard-earned benefits through a fiduciary when the VA determines they are unable to manage their own finances.
However, this determination is often made by VA officials who may lack adequate mental health training. When the VA makes such a determination, the veteran is automatically reported to NICS as a mental defective, and there is no actual adjudication, resulting in the loss of their Second Amendment rights.
This happens without any judicial finding that the veteran poses a danger to themselves or others. In other words, service-disabled veterans who simply need assistance with financial matters can be stripped of their constitutional rights, not by a judge but by an unelected bureaucrat.
These veterans are faced with an unacceptable choice to either receive the benefits they rightly earned and risk their Second Amendment rights or retain their constitutional rights and risk their veteran benefits. This is a shameful and unjust dilemma, particularly for those who risk their lives in defense of our freedoms.
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am proud to say that Congress took an important first step toward addressing this injustice through the annual appropriations process. The FY24 enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act and subsequently enacted appropriations bills have included language directing the VA to cease this practice.
I am pleased to report that earlier this year, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins confirmed the VA has complied with the current law and will no longer report veterans to NICS solely because of their need for a fiduciary.
That is a real, meaningful victory for our veterans and a testament to what this body can accomplish when we stand up for those who serve in our military, but that progress is only temporary and will not remain unless we pass the bill before us today to make it permanent.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this vital bill that builds on that appropriations victory and ensures these protections are permanently codified so that no future administration can reverse course and once again use a veteran's need for financial assistance as grounds to unilaterally revoke their God-given Second Amendment rights.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to try to bring us back down to Earth and dispel the rumors that those on the other side of the aisle can't help themselves but to spread.
We have heard that H.R. 1041 is a matter of restoring veterans' due process rights, that it is a matter of veterans losing their guns if they need a little help with their finances, and that veterans are stripped of their rights to bear arms for life by unelected VA bureaucrats. None of this is true.
Veterans are not having their weapons taken away if they utilize VA mental health care. Under no circumstances is VA traipsing around the country confiscating firearms.
This is a story that needs to stop being told. I would encourage my colleagues to stop intentionally spreading misinformation.
The Veterans Health Administration, where veterans would be receiving care, has absolutely no role in this process and absolutely no communication with the Department of Justice or the NICS list.
Veterans can and should go to VHA, the Veterans Health Administration, and the VA medical centers for care without fear.
Stop spreading the false fear or the false basis for fear. Start telling the truth.
The truth is that there is robust due process present in this program. A veteran can appeal the assignment of a fiduciary and their subsequent reporting to NICS both before and after the fact, including in Federal court.
I will note, though, that VA data indicates that not many people choose to appeal this decision. That is not because it is too difficult but because it is a pathway that veterans simply are not choosing or simply don't desire.
Again, we are talking about veterans and other beneficiaries who have been injured or made ill in such a way that they cannot make decisions for themselves.
To be clear, this is not something VA launches into without regard.
Veterans in this program have gone through a rigorous, medically- based--medically-based--process to determine their needs for a fiduciary. The decision is not some flippant choice to take away weapons by unelected bureaucrats over a math test as we often hear. An assignment of a fiduciary is done after highly specific criteria are met, and only then, when those criteria are met, does a veteran's name get forwarded to the NCIS database.
However, the majority asks: Why are we treating our veterans like criminals?
Why are we assuming guilt and barring them from obtaining weapons?
This is a rhetorical flourish. It is also fantastical. Veterans are not being treated like criminals. They are being handled in a manner that is commensurate with their medical status as determined by a medical provider in order to protect them and those around them from potential harm.
We have to stop spreading falsehoods and be honest with our veterans. It is inappropriate full stop.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is my good friend and a passionate advocate for gun safety in America.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing me to share some insight today.
Mr. Speaker, as an American and someone coming from a military family--my father was a dentist in the Army Dental Corps, and I still have three members of my family today who are currently serving in the military forces--I can tell you that our veterans have given so much of themselves to this country.
We owe them our protection. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act fails that duty. It does not protect them, and it puts them in danger.
The facts are clear. Veterans are far more likely to die by firearm suicide than the average American. That risk is even higher for veterans assigned a fiduciary when they can no longer manage their own affairs. That is the group that this bill targets. Nearly 100,000 of them would be removed from the background check system with no thought for their safety or the families who love and care for them.
Without red flag laws in most States, and with loosened gun rules and regulations that are flooding our communities, veterans and their families are the ones who are paying the price.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what this price looks like.
Ben Miller served his country, coming home not only as a combat vet but as a different man. He was 30 pounds lighter, unable to eat and unable to cope with what he had experienced and seen in war. He was getting help at the VA, but his family could see that he was in crisis. His sister and his father drove from gun store to gun store, showing his photo, begging strangers not to sell him a gun.
However, that wasn't enough. Ben died by suicide. He used a gun that he bought himself at a local store.
There are thousands more stories like Ben's and ones that don't even get talked about in the news. We owe our veterans more than this. It is not about taking away their Second Amendment rights if they are law- abiding gun owners: hunters, gun enthusiasts, and sportsmen. It is not about taking their guns away. It is about making sure that they are protected against harm against themselves or others in their families and their communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act because I do, in fact, care about our veterans.
For three decades, the Department of Veterans Affairs has abided by the misguided policy that a veteran's fiduciary status alone, absent any judicial order, is grounds to report such a veteran to
This policy is wrong. It not only infringes on the Second Amendment rights of our veterans, but it also strips them of their due process protections, which are afforded to every other American citizen.
Fortunately, President Trump and Secretary Collins have taken the lead by halting this policy. It is now up to Congress to ensure this kind of abuse is never witnessed again.
Mr. Speaker, our courageous veterans have made incredible sacrifices to safeguard both our country and our founding freedoms and principles that we cherish every single day. With over 40,000 veterans across Wyoming, ensuring that we are permanently restoring the Second Amendment rights for each of them is of paramount importance to me, and that is precisely what this bill will do.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. I want to thank Chairman Bost and the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for their tireless leadership on this critical issue, and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1041.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Minnesota (Ms. Morrison). Dr. Kelly Morrison is my good friend and fellow committee member.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1041, legislation that would prevent VA from keeping firearms out of the hands of some of the most vulnerable veterans in the VA system.
As a physician and the wife of an Army combat veteran, I care deeply about making sure our veterans receive the care we owe them for their service. Like my colleagues, I am heartbroken and appalled by the scale of veteran suicides in our country, and I remain committed to working with my colleagues to end this epidemic.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today is a step in the wrong direction.
VA's decision to assign a fiduciary to a beneficiary is made based on medical evidence, and there already exist multiple avenues for beneficiaries to appeal VA's decision. In addition, we know that many of these veterans suffer from severe mental illness or impairment and may face an increased risk of death by suicide.
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 46 percent of people who die by suicide suffered from a known mental health condition. In addition, a recent VA estimate suggested that veterans are 57 percent more likely to die by suicide than nonveterans.
All told, we lose more than 17 veterans per day to suicide, 13 of them using a firearm, which is completely unacceptable.
While mental illness and impairment do not lead to suicide on their own, we must be cognizant of veterans who might be at a greater risk than the general population.
As public health and suicide prevention experts will tell you, Mr. Speaker, putting time and distance between a firearm and a person experiencing a mental health crisis is essential to preventing a successful suicide attempt.
Preventing VA from reporting to the NICS background check system risks putting more firearms in the hands of a population of veterans who are already at an increased risk of death by suicide.
When we considered this legislation in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I offered an amendment that would have made a carve-out for veterans suffering from severe conditions, such as schizophrenia, dementia, Alzheimer's, and other mental conditions with psychotic features.
Unfortunately, the bill my Republican colleagues decided to bring to the floor today fails to include even the most basic safeguards for veterans suffering from these severe impairments.
While no silver bullet that will eradicate veteran suicide, making it easier for veterans suffering from severe mental illness or impairment to obtain a gun is not the answer.
H.R. 1041 creates serious risks for a group of veterans who are already in a vulnerable position, and I cannot support it.
Instead of considering this partisan legislation that puts more veterans at risk, we should be working together to advance solutions that will help us fight veteran suicide, like improving access to timely mental health care, protecting crisis intervention resources such as the Veterans Crisis Line, and ensuring VA has the resources and staffing it needs to give our veterans the outstanding care they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. For this reason, at the appropriate time I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would ensure this legislation does not take effect until the VA Secretary certifies that it will not lead to an increase in veteran suicide using a firearm.
If my Republican colleagues are so confident that this legislation won't risk increasing the rate of veteran suicide, then this should be an easy measure for them to support.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 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 Minnesota?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen to what the previous speaker just said.
She explained that if someone has a mental health condition or someone has these other concerns, that she would offer an amendment to that. However, let me explain to you that if we grant them their constitutional rights, Mr. Speaker, they already have that ability.
They already have that ability and their constitutional rights would be treated exactly the same as a person that does not serve in the military and does not go to the VA.
Someone can see that if they had a problem, then they could take and raise that before a judge, not before a bureaucrat.
Let me explain this again. This is not about gun rights. This is not about dealing with our veterans that might commit suicide or anyone else that might commit suicide. This is about the constitutional right of a veteran who has fought for those rights that a bureaucrat has the power to take away their ability to have that Second Amendment, which is in the Constitution.
Now, they might not agree with that Second Amendment and that has been debated here several times. But now to continue to carry on and use this law to take away the rights of people who fought for their rights, how ridiculous is that? How ridiculous is it going to be to go back for Memorial Day and tell their veterans, I was there for you. We took away your rights. I think that is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak on this bill and I certainly appreciate Chairman Bost's leadership on this important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
This bill is about basic fairness and restoring a standard that respects both our veterans and the Constitution. Under current practice, a veteran who simply needs help managing their VA benefits can be reported to the FBI's background check system and lose their Second Amendment rights without ever appearing before a judge.
That is an extraordinary outcome for something as routine as appointing a fiduciary. No other American loses a constitutional right because of an administrative decision about their finances, and our veterans should not be that exception.
H.R. 1041 corrects that imbalance. It restores the principle that should have guided this process from the beginning: Only a court of law can determine whether someone poses a danger to themselves or others. That is the due process standard our system is built on, and it is the only standard appropriate when a constitutional right is at stake.
It safeguards both due process and the constitutional freedoms our veterans fought to defend. By reaffirming
It also brings clarity and consistency to a process that has too often been confusing, unevenly applied, and out of step with the protections guaranteed to all citizens. Our veterans stood in defense of the Constitution and they deserve nothing less than its full protection in return. H.R. 1041 honors that commitment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. I am proud to represent El Paso County and the 100,000 veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers who live there. These heroes committed their lives in service to the Nation and in protection of our Constitution. They served with the promise that when their military career ended, the VA would be there to provide the benefits they earned and to advocate for their best interests. Unfortunately, as we all know, too often, the VA fails in this mission.
For 30 years, veterans have had their Second Amendment rights stripped by the VA simply for the crime of receiving help managing their benefits. For the past three decades, if the VA assigned a veteran a fiduciary, a benefit they have rightfully earned, they would automatically report that veteran to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as a prohibited person.
This unconstitutional practice blacklisted over a quarter million veterans from the right to purchase or possess a firearm. This malicious VA rule treats our veterans as second-class citizens and deters our heroes from seeking the care they earned in service to their Nation out of fear their Second Amendment rights will be taken away.
What would my colleagues on the other side, who so flippantly say veterans can be denied their Second Amendment rights, what would they say if we were somehow denying their First Amendment rights: their right to free speech, their right to religion, or their right to peaceably assemble? They wouldn't stand for it.
They will only stand for it because it denies a right that they disagree with. That is not what the Constitution is about.
I thank Chairman Bost for introducing this important legislation and to finally bring an end to this practice. I was proud to cosponsor it.
I am thankful that the Trump administration has already acted to right this wrong through agency directive.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
Our veterans answered the call when this Nation needed them most. They fought to defend the very Constitution that guarantees every American the right to keep and bear arms. I thank every veteran for their sacrifice. We see them. We honor them, and we have got their backs.
How do we repay our Nation's heroes? Right now, bureaucratic overreach allows the VA to strip away a veteran's constitutional right just because they ask for help managing their benefits. If you use a fiduciary, the system flags you. It is wrong, and it ends now.
Chairman Bost's commonsense bill stops the VA from automatically feeding veterans' names into the background check system. It protects the Second Amendment rights of the men and women who fought for ours. The radical left loves to say they support the troops until it is time to actually protect their constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment is not optional, and our veterans have the right to exercise it fully. No more treating men and women who defended this country like second-class citizens. We will restore and protect the constitutional freedoms of our veterans and every American.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1041. Honor our warriors by restoring their rights. God bless our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am obviously frustrated with what I have heard here today. There has been a lot of lipservice to the concept of due process from my colleagues, which is particularly interesting considering they do not share this same passion for the application of this right elsewhere at VA.
If it wasn't already clear that my colleagues are only here to put on a show, I will remind everyone that even if this bill were to be signed into law today, it would have no effect whatsoever on the processes and procedures at VA.
Why you may ask? This is because in its infinite wisdom, the Department of Justice and VA, have decided to ignore Congress, once again, and unilaterally interpret the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act so as not to apply to VA.
VA isn't even doing the things the majority is accusing them of doing anymore, but sadly, my colleagues have decided it is worth continuing to sow mistruths, distortions, and risk endangering veterans and civilian lives alike by messaging on the backs of beneficiaries who need treatment, not weapons.
Mr. Speaker, we must be steadfast in providing meaningful support to our veterans, not using them as props for political gain as this bill does.
As the chairman said, this is not about gun rights. This is not about gun rights. I would suggest that what this is about is politics.
We must do anything and everything we can to protect the most vulnerable veterans in the VA system and not inject more risk of harm.
For those reasons and many more, I strongly oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, House Democrats claim that H.R. 1041, as amended, would harm vulnerable veterans. That is simply false, but just don't take my word for it. Organizations who represent millions of veterans and their families support this. In fact, the bill is supported by The American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, Mission Roll Call, the Black Veterans Empowerment Council. All of these groups, and countless others, veterans organizations across this Nation support this piece of legislation, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and many others. Why? It is because they understand that this is about the rights of the men and women who stood in the gap to make sure you can keep yours.
This bill is also supported by Second Amendment groups, including: Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, the National Association for Gun Rights, the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Importantly, H.R. 1041, as amended, is supported by the civil liberties groups and organizations who advocate for the elderly and those with disabilities, including the American Civil Liberties Union, not necessarily a conservative group, the National Disability Rights Network, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Association of Mature American Citizens Action, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and the Disability Rights, Education & Defense Fund.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree, and even Ranking Member Takano can admit that it is not every day that many of these groups come united together, especially probably the NRA and the ACLU. Their support shows how discriminatory the practice that the VA has been doing for over the last three decades has been by reporting to the next unit anyone who seeks fiduciary help from the VA.
Mr. Speaker, most of the people who have spoken on the Democrat side of the aisle would carry other laws that would take away your Second Amendment right.
Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing the gun law here, though I would. I am arguing the rights of our veterans for due process, the same as someone who never raised their hand. Why should someone have their rights improperly and without due process be taken away because they chose to stand up for this Nation?
I am going to tell you this wasn't for political purposes. I have been carrying this bill for a long time. This weekend, you are going to have to go back to your districts, and you are going to have to talk about the fact that: I am there for you, my veterans. Thank you. I am there for you, but I don't think you are worth your constitutional rights, even though you served to defend them.
Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that has wrongly occurred in this Nation for way too long. I thank the administration for getting it straightened out. We are not saying that someone that is a veteran and is a danger to themselves or a danger to other people can't go through the process like everybody else and say, okay, we do need to go ahead and look over their ability to have that Second Amendment right. That is why we have the NICS list. But whenever the NICS list is overburdened, matter of fact, with our veterans at the percentage that it is, something is wrong. Something is wrong. This bill has been a longtime coming.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from many of those organizations that I mentioned previously: The American Legion, National Disability Rights Network, National Rifle Association of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and American Civil Liberties Union.
