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.
06Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism: Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 119-195)
13Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, or Limited Tariff Benefits
14Deletions of Sponsors From Public Bills and Resolutions
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
26 public bills, H.R. 10351- 10376; and 8 resolutions, H.J. Res. 215; and H. Res. 1531-1537, were introduced.
Pages H5620-21
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 1266, to prohibit certain uses of xylazine, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-816 Part, 1); H.R. 2004, to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance on whether hospital emergency departments should implement fentanyl testing as a routine procedure for patients experiencing an overdose, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-817); H.R. 9615, to support the recycling and recovery of lithium-ion batteries, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-818); H.R. 2140, to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program (H. Rept. 119-819); H.R. 9617, to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate a National Critical Mineral Recovery Strategy, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-820); H.R. 9616, to establish a program for the recovery of critical materials from contaminated sites, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-821); H.R. 9339, to require the Secretary of Energy to conduct an assessment on the use of artificial intelligence and high-performance computing technologies to enhance the bulk-power system, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-822); H.R. 9332, to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish regional joint boards to study electric load forecasting, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-823); H.R. 6633, to establish a best-available transmission conductor standard for certain transmission projects under the Federal Power Act and to provide for presumptions regarding cost recovery for such conductors, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-824); and H. Res. 1530, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 9576) to establish the National Fraud Enforcement Division of the Department of Justice; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 10326) to enhance information-sharing capabilities between Federal law enforcement and State agencies to detect, investigate, and prosecute fraud in certain Federal programs, and to protect individual privacy; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 210) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 213) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the ``California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision''; and providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 5334) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-825).
Pages H5619-20
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Obernolte to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H5535
Recess
The House recessed at 12:46 p.m. and reconvened at 2 p.m.
Page H5540
Guest Chaplain
The prayer was offered by the Guest Chaplain, Major General Trent C. Davis, Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC.
Pages H5540-41
Privileged Resolution: Intent to Offer
Representative Green (TX) announced his intent to offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 1486) impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Pages H5541-44
Recess
The House recessed at 6:07 p.m. and reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
Page H5598
Suspensions
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measures: Authorizing the Secretary of the Army to convey to the State of North Carolina a certain parcel of real property located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on which the State shall construct a veterans' State home: H.R. 10159, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey to the State of North Carolina a certain parcel of real property located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on which the State shall construct a veterans' State home;
Pages H5544-45
Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress Sunset Act
H.R. 9360, amended, to sunset the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress;
Pages H5545-46
GPO Modernization Act of 2026
H.R. 9342, amended, to revise certain authorities of the Government Publishing Office;
Pages H5546-51
Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act
H.R. 10204, to modify the appointment and removal process for certain legislative branch officers;
Pages H5551-57
Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act
S. 283, amended, to require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and the Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop a standard methodology for identifying the country of origin of seafood to support enforcement against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing;
Pages H5557-58
Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act
S. 759, to provide for standardization, publication, and accessibility of data relating to public outdoor recreational use of Federal waterways;
Pages H5559-60
National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act
H.R. 4219, amended, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Program, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 371 yeas to 33 nays, Roll No. 296;
Pages H5560-62, H5598-99
National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act
H.R. 4931, amended, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend certain leases within units of the National Park System without opening the lease to bidding;
Pages H5562-63
Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act
H.R. 5063, amended, to ensure continuity of staffing at Federal beaches;
H.R. 6021, amended, to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to clarify the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft containing nonedible migratory bird parts;
Pages H5564-65
Agreed to amend the title so as to read
``To clarify the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft containing nonedible migratory bird parts under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and for other purposes'';
Page H5566
Designating the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as the ``Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand''
H.R. 8121, amended, to designate the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as the ``Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand'';
Pages H5566-67
Providing for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of California
H.R. 8454, amended, to provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of California;
Pages H5567-68
Stronger Engagement for Indian Health Needs Act
H.R. 741, amended, to elevate the position of Director of the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services to Assistant Secretary for Indian Health;
Pages H5568-70
Agreed to amend the title so as to read
``To redesignate the position of Director of the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services as Assistant Secretary for Indian Health, and for purposes'';
Page H5570
Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act
S. 240, amended, to amend the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 to make improvements to that Act;
Pages H5570-71
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvements Act
H.R. 2406, amended, to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to address sexual harassment and sexual assault involving National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration personnel;
Pages H5571-74
Providing for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois
S. 550, to provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois;
Pages H5574-75
Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act
H.R. 7889, amended, to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 to reauthorize the water resources research and technology institutes program;
Pages H5575-76
Indian Health Service Emergency Claims Parity Act
H.R. 8658, to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to modify the notification requirement for emergency contract health services for certain beneficiaries;
Pages H5576-78
Making National Parks Safer Act
S. 790, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to upgrade existing emergency communications centers in units of the National Park System to Next Generation 9-1-1 systems;
Page H5578
Making It Likely for Families of the Military to Live with Leave Access Act
H.R. 3276, amended, to improve family and medical leave for military families, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 345 yeas to 60 nays, Roll No. 297;
Pages H5578-80, H5599
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Land Exchange Act
H.R. 3925, amended, to provide for a land exchange in San Bernardino County, California; Designating the General George C.
Pages H5580-81
Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System
S. 603, to designate the General George C. Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System;
Pages H5581-82
National Law Enforcement Officers Remembrance, Support, and Community Outreach Act
H.R. 309, amended, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding for the National Law Enforcement Museum;
Pages H5582-84
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science (Waters) Act
H.R. 6893, amended, to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Pages H5584-86
Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act
H.R. 2317, amended, to provide for transfer of ownership of certain Federal lands in northern Nevada, to authorize the disposal of certain Federal lands in northern Nevada for economic development, to promote conservation in northern Nevada; and
Pages H5586-98
Common Cents Act
H.R. 10167, to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting the penny, to require cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 cents.
Pages H5599-H5602
Order of Business
Agreed by unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 93 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Moulton of Massachusetts, or their respective designees.
Page H5609
Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran
The House considered H. Con. Res. 93, directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Further proceedings were postponed.
Pages H5609-15
Suspensions: Proceedings Postponed
The House debated the following measures under suspension of the rules. Further proceedings were postponed. Guarding Unprotected Aging Retirees from Deception Act: H.R. 2978, amended, to permit State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies that receive eligible Federal grant funds to use such funds for investigating elder financial fraud, pig butchering, and general financial fraud, and to clarify that Federal law enforcement agencies may assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies in the use of tracing tools for blockchain and related technology;
Pages H5602-05
Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act
H.R. 8278, amended, to require certain supervisory agencies to assess their technological capabilities; and
Pages H5605-08
Whistleblower Protection Act
H.R. 4646, amended, to clarify that whistleblower protections described in section 4712 of title 41, United States Code, apply to any contract funded from amounts appropriated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Pages H5608-09
Presidential Message
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification that the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended, is to continue in effect beyond September 23, 2026--referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119-195).
Page H5598
Quorum Calls: Votes
Two yea-and-nay votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H5598-99 and H5599. Adjournment: The House met at 12 p.m. and adjourned at 9:40 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: 318 of 429 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 6, 2026, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the future of American education.
For decades, public schools have been asked to do more with less. Add to that, the fact that we have seen many new and complicated challenges over the past 10 years.
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted learning and placed enormous strain on students, educators, and families. Importantly and alarmingly, screen time, cell phones, devices, and social media changed the way young people interact with each other and the world around them. Generative AI is transforming how students learn and how educators teach with serious consequences like cognitive shrinking and, as we have seen in international scores recently, decline at least partly attributed to digital distractions.
Now, the Trump administration is trying to dismantle the Department of Education and slash the Federal support that closes opportunity gaps for millions of students in schools. At the same time, too many students are struggling. Students from low-income families, students of color, students with disabilities, and students in different parts of the country from urban to rural continue to experience significant gaps in achievement.
We must change course. We need to move forward with a vision of public education that recognizes the challenges of today, a vision based on research and best practices. We need a vision that recognizes that today's children are tomorrow's leaders and are worthy of policies that create a better future.
That is why I am introducing the Transforming Education for the Future Act. This legislation recognizes that a good education is about more than a test score. Every student deserves a well-rounded education that prepares them to be creative, critical thinkers who will be successful regardless of their background or the path they take in life.
That means more hands-on, project-based learning. It means access to the arts, career and technical education, and civics education. It means career counseling to help students see a path to their future. It means instilling a love of learning, reading, and studying, not cutting the humanities.
Students deserve a fair measure of how they are doing, but standardized test scores alone do not define a child's potential. This bill would encourage the use of multiple, high-quality measures to give families and educators a more complete picture of student learning.
We also need to invest in the people who make learning possible. Teachers and school staff are the foundation of our public schools, yet educators continue to face low pay, difficult working conditions, and a shortage of resources. We must strengthen the educator pipeline, improve compensation and working conditions, and give educators the resources they need to succeed.
We need to invest in what works. My bill would strengthen education research and promote evidence-based practices that improve student success and well-being. We must also address the barriers that make learning harder.
Kids can't focus in school when they are hungry or if they are homeless. Lack of affordable, high-quality childcare is creating gaps at an early age. The Transforming Education for the Future Act would triple funding for title I to better serve students from disadvantaged backgrounds and the schools that educate them.
It would establish free universal preschool for 3-and 4-year-olds through a Federal-State partnership. It would make school breakfast and lunch free and provide summer meals. These are not extras. They are investments that determine whether a child can learn, whether a teacher can teach, and whether a community can thrive.
We need to keep the Federal Government focused on its responsibility, not to set curriculum, but to support the civil rights of students. The Federal Government has an important role to play in giving every child access to high-quality education regardless of their ZIP Code, income, or ability.
That means protecting the Department of Education so it can carry out
It means strengthening civil rights protections and addressing segregation in schools. It means investing in public schools, not diverting Federal dollars into voucher programs that funnel money to private schools, including religious schools.
Circumstances have changed, but the American system of public education has not yet adapted. We need a public education system that meets the moment for today's students and tomorrow's. We need an education system that prepares students not to pass a test but to think critically and build a future. We need to support educators who make that possible, and we need to remove those barriers that stand between children and opportunity.
The Transforming Education for the Future Act is a blueprint for doing just that. It strengthens public education, and it reclaims the promise that every child in America deserves the opportunity to grow, learn, and succeed.
Mr. Speaker, that is the future our students deserve. That is the future we should build together.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Donna Mills of Hesston on her election as the national president of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Auxiliary.
A life member of the Standing Stone VFW Post 1754 in Huntingdon, Donna has served the VFW Auxiliary in numerous roles, including auxiliary, district, and department president.
Donna joined the organization at the age of 16 on the eligibility of her grandfather, who had served in the U.S. Army during World War II. Her commitment to the VFW Auxiliary is exemplary.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of constituents throughout Huntingdon County and the entire 13th Congressional District, I congratulate Donna on her election to this impactful leadership position.
Mr. Speaker, it is with sorrow that I rise to honor the life and public service of Pat Jones, who recently passed away at his farm in Logan Township.
Pat served as a magisterial district judge for 39 years in Blair County. Most recently, he was elected to his first term as the Logan Township supervisor in 2019.
A United States Marine Corps veteran, Pat has been described as a proud public servant who worked hard to ensure that the justice system continued meeting aspirational goals.
Mr. Speaker, as we pause to remember Pat's legacy of leadership and service, we also remember his family and keep them in our prayers. Join me in honoring the memory of Judge Pat Jones.
Mr. Speaker, with appreciation I rise to recognize Newry Lutheran Church of Blair County on the 225th anniversary of its founding.
This milestone commemorates more than two centuries of faithful worship, Christian service, and ministry within the Newry community and beyond.
Founded in 1801, Newry Lutheran Church has served generations of individuals and families through worship, education, outreach, and compassionate care.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of everyone in the 13th Congressional District, I congratulate Reverend Marty Jo Irvin-Stellabotte and the entire Newry Lutheran congregation on their 225th anniversary milestone and express my gratitude for the many ways that the church serves the community.
Mr. Speaker, with respect and admiration, I rise to recognize Elizabeth Schlusser of Newville for her induction into the Pennsylvania Voter Hall of Fame.
Induction into the Hall of Fame acknowledges and honors individuals who have voted in at least 50 consecutive November elections. The Voter Hall of Fame was established in 1986 and includes more than 25,000 voters statewide who were inducted over the last four decades.
As America continues to celebrate our semiquincentennial of our founding as a free and independent Republic, we take collective pride in our Nation's role as a global defender of democratic ideals, including the rights of citizens to vote in free and fair elections.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents throughout the 13th Congressional District, I congratulate Elizabeth on this remarkable patriotic distinction and thank her for a level of civic engagement that is a true inspiration to all Pennsylvanians.
Mr. Speaker, on September 4, President Trump was asked about the future of the Qatari Air Force One plane, which, after a messy rollout in July, he flew on to Ireland this past weekend and said: ``I haven't made a decision, but it will probably go to the museum. It is scheduled to go to the museum.''
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Air Force executive airlift programs, I will remind the House that this aircraft is not the property of any one person, including the President of the United States. That plane is the property of the U.S. Government and U.S. taxpayers, and it is under the control of the U.S. Air Force.
It is a plane the U.S. taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last years to retrofit prior to its maiden flight to Turkiye for the NATO Summit.
After it was discovered by the Secret Service that the plane had serious vulnerabilities and the President flew home on one of the older Air Force Ones, the Qatari plane went into another overhaul and received maxed out upgrades, as the President said, which cost even more taxpayer funds. Just a few days ago, it was announced that the Air Force had contracted a new pilot simulator training program for the Qatari plane to the tune of $45.3 million.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. taxpayer has huge skin in the game regarding the future of this plane. It is also clear that this plane has ample long-term service life left in it. At the time it was gifted to the Air Force, it had only 800 hours of flight time, which is a fraction of the normal full-service life of a comparable Boeing 747 jet. Given its low mileage and all the expenditure of government money and training, the notion that this plane should be mothballed in a couple years and donated to a Trump museum is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, some may point to the example of the Air Force One plane at the Reagan Library as justification for President Trump's claim that he has the right to abscond with this plane after he leaves office.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Reagan Library plane was in Air Force service for 13 years after he left office in 1988 and served President George Herbert Walker Bush, President Clinton, and President George W. Bush until it was decommissioned in 2001.
The plane then went through a well-established legal process for transfer of excess Federal property that President Reagan had no control over, which is designed to protect the interests of the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, everything about this Qatari gifted plane has been problematic: the unanswered questions of a foreign emolument, the lack of transparency on the cost of the initial retrofit, the rocky maiden voyage to Turkiye, and the President's repeated claims of ownership and control of the plane, which by law he does not have. It is clear Congress needs to intervene to prohibit any unlawful attempt to send it ``to the museum.''
Today, Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith and I will be introducing the Safeguarding Taxpayer Investment for Executive Airlift Act, which will very simply prohibit the transfer of the Qatari Air
As I have made clear today, after all the money and work invested in the retrofit of this practically brand-new Boeing 747, as well as the new $45 million pilot training contract that the Air Force just announced, the country and the American taxpayer deserve to get its money's worth from this plane. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, that is not too much to ask.
Its service life will last for years. Just as the Air Force One plane that flew for over a decade after Ronald Reagan left office, this Air Force One should be used to benefit the Nation and not be used as a vanity project.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is about exercising congressional stewardship of property that belongs to the U.S. taxpayer, and it should be easy for every Member of this Chamber to support. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, it asserts what is both legally the right thing to do, but also morally the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and Ranking Member Smith to cosponsor this commonsense measure.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Sudanese-American Iowa National Soccer Team Club for its outstanding performance at the Sudanese American Soccer Federation's 25th Anniversary Tournament.
Competing at the national level for the third time, the Iowa team earned three awards that reflect the talent, character, and dedication of its players. The club received the Fair Play Award for its sportsmanship, discipline, teamwork, and respect throughout the tournament.
Olamilekan Ojo, known as Messi, was recognized with the Five-Star Outstanding Player Award for his exceptional performance, and the club also received a Tournament Participation Award. These accomplishments are a testament to the team's hard work and its commitment to representing Iowa with pride.
Beyond competition, the club uses soccer to develop young athletes, build leadership skills and character, promote healthy lifestyles, and strengthen community connections.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the coaches and all the young athletes on the Iowa National Soccer Team Club, and I look forward to seeing all that they accomplish in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate National Truck Driver Appreciation Week and recognize the hardworking men and women who keep Iowa and our Nation moving.
Iowa is home to 37,530 truck drivers, many of whom spend long hours on the road delivering the food, fuel, supplies, and products our families, farms, and businesses rely on every day.
From the truck stops along Interstate 80 to the world's largest truck stop, the Iowa 80 Truck Stop in Walcott, trucking is a vital part of Iowa's economy and way of life. These drivers help keep our grocery store shelves stocked, support Iowa's farmers and manufacturers, and ensure goods can reach communities across our State and country. They even deliver lifesaving medical supplies and organs.
In fact, more than 60 percent of the communities in Iowa depend exclusively on trucks to move their goods. The trucking industry also provides good-paying jobs for Iowans and supports thousands of locally owned businesses.
I am grateful for the dedication and sacrifice of Iowa's truck drivers and the vital role they play in supporting our families, strengthening our local businesses, and ensuring communities across Iowa have the goods and resources they need.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a story about an unpayable debt, a promise kept across generations, and the true meaning of the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago, a young refugee named Myung-Hee Seol, having survived a brutal foreign occupation and the shadow of communism, fought for his life in the Korean war. On a frozen, desolate hill, an American marine pulled him from the brink of death--igniting a spark of gratitude that would shape a family's destiny forever.
Decades later, his son, the international artist Kacey Seol, poured his heart into honoring that nameless marine. He created Alliance 70, a breathtaking 10-foot canvas composed of 300,000 microscopic historic images of both nations harmonizing into one powerful unit that now hangs permanently inside the Pentagon. It is a stunning, living monument to the alliance that bought his family's freedom.
Today, that sacred promise is fulfilled at Rock Island Arsenal in my district. The refugee's grandson, Dr. Jason Seol--serving dually as an U.S. Army Reserve officer and an Army civilian at First Army Headquarters--is living the American Dream his grandfather could only imagine. He also pioneered their innovative Holistic Health and Fitness, H2F, martial arts program, training our Nation's soldiers in physical and mental readiness.
As we continue celebrating 250 years of our Nation, the Seol family reminds us freedom is not free. You earn it daily by what you do for your family, your community, and your country. Their 75-year journey is the ultimate testament that American freedom is a priceless gift that is meant to be paid forward and preserved.
Mr. Speaker, I wish a very happy birthday to my sister-in-law, Susan. Happy birthday, Susan.
Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy birthday to my husband, Curt Meeks. Happy birthday to my husband, and I hope he has many more birthdays to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 63rd anniversary of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and to honor the lives of four little girls whose lives were taken in one of the darkest chapters of our Nation's history.
On the morning of September 15, 1963, four young girls--Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Morris Wesley-- were in the basement of the 16th Street Baptist Church preparing for Sunday school.
They were daughters. They were sisters. They were classmates and friends. They had their whole lives ahead of them.
Just before 11 o'clock that morning, 19 sticks of dynamite planted underneath the church by members of the Ku Klux Klan exploded. The blast tore through the church, and beneath the rubble were the bodies of four innocent little girls.
Sarah Collins Rudolph, Addie Mae Collins' sister, was also in the basement that morning. She survived the bomb but suffered severe injuries, including the loss of her right eye.
The tragedy did not end with the bomb exploding. As Black Alabamians took to the streets to demand justice, they were met with violence and brutality, resulting in the loss of two more children: 16-year-old Johnny Robertson and 13-year-old Virgil Ware.
For too long, their families were denied the justice that they deserved. It took more than three decades before the perpetrators of this heinous attack were finally brought to justice.
Six decades later, we must remember that these were not simply events in a history book. These were children whose lives were stolen because of the color of their skin.
While we can never undo the pain of that day, we can ensure that these precious lives are never ever forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, in 2013, I was honored to have my very first bill passed by Congress. That legislation awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the four little girls. I will never forget standing in the Oval Office as President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on the 50th anniversary of the bombing.
It was a very personal moment for me because I know that those four little girls did not get the opportunity to
Their sacrifice helped galvanize a movement that changed the course of our Nation. Their memory strengthens the resolve of the foot soldiers who march for justice. It helped inspire the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Their legacy brought America closer to living up to its promise of equality and justice for all.
But, Mr. Speaker, remembering those four little girls cannot simply be about looking backward. It must also be about what we do today because the freedoms that they died for are not guaranteed. Every generation has a responsibility to protect them and to advance it.
That is why we must teach our children the truth about our history. It is why we must never forget what happened on that day and that we must protect the sacred right to vote. It is why we must continue the fight for the equal justice and equal opportunity of every American. It is why, on this anniversary, we must recommit ourselves to the unfinished work of the civil rights movement.
Today, I ask my colleagues to pause and remember four precious children: Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Morris Wesley.
May we honor their memory not only with our words but with our actions, and may we forever remember that the freedoms we enjoy today come at a tremendous cost--costs that are borne by Americans. We must uphold their legacy, extend their legacy, and we must never ever forget.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell a story of one of Staten Island's most extraordinary sons, Father Vincent Robert Capodanno, who 59 years ago last week gave his life in Vietnam while serving as Navy chaplain.
His Medal of Honor citation tells us what he did in a moment of unimaginable danger. But to understand Father Capodanno, we must ask a deeper question: What kind of life prepares a man to walk willingly onto a battlefield under relentless fire unarmed because wounded men are coming for him?
The answer began long before Vietnam. His first mission took him to Taiwan, where he served the Hakka people. He learned their language so he could know them, understand them, and better serve them. He administered the sacraments, distributed food and medicine, and cared for their spiritual and emotional needs. He worked with the youth, encouraging them throughout their scholastic challenges and achievements, some battling depression.
Service was not something he summoned in one heroic moment, but it was a pattern in his entire life. He carried that same conviction to Vietnam where he carried a cross, not a gun.
