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.
51 public bills, H.R. 9719- 9769; and 1 resolution, H. Res. 1437 were introduced.
Pages H4621-23
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 3029, to amend the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act to support nucleic acid screening, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-751); and H.R. 8790, to amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to direct research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities in support of next-generation geothermal and closed-loop geothermal systems in various conditions, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-752, Part 1).
Page H4621
Guest Chaplain
The prayer was offered by the Guest Chaplain, Rev. Jon Thomas, Diocese of Camden, Camden, New Jersey.
Page H4547
Suspension: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure. Consideration began Wednesday, July 15th. Naming the Department of Veterans Affairs multispecialty clinic in Marietta, Georgia, as the ``Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic'': H.R. 5362, to name the Department of Veterans Affairs multispecialty clinic in Marietta, Georgia, as the ``Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic'', by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 418 yeas with none voting ``nay'', Roll No. 248.
Pages H4613-14
Take Care of America's Veterans Act
The House considered H.R. 9237, to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, and other Federal laws, to improve benefits for veterans and the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Further proceedings were postponed.
Pages H4548-H4613, H4614-15
Rejected the Deluzio motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Financial Services by a yea-and-nay vote of 210 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 249.
Pages H4613, H4614-15
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-749 shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 1423, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to Tuesday, July 14th.
Pages H4548-H4605
Quorum Calls: Votes
Two yea-and-nay votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H4614 and H4614-15. Adjournment: The House met at 9 a.m. and adjourned at 12:15 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: 63 of 88 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Welcoming Reverend Jon Thomas
The SPEAKER. Without objection, Mr. Norcross of New Jersey was recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to welcome guest chaplain, Father Jon Thomas, priest and vicar general of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden.
He was born and raised in south Jersey and educated at Catholic University right here in D.C. Father Jon was ordained in 2010 and has since served the parishes across south Jersey.
As pastor in Atlantic City, he provided assistance and spiritual guidance to the workers in the hospitality industry in Atlantic City.
Since 2020, he has served as pastor of Christ the King in Haddonfield. The year I met him, he was hosting a virtual mass for frontline workers who were, during the pandemic, being challenged.
Since 2022, he has served as chaplain to the New Jersey AFL-CIO.
In 2025, he was appointed vicar general of the Diocese of Camden, serving roughly 475,000 Catholics across south Jersey.
I thank Father Thomas for the prayer, the call for unity, and to our community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Rowan County Rescue Squad as we celebrate its 75th anniversary of protecting and serving the community.
Since 1951, the rescue squad has answered the call for more than 140,000 residents who call Rowan County their home. While at its core the rescue squad is made up of brave volunteers, they also are joined by staff to help provide enhanced services of the highest quality to everyone in Rowan County.
Over its first 75 years, they have always been there in times of emergency ready to protect and respond. No matter where, whether on our waterways or in our neighborhoods, they stand ready 24 hours a day.
Their dedication reflects the very best of North Carolina and the spirit of service that strengthens our communities. North Carolina's Sixth District is better because of their dedication.
We thank the Rowan County Rescue Squad, and congratulate them on 75 years.
Mr. Speaker, this month, as our country celebrated 250 years of American democracy, a moment for profound reflection and unity, instead my Republican colleagues rejoiced in one year of the big, beautiful bill. It was anything but beautiful.
SNAP cuts have literally taken food out of the mouths of babes, kicking 1.5
Martin Luther King once said: ``Of all forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane.''
When you consider that this bill is on track to cost our Nation $3.4 trillion, it becomes even more nonsensical, destabilizing, and cruel. That seems to be the point.
Our Founding Fathers believed--in fact, endangered their very lives-- on the unmovable belief of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for those fortunate to call our Nation home.
Ripping healthcare coverage, nutrition, and security from our most vulnerable is no way to honor our guiding principles.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a treasured member of our Buckeye community, Jana Detty, and celebrate her retirement after a storied career spanning 50 years.
While studying at Hocking Technical College to pursue a career in medical records, Jana set out to look for a summer job. At the time, she had no idea of the great career it would launch for her. Her neighbor was the manager at a local McDonald's on Western Avenue, so Jana threw her hat in the ring.
She nailed the interview and started her job as a crew member, quickly climbing through the ranks and moving to shift manager, then assistant manager, general manager, supervisor, and, finally, human resources manager in 2009.
Jana is known for her kindness and commitment to excellence. She also demonstrated her leadership by raising over half a million dollars for charity, to provide a home away from home for families of children undergoing serious medical treatments.
Mr. Speaker, southern Ohio is proud to call Jana one of our own.
We thank her for her years of dedication to our community and congratulate her on her retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage about recent FDA regulatory actions on e-cigarettes. On April 30, Reynolds American donated $5 million to MAGA Inc., a Trump-backed super-PAC. In the following 8 days, the President dined with top tobacco executives, and the FDA issued guidance making it easier for tobacco companies to sell flavored e-cigarettes.
In 2024, 1.63 million middle and high school students in America used e-cigarettes, and nearly 90 percent of them used flavored products. The tobacco industry is openly paying bribes to advance policies that will get the next generation of young people hooked on nicotine.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in condemning this blatant, pay-for-play corruption and the harm it will inflict to generations of young Americans.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1423, I call up the bill (H.R. 9237) to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, and other Federal laws, to improve benefits for veterans and the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 1423, the amendment printed in part B of House Report 119-749 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
TITLE VI--VETERANS' ASSURING CRITICAL CARE EXPANSIONS TO SUPPORT
``SUBCHAPTER VII--ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION, COST ASSESSMENT, AND
``subchapter vii--acquisition review, cost assessment, and program
TITLE VI--VETERANS' ASSURING CRITICAL CARE EXPANSIONS TO SUPPORT
``SUBCHAPTER IX--PARTICIPATION BY VETERANS IN CERTAIN MENTAL HEALTH
``subchapter ix--participation by veterans in certain mental health
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 have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 9237.
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. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
As a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, for me, this bill is personal. When a young man or woman raises their right hand and agrees to serve this country, America makes a promise. That promise does not end when a servicemember is wounded. It is my goal--and the goal of my friend, Senator Jerry Moran--to deliver on that promise.
This bill would be one of the most comprehensive veteran packages considered by Congress in a decade. This bill includes more than 60 bipartisan provisions that would improve healthcare, benefits, operations, and accountability across the VA.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you more about some of those important provisions. One is the Major Richard Star Act. For decades, medically retired, combat-injured veterans have had their military retirement offset dollar-for-dollar by their VA disability. While some disabled veterans who served 20 years receive both, there are tens of thousands of combat-injured veterans who currently do not. Many combat- injured veterans would have served longer if their injuries had not taken that opportunity from them.
H.R. 9237 would help end that injustice. It would end that offset for combat-injured veterans, allowing them to receive both benefits up to what a 20-year retiree with the same disabilities would receive.
Members on both sides of the aisle and veterans service organizations support this and have for years. A press release, a handshake, or a discharge petition does not end the wounded warrior tax. This bill will.
The Love Lives On Act is another important provision included in this bill. Currently, surviving spouses lose their benefits if they remarry before age 55, but those benefits were earned by their spouse's sacrifice for this country. The Love Lives On Act would allow surviving spouses to remarry at any age.
Another important provision in this bill is the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act. This bill would provide long-awaited increases to catastrophically disabled veterans and surviving spouses.
Eric was 25 years old when an IED left him with a fractured spine and a traumatic brain injury. H.R. 9237 would increase benefits for catastrophically disabled veterans like Eric by $10,000 a year.
It would also increase benefits for surviving spouses. These American families have not seen a meaningful increase in decades.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes the Veterans' ACCESS Act. Veterans should be able to access healthcare in their own communities. Too many veterans still face delays, confusion, and barriers when trying to use VA community care.
This bill would also improve mental health care and community-based suicide prevention. A veteran's healthcare should be driven by the veteran's needs, not by government control.
H.R. 9237 would improve education benefits and vocational training to help veterans transition into civilian life. It would modernize the VA's claims and appeals process so veterans have a system that works for them. It would streamline the way VA handles construction, leasing, contracting, IT, and finances.
The Take Care of America's Veterans Act would expand benefits and push VA to do better.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to address how this bill is funded, as I have heard a lot of misinformation about this point. H.R. 9237 would codify VA's own pending regulation on how to evaluate sleep apnea and tinnitus' effect on a veteran's workplace earnings. This regulation was proposed by the Biden-era VA in 2022, created by VA's team of doctors and researchers. It was part of VA's efforts to modernize its disability rating schedule created in the 1940s.