VOTE YES FOR THE VETERANS 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT (H.R. 1041)
Mr. Speaker, my message to all Members is really clear: Support this bill. Support the constitutional rights of those people who fought for those constitutional rights for you.
As I said, this has gone on long enough. I think that a person who knows and understands this issue will stand up for their veterans and support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up 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 for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House Administration, printed in this bill, modified by the amendment printed in part B of House Report 119-653, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debated for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, introduced by my colleague, Representative Malliotakis, from New York.
This year, our Nation marks its 250th birthday. It has been 250 years since we declared independence. As we celebrate this milestone, I think it is all the more worthy that we pass this bill and begin construction of the museum dedicated to the history of American women.
Throughout our history, women have played a pivotal role in so many of our Nation's most celebrated achievements and innovations. In my home State of Wisconsin, three women participated in the famous 1854 meeting at the Ripon schoolhouse, where the Republican Party was born.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud to support previous legislation authorizing the creation of this museum. Today's bill takes the important next step by designating an exact location on The National Mall. Additionally, it creates guardrails to ensure this museum does not represent history in a partisan way.
I thank Representative Malliotakis for her work on this bill and her continued support to get this to the floor. She has been tenacious in a great way to get us to this spot. I thank her for her hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have said it before, and I will say it again: The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum is long overdue, and it deserves a place on The National Mall, period, end of sentence.
The National Mall is America's front yard. It is the place we welcome visitors from all over the world. The Smithsonian is where we gather the stories, ideas, inventions, and memories that make us who we are. It is where we keep what matters to our large and, yes, very diverse American family. It is where our Nation tells its story, and American women have shaped every chapter of that story.
This is why I enthusiastically supported the bipartisan version of H.R. 1329, produced by my Republican colleague and friend from New York, Representative Nicole Malliotakis, along with her companion bill, H.R. 1330, related to the National Museum of the American Latino.
Together, those bills would resolve a statutory anomaly that has stalled both museums and allow them to move
The bipartisan legislation is a simple, straightforward fix with 231 cosponsors in this House, including over 100 Members from each side of the aisle.
For some reason, that is not the bill we are debating. I am saddened and disappointed that the Republican majority has needlessly politicized what has for years been a bipartisan priority.
The hyperpartisan museum bill we are debating right now differs from the original legislation in four primary and important ways.
First, it omits the National Museum of the American Latino, which has been paired with the women's history museum since they were both authorized together in 2020.
Second, for reasons that pass all understanding, it grants the President of the United States unprecedented, unilateral, and unchecked authority to disregard the Smithsonian's recommended site and the Congress' recommended site for any reason, or for no reason at all, and pick his own.
Third, it hands control over design and construction to boards stacked with political loyalists who have already shown they will rubberstamp whatever the President wants. To see evidence of that, look no further than the pile of rubble that used to be the White House East Wing.
Fourth, it inserts an ideological poison pill intended to dictate what the museum can and cannot say about women's history.
Mr. Speaker, we deal with a lot of complicated issues around here that require complex solutions. This is not one of them. There is a Republican-led bipartisan bill just sitting here with 231 cosponsors, including 104 Republican Members. We could pass that bill on suspension right now.
The American people will be baffled, as I am, that my Republican colleagues have chosen this route instead, especially since, in 2019, Democrats accepted a Republican amendment requiring the museum to reflect ``the diversity of the political viewpoints held by women of the United States.''
Virtually identical language appears in this bill--ironically, right next to the provision that explicitly excludes political viewpoints held by women of the United States. I guess it should have explicitly read: the diversity of political viewpoints held by Republicans alone.
If the goal were actually to move this museum forward, we would not be abandoning the yearslong bipartisan process that has brought us to the brink of construction. We would not be considering a bill with a cynical, ideological poison pill. We would not exclude the Latino museum. We would not allow boards filled with Trump loyalists to have final say on the museum's design and construction. We would certainly not be giving President Donald Trump, of all people, unchecked authority to pick a location for the women's history museum. We would not be spending time debating a bill destined to fail.
Ask yourselves: Who should decide what appears in a Smithsonian museum, where it goes, and what it looks like? Should it be historians, scholars, and curators who, for 180 years, have made the Smithsonian the premier museum complex in the world, hosting 15 million visitors per year? Is that who it should be? Or a politician who complains publicly that the Smithsonian focuses too much on ``how bad slavery was'' and who has taken a literal wrecking ball to some of our most dignified and important landmarks in this country, a politician who uses our cultural institutions to rewrite history and hand out no-bid government contracts to his friends? That is the question before us.
If House Republicans want the museum to succeed, the path ahead is straightforward and easy. Bring the clean bipartisan fix with its 231 cosponsors to the floor, pair it with the Latino museum as we have done for years, and let the historians and experts do the work of telling the full and complex story of American women.
This legislation does the exact opposite. It takes a bill, the narrow purpose of which is to specify a museum location, and throws even more uncertainty into that very question. It makes literally no sense.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude where I began: The National Mall is where we welcome visitors from around the world, of all types. Everyone comes here. The Smithsonian is where we mark what makes us who we are. They belong to the American people, and the American people deserve both the women's history museum and the National Museum of the American Latino on The National Mall that tells their stories without political interference.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I urge the majority to bring the bipartisan bill that 104 Members of their Conference have cosponsored to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that Democratic leadership had the full opportunity in the 117th Congress to bring forward this legislation. They chose not to. They used their time to do things like rename the Cannon Caucus Room after the current Speaker in the 117th Congress. That is just a reminder of the importance that this bill has on our side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) to speak on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Steil for helping us advance this bill to the floor. He knows very well the role that his State of Wisconsin played in being the first to ratify the 19th Amendment.
We are here today because we are voting on a very simple bill. It is a bill to transfer land on The National Mall for the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, which was already authorized by Congress, overwhelmingly bipartisan, in 2020, and signed by President Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, as my colleague has mentioned, had over 230 sponsors. It is very bipartisan, and I think we all agree that it is long past time that the women of this country, who make up more than half of the population, deserve to have a museum that tells their stories and shares their contributions to our great country.
Women like Rosie the Riveter and the millions of women who stepped onto our factory floors during World War II; the more than 10,000 code girls of Arlington Hall, who were secretly recruited by the U.S. Army and Navy during World War II to serve as code breakers; the 855 women of the Six Triple Eight, the only all-Black, all-female battalion deployed overseas during World War II; the Black Angels of my district, who were courageous nurses who, at the height of segregation, worked toward and did find the cure for tuberculosis; the first female Member of Congress, Jeannette Rankin; Susan B. Anthony and the suffragists, the great role that they played in our Nation's history, they are who we are here to honor today.
Yes, we have more than enough women to display in this museum that we shouldn't be fighting over the need to have nonbiological individuals in there.
I don't understand why we are pulling bipartisan support from legislation to establish this museum. As a matter of fact, let me read it so that everybody at home knows exactly what this debate is over. It is over one sentence: ``The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the United States.''
That is what the disagreement is about. That is what the big controversy is about.
I hate to alert my friends on the other side of the aisle, but a museum dedicated to women's history should have women in it. That is it. That is simple. That was just something that, through this process, regular order, going through the committee process, a Member put forward an amendment. It was adopted by the majority of the members on the committee, and it added that simple provision.
The idea that President Trump--by the way because Democrats are saying that the National Planning Commission is now a Trump commission. This is a commission that was established by Congress over 100 years ago. It is not a new commission. In fact, the President only has three appointees to that 12-person commission. To say that
I really hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us on this because it would be sad to see that all of the Democrats would vote down this important bill.
Yet, I will say that it was a Republican Senator who introduced the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
It was a Republican Congress that passed the 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote.
It was a majority of GOP States that gave women the right to vote when they ratified that amendment.
It was a GOP President who gave us Title IX, which prohibited sex- based discrimination in the educational programs.
And, yes, it was President Donald Trump, a Republican, who authorized this museum in 2020.
If Republicans have to carry the water again to deliver for the women of America, we will do so, but I really hope that this can remain a bipartisan measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my colleague and friend, Ms. Malliotakis, and her comments.
But the truth is, I don't, first of all, think anyone who lives in Rochester, New York, the home of Susan B. Anthony, just to the west of Seneca Falls, needs to be told about the history of the women's suffrage movement in the United States or the fact that Susan B. Anthony was arrested in 1872 for voting in a Presidential election.
We are well-steeped in it, and we think this ought to be a museum that is curated by scholars and by women and those groups.
The location of this, which was identified in a bipartisan bill--and the suggestion that somehow we now are not supporting or withholding our support for a bipartisan bill is simply wrong.
Actually, that would be the simple thing to do, to put the bipartisan bill on the floor. I don't know what the objection to it is, except that it doesn't have the following language, and this is really what it is all about, and I will read from the bill:
``The site for the Museum is hereby designated as the South Monument site, located on The National Mall, bordered by 14th Street Southwest, Jefferson Drive, Southwest, Raoul Wallenberg Place Southwest, and Independence Avenue Southwest, except that the President may designate an alternative site for the Museum within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection.''
The extraneous portion that was added basically takes away everything the previous sentence said. Everything the bipartisan bill was intended to do is identify this location. But for reasons, as I said earlier, that surpass all understanding, we are now going to give the President of the United States complete, unilateral, unchecked power to make this decision.
It makes no sense. It is not a bipartisan bill. In fact, if you want to have this resolved, you could eliminate that portion of the bill, and we could just do the simple sentence under the bipartisan bill, which has 104 Republican sponsors of it. We could do that. We could do that right now.
That bill is already in print. Ms. Malliotakis is actually the sponsor of that bill, so I would be happy to support that bill of hers. But don't suggest for a minute that this is a bipartisan bill because it is not. It is actually the most hyperpartisan of bills, all intended to make sure that the President is happy with the location of the museum and give him the complete power over Congress to make that decision.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my dear friend.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amended bill. I was a proud cosponsor of the bill, as introduced. Yet, instead of moving the bipartisan text, Republicans have hijacked this bill to give President Trump complete and total authority over the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum's location. Contrary to what Congresswoman Malliotakis has asserted, he does have loyalists who have power over the museum's design. He does have loyalists on the commission, which will determine the museum's design.
The museum was supposed to be a celebration of every American woman's contribution, but, of course, Republicans couldn't help themselves from adding text that would prohibit trans women from being included in the museum. This is really a harmful provision that will undoubtedly lead many conservatives to challenge the inclusion of any woman they deem not feminine enough.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and pass the original bipartisan bill with the National Museum of the American Latino.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the creation of a Smithsonian museum dedicated to the history of American women. I thank Chairman Steil and Representative Malliotakis for their leadership in this important effort.
Before coming to Congress, I had the privilege of serving as Florida's Secretary of State. In that role, I oversaw our State's museums, archives, and historical resources, and I gained a deep appreciation for the importance of preserving our history carefully and telling it well.
Museums are not simply collections of artifacts. They are places where we remember who we are, where we came from, and the values that shaped this Nation. The story of America cannot be fully told without the story of American women.
From the earliest days of our country, women have helped to build families, communities, and institutions. They served in times of war, advanced science and medicine, strengthened our economy, and helped expand the promise of liberty for future generations.
Today, women serve in leadership roles across every aspect of American life, but much of that progress in America is relatively recent. As someone who has spent much of my career in fields historically dominated by men, I know personally how meaningful it is when young women can see the stories of those who came before them.
As an example, since the founding of our Nation, roughly 12,000 Americans have served in the United States Congress. Yet, only about 450 of them have been women. Hearing and sharing the stories of those women will no doubt pave the path for the talented generation to come of women leaders in America.
Representation matters, and so does remembrance. The stories we preserve shape what the next generation believes is possible. This museum will tell the story of countless women, teachers, entrepreneurs, scientists, soldiers, mothers, and public servants whose perseverance and courage helped shape this Nation.
It is disappointing that some Democrats are opposing this museum because it is dedicated to the history and achievements of biological women when we should be coming together to honor the women who helped shape this Nation.
As the mother of a daughter, I think often about the examples that she sees and the stories that she learns about the women who helped shape this country. May she know us, may she and all of the other young women like her see what is possible, and may they go further than we ever dreamed.
When young girls walk through the Smithsonian and see the contributions of women woven into the fabric of our national history, they will understand something important: that they, too, are foundational to the American story.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when all Americans can visit a museum that honors the remarkable legacy of women in the United States. For these reasons, I support this effort, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will say I find it rather astonishing that we feel the need here to give a lot of advice and counsel
I would just encourage my friends, if you haven't, the Smithsonian runs a number of museums in town--one on American history, one on African Americans, one on American Indians, one on natural history, one on air and space. Fifteen million people come to them.
In the 8 years I have been privileged to be a Member of Congress, I have never once had a constituent or anybody else stop me and say, you know, I really have some advice to give to the Smithsonian Institution about how to run museums. I think they do it exceptionally well.
In fact, I would argue that the Smithsonian Institution is the greatest museum complex anywhere in the world. It is an extraordinary place, free to Americans and others who come from other places to see the American experience. I don't think they need, really, a whole lot of help from Members of the United States House of Representatives on how to run museums. Let's let them do that. Let's let academicians, scholars, historians, and museum curators do that.
All we are supposed to do here is say where the location of the museum is to be located. That is the one issue in front of us. Talk about making complex a simple issue. People will be baffled and scratching their heads to watch this debate should they ever watch this debate because this is a simple, simple matter, and we should not complicate this. Let's identify the location, and let's let the Smithsonian Institution do what they do better than any other organization in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall), my dear friend and colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, as amended. Frankly, that is disappointing because this bill used to be a bipartisan success story.
Democrats and Republicans came together to support creating both the American Women's History Museum and the National Museum of the American Latino on The National Mall, but instead of building on that bipartisan agreement, this bill was turned into another political power grab with a last-minute partisan amendment in committee.
Republicans inserted culture war language limiting the museum to biological women. That language was not added to improve the museum. It was added to erase trans women from American history.
Whether my Republican colleagues want to acknowledge it or not, trans women are just as much a part of this country's history as anyone else. Museums are supposed to expand our understanding, preserve truth, and reflect the full complexity of this country.
They went even a step further to corrupt this bill, handing President Trump extraordinary control over museum design and planning. Congress should not hand any President unilateral power over how American history is told, especially after we have seen this administration pressure institutions and whitewash history.
This legislation also leaves behind the National Museum of the American Latino, even though Congress established both museums together under the same law. Let's be honest about why. We are watching a systematic effort by Republicans and this administration to strip out uncomfortable truths and erase marginalized communities.
``But Latino history is American history''; ``Pero la historia de los Latinos es la historia americana.''
It is not secondary. It is not optional.
For all these reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would have stripped out the exclusionary language targeting trans women, moved the Women's History Museum and the National Museum of the American Latino forward together, as Congress originally intended, and block this dangerous power grab that hands President Trump unilateral control.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Washington?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the great State of Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, and I want to start by recognizing my colleague Nicole Malliotakis for her tenacity and her leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I thank Nicole for never backing down or giving up.
As you can see, I have my daughter, Augusta Dair, here with me today because I wanted her to be a witness to this incredible moment in our Nation's history where we stood up for all of the women who have helped build this country and told their stories.
That is what this museum is. It is not a political statement. It is a promise, a promise that the women who came before us will not be erased, will not be minimized, and will not be forgotten.
We all know--or at least I thought we knew--that women's history is not a partisan issue. It is American history, full stop. Now, the women whose stories will be told in this museum, I want you to think about what they went through. It wasn't that long ago--1974--that a woman couldn't open a credit card in her own name without her husband's signature. Before that, she couldn't serve on a jury, and before that, she couldn't vote.
Yet, these women, extraordinary, stubborn, gritty, American women, they didn't quit. They persevered. They built something anyway. Now, if that is not an American story, I don't know what is. Quite frankly, it is that story that deserves to be told and have a place on our National Mall.