Father Capodanno refused to minister from a distance. He lived as the marines lived. He shared their brutal conditions because he believed he could not truly serve them without understanding their experience. He earned their trust and made their burdens his own. He prayed for them, and he comforted them.
On September 4, 1967, during Operation Swift, he crossed a battlefield under relentless fire to reach wounded marines. Wounded by a mortar blast, he refused treatment, directed the corpsmen to care for the other wounded, and continued his ministry. He was killed just inches from a wounded fellow American he was trying to save.
President Nixon posthumously awarded him the Medal of Honor in 1969, our Nation's highest military honor. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, in 2006, the Catholic Church gave him the title Servant of God, opening his path for sainthood.
Father Capodanno was a priest whose faith and dedication to others led him to make the ultimate sacrifice. His last act did not create the man we honor. It revealed him.
May his story inspire people from across our Nation and around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sergeant Michael Sulsona--a decorated United States marine, gifted playwright, and beloved advocate for his fellow Staten Island veterans--who passed away sadly last week.
Some people serve their country for a chapter of their lives. Mike Sulsona served his country for an entire life.
Mike joined the Marines as a teenager and served as a rifleman in Vietnam. On January 15, 1971, while walking point during an enemy ambush, he stepped on a land mine and lost both of his legs above the knee.
He returned home with a Purple Heart and Bronze Star to a country that did not always give Vietnam veterans the respect they had earned. Yet, Mike refused to let his injuries define his future.
He earned a master of fine arts in writing and became an accomplished playwright and screenwriter, receiving four national awards, including The Kennedy Center Award for playwrighting. He also appeared in the Academy Award-winning film ``Born on the Fourth of July.''
But his greatest legacy was helping others.
For more than four decades, Mike devoted himself to veterans suffering from Agent Orange exposure and post-traumatic stress, as well as homeless veterans, amputees, and burn victims. He helped them with their paperwork. He made phone calls on their behalf. He answered their call whenever they needed him, day or night.
Mike also fought tirelessly to have fellow Marine Sergeant Angel Mendez' Navy Cross upgraded to the Medal of Honor, an effort we were proud to work alongside him on and will continue on his behalf.
Mike once said: I put my name on the dotted line to be my brother's keeper.
That is exactly how he lived. He turned pain into purpose and a lifetime of service.
My prayers are with his sons, Vincent and Philip; his grandchildren, Lucas and Madison; and all who loved him. I also remember his wife, Frieda, his partner in life and service, who passed away just months before him.
Mr. Speaker, our community and country will never forget him. Semper Fidelis.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the anniversary of the most defining day of my life to date, September 13, 1996, a fall afternoon.
My mother walked into a waiting room at the University of South Alabama's medical center and announced to a collection of friends, family, and colleagues that my father, Michael Figures, had died. He had suffered a brain aneurysm at the house at the dinner table a couple of nights before and ultimately passed away.
Mr. Speaker, my father was a lot of things to a lot of people. He was a State senator. He was a civil rights advocate. He was a lawyer and a community leader. To me, he was just Daddy.
By any assessment, he exceeded expectations of a Black kid born in 1947 in Mobile, Alabama, in a neighborhood called The Bottle.
He went on to excel academically, went to Stillman College in Tuscaloosa, and was one of a handful of students who were selected to integrate the University of Alabama Law School, and he did that.
Mr. Speaker, 3 years later, he walked out as the first African American to graduate from the University of Alabama Law School.
He didn't stop there. He got elected to the State senate. Because of the Voting Rights Act, he was one of the first three African Americans to walk into that chamber since Reconstruction.
He used that position, as well as being a lawyer, to continue to advocate for rights and to continue to advocate for equality and fairness in communities. You can imagine that Alabama,
He didn't stop there. In 1981, the Ku Klux Klan lynched a young man in Mobile, Alabama, named Michael Donald. My father ultimately brought the lawsuit that resulted in the bankruptcy of the Ku Klux Klan.
I remember that when my father passed away, the condolences started pouring in. President Clinton called the house, and then-Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman called the house, and then Jesse Jackson.
Then, there was one who surprised me: George Wallace--that George Wallace, who, just a few years before my father had integrated University of Alabama Law School, had stood in the schoolhouse doors, famously, to block enrollment of African Americans coming into the school. Later on, their lives would cross paths. As Governor Wallace was winding down his terms as Governor, my father was in the State senate.
As a kid, though I did not fully comprehend or understand the magnitude of my father's impact or who he was or what he was and what he meant to so many people, I knew one thing: that the respect that I saw shown to him as a kid, whether it was at a park ballfield, in the aisles at Home Depot, or at a gas station, I knew I wanted to be like that when I grew up.
This is in an era where Gatorade commercials were plastered around at the time telling kids that ``I want to be like Mike,'' but the Mike I wanted to be like was not a basketball player. He wore a suit to work, and he was my father.
Those footsteps that he left, I would later walk in them. I followed those same footsteps to the University of Alabama, where I got my law degree. I followed those same footsteps to the career that I had at the Department of Justice in seeking to make government work for everybody. I followed those footsteps here to Congress because my father, though he never served in Congress, was a State senator. He was the first Black president of the Alabama State Senate.
He was the named plaintiff, believe it or not, in the Voting Rights Act case that created the first opportunity district for an African American to represent Alabama since Reconstruction, a seat that is now occupied by Congresswoman Terri Sewell. He literally paved the pathway for me to be here some 30 years after his death.
Mr. Speaker, I can stand here today with just a simple message to my father, and that is: I am here because of him. That 10-year-old boy, or barely 11-year-old boy back in September of 1996, became a man, and not just any man. He became a Congressman who can stand on this floor in this House and deliver this speech because of what he and because of what my mother did for me.
As I sit here today, it is only my dream and my hope that one day, my children, the children who I have of my own--I have four now of my own just like my father--that one day they can also look to me with the same admiration, with the same twinkle in their eyes that I did with my father and say, ``I want to be like my daddy,'' and that based on the work that we have done in our lives, that that pathway is made easier and possible for them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a landmark moment in the history of my home State of Utah as we open the doors next April through October for the public open house of the renovated Salt Lake Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
For generations, this iconic structure has stood as a beacon over Salt Lake City and a symbol of faith recognized around the globe. To stand here today and witness its restoration is to stand at the intersection of our rich history, modern ingenuity, and enduring spiritual devotion.
We cannot fully appreciate what we see today without looking back to where it began. In 1853, Brigham Young stood on that very ground, struck his cane into the earth, and declared that this would be the spot where they would build a temple.
What followed was 40 years of staggering sacrifice. Early pioneers quarried massive granite blocks from Little Cottonwood Canyon and hauled those multi-ton stones 4 days across rough terrain by ox team. When times were lean and hardship was near constant, those faithful men and women gave their labor, their meager savings, and their very lives to complete that house of the Lord.
They did not build for comfort or temporary convenience. They built for eternity.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we pay tribute to a new generation of pioneers: the incredible work crews, engineers, artisans, and tradespeople who have labored on this project over these past several years. Restoring a historic granite structure while seismically retrofitting it with state-of-the-art base isolators deep beneath the earth is an absolute engineering marvel. It required thousands of skilled hands--masons, carpenters, electricians, steelworkers, and historic preservationists-- working with absolute dedication.
Every man and woman who wore a hardhat on that site worked not just with extraordinary skill but with deep reverence. They have ensured that this foundation will stand firm for generations to come.
Over the coming months, the temple will be open so that millions of people from every State in our Union and every corner of the world may pass through these open doors. They will come from all walks of life, representing diverse faiths, cultures, and backgrounds.
I advise every visitor wanting to take these free tours to go online and order tickets right away. For those who will be coming, we welcome them with open arms.
This open house is more than an architectural showcase. It is an invitation to peace. It offers our neighbors and friends a rare opportunity to experience the beauty, order, and serenity that reside inside those walls.
For faithful members of the church, a temple is not merely a place of Sunday worship, nor is it a simple monument. It is literally the house of the Lord, the most sacred place on Earth. Only the home can compare in sacredness. Inside those holy rooms, individuals step away from the noise and anxiety of the world to make sacred promises with God. It is where families are connected in this life and beyond and where people find godly solace and guidance.
As this temple reopens its doors, it stands renewed, strengthened against the elements, and preserved for the future. It serves as a testament to what can be accomplished when faith, hard work, and community come together. May this holy house continue to be a light unto the nations, a blessing to the State of Utah, and a sanctuary of peace for all who enter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I have heard from many of my constituents whose Federal retirement benefits are still delayed. They have been waiting months for retirement applications that are stuck in limbo at Federal agencies.
Career civil servants who spent decades serving this country are waiting to receive the benefits that they have paid into all of these years. The delayed timeline not only impacts their financial security, but it also breaks the promise we made to civil servants.
This is another symptom of the impacts of DOGE on the Federal Government, including cuts to the H.R. departments that help process retirements. Our constituents deserve better after dedicating their careers to service.
Mr. Speaker, I call on this administration to honor the commitment we made to civil servants and process these retirements expeditiously.
Mr. Speaker, imagine if someone followed you around everywhere you went with a notepad logging every single one of your moves, everywhere you went, and everything you did, and then reported that to a private company that sells that data to law enforcement or to the highest bidder.
That is basically what Flock cameras are. They aren't traffic cameras. They use AI to log everywhere you go, everything you do, and everywhere you visit; and they build a pattern of life on everyday, law-abiding citizens, without a warrant and without consent.
They are getting installed all over Virginia and all over the country. Even my neighborhood, Brambleton, is looking into installing them. That means hundreds of thousands of warrantless searches across our region without any guardrails.
It is no surprise that they can and have been abused. More than 50 law enforcement officers have been accused or charged with misusing this technology, and we cannot continue to let this stand. We must put safeguards in place now, and we must protect the privacy and civil liberties of every single American and prevent unauthorized surveillance.
Mr. Speaker, I sat down with some of the leaders in the AI industry. They told me that there were going to be dire consequences if we didn't put AI safeguards in place and that there would be massive implications for our country and for the world if we didn't act.
That meeting was 10 years ago. I was in the White House as a technology policy adviser, and the AI leaders were saying then that we needed to act now.
Here we are today. We have AI frontier models with the capability to wreak havoc. We are getting to a place where AI can self-improve and duplicate itself. The stuff that was theoretical 10 years ago is now happening. We have swarms of AI chatbots working together in a Machiavellian way to hack and undermine systems. We must act now.
There are commonsense ways that security researchers, industry experts, and even Members of Congress here agree can make this safer, like auditing, information reporting, transparency, building safety throughout the AI development process, and real containment strategies, so that AI models don't escape their sandbox during development. This is common sense, and we need to act now.
My colleagues and I have already put forward bipartisan legislation, like the FRONTIER Act, led by Representatives Obernolte and Trahan, and other bills. It is because voluntary standards are not a true safeguard, and sitting on the sidelines is not a safeguard. Even President Trump, despite what he just said online, is not a safeguard for the rapid development of AI and what it can cause.
We need action now. We need to put legislation on the floor this week. We cannot wait until the next Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Sergeant Chris Fisher, a loving husband to his wife, Carly, and a devoted father to two young children.
On September 2, Sergeant Fisher, a sworn officer of the Warm Springs Police Department, was ambushed and killed in the line of duty.
The son of a policeman, Sergeant Fisher devoted his life to protecting our communities, bravely serving with the sheriff's offices of Fayette, Heard, and Meriwether Counties before joining the Warm Springs Police Department. Sergeant Fisher also honorably served our country in the United States Army.
Above the many titles and uniforms he earned, Sergeant Fisher was a husband, a father, a son, and a man deeply loved by his family.
May God bless Carly Fisher, the children, the Fisher family, and our law enforcement community, who are all mourning this painful loss.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the fifth annual Tunnel to Towers William ``Billy'' Kelly Memorial Golf Classic held this morning in Peachtree City, Georgia, in remembrance of the Americans who lost their lives from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Two years ago, I was honored to attend this charity tournament alongside my dear friend, Nancy Holland, a beloved leader in our community.
Nancy introduced me to Robyn Walensky, a former news reporter and survivor of September 11, who founded this tournament with her husband, Greg, in memory of retired NYPD Officer William ``Billy'' Kelly.
Officer Kelly deployed to Ground Zero and was assigned to the forensics unit responsible for sifting through debris from the World Trade Center to help bring closure to families who lost loved ones. As a result of his tireless service with the NYPD, Officer Kelly was sadly diagnosed with, and passed away from, a September 11-related cancer.
This morning, the tournament named for Officer Kelly honored the memory and family of fallen Carrollton Police Officer Dustin Krish, whose watch ended on June 9, 2026.
May the memories of heroes like Officer Kelly and Officer Krish inspire generations of Americans to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the upcoming 98th birthday of Coweta County's oldest veteran, Harvey Wortham.
Mr. Wortham was born on October 7, 1928, and is a lifelong resident of Coweta County.
In 1954, Mr. Wortham enlisted in the United States Army and completed basic training in South Carolina before receiving advanced instruction in track mechanics at Fort Knox in Kentucky. He was then deployed to Coleman Barracks in Mannheim, Germany, after which he was honorably discharged as a specialist third class.
After completing his service, Specialist Wortham returned home, resumed his work at the cotton mill, and cared for his beloved grandmother. He and his wife of 63 years, Betty, who is smiling from above, built a joyful life with 3 daughters, 5 grandchildren, and now 10 great-grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to thank Specialist Wortham for his service to our country, and I am delighted to wish him a wonderful 98th birthday from the floor of the United States House of Representatives.
Honoring LaGrange College Panthers on Their Victory in the Clash of
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the LaGrange College Panthers for their second consecutive victory in the Clash of Highway 29.
Last year, I stood on the House floor to recognize the inaugural Clash of Highway 29, which features two colleges separated by less than 20 miles in Georgia's Third Congressional District.
This year, the LaGrange College Panthers, led by Coach Wes Dodson, again defeated the Point University Skyhawks 31-7. LaGrange set the pace early, as quarterback Henry Brodnax, an alumnus of Trinity Christian School in Sharpsburg, threw two first-quarter touchdown passes.
On defense, the Panthers' junior defensive back, Messiah Scandrett, earned USA South Athletic Conference Defensive Player of the Week for an outstanding performance, including a key fumble recovery and an interception returned for a touchdown.
Congratulations to the LaGrange College Panthers for winning the second installation of Georgia's newest college football rivalry, the Clash of Highway 29.
Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, and House Republicans, the 119th Congress has been the most successful, aggressive, and productive for the House since 1949, with nearly 900 measures having passed.
Republicans are keeping money in the pockets of American families, while demanding accountability from the government, eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and creating jobs.
The Working Families Tax Cuts Act has cut over $1 trillion in wasteful spending, in addition to:
Delivering a deduction for seniors on Social Security.
Creating Trump tax accounts to help children begin saving.
Lowering tax rates for millions of American families.
Eliminating tax on tips and overtime.
Increasing the child tax credit to $2,200.
Promises made; promises kept.
In conclusion, God bless our troops. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump, firing at Ukrainian civilian service stations with Putin increasing diesel prices worldwide, as Putin also attacks children's hospitals to intimidate the civilians of Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my 1-minute remarks, I ask to receive the attention of the Speaker to pose a clause 2(a)(1), rule IX resolution, a privileged resolution.
I will bring this resolution because there is a President who is committing impeachable offenses, and this is the solution for this President.
Mr. Speaker, I await recognition for my resolution.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1486. Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, that Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, as he has violated article II, section 1, clause 8 of the United States Constitution by failing to uphold his constitutionally mandated solemn Presidential oath of office to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,'' thereby demonstrating that he is a great threat to democracy and the Constitution for current high crimes and misdemeanors not cited in H. Res. 24, under which he was impeached on January 13, 2021, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Our country and the lives of people within it are at risk as President Donald John Trump is a great threat to the United States democratic republic, its Constitution, and democracy, violating article II, section 1, clause 8 of the United States Constitution and its mandate to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, as he is abusing the powers of the Presidency by operating United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as his vicious, quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces, transgressing with anonymity and secrecy, assaulting people, committing and covering up unjustified killings of civilians (including Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, and Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero) with impunity (acting as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner), terrorizing communities, and brazenly and wantonly devolving the United States democratic republic into an authoritarian regime, where unjustified killings and coverups by ICE and CBP are normalized.
The case for President Donald John Trump's impeachment is as follows:
``Shall any man be above justice?'' These immortal words of Constitutional Convention delegate George Mason became the impetus for adding high crimes and misdemeanors to the Constitution as grounds for the impeachment of a President who commits injustices harmful to the republic (society) or who, if left in office, would be a threat to the republic.
Ahead of the 2024 election, former Vice President Dick Cheney declared, ``In our nation's 246-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump.''.
The President is reducing American democracy to an authoritarian regime. An authoritarian regime is a system of government that has no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and limits citizens' civil liberties or political rights, often characterized by a leader with near absolute power, a powerful secret police force, low political trust, and little tolerance of dissent.
The President is overseeing and defending unjustified killings. An unjustified killing is a death caused by someone--often a law enforcement officer or other authorized actor--when there was no lawful reason, immediate threat, or legal justification for using deadly force, making the act unlawful under criminal or human rights standards.
The President is covering up unjustified killings. A coverup is a usually
The United States Constitution accords the United States House of Representatives the power to impeach a President for high crimes and misdemeanors committed in violation of the President's mandated oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, codified in article II, section 1, clause 8 of the United States Constitution.
High crimes and misdemeanors need not be criminal or statutory, and are therefore not constrained by Federal criminal or civil statutes. Impeachment is a political question, as the offenses ``relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself,'' as determined by a majority vote of the United States House of Representatives.
High crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President of the United States and not addressed by this body (the United States House of Representatives) through its sovereign impeachment power, unconstrained by the ostensible will of the United States Senate, threaten the very fabric and survival of the United States Constitution and our democratic republic.
After having been impeached by the United States House of Representatives on January 13, 2021, under articles of impeachment in H. Res. 24, stating that Donald John Trump, ``. . . has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.'' Dangerously, President Trump continues to be a threat to the United States, democracy, the Constitution, and the United States democratic republic if allowed to remain in office, as he has replaced those he incited to assault the Capitol with ICE and CBP.
On the first day of his second four-year term as President of the United States, he made it perspicuously clear to ICE and CBP officers that he would pardon them for breaches of Federal law by pardoning more than 1,000 persons convicted of Federal crimes associated with the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. He now continues to act in a manner ``grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law'' by condoning Federal investigators withholding evidence from local investigators and engaging in coverups, thereby protecting the offending officers instead of the American people.
President Trump, using the powers of his high office, individually and in coordination with officers in his administration, has transformed ICE and CBP into dangerous, unaccountable paramilitary police forces that operate without oversight and pose a direct threat to the constitutional order of the United States and the people of the United States. By such abuses of power, President Trump is brazenly and wantonly devolving the United States democratic republic into an authoritarian regime.
Under President Trump, ICE and CBP operate with impunity while armed with military-grade weapons and control vast resources provided by taxpayers to fund President Trump's anti-democracy agenda.
President Trump has used ICE and CBP to suppress the First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press; violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and protections against unlawful searches and excessive force; and defy the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection by allowing and encouraging racially targeted arrests, unjustified detentions, and unjustified killings. These unjustified killings include those of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, and Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero.
President Trump, by his conduct, continues to demonstrate that he is a great threat to democracy, the United States Constitution, and the democratic republic, by dangerously flouting constitutional rights, including:
(1) enabling ICE and CBP to act as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner by assaulting and committing unjustified killings of people with impunity, in violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process;
(2) enabling ICE and CBP to operate with anonymity and in secrecy to terrorize communities, in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment right to due process;
(3) enabling ICE and CBP to undermine civil liberties and basic freedom of speech, in violation of the First Amendment right to free speech; and
(4) undermining judicial oversight.
As a result, ICE and CBP, under President Trump's authority, have been converted into his militarized secret police forces (often acting as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner) that violate and debase, instead of uphold, the rule of law by abusing and harming those they should protect, as explicated below for each of the above topics.
(1) enabling ice and cbp to act as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner when assaulting and committing unjustified killings with
impunity, in violation of the fifth amendment right to due process
Under President Trump's control and with the support and backing of senior officials in his administration, Federal immigration officers have conducted unjustified killings of civilians with impunity, including Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, and Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero. The Trump administration has encouraged, condoned, and covered up these unjustified killings by protecting the shooters and spreading dangerous misinformation about the shootings and the victims while obstructing State and local investigations. Preventing local investigations, congressional oversight, and judicial accountability has enabled ICE and CBP officers to act with impunity as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner.
On January 7, 2026, an ICE officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, an unarmed civilian, U.S. citizen, Minneapolis resident, wife, mother of young children, and poet. Video evidence demonstrates and witnesses confirm that she posed no threat to ICE officers when an ICE officer opened fire, shooting her three times, striking her in the head, and killing her. ICE officers failed to render any aid to Ms. Good, in violation of DHS policies, and blocked and then delayed emergency medical personnel from reaching her. This is an unjustified killing.
President Trump, directly and through senior officials in his administration, including then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, immediately began to cover up the crime and protect ICE officers from being held responsible for Ms. Good's killing. They repeatedly lied about Ms. Good, the ICE officers' actions, and the events surrounding the shooting, all of which are refuted by witnesses and video evidence of the event. The Trump administration, by and through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), blocked Minnesota law enforcement from gaining access to materials and evidence related to the shooting, and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to investigate the killing. Instead, the FBI and DOJ tried to force employees to investigate Ms. Good's widow, which prompted a wave of resignations. On January 7, 2026, President Trump issued the following statement on Truth Social:
``I have just viewed the clip of the event which took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a horrible thing to watch. The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self-defense. Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive but is now recovering in the hospital. The situation is being studied, in its entirety, but the reason these incidents are happening is because the Radical Left is threatening, assaulting, and targeting our Law Enforcement Officers and ICE Agents on a daily basis. They are just trying to do the job of MAKING AMERICA SAFE. We need to stand by and protect our Law Enforcement Officers from this Radical Left Movement of Violence and Hate! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.''.