President Biden's Under Secretary for Benefits, Josh Jacobs, testified in favor of these changes at his confirmation hearing.
Earlier this year, VA's executive director of compensation confirmed plans to finalize these changes this year. These are not new ideas, and there is nothing unprecedented about this. This bill would not eliminate disability ratings for sleep apnea or tinnitus. It would not automatically reduce any veteran's current disability rating. Future veterans with sleep apnea will still get treatment through VA healthcare, but if a CPAP eliminates your symptoms, VA would compensate you less.
Currently, the amount of compensation for sleep apnea is often more than the amount that a veteran receives if they lose a limb.
This change is just common sense. It is why VA has worked hard to propose changes like these, which reflect modern medicine. For tinnitus, VA has found it is best understood as a symptom of another condition such as hearing loss or TBI.
Under the proposed change, tinnitus would still be rated as part of another underlying condition. This is not about denying these conditions exist. Let's be clear. This is not cutting benefits. No one will lose their benefits who are receiving them.
It is about making sure the VA rating schedule follows modern science and using those savings to fund the expansion of benefits and other VA programs.
Mr. Speaker, if we don't pass H.R. 9237 today, VA can make these rating changes as planned but the savings would go back to one place: Big Government. I want those savings to go instead into the pockets and the benefits for millions of veterans and their families.
Mr. Speaker, as a United States Marine Corps veteran, you can bet your bottom dollar that I believe that this bill would not harm a single veteran, and I would not bring it forward to this floor if I thought it would. Veterans do not need a bill that makes Members feel good for a day and then dies in the Senate. They need legislation that can pass.
Mr. Speaker, veterans groups agree. I include in the Record a letter from 20 different veterans organizations in support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, veterans groups from The American Legion to the Wounded Warrior Project support this bill. Survivor groups like the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors support this bill. Caregiver organizations, like the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, support this bill. They all want this bill to pass.
Chairman Moran and I have worked for months to try to enact a law that will help the greatest number of veterans. I believe we have offered that kind of package today.
I want to take a moment to share what we have heard directly from veterans. Mission Roll Call, a national nonpartisan organization dedicated to serving veterans and their families, recently conducted a survey on my bill. They found 71 percent of veterans support the bill. I think that is a clear choice.
Mr. Speaker, as our Nation observes its 250th birthday, H.R. 9237 asks a simple question: Do we have veterans' backs? Do we have the backs of fellow Americans who raise their right hand to serve in defense of this great country, the Gold Star families who carry the cost of their loved one's sacrifice, or caregivers who every single day care for a disabled veteran family member? For me, the answer will always be ``yes,'' both during service and after.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, 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 H.R. 9237. It is a beautiful day here in Washington, D.C., but Republicans are casting a dark cloud over all of us and especially over America's veterans.
We have before us today a bill that, despite its name, does the exact opposite of taking care of veterans. It enshrines into law the largest cut to veterans' benefits ever in the history of this Nation.
The premise of this bill is that some veterans must be made worse off in order to make others better off. Mr. Speaker, I reject that premise, I reject this bill, and I encourage others to do the same.
Here is the core issue: The majority treats veterans as a zero-sum game: cut disability pay for some to find benefits for others. That is not governing. That is rationing suffering among our Nation's heroes.
With this bill, the majority would, for the first time ever, have Congress interfere in the scientific process that the determines veterans' disability ratings, overriding the expertise of medical professionals at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I respect that Chairman Bost is a military veteran, but he is not a medical professional.
The majority, for the first time ever, would have us cut tens of billions of dollars from veteran disability compensation to pay for the Department of Defense obligations. This is absolutely unconscionable.
Consider the math. Republicans are discussing nearly $70 billion in new Pentagon spending without offsets. They vote enthusiastically for $1.5 trillion in annual defense budgets. Yet, they insist on paying for veterans' priorities by cutting benefits with the two most common service-connected conditions. Apparently, there is no problem sending veterans the bill for the wars that Congress funds.
This is a massive 600-page bill--crafted behind closed doors and brought to the floor without careful consideration--packed with harmful provisions designed to boost a few vulnerable Members' electoral prospects.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons and many, many more, I cannot in good conscience support this legislation.
More important than my opposition is the opposition of the very people whom the majority claims to help, the veterans themselves. Over 30 Veteran Service Organizations and advocates oppose this legislation, including many of the largest, like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and numerous others. They know that reaching into the pockets of one set of veterans to provide for another is morally wrong. Creating tiers of veterans based on their period of service and treating tomorrow's veterans worse than today's is morally wrong. They will not stand for it, and neither should we.
In addition to the numerous VSOs and over two dozen labor unions opposed to this bill, including the Union of Veterans Council, American Federation of Government Employees, and AFL-CIO, so do professional associations like the American Psychological Association and the Nurses Organization of VA. They all recognize the devastating effect this legislation will have on VA's workforce and their ability to deliver high-quality care.
Even the Mortgage Bankers Association has expressed opposition to this bill. The majority has decided that, during a housing affordability crisis, it makes sense to raise costs on struggling veteran homeowners who are desperately trying to avoid foreclosure.
This package contains multiple harmful provisions. It would accelerate the privatization of veteran healthcare--creating new grant programs for private providers that divert resources from VA mental health and PTSD programs--and steer veterans into more expensive community-based care, even where VA services remain available, and strip VA psychologists of their collective bargaining rights.
This bill also contains numerous sections opposed by key stakeholders, like Student Veterans of America, Veterans Education Success, and the American Federation of Teachers, that would direct GI Bill funding toward low-quality, for-profit, unaccredited online programs.
This bill contains provisions that would allow GI benefits to be used for online welding courses. Can you believe it? Explain to me how you can teach someone online how to weld.
Inexplicably, H.R. 9237 even includes a $500 million IT slush fund that VA will use to enrich contractors and reward the President's cronies. The list goes on and on.
We are going to hear arguments from the majority today about all the good things this bill attempts to do. If we exist in a vacuum, I would say that I agree. There are parts of this bill with broad bipartisan support: long overdue increases to dependency and indemnity compensation and a special monthly compensation, for example.
We do not exist in isolation here, and we must take the bill as the total sum of its parts, especially since the majority has blocked amendments to this bill, as they have done so often in this Congress.
Regrettably, we will also hear the chairman say that cutting veterans' benefits is the only way that we can get them done. This is patently false, and the chairman knows it. Everyone in this Chamber knows it, and everyone in America knows it, as well. There are any number of other places we can find money for these priorities.
We don't lack money around here. What is in short supply, at least on the other side of the aisle, is the political will to use some of it on behalf of America's veterans. There is $1.5 trillion for the Department of Defense, $70 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and hundreds of millions of dollars for permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, none of it offset, and all of which the chairman voted for enthusiastically.
Just 10 days of President Trump's folly in Iran would pay for 10 years of benefits under the Major Richard Star Act.
Let me say that again. Just 10 days of President Trump's folly in Iran would pay for 10 years of benefits under the Major Richard Star Act.
The question we have before us today is this: Why do you insist on offsets now? Why only now when we are trying to do work on behalf of our Nation's veterans do you care about the deficit? Why are Republicans holding veterans' priorities hostage, including the overwhelming top priority of veterans, the Major Richard Star Act, in exchange
That is a mystery to me, and it is a question that Chairman Bost and Republicans will struggle to answer, as well.
I will point to this chart here.
Mr. Speaker, let me finish with a quote from just one veteran in opposition to this legislation: ``I am a disabled Michigan veteran and lifelong conservative. Please pass the Major Richard Star Act as a stand-alone bill. We do not support the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, H.R. 9237, and we will never elect Representatives who want to cut veterans' benefits. How could Republicans propose this.''
I couldn't have said it any better, and there are thousands more comments just like this as you can see here.
Mr. Speaker, 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, the ranking member knows VA has an obligation to update disability conditions based on the latest science and medicine. In his opening, he said that I am not a doctor. He is right. I am a marine. I am a truck driver, and somehow I have been blessed to serve our veterans as the chairman of the committee. He is not a doctor either. Likewise, he has been blessed by his community to be here, but what I do want to say is, for the record, the proposed changes for sleep apnea and tinnitus aren't developed by Congress.