As Chairwoman of the Republican Women's Caucus, I have had the honor of standing alongside some of the most incredible women who fight every single day not for headlines but for the next generation of girls who need them to know that hard work, courage, and grit will take them further than anyone can ever tell them they couldn't go before.
We believe that these women deserve to be honored, proudly, without political manipulation, which is why I am genuinely baffled that the Democratic Women's Caucus has chosen to oppose this bill. Their reasoning for opposing the bill is because we want biological women's stories to be told--that we want a museum to be dedicated to women, to celebrate women? That is the controversy, Mr. Speaker?
Forgive me, but this issue should never have become partisan. It is common sense. Biological women deserve to have their stories told.
For those who say that this gives the President too much say about what is happening with this museum, that is just nonsense. Representative Malliotakis has already refuted the claim that the President will have that type of power. He cannot.
What this bill does is ensure accountability over a federally funded institution that will represent American history for generations. The Smithsonian belongs to the American people, not to political activists, not to ideological agendas.
I know that millions of women around the country right now are standing with us, and they will not apologize for standing up for women; not today and not ever.
I am here right now on the House floor with my daughter, Augusta Dair, and I can only do this because of the women who came before me. It is those women we strive to honor: the pioneers, the mothers, the scientists, the
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the political noise around this bill, pass this legislation, and ensure that future generations like little Augusta's can walk through these Halls, if she chooses to, and know without question what American women are made of.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To quote Mrs. Cammack, whom I have great respect for, women's history ``is American history, full stop.'' I completely agree, and I am delighted to see her and her daughter in her maiden speech in front of the House talk about the importance of women in American history. I completely agree with that, as well.
What I find perplexing is that the construction of this museum has been held up now for several years since its authorization, because Congress could not reconcile the fact that we hadn't fully identified a location for the museum. That is the only thing that prevents the construction of this museum from moving forward. We have a bipartisan solution to address just that, the exact location of where this museum should be built.
I think the question that needs to be answered in this moment is why we are not doing that bill. It has 231 cosponsors, a majority of this House, and over 100 Members on both sides of the aisle. It is simple and straightforward.
Why aren't we doing that? Why are we here? Why do we have to debate for the balance of an hour a bill that is so simple to pass and has broad support?
It is because this bill was rewritten by the White House. This bill was rewritten so that not a woman but a man, and, frankly, a man with something of a questionable history toward women, would have the final say.
By the way, if he didn't like the location that we have identified in this bill, he has a way to raise his objections called veto the bill. He could veto it if he didn't like the location, and then we would negotiate.
The Article I prerogative of the Congress is to pass laws. That is what we should be doing, but what we have done is, we have managed to twist ourselves into a pretzel just to satisfy the President so that the President can look at the location that Congress by, law would, like to make clear and say: I don't like that after all. Sorry, Congress. Thank you for your input, but go away. I, Donald Trump, will decide unilaterally where the women's history museum will go. Forget about the 435 Members of the House. Forget about the 100 Members of the Senate. We appreciate your input, like little children. Now, go away. I will make the decision.
That is what is going to happen. That is what this bill is. If that is not the case, I would love to hear a single word of explanation about why we are not doing the bill that has broad bipartisan support that specifically says where this museum will be located on The National Mall, on America's front yard.
Why is that not the case? Why are we here? We can dance around it. We can talk about the contributions of women. Certainly, no one on this side of the aisle would ever, ever spend any time disputing that. We are in complete agreement, which is why we have over 100 sponsors for the bill on our side of the aisle, as well.
The question is, and the question that people watching will want answered, is: Why aren't you doing that bill?
I will be eagerly listening for an explanation as to why the bipartisan bill with 231 cosponsors, which specifically says where this museum should be, the exact location, and why we are not doing that bill.
I will sit quietly and listen. Maybe not so quietly, but I will sit and listen. I am looking for one word of explanation about why that is not the case. Until that time, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I thank Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis for working so hard to get this piece of legislation on the floor today.
I stand proudly to support H.R. 1329, the bipartisan Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, as an original cosponsor.
For 30 years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have worked together to establish a space that carries on the legacy of the American women who fought tirelessly for our rights. It is absolutely unacceptable that any Member would oppose this bill because they want a biological male, a man, to be honored in the space designed for women, biological women.
Any vote that opposes this legislation undermines every woman who fought for our right to vote, our right to own a home, our right to attend college, and even our right to own our paychecks.
Ultimately, I represent a community that understands the difference between a man and a woman, a community that respects women, a community that will be proud that today and always they can count on me to stand up for biological women and stand up for common sense.
Common sense, let's think about that. Let's think about common sense, which obviously my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not have and lost along the way.
Today, I will ``with pride''; ``con orgullo'' vote ``yes'' on this bill. I will vote ``yes'' on this legislation. I will vote ``yes'' for my ``grandmother''; ``abuelita,'' who is in Heaven smiling down, and ``for my mother''; ``para mi mama,'' who is watching right now on C- SPAN ``with pride''; ``con orgullo,'' watching her daughter speak on behalf of women here in America, to tell our story, to share our history, women's history.
I will vote ``yes'' for this legislation. I will vote ``yes'' for biological women. Today, I will vote ``yes'' for common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. It is interesting she began her comments by citing the bipartisan bill that isn't before the House, the bipartisan bill that I am urging us to pass, the bipartisan bill that has over 100 sponsors on the Republican side of the aisle and over 100 sponsors on the Democratic side of the aisle.
She used that frame even though that is not the bill before the House. Of course, she could not offer an explanation as to why the bill that she cited actually isn't before the House, and instead, we have a hyperpartisan bill that gives Donald Trump unilateral power to decide where this museum is going.
I would also note that among the rights that she talked about for women, the right to vote, et cetera, she didn't mention the right to control their own bodies. You know why? Because we have taken that away from women. This Supreme Court and this President have taken away the right of women so that my grandchildren, my granddaughters, have fewer rights than my mother did, than their grandmother and their great- grandmother had. We didn't talk about that if we are going to talk about the rights of women and how important it is to support women in this country. We didn't talk about why this bill is going to end up with no museum being built because we insist on giving unilateral power to Donald Trump to decide all things that the Congress should be deciding.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Republicans' partisan version of my previously bipartisan bill, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act.
Today should have been a celebration of success after years of bipartisan collaboration and good faith negotiations on a bill that I was proud to be a leader on, ensuring that women receive their rightful recognition in our Nation's Capital.
Instead, Republicans threw all of that away by unilaterally making extremist changes to our once bipartisan bill, giving President Trump the power to decide the location, the design, and even the content of this museum.
This completely undermines our bill's original intent. This museum is about honoring the prolific contributions that women have made to this
Mr. Speaker, women deserve better, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify some points and answer some of the questions of my colleague. This is like the good old times in the New York State Assembly. Mr. Morelle and I had fun debating there, as well.
First of all, let me say that this bill is actually site-specific. It does include the quadrants of the site that was selected by the American Women's History Museum Advisory Council. The original version, which we have introduced, did not have those specific quadrants. It did not specify a specific site. It just allowed for a future selected site to be transferred.
In that case, there was no clarity on what the site was, so we amended the bill to add the specific quadrants of the south Capitol site on The National Mall so it would be clear that it is the selected site of the museum's advisory council.
Yes, it does give 180 days for the President, if necessary, to alter. That is because if, for some reason, there is a problem with that site, and it turns out we can't build on it, if the engineers come back and say that there is a problem, that it can't be built on, then we don't want to have to go through this entire process and have to pass another piece of legislation. We would just all work together to select a site that would be suitable.
In terms of specificity, this bill actually gives more clarity on the location than the initial version.
That is the only thing that has changed, that provision, as well as adding the sentence about ensuring that it is biological women. That was amended in the committee process.
As I said, every piece of legislation is introduced here. We garnered 230 cosponsors. It went to the committee. The committee went through regular order. Somebody had an amendment, and the amendment passed. Therefore, it was added. That was added as a result to ensure that there is clarity that only biological women would be represented in a women's museum.
I also want to address this issue about the National Capital Planning Commission. This is not President Donald Trump's commission. This was a commission that was established over 100 years ago, in which the President gets only three appointees. The commission is a 12-member Federal body.
Obviously, anything that is built as a Capital project goes through this commission. It is not as if it is a new commission that was set up by this particular President. Both this commission and the Fine Arts Commission were established well over a century ago, and the 12-member makeup of this is 3 appointees only by the President. That is not a majority. That is not giving the President unanimous control.
The Mayor of Washington, D.C., gets an appointment. The chair of the D.C. Council gets an appointment. The House and Senate committee chairs with the D.C. jurisdiction, their committees get an appointment. The heads of the DOD, Interior, and GSA get an appointment. There are two mayoral appointees. That is the makeup of this.
I know sometimes my colleagues on the other side may have a little difficulty with math. We see that during the budgeting, where they want to spend more than we can afford. Three is not the majority in a commission of 12.
Please stop lying and saying that the commission is being controlled by one particular man. That is simply not the case.
I just wanted to give those clarifying points.
Again, I want to reiterate that I am very proud that it is the Republican Party that is putting forward this legislation. This was authorized, again, by President Trump in 2020. President Joe Biden had 4 years to move this ball forward and to designate the land. He did not do it, so we are here today with the same President who authorized the women's museum, President Donald J. Trump.
What I will say is that they claim, the other side, to be the party of women, yet it is the Republican Party that introduced the 19th Amendment and that passed the 19th Amendment. It was majority Republican-led States that ratified the 19th Amendment.
Title IX is so important to women in our colleges, female athletes, and all educational programs. That was signed into law by a Republican President.
Yes, it is a Republican President today who has authorized the women's history museum, and it will be a Republican majority in Congress that gets this done. That is because, for 4 years, the other side, when they had control, failed to do so.
I still hope that this will be a bipartisan vote. It really should be. There is no reason for this not to come out of this House today and to celebrate the women of America.
We can all be proud of women who have contributed from our respective States to the building of this Nation. As my colleague said, there have been so many struggles over the years, whether it be the right to vote or whether it be to apply for a credit card without needing a male cosigner. Women weren't allowed to be on a jury. They weren't allowed to attend a military academy. These are stories that need to be told.
Sadly, the current generation and future generations may take a lot for granted. We don't know the history of the struggles that women have endured.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can come out of this today with a bipartisan vote in support. Let's get this museum done, and let's do something that we can all be proud of as Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we could do this bill, get this done, and make clear where this museum is supposed to be. All we have to do is pass the bipartisan bill.
If we want to amend it with this exact location, if that is what Ms. Malliotakis is suggesting, then I am happy to do that, but there are so many things that she said that I have to respond to.
First of all, President Biden couldn't do this because Congress has created in the authorizing legislation this anomaly, so we need Congress to be able to specify the location, which is the point of the bipartisan bill, which has over 230 sponsors on both sides of the aisle. We could do that. This is simple, but that is not what is here.
By the way, just to remind the gentlewoman in case she is not clear, the chairperson of the NCPC, which has responsibility here, the chair of that is the current White House staff secretary, William Scharf. It is the President's employee who runs it.
By the way, anyone who believes that the President has much regard for the law or how these things should go should just look at the pile of rubble that is the East Wing of the White House, where the President defied tradition, common sense, and appropriateness and just knocked down one of the most historic sections of the most historic building in the world and is building it without anyone's contributions, without any appropriate guardrails, and without any appropriate oversight. That is because, let's face it, that is what this President does.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to go back. I am sorry. I thought I read this into the Record, but just to be clear, if people think this is an exact location, then they should read it to the end. After we identify the site, it says: ``except that the President may designate an alternative site for the museum within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection.''
That is a little like when I was in high school, saying to my father: Can I stay out late? He would say: Yes, unless I say you can't. Does that mean I can stay out late? It only means I can stay out late if he gives me permission.
We are going to put it at this site. We have it specifically here. Ms.
This is the Congress. Article I--when I first came to Washington, Article I, it must have been said 1,000 times in my first few weeks-- Article I prerogatives, the Congress, Article I, the first section of the Constitution, the legislative responsibilities herein lie with the Congress of the United States.
Yet, what are we doing, Mr. Speaker? We are passing legislation, which the President does have the right to sign or veto, in which case, if he vetoes, it comes back here for further action by the Houses. He gets one bite at the apple, but we are not content with that. We have to then give him unilateral power over what we have just passed to do whatever he wants. It is insanity.
There is no explanation for why we are not doing the original bill-- None. I am still listening, and I still haven't heard it.
I will continue to listen for the explanation. Perhaps in the close by my colleagues and friends, we will hear why, finally, there is something wrong with passing the original bill.
By the way, this isn't going to clear it up because this bill is not going to become law. I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker, in a new Congress, when there is a new majority, we will put the actual location. We will put it in law. We will send it to the President, and we will see whether or not he insists on not only a bill that has a location, but insists more on the power to unilaterally do whatever he wants.
The only way this majority is willing to do anything in this House seems to be to ultimately give the power, complete power, to the President to do what he chooses to do without our input.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to know why I think so many Americans have given up on this institution? Think about what we are doing right now. Think about this debate. I hope people see it.
We were handed something extremely rare in this building nowadays, a finished, bipartisan bill sponsored by more than half the Members with over 100 Members on both sides agreeing to it, and we lit it on fire. We have basically thrown it out and put it in a dumpster.
And for what: to stroke the President's ego, to bully a vulnerable group of people who make up less than 1 percent of the population?
The worst part is that we are doing it at a museum that is intended to honor women and the enormous contributions of women to this country who succeeded despite a government that failed them at times. They overcame great obstacles. We manufactured ours. They had every excuse to fail and made history anyway. They overcame those obstacles. We have no excuses. Yet, here we are on the verge of failing them, once again.
They deserved better then and they deserve better now.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues one last time: Stop with the games. Bring the bipartisan version of this bill to the floor, along with the Latino museum build so we can finally get shovels in the ground on The National Mall for these critically important museums and honor the amazing people in this country who have written the chapter of American history that we all stand on the shoulders of and whose legacy we enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this bill. Bring back the bipartisan bill. We will enthusiastically build it. We will put shovels in the ground and we will build these national museums as they should be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, as introduced by my colleague Representative Malliotakis from New York.
As we know, this year is the Nation's 250th anniversary, and we have an opportunity to place the Women's History Museum of the Smithsonian on The National Mall. The bill designates and takes an important step by designating the exact location of where that museum would be on The Mall and provides guardrails regarding the content of the museum.
Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, my colleague Representative Malliotakis for her hard work on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 1329 is postponed.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, I call up 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, 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 1300, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of House Report 119-653, 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 ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) 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 include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 6047, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6047, as amended, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, introduced by my friend and fellow veteran, Representative Tom Barrett.
I will speak to you today about some of the great Americans this bill will impact.
Sharri Briley is the survivor and spouse of Chief Warrant Officer 3 Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, an Army Special Operations pilot killed in 1993 in Somalia.
Most Americans would be more familiar with the movie adaptation of that harrowing day, the film ``Black Hawk Down,'' but for Sharri Briley, this was not Hollywood.
This was her husband and the father of her then-5-year-old daughter.
Donovan gave his life in defense of freedom, the type of sacrifice we will commemorate on Memorial Day.
This legislation would provide the first meaningful increase in survivor benefits for families like Brileys since 1993.
Over 500,000 survivors like Sharri receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation from the VA.
DIC is a monthly payment of $1,700 meant to help supplement lost income after a servicemember's death.
It has only been adjusted for inflation over the last 30 years, but this bill would add an extra 1.5 percent to the DIC over the next 2 years.
I also will discuss Sergeant Eric Edmundson.
When Eric was 25, his vehicle was destroyed by an IED on the Syrian border. His spleen ruptured. His kneecap shattered. His spine fractured, and he sustained traumatic brain injury. For 30 minutes, Eric's heart stopped beating.
Eric was transported to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to recover, but his injuries left him unable to walk or speak. For the past 20 years, his parents, Edgar and Bethany, and his wife, Stephanie, have been Eric's full-time caregivers, supporting Eric as they work together to raise Eric's two kids.