The above statement is proof of President Trump's enabling of a coverup and condoning of an unjustified killing. Without a trial, a Federal immigration officer acted as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner.
On January 24, 2026, Federal immigration officers killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, when he was part of a small group of approximately fifteen peaceful protesters. Video and witness accounts demonstrate that immediately before the shooting, a Federal officer shoved a female observer standing next to Mr. Pretti. When Mr. Pretti moved between the officer and the woman he had assaulted, the officer sprayed Mr. Pretti with a chemical agent and pulled him to his knees. At least six other officers then surrounded Mr. Pretti, pushed him to the ground, and took possession of Mr. Pretti's gun. Officers then shot Mr. Pretti at least nine times, killing him. As with the unjustified killing of Ms. Good, the Federal officers did not provide medical aid. Although Mr. Pretti was armed--with a gun he was legally licensed to carry--he never brandished it at any point during the encounter, despite being assaulted physically, including with chemical agents, and a Federal officer had control of Mr. Pretti's weapon when he was killed.
President Trump, once again, directly and through senior officials in his administration, including then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, attempted to cover up the crime, protect the ICE officers who killed Mr. Pretti, and spread dangerous and demonstrably false disinformation about Mr. Pretti, the protest, and his unjustified killing. On January 30, 2026, President Trump issued the following statement on Truth Social:
``Agitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist, Alex Pretti's stock has gone way down with the just released video of him screaming and spitting in the face of a very calm and under control ICE Officer, and then crazily kicking in a new and very expensive government vehicle, so hard and violent, in fact, that the taillight broke off in pieces. It was quite a display of abuse and anger, for all to see, crazed and out of control. The ICE Officer was calm and cool, not an easy thing to be under those circumstances! Make America Great Again.''.
The above statement is further proof of President Trump's enabling of a coverup and condoning of an unjustified killing. Without a trial, a Federal immigration officer acted as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner.
On July 7, 2026, an ICE officer shot and killed 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, an undocumented immigrant who had lived and worked in the United States for nearly 35 years and was the father of three U.S. citizens, as he drove his construction crew to a Houston job site. Federal officers in two unmarked SUVs drove erratically to follow Mr. Araujo, including by driving on the wrong side of the street toward Mr. Araujo's vehicle. After blocking Mr. Araujo's vehicle, Federal officers--none of whom were wearing body cameras--committed the unjustified killing of Mr. Araujo, who was unarmed and not a target of an investigation, and arrested the surviving passengers. Three witnesses have stated that the ICE officials shot at Mr. Araujo soon after they exited their vehicle and that Mr. Araujo never drove the vehicle toward the unmarked SUVs or the ICE officers. A spokesperson for DHS, echoing false claims it has made repeatedly, including to justify the killing of Ms. Good, claimed that they shot Mr. Araujo because he rammed an ICE vehicle, a claim not supported by video evidence and contradicted by witnesses. Federal officials took Mr. Araujo's belongings and sent him to the hospital as a John Doe. His sons had to learn about his death by seeing video footage of their father dying in the street where he was shot.
DOJ and DHS, acting under the authority and control of President Trump, have refused to cooperate with local investigations, refused to disclose the names of the perpetrators, claimed the officers involved acted in self-defense, and are painting Mr. Araujo as an aggressor before any investigation has been completed. These self-defense claims are not supported by available video evidence and are contradicted by witnesses. Federal officials also publicly insinuated that Mr. Araujo was involved in narcotics activity by highlighting the discovery of a ``crystal-like substance'' in his vehicle. Subsequent laboratory testing confirmed that the substance was not an illicit drug, disproving those suggestions.
This too is an unjustified killing. Without a trial, a Federal immigration officer acted as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner.
On July 13, 2026, ICE officers killed Mr. Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero, an unarmed man, in Biddeford, Maine, during yet another purported traffic stop in which the victim posed no threat to the ICE officers who gunned him down. DHS claims that it was surveilling the last-known address of someone with a final order of removal, followed someone who left that residence, and then, when that person drove away in the vehicle, the officer, ``fearing for public safety,'' shot and killed Mr. Guerrero, while his wife watched from their apartment building window. In fact, ICE officers were looking for someone else; Mr. Guerrero had work authorization, was a husband, and was the father of a three-year-old daughter who had to see her father lying dead in the street after being gunned down by ICE officers.
This too is an unjustified killing. Without a trial, a Federal immigration officer acted as judge, jury, prosecutor, and executioner.
Though DHS briefly ceased non-urgent traffic stops after its officers unjustifiably killed two people within a single week, President Trump swiftly announced his support for DHS policies that have resulted in the brutal killing of civilians, via a social media post: ``The men and women of ICE are doing a GREAT job, one that has to be done. We CANNOT give up one of I.C.E.'s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!'' President Trump continued to condone unjustified killings by ICE and CBP officials.
(2) enabling ice and cbp to operate with anonymity and secrecy to terrorize communities, in violation of the fourth amendment protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fifth amendment
Under President Trump's control, ICE and CBP officers hide their identities by wearing masks and other face coverings, failing to wear identifying uniforms, refusing to provide their names and badge numbers, and entering homes without warrants. Through government- sanctioned anonymity, officers evade accountability to the public, elected officials, and the courts. Under President Trump's direction, his administration has actively refused to cooperate with and has intentionally hampered State investigations into abuses by Federal officers, withholding important evidence to shield officers from scrutiny for unjustified killings in Minnesota, Texas, and Maine. The masks worn by officers also inspire fear and instill terror in their victims and the communities in which the officers operate. As Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts explained: ``ICE goes masked for a single reason--to terrorize Americans into quiescence. . . . [M]asks are associated with cowardly desperados and the despised Ku Klux Klan. In all our history, we have never tolerated an armed, masked secret police.''.
of speech, in violation of the first amendment right to free speech
With President Trump's express support and encouragement, ICE and CBP have targeted and unconstitutionally arrested pro-Palestinian students and academics without an adequate legal basis in violation of their First Amendment right to free speech, including Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Badar Khan Suri, among others.
Under President Trump's command, ICE and CBP are operating with impunity to carry out mass, unlawful arrests; illegally imprison people; illegally remove them from the country; and commit violent crimes against people in an effort to terrorize and silence the American people. In addition to conducting the unjustified killings of civilians, including Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, and Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero, ICE and CBP, as part of their normal course of activity, have violently assaulted individuals, used unnecessary force, smashed car windows, and abducted and disappeared individuals.
President Trump, directly and through officials within his administration, has abused his power by shielding ICE and CBP officers from judicial
With the support and backing of President Trump and senior officials in his administration, officers and other agency employees have refused to cooperate with and have actively undermined State and local investigations into misconduct by ICE officers. Federal officials have undertaken baseless public investigations into the victims and the victims' families; they have made official (but false) assurances that ICE officers are immune from prosecution; and pursuant to President Trump's authority, both the FBI and the DOJ have not prosecuted crimes committed by ICE and CBP officers. Furthermore, ICE has blatantly disregarded court orders to release or refrain from moving detainees, again with President Trump's knowledge and pursuant to his orders and authority.
The Trump administration acknowledged violating New Jersey Federal judges' orders more than 50 times over the course of 10 weeks in deportation-related cases. Minnesota's chief Federal judge, Patrick J. Schiltz, detailed in a ruling that ICE violated nearly 100 court orders and had disobeyed more judicial directives in January 2026 alone than ``some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.'' A Reuters review of court records found that hundreds of judges have ruled that the Trump administration has unlawfully detained immigrants more than 4,400 times since October 2025, and Politico compiled a database of at least 15,000 rulings against the administration since July 2025; yet, the administration continues to jail people indefinitely.
In all of this, President Donald John Trump has violated the article II, section 1, clause 8-mandated Presidential oath of office to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; has abused the powers of the Presidency by committing high crimes and misdemeanors, in a manner contrary to his trust as President; has detrimentally flouted the United States Constitution by operating vicious, quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary forces killing people (including Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, and Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero); and is now even closer to brazenly and wantonly devolving the United States democratic republic into an authoritarian regime, where, if left in office, unjustified killings of people and coverups by ICE and CBP are normalized to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from Texas will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at a time designated for consideration of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that any notice be given to my chief of staff, and I ask that I be allowed at least 30 minutes to return to the floor because there are other duties that I have on the campus.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The notice will appear in the Record. The gentleman will be advised of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 10159) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey to the State of North Carolina a certain parcel of real property located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on which the State shall construct a veterans' State home, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harrigan) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bell) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what does it say about our priorities if North Carolina has the land to train our soldiers for war but not the space to care for them when they grow old? That is the problem H.R. 10159 helps solve, and it is why I am proud to cosponsor this bill.
North Carolina is home to more than 600,000 veterans, but today the 150-bed Fayetteville State Veterans Home is closed after serious structural problems forced every resident out. The building has closed. The need that it served has not changed.
Just a few miles away at Fort Bragg, there are approximately 20 acres that can give that new home a place to be built.
I know Fort Bragg well. I trained there as a Green Beret and deployed from there to Afghanistan. The men I served alongside are veterans now. So am I. The 20-year-old soldier eventually becomes the 70-year-old veteran. The country that needed him at 20 still has a responsibility to him at 70.
Fort Bragg has spent generations preparing Americans for service. Now, we have an opportunity to use a small part of it to care for them after that service is over.
Give North Carolina the land. Let us build the home, and let us take care of the people who spent their lives taking care of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 10159, a bipartisan bill to transfer land from Fort Bragg to the State of North Carolina so that a new State veterans home can be built. I urge the House to pass this bill.
As Fort Bragg's Congressman, there is no issue more important to me than taking care of our Active-Duty servicemembers, their families, and our veterans.
North Carolina is home to many important military installations, including what we like to call the center of the universe at Fort Bragg.
North Carolina is also home to the fastest growing veteran population in the Nation. Sadly, our State experiences a gap in veteran services that we must address.
In 2024, the State veterans home in Fayetteville abruptly closed leading to the displacement of 85 veterans, including many with dementia and other disabilities. These heroes have since been dispersed across the State, far from their families, and in some cases without access to proper medical care. H.R. 10159 is the first step in the construction of a new veterans home just outside the gates of Fort Bragg.
This transfer of only 20 acres to the State of North Carolina will allow the State to begin permitting the construction process for this new home in a timely manner. Our veterans cannot and they should not wait any longer.
I am touched by the level of bipartisan support we have for the construction of this VA home both down in the State as well as here in Washington. I thank my fellow members of the North Carolina delegation, both Democrats and Republicans who have all cosponsored this legislation. I thank Mr. Bell for his support today. I also thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith for their support. I thank our Governor, and I thank our partners in the North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, led by our great Secretary Jocelyn Mallette, for their efforts. I thank them for working with us on this vital legislation.
As Fort Bragg's Congressman, I am proud to lead this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to support its passage.
While we are here, I urge our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, in the Senate, to please take up this vital legislation as soon as possible.
Again, our veterans have been waiting a long time. This is the first step to end that wait. I thank my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, for working together to make this happen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of sitting on the House Committee on Armed Services is that we have a lengthy legislative streak of enacting the National Defense Authorization Act. It is a bill that sets the policies for the national security of our Nation.
I will provide some assurance to the sponsoring Member that I will work diligently to have this provision incorporated into the conference discussions of the National Defense Authorization Act that I hope will be finalized this Congress.
In summary, this is a strong bipartisan bill that is worthy of being enacted. The Army supports this bill, and it is the minimum support that we can provide to support the veterans who have labored so hard for our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harrigan) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 10159.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9360) to sunset the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9360, the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress Sunset Act, led by Representative Mary Miller of Illinois, is an important measure that will modernize how Congress manages its records.
H.R. 9360 sunsets the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress, an outdated committee, and replaces it with a more efficient process for reviewing congressional records.
The bill instructs the Director of the Center for Legislative Archives of the National Archives to submit an annual report to the Archivist of the United States, the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, and requisite congressional committees on the management and preservation of the records of Congress.
By eliminating this obsolete committee, H.R. 9360 provides a more efficient process for the management and preservation of congressional records through annual reports and cuts burdensome administrative hurdles.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress was created in 1990 to review and advise Congress and the National Archives on the management and preservation of congressional records.
The House Clerk, who is one of the leaders of the advisory committee, approached us with this proposal because the committee accomplished its key goals and is no longer useful in addressing current challenges.
This makes sense because the ways we manage and preserve records have changed significantly over the last three-and-a-half decades. Sunsetting this committee will save taxpayer dollars and allow those resources to be used to improve contemporary archiving practices.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 9360, which will sunset the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress.
This committee was created in 1990 to advise Congress and the National Archives on the management and retention of congressional records.
My bill, however, would eliminate this outdated committee. Due to advancements in technology over the last several decades and changes in the way Congress operates, sunsetting this committee is necessary and will streamline the archival process.
This bill will also maintain oversight of the Center for Legislative Archives by requiring the center to publish an annual report on the management and preservation of records. Sunsetting this advisory committee will furthermore save taxpayers approximately $38,000 annually in operating costs without sacrificing the transparency of congressional records.
As this advisory committee hits its 36th year, we can agree that the committee has accomplished its original goals and has met its intended purpose, thereby outliving its usefulness.
Mr. Speaker, as we continue to improve the efficiency of our government, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9360, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 9360, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9342) to revise certain authorities of the Government Publishing Office, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9342, the GPO Modernization Act of 2026, led by Representative Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma, provides several much-needed reforms for the Government Publishing Office.
Founded in 1861, the Government Publishing Office has long functioned as an important resource not only for Congress but for the Federal Government as a whole by printing, preserving, and distributing official government documents.
Despite the important nature of its work, many of the operations of the GPO are still mired in slow and expensive physical printing processes.
This bipartisan legislation transports the GPO into the modern era by digitizing important government documents through programs like the National Collection of U.S. Public Information.
This serves as a centralized digital library that will greatly expand access for Americans to easily view government resources and stay informed with current events.
H.R. 9342 will also increase fiscal responsibility and efficiency within the GPO by transferring costly, time-consuming print products, such as the Congressional Directory, into a digital format.
Additionally, H.R. 9342 cuts bureaucratic red tape by simplifying the acquisition process for key operational equipment and updates GPO employee salaries to ensure that they are on par with other legislative branch agencies.
Taken together, the GPO Modernization Act will help ensure that the Government Publishing Office will have the tools and staff it needs to successfully transfer its inventory and operations to a digital-first format and continue to support the Federal Government for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9342, the GPO Modernization Act of 2026. I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice) for introducing it.
The Government Publishing Office is a critical part of the legislative branch. Without it, Congress simply could not legislate, issue reports, or adequately conduct many of its constitutional responsibilities. It provides the public with one of the essentials of democracy: access to authoritative, accurate information.
The statutes governing the government printing office, or GPO, have seen modest updates over the years, including the name change from the government printing office, which I probably said in mistake, to the Government Publishing Office, but much of the law still predates the digital era.
This bill further modernizes those statutes, streamlines GPO's operations, and improves public access to government information. I support these efforts which will help strengthen the GPO's capacity and, in turn, Congress' capacity to do its work.
Among other things, the bill updates the Federal Depository Library Program, or FDLP, to more effectively provide free, equitable, and convenient public access to government information. For example, it will allow depository libraries to substitute digital copies of government documents for hard copies. Doing so will free up much-needed physical space in libraries and let libraries without room on their shelves take part in the program and continue to serve the public.
This bill also includes several improvements to GPO operations, including its procurement authorities and certain personnel policies. Together with the other legislation we are considering today to reform how the GPO Director is appointed, these changes will strengthen the agency and its ability to serve Congress and the public.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Bice for her leadership. I support the legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague, Mr. Morelle, for his support of this very important piece of legislation.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 9342, the GPO Modernization Act of 2026. As the chair of the Subcommittee on Modernization and Innovation, I am pleased to have introduced this legislation to both modernize and encourage innovation at the Government Publishing Office by helping bring them into the 21st century.
The GPO first opened its doors in 1861 and served as the printing office for Congress, Federal agencies, and the judiciary. Later, its mission expanded to include management of the Federal Depository Library Program and the GovInfo website, which serve as public repositories for government information.
Through roundtable conversations with institutional staff and leaders, we learned that this 19th century institution operates under 20th century rules in the 21st century.
Earlier this year, GPO Director Halpern testified before the Committee on House Administration and said the agency operates in the liminal spaces of its statute to meet the needs of Congress and Federal agencies.
This bipartisan legislation hopes to address this need and seeks to change the outdated statutes, helping GPO meet its needs and helping us better serve the American people.
The bill gives GPO greater flexibility to continue its business operations, which already funds 90 percent of its operations. It allows the Superintendent of Documents to meet customer demand by setting competitive and realistic prices for the sale of documents. It also allows the agencies to strategically dispose of excess publications for which there is little public interest.
Specifically, this legislation will repeal antiquated printing provisions and require future editions of the annotated Constitution, or CONAN, to be published online. Producing CONAN is costly, costing taxpayers roughly $1 million a year.
Furthermore, the bill will also require future editions of the Congressional Directory to be published online, saving additional taxpayer dollars.
It will expand the digital presence of the Federal Depository Library Program and ensure government public information remains accessible for free use by the American public, mimicking a finding by the GPO's task force on a digital Federal Depository Library Program.
This bill is simple. It brings GPO up to par with other legislative branch agencies, giving them the desperate statutory updates the Office has continually asked Congress for.
Mr. Speaker, I thank GPO Director Halpern and the CHA staff for their work on this, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan commonsense legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I was on the bubble, but that brilliant oration by Mrs. Bice has persuaded me to continue to support the bill. I thank her for her good work, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9342, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 9342, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 10204) to modify the appointment and removal process for certain legislative branch officers, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my bill, H.R. 10204, the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act, makes important reforms for several vital institutions that serve Congress and the American people, including the Library of Congress, the Government Publishing Office, and the United States Copyright Office.
The bill is not to be confused with H.R. 6028, although they are substantially similar, which passed the House by a voice vote in June with widespread bipartisan support and contains the same provisions as H.R. 10204.
The underlying text contains two small technical corrections that committee staff and I added to ensure the smooth implementation of the legislation's key provisions, and I think we have agreement on that.
At its core, the bill is about ensuring that agencies of the legislative branch are governed in a manner consistent with our constitutional system, improving continuity in leadership, and strengthening congressional oversight.
Though the Librarian of Congress and Director of the Government Publishing Office belong to the legislative branch, their leadership is currently appointed by the President. This legislation removes structural inconsistencies by establishing a congressional appointment framework for the Librarian of Congress and the Director of the Government Publishing Office.
Under the bill, bipartisan recommendations will be provided by the leadership of the House Administration Committee and the Senate Rules Committee, with final selections made by congressional leadership.
These changes are not unprecedented, and they closely mirror the bipartisan appointment process Congress adopted for the Architect of the Capitol, which granted congressional control over a key legislative branch institution.
Additionally, because of the executive nature of the U.S. Copyright Office, this bill provides that the Register of Copyrights will be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, while keeping a close relationship between the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress.
The Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act modernizes leadership structure and clarifies lines of authority so that we can strengthen the institutions that support Congress and ensure they are positioned to serve this body effectively for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is very much like 6028. As I said, there are two minor
In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy some of our friends on the other side of the building, we made two little technical changes that I think will make them happy. We were already happy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 10204, the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act. Apart from a few technical corrections, as my friend has described, this bill is identical to H.R. 6028, which passed the House in June.
It updates the appointment process for the heads of two legislative branch agencies: the Library of Congress and the Government Publishing Office. It also creates a new Presidential appointment, subject to Senate confirmation, for the Register of Copyrights, and makes clear that the United States Copyright Office, which is currently part of the Library of Congress, will remain in the legislative branch.
I thank the bill's author, Representative Griffith, as well as Chairman Steil, and their staff for working with us to improve prior versions of this legislation. It did, indeed, take many months, but I appreciated the openness and willingness of the majority to entertain some of the suggestions we made, which I do think make the bill stronger.
In addition to ensuring the Copyright Office remains a legislative branch entity, the bill protects the Copyright Office's workforce, who will enjoy the same rights, privileges, and protections they hold today as Library employees. I do think that is very important. I have long said the Library of Congress should be appointed by Congress, and this bill achieves that important goal.
Still, we must make this change thoughtfully and be mindful of the consequences, particularly for the Copyright Office. Copyright authorities are enshrined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, and the Copyright Office has resided in the legislative branch for well over a century. It should remain there, and that is the intent of this bill.
The copyright economy, I might add, contributes more than $2 trillion annually to our economy and supports more than 11 million American jobs--but only with a stable, reliable, and apolitical copyright system. This bill helps to preserve it at a critical moment for copyright stakeholders and millions of Library users.
The Library and Copyright Office have operated in partnership for more than 150 years, and the Copyright Office depends on the Library's infrastructure. The Library builds its collections through the copyright deposits, so severing that relationship would harm both institutions.
The bill recognizes this: It establishes a significant transition period. It allows the Copyright Office to continue Library support services. It requires the Register to consult with the Librarian before taking any action affecting the Library's access to copyright deposits. It safeguards the rights of Copyright Office employees.
For too long, Congress has allowed its own authority and capacity to atrophy. The Library, Copyright Office, Government Publishing Office, and other support agencies we rely on are funded from a legislative branch budget that amounts to roughly four-tenths of 1 percent of all Federal discretionary spending. If we are serious about legislating on questions as complex as AI and copyright, we must be serious about sustaining the institutions that make that work possible.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is not perfect. I don't know of a bill that has passed this House that has ever been deemed perfect, but it does ensure that the Librarian of Congress can be hired and fired only by Congress and does so while preserving both the Library and Copyright Office as the preeminent institutions in their fields.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Griffith, for his hard work and that of the staff and Chairman Steil.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the hard work that went into this. I think we are in a much better place.
I am pleased to think that if this legislation is successful, the Library of Congress will continue to be the Library of Congress and have its leadership appointed by this body in consultation with our, as Mr. Griffith describes it, friends on the other side of the building. Hopefully, they will see the wisdom in doing this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 10204. This is an important bill. It probably won't get headlines or be the lead story on CNN or FOX tonight. But making sure, as the gentleman from New York said, that we have the Librarian of Congress actually answering to Congress, I think that is important.