They were developed by VA physicians. They are doctors--medical experts, doctors--and researchers under the Biden administration as part of the ongoing disability rating modernization efforts.
In testimony before the House Veterans' Affairs Committee in January 2026, VA officials stated that the Department intended to continue moving forward with respiratory ear-body system, rulemaking, and anticipated completing those efforts by the end of year 2026. That testimony was not given by career staff acting alone.
In fact, just this morning, VA officials confirmed that they are planning to move forward with the proposed rule on sleep apnea and tinnitus.
The testimony represents the official position of the Department at the time it was delivered to Congress. The question before us is not whether Congress created these proposed changes. We did not. VA's announcement makes their intention clear. This is moving forward regardless, but Ranking Member Takano would rather play politics.
The question is whether the savings associated with the proposed deployment and changes by the VA should remain in their control and the bureaucrats' control, or do we make it through our Article I power to reinvest into our veterans and their families. H.R. 9237 chooses veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to look at the testimony of Josh Jacobs, Biden Under Secretary for Benefits, and Nina Tann, President Trump's Executive Director of the Compensation Service at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor), a good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Bost for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. America's veterans represent the best our country has to offer, and it is time for Congress to deliver meaningful reforms to our veterans' benefit programs that improve the quality of life for America's warfighters.
That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, which will modernize and enhance the delivery of VA benefits for veterans across our country.
As we continue to celebrate America's 250th anniversary, it is important that we realize that freedom is not free, and we wouldn't have this amazing country without the sacrifices of countless servicemembers and their families.
Now is the time to reaffirm Congress' support of our veteran community and put veterans first by passing this legislation.
I am particularly proud that this legislation includes the expansion of GI Bill benefits, increases benefits for severely disabled veterans and their families, and ends the wounded veterans tax, thanks to the inclusion of the Major Richard Star Act.
These reforms are long overdue, and I applaud Chairman Bost and the work of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for their role in crafting this legislation.
This bill upholds the promise we made to our Nation's veterans that upon completion of their service, we would take care of them and their families.
It is our duty as temporary caretakers of our Republic to fight for those who keep us safe, and veterans are at the top of that list.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of southern Ohio, I thank all our veterans and their families for the countless sacrifices they have made to keep our Nation safe. This vote is for them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman has said several times that the disability changes this bill makes are coming anyway. That is simply not true. He is counting on a golden egg that the VA has simply not laid yet.
The first Trump administration floated changes to conditions like sleep apnea and tinnitus beginning in 2019. Then 4 years ago, when VA sought public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking, the 2022 changes during the Biden administration, VSOs and many Members of this body spoke loudly and clearly and unanimously in opposition to them, and what he doesn't mention is that the Biden administration walked away from those proposed rule changes.
The VA listened to those voices in 2022, and as a result, the proposed rule has been on a shelf since then. Just a few short weeks ago, VA clarified that it is not planning to take any action on this proposed rule. That was from a VA spokesperson in public. There is nothing inevitable about these rule changes, which are going to bring about the golden egg of savings, the $57 billion that the chairman is counting on in order to pay for this bill. The savings will come from cuts to veterans disability benefits. Their tweet that he is referring to this morning quoting an unnamed source is not the same as rulemaking.
This is simply the majority trying to find any excuse possible to cut benefits they view as overly generous, which has long been their goal. That is why Americans for Prosperity has endorsed this bill.
The architects of Project 2025 have been desperate to cut benefits for years, and they have been trying to find a way to touch veterans benefits. I am not going to let them do that. They even showed up at the majority's press conference to cheer on their efforts just a few short days ago, and now they finally have a majority who is willing to bow to their demands to harm veterans.
My majority counterparts have picked an interesting time to care about science again. Their remarks today attempt to demonstrate that they are working to align themselves with the best science to update and modernize the disability ratings schedule.
Yet, my majority colleagues fail to see the irony in legislating away veteran benefits before VA completes a thorough review of the best science. They are substituting their own judgment for that of VA clinicians and researchers who actually understand the medical evidence related to these disabilities.
If this bill is passed, the expertise of VA and the years of work that go into clinical determinations become moot.
If you don't believe me, just listen to what one of VA's top doctors, former VA Secretary and Under Secretary for Health David Shulkin, stated regarding this bill's proposed changes to disability ratings: ``Any modernization of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities should be instead conducted through an independent, evidence-based medical review led by the Department of Veterans Affairs, with opportunities for public comment and
If my colleagues are suddenly interested in following that science, they should let the experts continue their work independently without the political pressure that passage of this bill will inevitably create.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), my good friend. She is a former member of this committee who currently serves on the House Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the Lactation Spaces for Veteran Moms Act.
Serving veterans is one of the greatest privileges we have as Members of Congress, and we must do everything that we can to ensure not only that they receive the benefits that they have earned through their service and sacrifice, but also that they can access those benefits with the dignity that they deserve.
That is why I am so proud to lead the bipartisan Lactation Spaces for Veteran Moms Act with Congresswoman Ashley Hinson.
As a nurse, I have seen firsthand the benefits of breastfeeding for moms and babies. My bill will ensure that every VA medical center contains a clean, private space specifically designed for nursing and pumping.
Our veterans and their families have given so much in service to our country, and they deserve the same level of support and respect when they seek care.
For VA medical centers to meet the needs of young families, caregivers, and our hardworking VA employees, they need to be equipped with proper facilities.
In the VA medical centers that lack a dedicated lactation space, moms are forced to use unsanitary places like bathrooms or struggle to find a private corner. That is unacceptable. Our veterans deserve better.
That is why we must pass the Lactation Spaces for Veteran Moms Act now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the ranking member is caught up on current events. Just recently, just to confirm what we already knew, the VA officials confirmed that they are moving ahead with the changes on tinnitus, sleep apnea, and disability benefits.
VA has made no move to withdraw the sleep apnea and/or those from the changes that will then save the money that then the bureaucrats will control.
So as we are moving forward--I mean, the ranking member can keep saying things that aren't true, or he can admit this is an issue, and that is where we are coming up with the revenue.
That being said, let me tell you the next person I want to yield time to has worked on the Major Richard Star Act for years, as did his father before him.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the Representative from Florida's 12th District.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and thank him for this great package that will support our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
First and foremost, this legislation delivers long-overdue justice by including key provisions of my Major Richard Star Act. I promised Richard Star that we would get this done, and we are in the process of doing it, again, on behalf of our true American heroes, which I remain committed to achieving full concurrent receipt. Anything that is not included in this bill, we are going to pursue for the benefit of our veterans.
This package takes a major step forward by providing immediate relief to nearly 60,000 combat-injured veterans, Mr. Speaker. For far too long, medically retired servicemembers wounded in combat have been forced to forfeit a portion of the retirement pay they earned simply because they also receive VA disability compensation, and that is wrong. That is the so-called wounded veteran tax, and it is fundamentally unjust.
These men and women sacrificed their health in defense of our Nation. They earned both benefits, and they deserve to receive both.
This legislation also strengthens veterans' access to healthcare by expanding choice, improves the VA claims and appeals process, and increases support for catastrophically disabled veterans, caregivers, and surviving spouses.
Republicans have been working on these issues for many years, Mr. Speaker, and it looks like it is going to come to fruition. I appreciate it so very much, and I thank the chairman for his leadership.
It enhances mental health services, expands care in rural communities, improves transition assistance for servicemembers entering civilian life, and modernizes VA facilities to better serve future generations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Most importantly, this bill honors the legacy of Major Richard Star, who fought tirelessly to correct this injustice before his passing. His determination has brought us to this moment, and today, we have the opportunity to continue that fight on behalf of thousands of deserving veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a coalition letter from 10 veterans service organizations; a resolution from The American Legion Department of Texas; a statement from The American Legion, Trujillo-Sheets Post 28, in Durango, Colorado; and emails from Minnesota Blue Earth Post 89 of The American Legion and American Legion Post 58 in Belleville, Illinois, all in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman has made the claim that VA is going to move forward with taking away sleep apnea and tinnitus as conditions that veterans may claim disability ratings for. I would like to ask the chairman who at VA has made that commitment. He has tweeted out this morning that this is the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) for the purpose of a colloquy to tell me the name of the person at VA who has confirmed that the VA is moving forward with these changes to disability ratings.