Despite these injuries, his family has empowered him to live as full a life as possible--hunting, painting, spending time with his children, and going to church.
As the Edmundson family recently wrote in an op-ed for Stars and Stripes: ``Two incomes vanished. The expenses multiplied. When a service-connected injury permanently removes earning capacity, the math doesn't bend for patriotism.''
This bill recognizes that and would provide a $10,000 increase to the 7,000 severely disabled veterans like Eric, many of whom require 24/7 around-the-clock professional medical care.
Veterans like Eric receive the three highest tiers of disability compensation called R1, R2, and T. Many of these veterans will never work again and cannot perform basic tasks.
Eric's family dedicate their lives making sure Eric, one of our Nation's most wounded soldiers, continues living with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is for families like the Brileys and the Edmundsons.
As the families put it in their recent op-ed, the circumstances are different, but the consequences are the same: ``The cost of military service does not end when the ceremony and the headlines fade. It echoes through decades--through college tuition bills, medical
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the op-ed referred to published in Stars and Stripes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would also expand VA home loan eligibility to members of the National Guard and Reserve who have at least 14 days of Active-Duty service at a 1 percent higher rate.
Today's Guard and Reserve deploy along Active-Duty servicemembers. They deserve a broader access to VA homeownership opportunities, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I also will address the offsets in this legislation because there has been a great deal of misinformation surrounding them.
The fact is that House Republicans chose to follow the House rules and the law. We fully paid for this legislation so that we could get this bill done because promises made to veterans should be promises Congress can keep and not show votes or fake outrage to get clicks and votes.
Now, let me be clear about what this bill will not do. This bill will not eliminate or harm the VA Home Loan Program. It would also not impose a loan fee on any disabled veteran, and it would not eliminate zero percent down on a VA home loan.
Instead, this bill contains two bipartisan offsets that would extend current home loan fees and would extend the current cap on certain veterans' pensions who are in government-funded nursing care. It also increases the home loan funding fee that families would pay when refinancing by a small amount.
During the 116th Congress, then-Chairman Takano supported and voted in favor of a similar funding fee proposal on refinancing VA home loans. I find the arguments against our similar proposal today insincere. It reeks of the type of politics our veterans don't deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I am a veteran. If I thought that this bill would harm veterans, you can trust I would not bring the bill to the floor. But, as the saying goes, don't take my word for it, because over 22 veterans service organizations support this legislation as written. Let me repeat: The veterans groups like the VFW, The American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and many others support the bill. These organizations represent millions of veterans and military families who support this legislation because they know these families cannot afford to wait another decade for Congress to act.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a joint letter from 20 veterans organizations supporting the bill.
Mr. Speaker, additionally, I include in the Record a joint letter from ROA, MCRA, and EANGUS in support of expanding VA home loan programs to include Guard and Reserve members with 14 days of Active Duty.
Mr. Speaker, veterans deserve more than speeches. They deserve results.
If you support these benefit increases, then you need a serious plan to pay for them, because simply saying that someone else will figure it out later, that is not real leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this bill comes down to a simple question: When America sends our soldiers off to war, the result sometimes is life-changing injuries, grieving spouses, and full-time caregivers. Will this country stand behind them later in the years?
Again, I ask my Democrat colleagues: If veteran groups support the bill, then why in the world don't you?
Mr. Edgar Edmundson testified before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and he asked Congress to stop the politics and get this done.
Mr. Speaker, families like the Edmundsons and the Brileys deal with the reality most Americans never see. The Brileys answered the call to serve. The Edmundsons answered the call to serve. Now, Congress must answer their call.
This legislation, these families, and the thousands of families like them, we have your back. It is a distinct honor to advance this bill just before Memorial Day.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a very heavy heart and in opposition to this bill.
Representative Barrett and House Republicans have engineered here an impossible choice. What they have said to the American people is that only by raising costs on one set of veterans can we afford to help another.
At a time when we are spending trillions on defense, trillions on tax cuts for the wealthy, and countless other frivolities, like ballrooms and a slush fund for the President's friends, to suggest that we can only help veterans by hurting them is patently ridiculous. That is why I oppose this bill.
I want to clearly state that we owe our servicemembers, veterans, their families, and their survivors a debt of gratitude, as they have given everything to this Nation. The promise we made to them is something we strive to live up to every day. However, I believe this bill misses that mark.
We know that these groups desperately need more resources as our veteran population ages and requires more acute care. As I have mentioned before and as I am sure the majority will repeat, the catastrophically injured and survivor community has not seen an appreciable increase in their monthly rate since 2009.
I agree it is well past due that we correct that wrong. I certainly believe they are worth it. In fact, I wish we were increasing these benefits even more.
Unfortunately, this majority seeks to correct that wrong by inflicting harm on another community of veterans who are deserving of support and who are struggling veteran homeowners.
Just in case anyone needs a reminder, let's look at the last year and a half. Last spring, Secretary Doug Collins canceled the VA Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP, which assists veterans facing mortgage challenges prior to setting up their backstop program.
Chairman Bost and Representative Van Orden cheered on this development as thousands of veterans suddenly faced tenuous financial circumstances and no resources to turn to as they faced foreclosure.
Let me say, in the past 12 months since the closure of the VASP program, 10,000 veterans have lost their homes due to foreclosure. We could call this the Secretary Collins, Representative Van Orden, and Chairman Bost foreclosure program.
All the while, during this time of the past year, President Trump's affordability crisis has sent prices through the roof, making the dream of buying a house entirely out of reach for many Americans.
To recap, at a time when it is already hard to buy a home, Republicans want to make it even harder. They have made it easier for veterans to lose their homes when funds are tight. Now, they want to make it harder for veterans to even buy a home in the first place.
Not only do they want to make it unaffordable to buy a home, but they want to squeeze our veterans when they attempt to refinance. For many, it is a last-ditch effort to save their home. Remember, they already came after VASP. They canceled the program. They cheerleaded for the Secretary to cancel the program.
What we are seeing today is an attempt to take away affordable housing for veterans. These veterans I am talking about have used a home loan while in service to live with their families at a duty station and used it again when they moved on to the next tour.
Understand, the VA home loan is not just about veterans. It is also about
I am talking about the transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a place back home, folks who have done their part in this country and want to transition to civilian life, Active-Duty servicemembers moving to a duty station, transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a home back where they want to settle. Even more critical, these are veterans attempting to keep their homes amidst rapidly rising foreclosures.
Now, we are asking veterans to shoulder the cost of survivors and catastrophically injured veterans--again, taking from one set of veterans in order to help another group of very deserving veterans.
Again, I will emphasize the impossible position we are putting our veteran community in. We are pitting one set of veterans against another, instituting a civil war in which we rack and stack which community is more deserving than the other. Frankly, it is shameful.
Before my Republican colleagues who have served stand up here and tell me that they would be happy to pay that benefit for their fellow veterans, I would ask them one thing: Why are we asking them to? Why are we asking our veterans to shoulder this cost? Why must we put the onus on veterans and servicemembers? Haven't they paid enough?
Yes, I agree that we need to be responsible with how we spend tax dollars, but I am curious: Why is it only when we are looking at benefits for the veteran and survivor community that we take this mindset?
We certainly didn't have this debate when we were offsetting a $30 billion war of choice in Iran, which will only make more veterans, Trump's $1 billion new ballroom, or a $75 billion slush fund for ICE, which now the Senate is having trouble getting over to the House.
If my counterparts in the Republican Party truly gave a damn about veterans, they would not pit them against one another just to give them a meager downpayment on veteran benefits. No. If they did, they would enact meaningful change.
We could be, instead, bringing to the floor the Love Lives On Act. We would pass the Caring for Survivors Act, and we would ask the American people to pay for them. I have no doubt the American people would say: Yes, we should pay for these things. We shouldn't put this on veterans.
I could go on and on all day. We could expand access to toxic-exposed veterans, provide fertility care for our women veterans, and address traumatic brain and blast injury. Getting things done on behalf of our veterans requires bold action.
That is why, today, I have filed a discharge petition on the Major Richard Star Act. It is live and ready for signature, and I invite my colleagues on the other side, as soon as we are done with this debate, to go down and sign that petition. I believe it will reach 218 very quickly.
Chairman Bost, Congressman Barrett, and Congressman Van Orden, I invite you right after this debate to go down and sign the discharge petition to bring the Major Richard Star Act to the floor.
I ask all of my colleagues to join me when they come to vote, in maybe 45 minutes or so, to sign the petition. We can get something meaningful done on behalf of veterans right now.
Let's end the wounded warrior tax. If we are not committed to caring for veterans and ensuring that they and their survivors get benefits that they were told they would be entitled to when they signed on the dotted line, then we need to stop making more veterans, full stop.
We can choose to do the right thing. We can choose to do the honorable thing. We can choose to do the moral thing and give survivors a meaningful benefit.
Right now, my colleagues across the aisle are choosing a Band-Aid for a wound that needs stitches. We cannot allow ourselves to accept veterans paying for their own benefits, and we should not tolerate forcing this community to fight each other in a pecking order of who matters most.
I hope to appeal to my colleagues' morality when I say that increasing compensation to survivors and catastrophically injured veterans is the right thing to do. We should do it, but we cannot do it at the expense of other veterans.
This legislation has pushed us to the point of having to make a hard decision out of what should have been an easy one. Waive paygo and pass meaningful legislation.
Today, we sit here debating a change on the margins that opens a Pandora's box to charge veterans for their own benefits. That is why I simply cannot support this legislation as written, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
I will say that was a wonderful post of all the veterans service organizations that support this legislation. Yes, they support raising the compensation for the catastrophically disabled. If you read their letter very carefully, they are silent on the pay-for. They are silent on the subject of should you ask our servicemembers who are serving right now in the waters around Iran whether they should be charged $1,000 or more in fees to refinance their homes. There is not a single one of those veterans service organizations that says that they agree with that pay-for.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate my colleagues for suddenly wanting to be fiscally responsible, I do not appreciate my colleagues implying that the home loan funding fee as an offset is unnecessary or inappropriate. Finding a way to pay for expenditures and benefits is not an option. It is a requirement.
May I remind my colleagues and Ranking Member Takano that he has supported dozens of bills that contain the home loan funding fee. My colleague has also submitted a manager's amendment on the floor to increase fees for refinancing loans in the 116th Congress. While the offer used by the ranking member only increased fees, refinancing loans by 0.5 percent and 0.85 percent, and was only a temporary increase, the concept still remains the same.
This legislative body has long understood that fiscal responsibility is not separated from caring for our veterans and their survivors. It is part of that responsibility.
The House has repeatedly relied on adjustments to the VA home loan funding fee to pay for veterans' benefits expansions. Members on both sides of the aisle have voted for that approach many times. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I don't just pay lipservice to the veterans and survivors who we serve. I get things done for them.
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleagues across the aisle would stop caring about political wins and focus on getting a win for the most deserving population of veterans and surviving spouses, so let's get the bill paid for and across the finish line.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barrett), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, legislation that I am leading with Chairman Bost to support the servicemembers and families who sacrificed the most for our Nation.
When men and women sign up to serve in our Armed Forces, they willingly put their own lives on the line to defend the American people and the freedoms we too often take for granted.
Some of those heroes make the ultimate sacrifice. Others who are lucky enough to come home do so with life-changing injuries. While we can never fully repay the debts that we owe to these men and women, that will never stop us from doing everything that we can.
My bill will deliver a long overdue, historic increase in benefits to care for veterans who were severely injured in the line of duty, and it will support the Gold Star families who lost a spouse, a
H.R. 6047 is named in honor of two patriotic Americans. Sharri Briley persevered after her husband, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Donovan Lee ``Bull'' Briley, was tragically killed in action when his Black Hawk went down in Mogadishu. In the face of hardship, she continued raising their daughter and providing for their family after his great sacrifice.
Sergeant Eric Edmundson suffered a severe brain injury when his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb in Iraq. His injuries have left him unable to speak, walk, or work, and his family provides full-time, around-the-clock care.
I have had the privilege to meet and share time with Sharri, Eric and his family, and families throughout this process. Eric Edmundson and his family were here in Washington, D.C., just yesterday meeting with Members of Congress. Sharri Briley is here this week and joins us in the Capitol today.
I can honestly say that we wouldn't be at this point without their strength, dedication, and hope.
One thing that Sharri Briley told me as we were talking about this is that when she suffered this great tragedy, it was widows from the Vietnam and Korean war generation who stood up to help lead her through this process, and she is standing today to lead that effort on behalf of the generations of Americans who will follow behind her in hoping to lead and increase this benefit.
This bill, named in honor of these families to increase support for survivors like Sharri and Eric, the catastrophically disabled, and Gold Star families, is critically important. Some will be eligible for an additional $10,000 a year to cover their expenses through a special monthly compensation for the catastrophically injured. For the first time since 1993, more than half a million surviving spouses, parents, and children will receive an additional disability indemnity compensation to help cover their needs as they continue without their loved ones.
In addition to that, we are expanding the VA home loan to National Guard and Reserve component, men and women who signed on the dotted line to serve our country, so that they can have an opportunity at the American Dream and build their own home.
My wife and I were fortunate to qualify for a VA home loan to buy our family home together years ago, and that is a benefit we want to extend to more families.
I thank Chairman Bost again for his work on this bill. It is reminding me of an experience I had in basic training. We would line up beside our bunks before going to bed at night and recite the ``Soldier's Creed,'' and there is a line in the ``Soldier's Creed'' that said that the brave soldiers of the past would be proud of me.
I know I am proud of the sacrifice that Sharri Briley, Eric Edmundson, and their families have made on behalf of this country, and I think we stand here, on the eve of Memorial Day, proud of the efforts we are taking to build upon the benefits that they so desperately need, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6047.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman has referred to moments when I was chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee when we did look at pay-fors related to increasing the interest rate reduction refinance program.
We did pass a bill out of the House in 2020 that would have increased the interest rate reduction refinance loan fees by one-fourth of a percent, but it did not become law. When you strip away all of the context around that bill, you can try to set up a gotcha--you did what we are trying to do--but the reality is that we are in a much different situation now.
First, the proposed increase in 2020 returned to current levels just after a few years. Representative Barrett's and Chairman Bost's proposed increase replaces the current level with their new fee level. It is not a temporary change. It is a permanent increase.
Today's proposed increase is almost three times what was contemplated back in 2020. That translates into $2,500 to $3,000 more in fees that veterans would have to pay under Representative Barrett's plan. That cost doubles when the veteran has to pay interest on that fee increase.
Also back in 2020, home loan mortgage and refinance rates were at record lows. Fees had much less of an impact on veterans' abilities to lower their housing costs. Today, interest rates are so much higher. Many more veterans are facing foreclosure. As I said, 10,000 veterans in the past 12 months, and thousands and thousands of veterans are in jeopardy of losing their homes in the coming months.
The Trump administration has gotten rid of VASP, as I said, with the cheerleading done by the chairman and Representative Van Orden. VASP was the last-ditch program to keep veterans and their families in their homes. It has been a year, and the replacement, the partial claims program, which I supported in instituting, has still not been rolled out yet, and it won't be rolled out for several months. Meanwhile, we will see more veterans foreclosed upon.
Refinancing, therefore, is currently the last line of defense in keeping veterans with distressed loans in their homes. Representative Barrett is proposing that we raise costs at this very moment, in this financial environment and when this Congress has passed a reconciliation bill costing billions and billions of dollars that were not offset. Mind you, the $70 billion that the Senate was hoping to send over here, the Republican Senate, that this House presumably would have also approved of, the Republican majority, that $70 billion will not offset.
We are also looking at potentially a $1.5 trillion defense budget increase, and there is talk about $1 billion on the President's ballroom.
How do we justify taxing veterans to access their own benefits? How do you justify that?