I think this is a good housekeeping bill in many ways. It does some reform, but it also lets us move forward into the future.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the great work, as I said before, that Mr. Morelle and his team did on getting this bill into a good position. It was a thoughtful exchange. We were just trying to get the bill as good as we could.
I would also be remiss if I didn't recognize my constituent, former Congressman Bob Goodlatte, for his work on trying to make sure that we got the communication lines between the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress in a good position, as well. As Mr. Morelle pointed out to the body, Mr. Speaker, it is important that both of these institutions remain preeminent in their fields and that they work together, hand in glove, even though one is legislative and one is executive.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 10204.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 283) to require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and the Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop a standard methodology for identifying the country of origin of seafood to support enforcement against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 283, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 283, the Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act, sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz from Texas.
This legislation would direct the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and the NOAA Administrator to jointly develop a standard methodology, based on chemical analysis, for identifying the country of origin of seafood products to support enforcement against illegal, unregulated, or unreported fishing, otherwise known as IUU fishing.
IUU fishing undermines the sustainability of the seafood supply chain and the United States' leadership as a gold standard for fisheries management. This bill will promote innovation to help keep IUU products out of American markets.
I thank Representative Brian Babin from Texas, a sponsor of companion legislation, for his leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 283, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or IUU fishing, threatens domestic fisheries and ecosystems around the world.
In the United States, up to 32 percent of seafood imports are derived from IUU fishing. These illegal practices harm our economy, disadvantage fishermen, and threaten the long-term health of our oceans and fish stocks.
Mr. Speaker, S. 283 would address one part of that challenge by investing in science to improve the detection of illegally sourced seafood. This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology and NOAA to develop a chemical analysis to identify the origin of seafood. If successful, this could assist law enforcement in identifying products from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
This legislation specifically focuses on red snapper and several species of tuna, offering an opportunity to determine whether the chemical analysis research would apply to reef fish and migratory species. This is a practical, bipartisan piece of legislation that would strengthen our ability to identify seafood linked to IUU fishing and improve enforcement efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 283, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), the lead sponsor of the House companion to this bill and chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 283, the Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act, as amended.
This bill directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop a standard methodology using chemical analysis to identify the country of origin of seafood.
Both commercial and recreational fishing contribute significantly to the Texas economy. Red snapper, in particular, is highly sought after by the recreational fishing sector. This effort is especially important in the Gulf of America, where red snapper is a valuable resource for American fishermen and coastal communities.
Illegally harvested seafood can make its way into U.S. markets, undercutting the fishermen and seafood producers who play by the rules.
NIST scientists have developed chemical methods to identify the geographic origin of foods like beef, honey, fruits, and rice. This bill would build on that expertise to give law enforcement another tool to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and seafood fraud.
Today's bill also incorporates edits made by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee during our bipartisan markup earlier this year as part of H.R. 3706, the Standards for Understanding Source and Habitat Identification Act, also known as the SUSHI Act, which I sponsored.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, again, S. 283 supports the development of new technology that can help identify and cut off IUU fish products entering our markets.
I greatly appreciate Senator Cruz and Representative Babin for their leadership on this legislation. I urge the passage of S. 283 and yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 283, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 759) to provide for the standardization, publication, and accessibility of data relating to public outdoor recreational use of Federal waterways, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 759, the Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act, sponsored by Senator Cruz from Texas.
This legislation would require NOAA to make certain data easily accessible to the multiple users of our ocean resources. Recreational and commercial industries operating on America's waterways need large amounts of data, including waterway closures, speed limits, and fishing restrictions.
Senator Cruz' legislation directs NOAA to work with stakeholders and the public to determine what data to include, then publish it online in a user-friendly format.
I thank Representative Fry of South Carolina, the sponsor of companion legislation in the House of Representatives, for his leadership on this initiative that will enhance safety and improve the recreational experience for ocean users. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 759 would improve access to critical information for ocean users, including recreational boaters and fishers. This bill would direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish standards for NOAA for mapping recreational use of our oceans. This information would include fishing restrictions, vessel access, and navigation information. Area restrictions, such as within the national marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments, would be clearly marked on these maps.
The United States' exclusive economic zone covers about 3.4 million square nautical miles and supports 4.5 million recreational fishing vessels. About 11 million registered boats contribute roughly $170 billion annually to the economy.
Currently, access to geospatial data for recreational use is across multiple databases. This lack of centralized data can make it difficult for millions of recreational boaters to understand the latest regulations and puts both boaters and coastal environments at risk.
S. 759 would improve access, transparency, and usability of critical information. By making regulations easier to understand and follow, this bill will help create safer, more enjoyable experiences on the water. This will strengthen coastal economies and improve environmental protection efforts.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a commonsense step that improves public safety and access to our oceans. I thank Senator Cruz and Representative Fry for their diligent work and attention on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 759.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4219) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Program, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4219, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 4219, the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act of 2025.
Invasive species pose a serious threat to our Nation's wildlife and natural resources. They can damage habitat, harm native species, and create significant economic and environmental costs. The National Wildlife Refuge System is a crown jewel of American wildlife conservation, and invasive populations in refuges jeopardize the system's conservation value. We must ensure the Fish and Wildlife Service has the tools it needs to respond quickly to those threats.
The Fish and Wildlife Service currently uses invasive species strike teams to identify and respond to invasive species threats through prevention, early detection, and rapid response. H.R. 4219 strengthens this effort by establishing at least one strike team in each Fish and Wildlife Service region and encouraging coordination with Federal, State, Tribal, local, and private partners.
I support this legislation and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4219, the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act would codify and build an innovative program within the National Wildlife Refuge System to target and eradicate invasive species.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest network of land and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of wildlife, but many of these refuges face funding and staffing shortages that make it difficult to keep up with invasive species.
The sooner an invasive species is identified and removed, the more successful and affordable that effort is likely to be. That is where the strike team model comes in. Instead of spreading limited resources thin, strike teams allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to bring large teams into an area and quickly target an invasive species before it can reproduce and spread.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has already demonstrated that this approach works. At the Johnston Atoll, yellow crazy ants had been swarming seabirds and their nests for more than a decade. These ants release a poisonous chemical that can injure birds and cause serious infections.
The Fish and Wildlife Service brought in strike teams to find and eliminate the ants' nests. After several months of intensive works, the yellow crazy ant was completely eradicated. That success has led the Service to use the strike team model in other regions against other invasive species.
We have also heard from stakeholders that these efforts are sometimes limited by what happens just beyond the refuge boundary. Invasive species do not stop at a property line.
That is why this bill allows the Service, on a voluntary basis, to work with willing neighboring landowners to address invasive species on adjacent lands. This will allow the Service to take a more coordinated approach and make better use of limited resources.
H.R. 4219 will help protect wildlife habitat, support the recovery of endangered species, and preserve opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreation on our national wildlife refuges.
I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) for his work on this important program, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act, a bipartisan measure which I am proud to have introduced with my colleague from Guam (Mr. Moylan).
A special thanks to the House Natural Resources Committee, on which I was privileged to serve for 6 years, and the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee and full committee, for working with us to develop a mutually acceptable measure and for bringing it to the floor.
As already mentioned, invasive species jeopardize and too often destroy the delicate balance of our ecosystems, as they can outcompete, prey on, or introduce diseases to our native fauna and flora. The consequences of these disruptions are severe, leading to not only extinction of whole species but to declines in biodiversity, diminishment of the resilience of our ecosystems in the face of environmental change, and broader ripple effects economically, socially, and otherwise.
We in Hawaii understand, perhaps better than anyone, just how crucial it is that we remain vigilant in our response to these invasive species. Hawaii's isolation has led to the evolution of many endemic species that are found nowhere else on Earth.
Unfortunately, these native species often lack the defenses to compete or resist the pressures of the some 5,000 introduced invasive plants and animals, which can rapidly alter ecosystems and displace local species. Invasive species have caused significant ecological damage, threatening the survival of native birds and plants. Protecting Hawaii's unique biodiversity, through invaluable national wildlife refuges and otherwise, is not just an environmental necessity. It is also a cultural imperative that reflects the identity and heritage of the Native Hawaiian people.
However, invasive species are not just a localized problem. They pose a
Our bill, the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act, will do just that, codifying the existing program currently operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These specialized teams play an essential role in managing emerging invasive species, employing strategies tailored to local conditions across the National Wildlife Refuge System. With 21 teams strategically positioned in various Fish and Wildlife Service regions, they are on the front lines, addressing the unique challenges posed by invasive species.
As another example, the Big Island Invasive Species Committee has been a part of a strike team for over a decade, working with the Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge on the eastern slopes of Mauna Kea to manage little fire ant threats and remove fountain grass and holly plants, which can choke out our native plants. The Big Island Invasive Species Committee is just one of the many great examples of this effective program and reminds us of its crucial and effective work.
This bill also mandates enhanced coordination and reporting through integrated systems and standardized procedures, ensuring transparency and enabling us to track progress with annual reports to Congress and the public. Furthermore, it authorizes $15 million annually through fiscal year 2029 to support ongoing initiatives.
This legislation is a crucial step forward in protecting our natural resources and enhancing our capacity to respond swiftly to the threats posed by invasive species. I humbly request my colleagues to lend their support to this bill and ensure the preservation of our ecosystems and promote a resilient future for our environment.
Mr. Speaker, ``thank you so very much.'' ``Mahalo nui loa.''
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4219, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4219, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4931) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend certain leases within units of the National Park System without opening the lease to bidding, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4931, the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4931, the National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act, introduced by Representative Murphy of North Carolina.
Across the National Park System, private businesses and organizations lease buildings and other historic facilities, investing in these properties while providing important services to park visitors. These public-private partnerships can help put underutilized properties to productive use while supporting the long-term stewardship of park assets.
My hometown of Hot Springs National Park is a model for how these public-private partnerships can transform local economies, create jobs, improve access, and enhance the visitor experience. Through historic leasing on Bathhouse Row, once dilapidated bathhouses have been transformed into a brewery, a modern spa and bathhouse facility, and a hotel. Ongoing renovations financed under the Great American Outdoors Act will open up even more opportunities to lease historic bathhouses to more small businesses in this community.
Unfortunately, even when these partnerships work well, existing law can limit the National Park Service's flexibility to extend a successful lease without starting a new competitive process.
H.R. 4931 provides a targeted solution. To qualify for an extension, the original lease must be at least 5 years, the lessee must be in good standing, and the extension must be in the National Park Service's best interests. If those requirements are met, the bill allows a lease to be extended once for up to 10 years without issuing a new request for bids or proposals.
Providing this flexibility will give successful lessees greater certainty to continue investing in park facilities while reducing unnecessary administrative burdens on the National Park Service. Just as importantly, it creates important safeguards by limiting the authority to lessees who have already demonstrated a successful track record.
While this is a good bill, there is more that can be done to ensure the National Park Service fully leverages potential private-sector partners. The Senate version of this legislation includes a commonsense provision allowing leases to extend up to 99 years, which will attract greater investment and create greater economic opportunity nationwide. Although we were unable to reach an agreement in committee with our minority to include a similar provision in the House bill, I look forward to working with my bipartisan and bicameral colleagues on this concept as the bill continues through the legislative process.
I thank Representative Murphy for his leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4931, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4931 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend certain
Under the bill, the lease could be extended without rebidding if the lease has been in place for at least 5 years, the tenant is complying with the terms of the existing lease, and the National Park Service determines that the extension is consistent with the purposes of the park unit.
The National Park Service manages approximately 160 leases covering more than 340 structures. This leasing authority has helped the service put underutilized historic properties to use through public-private partnerships while directing lease revenues toward historic preservation, infrastructure, and maintenance.
As introduced, this legislation raised serious concerns. Current law requires a public competitive bidding process and fair market value, helping ensure that taxpayers receive a fair return on public assets and that businesses have a fair opportunity to compete.
It also contains no limits on the length of an extension or the number of times the lease could be renewed, creating the risk of a continuous cycle of extensions that effectively locks out the competition.
Those concerns were addressed during the Natural Resources Committee markup, with technical assistance from the National Park Service. The amended bill limits the authority to a single extension and makes it clear the total term of the lease cannot exceed the existing 60-year regulatory limit. That includes the extension.
These guardrails are important. We should make sure the Park Service has the flexibility it needs to manage these properties well, while also protecting competition, transparency, and the interests of the American taxpayer.
As we have learned from the President's use of no-bid contracts for the Reflecting Pool and the suspension of leases for Federal golf courses in D.C., we need to ensure robust statutory guardrails.
The national park leasing authority is a successful program, but it cannot be a back door that leads to the privatization of our national parks.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of the bill for working in a bipartisan way to address the concerns that many of us had, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 4931, the National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act.
As was noted previously, there is a Senate companion with slight differences that hopefully can be worked out.
My bill would give the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, the authority to extend the lease if the lease has been entered into less than 5 years before the date of extension is to take effect.
The Director of the National Park Service would determine if extending the lease is in the best interests of the applicable unit of the National Park Service.
Within my district in Dare County, we have a lot of national parks, and we work very well with them. We have a model of an excellent public-private partnership at Oregon Inlet Fishing Center, where the National Park Service works with a local vendor to provide necessary marine services.
My bill is simple and straightforward. It gives the National Park Service the authority to give an extension of a lease, if the National Park Service thinks it is in the best interests of the National Park Service, for a total duration up to 60 years.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Democratic colleagues and appreciate the opportunity to attend to any concerns that they have.
By granting this authority to the National Park Service, it would encourage other private investors to invest wisely in the hope of being considered for this opportunity to make a win-win with a public-private partnership. Current law does not allow this to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I ask your consideration of this bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4931.
Mr. Speaker, I once again commend Representative Murphy for his leadership on this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Senate and in a bipartisan manner. As this moves forward, I urge my colleagues to support the bill today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4931, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5063) to ensure continuity of staffing at Federal beaches, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material on H.R. 5063, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5063, the Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act, which is championed by Representative Jen Kiggans of Virginia.
Each year, millions of Americans visit our Federal lands to spend time outdoors with their families. Whether they are hiking a trail, camping, fishing, or spending a day at the beach, visitors should be able to safely enjoy the incredible recreation opportunities our public lands provide.
At federally managed beaches and swimming areas, lifeguards play an important role in keeping visitors safe, but when Federal agencies experience lifeguard staffing shortages, they do not always have the flexibility to quickly fill those gaps, even when trained local lifeguards may be available to help.
Representative Kiggans' bill provides a commonsense solution. Her legislation allows the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation to partner with local government agencies to provide lifeguard services when Federal lifeguards are in short supply at designated swimming areas.
Under these agreements, local lifeguards can provide services visitors depend on, including water rescue and first aid, during the peak summer season.
Representative Kiggans' legislation recognizes that the Federal Government cannot always solve staffing challenges quickly. When qualified local partners are willing and able to help keep visitors safe, Federal land managers should have the flexibility to work with them.
These partnerships can help maintain lifeguard coverage, support continued public access, and make sure families can enjoy some of our country's most popular outdoor recreational activities.
Mr. Speaker, I again thank Representative Kiggans for her leadership on this legislation introduced after her constituents highlighted lifeguard shortages that limited access and impacted safety at Assateague Island National Seashore. She worked diligently with her local community and National Park Service leadership to find a solution that will not only help keep her constituents and visitors safe but also ensure millions of visitors can continue to enjoy Virginia's pristine and world-class beaches.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5063, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5063 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to address lifeguard staffing shortages at Federal beaches by entering into agreements with local governments to ensure continuity of staff and proper lifeguard coverage.
This measure would apply to beaches managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Under these agreements, State and local governments are authorized to hire lifeguards to cover shifts at Federal beaches.
Lifeguards perform vital public safety services. While this bill provides a mechanism to prevent empty chairs, relying on local municipalities should not become a permanent Band-Aid for understaffed Federal agencies. We can't lose sight of why, one of the key reasons why, we lack enough lifeguards in the first place: the DOGE effort dedicated to firing park workers, implementing hiring freezes, and gutting our Federal agencies.
Last summer, fewer than half of the 7,700 seasonal National Park Service positions, including lifeguards, were filled. These cuts forced Federal managers to scramble, leaving communities to step in and fund these critical positions--also putting lives in danger.
As a reminder, the National Park Service has lost nearly 25 percent of its permanent workforce since the beginning of 2025 due to this administration's firing of park staff and slashing agency budgets.
While local agreements offer emergency relief--and I am very much in support of this bill--a real priority should be rebuilding a fully funded, fully staffed Federal workforce that is focused on efficiency and getting the job done while we are good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 5063, the Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act.
I have the privilege of representing a district that lives on the beach and the bay. For families across coastal Virginia and the millions of Americans who visit our Federal beaches every year, water safety is incredibly important.
Last year, we saw firsthand what can happen when the Federal Government fails to adequately staff these Federal beaches.
Following a Federal hiring freeze, Assateague Island National Seashore was unable to provide its normal lifeguard coverage at the Federal beach in Chincoteague, Virginia. Families continued visiting and swimming, but the lifeguards they had come to rely on were not there.
Our local leaders stepped up. The town of Chincoteague and Accomack County took on unforeseen costs to make sure lifeguards returned to the beach and families could safely enjoy the water.
Our local governments should never be left scrambling to solve a Federal staffing problem on their own. That is why I introduced the Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act.
My bill provides a commonsense solution. When the Department of the Interior determines that a Federal swimming area is facing a lifeguard staffing shortage, it can partner with local governments to provide the necessary coverage. Importantly, when a local government steps up to provide those lifeguards, the Federal Government will reimburse it for the reasonable costs it incurs.
This applies to designated swimming areas managed by the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Reclamation that are normally monitored by Federal lifeguards.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is about public safety, accountability, and giving our communities a solution when Washington falls short.
I am grateful to the local leaders on the Eastern Shore who worked with us after seeing this problem firsthand. I am proud that we have an opportunity to make sure communities across the country have another tool to keep their beaches safe.
No family visiting a Federal beach should have to wonder whether a lifeguard will be there if and when an emergency happens.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Safe Beaches, Safe Swimmers Act.
Mr. Speaker, I once again thank Representative Kiggans for her leadership on this issue and for her valuable service as a vital member of the House Committee on Natural Resources. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5063, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5063, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6021) to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to clarify the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft containing nonedible migratory bird parts, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6021, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6021, the Archie Cavanaugh Migratory Bird Treaty Clarification Act, sponsored by Representative Begich of Alaska.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects more than 900 species of migratory birds and plays an important role in conserving these species. However, the law also created challenges for Alaska Native communities whose longstanding cultural traditions include using migratory bird feathers and other nonedible bird parts in traditional handicrafts and artwork.
In 2012, Alaska Native artist Archie Cavanaugh faced Federal charges after attempting to sell traditional artwork containing flicker and raven feathers. He faced up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine, but a settlement was reached in which he agreed to pay a $2,000 fine.
H.R. 6021 addresses this unfairness by directing appropriate updates to the Migratory Bird Treaty with Japan and any subsequent revisions to domestic regulations that may be necessary to clarify that authentic Alaska Native handicrafts containing nonedible bird parts may be sold and shipped, provided those parts were not taken in a wasteful or illegal manner.
I commend Representative Begich for his work with the Alaska Native communities to preserve their cultural traditions while maintaining important protections for birds.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6021, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6021, the Archie Cavanaugh Migratory Bird Treaty Clarification Act.
For over a century, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 has played an important role in protecting migratory birds across North America, but due to the rigid way the law is interpreted, a few Alaska Native artisans who use bird parts in their traditional arts and regalia have been criminalized for their craft. This legislation addresses the conflict.
H.R. 6021 would direct the Department of the Interior and the State Department to work with Japan to clarify their Migratory Bird Treaty with the United States. It would make clear that authentic Alaska Native handicrafts made or sold with nonedible migratory bird parts are exempt from Federal law.
This language ensures that while we will continue to have strong protections against wasteful harvesting and illegal poaching of birds, we are not doing so at the expense of Alaska Native traditions.
This bill respects Tribal sovereignty, protects traditional knowledge, and maintains conservation integrity.
I thank Representative Begich and Chair Westerman for working constructively across the aisle to come to an agreement we can all support.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6021, the Archie Cavanaugh Migratory Bird Treaty Clarification Act, addresses a narrow but consequential gap in Federal law that has criminalized longstanding Alaska Native artistic and cultural traditions for more than a century.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements four separate international agreements with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. These treaties, however, do not always line up with each other.
The treaties with Japan and Russia recognize the subsistence needs of indigenous peoples. The earlier treaties with Canada and Mexico did not provide the same protections. These gaps have had real consequences for Alaska Natives.
Because the courts have required the Fish and Wildlife Service to apply the most restrictive of the four treaties across the board--in this case, our treaty with Japan--an Alaska Native artist who sells a traditional handicraft containing a raven feather or woodpecker feather can face up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
That is not conservation. That is not what these treaties were meant to do. It is not something the Alaska Native community should have to live with.
Archie Cavanaugh was a Tlingit artist from Juneau. In 2012, he was prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for selling a headdress and a hat containing feathers consistent with cultural practices going back generations. His case became a symbol of how badly the current framework fits Alaska.
This bill clarifies that the sale and shipment of authentic Alaska Native handicrafts containing nonedible migratory bird parts is not a Federal
The bill directs the Department of State and the Department of the Interior to work with our treaty partner to update the international framework so that Federal regulation and treaty text finally line up.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I once again thank Representative Begich for his hard work in representing his constituents and advancing this important legislation, like he has done on so many pieces of legislation this Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6021, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6021, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to clarify the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft containing nonedible migratory bird parts under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and for other purposes.''.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8121) to designate the Christiansted Bandstand at the Christiansted National Historic Site, St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as the ``Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand'', as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8121, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8121, which would officially name a historic bandstand located within the Christiansted National Historic Site on the Island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands as the Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.
For generations, the Christiansted bandstand has served as a gathering place for music and community in the heart of St. Croix. H.R. 8121 honors a man whose life and legacy are closely tied to that history.