So the gentleman is saying that a Secretary who backed away from changes to disability ratings in terms of medication--the intent was to say that if veterans take medication or get some sort of treatment, that if their conditions improve, that their disability ratings could then be lowered. He backed away from that after immense protest and opposition from veterans and veterans organizations.
You are telling me that this very same Secretary is telling you that he is moving forward with a $57 billion cut to disability ratings?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for the purposes of a colloquy.
That is exactly the position of the VA and their administration. That was said this morning. It was sent out this morning. It is now being reported in the news.
Mr. Speaker, there has been no public statement by the Secretary. There has been no named official from VA today. I defy the chairman to produce such a name. He is making a claim, but, again, I will contend that they are counting on a golden egg in disability cuts, savings on the backs of veterans, that has not been laid yet and that I contend will not be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio), a veteran of the U.S. Navy, a former member of this committee and who now serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I rise in opposition to any effort to cut veterans' benefits.
Let's be clear. This bill raises the cost of the VA Home Loan Program during a housing crisis, and this program and this bill cuts VA benefits for current veterans who don't have them and for troops downrange right now for two of the most common conditions they may experience: sleep apnea and tinnitus.
This bill sells off more VA and veterans' care to the private sector. It continues the privatization push of the Trump administration and so many congressional Republicans. I am not going to take a lecture on fiscal responsibility or accept this argument from the Republicans and the Trump administration that you have to fund veterans' programs by cutting care or benefits for other veterans.
The same people who have funded an Iran war at the tune of billions and billions of dollars, the same people who added nearly $5 trillion to the debt through their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which, by the way, has a new name now, I guess. We have lost track of that. That new bill, by the way, would also add $19 trillion over 30 years.
Mr. Speaker, there is no problem on the Republican side with adding to the debt when it comes time to give tax breaks and tax giveaways to the ultrarich and to corporations, but when it comes time to care of veterans, now they are counting pennies.
Let's be crystal clear about what this bill does. It says to troops downrange right now who are in harm's way that they have to have worse benefits than veterans have today to pay for benefits and care that other veterans have earned.
That is ridiculous. It is why groups like the VFW, the IAVA, and others oppose this bill. It is why I think Democrats and Republicans should oppose this bill on the floor today.
For this reason and many others, 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 amendment to this bill.
The amendment would change the offsets used in the bill. Instead of reducing the VA home loan benefit and cutting disability benefits for sleep apnea and tinnitus, it takes unobligated, appropriated but not committed, funding given to the DOD in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and uses it as a pay-for.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
This package includes more than 60 bipartisan bills that modernize, enhance, and reform the delivery of healthcare and benefits for the entire veteran community.
It also delivers numerous bills that veterans and VSOs across America have been vocal about, like the Major Richard Star Act, the Love Lives On Act, the ACCESS Act, the TAP Promotion and Expansion Act, and more.
It also includes eight of my own specific bill priorities, including:
The ASSIST Act and CRUISE Act, which will help disabled veterans and businesses make necessary and timely modifications to vehicles, ensuring that veterans have accessibility to move about.
The Sharri Briley & Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act will finally deliver the first notable increase in over 30 years to our most severely disabled veterans and our Gold Star families who have sacrificed so much.
My Clear Communication for Veterans Claims Act and my Delivering Digitally to Our Veterans Act, which will ensure that every veteran can understand the messages and communications they receive from the VA in a simplified manner and even opt in to get them electronically.
My Veterans Community Care Scheduling Improvement Act, which will make it easier for veterans to schedule medical appointments closer to home and easier to access.
The Acquisition Reform and Cost Assessment Act to strengthen oversight of VA acquisitions with the ginormous contracts that they often enter into.
And, finally, my Home Affordability for Guard and Reserve Act to empower more of our National Guard and reservists to take advantage of the VA Home Loan Program. Today, they would wait 6 years to qualify for the VA Home Loan Program. Under this bill, they will qualify once they return home from their training and are in good standing with their unit.
Mr. Speaker, I worked hard on these bills for nearly 2 years, and they and more than 50 other bipartisan bills just like them are all major wins that will improve the lives of our Nation's heroes.
I thank Chairman Bost for his work on this legislation, and I look forward to the passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, there is overwhelming opposition to cutting veterans' disability benefits to offset the cost of this bill.
Major VSOs, like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, along with numerous others, all oppose this bill due to the offset.
More importantly, veterans themselves are overwhelmingly opposed, as well. Check out any online veteran forum, and you will find thousands of comments from both veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers decrying these proposed cuts.
Veterans of all eras agree that their receipt of benefits should not be predicated on cuts to benefits for another generation of veterans. It is our job to listen to them. There are other ways to fund this bill's provisions. We just need to have the political courage to stand up and do what is right for our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee), my good friend who serves on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 9237, which, if we are being clear, cuts veterans' benefits.
The President and my colleagues on the Republican side in Congress have no problem sending our men and women off to war, but the real measure of a nation is not just how it treats their servicemembers when they are on Active Duty. It is how it treats them when they are no longer dodging the bombs, the bullets, and the storms at sea and when they are no longer serving in war.
As a Congress, we have to do right by our veterans, and this bill simply does not do it with $57 billion in cuts for disability benefits for veterans. It raises home loan refinancing fees $4 billion on veteran borrowers.
Mr. Speaker, I am the son of two veterans, and we would have never purchased our first home when I was in high school were it not for a VA home assistance loan. That is to say not just for me but for so many folks across the 18th Congressional District of Texas.
I keep hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that we have to find money to offset to be able to pay for some of the other benefits in this bill. Yet, if we are pinching pennies, let's tell the President to end his war in Iran, which has cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. It is time for this Congress to do right by our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against H.R. 9237.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Bost for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. Our veterans answered the call to serve, sacrificed on behalf of this country, and defended the freedoms every American enjoys.
They have earned a Department of Veterans Affairs that delivers the care, benefits, and support that they were promised without unnecessary delays or bureaucratic obstacles, and that includes community care, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the aversions and obstacles and reasons for opposition because Democrats are pretty much against community care initiatives.
This bipartisan package brings together more than 60 commonsense proposals that truly make this happen. And by the way, it is supported by The American Legion, Military Officers Association of America, Wounded Warrior Project, Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Korean War Veterans Association, Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, Gold Star Spouses of America, and the list goes on.
Very importantly, it includes the Major Richard Star Act. Voting against this bill is voting against the Major Richard Star Act, which ends the unfair wounded veterans tax for eligible combat-injured retirees. These veterans were medically retired because their service was cut short by injuries sustained defending our country. They should not be forced to give up a portion of their military retirement pay simply because they also receive VA disability compensation. This bill corrects that injustice.
It also strengthens access to community care, as mentioned, and mental health treatment. It allows military widows to remarry and maintain their benefits. It cuts through the VA red
We owe our veterans more than the words of gratitude. We owe them this action. We owe them the Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will point out that yesterday, House Republicans released a $95 billion supplemental for the reconciliation bill they want to bring forward next week for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations all without offsets. We are talking about $95 billion--none of them with an offset. Yet, we are asking our veterans to pay for this bill. Only in the case of veterans is the chairman looking for an offset.
I defy the chairman to tell me whether he will ask for an offset for the $95 billion supplemental that goes to Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations. I eagerly await to hear his answer.
Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to lend my voice in strong support of H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
This comprehensive package is designed to address the critical needs of our Nation's veterans.
The legislation represents a meaningful step forward closing resource gaps that have persisted for far too long. Among its provisions are vital improvements for veterans affected by traumatic brain injuries, expanded survivor benefits, and increased access to medical care in the U.S. territories and the Freely Associated States.
I am proud to note that two bills I authored are included in this package. First is the Territorial Response and Access to Veterans' Essential Lifecare, or TRAVEL Act. This provision, which already passed in the House, establishes a VA program enabling physicians to travel to the U.S. territories and deliver essential medical care directly to veterans.
The second bill, the U.S. Vets of the Freely Associated States Act, empowers the VA to provide telehealth services and mail prescriptions to veterans residing in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. These Pacific Island countries are among our closest allies whose citizens serve in our military at exceptionally high rates, yet they lack access to basic care and benefits. This legislation will help remedy that inequity.
The Take Care of America's Veterans Act is not just important. It is urgent. Our veterans deserve the best we can offer, and this package delivers on that promise.
I thank Chairman Bost for his leadership and dedication to veterans everywhere. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of H.R. 9237.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I continue to ask the chairman in advance of a $95 billion supplemental for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operation, on none of this are the Republicans seeking an offset? Only the chairman in this particular case when it comes to our veterans is demanding that veterans pay for veterans.