Let me just say that I offered an amendment. I offered an amendment to pay for this bill not with the money that would have gone to other veterans. I had an amendment that would have delayed for 3 years the implementation of a big, bad, ugly bill tax break we were giving to very wealthy people--people with $15 million to pass on to their heirs. We wanted to delay the tax break that rich people get when they want to pass on their wealth to their heirs. We would delay that for 3 years. That would pay for the cost of this bill.
That amendment was rejected. I think that very wealthy people benefit from the bravery and the courage of our military servicemembers. It is not too much to ask the wealthiest people of our country to bear the cost of paying for the catastrophically disabled veterans.
I think the American people would countenance that much better than: Let's take away the ability for our servicemembers who are currently serving in the waters surrounding Iran, or our veterans--we shouldn't be asking them to have to pay more in home loan fees for benefits that they thought they were getting when they signed up.
It is the choices that we are making that bother me here. I don't think we should be doing something that is very, very worthy by charging one set of veterans to pay for another set.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies on the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee in opposition to the offset in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I was stunned to see this pay-for included in this bill and so disappointed that no one included appropriators in this discussion, but I was not surprised.
The benefits expansion that this bill would make are worthy changes that we absolutely should pass as a supplemental monthly allowance of $833.33 for severely disabled veterans requiring aid and attendants. That is an issue we haven't addressed since 1993.
I wish that we could have worked on this issue last week when our appropriations bill was on the House floor, or the month before when the bill was before the Appropriations Committee. Instead, House Members are going to
This bill triples VA home loan fees, which amounts to hundreds or thousands of dollars on each home loan, which will make homeownership even harder for veterans. When a veteran refinances their home loan, they will get hit with this tripled fee, which will be cost prohibitive for many veterans.
Republicans are increasing, tripling fees for one group of veterans to pay for benefits for another. Do you know what I find the most despicable, though? It is that the veterans and their families were told that this pay-for was required or the bill would not become law. That is a flatout lie, and I speak as an appropriator and someone who understands the paygo rules.
At some point, if you recall, my friends on the other side of the aisle, we thought it was going to be tonight, but we will likely push that to next week or when we come back, you are going to push through a partisan spending bill that would include billions of dollars in spending that is completely unpaid for because the paygo rule would be waived, just like every point of order.
That is what you could do in this bill, but instead you are saddling one group of veterans with tripled fees to get a home loan to pay for benefits for the other, and that is why I must rise in opposition today.
This benefits expansion should be passed. It should. I firmly believe that we must honor our commitment to our veterans at every step, but let me be very clear: The precedent that we are being asked to set is a dangerous one. We will not take from one group of veterans to give to another, no matter how small we claim the pay-for would be.
Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano, I would ask that we all get together and meet--Chairman Carter, myself, and the two of you--to talk about how we can accomplish this in a bipartisan way. We should not waste any of the House's time because the House and Senate are going to need to conference on MILCON-VA bills, and I want to make sure that this issue is addressed in that bill.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, when this bill drops the painful triple fee increase, you will have my vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, when this bill drops the painful, triple fee increase on VA home loans, you will have my vote. In the meantime, I must strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
This is completely unnecessary. The pay-for is not required. They could waive it just like they do on nearly every other bill. I would ask my friends on the majority side to seriously reflect on what this precedent would mean for our veterans in the future.
We should not be tripling the cost of a VA home loan to pay for benefits that are sorely needed and deserved, but it is completely unnecessary to hit one group of veterans. Coming from a party that says they are against fee and tax increases, this is pretty shocking. It is unacceptable, and it doesn't have to be this way, and you know it. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it deeply disingenuous for some of my colleagues to suggest Republicans are willing to pay for war but unwilling to pay for veterans.
As chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am closely aware of the true cost of war. We see it in disability compensation, in survivor benefits, in prosthetics, in mental health care, and in long- term care of catastrophically disabled veterans. Those costs exist because brave men and women answered the Nation's call and came home carrying the physical and invisible wounds of war. The VA budget continues to grow because America continues to honor the promises made for those who serve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden), my good friend, who knows and understands what it is like to stand in the gap for the rights of this Nation.
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am currently working with the appropriators to try to allocate some money for acting lessons for my colleagues so that some of their arguments could be more believable because they simply are not.
Let me explain what the VASP program did. There were unelected bureaucrats under the Biden administration who decided to start buying loans from lending institutions. That is not a VA home loan. It is a VA home loan guarantee. They did this without authorization. They did it contravening the will of Congress to the tune of $6 billion, projected to be $16 to $20 billion.
Here is how incompetent the Veterans Administration was under the previous administration. The VA bought the loans from a lending institution and lowered the interest rate to 2\1/2\ percent. The rest of the American public paid for that because the lending institution was made whole. Then the VA had to contract back with the institutions they just bought the loan from to service the loan because they didn't know how to do it.
That is why that program went away. It would have tanked the entire VA home loan guarantee. We want every Active-Duty servicemember, veteran, and future veterans to have access to that program, and the VASP program would have destroyed it.
I corrected the problem with the partial claim bill. What it did was simply aligned the home loan guarantee program with other Federal home loan guarantees. That was it. It was an elegant solution, and it is done. It will be implemented next month on the 15th.
Yes, there were veterans who lost their homes during this period of time, and that is very, very unfortunate. It truly is. My heart goes out to them, but we must make sure that we understand this program has to go on in perpetuity, and that is what we have done.
Let's talk about what we are actually here for today. There are profoundly handicapped veterans who need 24-hour care. Their caregivers need help, and they need to be able to live in dignity. That is what this bill is doing, and I strongly support Mr. Barrett for doing this. This should have been done years and years ago, but it simply was not.
The offset for this, on average, will cost $8 a month for a second home loan or a refinance. That is less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I am absolutely willing to pay that for my fellow veterans, 100 percent, $8 a month increase to refinance or use your veteran home loan guarantee benefit a second time.
There is not a single member of the United States military that is off the coast of Iran that wouldn't willingly pay $8 a month to make sure that our catastrophically handicapped veterans get what they need to live in dignity because that could be them tomorrow.
I find these arguments by my dear colleagues on the other side completely disingenuous. They are bamboozling the American public to think that we do not support our veterans. That is simply wrong. This should be an apolitical--not bipartisan--argument. It should be apolitical. Every single American should support this because fewer than 1 percent of American citizens serve in the military now, and my fellow veterans deserve what we can provide to them so that they can live in dignity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do think the gentleman doth protest too much. The gentleman cheerleaded and encouraged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program over a year ago, forthwith. He is now on the floor arguing to take away the last remaining tool that veterans who have distressed properties have to hang on to those properties, which is the ability to refinance their homes under the VA home loan program. He is advocating for the passage of a bill which will admirably address the catastrophically disabled, but cause veterans who are in distressed homes higher costs in refinancing.
Let me explain further. Veterans are experiencing record foreclosures. Unfortunately, it is not hard to explain
Just months into the Trump administration's second term, President Trump and Secretary Collins, at the urging of Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden, ended the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP.
The VASP program was a lifeline offered to veterans by President Biden that served as a last resort option for veterans before foreclosure. The program worked. For inane, extreme ideological reasons, Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden urged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program.
It is no surprise that foreclosures for veterans have doubled since that action. Ten thousand veterans have lost their homes in the last year, and tens of thousands more are set to be foreclosed upon in this Trump economy.
The majority might claim that their partial claims law, which was finally enacted last fall, is the answer. The gentleman from Wisconsin says that it is going to be implemented next month. We will see. I hope he is right, but I believe that the law is still months away from being implemented. Based on the rollout, it is unlikely to save many of the veterans at risk due to limitations in the program and the delays in rollout.
At the very least, they could have urged Secretary Collins to continue the VASP program until the partial claims program was ready. But no, oops, it is unfortunate, says my colleague from the State of Wisconsin, that 10,000 veterans had to lose their homes.
Now, what brings us to this moment? With VASP gone and partial claims not ready for prime time, the only last true option for veterans is to refinance their loans so they can get current on their outstanding payments.
This very legislation we are considering right now puts that relief further away. Refinancing will become more expensive, which makes it no longer a viable option for many veterans. Veterans have less options than they did a year ago, and this bill will reduce those options even more.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).
For years, I have worked with Gold Star families to address the overdue need to increase benefits for surviving spouses of servicemembers and veterans who have given their lives in service to the United States of America.
This bill does not go far enough. The rate for dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC, has been minimally adjusted since the Department of Veterans Affairs established the benefit in 1993.
The current DIC rate is lower and has more stringent rules than other Federal survivor programs. H.R. 6047 falls short of modernizing this program.
My bipartisan Caring for Survivors Act increases benefits and broadens eligibility in a comprehensive way to ensure families receive the financial compensation and support they deserve.
First, my bill would raise DIC benefits by more than $450 per month per recipient, compared to the nominal $16 being proposed in H.R. 6047. My Caring for Survivors Act would increase DIC benefit payments by 25 percent. The bill we are debating today would only have a 1-percent increase in the first year and cap out at 5 percent overall. Second, my bill also reduces the timeframe a veteran must be disabled to qualify for DIC benefits from 10 years to 5 years.
Together, these provisions would help surviving spouses who depend on DIC benefits to cover their basic expenses and make ends meet.
Supporting our veterans and military families is an intentional choice that we have the ability to make. Updating DIC benefits for the first time in decades would be an incredible show of support for surviving family members of our veterans who died in the line of service.
Generally, I wouldn't oppose legislation that I care so deeply about and have attempted to address for so many years, but as we have heard, this bill pays for that minimal 5-percent increase by taking money from veteran housing loans. That is a problem that also needs to be addressed.
I agree that veterans should be a priority. Why are we providing only a 5-percent increase instead of the 25 percent they deserve?
While I oppose H.R. 6047, I look forward to working with my colleagues to modernize DIC benefits, advance the Caring for Survivors Act to the floor, and have eventual passage so that veterans and their surviving families can get the benefits that they have earned.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act.
Central Arkansas is home to many of our brave veterans and Active- Duty servicemembers stationed at Little Rock Air Force Base and the Arkansas National Guard headquarters at Camp Robinson.
It is also home to Sharri Briley, the devoted surviving spouse of Donovan Lee ``Bull'' Briley, an Army Special Operations Black Hawk helicopter pilot tragically lost in Operation Gothic Serpent, known to all Americans as ``Black Hawk Down.''
Sharri is our Gold Star family voice for the people of Arkansas.
Central Arkansas and our Nation have benefited significantly from Sharri Briley's work, which helps families of deceased servicemembers. This bill is partially named after her because of that leadership.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which increases benefits for catastrophically injured veterans, their families, their survivors; raises survivor benefits by an extra 1.5 percent over 2 years; and expands VA home loan program eligibility requirements, importantly, Mr. Speaker, for the Guard and Reserves from 90 days of Active-Duty service to 14 days of Active-Duty service.
This bill is fiscally sensible and supported by over 20 veterans groups across this land, including the VFW and The American Legion.
This bill honors our Nation's promise to care for our veterans, their survivors, and their families. I urge support on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.
Mr. Speaker, I have been searching my memory to recall such righteous indignation about costs when we prosecute wars.
The rhetoric about the true cost of war is very different. In fact, it is nonexistent. No one is prepared to handcuff our military at a time when they need equipment. Yet, the individual consequences of war can last a lifetime, and we must take them into account.
After 250 years, we have more than enough historical data to understand that the cost of these wars does not end at the last appropriation marked for battle.
We already promised to care for veterans. In this case, that means their families, as well. Congress should not turn away or hide from that fact. If we are to support the cost of starting and sustaining war, we must acknowledge the financial cost of supporting those veterans it creates when they come home.
We need to stop treating our work in Congress as something out of the ``Hunger Games,'' that someone must suffer so that someone else can get what they need, that we need to force schoolchildren, small business owners, and veterans to compete for help from their government. We on our side of the aisle are not going to play that game with the benefits our veterans have earned.
We should provide funding to give veterans who have gone to war for this country healthcare and benefits. In fact, if you want to continue to increase funding for defense spending and military aid, I would say that you should be required to consider the long-term cost of taking care of the servicemembers whom we are sending into harm's way.
I personally would never ask for offsets for funding for the equipment our troops need because it is the right thing to do, just like taking care of veterans is also the right thing to do. I hope that our country and this Congress will not perpetuate a double
Again, I will conclude by saying we should be taking care of the catastrophically disabled veterans of our country. It has been too long. They have gone without for too long, but we should not be asking other veterans to do that work. We, the American people, should be the ones who foot that bill, not our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate earlier in the debate the interest rate reduction and refinancing loans. That was all brought up, and I appreciate my colleague's comments on the interest rate reduction and refinancing loans.
I would also like to make it known that the ranking member is correct that he has not had legislation to increase the rates to the level that this bill is intending to do.
However, during the 116th Congress, the ranking member proposed an amendment to the bill on the floor that would have increased the same refinancing piece we are discussing today. Now, although the rate may not be the same, the concept is the same. I note that the small increase reference piece is the only change that we make after the mark-up version of this bill, which has been done, and that is to cover the cost incurred by expanding the VA home loan program to the National Guard and Reserve, which they wanted, by the way.
The ranking member is making this partisan when it does not need to be.
Instead of focusing on the delivery and an increase to the veterans and surviving spouses, those people who the VA really is focused on taking care of, regardless of who authored the bill, the ranking member has chosen to turn it into a political exercise, and I wonder why.
Earlier in a discussion on the committee's future, the Ranking Member Takano himself stated: We want our gavel back. That is what it is about. The statement speaks for itself.
This bill is not about committee gavels. This is not about partisan advantage. It is about thousands of American families who have waited long enough for the VA benefits to increase.
My fellow GOP colleagues and I are fighting for them, not the gavel. There are 22 veterans service organizations that agree with this.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my colleagues on this side of the aisle. Two of them were veterans. I am a veteran.
Why do we agree with it?
It is because we understand.
We also understand the rules of the House. With no disrespect for the ranking member and the other people who spoke, they never raised their hands. We did. We are asking to help those who need the help, and this is the way to do it today.
In the future, if we want to increase it and we want to work towards a larger amount, which I believe they deserve, both of the groups that are mentioned in this, the families who survived and those who have received the most heinous and most difficult wounds that they have to suffer through the rest of their lives, then we will do that, but this is the bill before us today.
I am going to say this, and I will say it to the Members on the other side of the aisle: If you want to go home on Memorial Day weekend and go out there and stand in the parade and tell everybody how great you are for our veterans and vote ``no'' on this, you had better think about it. You had better think about it.
I am going to tell the other side; the veterans and their voices here have spoken. They want this bill.
Mr. Speaker, if they choose to vote ``no,'' then they can answer to those veterans.
I am going to stand for them. I am going to stand for them because I am a grandson of a veteran; a son of a veteran; a nephew of a veteran, who had to have a lot of these services that we deal with in the VA; a son who still serves; a grandson who is going to have to receive some of these benefits; and another grandson who is serving at this time. I don't know what his career is going to be in the field, but it is possible that he could have to have this support too.
Is it personal to me?
You bet it is, Mr. Speaker. This is an important bill. It is important to the families who receive these benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, proceedings will resume on 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 for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, can you explain to the Members of the Chamber what is happening with the Iran War Powers Resolution that was scheduled to be voted on this evening?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry?
Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that is costing tens of billions of dollars, gas prices are through the roof, and people can't afford their groceries?
Is that why you are pulling it? You guys don't have the guts or the balls to vote on this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to move on to the next question.
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. 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, offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison), 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 208, nays 210, not voting 12, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. BOEBERT changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, nays 201, not voting 13, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 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, and for other purposes.''.
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 passage 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, 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 passage of the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, nays 179, not voting 16, as follows:
Mr. THANEDAR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with our colleagues from Massachusetts to pay tribute to the late Congressman and Chairman Barney Frank, who passed away 2 days ago at the age of 86.
I spoke with Barney recently, and I asked him how he was doing. He said he was going blind, he couldn't walk, and his heart was failing, but other than that, he was on top of his game.
He faithfully served the people of Massachusetts in the Fourth Congressional District for more than three decades, and his constituents could not have asked for a stronger voice representing them in this House.