Peter Gregory Thurland, Sr., was born in Christiansted in 1892. While serving in the United States Navy, Mr. Thurland helped design and construct the Christiansted Bandstand and performed there as a member of the Christiansted Naval Band until his honorable discharge in 1921.
His service to his community did not end there. Mr. Thurland founded the St. Croix Community Band and spent decades training generations of young musicians and bringing music to the community through free monthly concerts.
A master craftsman, talented musician, and dedicated mentor, Mr. Thurland made a lasting contribution to the cultural and civic life of St. Croix. It is particularly fitting that the bandstand he helped build, which became a center of community life in St. Croix, bears his name.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 8121, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8121, introduced by my colleague Delegate Plaskett, will honor the legacy of Peter G. Thurland by naming Christiansted Bandstand after him.
This bandstand is a historic landmark at the Christiansted National Historic Site in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. It symbolizes the rich, cultural heritage of St. Croix and has served as a community gathering place since its construction.
Peter G. Thurland was a central figure in the St. Croix community. Mr. Thurland was known as a master craftsman, musician, and proud veteran who served in the Navy Band. Not only did he perform there during his military service until his honorable discharge but he personally helped design and construct the bandstand.
He continued to advocate for the arts and founded the St. Croix Community Band where he personally trained generations of young musicians. Efforts to recognize Mr. Thurland go back to the 103rd Congress with the legislation first introduced by Delegate Ron de Lugo.
It is time to honor Mr. Thurland's legacy and ensure that his impact on the cultural and civic life of St. Croix is remembered.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8121, legislation I introduced to designate the Christiansted Bandstand in Christiansted, St. Croix, in the Virgin Islands of the United States as the Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Huffman, along with the members and staff of the House Committee on Natural Resources, for their consideration of this bill and for advancing it to the floor. I appreciate their thoughtful attention to a matter that means a great deal to the people of St. Croix, and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to advance this legislation to the President's desk.
The Christiansted Bandstand is one of the most significant cultural landmarks in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Located in the heart of Christiansted, it has served for over a century as a gathering place for residents and visitors and as the center of St. Croix's musical and civic life.
H.R. 8121 would designate that landmark in honor of the man most responsible for its character and continuity, Peter G. Thurland, Sr.
Mr. Thurland was born on February 19, 1892, in Christiansted, St. Croix, then the Danish West Indies. On March 31, 1917, he performed with the Christiansted Industrial Brass Band at the formal transfer ceremony on the Christiansted Wharf, present at the very moment the Virgin Islands became part of the United States.
Following the transfer of the Danish West Indies to the United States, he enlisted in the United States Navy on June 12 of that same year and served as a member of the Navy Band.
During his service, he was instrumental in the physical construction and design of the Christiansted Bandstand. He performed there with the Christiansted Navy Band until his honorable discharge in September 1921.
In 1938, Mr. Thurland founded the St. Croix Community Band, which performed free monthly concerts for three consecutive decades. He trained generations of young musicians and led the band until 1968. He was also a master craftsman and cabinetmaker. His work can still be seen throughout our island.
Mr. Speaker, my own parents talked about the many activities the bandstand represented for children growing up in the town in the 1930s and 40s. One of our most iconic period painters, Leo Carty, used the bandstand in some of his most memorable paintings. My own children have played around the bandstand without a marker to explain who built the gathering spot. A naming with a marker sharing the creator and the history of the bandstand can only bring our island closer together.
This legislation was first introduced, as you have heard, from Congressman Ron de Lugo in the 103rd Congress. I am proud to bring it again in the 119th Congress. The Thurland family has long advocated for this recognition, and their persistence reflects the esteem in which their grandfather, their patriarch, is held across St. Croix.
Peter G. Thurland, Sr., helped construct the Christiansted Bandstand, served his country with distinction, and dedicated decades to the cultural life of St. Croix. His name belongs on that landmark.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8121.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 8121, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 8121, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8454) to provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of California, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8454, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8454, introduced by Representative McClintock, which executes a commonsense boundary adjustment between Yosemite National Park and the Stanislaus National Forest in California.
Ackerson Meadow supports important wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, and livestock grazing by the Erickson family, whose ranching history in the area dates to the late 1800s.
A portion of Ackerson Meadow was officially donated and added to Yosemite National Park in 2016, but this inadvertently created a boundary that left parcels within the meadow under the administrative jurisdiction of two different Federal agencies.
As a result, the National Park Service and Forest Service manage adjoining parcels within the same meadow, complicating restoration work, grazing operations, and recreational management.
H.R. 8454 provides a straightforward solution. The bill transfers administrative jurisdiction over approximately 160 acres of land currently managed by the Forest Service to the National Park Service to be managed as part of Yosemite National Park.
In return, the Forest Service will assume jurisdiction over 170 acres of land currently managed by the National Park Service.
This is not a Federal land acquisition, and it does not increase the size of the Federal estate. Instead, this bipartisan and bicameral legislation adjusts which Federal agency manages each parcel so map lines don't interfere with important restoration work on the ground.
By placing these lands under the agency best suited to manage them, this legislation will improve coordination, support ongoing restoration work, and enhance the efficiency of grazing operations, while simplifying the management of recreation opportunities within Ackerson Meadow.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative McClintock for his leadership on the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8454, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8454 would authorize a land exchange between Yosemite National Park and Stanislaus National Forest in California.
This is a straightforward exchange that will transfer 160 acres of National Forest System land to the National Park Service, and approximately 170 acres of National Park System land that will be transferred to the Forest Service.
The purpose of this legislation is simply to make Federal land management more efficient. This is needed because the Service recently added a parcel known as the Ackerson Meadow to Yosemite National Park.
Ackerson Meadow has significant scenic value and provides key habitats for endangered species, such as the great grey owl and the little willow flycatcher.
Adding this land to Yosemite was a win-win. However, while much of the Ackerson Meadow meets the criteria for inclusion in the National Park, it is largely surrounded by the Stanislaus National Forest, and there is a conflict with existing uses. This includes one of the longest continuously running cattle drives in California, which is inconsistent with Park Service laws and regulations.
H.R. 8454 is the result of negotiation and compromise, and I thank the bill's sponsor and Chair Westerman for that work. It will result in more efficient land management and noteworthy expansion of Yosemite National Park.
This is exactly the kind of work that Congress is expected to do. It stands in clear contrast to the recent proposal to sell off a piece of Yosemite to a private developer. We should be working together to increase conservation and improve the management of our public lands, not trying to cut deals and exclusive access for millionaires.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8454, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentlewoman from Oregon for their bipartisan support of this measure, and I want to assure the gentlewoman from Oregon that the land exchange that she had suggested in Yosemite will not happen.
The Ackerson Meadow Land Interchange Act is a simple proposal to transfer administrative jurisdiction over approximately 160 acres of national forestland to Yosemite National Park, and then it would transfer approximately 170 acres of National Park System land to be a part of the Stanislaus National Forest.
Senator Padilla is carrying identical legislation in the Senate. We don't agree on much, but we certainly agree on this.
This legislation addresses a familiar problem in Federal land management in the Sierra Nevada, the checkerboard boundary lines that make land management disjointed and inefficient. This bill simply consolidates land jurisdictions between the National Park System and the National Forest System, without increasing the Federal footprint.
At issue is Ackerson Meadow. This meadow supports livestock grazing operations that have been part of the history and economy of this region for generations. These operations are essential for brush control and fire suppression, maintaining meadow conditions, and sustaining the rural economy that depends on the productive use of these lands.
Federal agencies, conservation organizations, and local ranchers have all worked together to improve the meadow while maintaining grazing opportunities.
Restoration projects have improved wetland conditions, enhanced water storage, improved habitat, and supported continued public uses, including grazing.
The proposed land exchange would make that cooperative approach easier by eliminating the confusion caused by split jurisdiction. Ranchers need to know where their permits apply, where infrastructure can be maintained, and who is responsible for decisions affecting their operations.
The bill also protects existing rights and authorizations. It specifically provides that valid existing rights, including rights-of- way, easements, leases, licenses, and permits remain protected after the transfer. This ensures that current users, including grazing permit holders, are not unfairly disrupted by a change in administrative jurisdiction.
It also appropriately maintains Federal responsibilities for hazardous substance cleanup and other obligations.
This bill reflects a principle that should guide Federal land policy. Management decisions should be based on the realities of the landscape and not simply of the boundaries drawn on a map decades ago.
Our national forests and parks serve many purposes. They preserve wildlife habitat, protect watersheds, provide recreation, and support rural economies. A balanced approach recognizes all of these values.
Mr. Speaker, I once again thank Representative McClintock for his leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 8454, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 8454, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 741) to elevate the position of Director of the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services to Assistant Secretary for Indian Health, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 741, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 741 is a straightforward bill to strengthen Indian health leadership within the Department of Health and Human Services.
The bill redesignates the Director of the Indian Health Service as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Health within HHS.
The Federal Government has longstanding responsibilities for Indian healthcare rooted in the Federal trust responsibility. The Indian Health Service is the principal Federal entity responsible for providing health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Indian health issues do not begin and end at IHS. Many of these issues require coordination across HHS, including healthcare access, workforce recruitment and retention, behavioral health, public health, and health infrastructure.
H.R. 741 will help that coordination by elevating IHS' senior within the Department.
This bill is narrowly tailored. The IHS director is already appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so H.R. 741 does not create a new Senate-confirmed appointment. It does not create a new program or change how IHS delivers healthcare.
Instead, this bill makes a senior-level structural change to better coordinate health issues across the Department. This is a practical and reasonable step. When Indian health issues cut across IHS, the senior official responsible for Indian health should be positioned to work across HHS.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 741, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 741, the Stronger Engagement for Indian Health Needs Act, introduced by my friend and colleague from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
The Indian Health Service, or IHS, is the primary Federal agency responsible for providing healthcare to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Yet, for decades, the agency has fallen short of meeting our trust and treaty obligations as we have left IHS underfunded and underprioritized.
Tribal leaders have long called for greater Federal attention to Indian health in IHS. H.R. 741 responds to their advocacy by elevating the Director of IHS to an Assistant Secretary within the Department of Health and Human Services.
This simple but meaningful change would give IHS a stronger voice within the Department, ensure the healthcare needs of Tribal patients are properly represented, and elevate health disparities, including inadequate infrastructure, limited services, and staffing shortages, facing Tribal communities.
It is the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure that Indian Country has the culturally competent, robust, and accessible healthcare they deserve, and H.R. 741 will help us uphold this premise.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge support for the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 741, the Stronger Engagement for Indian Health Needs Act.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Joyce) for co- leading on this important effort.
The Federal Government has a sacred trust obligation to provide healthcare to our Native communities. For far too long, we have fallen short of that obligation.
Deep disparities exist between the health of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities and the broader American population. American Indians and Alaska Natives have lower life expectancies and some of the highest rates of poor health across racial groups. Access and quality of care are impacted by high vacancies at Indian Health Service facilities. When it comes to equality in healthcare, our Nation has a long way to go.
Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, the late Senator John McCain first tried to pass a similar measure to raise the Director of the IHS to an Assistant Secretary role within the Department of Health and Human Services. Senator McCain, who advanced this measure through the Senate time and time again, never saw it pass the House and signed into law. Today, this bill honors his legacy.
This is a commonsense, bipartisan policy, and Congress should have gotten it done many years ago.
H.R. 741 would finally get this across the finish line. It creates the position of Assistant Secretary for Indian Health at HHS, giving Native communities a voice at the highest levels of Department leadership.
This matters. As an Assistant Secretary, the head of IHS would finally have the pay and hiring authorities needed to tackle chronic workforce shortages and disparities in access to care. It means faster hiring, better retention, and a direct line to the Secretary on every matter affecting Indian health.
Congress must ensure our health systems better honor our trust obligations to Native communities. This is a meaningful step forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 741, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 741, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to redesignate the position of Director of the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services as Assistant Secretary for Indian Health, and for other purposes.''.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 240) to amend the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 to make improvements to that Act, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material on S. 240, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 240, the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act of 2025, sponsored by Senator Daines from Montana and championed in the House by Representative Downing of Montana.
This bill ensures the Crow Tribe has the tools and flexibility it needs to implement its longstanding water rights settlement. The underlying 2010 settlement ratified the water rights compact between the Crow Tribe and the State of Montana and authorized major investments in water infrastructure on the Crow Reservation.
This legislation does not change funding levels or the existing water rights settlement. Instead, it updates the settlement to better reflect the Tribe's needs today.
The original settlement required the Bureau of Reclamation to build a Federal water project to serve the Crow Reservation. This bill converts this project-based settlement to a fund-based settlement, authorizing the Crow Tribe to manage project construction within existing Federal funding levels.
The bill ensures there is no ongoing Federal operation and maintenance requirement upon completion. The bill also extends the Tribe's exclusive right to develop hydropower at the Yellowtail Afterbay Dam through 2030.
Taken together, these provisions give the Crow Tribe greater flexibility to invest in water infrastructure, improve irrigation, and pursue economic development opportunities, while maintaining the commitments made in the original settlement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 240, the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act of 2025.
S. 240 would amend the Crow Tribe's existing settlement to support successful settlement implementation and extend the Tribe's authority to market hydropower to the Yellowtail Afterbay Dam in Montana.
The Tribe has devoted significant time and effort to achieving and implementing this settlement, and I thank the sponsor of the bill for dedicating that time, as well. This legislation would provide additional support to ensure it is successfully carried out.
This body has a responsibility to uphold our Federal trust and treaty obligations to Tribal nations, and that responsibility is especially critical when it comes to access to clean and reliable water.
Every person deserves access to safe water. Yet, Tribal nations, which often hold some of the most senior water rights, have far too often been unable to access or develop their own water resources due to Federal actions and policies, leaving those water rights largely underdeveloped and unprotected.
Tribal leaders have spent decades working to resolve these issues and negotiate settlements to ensure their communities have cleaner, reliable water. Negotiated settlements provide certainty for Tribes, States, the Federal Government, and other water users. They provide Tribal nations with the resources needed to deliver clean water to their communities while reducing legal, financial, and water supply uncertainty to all parties to a settlement.
Mr. Speaker, while I am grateful to see this bill move forward today, I urge our Republican leadership to take action on the numerous other pending Indian water rights settlement bills, many of which have already passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
Failing to advance settlement delays Tribal communities' access to clean water, prolongs uncertainty for all water users, and increases settlement costs over time.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. We have many Republican colleagues who want to get these bills across the finish line with us. We stand ready to work with the Republican leadership to resolve any procedural concerns.
I hope that S. 240 is just the beginning and that we will see more Indian water rights settlement bills before us on the floor soon, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act, as this legislation will make crucial adjustments to the Crow Tribe of Montana's water settlement, ensuring the Tribe can provide clean drinking water for its members for generations to come.
In Montana, water rights and infrastructure are the lifeblood of our Tribal communities. Indian water rights settlements protect those rights by codifying them in Federal law and providing resources to promote water infrastructure development.
For the Crow Tribe in my home district, the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 was a significant milestone. It settled the Tribe's water rights and authorized $460 million to design and construct a centralized municipal, rural, and industrial, or MR&I, water system for its reservation.
However, due to the project's complexity, rising costs, and extended estimated construction timelines, the initial MR&I pipeline system authorized by the settlement has proven unfeasible.
Without the ability to use settlement funds for water infrastructure, the Crow Reservation continues to face a clean water crisis. According to one BIA-funded water study, over 50 percent of Crow Reservation households have contaminated water. That is 50 percent. Moreover, multiple further studies have linked the Tribe's higher cancer rates with this lack of clean water access.
Senator Daines and I introduced the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act to directly address these challenges. The bill expands the scope of authorized water projects under the Crow Tribe's water settlement beyond the initial single mandated pipeline project to include a flexible array of smaller-scale regional water projects. In doing so, this legislation will dramatically reduce the timeline for delivering clean water to the reservation's communities.
S. 240 is a straightforward solution that does not alter any existing water rights and appropriates no new Federal spending. It simply provides necessary flexibility for the Tribe to meet the needs of its citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Senator Daines for leading this effort with me. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation for the Crow Tribe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Senator Daines and Representative Downing for their leadership on this important issue, and I thank the minority for working with us on it. I urge the passage of S. 240, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 240, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2406) to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to address sexual harassment and sexual assault involving National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration personnel, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2406, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 2406, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvements Act of 2025.
The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act required NOAA to develop a policy to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment within its workforce. In 2021, the Government Accountability Office found that while NOAA has made progress, more work remains.
H.R. 2406 expands coverage of NOAA's sexual harassment prevention and response policy to include observers and the voting members and staff of the regional fishery management councils. It also expands existing reporting requirements and requires additional transparency in cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
This legislation will advance the protection of NOAA's workforce. I appreciate the minority working with us on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2406, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvements Act of 2025.
This bill would strengthen NOAA's efforts to prevent and respond to sexual harassment and sexual assault by expanding protections, improving reporting systems, and increasing critical accountability. This legislation would help create a safer and more productive workforce for the dedicated public servants who serve the American people through their work at NOAA.
Building upon existing efforts to combat sexual harassment by expanding and strengthening key safeguards, this bill would extend policy protections to personnel who work for NOAA but are not directly employed by the agency--critically, these are contractors and fishery observers--ensuring that all members of the NOAA workforce are covered by this policy.
The legislation would also improve reporting options for victims and broaden NOAA's enforcement authority, ensuring the agency has comprehensive jurisdiction to investigate and address sexual harassment and assault.
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing over 45,000 Federal employees, many of whom work for NOAA. I commend the sponsor of this bill for her leadership in helping to close loopholes and tackling this issue to protect Federal employees and Federal contractors, who often serve in some of the Nation's most remote environments, including on fishing vessels and scientific research cruises.
Enacting H.R. 2406 would help foster a safer, more equitable workplace that promotes accountability and ensures every individual has the opportunity to thrive. In doing so, we would strengthen NOAA and reinforce our commitment to the Federal workforce that upholds the highest standards of professionalism and excellence while serving the American people.
I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for her leadership on this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2406, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Elfreth for yielding. I rise today in strong support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 2406, the NOAA Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvements Act.
No matter the job or the position, everyone deserves to work in a safe and welcoming workplace. Many employees at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, work in remote locations, aboard research and survey vessels, to conduct cutting-edge scientific research and to support U.S. fisheries.
This bill has some history. Several years ago, a fisheries biologist came to me with a serious issue. She had experienced sexual harassment while conducting research on a ship owned by NOAA, and she wasn't the only one. After reporting the harassment, she was effectively grounded, and so were the others who spoke up. Her research was derailed, and she was advised against going to sea for her own safety.
Her colleagues and harasser knew she had reported her experience, and there seemed to be little investigation into her case and the others. After hearing her story, I started to work with NOAA to find a resolution.
After several months, I met and worked directly with then-NOAA Administrator Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, who truly took this issue seriously. With Dr. Sullivan's leadership, NOAA implemented new training requirements, made it easier to report sexual harassment, and changed NOAA's investigation protocol. NOAA then completed its investigations into the cases that were brought to my attention, and the employees were able to return to sea and resume their important research.
I will note that every acting or confirmed NOAA Administrator since then, including Dr. Neil Jacobs when he was Acting Administrator and now again in his position as Administrator, have all expressed a commitment to the policies that keep their employees safe and free from abuse and harassment.
Although NOAA has taken steps to update their policies, threats to researchers are still alarmingly persistent. Last year, a multiyear study of harassment in the North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program, the largest fisheries monitoring program in the U.S., found that nearly one-third of the 400 North Pacific observers experienced harassment or assault annually. Of these, only 45 percent of the observers who experienced
As a member of both the Science Committee and the Education Committee, for years I have heard consistent support for getting more women into scientific careers. That is important, but it is also important to keep them safe while they are at work.
We must do more to prevent harassment and assault, help survivors seek justice, and hold harassers accountable for their actions. This bipartisan bill builds on NOAA's progress by expanding the agency's sexual harassment prevention and response policy to include employees of contractors, who were originally not covered.
My bill also directs NOAA to provide a clear, secure structure to anonymously report sexual harassment or assault. This would allow survivors to more easily identify safe reporting services without triggering an investigative process, if that is what the survivor prefers.
This bill would also add provisions so new covered employees and change of station or work location requests are included in the report to Congress. Importantly, this bill empowers NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement to enforce prohibitions on assault, intimidation, and interference with fisheries observers by removing restrictive stipulations that the acts be forcible in nature and occur on a vessel for NOAA to investigate.
NOAA has taken meaningful steps to protect its researchers, contractors, and ocean-dependent communities. That work should be recognized. This bill, as the chairman recognized, will strengthen those efforts and make needed improvements to prevent harassment, modernize reporting, and hold harassers accountable to bring justice to survivors.
We must do everything we can to create a work environment where scientists can achieve the next breakthrough discoveries, and everyone can feel safe at sea without fear of harassment, assault, or retaliation.
I am very grateful to Representatives Salazar and Fitzpatrick for cosponsoring this important legislation. I thank Chair Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman for advancing it through the Natural Resources Committee to the floor.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the NOAA Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvements Act.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2406, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2406, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 550) to provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 550, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
S. 550, introduced by then-Senator Mullin and championed by Chairman Cole in this Chamber provides a narrow pathway for the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to bring its treaty-based land claim related to certain lands in Illinois before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Now located in Oklahoma, the Tribe was originally based in the Great Lakes and Midwest region. The 1805 Treaty of Grouseland recognized the Miami Tribe's title to lands in the Wabash River watershed and ensured that the U.S. would not purchase portions of that territory without Tribal consent.
In the decades that followed, additional treaties and Federal policies led to the large-scale cessions of the Tribe's land, including their historic homelands in Illinois. These lands are central to this legislation, as they were later patented to non-Native settlers without properly extinguishing Tribal title. This forms the basis of the Tribe's treaty-based claim.
Congress enacted the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946, which established the Indian Claims Commission, or ICC, to provide a forum for Tribes seeking monetary compensation for claims against the U.S. that predated August 13, 1946.