We could pass this bill without having to ask veterans to pay for veterans--actually, for disabled veterans to pay for veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman again: Does he plan to seek an offset or demand an offset for the $95 billion supplemental for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations, none of which Republicans are intending to pay for? Their rules and their policy is to make veterans pay for veterans.
In listening to the chairman today and at the Rules Committee several weeks ago, it is clear to me that he has been picking his words very carefully. He has been very specific that this bill, the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act, would not impair current veterans.
I am not sure if the chairman fully understands how the disability benefits system works or if he truly believes what he is saying, but what he is saying isn't even remotely the full truth.
The bill can and will lead to cuts for those who already have service-connected disability ratings for sleep apnea and tinnitus. This is because anytime a veteran applies for a rating increase or applies for a new rating for some other condition, VA can and does review previous ratings, sometimes even lowering them.
It is foolish to think that VA won't apply the new rules for sleep apnea and tinnitus when veterans have their ratings reviewed.
Further, his remarks fail to take into consideration two other critically important populations here. First, these cuts would make servicemembers currently serving who may be incurring these injuries right now ineligible to receive compensation for service-connected tinnitus or sleep apnea. Those servicemembers President Trump keeps sending into harm's way in this foolish war with Iran would be ineligible for these benefits. That should give us all pause.
Let me just say a ``yes'' vote on this bill is a message that we are sending to the servicemembers currently serving in and around the waters of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz and our servicemembers that are stationed at bases who have already faced incoming missile fire and have been subjected to the blasts that have surely affected their eardrums, we are saying to them that they will not be able to apply to make claims based on tinnitus, much less sleep apnea. That is the message a ``yes'' vote will send to them. That is why I say vote ``no.''
In addition, the chairman and his colleagues fail to acknowledge that the existing veterans who have yet to file a claim for tinnitus or sleep apnea--I am talking about a group of people not the current servicemembers, but veterans who have yet to apply for a rating--these two groups of veterans, that is, current servicemembers and veterans who have yet to file, will be treated worse than those that came before them.
This contract will unilaterally be changed on them and for the worse. How my Republican colleagues are okay with treating two veterans with the same exact condition differently is beyond me.
Mr. Speaker, this is the largest cut to veterans' disability benefits in history being used to pay for this bill when Republicans are not demanding offsets for $95 billion next week. I don't know how you all can live with yourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Throughout this process, I have tried to stay up to date on what veterans are saying online about the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act. I found the discussions to be enlightening.
Before my colleagues say I have cherry-picked those comments, I urge them to pull out their phones and take a look at the comment sections on any social media post discussing this bill. It will become clear to you that opposition to this legislation is coming from veterans on both sides of the aisle. Let's take a look. I am quoting from the comments:
``This creates two tiers of veterans.''
``Veterans should not have to take a reduced amount to provide savings to pay for fellow veterans. The U.S. Government should honor their commitment to us.''
``This is a false choice. Find the funds without making veterans literally pay the cost.''
``If they truly cared, they wouldn't rob all veterans to pay for this as there are plenty of other ways to fund this act.''
``Pitting veterans against veterans.''
``You taught us to take care of each other; this bill contradicts that.''
There are thousands more just like this from veterans in each of our districts telling us to vote ``no'' on this bad bill. If my colleagues won't listen to my concerns here, I urge them to listen to the veterans, dependents, caregivers, survivors, and advocates in their districts.
We cannot today, tomorrow, or ever balance budgets on the backs of veterans who have already sacrificed so much for their country. Instead, we must honor the contract we made with our Nation's veterans and reject the false choice Chairman Bost has foisted upon us.
I join the millions of veterans across the country who vehemently oppose H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, and urge everyone to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
I will respond to a few claims that the veterans do not want this package. It is just not true. The ranking member can disagree on the bill. He can disagree on the offset. He can argue that they would have written the package differently, but I do not think it is accurate to suggest the veterans' community, as a whole, is somehow united against this legislative package.
The package has support from a wide range of organizations, including The American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, Mission Roll Call, Wounded Warrior Project, Military Officers Association of America, AMVETS, Concerned Veterans for America, Tragedy Assistance Programs for Survivors, Gold Star Spouses of America, the Veterans Survivor Coalition, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans Justice Alliance, the National Association of State Approving Agencies, the ALS Association, Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Air Force Sergeants Association, American Optometric Association, Avalon Action Alliance, Career Education Colleges and Universities, Commissioned Officers Association of the USPHS, K9s for Warriors, Korean War Veterans Association, Military Chaplains Association, National Defense Committee, National Military Family Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, Americans for Prosperity, National Federal Development Association, National Taxpayers Union, and the Association of Mature American Citizens.
Those organizations represent veterans, survivors, Gold Star families, wounded veterans, military families, advocates, and professionals who work directly with the people this bill would help.
When the ranking member claims that veterans do not want this package, that ignores millions of voices in the veterans' community who are asking Congress to act.
This bill includes longstanding priorities for veterans and, importantly, it does so in a way that is paid for and capable of actually moving from here to the Senate and to the President's desk.
At some point, we have to decide whether we are going to keep talking about these promises or actually move a package that can become law. I believe that this package is a serious, responsible step forward, and I reject the idea that veterans do not want this Congress to act on this bill.
Also, whether they want to admit it or not, the problem with most of these organizations that were in opposition is because they didn't want the offset. That offset, as I have told you this morning, as the VA has said exactly what we said, they are going to implement it.
The question for my colleagues is very simple: Do they want to use their Article I power to make decisions, as we should in Congress, to direct that money to our veterans and where they need it? We have sat and looked at these over and over again. We have also passed some of these bills and sent them over to the Senate to die because they don't have an offset.
This isn't an easy game, and it is not a game. If you don't believe this marine is serious about helping veterans--and I am telling you I took a lot of crap this week--I can tell you this: I will stand and always stand for my veterans.
I am the son of a veteran. I am the grandson of a veteran. I am the nephew of a veteran. I am the father of a veteran, and I am the grandfather of two of them.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot this week. I am going to tell you, we have worked hard and did the best we can to put the best bill forward. It is the best bill that has been around in decades.
Do we want the bureaucrats to make the decision and not support those areas where we are trying to help our veterans? You can love it. You can hate it, but I am telling you, this is the best thing we can do for veterans right now. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has now expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1423, 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.
Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 5362) to name the Department of Veterans Affairs multispecialty clinic in Marietta, Georgia, as the ``Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 9237) to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, and other Federal laws, to improve benefits for veterans and the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, nays 211, not voting 10, as follows:
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ changed her 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. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 9237 is postponed.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 1420 and H.R. 4970, bills originally introduced by Representative LaMalfa of California, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, the Senate is fiddling while America burns, and when I say burns, I mean it in the literal sense.
Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, we sent a hugely bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act to the Senate. It has passed the Senate Ag Committee on a bipartisan vote. It is time for the Senate to send the Fix Our Forests Act to the President's desk.
Nearly 50 uncontained fires are burning across the country, and our prayers are with the firefighters and the families of those whose lives have been taken by wildfire. We owe it to them to manage our forests and provide the tools needed to suppress fires.
The Fix Our Forests Act does just that. It accelerates hazardous fuel reduction in our highest-risk forests. It strengthens State and local partnerships. It supports firefighters and their families by establishing a new Casualty Assistance Program. It does all this and much more.
It is time to wake up and smell the smoke. Enact the Fix Our Forests Act so we can begin the process of forest health restoration to protect our communities, to protect our environment, and to protect against the loss of American lives.
Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have spoken about the affordability crisis, forcing families to figure out how to make ends meet, but let's make something clear: The affordability crisis isn't just a political buzzword like the President claims. This is a real crisis, and it is made worse by the President's decisions: a war of choice in Iran, indiscriminate tariffs, and tax cuts for billionaires, just to name a few, all this while 1 month of groceries in my home district in New York now averages over $1,200 a month.
Since this President took office, the average additional cost of living for basic essentials in New York has risen to $4,000.
These costs are more than just numbers. They reflect sacrifices at the grocery store, an elderly couple without care, or a young person unable to put away savings.
As some in public life line their own pockets by the billions, my colleagues and I remain focused on the only thing that matters: making life more affordable again.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the legacy of Matthew Ledbetter, a longtime Forsyth County Tax Commissioner, who passed away unexpectedly on June 27 at the age of 59.