He was a competent legislator, from time to time an irascible personality, always a man of good wit and humor, and a superb legislator. He would perhaps put that at the top.
His legislative achievements were too numerous to list. He was a trailblazer for the gay community, a champion of civil rights, and a fierce advocate for expanding access to affordable housing and economic opportunities for America's working families.
As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney ushered in change during one of the most tumultuous periods in our history. Also, as a piece of advice for Members of this Chamber, he mastered the most arcane details of complicated policy. It was not about just using your thumbs, it was about convincing people of the merit of your argument.
When you look at Dodd-Frank, it was praised widely by Republicans and Democrats across the financial community as well as those who served in this House and the Senate at the time.
For those who knew Barney, it was likely the case that they also knew quickly what Barney thought of them. Never afraid to speak his mind, he was an effective legislator who understood the importance of principled negotiation and the reality that lasting progress often requires both conviction and compromise. He was not afraid of holding his convictions, and he was not afraid of a compromise when he could declare victory. In times of great challenge, his quick wit and keen sense of humor served him well in his work, providing a much-needed sense of levity.
There are many stories that Jim McGovern and I spoke of that we can never tell publicly, but he had a great piece of advice for all Members of Congress because Members of Congress tend to say: Let's have another study. Barney said: Anytime a Member of Congress asks for a study, they should be required to pass a written test within 6 months of their study.
For those of us in the delegation, we had the privilege of calling him many things--colleague, mentor, confidant--but it was an even greater privilege to call him a friend. Massachusetts and the Nation are better off because of our friend, Barney Frank.
To Jim Ready and his family, we want to wish our best at this very difficult time. We have lost a giant of legislative life and a very loyal member of this institution and a very important alum.
I ask that the Chamber now rise to join us in a moment of silence in memory of Chairman and Congressman Barney Frank.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will all Members rise for a moment of silence.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Bellefonte High School and Middle School majorette teams, which both secured multiple State titles at the Pennsylvania State Baton Twirling Championships.
At the competition, both the high school and middle school teams were named the 2026 Pennsylvania Open and State Halftime Show Twirl Team winners.
Both programs have a history of winning area and State championships, and their recent success is a direct reflection of their dedication and hard work over the past year.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Bellefonte High School majorette captain Breanna Dickey, who has been selected as the next featured twirler at Indiana
She first picked up a baton at age 4 and has won multiple State and national twirling titles and has competed internationally.
I congratulate Breanna.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the high school and middle school majorettes for their great achievement. I thank them for representing Bellefonte and the local community so well.
Mr. Speaker, Tuesday was primary day in Pennsylvania. It was a safe, successful election where thousands of voters made their voices and their vote known.
Yet, it was a dark reminder that voting rights across the country are under attack. On April 29, the Supreme Court of the United States gutted the Voting Rights Act, opening the door to coordinated attacks on Black voters, particularly in the South.
Emboldened by the Court, Republican Governors and legislatures immediately moved to redraw congressional maps in their favor by dismantling majority-Black districts. Not since Jim Crow have we witnessed such a blatant and disgusting effort to disenfranchise Black voters.
I had the privilege, many of us had the privilege of serving alongside the Honorable John Robert Lewis. In times like these, I am reminded of his words. He would say: ``When you see something that is not right, that is not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something.''
Voting is our sacred right. It is the lifeblood of our democracy. Every one of us must protect it. We must do something before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Daniel G. Wuchter, Sr., a longtime entrepreneur and the owner of the Allentown Fairgrounds Farmers Market.
For decades, Dan helped shape one of the Lehigh Valley's most beloved institutions. His connection to the farmers market stretched back to its first opening in 1955, when he and his brother first operated a stand before building a business that grew into a lifelong commitment to the market and the community it served.
As owner of the farmers market, Dan's hard work helped transform it into a gathering place that generations of families have come to know and love. Those who knew Dan remember not only his determination, but also his generosity and love for the Lehigh Valley.
We extend our condolences to his wife, Laurie; his family; friends; and all those who knew him.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rabbi Jon Cutler on his retirement after 11 years of service as Rabbi of Beth Israel Congregation in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
Rabbi Cutler has devoted his life to faith, to service, and to caring for others.
Ordained by the Reconstruction Rabbinical College, he has spent decades guiding congregations, counseling families, and strengthening our community.
He also has served our Nation with distinction for more than 30 years as a Navy chaplain in the Navy Reserves, retiring with the rank of captain.
During his military service, Rabbi Cutler ministered to servicemembers and civilians through some of our country's most difficult moments, including Desert Storm, the aftermath of September 11 at the Pentagon, and deployments to Iraq and East Africa.
Since joining Beth Israel in 2015, Rabbi Cutler has led with compassion, inclusivity, and a deep commitment to interfaith understanding.
On behalf of Pennsylvania's Sixth District, I thank Rabbi Cutler for his extraordinary service to both our Nation and our community, and I wish him and his family all the best in his retirement.
Mr. Speaker, with all politics aside, I think we can agree that despite war and other terrible situations, there are still good things in this world--things like courage, things like sacrifice, and fighting spirit. The decency people manage to hold onto when everything gives every reason not to is commendable.
A family member of mine told me about a friend of theirs named Teodor Myndziv. Teo served in an air assault brigade and badly wounded, enough to be discharged with a permanent disability. He is just one man with one story out of many, but I am grateful for his friendship to my family.
Policy arguments aside, that spirit of decency is worth a moment this Chamber's time to recognize.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Shanta Katipamula for her service to the people of Washington's Sixth Congressional District.
For nearly 6 years, Shanta has been a trusted public servant working on behalf of the people of her home State of Washington.
Inspired by her mother's example of service and leadership, Shanta has demonstrated a commitment to helping others and delivering results for constituents.
As my legislative director, Shanta was instrumental in building my office from the ground up, establishing processes and securing early policy wins.
In the past 2 years, she has successfully secured millions of dollars for community projects all across the district.
She established the Bipartisan Congressional Ferry Caucus, bringing attention to the importance of ferry systems across the country.
Shanta supported my office's work on the House Oversight and Natural Resources Committees by bringing partners together around issues important to the people I represent.
Beyond her policy work, Shanta has been an indispensable mentor to members of the team and to me.
Much of Shanta's work happened behind the scenes and beyond regular office hours, and her impact will continue to be felt across Washington State for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Shanta for her service to the people of Washington and wish her all the best in her next chapter where she will, in fact, continue to serve the people of our Washington.
Mr. Speaker, together, in a bipartisan fashion, this Chamber passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the most significant update to rural housing programs in decades.
I fought to make sure my Rural Housing Service Reform Act was front and center in this package, because in rural Iowa, the Federal programs meant to help families buy, repair, or keep their homes are running on technology that is almost as old as the internet itself. Families are paying the price.
Iowa families are waiting, in some cases up to a year, for a U.S. Department of Agriculture's housing loan while interest rates change and prices
My legislation fixes this. It modernizes the broken USDA system, doubles the home repair loan limits, and preserves affordable housing that would otherwise disappear.
I am proud this reflects the true American Dream of homeownership. In fact, I worked across the aisle with my very good friend Ranking Member Emanuel Cleaver to write these reforms.
If a Democrat from Kansas City will drive all the way to Iowa to help build a home, you know this is truly a bipartisan effort. Because of this bill, our families are in a better spot.
Now, I am ready to go to work with the Senate and the President to get this signed.
Mr. Speaker, today, the Supreme Court faces a crisis of confidence and legitimacy. From ethics scandals to overturning decades of precedent, Americans are demanding accountability from a court that has become partisan and completely disconnected from the public it serves.
Congress must act. That is why today I rise to urge my colleagues to support the ROBE Act, my constitutional amendment establishing 18-year term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
Lifetime appointments are outdated. They encourage Presidents to nominate judges for generational influence, incentivize strategically timed retirements, and fuel divisive confirmation battles.
Term limits are a commonsense reform supported by supermajorities of Americans across the political spectrum. Term limits would restore predictability, reduce political gamesmanship, and help rebuild trust in the court.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, we are one step closer to having more affordable housing for Oregonians and Americans across the country.
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes three of my bills which will help build more houses, lower the cost of housing, and make sure homeless shelters have the support they need to offer emergency assistance.
Mr. Speaker, let's be real. Americans are struggling. The cost of living is out of control, and people can barely afford to put gas in their car, let alone think about buying a house.
Mr. Speaker, we must work to make life more affordable for our constituents. We have to move this legislation across the finish line. The Senate needs to pass these bills expeditiously so we can get them over to 1600 and make them law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the life and memory of Enrique Roman-Martinez.
This year marks the sixth anniversary of his violent death. For 6 long years, Enrique's family has carried unimaginable pain while continuing to fight for answers and justice.
To his family, Enrique was known for his kindness, integrity, and commitment to serving our country in uniform. He deserved the opportunity to come home to his loved ones. Instead, his family was left mourning, devastated by the loss, and searching for justice.
As we celebrate Memorial Day and honor those who served our Nation, we must also remember our responsibility to all of our servicemembers and their families.
Today, I stand with Enrique's mother, sisters, loved ones, and everyone who continues demanding accountability in his case. We owe them answers, transparency, action, and closure.
Enrique's memory will continue to live on through those who loved him and through all of us who refuse to let his story fade.
I urge witnesses to come forward. His murderer needs to be convicted and held responsible for his death.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of the late Congressman Barney Frank.
Barney Frank was a larger-than-life character. As a mentor and a friend, he made me a better lawmaker, and he made me laugh. My staff and I, representing the district that he faithfully served for three decades, will always treasure his stories, his encouragement, and his advice.
He put wit and wisdom to work over a remarkable political career. Barney pioneered policies to ensure equality for gay Americans at a time when it wasn't popular or safe to be an out lawmaker. He enacted landmark regulation to prevent financial meltdowns, and he championed affordable housing. His legislation and leadership made America more fair and more just.
The people of the Massachusetts Fourth, who elected him 16 times, have always held great affection and esteem for Barney. We will miss him.
On behalf of all his former constituents, I extend to his family and friends condolences for his death and gratitude for his life of service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the sailors and crew of the USS Gerald R. Ford. They have returned home after the longest aircraft carrier deployment since the Vietnam war.
For nearly 300 days, nearly 11 months, these Americans served halfway around the world, missing their families, carrying out every mission asked of them with discipline, courage, and professionalism.
They endured combat operations, dangerous onboard conditions, and extraordinary strain on both ship and crew.
We must also recognize the growing burden these extended operations place upon our sailors, our military families, and our Nation. This deployment was repeatedly extended to support illegal and unconstitutional operations in Venezuela and Iran.
Behind every extra month at sea are missed birthdays, holidays, exhausted crews, and families left waiting at home.
Our sailors answered every call. We must swiftly end this expensive war of choice in Iran while honoring the service of the men and women of the Gerald R. Ford. We thank them and their families on this Memorial Day weekend for every sacrifice made throughout this costly war of choice and unnecessarily long deployment.
Mr. Speaker, to be a champion for human rights around the world, the United States must stand for those who defend fundamental rights.
One human rights defender who needs our help is Ruth Lopez, head of the anti-corruption unit of Cristosal, a legal rights group based, until recently, in El Salvador.
One year ago this week, Ruth was detained by Salvadoran authorities. For
Her arrest and judicial proceedings are full of irregularities. A judge refused her request for a public trial, siding with the government to keep it secret.
Ruth is being targeted for political reasons by an autocratic regime. This is arbitrary detention, a human rights violation. She should not be in jail at all.
We call on the Salvadoran authorities to respect her right to a fair, speedy, and public trial, and have access to her family and lawyers.
I asked the U.S. Embassy to help Ruth. There was no response. I fear our government is siding with the abusers rather than the defenders of human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reveal a theft from the American people. Donald Trump is stealing our money. At every turn, he is taking money from Americans' bank accounts to pad his pockets and those of his billionaire buddies.
His tariffs, which were twice ruled illegal, cost the average working family of four $1,700 last year. At the gas pump, Americans have collectively paid an extra $40 billion to fuel up since the start of this war of choice with Iran.
What is Trump's latest grift?
It is an over $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to pay off his cronies who have been convicted of crimes, including the dangerous felons who attacked the Capitol on January 6.
Donald Trump is abusing power and weakening our democracy, and Republicans in Congress are complicit by refusing to act.
Enough with the greed and the corruption. End the war, stop the chaos, and let's do something to lower costs for the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, last week the President said he doesn't think much about Americans' finances.
Families in Hawaii do. They think about it every time they fill up the tank, every time they open their electric bill, and every time they stand in the grocery aisle deciding what they can afford.
While Donald Trump wages a war of choice in Iran, pushes a $1 billion-slush fund for his buddies, and fights for a royal ballroom in the White House, working families back home are being forced to make impossible choices.
Gas prices in Hawaii are now averaging $5.65 a gallon. Food prices keep climbing. Electricity costs are expected to surge even higher, and families are deciding whether they can afford groceries, medicine, rent, or the drive to work.
This is the cost of indifference.
Instead of lowering costs, this administration is making it worse with tariff and trade wars and blocking renewable energy projects that would help Hawaii build real energy independence and bring bills and costs down.
It is time to end this reckless war, lower costs, and put working people first.
Mr. Speaker, the President has created an entirely corrupt slush fund to give money to his allies, including the violent attackers who beat police officers on January 6.
This is not a settlement as the President keeps calling it.
Mr. Speaker, you can't spring an absurd $10 billion lawsuit against an agency in your own government then instruct your lackeys at the Department of Justice to make a deal with the other agency to drop your ridiculous lawsuit that you brought in the first place in exchange for a $1.7 billion illegal fund for payouts to your political allies.
This is not a settlement. It is theft. The President is illegally taking our money, taxpayer dollars, to give to his friends, his allies, and his foot soldiers for their craven loyalty.
Former Capitol Police Officers have already filed a lawsuit to stop it. I am cosponsoring a bill to put an end to this disgusting, illegal corruption.
Let's be clear: Congress on both sides of the aisle must say ``no'' to this President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember the three victims of the shooting at the Islamic Center in San Diego, California.
Amin Abdullah, Mansour Kaziha, and Nadir Awad were ripped from their lives far too soon. I want to take a moment to remember these three men not as victims but as pillars of their community, of my community.
Amin is remembered as a joyous man, someone who never stopped smiling and welcomed everyone with a warm peace and presence. This week, he ran into the fire, saving hundreds of children.
Mansour is remembered as an elder. He was right there when the community center was first built. He was there this week when he died. He was someone you could always rely on.
Nadir is remembered as a constant figure of devotion and community. He lived right across the street from the center, and his wife taught school in the building.
I want to say that these men were taken away from the Earth far too soon.
May God grant them forever lasting peace.
Violence has no place in this country. Violence has no place in our places of worship. ``Amen''; ``Ameen.''
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 the McGuire Air Force Base where he served with 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 the New Jersey Air National Guard.
General Dutko was instrumental in the success of the Armed Services Heritage Museum, helping to secure the museum's mobile unit and sharing the history of the 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 mourn the loss of the general last month, we will be celebrating his inspiring legacy and service for many years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during Asian American History Month to honor the enduring constitutional victory of the United
Wong Kim Ark stood at the crossroads of exclusion and equality. His parents could not become citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, yet he carried within him his very birth the promise of the 14th Amendment passed in 1868 that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
The Supreme Court affirmed that promise in 1898, declaring that citizenship could not be denied by race, ancestry, or the prejudice of the hour. This case matters not only to Asian-American history but to American history.
The 14th Amendment was written from the ashes of Dred Scott to make clear that no government could again trade a cast of people born here but belonging nowhere.
Wong Kim Ark reminds us that citizenship is not a favor. It is not a privilege reserved for the powerful. It is a constitutional birthright, and when America honors that truth, America honors its highest self.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the life of Marina Eudelia Hoepelman Del Monte, the beloved mother of Assemblywoman Rosy Bagolie, who passed away at the age of 77.