The ICC did not restore land. Rather, it awarded monetary damages based on the land's value at the time of the taking. At the time of the ICC, the Miami Tribe preferred the return of the land in Illinois over cash awards. The Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 required all claims to be filed within 5 years of enactment and barred late claims from being filed. The ICC ceased operations in 1978, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims assumed all remaining matters.
This legislation provides a narrow jurisdictional pathway for the Miami Tribe to bring its treaty-based land claim before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims within 1 year of the enactment of this legislation.
This legislation only authorizes monetary relief against the U.S. and precludes any equitable relief or recovery against private landowners. Finally, this legislation extinguishes the Tribe's remaining land and title claims to the specified Illinois lands.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Cole for being a long-time champion of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 550 would provide the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with jurisdiction over the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma's land claim in east central Illinois.
Prior to being forcibly removed from their homeland, the Miami Tribe resided in the Great Lakes region.
In 1805, the Miami Tribe, the Eel River Band, and the Wea signed the Treaty of Grouseland with the United States. The 1805 treaty provided that land south of the Great Lakes in the
However, the United States later violated this treaty when lands were placed into the public domain and parcels were transferred to settlers without extinguishing the Tribe's title to the land. This has resulted in difficulties and confusion with the current landowners as the Miami Tribe maintains a claim to the title.
S. 550 would allow the Tribe 1 year to bring their claim before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and would extinguish any other of the Tribe's claims to the land.
The bill provides the Tribe with a path forward to get their day in court but does not dictate an ultimate outcome.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the lead sponsor of the House companion to this bill and who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend, Chairman Westerman, for yielding me the time and for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I also thank Congresswoman Betty McCollum of Minnesota for her collaboration, and Secretary Markwayne Mullin for his work on this legislation during his time in the Senate.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in strong support of S. 550, the companion legislation to my bill, H.R. 2827. The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma have been waiting more than 10 years for this legislation to pass, and today is finally that day.
Mr. Speaker, that would not be possible without Chairman Westerman's help and support, and I am very appreciative.
Resolving this land claim will remedy a mistake made by the Federal Government roughly two centuries ago. In 1805, the Miami Tribe, Eel River Band, and Wea, signed the Treaty of Grouseland, which, under Article IV, reserved all lands within the Wabash River watershed and land located west of the Wabash River, which is in present-day Illinois. From 1805 to 1840, the United States transferred 2.6 million acres of this land to non-Native settlers without having acquired title from the Tribes. As a result, title to that land is still held by the Miami Tribe's superior claim to title, and the Tribe never consented to that land being purchased.
S. 550 will allow the Miami Tribe to have their rightful day in court and extinguish all claims to this land in Illinois. This straightforward, bipartisan piece of legislation will not only provide finality for the Miami Tribe, but also certainty to the landowners and farmers in Illinois who have been living on this land for generations.
As a Tribal member myself, it is an honor to help a fellow Tribal nation and be a voice here in Washington. Today is a testament of Congress upholding its trust and treaty responsibility, and I would like to thank Chairman Westerman again for his support. Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Huffman, and Ranking Member Leger Fernandez were also instrumental, and I appreciate the efforts of their staff and their support and efforts on this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of S. 550, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 550.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7889) to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 to reauthorize the water resources research and technology institutes program, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7889, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7889, the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Wittman from Virginia.
Water is one of our Nation's most important resources, and the challenges facing our water systems are becoming more complex. This legislation takes a practical approach to strengthening the science and partnerships we need to manage those challenges.
The bill reauthorizes the Water Resources Research Act Program, which
By investing in research at the universities across the country and encouraging collaboration on State and regional water issues, the bill helps ensure that policymakers, communities, and water managers have the science and tools needed to find solutions before water challenges become crises.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7889, the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act, which would reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act and continue support for national water research institutes.
Across the country, our water supplies are facing growing challenges, from increased demand and pollution to drought and other natural disasters. As these pressures strain our water resources, we need to make sustained investments in research, conservation, education, and new technologies to overcome these challenges and strengthen our long- term water security.
Water research institutes play a critical role in developing and advancing solutions to our Nation's water challenges by supporting water research and education while also building the workforce needed to address pressing challenges.
This work grows in importance as drought, wildfire, and other natural disasters become all the more frequent, straining water resources for communities across the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as we consider water in our country, I want to point out a couple of trips that I have made recently. One was to the little town of Beaver, Utah, where they had a 100,000-acre forest fire, and a few weeks later, they had an inch to an inch and a half of rain, which normally would be very welcome there, but because this forest fire basically clear-cut this whole canyon that provides the water for the town of Beaver.
Instead of replenishing their water supply, what it did was wash vast amounts of soil and debris into the watershed. It took out three hydropower plants. It washed mud and debris across bridges and took them out. It also washed all this debris into the town and had their water system offline for an extended period of time.
We often don't associate forest health and water as much as we should. This is a crisis that is facing us across the country. That is why it is important to have legislation like Representative Wittman has proposed here.
I was in southwest Colorado at the end of last week, and we flew over another 100,000-acre fire. We saw, again, how when the land is denuded, to use a word from Teddy Roosevelt, and soil is no longer held in place and we get rain, it causes catastrophes.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can have safe, healthy drinking water all across this country. Actually, about two-thirds of our water comes from forested landscapes.
We have seen how important this is, even in places like New York City, where they have a tremendous water system that people, putting a lot of forethought into this many, many decades ago, protected the watershed and protected the water going into New York.
We see it in Boston. We typically think of these forest issues out West, but the Quabbin Reservoir in Boston is another forested area that is protected and managed strictly for water.
It is because of research and efforts that have happened for many years that give us the science to understand how to manage the landscape to produce the water that we all need. When we talk about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure, we know that managing our forests gives us that ounce of prevention.
It saves a lot of money in the long run and saves a lot of headaches and hard work to restore these systems in the long run, and it is important that we continue to do the research and fund these programs so that we can provide safe, clean water to all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of H.R. 7889, the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act.
This legislation would reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act, better known as the WRRA, and it will strengthen Federal investment in the water research that our communities depend upon. It supports a nationwide network of research institutes that address State and regional water challenges.
This is locally driven, nationally significant research. It helps safeguard drinking water supplies, reduces nutrient pollution, and addresses emerging contaminants that we may find in critical water resources.
With growing water demands from advanced manufacturing, data centers, and artificial intelligence infrastructure, the need for sound water science has never been greater.
In Virginia, the WRRA supports research that helps to address water challenges that matter most to our communities, including efforts to improve the health and resilience of our great natural resource, the Chesapeake Bay.
Reauthorizing this program will help ensure that every State has the science-backed information it needs to address its own unique water challenges. By investing in scientific research today, we help ensure future generations have access to safe, reliable water resources.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to lead this bipartisan effort, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 7889, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 7889, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8658) to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to modify the notification requirement for emergency contract health services for certain beneficiaries, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8658, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8658, introduced by Congressman Mike Kennedy from Utah, would amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to require that non-elderly and nondisabled Indian patients have at least 15 days to notify the Indian Health Service when they receive emergency treatment or are admitted to a healthcare facility through the purchased/referred care program.
The IHS uses the purchased/referred care program, or PRC, to pay outside providers when needed services are unavailable at an IHS or Tribal health facility. IHS approves a PRC payment if a patient meets specific requirements, including timely notification of IHS. The law currently provides elderly or disabled Indians a 30-day emergency notice window, while the rule for all other patients is 72 hours.
During an emergency, 72 hours is a very short window. While extensions can be granted, the 72-hour window remains the standard. This timeframe is unrealistic for a patient dealing with a health crisis who may be transferred between facilities, recovering from surgery, or relying on assistance from someone unfamiliar with PRC notice rules.
When the 72-hour deadline is missed, a claim that would otherwise be approved may be denied, and the patient is at risk of being billed or sent to collections for emergency care.
This legislation would amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to provide at least 15 days to notify IHS of emergency treatment or admission for PRC purposes, while preserving the existing 30-day notification window for elderly or disabled Indians.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Kennedy of Utah for championing this important legislation for Indian Country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Indian Health Service, or IHS, is the primary agency responsible for providing healthcare to American Indians and Alaska Natives. However, the agency is chronically underfunded and understaffed, resulting in limited care at IHS and Tribal facilities. When these facilities cannot offer care, Tribal patients may receive services from outside providers under the Purchased and Referred Care, or PRC, program.
As the chairman pointed out, in an emergency, most Tribal patients only have 3 days, or 72 hours, to notify the agency that they received care under the PRC program. This is, as the chairman said, completely unrealistic for too many Americans. It places an unfair burden on patients and their families to navigate paperwork and deadlines during medical emergencies, when they should be focused on receiving care.
H.R. 8658 would extend the notification period from 3 days to 15 days. This simple extension would gave patients and their families the time to complete the necessary requirements and allow them to focus on their recovery in the event of an emergency.
This small change is a meaningful step in supporting healthcare for Indian country because Tribal patients should not have to worry about balancing paperwork and going into medical debt while recovering and receiving the care they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Westerman for the time to speak.
Our constituents know there is too often a gap between the rules Washington writes and the realities Americans face. Nowhere is that gap more apparent than in our healthcare system.
I know that reality well. I have been a doctor for 25 years and continue to see patients. I sit with families during some of the most difficult moments of their lives, and I see firsthand how frustrating paperwork and red tape can be when what matters most is getting someone the care that they need.
That experience is why I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 8658, the Indian Health Service Emergency Claims Parity Act.
This bill is simple: Put patients before paperwork. Today, when an American Indian or Alaska Native patient receives emergency care outside the Indian Health Service, the IHS must be notified within 72 hours. When missed, a family can be left with the bill for care that should have been covered.
Mr. Speaker, that rule was written from behind a desk, not beside a hospital bed. Anyone who has worked in healthcare knows that 72 hours can pass in what feels like an instant. Families should be focused on their loved one's recovery, not on whether they met a Federal notification deadline.
H.R. 8658 extends that window to 15 days so families can take care of their loved ones first and the paperwork second.
This is what good government should look like. When a rule does not reflect the reality people face, we should fix it. When government bureaucracy gets in the way of common sense, we should cut through it. My congressional colleagues and I understand that. We need a government that is smarter, quicker, and more responsive to the people it serves. We need a government that is streamlined and close to home, not bloated and distant.
This is one practical, commonsense fix, and there are many more like it across our government and throughout our healthcare system.
I thank Chairman Westerman, my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, our outstanding staff on
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8658.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank Dr. Kennedy of Utah for his work. I urge the passage of H.R. 8658, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 8658.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 790) to redesignate the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming, as the ``Barbara L. Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center.''
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 790, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of S. 790, a bill to redesignate the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming, as the ``Barbara L. Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center,'' sponsored by Senator Cynthia Lummis in the Senate and led by Representative Harriet Hageman in the House.
This bill honors former Representative Barbara Cubin, Wyoming's first woman elected to Federal office. During her 14 years in Congress, Representative Cubin strongly advocated for Wyoming and the West. As a founding member of the Congressional Western Caucus and chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, she worked to advance responsible development of America's natural resources and improve the management of our Federal lands.
Representative Cubin also played an important role in shaping and telling the history of the American West. In 1998, her legislation authorizing the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper was signed into law.
The center is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, in partnership with local and private organizations, and offers free interactive exhibits and educational programming about America's westward expansion.
Unfortunately, last year, Representative Cubin publicly announced she had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. We continue to hold her, her family, and all who know and love her in our prayers.
It is a fitting tribute to her legacy that the center Representative Cubin helped establish will now bear her name. S. 790 recognizes her years of service to Wyoming and ensures that her contributions to the history and heritage of the American West are remembered for generations to come.
I thank Representative Hageman and the entire Wyoming delegation for their leadership on this legislation and their commitment to honor Representative Cubin's life and legacy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 790, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, S. 790 would redesignate the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming, as the ``Barbara L. Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center.''
Former Representative Barbara Cubin was the first woman to represent Wyoming in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I am going to deviate from my notes here to remind all the folks watching at home that there have been less than 400 women ever elected to the Congress of the United States. It is a privilege to stand here and defend this bill.
She was a founding member of the Congressional Western Caucus and the original sponsor of the legislation establishing the center. Renaming the center will honor her hard work and lasting legacy in Wyoming and the West.
Casper, Wyoming, is known as the city of the crossroads of history because it is the only geographic location in the western United States where four congressionally recognized historic trails converge.
The historic trails that pass through the Casper area are a distinctive part of our national character, holding important historical and cultural values that reflect the migration, settlement, transportation, and commerce that all shaped the West.
The National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, owned and operated by the Bureau of Land Management, helps keep the story and impact of the trails alive today.
Honoring the legacy and impact of Representative Cubin is a fitting tribute to a woman who fought for these trails as a trailblazer in her own right.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of S. 790, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank Representative Hageman and Senators Lummis and Barrasso for their leadership on S. 790, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 790.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3276) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Urban Bird Treaty Program, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3276, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3276, the Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act of 2025.
Birds are an important part of our Nation's natural heritage and play an important role in healthy and resilient ecosystems. Millions of Americans also enjoy bird-watching each year, supporting local economies and businesses across the country. Unfortunately, birds face several challenges in urban areas, including habitat loss and hazards such as building collisions and light pollution. H.R. 3276 addresses these challenges by codifying the Urban Bird Treaty Program within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently provides grants and technical assistance to communities and other eligible partners to conserve, restore, and enhance urban bird habitat, reduce hazards to birds, and engage the public in monitoring and conservation efforts.
This legislation will enable this important work to continue with greater congressional oversight and accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I just recently had the opportunity to visit Audubon, Arkansas, and see the great work that they are doing with bird habitat and also to discuss again how healthy forests not only provide us with clean air and clean water, but they also provide excellent bird habitat. It is another reason the Senate should pass the Fix Our Forests Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3276, the Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act, would codify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Urban Bird Treaty Program and authorize annual funding through fiscal year 2033 to support local community investments in bird habitats across the country.
Over the last 50 years, North America has lost nearly 3 billion breeding birds, a staggering 30 percent decline. While conservation is often seen as something that happens far out in the deep wilderness, nearly half of all migratory stopover hot spots in the U.S. fall within metropolitan areas, making urban and suburban areas essential to bird conservation.
Our built environments and backyards are essential mid-journey sanctuaries for migratory birds, providing critical resting, feeding, and nesting grounds for migrating land birds.
Since 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Urban Bird Treaty Program has supported voluntary, locally driven partnerships among municipal governments, tribes, nonprofits, and schools. These modest investments deliver outsized returns: restoring urban wetlands, controlling invasive species, reducing hazards to birds like building glass and light pollution, and expanding access to nature in underserved communities.
Despite its overwhelming success, demand for these grants far exceeds current capacity. Without formal statutory authority, the program relies on discretionary year-to-year funding, and as a result, the Fish and Wildlife Service has been able to fulfill only about 10 percent of the high-quality project applications it receives every year.
H.R. 3276 would codify this program and authorize a competitive grant program administered in partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. By passing this bill today, we are empowering local communities to lead on conservation, protect migratory birds, reduce hazards to birds, and connect families to the outdoors.
I applaud my colleague from Michigan, Representative Dingell, for her leadership on this commonsense, locally-driven, bipartisan measure that protects biodiversity, strengthens local partnerships, and enriches our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of her bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3276, the Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act. I am very proud to lead this important effort for bird conservation with my colleague Congressman Cline. I thank him for his leadership on this
We have a responsibility to make sure that our communities are safe for birds and people to live together. Birds play critical roles in our ecosystem and in our day-to-day lives.
Since 1970, bird populations in North America have declined by a third and are continuing to decline at an accelerating rate. Almost 3 billion birds have disappeared. They are gone. Habitat loss is the biggest driver of this decline, and this bill works to protect, restore, and enhance urban and rural habitats for birds.
Supporting parks and greenways and reducing urban hazards can make a real difference for migrating and nesting birds and protect bird populations for generations to come.
Both the sportsmen and conservation communities have recognized that birds need our help, and that it is up to us to take serious action to address this crisis.
I might add that it is very timely for this consideration, as bird migration is underway. During migration, birds can become disoriented, making awareness and simple protections especially important.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the broad, bipartisan coalition that has fought for this legislation so far, including the National Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, the Garden Club of America, and the American Bird Conservancy.
H.R. 3276 is a real step forward for conservation, and I strongly support its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of the bill for her passion and dedication to this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3276, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3276, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3925) to provide for a land exchange in San Bernardino County, California, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3925, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3925,
For nearly a decade, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation has worked with the U.S. Forest Service to complete a land exchange in San Bernardino County.
The San Manuel Reservation is surrounded by Federal lands and the communities of San Bernardino and Highland, leaving the Nation with limited space to meet its housing, infrastructure, and cultural needs.
H.R. 3925 would complete an exchange of approximately 1,500 acres of Forest Service land for an equivalent amount already owned by the Nation. Much of the land being provided by the Nation was acquired specifically to facilitate this exchange at the request of the Forest Service.
Completing this exchange will create a more contiguous land base, reduce checkerboard ownership, and improve land management for both the Nation and the Forest Service.
This legislation also protects the historic Arrowhead landmark, a site of significant cultural importance to the Yuhaaviatam people and a well-known symbol throughout the San Bernardino Valley.
This exchange will also support better wildfire preparation and land management in an area that faces significant wildfire risk. The Nation has already made substantial investments in fire protection and emergency response at the edge of the San Bernardino National Forest.
Mr. Speaker, after years of work and unfortunate delay, congressional action is needed to finally complete this process. This is a straightforward measure that respects Tribal sovereignty, protects important cultural resources, and improves land management in my district.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3925.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3925 would authorize a land exchange between the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and the U.S. Forest Service.
This exchange would convey approximately 1,475 acres of Federal land within the San Bernardino National Forest for approximately 1,460 acres of Tribal land. The Nation began working with the Forest Service on this exchange in 2017. The lands the Nation is seeking to acquire are adjacent to the reservation and include an arrowhead-shaped rock formation at the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains.
The Arrowhead landmark site and the lands toward which it points are sacred to the Nation and are intertwined with their creator and sacred stories.
The land holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the Nation has dedicated significant time and resources towards completing this land transfer. However, administrative hurdles have delayed such an exchange.
This bill would complete the exchange, consolidating parcels of the checkerboard of Tribal and Forest Service lands, while providing the Nation with culturally significant lands.
The exchange would also support the preservation and cultural integrity of the Arrowhead landmark site and enhance stewardship of the San Bernardino National Forest.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3925, introduced by Congressman Obernolte, as has been said, authorizes a land exchange between the U.S. Forest Service and the Yuhaaviatam Tribe of San Manuel Nation. Again, this land exchange would create a more contiguous land base for the Yuhaaviatam, and it would reduce checkerboard land holdings in the region. Under the exchange, the Yuhaaviatam would receive approximately 1,475 acres of Forest Service land, and the Tribe would transfer 1,460 acres to the Forest Service.
These conveyances would not only improve land management for both the Federal Government and the Tribe but would also reduce the overall size of the Federal estate.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte) for working with the Yuhaaviatam to develop H.R. 3925. I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close. I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I also urge passage of H.R. 3925, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3925, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 603) to designate the General George C. Marshall House, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material on S. 603, the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 603, which would designate the George C. Marshall House in Virginia as an affiliated area of the National Park System.
General George C. Marshall was a war hero, statesman, master strategist, and one of the most important figures in modern American history. From his distinguished service in both World Wars to his prominent role in shaping the postwar peace, he was the rare American whose service touched every dimension of national strength.
This bill recognizes George Marshall's legacy and ensures that Americans can continue to draw inspiration from his story by designating his historic home and estate as an affiliated area of the National Park System. This designation conveys honor and recognition while keeping the estate's management and fiscal responsibilities within the George C. Marshall International Center. This bill does not put property under Federal management or add to the Federal estate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 603 would establish the General George C. Marshall House, the home of one of America's most influential historical figures, as an affiliated area of the National Park System.
This would provide a deserved national recognition and allow the George Marshall House to receive technical assistance and limited financial aid from the National Park Service.
General Marshall lived at the residence in Leesburg, Virginia, between 1941 and 1959, critical years during his career.
He held an impressive resume, serving as Chief of Staff of the Army, special envoy to China, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and president of the American Red Cross.
He was renowned for organizing the Allied victory in World War II and for his dedication to rebuilding European economies and democracies through the Marshall Plan, which earned him the Nobel Peace Prize.
His home was designated a historical landmark in 1996 for the National Park Service, and then, after a 10-year, $7 million restoration, it became a public museum on Veterans Day in 2005.
The home meets all requirements for designation as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and the designation authorized by S. 603 will ensure that the contributions and values of George Marshall are recognized and commemorated by all Americans. I cannot wait to visit.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention that this is the second time that the House has passed this bill. Back in May of this year, we sent the Senate H.R. 1352, the House companion introduced by Representative Subramanyam. Instead of passing our bill and sending it to the President for his signature, the Senate passed its own version after a disconnect among Republican leadership. But we should not let this infighting get in the way of a good thing.
Again, I thank Representative Subramanyam and all members of the George C. Marshall International Center for their dedication to preserving the history and legacy of General Marshall.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 603, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I join my colleague in her frustration with the Senate. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 603, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 603.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 309) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding for the National Law Enforcement Museum, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 309, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 309, the National Law Enforcement Officers Remembrance, Support, and Community Outreach Act, which provides temporary grants from the Department of the Interior to enhance the community outreach, public education, and officer safety and wellness programs of the National Law Enforcement Museum here in Washington, D.C.
Supporting our brave men and women in law enforcement should not be a partisan issue, and the overwhelming support behind this bill is a true testament to that scenario.
This bill is led by Representative Nehls of Texas. The bill has 124 bipartisan cosponsors. This legislation has also been endorsed by numerous law enforcement organizations across the Nation, including the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National Sheriffs' Association.
In my home State of Arkansas, this legislation also enjoys support from the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police; the city of Sheridan, Arkansas, Police Department; and the Arkansas Game Warden Association.
In fact, Chief Gary Sipes, the executive director of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police, said: A sustained national effort to restore confidence and understanding in law enforcement is urgently needed, now more than ever. That is precisely what this bill would do. I could not agree more.