A lifelong Georgian and graduate of Forsyth Central High School and the University of Georgia--go Dawgs--Ledbetter dedicated nearly 21 years to public service, after having taken office in 2005 and most recently being reelected to a sixth term in 2024.
Matthew will be remembered as a tireless advocate for the people of Forsyth County, known for turning the Tax Commissioner's Office into a well-oiled machine and building a legendary reputation for customer service.
Friends recall his leadership, his wit, and his personality, as he never met a stranger. He was a devoted husband to his wife, Allison, and father to his sons, Evan and Ben.
Georgia is grateful for Matthew's years of dedicated service, and our thoughts and prayers remain with his family and the entire Forsyth County community.
Mr. Speaker, today I am here to talk about student loans. To be honest with you, I don't know why I am the only one. I can't remember the last time I heard this body talking about financing higher education. Instead, we have been voting on things like daylight saving time.
Americans are struggling, Mr. Speaker, and our kids' opportunities are being limited. This should be a top priority of every Member of Congress.
First, we need to fix the raggedy monthly payments calculator that prevents interest from spiraling out of control.
We need to make sure that borrowers have access to repayment plans that don't take over 30 years to complete.
Affordability shouldn't be a barrier, Mr. Speaker. We need to be building the workforce of the future. Americans need student loan plans that offer flexibility and real options. We should be making access to education easier, Mr. Speaker, not harder for Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Lee Kump who recently completed
Since 1986, Dr. Kump has been an integral part of the Penn State community and has served as the college's dean since 2017. Throughout his career, he has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in geochemistry, astrobiology, and mathematical modeling, helping students understand our Earth.
Dr. Kump is a true champion of science, research, and innovation. He has collaborated with NASA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and his work has been featured by outlets like National Geographic and the Discovery Channel.
Under his leadership, the college has reached new heights. The establishment of the Center for Critical Minerals and the Center for Energy Law and Policy has driven innovation across Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Dr. Kump's tenure as dean, and I wish him the best as he continues teaching at Penn State.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark 1 year of the Republicans' big, ugly bill, which has left our children, veterans, and seniors hungry.
When President Trump signed this bill, he promised to lower costs for everyday people. Instead, his bill cut billions of dollars for SNAP across the Nation, including $425 million in my home State of Oregon.
These cuts are taking food off families' tables. In Oregon, 70,000 people--parents, friends, and neighbors--have lost their food benefits.
Why did Mr. Trump do this? It was to give tax cuts to his billionaire buddies.
While the cost of healthcare and groceries skyrocket, families are losing the support they need to put food on the dinner table and pay their bills.
Mr. Speaker, we must restore these devastating cuts to SNAP. No child, veteran, or senior in the wealthiest nation on the planet should go hungry because Republicans chose tax breaks for billionaires over food for families.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my outgoing chief of staff, Mr. Lee Lonsberry, a beloved fixture here on the Hill and one of Utah's most trusted voices.
This end of this week marks the conclusion of a decade of Lee's exemplary public service. Before joining my office, Lee served as communications director for two distinguished members of Utah's delegation in both the House and the Senate.
As my chief of staff, Lee revealed his greatest gifts and talent, a style of leadership that has built a beautiful culture of service and family.
Lee has earned the respect and admiration of everyone who has had the privilege of working with him. We are excited to see him take those skills of service, patience, encouragement, and as a strategist into his next chapter. We know, as has been his last chapter, it will be a successful one.
I thank Lee for his personal friendship, his leadership to our remarkable team, his faithful service to the people of Utah, our country, and this institution. He will be missed. Well done, my friend.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Marcus Christopher as Ohio's 13th Congressional District's Champion of the Week after capturing the gold medal in BMX Park at the X Games in Chiba, Japan.
After previously recognizing Marcus for representing the United States at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, I am proud to once again celebrate his achievements and the pride that he brings to our community.
Marcus earned his second career X Games gold medal and seventh X Games medal overall with a remarkable performance that showcased why he is one of the world's best BMX riders.
Marcus is a proud product of Stark County and a graduate of Lake High School.
After turning professional at just 13 years old, Marcus has continued to push the limits of BMX, or bicycle motocross, on the world's biggest stages.
I congratulate Marcus on this incredible achievement. His talent, determination, and dedication to his craft are exactly why Ohio's 13th Congressional District is proudly known as the Birthplace of Champions.
Mr. Speaker, the summer of soccer is alive and well in northeast Indiana.
Fort Wayne Football Club's new state-of-the-art stadium recently celebrated its grand opening. Privately funded, Ruoff Mortgage Stadium seats over 7,000 fans and has already become a hub for soccer fans across Indiana.
I had the pleasure of attending a game this past weekend and was honored to present the match ball for the Fort Wayne Football Club's USL Cup match against Detroit City. The passion of the fans and the quality of the players were a reminder of how far soccer has come in our community.
With the incredibly exciting World Cup wrapping up in just a few days, I encourage all Americans and all Hoosiers to make their way to a match close to them and especially those in northeast Indiana to cheer on our local club for a great family night out.
Fort Wayne is proving that soccer's future in the United States is bright. I look forward to attending more matches in the years to come to watch some exciting soccer.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Tami Hance-Lehr, a pillar in Nevada's nonprofit and education community and a dear friend of mine, on her well-earned retirement.
Tami has over three decades of leadership and the last 9 years as president of Communities in Schools, an organization that is near and dear to me. Communities in Schools of Nevada serves more than 100,000 students in 117 high-needs schools across our State, providing students with a one-on-one relationship with a caring adult to remove barriers and help students stay in school.
Under Tami's leadership, Communities in Schools experienced unprecedented growth. She expanded the reach of CIS and made a lifelong impact on thousands of students across the State.
Throughout her career, Tami has helped prove that when young people have the support they need, they can achieve anything. I thank Tami for her dedication and belief in students. As she steps into retirement, I know that her passion for serving others will remain.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true Kansas City legend, John Wathan, whose lifelong dedication to the Kansas City Royals has now earned him a well-deserved place in the Royals Hall of Fame.
For more than five decades in baseball, and an incredible 47 years with one organization, John Wathan has done it all: catcher, first baseman, outfielder, manager, coach, broadcaster,
He was there for some of the most defining moments in Royals history, including the club's first World Series in 1985. Long after his playing days, he continued to shape generations of players and strengthen the organization he proudly called home.
They called him The Duke, but what truly set John Wathan apart was not just his talent. It was his loyalty, his love, and his humility. The city of Kansas City is 100 percent behind him.
This honor is more than overdue. It is a testament to a lifelong commitment to the game, to the city, and to our community.
Mr. Speaker, legends aren't just defined by what they achieve but how they are serving others. John Wathan's legacy will continue to inspire for generations to come.
We are so proud to congratulate The Duke and his family on this incredible honor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Ms. Beverly Wharton, my Constituent of the Week, for her more than 43 years of service as a registered nurse at the UVA Health Culpeper Medical Center.
Beverly Wharton is a critical care nurse, and she has been doing that job since 1992. She has served on the front lines caring for patients and families during their most vulnerable moments. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she demonstrated extraordinary courage and compassion and helped save countless lives.
Her commitment to excellence, her steady leadership, and her compassion for others have made a lasting impact on her colleagues, patients, and the entire Culpeper community.
Beverly embodies the very best of the nursing profession. I thank her for her remarkable service and congratulate her on this milestone.
Mr. Speaker, this week the administration has continued its assault on our public and sacred lands, repealing critical protections for Chaco Canyon and Bears Ears, two of our most sacred cultural landscapes.
For New Mexico's Tribes and pueblos, these are not relics of the past. They are living, sacred places where history, culture, religion, and identity endure. They hold thousands of ancestral sites that are central to ceremonies, traditions, the stories, and the people who have cared for these lands since time immemorial.
These repeals disregard years of Tribal consultation and open the door to oil, gas, and mining, threatening sacred sites that are irreplaceable.
Let me be clear, though. This fight is not over. We will stand with our Tribal Nations, our communities, and everyone fighting on the front lines. We will fight back in the courts, in Congress, and alongside our Tribal Nations and the American people because our sacred sites are not for sale.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Saturday, July 18, 2026, and further when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on Monday, July 20, 2026, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. That couldn't be more true for the thousands of honest, hardworking people and businesses I represent in northwestern Ohio.