Marina was the embodiment of strength, sacrifice, and quiet dignity. After emigrating from the Dominican Republic, she worked hard to build a better life for her, her family, and helped raise generations rooted in love, resilience, and service to others.
Her legacy lives on through her daughters, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren, and through the values that she instilled in all who knew her.
Today, we mourn alongside Assemblywoman Rosy Bagolie and her family, and we honor a remarkable woman whose life reminds us of the extraordinary impact of mothers, immigrants, and caregivers in shaping our communities and our country.
Mr. Speaker, all gave some and many made the ultimate sacrifice. Memorial Day is a time to reflect upon the sacrifices made by the members of our military. To our veterans and fallen soldiers, from Orange County and around the country, I thank them for their service. We are forever indebted to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation's freedom and who allowed us to build a better future for the next generation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues join me today in honoring our servicemembers who laid down their lives for our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Harold K. Brown, Hal Brown, who was called home on May 6.
As a civil rights leader, an educator, and a veteran, Hal was a giant in San Diego and a good friend to many of us.
Born in Pennsylvania, Hal came to San Diego State University in 1953 on a basketball scholarship. He continued his education at Fordham University, earning a master's degree before returning to San Diego.
Hal was a leader in the San Diego civil rights movement. He cofounded the local chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality, led demonstrations, and fought tirelessly against discrimination.
In 1971, Hal joined SDSU as a faculty member and remained there for 26 years. He was the school's first Black administrator and later founded what became the Department of Africana Studies.
Hal left an indelible mark on San Diego. His passion, his courage, his commitment to racial and economic justice, and his work to make our community a better place for all will never be forgotten, especially for those of us who called him friend.
We honor Hal's extraordinary life and the legacy he lives behind.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and legacy of a remarkable American, Israel MacAllister Booth, the grandfather-in-law of my friend and our colleague Suhas Subramanyam. He was known to those who loved him as Mac.
Born in 1931, Mac Booth earned degrees in mechanical engineering and business from Cornell University. He went on to serve our Nation in the United States Air Force, and while stationed in Oklahoma, he met his beloved wife, Frances, his wife of more than 68 years.
In 1958, Mac joined the Polaroid Corporation and over the course of 37 years, he helped build that iconic American company. He was a tough and principled leader. He cared deeply about his people. He believed success should be earned through skill, merit, and hard work.
After retiring, he shared his hard-earned wisdom and experience as a lecturer to the next generation at Yale University.
I will talk about the place that Mac called home, Lake Sunapee, New Hampshire. He loved his time with his family there where he hosted his friends. He took his grandchildren boating. He golfed well into his 80s.
Mac Booth's legacy lives on in his beloved family: his children, David, Tom, Molly, and Charlotte; his nine grandchildren, his six great-grandchildren, and his beloved wife, ``Dianne.''
His legacy lives on in all those who knew him and were blessed to know him and love him.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a very proud, unbought, unbossed, liberated Democrat, a Democrat who has been censured in this very House, censured but not silenced.
I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that I recognize and respect freedom of speech in this country. It is at the very foundation of our freedoms, the ability to express one's opinions. The Constitution protects freedom of speech, but it does not say that some speech, which can be hateful speech, is speech that cannot be condemned.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I rise in this the 119th Congress, First Session, to present H. Res. 1313, Mr. Speaker. I shall read what it says, and I take no delight in reading this resolution because it does deal with free speech, but it also deals with consequences, and I well know consequences.
Remember, unbought, unbossed, censured, but not silenced. As an unbought, unbossed, censured, but not silenced Member of this Congress, I have filed H. Res. 1313, and it reads as follows:
``Condemning the hateful comments of Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo.
``In the House of Representatives: Mr. Green of Texas submitted the following resolution:
``Resolution. Condemning the hateful comments of Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo.
``Section 1. Short Title. This resolution may be cited as the `Original Resolution Condemning the Hateful Comments of Texas Congressional Candidate Maureen Galindo.'
``Section 2. Findings. The House of Representatives finds the following:
``Whereas on May 13, 2026, referring to herself, Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo posted on Instagram, `When Maureen gets into Congress, she'll write legislation so that all Zionism is undoubtedly Anti-Semitic, since it's Zionists harming the Semites.''
She goes on to say in these quoted words: ``She'll turn Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking. (It will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists).'''
I find this to be unacceptable and abhorrent and condemnable.
This resolution continues:
``Whereas Ms. Galindo's comments advocate the imprisonment of Americans based on their ideologies and associations and endorse the use of detention facilities as institutions for political punishment.
``Whereas throughout history, some governments have used detention camps and prisons to persecute individuals because of their race, religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, or perceived affiliations.
``Whereas during World War II, Nazi Germany established concentration camps that imprisoned and murdered millions of people, including six million Jews, who suffered the horrors of the Holocaust.
``Whereas among the lessons of the Holocaust is the demonstration of the dangerous consequences of targeting individuals or groups for detention based on identity, beliefs, or associations.
``Whereas calls for the imprisonment of persons possibly associated with Jewish identity evoke some of the darkest chapters in human history and are deeply offensive to Holocaust survivors, their descendants, and the families of those who suffered religious persecution.
``Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association for all people in the United States; it does not, however, protect persons from the condemnation of their hate speech.''
Some things bear repeating: ``It does not, however, protect persons from the condemnation of their hate speech.''
``Whereas, calls to imprison and castrate Americans because of their ideologies or affiliations are contrary to the idealized principles of liberty and justice enshrined in the Constitution, now therefore be it Resolved that the House of Representatives--(1) Condemns the hateful comments of Texas congressional candidate Maureen Galindo, advocating the imprisonment and castration of Americans based on their ideologies or associations.''
Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this type of behavior, this type of speech to become normalized. If we do, we will find ourselves with more than just any one group or any two groups. All persons may become subject to the message contained within this hateful speech.
Mr. Speaker, we have to stop it now before we arrive at a point in our history where we cannot. We must end it or it may be our end.
Mr. Speaker, as we head out for a recess for Memorial Day, I think it is important to address a few issues that have to be countered because the normal mainstream press will not address them.
Today, attending a hearing in the Committee on Education and Workforce, we one more time had it brought up that America was racist. We hear this again and again and again. I think sometimes people are stuck for what to say about that charge. As a result, they think it is just going to go away because, for some reason, the type of people who angrily scream about racism all the time would just give up.
Of course, one of the chief people who likes to run down America and call it racist is former President Joe Biden, who talked about white supremacy as being a big threat. Of course, most of us just roll our eyes when we hear that and move on to the next topic. But, in fact, I think he does damage to the fabric of America, and it is obvious these people who are claiming that racism is a big problem in America are doing it to divide America and hurt America.
I suggest Americans read Christopher Rufo's book, ``America's Cultural Revolution,'' in which he points out that the hard left, the borderline communist left in America, one of their ways to try to destroy America is by convincing people to divide themselves and be angry over racial identity.
The person who thought this up was a guy by the name of Herbert Marcuse in the 1970s.
The hard left had tried to destroy America in the 1960s by trying to set people up against the wealthy. Americans are not naturally a jealous people. They failed to destroy America by trying to create a revolution based on income level, so they moved on to race.
Now, I am going to point out a couple of things about this. First of all, I would like to point out all the people coming to this country, which is relevant in both discussing immigration and the so-called racial problem. I have to always call to get these statistics, which should be routinely published in the paper. They are not.
Every year in this country, around 800,000 people are naturalized. Let's look at the countries where people come here because they would rather live in America: 1, Mexico; 2, India; 3, Philippines; 4, Dominican Republic; 5, Cuba; 6, Vietnam; 7, China; 8, El Salvador; 9, Jamaica; and 10, Colombia.
Does anybody notice anything about all the people who are trying to come here from around the world? The first thing that I notice is that, of these 10 countries, there is no country here which at least the Democratic Party would consider a European country. That is something I think all Americans should be familiar with. These statistics are published every year, and Americans should be made aware of the statistics.
Obviously, the fact that the 10 nationalities most likely to try to become American are not so-called people of color is hardcore evidence that America does not have a serious racial problem.
There is one other thing I would like to point out here. In the list of countries, there are five that we would refer to as Latin American countries: Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Colombia.
Many of these people from these countries, of course, are primarily of European descent because their ancestors were from Spain, then they came to Colombia, and then they came here. You could say they are of European descent, but the DEI establishment does not like people to point that out.
I have never been able to figure out why, if my ancestors came from Spain and came here, they are considered European. If they spent two generations in Cuba and came here, they are not.
In any event, the thing that we have to take out of this is: People from all around the globe are trying to get here. That is a strong piece of evidence that America is not a racist nation.
The next thing I would like to point out is with regard to the immigration issue. We are, again and again, told we must ignore our immigration laws because we have to be kind to people around the world and allow other people to come to America.
I want to point out some statistics here, as well. Right now in America, every year, if you look at a rolling average, about 800,000 people are sworn in as new American citizens. We let in about half a million people on work visas and half a million people on student visas. We do not have to apologize to anybody for not being nice and not letting other people in this country.
Right now, in America, about one-sixth of the people are foreign- born. Think about that: In America, one-sixth of the people that you see walking down the street--my guess is that in Washington, D.C., it is greater--were not born in America. That is the greatest it has been, at least back into the 1880s. Even during the big immigration waves of the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, we never had a time in which one-sixth of the country was foreign-born. That is something else that ought to be talked about a little bit when we discuss the immigration issue.
Another issue that is sadly rearing its head and may come up when we are dealing with our constituents back in our districts during the Memorial Day recess: For the first time in my life, over the last year, I have had people talk to me negatively about Israel--not many of them, thankfully. Just like when they run down America for being racist, there is this idea out here that somehow Israel is treating some of its citizens unfairly, and talking about Israel negatively when they look at this.
There is something that hasn't been talked about near enough, which kind of cuts through the ridiculous anti-Israel rhetoric, just as we cut through the anti-USA rhetoric a second ago. It is not known enough that the huge number of people who are in Israel today who are not Jewish and come from around the rest of the world to work in Israel, a country that supposedly is treating people who are not Jewish poorly.
Let us look at the primary nationalities of people who come to Israel to work, rather than stay in their own country, sometimes coming halfway around the world for the enjoyment of working in Israel. The single biggest group is people from India. You work your way down: Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Philippines, China, Moldova, Uzbekistan, Malawi, Kenya, and Ecuador. Again, people from Southeast Asia, the Indian area, Africa, and Latin America are all lining up to work in Israel.
Nevertheless, there are Americans who have sympathy for the Arab populations in a land controlled by Israel because they feel they are mistreated. Look at the statistics. If people were being mistreated in Israel because they weren't Jewish, why do we have people from around the whole world trying to get into Israel for an opportunity to work there?
They work in a variety of economic sectors: active in construction, agriculture, home care, retail, food services, and car repair. Wherever you look in the Israeli economy, there are people from around the globe.
Not long ago, I read an article--I don't know how many they got--a significant number of people from Ecuador, hoping that an agreement could be reached so they would have the pleasures of working in Israel.
Of course, more people over time are working in Israel because of what is referred to sometimes as the Palestinian population kind of rose up against Israel and killed people. As a result, understandably, Israel was going to look elsewhere for people who would enjoy the pleasures of becoming part of the Israeli economy.
I encourage all of my colleagues, as they are back in the districts over the Memorial Day weekend, if they ever have anybody come up to them and complain about Israel, which, for the first time in my life, I am getting a little bit of, you can talk about all the people from all around the globe who would happily work in Israel, people who don't speak the native language, like I said, coming from the other hemisphere. Still, they realize how fortunate they are to work in Israel.
Hopefully, they will have a little bit less sympathy for these Palestinians who have had a tough time, admittedly, in the area. They have a hard time voting for people who are not crooked, on the take, and that sort of thing. In any event, it is something we ought to remember.
Mr. Speaker, the next issue which I would like to deal with is one I have dealt with many times before. It is one that I personally consider to be the biggest issue which America has to deal with today and which we are not dealing with. Hopefully, we will address it when we return from the recess.
Right now, America has over 70 income transfer programs which are designed to help the so-called poor in America. I believe every one of these programs, be it food stamps, be it Pell grants, be it low-income housing, be it TANF payments--I believe every one of these programs has a strong marriage penalty associated with them.
In other words, the way that the qualifications work, if you have a family income below a certain amount--maybe $30,000, maybe $20,000, maybe $15,000--you are eligible for government benefits. If a single person with children marries--usually marries a man with an average income, all of a sudden, you are no longer considered in poverty, and they take these benefits away from you.
So what happens is--and Americans have figured this out--you may, by getting married, lose $20,000, $25,000, or $30,000 in tax-free benefits.
What is the result of this? Well, just like everything else in the tax code, it has an effect on people's behavior.
Since the government really began declaring war on married couples-- particularly married couples with children--in the 1960s under Lyndon Johnson, we have gone from, in the 1950s, about 4 percent of the children born with a mother and father at home, to over 40 percent born without a mother and father at home.
Now, I am the first one to say that I certainly know many single parents who have done a fantastic job. There is no question about it. But the statistics would indicate it is also a much more difficult thing to raise children in that environment. Statistics would also show that men, in particular, seem to thrive more when they are responsible for the breadwinning in a family with children than when they are not.
So we have a situation in which both the children and, in particular, the fathers, are paying a price--and the mothers, as well--all paying a price for the current policy of the American Government of trying to discourage married couples from having children.
I have asked the President and the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate to put together some sort of committee or commission to deal with this problem. I can't think of any Americans, or they are few and far between, who think it is good public policy to penalize people $25,000 for getting married when they have children.
It will be a difficult problem to address, but it is a problem that has to be addressed, and whether we talk about crime, whether we talk about drug abuse, whether we talk about depression, I think all of these problems would, to a certain extent, be lessened if we had a situation of more married couples.
George Gilder wrote about this problem about 40 years ago and did a very good job of pointing out that when it came to men, almost all or way disproportionately, when you are dealing with drug abuse, when you are dealing with crime, the men who are involved in these antisocial activities are very rarely married in a family with children. This is something that almost exclusively is a problem of the current American policy of trying to discourage having men in a household with children.
I should point out that we have had many conservative groups--and I want to rattle them off right now--I would even call them President Trump's base--who are saying, let us address this problem: The American Principles Project, Heritage Action for America, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, Advancing American Freedom, AdvanceUSA, Capability Consulting, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Coalition for Jewish Values, Faith & Liberty in the Nation's Capital, the Family Policy Alliance, Faith and Freedom Coalition, Family Watch International, the Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly's old group--man, Phyllis Schlafly was great--and the Independent Women's Forum.
All of these groups are begging this institution and the executive branch to take action so we no longer penalize people for getting married, particularly penalize them for getting married when they have children.
Hopefully, next week or the week after that, when we return, we will
You have to remember Karl Marx, who I think to this day has an influence on the hard leftwing of the Democratic Party. He certainly was antifamily.
Kate Millett, who I think some people would describe as the founder of the powerful women's studies departments on college campuses in the 1960s, made it clear that she was opposed to old-fashioned, nuclear families.
So, like I said, I hope that this issue will be tackled to a degree between now and the election. There are certainly groups that see the perverse effects of the policies put in place in the 1960s and would like to see changes.
Mr. Speaker, the final topic that I hope we take up deals with the, perhaps, over-obsession with the mental health establishment in this country.
There recently was a book put out with regard to what I will describe as the overprescribing of antidepressant drugs or other drugs related to so-called mental illnesses among the very young.
The number of these medications has gone up dramatically in the last 20 years. I know the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Bobby Kennedy is working on this, but I think it is important, collectively, that action be taken by Congress and by the President that we do what we can do to reduce the dramatic increase in depression in very young people.
I was not aware until I got involved in this issue that these antidepressants are addictive. So right now, our mental health establishment is putting millions and millions--we have a statistic here of 27 million U.S. adults receiving mental health treatment. Millions of Americans are on addictive medicines because of so-called depression.