Every day, law enforcement officers across the country put themselves in harm's way to protect their fellow Americans. They make tremendous sacrifices to keep our communities safe, uphold the rule of law, and answer the call when their neighbors need them most. They deserve our respect, our gratitude, and our support.
Here in the heart of our Nation's Capital, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial honors Federal, Tribal, State, and local law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
Nearby, the National Law Enforcement Museum helps share the history of American law enforcement through exhibits, educational programming, historical collections, and outreach.
H.R. 309 builds on that mission by authorizing the Department of the Interior to provide grants to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund to expand its education and community outreach initiatives. These grants will support free museum access for officers, expansion of digitized collections, and broader distribution of officer safety and wellness resources to law enforcement agencies across the country.
I am proud to support this legislation, stand with our police officers across the country, and honor the service and sacrifices of America's law enforcement officers.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Nehls for his leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 309, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 309, the National Law Enforcement Officers Remembrance, Support, and Community Outreach Act, was introduced by my colleagues, Representative Nehls and Representative Panetta, so this is a bipartisan effort.
This bill takes an important step toward establishing a program at the Department of the Interior and supports community outreach, public education, and officer safety and wellness programs at the National Law Enforcement Museum.
In 1984, Congress passed a joint resolution to authorize the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund to establish the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C. The memorial fund built and continues to maintain the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, the Nation's monument dedicated to officers killed in the line of duty. The fund also maintains the largest, most comprehensive database of line-of-duty officer deaths, conducts research into officer fatality trends and issues, and serves as an information clearinghouse.
In 2000, President Clinton signed the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, which authorized the fund to build and operate the National Law Enforcement Museum. Opened in 2018, the museum tells the story of American law enforcement through exhibits, collections, research, and education.
H.R. 309 would take additional steps toward authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to establish and award a grant to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund for 7 fiscal years to take that work outside of the museum. Such grants would have an annual $6 million limit during that period. As a condition of receiving the grant funding, the fund would be required to submit annual reports to the Secretary, documenting and accounting progress and expenditures.
This funding would allow the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and their museum to continue supporting officers and educating the public on the important work our law enforcement officers do every day to keep our communities safe.
This bill is an important step forward in continuing Congress' longstanding support of this important memorial and museum and the men and women who keep our communities safe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 309, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), the lead sponsor of this bill and someone who personally knows about law enforcement, having served as a sheriff.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 309, the National Law Enforcement Officers Remembrance, Support, and Community Outreach Act. I thank Chairman Westerman for his support and his work on this.
Congressman Panetta and more than 120 Members--120 of us--all came together in this bipartisan effort to support our law enforcement officers. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 309.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Nehls for his leadership on this bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 309, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6893) to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6893, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6893, the Chesapeake Bay WATERS Act.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most important resources in the mid- Atlantic region, including for the commercial seafood sector and the recreational boating and fishing community. I know that my colleague from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) feels even more so about that statement.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Chesapeake Bay Office is an important partner for the Chesapeake Bay region by contributing scientific research, protecting habitat, and advancing oyster restoration.
H.R. 6893 reauthorizes this office and several of its training and workforce programs. It also requires the office to submit a report to the Secretary of Commerce and Congress on its progress in conserving the Chesapeake Bay and the ways NOAA can work with other Chesapeake Bay Program partners.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6893 is, in fact, near and dear to my heart and to my district. The Chesapeake Bay watershed is one of our Nation's most priceless natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, 18 million people live in the watershed, which is shared by six States and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay supports, as was said, fishing, tourism, real estate, and countless industries, generating billions of dollars in economic activity each year. It is, frankly, essential to the culture of those six States and the District.
The bay is also a critical habitat for many keystone species. Its oyster reefs, seagrass meadows, and marshes protect nearby communities from coastal hazards and provide critical nurseries for fish and wildlife. You will even spot a few dolphins hanging out there.
As a co-chair of the Chesapeake Bay Task Force, I was proud to co- lead H.R. 6893 to reauthorize key, science-backed programs at NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office, which is headquartered near my office in Annapolis, Maryland. This bill would better position the office to collaborate with universities, nonprofits, and other stakeholders in carrying out science, monitoring, and observation activities.
The bill also strengthens collaboration by supporting the coordinated management and conservation of Chesapeake Bay habitats, fish, and wildlife, ensuring that limited Federal resources are used as effectively as possible.
Finally, the bill would, for the first time, authorize the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training program, otherwise known affectionately as B-WET, which provides grants for environmental education and watershed restoration experiences for local school kids.
Reauthorizing this office in the Chesapeake Bay will help maintain a steady Federal presence within the region's collaborative scientific infrastructure, benefiting the six States and the District of Columbia.
We must ensure that the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed remain abundant, healthy resources for generations to come.
If you talk to folks back in my district, they will say that the bay transcends politics, and it is almost like a religion. I could not agree more.
I applaud Representative Scott and the bipartisan Chesapeake Bay delegation not just for their dedication to this bill but for their dedication throughout every President and tumultuous politics to remain steady and steadfast in our support of this program.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6893, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), someone who is also passionate about the Chesapeake Bay, fisheries, and clean water.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6893, the Chesapeake Bay WATERS Act, and I am very proud to co-lead this bipartisan bill with Representative Kiggans.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of our Nation's most important natural resources, and this bill will ensure the bay remains healthy for generations to come.
H.R. 6893 reauthorizes the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Program office, which has been a leading partner in bay restoration efforts. Working alongside universities, State and local governments, and other stakeholders, this office supports the science and coordination necessary to understand the health of the bay and make informed decisions about the future.
Importantly, this bill supports the observation, monitoring, collection, and analysis of marine resource data, an area I was committed to for over 27 years with the Commonwealth of Virginia. That information is used by policymakers, resource managers, and the
The bill also supports training and education programs, and strengthens coordinated efforts to manage, protect, and restore bay habitats and living resources.
For communities across Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay is far more than a natural resource. It is part of our way of life. It supports our watermen, farmers, small businesses, and families throughout the Commonwealth.
The bay is a major economic driver, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and generating billions of dollars in economic activity. Protecting the bay means protecting those jobs, strengthening our local economies, and preserving the natural resources that our communities depend upon.
By continuing to invest in sound science, monitoring, education, and coordinated restoration efforts, we can ensure the Chesapeake Bay remains healthy for generations to come.
This is truly a Federal role because this truly is what interstate commerce is all about. The bay is that economic engine that involves all of the States in the bay watershed. It is our responsibility as a group of States to make sure we continue to improve the water quality there and, in turn, the economic resources that come to us from the bay.
The bay is an incredible economic driver for the seafood and tourism economies. All of those things are key. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office allows us to coordinate and make sure that all of us in the bay watershed are doing our part to make sure the bay continues to get cleaner and cleaner.
I am very proud to support this bipartisan effort to protect one of our Nation's most vital resources, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 6893.
Mr. Speaker, we brought out half the Bay Caucus for this effort, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 6893, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science, the WATERS Act.
The Chesapeake Bay is a natural treasure and a critical resource for the millions of Americans who live within its watershed, including my constituents in Hampton Roads. The Chesapeake Bay's fisheries sustain the region's centuries-old fisheries and seafood industry, which generates about $8 billion in economic activity every year. The bay's unparalleled recreational opportunities not only support tens of thousands of jobs and generate more than $14 billion annually, but are also critical to the well-being and happiness of all that live throughout the watershed.
The Federal Government has helped our efforts to restore and protect the bay by devoting the resources and staff of multiple departments and agencies, including NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office. This office provides scientific and technical support to government, industry, and nonprofits with the goal of advancing strategies that improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. This is an effort that has been going on for decades. We are making slow but steady progress.
Among its many responsibilities, NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office manages the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System that provides researchers and watermen with near real-time data on weather and water quality conditions. The Chesapeake Bay Office also oversees the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, program. This competitive grant program supports environmental education opportunities throughout the watershed that not only teach students about the bay but also connect them to it through experiential programming.
The Chesapeake Bay Waters Act reauthorizes NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office. This ensures the agency can continue supporting the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. My bill also authorizes the Chesapeake B-WET program for the first time in its history, ensuring that future generations can continue to engage with the Chesapeake Bay.
I thank my fellow co-leads, Virginia Representatives Wittman and Kiggans and Maryland Representative Elfreth, for their support of this legislation. I thank Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman for their leadership in getting this bill to the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
I could go on and on, but I know we have one last bill. Representative Scott got it right: It has been slow and steady progress since 1983, before I was even born, to make sure that we not just protect and preserve for future generations, but take strides to be a model as we have been in the Chesapeake Bay region for other watersheds, not just in the United States but across the world.
Mr. Speaker, there is so much more work to do. This bill reauthorizes that work. Again, I thank my bipartisan colleagues for prioritizing not just this bill but this program within the budget itself. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank everybody for their bipartisan support on H.R. 6893. I support its passage and yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6893, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2317) to provide for transfer of ownership of certain Federal lands in northern Nevada, to authorize the disposal of certain Federal lands in northern Nevada for economic development, to promote conservation in northern Nevada, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
Subtitle C--Resolution of Burbank Canyons Wilderness Study Area
Subtitle C--Resolution of Burbank Canyons Wilderness Study Area
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2317, as amended, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nevada?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I guess in continuing on the slow-but-steady progress on the theme for today, northern Nevada counties are overwhelmingly owned by the Federal Government, restricting local planners and zoners from being able to adequately serve and plan for their communities' needs.
In Pershing County, the Federal Government owns 73.3 percent of the total landmass in the county. The amount of Federal land in Pershing remains virtually unchanged because this bill has a one-to-one consolidation of checkerboard land that was done during the
In Douglas County, the Federal Government owns 51.9 percent of the total landmass in the county. This bill conveys 7,777 acres to the county for flood management purposes and allows for the disposal of no more than 10,000 acres in the county. This would dispose of only 4.1 percent of Federal land in Douglas County, most of which is for public purposes.
In Lyon County, the Federal Government owns 64.8 percent of the total landmass in the county. The bill allows for the disposal of 12,085 acres of Federal land in Lyon County, decreasing the Federal estate in that particular county by 1.4 percent.
All of the parcels for conveyance, disposal, and wilderness were identified and requested by local planning and zoning authorities. That is, in all three cases, the county commissions.
The bill has been wrongly conflated to the lands provisions originally in last year's reconciliation package. To be clear, this is not what was considered during the reconciliation. The bill before you is a holistic package that balances conservation and economic development priorities for northern Nevada communities and enjoys bipartisan support in Nevada.
The bill is nearly identical to what was favorably marked up and reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee in November last year.
The largest piece of this bill, Pershing County, passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee way back in the 115th Congress, so it has been in the mix, if you will, for more than a little while.
Groups in support is a list of groups that you don't always hear talked about in support of the same thing. All counties, cities, and Tribes included in the bill not only support it, but the bill consists of requests from those entities to have these lands put into local control.
The supporting groups include: Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Great Basin Wildlife Conservancy, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, Nevada Sporting Dog Alliance, Northern Nevada Safari Club International, Sierra Front Muley Fanatic Foundation, Southern Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, Truckee River Flyfishers, National Mining Association, and the Nevada Farm Bureau.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2317 is a comprehensive package of conveyances, conservation designations, and land use authorizations designed to address a series of public land management issues throughout northern Nevada.
Representative Amodei has worked for many years on the bill, and his dedication has earned widespread support throughout the State, including from Tribes, counties, and local environmental organizations.
By including nearly 150,000 acres of wilderness designation, this bill genuinely attempts to strike a balance between conservation and development.
Wilderness designation is reserved for the most remote and undeveloped areas we have left in this country, and the designations included in the bill represent the newest Federal land conservation considered by the House this Congress.
While it is encouraging that we are considering legislation that includes new conservation designations, this body also has a responsibility to hold the Trump administration accountable as they try to sell off our public lands.
Our Nation's natural treasures and public lands are what make our country great, and the American people do not want to see our great outdoors sold off or stripped for parts. That is why 12 Democrats voted against H.R. 2317 in the Natural Resources Committee markup.
As we saw earlier this year from the reconciliation amendment our committee considered at midnight, the idea of public land sales, especially at the scale envisioned in this bill, is deeply unpopular and can lead to destruction of our natural environment for a quick buck.
In its current form, the bill even includes provisions green-lighting the sale of public land directly to mining companies. This has facilitated a broad expansion of mining activity without any Federal review or guarantee of a fair return for the American taxpayer.
We had worked to resolve those issues before House Republicans brought the bill to the floor for a vote, but they were not, which means there is more work to do before this bill can be signed into law.
I understand that this bill is critical for northern Nevada, but we must get the details right. Public lands belong to all Americans.
As the House considers H.R. 2317, the Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, under suspension of the rules, several Members on our side of the aisle still have outstanding concerns regarding certain provisions in the legislation. While we appreciate the strong in-State support for the bill, there are continuing concerns about the scale of the Federal land conveyances. Specifically, Members want assurances that there is a fair balance and the conveyances do not tip the scales in favor of extraction and excessive public land transfer.
Can the gentleman from Nevada commit to continuing to work in good faith with us, and with our colleagues in the Senate, to address these concerns and support necessary amendments to the bill as it moves through the legislative process?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
I appreciate that. I think that is exactly what the American people expect of us.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's clear commitment to addressing these issues and refining the bill in the Senate. With that understanding, I thank him for his leadership and collaboration, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2317, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act of 2025
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4219) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Program, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 371, nays 33, not voting 28, as follows:
Mmes. MILLER of Illinois, LUNA, Messrs. HARRIS of North Carolina, and McCORMICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GARCIA of Illinois and McCLINTOCK changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act of 2026
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3276) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Urban Bird Treaty Program, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 345, nays 60, not voting 27, as follows:
Messrs. CLINE and JOYCE of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 10167) to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting the penny, to require cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 cents, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Republican Conference Chairwoman McClain's Common Cents Act. Rather than spending more money producing a coin than the coin itself is worth, this straightforward, commonsense bill ensures that Congress is a good steward of taxpayers' dollars by providing long-term fiscally responsible solutions.
Mr. Speaker, let's look at the numbers. According to an audit of the United States Mint, it costs $3.69 to make a 1-cent penny. In fact, for 19 consecutive years, the U.S. Government has spent more than one penny to make one penny. In 2024 alone, taxpayers lost more than $85 million producing pennies.
Chairwoman McClain's bill eliminates that wasteful spending by codifying President Trump's directive to the Mint to stop producing new pennies for circulation. However, we also need to make sure we are not solving one problem by creating another.
If we stop making pennies, then Americans are likely to use more nickels, and at nearly 14 cents to produce nickels, they aren't exactly a bargain either. That is why this bill gives the Treasury Secretary the flexibility to move a lower-cost composite for the nickel, again, saving taxpayers money.
The bill also provides a clear uniform standard for rounding cash transactions to the nearest nickel when exact change isn't available, ensuring our small businesses have the certainty they need.
Importantly, the bill keeps Congress informed by requiring Treasury to notify the House and Senate and explain their reasoning before discontinuing any additional circulating coins.
This is very simple. The Federal Government should not spend more money to make something than it is worth itself. We should look for savings where we can, modernize outdated practices, and ensure businesses and consumers have certainty at the register.
Mr. Speaker, this is what responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars looks like.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Chairwoman McClain's bipartisan Common Cents Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 10167, the Common Cents Act, sponsored by Representative McClain.
Last year, the President announced on Truth Social--not the best way to make a government announcement--that Treasury would stop minting pennies. Frankly, I disagree with almost everything the President does, but this one makes sense. I have been advocating for the abolition of the penny for over 20 years in our committee, and it is time that we move forward on this.
Following this announcement, the Treasury moved forward, and the Mint has stopped producing pennies. Unfortunately, the decision to stop minting pennies ignored the authority of Congress in regulating currency and overseeing a major transition away from producing pennies. We saw that this abrupt decision resulted in major consequences across the country that led to penny shortages for banks, retailers, and consumers and created confusion in the economy.
It is not enough to stop minting pennies. We need a bill that tells retailers and customers how much they are supposed to pay in nickels, dimes, and dollars. However, as written, this legislation addresses many of these issues and establishes much-needed standards and guidelines going forward.
Since we marked up the Common Cents Act in our committee, this bill has continued to be meaningfully improved, thanks to the work of our ranking member, Maxine Waters, and other Financial Services Committee Democrats, including Representative Garcia.
The Common Cents Act formally directs the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting pennies. It also allows the Mint to test a lower-cost composition for the nickel, which chiefly would be zinc, and to make use of the zinc that is now going into pennies. Moreover, by using zinc for the nickel, not only will we save money, but it will be lighter, and that will be important for the cost of those who are transporting large quantities of coins, and it will be a little lighter in your pocket. This bill not only deals with the penny, but it also improves the nickel.
The bill provides clarity on rounding cash transactions. When I proposed in committee 20 years ago, and I proposed it at townhalls, people were concerned that somehow this would lead to higher prices and that somehow retailers would benefit.
The fact is, it is the consumer, not the retailer, who determines whether you buy two nail files at the same time and that happens to round down, and then buy another two nail files at the same time, and that transaction is rounded down. I can't imagine anybody doing that to save a nickel, but it is the consumer, not the retailer, that decides what goes into the basket. I can't imagine anybody looking at this. If somebody does care, it is the retailer in control.
We have formal rules here on rounding down when it is 2 cents or 1 cent. That is important for commerce to go forward.
Under this bill, the Federal Reserve would be required to issue a strategic plan for managing and limiting disruptions in the penny supply.
Recently, in August, the Senate added a new section that requires the Treasury to submit notification to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee regarding potential plans to discontinue any coin, among other requirements. This is important because Congress plays a key role in these processes. There has been some disruption, and we need to be in a position to manage it.
My focus on the fact that we didn't need pennies arises from the fact that I used to head the second largest sales
We have been rounding transactions for a long time in this country. Now, we will be rounding to the nearest nickel instead of rounding to the nearest penny.
Further, by eliminating the penny, we create extra room in the cash register where the penny used to go. That room could be used for a dollar coin. We all know that it costs more than a dollar to print a dollar and that a paper dollar wears out.
I look forward to popularizing the dollar coin. This will be a boon to our transit agencies, vending machines, and others when people use a dollar coin. Growing up, we had a dollar coin. We just called it a quarter. We had a quarter. We used it. It was worth about what a dollar is worth today.
Mr. Speaker, while I am not a big fan of the inflation that has taken place in my lifetime, I do think it is time to popularize the dollar coin. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 10167, the Common Cents Act.
This is a straightforward bill that does one commonsense thing: It stops the Federal Government from losing money on a coin that almost no one uses.
Every penny we mint costs taxpayers nearly 4 cents to make and distribute--4 cents to make just one penny. In this single year, that absurd math cost the taxpayers more than $85 million.
As a businesswoman, I can tell you no businessowner in my district would spend $4 to make $1, but that is exactly how Washington has run with the penny. It doesn't make sense.
President Trump saw the waste, and then he acted. Last November, the Mint struck the final penny. This bill writes that decision into law so no future administration can turn the presses back on.
The Mint projects $56 million in savings in just 1 year. Let me be clear: Nobody is taking away pennies you already have. The penny in your pocket, the coin sitting in your jar on the counter, that all stays as legal tender.
I introduced this bill with Congressman Robert Garcia. It is not radical. It is bipartisan. It is common sense.
Republicans and Democrats don't often agree on much in this town, but I do think we agree on this: We shouldn't be wasting $85 million a year by keeping to mint pennies.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to modernize our currency, cut the waste, and bring a little common sense back to Washington. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I agree it makes perfect economic sense to retire the denomination of the penny and, in fact, reemploy the dollar coin in ordinary commerce.
As a Representative of Illinois, I cannot but mention the fact that the loss of the image of Abraham Lincoln on coins we often use is a tragedy that we can and should avert. The way to do that is to simply place the image of Abraham Lincoln on the newly minted dollar coin, a win-win every way you look at it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 10167.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2978) to permit State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies that receive eligible Federal grant funds to use such funds for investigating elder financial fraud, pig butchering, and general financial fraud, and to clarify that Federal law enforcement agencies may assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies in the use of tracing tools for blockchain and related technology, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I note that although H.R. 2978 has not been reported out of Judiciary Committee, which also received a referral for the bill, the Judiciary Committee supports H.R. 2978 being considered today under suspension of the rules. I thank Chairman Jordan for his committee's support.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2978, the Guarding Unprotected Aging Retirees from Deception Act, or GUARD Act.
Financial fraud is one of the fastest-growing threats facing hardworking Americans, particularly seniors and retirees who have spent decades saving for the future. Today, sophisticated scammers are using technology to target vulnerable Americans through increasingly complex schemes.
The GUARD Act helps address this challenge by allowing State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to use existing Federal grant funding to investigate financial fraud.
This bill also gives law enforcement greater access to modern investigative tools by allowing Federal agencies to assist State and local authorities with blockchain tracing and related technologies. These tools can help law enforcement follow the money, identify bad actors, and recover funds that have been stolen from victims.
As scammers continue to develop new ways to exploit Americans, our law enforcement agencies must have the tools and information necessary to keep pace.
This bipartisan bill takes a commonsense approach by strengthening coordination between Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement, while providing the resources needed to investigate and disrupt financial fraud.
More importantly, the GUARD Act will help protect seniors and retirees who have worked hard their entire lives and deserve to be protected from predatory actors.
I thank Representatives Nunn, Fitzgerald, and Gottheimer for their leadership on this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2978, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 2978, the GUARD Act, sponsored by Representatives Nunn and Gottheimer. The GUARD Act would allow State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to tap into certain Federal grant programs to support investigations into senior fraud, romance scams, and general financial fraud.
The bill would also permit Federal law enforcement to assist State and local law enforcement with tracing tools for blockchain technology. This bill is particularly important because blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, is so often used in scams, and it is the Federal Government that has the best chance--and it is only a chance--of using technology to defeat the scams and to hold those responsible accountable.
Certainly, now that we are faced with crypto scams, we need to react, and this bill is part of that reaction. This is a sensible bill that will help Americans who are losing literally billions of dollars to fraudsters and scammers.