They were wronged for decades by the largest nuclear power corruption scandal in both American and Ohio history. First Energy took the public's money to buy influence and bail out failing nuclear plants, costing the public over $1 billion and counting, at a minimum. That is money stripped from families and our local economy.
Just weeks ago, First Energy visited the Public Utility Commission of Ohio seeking to raise electricity bills again--this time for 3 more years. This follows a mistrial declared in the spring in the State in its ongoing corruption case and Federal litigation that is ongoing for conspiracy, wire fraud, and bribery.
It is over time to recover the money taken and return it to the ratepayers. Nuclear power executives must be held accountable. The Ratepayer Justice Act I just introduced yesterday would do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I call on the Energy and Commerce Committee to act with dispatch to schedule a hearing on this important bill. Mr. Speaker, let's get to the bottom of this once and for all and return the public's money.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, and today, in the name of we the people. I rise censored, Mr. Speaker, but not silenced. I rise as a unbought, unbossed, liberated Democrat--some would also add unelected liberated Democrat. My friends over on the racist radio say that proudly, and they have a lot of alacrity when they say it. They seem to say it because they seem to think that somehow they played a role in it happening. Well, be that as it may, I still rise in the name of we the people.
I rise in the name of we the people today, Mr. Speaker, because of concern that I have with the killing that took place in Houston, Texas. As a result of some other things that happened, there was a killing in Maine. I sent out a tweet, as it were. I am not sure that they are called tweets anymore, but a message by way of the electronic social media. I would like to read this message because it is the essence of my message today.
It reads: @realDonaldTrump--I am told that by saying ``@realDonaldTrump'' in this message, the President should have an opportunity to hear about it and possibly read it himself. ``@realDonaldTrump, your ICE force has killed a person in Maine. After the killings of Good, Pretti, and Araujo, without accountability, we cannot trust your Homeland Security or Justice Department to investigate ICE. `We the people' demand accountability and congressional oversight.''
I rise in the name of we the people to demand accountability and oversight. I do so because, quite frankly, I am concerned about the possibility of a cover-up, and I am also concerned about the possibility of a clean-up. Let's start with the clean-up, and then I will move into the cover-up.
The clean-up. You might recall, friends, that there was an assault on the citadel of democracy, this Capitol. You might recall, also, that there were persons who engaged in this dastardly act of cowardice. They were here to prevent the peaceful transfer of power at the insistence of the President, it seems. He delivered incited commentary that caused much of what happened that day to take place.
They were here and did some things that were unlawful. They were unlawful, and we know they were unlawful because they were prosecuted, many of them--not just 5 or 10, not just 20 or 30, not just 100 or 200. Hundreds of them
We also know that the President, upon being reelected--upon being reelected, one of his first acts as a new President for a new term of office--this was not his first term, his second term--his first act was to pardon the people who assaulted the citadel of democracy at a time when there was an attempt to engage in a peaceful transfer of power, something that our country is known for far and wide. We are known for the peaceful transfer of power.
After he pardoned them, they were able to walk freely. They were pardoned.
Now, let's bring that forward. Given what has happened to the persons who were here to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, who were convicted and who were pardoned by the President. The people who are a part of the ICE force are very much aware of what happened, and they know that the President--who gave a pardon to those persons who assaulted the Citadel of Democracy--they know that this President can provide them a pardon if they are charged with a Federal offense.
Because they know, it is my belief that this somehow has caused some of them to believe that they have a license to exceed what the law allows--some of them, not all. This is not a condemnation of everybody. This is about the people who have done things that are unlawful, in my opinion. They know this. As a result of knowing it, I think they take liberties that they should not because they know that the President--to borrow a term that we use in my hood--will have their backs. They know.
Let's now examine a rationale for my being concerned about the possibility of a cover-up. That was the clean-up, by the way. The clean-up occurred when the President had those persons released--after he pardoned them, of course--who had been found guilty. They were released. They are walking freely.
By the way, that was lawful. The President has every right to pardon people, and he doesn't really have to give a rationale for it. That was a clean-up of what he started when he engaged in this movement to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for the country, it did not succeed. So now, back to where I was.
After the cleanup having occurred and these officers now understanding that the President has this authority, then we have to examine what happened next with Ms. Good.
Let's talk about Ms. Good first.
We, with our very own eyes, saw most of what happened with Ms. Good, and we can say, because of what we saw if we want to believe our eyes, that Ms. Good was not there to harm anyone. She was unarmed. She was an American citizen. She was engaging in a peaceful protest--unarmed American citizen, and engaging in peaceful protest--when confronted by officers who were making demands. If you saw what happened, you know that it ended with her losing her life.
She said kind things, by the way, to the officers, kind things, but she lost her life. We saw this with our own eyes. We saw it.
Let's move over to Mr. Pretti.
We saw Mr. Pretti as he was prostate. He was sprawled on the ground and an officer removed a weapon that he had, but it was after the removal of the weapon that he was shot. He lost his life. He was an American citizen, not armed at the time his life was taken. He was an American citizen engaging in peaceful protests.
These two cases are worthy of following because to this day, we don't have credible information about what has happened. We don't really know when or if there will be charges that will be brought before a court of law such that there would be a trial.
These cases are evidence of the fact that at least these investigators are taking an unusual amount of time to bring these cases to the attention of the public in a fashion such that the public will understand that there will or will not be prosecution.
I happen to think there should be prosecution, but if there is not going to be prosecution, if they found some evidence beyond what we have been able to see and hear, then I think they should bring this evidence forward and let us have an opportunity to review it so that we can, again, have the transparency necessary for the public to have the knowledge that it is entitled to when an American citizen has been killed at the hands of the constabulary.
We should know. We should have the opportunity to be told by credible sources what the final decision is, whether we are moving forward with trials. With this happening the way it is happening and given that we were able to see in these two cases most of what happened--didn't see all of it, but most of what happened--in fact, I would say we saw the relevant portions, but there may be something else that is there that we need to see, but we saw relevant portions.
Having to see that and not seeing any action taken after all of these months have passed that causes me the consternation and concern that I placed in my message to the masses today indicating that I am concerned about and would be addressing a possible cover-up.
We live in a world where it is not enough for things to be right, they must also look right. It doesn't look right for these two cases to be pending. We have two additional cases now, and we also have very little evidence of what actually occurred in one of these cases, and that would be the case with Mr. Araujo.
We don't have all of the evidence of what occurred. We saw enough to get some sense of what is likely to have happened, but because we don't have enough evidence--we are told that there were no body cameras. There were no vehicle cameras. We don't have any evidence from the side that should produce evidence because they should have had their body cameras on. There was $20 million accorded to them for body cameras. They should have had vehicle cameras. There should have been cameras, but they don't have the cameras. They don't have the cameras.
Now, why would I believe, as in the case with Mr. Araujo, why would I believe the story that the person who is deceased, Mr. Araujo, tried to assault officers with a vehicle? Why would I believe that given that we have seen stories manifest themselves about the cases that we actually saw wherein the original stories told were not in conformity with what our eyes allowed us to see.
Immediately after the shooting of Pretti, immediately after the shooting of Good, there was a story put forth that was not in conformity with what we saw.
If we know that you will send us a message, a false message, about things that we saw, you send a false message about things that we saw, a prevarication about things that we saw, why should I believe that you are going to do anything less in a case where we didn't see everything?
I am concerned about a cover-up. I am concerned about a cover-up because, as I have explained, these officers are aware that there will be a cleanup. If the President is true to his words and he honors what he says he will do, he has given hints to officers in his prior administration about how they should conduct themselves when arresting people. He told their officers, you don't have to be nice, words from the President of the United States of America about making an arrest. You don't have to be nice, implying that he had their back.
He was implying that we are not as much concerned about law and order as we are about order and law. Law and order means you are going to follow the law to bring about the order necessary. Order and law means you restore order and I will provide the law--this is the President, not Al Green--I will provide the law necessary to protect you.
Why should I believe the stories that are being told when we don't see evidence of the cars having collided? Why should I believe when the officers who were engaged in this circumstance that cost the life of a human being in Houston, Texas--they have been secreted away, why should I believe when you have shut out the engagement of other members of the constabulary, of the Houston Police Department?
You have said, apparently based upon what I have been told and heard, that the Houston Police Department should not attempt to engage because you are going to take care of this yourselves.