I recently read a book on this topic called ``Unshrunk: A Story of Psychiatric Treatment Resistance,'' in which the author described being on these medications for about 15 years, from the time she was 14 years old on, unaware that the problems which she was suffering, the behavioral problems, were not cured by the drugs. They were caused by the drugs.
Right now, the combination of the mental health establishment and the pharmaceutical industry have combined to, I think, damage a lot of people's health. Particularly because they are addicting, I think a lot of these people are going to be hurt by these drugs for the rest of their life.
Those are five issues that I hope I have clarified in how to respond regarding them. At least the last two issues, issues that should be taken up by this Congress when we return from Memorial Day break.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever had a moment where you think back over the last dozen years, and you really, really miss something we used to call the Tea Party?
Do you remember, for those of us who were involved in that, what was the premise? The premise was fairly simple. We cared about the fiscal status of our country and following the Constitution.
Today, a dozen years later since the Tea Party was basically put out of business, do I have any of my brothers and sisters out there who actually care about what is going on?
My preference is when I do these sort of weekly presentations, I put my Joint Economic chairman hat on or my Oversight and Ways and Means hat on. This time, I am just going to try to be the guy who cares about financing the U.S. debt and what the hell is going on right now.
Often, when I do these, I like to say: Here is the problem, and here are some solutions. This time you are just getting problems, and then the reality of what it means. I am going to do this three or four times in this presentation, so if anyone is listening, think about this: From February until this week, the movement on U.S. interest rates, if you do it over 10 years, it is over $2 trillion of additional interest. That is not $2 trillion we get to spend on a new aircraft carrier or building roads or helping our brothers and sisters get healthier. It is $2 trillion to the bond market.
I have come behind this microphone for a decade and a half. I have been criticized by many of those who actually care about the economics of the country, I have been criticized for saying the bond market very soon will be the dominant player in this government.
David, how can you say things like this?
It is happening.
Let's start with this slide that we keep doing because the math is wrong now.
A couple years ago when I used to do this, discretionary outlays were 27, 28 percent of spending. Now, it is down to 25 percent of the spending. This is all a Member of Congress votes on unless you have a reconciliation budget, and you see how well we are doing on those right now. So nondefense and defense. Basically, the other 75 percent of spending is on autopilot.
You get these folks who come in here--we did one about 3 or 4 weeks ago where we basically said: We are going to do a resolution to balance the budget. There were no ideas with it, there was no discipline with it, there was no telling the truth with it, but we did a resolution so we can all put it on our political brochures and say we voted for a balanced budget.
The economists I have on the Joint Economic Committee, we were spitballing some of the math on that, I can balance the budget next year. I have got to cut half of U.S. Federal spending.
Last year, for every dollar in, we spent $1.43. So far this fiscal year, for every dollar in, we have spent $1.47. Now, that will balance out a little bit because there is a spike in there from last year's debt ceiling when we had to refund many of the accounts, but when you look at this chart, there is something really important to get your heads around.
I am running for Governor in Arizona. I have given up on this place. As I am traveling around the State, I will do part of my presentation on what is really happening in the Federal Government and why it is so important to get the finances of your own State really solid because some of the revenue sharing that goes to the States--which is almost half my State's budget, our total spending--is going to start to dry up because every dime we send to the States is borrowed.
Do you see this number over here, interest? Our calculation says right now the interest this fiscal year, the one we are in right now, will come in over or around $1.2 trillion. Stop and think about what I am sharing with you. Social Security, $1.6 trillion; interest, 1.2; Medicare, about 1.1. Remember, Medicare doubles in spending over the next 6 to 7 years, and in 6 years the trust fund is actually gone.
Number four is actually Medicaid and ObamaCare subsidies. Defense, the thing that is actually in the Constitution, is number five on our spending stack.
When we go home and we sit there with our constituents, and we do things like happened today to me--so we are doing a Ways and Means markup, and there were good, simple bills that should have been bipartisan, but every Democrat had to get their little video of attacking the President, so we had to sit there for several hours. Okay, great, that is the theater of what we do here in Congress now.
However, down the hallway and in the basement, a Republican Study Committee was trying to do a debt fraud forum. They had some really good people there. They had people who had been working on the issue of waste and fraud, and they had one gentleman who has written some really amazing articles. He has researched where he found millions of dollars of fraud. My problem is I was actually doing the math of what I was listening to.
Mr. Speaker, how long does it take us to borrow--not spend, borrow-- $1 million? Every 12 seconds, every 12 seconds, we borrow another $1 million. Everything that was being discussed in the room didn't even actually add up to a whole minute worth of borrowing.
Here is the problem in this place: Because of the financial illiteracy--sorry, I withdraw that, that is being a little mean--the lack of batteries in the calculators around here, you will see Members come behind these microphones on both sides: We are going to save $1 million, $10 million, $20 million on this, and we will have borrowed more money on the debate on the piece of legislation than the bill saves.
Yesterday, we crossed over $90,000 every second in borrowing. We will borrow over $7.7-plus billion today.
Is anyone listening? Do I say it in a way that is not understandable? Is there another way I can make my charts so it is absorbable?
Are we a society where the desire for government spending--because there are tens of thousands of people from home, from lobbyists, others walking up and down our hallways, in our offices all day long telling us how much they care about the debt and deficits, and then they demand more money.
We can stabilize the debt. We can convince the bond markets to give us lower interest rates.
For those of you who are watching, and you think, well, we will just have the Federal Reserve lower interest rates. It doesn't work that way. God.
Do you remember your high school economics class? The Federal Reserve, the Fed funds rate, the open window policies basically are what we call the short end of the curve. They basically influence those things that are 2 years and shorter.
Your mortgage is based on the 10-year instrument. That is a market rate, and it is based on the borrowing of excess savings that is loaned to sovereigns, your mortgage, and everything else, from the entire world. It is not just financed from us here in the United States. It is the entire world. The entire world--at least most of the industrialized world--is bingeing on debt.
You have to understand: We have to convince the world debt markets that we are going to tame inflation, that we are creditworthy, and that we are going to get our act together.
There is a report that came out just about an hour ago--honestly, I have only read the first half of it--that basically was doing the calculations that even publicly sold debt, in 9 budget years, will be over 126 percent of debt-to-GDP. We just passed 100 percent.
Does anyone care? In slightly over 6 years, if you are on Social Security, you get a 24-percent cut in your check. That is the law. In 6 years, the Medicare trust fund is empty. In a little over 6 years, the Social Security trust fund is empty. Does anyone care? Is anyone here willing to tell the truth?
Yes, you will have the other side beat the crap out of you. You will have some of your own people in a primary saying: He talked about Social Security and Medicare. I am just trying to save it.
For the idiots that go around saying, ``Well, we will just raise this tax,'' understand that, in 2033, to cover the shortfall of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds is over $638 billion just that year, just to cover the first year, and then it goes up and goes up and goes up.
It is demographics. We don't have enough children. We don't have enough young people. We don't have enough young workers in our society. It is math.
Your country basically is at zero population growth. The Census Bureau, about a month ago, did a report. If you dig through it, sometime in the next 5 years--I think the benchmark was 3 years--the United States at current policy goes negative in population. Those people go, yay, we are going to get smaller.
Fine. You figure out and tell me how I am going to finance Social Security and Medicare. You tell me how I finance the debt. You tell me how I am going to convince the bond markets not to keep raising our interest rates.
I know how to do it. I have come behind this damn microphone how many times and talked about the unified theory of you are going to have to adopt technology, and you are going to have to revolutionize the cost of healthcare. That is one of the things we are about to talk about.
You are going to have to move to a talent-based immigration system so the population you bring into the country maximizes economic growth and tax collections. You don't have a choice anymore. You can't import mass poverty anymore.
There is a way to stabilize the math, Mr. Speaker. We would just have to do everything at once, and we would have to do hard things.
Two days ago, I had a couple of Ph.D.'s--I think they were from Brown University--visiting. One of their researchers was meeting with my economists from the Joint Economic Committee. All we focused on was what was going on in Medicare, not Medicaid, the benefit we promised our seniors. We were talking about the hundreds of billions of dollars that--you hear some people come behind the mike and say that we will call it waste and fraud, but it is legal because we screwed up the laws, the rules, the mechanisms, and the reimbursements.
Is this place willing to do the hard things? Let's just walk through one simple conceptual idea.
We did a research project a year ago just on duplicative scans. You have an MRI, an x-ray, an ultrasound, and a CT. The top end of the number was almost $35 billion in the United States in a year.
You hurt your knee skiing. You go to the town and get an MRI of your knee. They send it. You go back to your home community a week later, and they do it again, instead of attaching that scan to your phone.
I did a piece of legislation saying: Hey, when you can, attach the scan to an app or something so it is portable with you. That didn't cut your service. That didn't make you less healthy. It just potentially saved $35 billion a year, over almost $400 billion over 10 years. Is that bill ever going to get a hearing?
The next day, I had lobbyists walking up and down the hallways here saying: David, you don't understand. Those duplicative scans are our profit margin.
We have dozens and dozens of ideas and things we have scored and pieces of legislation to revolutionize the cost of government.
Here is the fraud about talking about fraud. Please, someone quote me on this and attack me on it.
Members of Congress, both on the left and the right, want free options. Oh, it was fraud from a foreigner. That way there are no constituents, no lobbyists, no one in our home districts making money on it. If you actually read the documents from our auditors, from MedPAC, from others that are doing their work, we know where there is hundreds of billions of dollars.
The problem is, that money has constituents. There are people who make their living on it. They cover their investments on it.
Look at how many times a handful of us have tried to provide options in healthcare, but it would change your business model, and the next day we get the crap kicked out of us.
I worked on telehealth for years and years. I was never going to get a hearing on it because groups that made their money having you walk into the urgent care center, walk into their emergency room, would spend whatever was necessary to stop it. The only reason you have telehealth today is COVID, and it is still getting dialed back, access to that digital health.
The fact of the matter is, today, you can wear a medical lab on you. The newest version of the Apple Watch is an FDA-approved medical device for the heart. As that technology gets better and better and the FDA approves more things, should that technology be allowed to prescribe, if it is statistically competent? Yes? No? It would help crash the price of healthcare. It would help dramatically raise access to healthcare.
As we provide digital health and the ability to have communication, WiFi, those things, and broadband in most rural parts of our country, you could have revolutionary access to healthcare. There will be lobbyists in this hallway tomorrow trying to stop me and being angry because I even talked about this. Everything here is about the money.
Remember, when you think about the pie chart of Federal budgets and
Interest now is the number two expense in government. Medicare is going to double in spending over the next 6 to 7 years.
It is demographics. Next year, we will have fewer 18-year-olds than we had 20 years ago, but double the number of 65 and up.
In 28, 29 months, over half of our Federal spending will go to our brothers and sisters who are 65 and up, and I will be one of them.
We are going to do what? We are going to do what? We are just going to make more promises? We are going to run more fake ``we are going to balance the budget'' bills with no plans.
Let's actually walk through a couple of things that are also really uncomfortable. Debt financing costs double in 10 years. This is already where we are at.
The CBO baseline budget from last February had, in 9 budget years, the U.S. debt--now, this is before the move in interest rates. This is even before some of the additional spending proposals that have come up. In 9 years, U.S. debt, borrowing, will be $3.1 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, think about this point. That is $2.1 trillion of that borrowing in 9 budget years, 10 years from now, is just interest. $1 trillion is the structural debt. The other $2.1 trillion is just interest coverage.
What has happened just in the movement of our bond markets in the last couple months, if this is the new benchmark for interest rates, could even come down. We are up about, what, 70 basis points since the low in February. That is over $2 trillion of additional interest over 10 years.
I know it is math. We are supposed to tell stories about crazy things, or bad people, or illegal immigrants. This is what is going to take down our Republic. This is what is going to destroy your retirement, Mr. Speaker. This is what is going to take my 3 year old and make my kids the first generation who truly lives poorer than their parents.
Let's walk through just a little more fun with charts and math.
Mr. Speaker, just for the fun of it, we are up over 60 basis points. We are actually closer to 70, but let's use 60 because some of the interest rates went back a little bit today. We say that over 10 years that is over $2 trillion on today's projected budget and spending and current debt.
Now, if we plus up defense, if we plus up other things, then that number gets even uglier. But, right now, just structurally, it is called interest fragility. I am sorry. Someone may be watching and have a better word for it that is not so complicated because the other day I was at a meeting and I had to explain fragility.
The bond market is about to run this country.
When small movements of interest rates when carried out over the decade are a couple of trillion dollars in additional interest, doesn't this freak out anyone?
Mr. Speaker, I was going to bring a bunch of charts and show: Hey, here is the sensitivity to interest rates, and here is what is going on.
We habitually attack the Congressional Budget Office when they tell us things we don't like. It turns out when actually looking at the projections and what is happening, the CBO has actually been the most accurate.
The House Budget Resolution is the second most accurate. OMB is a little too optimistic. And that is on the 10-year. When we look at it on--even looking at the 3-month, it is the same thing.
There are only a couple of other points I want to make here, average interest rates by security type.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you go: Who cares?
This year, our government will have to refinance almost $11 trillion. We are going to borrow about $2 trillion, let's call it virgin, in new issuances. But here is your, remember that big word, Mr. Speaker, ``interest fragility''?
Mr. Speaker, I am going to show you a chart here in a moment where a bunch of what we do--there are these things called notes and bonds. They actually are just different names for different durations, but a bunch of our debt we keep very short. Now, that is actually what the Federal Reserve also does have an impact on, on the Fed's funds rates.
However, the 2-year, right now, is over 4 percent.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker?
We have a whole bunch of our debt that every 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, we have to come back to the market and refinance, so if something goes haywire during that time, we are subject to that.
I think last year and the year before that, we had 3, 4 months where we had to borrow money to have enough money to cover other borrowing. Now, yes, tax receipts are cyclical because we are an income tax-based government.
The reason I show this is these right here are notes. This is basically debt from, think of it as 5 years to 10 years, but you see this big thing here, Mr. Speaker, bills?
Twenty-one percent of our debt, that is all short term, that is coming to market, coming to market, coming to market because it rolls off, and we have to refinance, it rolls off, we have to refinance, it rolls off.
When we have this much that is short, bonds here are over 10, but even today, Mr. Speaker, the 30-year bond, the 20-year bond--remember, 20 is sort of a stepchild so it often has a bit of a premium on it. The 30-year I think was coming in at 4.1, 4.16, something like that. It has been a day or so since I looked at it.
Mr. Speaker, do you care about your mortgage rate?
What is it, 30-year conforming home loans are over what, 6, 6.5?
We want lower interest rates. We want an economy that has more capital for plants, equipment, new technology and new jobs to make us more productive so we can raise wages. We can't have a government that chews up every damn dime.
A child born today, and I know I have said this over and over, and I am waiting for the moment--the reason I say it is that no one seems to care about it enough to say: Well, David, that number scared the crap out of me.
A child born today, Mr. Speaker, we need 104 percent of that child's lifetime income just to pay Federal Government pensions.
Is that Republican or Democrat?
I would just say it is absolutely immoral. We are going to squander one of our reconciliation budgets. A reconciliation budget is a way to get around the filibuster in the Senate. It has all sorts of rules coming from the 1974 Budget Control Act.
I understand we have got to get the final portion of the DHS budget through, and I know we are having all sorts of fights on it, but why don't we do something simply moral on it and say: We have dozens of ideas and bills that don't take away peoples' service but could help us at least try to convince the bond markets we are paying attention to the debt and actually cut the waste and fraud and cut some of the spending and realign some of the programs where we would make peoples' lives better. But that would be hard, and we would have to say no to a bunch of lobbyists, and we are scared to death to do it.
So those of you with kids, Mr. Speaker, give them a hug tonight and apologize to them for me--as I am going to do with my 3-year-old who graduated the first part of preschool today--for what I have done to his economic future. These numbers are so ugly. We have also done it to your retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to find some other place to be angry, and I yield back the balance of my time.