The Houston Police Department investigates. It doesn't prosecute, but it has one of the finest homicide departments in the country. It investigates homicides. The Houston Police Department has investigated police shootings in the past.
The Houston Police Department has investigated circumstances where officers who were not in the Houston Police Department, but officers of the law, have been investigated.
The Houston Police Department is capable, competent, and qualified to have this investigation, but you are shutting out the Houston Police Department wherein we could get some scintilla of transparency by virtue of having another authority engaged in the process of investigation. You shut them out. You have gone so far as to shut out the district attorney in Harris County.
They can't get the information that you have such that they can give an analysis. They haven't talked to the officers who were engaged in the shooting. They haven't been able to assess the value that you place on what you now are saying appears to be some sort of drugs that were in the vehicle, the vehicle that Mr. Araujo was driving.
Yes, for those who do not know, the allegation is being made now that there may have been drugs in the vehicle. They saw this substance in there and they are contending that it might be some form of illegal drugs.
Why do we believe all of these things when we were told not to believe our eyes in the case of Pretti and Good? Why would we not have some degree of suspicion? Why would we not think that you are, Mr. President, in charge of this ICE force? You, Mr. President, after the person who is now heading Homeland Security, Mr. Mullin, why would you countermand what he has done?
Mr. Mullin, as I understand it by way of news reports, was going to put a pause on stopping cars. Mr. Mullin was going to give a moment of opportunity to take a look at circumstances and see if there is a better way to do what you are doing, but you, Mr. President, yourself, countermanded what came from your Department of Homeland Security. You did it knowing that he had done this because of the way your language was couched as you presented your command that the officers go back to stopping cars. You made that very clear, that they should do that, that this was something that they should continue to do.
You use the term ``weak,'' don't want them to look weak, Mr. President. We have to ask why would we the people believe that there will be justice served given that we know that you tend to want to decide without having the opportunity to see what actually occurred? You tend to want to decide before seeing and making your decisions about what the officers have done, and then moving from there, it seems, by and through your agents in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, by and through what they say.
They are at your command. We should make no mistake about it. You are in control. The Supreme Court has given you the green light. You have taken advantage of it. That is why you sent out your message by way of your Truth Social, indicating that you were countermanding the order from the person that you just installed as your person who is in charge of Homeland Security.
Why would we believe? Why should we believe that you are going to do all that you can to ensure transparency?
To the contrary, it would not be unreasonable for a person to believe that there may be a coverup, and if not a coverup, if there is a conviction, that there would be a cleanup.
You will try first to do all that you can to exonerate the officers, make sure that the investigation centers around whether the person who is deceased, the victim, was trying to harm the officers. That is what has been said: make sure the investigation is on whether the victim was trying to harm the officers.
I have not heard to date--and I know that initially it was not said-- that there would be an investigation as to whether the civil rights of the victim had been violated, no investigation about the civil rights of the victim being violated, but whether the victim was making an effort to assault the officers.
The visceral reaction is let's protect the officers, not let's have a free, open, fair investigation. When I say ``free,'' free for other persons to see and to be a part of. Have a parallel investigation with the Houston Police Department. There was none of that, none of that, just immediately decide that you are going to investigate the person who has lost his life without some indication that there would be an investigation as to whether or not the person who lost his life had his civil rights violated, the right to life, whether that has been taken away from him unlawfully.
So, here we are now. We have Mr. Araujo in Houston. We have two other persons in Minnesota. We have a person in Maine. We have a President who has taken control himself, has hands-on experience with what is happening in these Departments.
Nobody can deny that he is without knowledge of what is going on. His latest messages are indicative of his level of engagement and of the knowledge that he has as it relates to these circumstances. He is in charge. This is his Department of Justice. It is his Office of Homeland Security, and these people do believe that they work for him.
What makes you say this, that they believe they work for him? Well, just yesterday, Mr. Vought, who is with the CFPB, indicated at a hearing that he works for the President. Just as recently as yesterday or the day before--I believe it was yesterday--we had the person who is auditioning before the Senate for a position with the Department of Justice. This person made it very clear that he works for the President, or at least he did. He said he was the President's lawyer. Maybe it was a Freudian slip, but he said he was the President's lawyer.
So you have people who tend to do whatever you say. When your Cabinet meets, there is an effort to see who can give you the most praise. You have them all under your thumb. They are all under your control. They all bend a knee to you. They all kiss the ring. They are your people who serve you, not the country.
The country is not primary. It may be secondary. It may be tertiary. It could even be quaternary, but it is not primary. They believe in you and report to you.
Given these circumstances, why should we believe that you are going to cause the right thing to be done?
Mr. President, others have said, and I have said--and I say it now-- the blood of the people who I have called to your attention today, the blood of these persons is on your hands. It is. Other people are saying it. Other people are linking you directly to what has happened. I think they should, given that we know that you are in control, in command, in authority, and that you have knowledge.
You are not like a typical President who leaves things to others to do and decisions to be made. When there is a crucial decision to make, you make it, as evidenced by what you have done with your Truth Social and the case of the gentleman who was killed in Maine. You made the crucial decision as to how the officers will behave when they encounter the opportunity to observe, make an arrest at a later time, as opposed to rush in with guns blazing. You have made the decision that they can continue to do what they have been doing, but you do try to cover yourself by using the term ``judiciously,'' that they should behave judiciously. That is only to cover. We understand what is going on, Mr. President.
It seems to me that it would not be unreasonable for a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that there may be a coverup in this case, and if there is a conviction in the Federal court, there will be a cleanup--may be a coverup and will be a cleanup if you find--if the courts find, I should say--I shouldn't say ``you.'' You haven't taken complete control of the courts. You do have an outsized amount of influence, it seems.
If the courts find that there is a Federal crime, I am saying here and now, without question, reservation, or hesitation, I believe that you, Mr. President, will pardon the persons who have taken these lives.
I believe that you want to send a message to others, as you did on your
You do this because you want to complete your mission of removing persons from this country, many of whom are not the worst of the worst. You want to send a message that you are going to remove and people should be intimidated, they should be terrorized, and they should leave the country of their own volition before you have the opportunity to send your agents out--your ICE agents--with masks, with no body cameras, and with, sometimes, malice aforethought, in my opinion. Not all the time, but sometimes.
Mr. President, we, the people, are not going to allow you to continue with this kind of behavior. We, the people, are not going to allow you to continue to do this. While you are President of the United States and the Supreme Court has given you a certain amount of immunity, allow me to place another poster before you.
Mr. President, this is real. This is real, Mr. President. There is a countdown to impeachment. I have been very patient in waiting. I thought others might want to do what has to be done, and I say it has to be done. People can differ with me. I say it has to be done. It is the only tool that we have to bring you under control, to let the world know that we are opposed to what you are doing, and we are willing to take action against you.
This is it, this one word: Impeachment.
Mr. President, I assure you that Articles of Impeachment are going to be filed, and they are going to be filed in the very near future because we cannot allow the world to believe that the Congress of the United States of America will do nothing when people are being killed in the streets under circumstances that are clearly questionable and clearly unlawful in the minds of many people. I am one of them. Under these circumstances, we have to take action, and the only action is impeachment.
We in Congress can talk about a lot of things that we will do next year. By the way, I marvel at people who will run for office on what they are going to do, and then when they get here, they talk about what they will do next year. They give people the impression that they are going to come here and change things, that they know things that other people don't know about the process, that they have something called a strategic approach, and this strategic approach--they never say what it is going to be, but this strategic approach is supposed to make a difference, that people who have been here for years and years and studied these things can have it made. And then when you get here, you talk about next year, we are going to be really tough. We are going to be really tough when we take back the House next year.
Some of us don't buy into waiting until next year. Some of us believe that the time is always right to do what is right, and it is right to bring impeachment against this President of the United States of America. We don't have to wait until next year.
Do what you want next year when you have the power to investigate, when you have subpoena power, but most of the public wants to know what you are going to do right now.
Here is what will happen right now, and it is going to happen very soon. How soon? Within weeks. Within weeks, it is going to happen. There will be Articles of Impeachment, and they will be brought to a vote, not just filed. We are going to vote.
This is a question of conscience. I want to live with myself. I want to be able to say to myself, to me, that, on my watch, I did all that I could to stop a reckless, ruthless, lawless President from taking the lives of the American people.
I am Al Green, a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, unafraid, and unelected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President and to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 15 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Saturday, July 18, 2026, at 10 a.m.