I support this bill, but I must express a significant concern of the Democratic Caucus that should be addressed. That is the potential misinterpretation or misuse of this bill to allow agencies to siphon funds from defined grant programs for unrelated purposes.
One of the grant programs, for example, is found in the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which allows grants to nonprofits and local governments to provide support for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.
I believe that all Members and organizations supporting this bill have no intent to deny grants or reduce grants to address domestic violence and sexual assault. This bill is not meant to be a way for the President to raid those funds.
Rather, the bill intends to augment the funds and to cover areas where GUARD Act activities overlap with the existing grant programs, such as where the victim of domestic violence is also the target of a romance scam.
I stress again that when the bill says ``eligible Federal grant funds,'' no Member voting on this bill intends to ignore or change the purpose of existing Federal grant programs from which the GUARD Act draws.
Thus, going forward, this bill or our statutes must add clarifying language that makes it clear that VAWA and this bill's other programs are intended to combat financial fraud and abuse within the bounds of the grant programs that are listed.
Mr. Speaker, with these concerns about our intent to fix the text of the bill noted, I urge colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, every family is now impacted by this. Every American knows someone who has come into contact with an AI fraud, a pig butchering scheme, a romance theft.
Right now, criminals on the other side of the world are stealing the life savings of people in our own communities, and the local officers who answer those calls oftentimes can't even do anything about it. The money moves through digital currencies, including crypto, faster than anyone can even trace it. By the time a deputy who answers the call files a report, the life savings of that family, individual, or loved one is gone.
I will share a story of what happened in my district in rural Iowa, of all places. A farmer in Wapello County was targeted through social media by an account posing as a Russian model. Over months, this Russian woman began to earn his trust and then took him for $1 million, including farm equipment that he had to mortgage.
Over months, the people behind it further earned his trust. When they realized that he had money on his farm, in cash, they hired mercenaries on U.S. soil to drive from New York to a rural farmhouse in Iowa, where, when he refused to give up his cash, they opened fire on him. Due to this smart-thinking farmer locking himself in his barn and calling local law enforcement, his life was spared. His monetary loss was immeasurable.
Sheriff Don Phillips of Wapello and his deputies worked with Federal agents. They arrested the men who showed up that day. Out of the three, they were able to keep one. The other two ended up getting away. The people who ran the schemes, the real perpetrators of this, were far overseas. They still haven't answered for a single dollar of the more than $1 million that this farmer lost.
This is no longer a rare story. In Iowa alone last year, families lost $96 million to these types of frauds, and Americans lost as much as $200 billion. To put that in another context, the entire budget for the U.S. Army is gone in 1 year, mainly to foreign actors committing fraud on U.S. citizens. Those citizens are retirees, farmers, and families.
This is now the number one financial crime impacting families. That is why, 2 years ago, I brought together Iowa sheriffs, investigators, and local detectives and asked them what they needed to combat this rising number of scams and fraudsters targeting our communities. I am proud to say that their best ideas are now in the process of potentially becoming law with this bill, the GUARD Act.
Together, we are fighting for 21st century solutions to address criminals who are using cutting-edge technology, but we are still dealing with it built from a different era. The moment that their money crosses a State line or an ocean, they hit a wall that only the Federal Government can help them climb.
This bill aims to fix that. That is why our bipartisan bill, the GUARD Act, brings together real solutions and puts legislation in place for real-time tracing tools, including blockchain tracking, as well as Federal backup when these things happen, so that we can combat it on the front line before it becomes a national catastrophe.
It helps not only my State and local law enforcement. It helps the deputy who is just trying to help a community member follow up, identify the money, and stop it before it leaves the district or the country. Most importantly, it goes after the people running these scams.
I am grateful to AARP, financial lenders across the country, law enforcement, veterans groups, and other advocates who brought these ideas forward. This is exactly what Congress should be doing: taking and hearing concerns from our local communities and distilling them into a law that can actually help save money, save lives, and, most importantly, help people right here in our own country.
Mr. Speaker, I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of the GUARD Act.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the leadership of Congresswoman De La Cruz for seeing this bill through and my colleague, Congressman Nunn, because, as he stated, the level of importance of this is vast.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2978, the GUARD Act. For well over a year, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, which I chair, has led in-depth investigations into the growing prevalence of fraud and scams.
As part of our work, we conducted many hearings, roundtables, meetings with private industry, law enforcement, and regulators to investigate the problem and find solutions.
In July, we released a comprehensive staff report detailing the growth of financial fraud and scams in the U.S. Shockingly, or not so shockingly, we found that Americans lost well over $16 billion which was reported in these schemes in 2025 alone, and truly the toll was closer to well over $200 billion, as has been mentioned.
Financial fraud picks no favorites. Scams affect everyone from veterans and small businesses to seniors to young people. Everybody is vulnerable.
This report, however, included several recommendations to better address financial fraud and scams, including the passage of this bill, the GUARD Act. The important legislation addresses many of the issues we identified in equipping law enforcement with the tools necessary to combat sophisticated criminals. They are sophisticated.
It also allows law enforcement to use innovative tools to trace and recover stolen funds and improves Federal reporting on fraud trends.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Nunn for his hard work to stop fraud and scams, and I thank Chairman Hill of the Financial Services Committee for his strong leadership as well.
Mr. Speaker, I urge and thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the GUARD Act allows State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to use certain Federal grant programs to investigate senior financial fraud, romance schemes, and general financial fraud.
There are two points that I made in my earlier statement that I will reiterate. The first is that crypto has facilitated frauds and scams, and it is necessary that we give law enforcement the tools to react to that. The second is that while this is a very worthwhile bill, we do need to clarify that the GUARD Act overlaps and augments, doesn't steal from, the funds mentioned in the bill. It can help victims and survivors of domestic violence, among others, as they are targeted by fraudsters and scammers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I explained earlier, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2978, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8278) to require certain supervisory agencies to assess their technological capabilities, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 8278, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act, or the FUTURES Act.
This bipartisan, commonsense measure addresses a real challenge. As technology evolves at unprecedented speed and banks and financial firms adopt new tools, do our financial regulators have the technology and expertise they need to keep pace?
I am proud to support the FUTURES Act, led by Representatives Marlin Stutzman and Bill Foster, which takes important steps toward modernizing our Federal financial regulatory agencies.
The FUTURES Act provides Congress with a comprehensive view of the roadblocks hindering our supervisors' ability to effectively regulate and supervise their financial institutions. It does so by providing Congress with a clear picture of the technology regulators currently use, where critical gaps exist, and what barriers stand in the way of closing those gaps.
If our regulators and supervisors cannot keep pace with a constantly evolving market, there is a legitimate risk to both financial market stability and the broader economy. We must equip agencies with the tools they need to effectively oversee the ever-changing landscape of global finance. A crucial first step in doing so is to remove roadblocks, outdated agency practices, procurement barriers, and needless bureaucracy that slows the adoption of cutting-edge supervisory technology.
The FUTURES Act would identify and address these roadblocks and help enable more effective, realtime oversight of markets and institutions. This is a critical step to create a more transparent and efficient supervisory environment for financial institutions and market participants of all sizes.
The bill also takes a look at whether agencies can recruit, train, and retain the technical experts needed to meet their missions. Just as we hold our financial institutions to rigorous standards on cybersecurity and vendor oversight, we should equip our regulators to meet the same high bars.
I look forward to the insights this bill will generate and how they will guide future engagement to improve supervision across the Federal financial system.
I supported this bipartisan, commonsense bill last Congress and during our committee markup in May, and I am pleased to do so today.
All of my colleagues at the Financial Services Committee supported this bill, and I urge the rest of my colleagues in the House to join us in passing this important bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Stutzman and Mr. Foster for their leadership, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Stutzman for his partnership on this legislation and my colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee for their unanimous
The FUTURES Act takes important first steps to modernize the financial regulatory regime and ensures that regulators have appropriate tools for the 21st century.
It requires Federal banking regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to regularly review their technological systems and procurement practices to ensure that they are well-equipped to address emerging threats.
Agencies will examine whether they have access to the right information when they need it and whether they have systems in place to identify rapidly emerging risk.
The bill then asks regulators to develop a plan to address any technology gaps that they identify, requiring additional reviews every 5 years.
As we saw with the bank failures in 2023, 24-hour banking tools and social media-fueled panic can intensify bank runs and increase the risk of contagion.
Silicon Valley Bank's depositors attempted to withdraw $42 billion from the bank in 24 hours, with more than $100 billion in additional withdrawals requested before it was shut down and put into receivership by the FDIC.
This bill comes at a time when financial institutions and regulators are responding to new opportunities and challenges stemming from emerging technologies. Artificial intelligence and agentic commerce have great potential benefits for consumers and businesses, but they also have the potential to supercharge cybersecurity risk, contagion, and fraud, and can destabilize our financial system far more quickly than in years past.
At the same time, these technologies provide tools that regulators and financial institutions can use to improve and simplify bank supervision, to identify suspicious activity, and to improve the quality of customer service.
Maintenance of a well-regulated financial system requires continual investment in new tools, a workforce with the necessary technical skills, and streamlined procurement rules that allow regulators to keep up with rapid developments in the private sector.
I support this forward-looking and bipartisan bill, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of my bill, H.R. 8278.
Across the country, banks and credit unions are using innovative technology to deliver better products and services for their customers.
For example, banks in Northeast Indiana are using tools like artificial intelligence and real-time data analytics to spot fraud faster, better manage risk, and enhance the banking experience for Hoosiers. But too often, the regulators charged with overseeing and supervising these institutions still rely on outdated IT infrastructure from a predigital era.
This gap poses significant risks not just for our financial markets but for the entire economy.
As our banks and credit unions continue to innovate at a record pace, our regulators must have the tools to keep up.
That is where the FUTURES Act comes in.
My bill requires Federal bank and credit union regulators to assess the technology systems they use for supervision, evaluate their procurement practices, and report to Congress on where they are struggling and how they can improve.
Put simply, we can't help our regulators modernize their technology for the digital age if we don't know the challenges that they face. Whether it is talent gaps, procurement barriers, or technological blind spots, Congress needs to understand the red tape that is keeping government in the past while the financial system races into the future.
In fact, we already require this kind of information from the institutions our regulators supervise. Banks and credit unions must undergo quarterly technology reviews, internal testing, and rigorous due diligence on every vendor that they use. It is only fair that we hold their regulators to the same standard.
The FUTURES Act is a straightforward, commonsense, and bipartisan step to address the critical technology challenges facing our regulators.
This legislation was advanced unanimously by the House Committee on Financial Services, sending a clear message that both Republicans and Democrats recognize that supervision must keep pace with innovation.
I am grateful to my colleague across the aisle, Bill Foster, for co- leading this legislation with me. I also thank Chairman Hill and Chairman Steil for their continued support of this measure, as well as thanking the full committee.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 8278, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act, as amended, authored by Representative Stutzman.
I particularly note that this bill starts with the word ``fostering,'' and so it is appropriate that it is co-led by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster). Who else could do a better job of fostering than Mr. Foster?
This bill represents an important step in allowing Congress to better understand the technological vulnerabilities our banking regulators face. They come in at least two categories. One is to understand how banks are using AI and to make sure that banks are complying with all of our consumer protection and prudential standards. The second is to make sure that our regulators are in a position to make sure the banks are able to prevent themselves from being hit by malicious actors who could imperil consumers or, even more, the prudential solvency of the bank. It is better for Congress to understand the technological vulnerabilities that bankers face.
This bill requires the Federal banking agencies to assess and to report to Congress on gaps and vulnerabilities in their supervisory tools and their procurement processes.
As AI tools continue to be deployed by financial institutions, we have to be able to make sure that our regulators understand what the banks are doing. While malicious actors are beginning to use AI, it is important for our regulators to know the threats that that could pose to our banking system.
Concerns have increased about the speed and scale of AI threats to the financial system and, as Mr. Foster pointed out, the particular threat of accelerating the speed of a run on a particular bank.
Requiring regulators to meet emerging risks by utilizing their own technology to support their supervisory rulemaking and enforcement activities is an important step. This is known as supervisory technology and can include both AI, as well as cloud-based services and other technologies. Supervisory technology is used by agencies with the goal of improving their supervision process, while ensuring firms comply with regulatory requirements.
Importantly, this bill requires Federal banking agencies to assess the procurement process rules for new technology they may need to acquire.
Now, under the Trump administration, AI has been politicized, which has created challenges for consistent procurement practices. For example, on July 23, 2025, an executive order directed agencies not to procure AI models that contain AI outputs driven by ideologies like diversity, equality, and inclusion.
This is a dangerous approach which ignores the well-documented harms from algorithmic bias in housing and financial services, the workforce, and criminal justice. It also appears to contradict our existing laws.
When the government agencies do their enforcement, they need to enforce all of our laws. When they use AI, they need to enforce all of the laws that apply to banking institutions. That includes the laws that prohibit discrimination, and those are just as important as any of the other laws that our bank
Since this bill was proposed last Congress, many of the challenges we are facing with AI are now much more apparent. It seems as though every day the news and warnings about AI becomes more dire.
This bill will help Congress to better ensure that our Federal banking agencies are able to keep up with the challenges they face. But let us remember, this bill is based on last decade's big issue--how AI could be used by human beings in a way that is harmful and how AI could be used by human beings in a way that promotes the enforcement of our law, but in any case, how AI is a tool in the hands of humans beings.
Now, what has exploded into our consciousness is a second issue this bill doesn't and wasn't intended to deal with, and that should not be ignored by Congress. That is what happens if AI isn't being used by human beings to achieve a human purpose but instead develops its own self-awareness, its own goals?
It pains me that this Congress is leaving town at the end of this week, leaving town on Thursday, when we should be spending at least the next 2 weeks focused on what our national response is to being told that AI may not just be a tool in the hands of good and bad people, used well and perhaps not so well, but maybe something we haven't confronted before; and that is, in effect, a new and powerful self- directed intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on those issues. For now, we ought to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8278 is an important step to allowing Congress to better understand the technological vulnerabilities of our banking system and what is faced by our bank regulators. Requiring Federal banking agencies to assess and report to Congress on gaps and vulnerabilities in their supervisory tools and their procurement process would further efforts by our regulators to meet emerging risks.
Additionally, this bill will allow Federal banking regulators to evaluate and report on the impact of the Trump administration's executive orders, which, unfortunately, ignore well-documented harms from algorithmic bias in housing and financial services.
Ultimately, Congress would use the reporting from this bill to ensure that our banking agencies are able to keep up with the challenges that they face, including rapidly developing AI capacities and the need to make sure that our bank regulators are appropriately using AI to enforce all of our banking laws, including those that prevent discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I explained earlier, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 8278, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4646) to clarify that whistleblower protections described in section 4712 of title 41, United States Code, apply to any contract funded from amounts appropriated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 4646, the Whistleblower Protection Act, which passed with bipartisan support out of the Financial Services Committee.
Texas families are stretching every dollar right now while scammers are cashing in on taxpayer-funded programs. While Texas families play by the rules, scammers and corrupt leaders shouldn't get rewarded.
That is why I am working to stop the abuse and bring accountability back to Washington, and this bill brings us closer to that goal by strengthening whistleblower protections for those wanting to rightfully blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in our government.
Whistleblower protections are one of the most effective tools that we have to combat waste, fraud, and abuse throughout our government. This bipartisan legislation is simple. It clarifies that whistleblower protections apply to every HUD contractor, a vital step that is necessary due to the bureaucratic implementation of congressionally enacted enhanced whistleblower protections originally passed in 2013.
When Congress initially passed these enhanced whistleblower protections in 2013, known as section 4712, it intended them to apply to both contracts awarded before these protections became law and to contracts that predated section 4712 becoming law but have since been modified.
Unfortunately, many HUD programs have contracts that are often decades long, meaning that there are still active HUD contracts that predate 2013 and do not include key protections from section 4712, leaving thousands of HUD contractors with uncertainty.
This legislation fixes that by providing much-needed clarity to HUD and ensuring that whistleblower protections apply to every HUD contractor, regardless of when a contract was signed. This is something HUD has even asked for, most recently in their fiscal year 2027 budget request to Congress.
We must never allow retaliation against people who are simply trying to act in the taxpayers' best interests, and I will never stop rooting out corruption and cutting government waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting my bill, the bipartisan Whistleblower Protection Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, preventing waste, fraud, and abuse is one thing we agree on. We have to do everything possible to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government.
The two best tools for dealing with waste, fraud, and abuse are inspectors
This bill strengthens the whistleblower part of that equation, but we have to reflect on the fact that this President has gutted the first part, the inspectors general.
The whistleblower part of oversight only works when people can speak up without fear of retaliation, and that is why whistleblower protections are so important.
At HUD, the administration rolled back fair housing enforcement, stonewalled Congress from receiving critical information, and gutted tenant protections.
Whistleblowers are now the last line of defense against these harmful decisions made behind closed doors, and Congress needs to send a clear message: If you expose wrongdoing, you will be protected. You will not be punished.
Whistleblowers are how we catch waste, fraud, and abuse before they spiral. They are how we make sure that Federal housing programs actually do what Congress intended.
For that reason, I support H.R. 4646. It strengthens whistleblower protections and makes them consistent across HUD contractors without gaps and without guesswork.
Mr. Speaker, we perhaps need this bill more than ever because Republicans in the White House have fired inspectors general across Federal agencies, especially at HUD.
Mr. Trump has fired the HUD inspector general and the FHFA inspector general, including right after they said that they planned to investigate how Trump's administration was engaging in lawlessness. That is not oversight. That is obstruction of justice.
You cannot claim to protect the effort to deal with waste, fraud, and abuse if you support gutting and firing inspectors general. Of course, when you fire inspectors general and either don't have them or install people carefully selected to turn a blind eye, you increase the likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse.
This bill, at least, deals with that second part of the effort. We need inspectors general. We also need whistleblower protection. This bill will provide additional protection for whistleblowers.
This bill is an important step, perhaps made more necessary by the President's outrageous firing of inspectors general. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4646.
Protecting whistleblowers is not a partisan issue. Doing all we can to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse is not a partisan issue. When employees can safely report waste, fraud, and abuse, government programs work better for everyone. H.R. 4646 strengthens those protections consistently across HUD and its contractors, and it deserves our support.
We also need to turn our attention to the need for truly independent inspectors general. HUD may not have confirmed leadership in place, but that progress means little while this administration continues to sideline accountability elsewhere, leaving key agencies understaffed and underresourced.
Let us pass this bill today, and let us then focus our efforts on the need for truly independent inspectors general, particularly at HUD and FHFA. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.
Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I explained earlier, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4646, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of H. Con. Res 93, Directing the President, Pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to Remove United States Armed Forces from Hostilities...
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 93 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee, that the concurrent resolution be considered as read, and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Moulton of Massachusetts or their respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of September 14, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 93), directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Moulton of Massachusetts or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the resolution again asking for the President to ``remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the
I have spoken at length on this floor about Iranian threats, what they have been doing to the United States of America for the last 50 years or the last 50 months, the people that they have killed, the attacks that they have levied against us.
Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear from my colleagues, the authors, and the cosponsors of this legislation what do they think that we are defending the United States of America from? Again, I have spoken at length about it.
I would love to know, do they see a threat? Do they see no threat?
More specifically, about the letter of this law, the letter of this bill, what is it that the sponsors want removed? That is what it says: ``Remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally.''
What is it that you want removed? Do you want us to remove refueling aircraft so they cannot support Israel or Saudi Arabia?
Do you want us to remove our amphibious ready groups?
Shall we remove our MV-22 Ospreys, our Chinooks, our heavy-lift helicopters, our attack helicopters or our utility helicopters?
What about our Air Force and our naval aviation? What would you like removed there?
We have veterans from the Marine Corps, Army brothers, Army Rangers, others over here that I am guessing are here to speak about what they want removed from this space.
Do you want F-15s removed, F-15 Eagles? Do you want F-16 Falcons removed? Do you want F-35A or B removed or do you want them to remain? How about F-18 Super Hornets?
What is it that you want out of there? That is what you are asking for: ``Remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, other than those elements of the Armed Forces that may be necessary to defend the United States or an ally.''
What about our KC-135 Stratotankers or our Pegasus? What about our command presence? What is it that you want removed?
This is your resolution.
Do you want signals intelligence, electronic warfare, jamming maritime surveillance, ground surveillance removed? What is it that you want removed?
What about in terms of long-range precision strike capabilities? Would you like our carrier-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles removed from the space?
Do you want our air-launched precision weapons, our ground-launched precision fires, our ship-launched precision systems removed? What is it that you want removed? Do you want JDAMs removed?
What about in terms of drones? What is it that you want to remain or want removed? How about one-way attack drones, small commercial-style UAVs, larger reconnaissance-strike UAVs?
What personnel do you want removed? Because that is what this is calling for, removing all U.S. Forces.
Do you want logistics personnel removed? Intelligence? Maintenance? Medical? Communications? Headquarters command and control personnel? What do you want removed?
Do you want marines at our embassies removed?
Do you want pararescue jumpers removed?
Do you want us to remove some or all of our Patriot missile batteries from the area?
Can we destroy a missile but not destroy a launcher?
What is it that you want to take place?
Is all of this just because you do not want a naval blockade around Iran? Or is that not it?
I would ask that you be clear because I would love to hear from you exactly what forces you are demanding be removed.
To the sponsor of our bill, I would quote Representative Moulton: ``We have to acknowledge that Iran is a threat to American interests.''
To continue that quote--in fact, a brother in arms, and other brothers in arms over there, to continue that quote: ``I fought Iranians on the ground in Iraq in 2004. It was bloody. We won. And if necessary, I will fight Iran again.''
Iran was attacking us then, as you spoke about, and Iran has been attacking us at all points between that moment and now. I have spoken about it at length on this floor. I have submitted for the Record the ships they have attacked and the servicemembers that they killed long before Epic Fury.
They are continuously fighting us. They are a continuous, ongoing threat to the United States and a continuous threat to our allies. That had not stopped until a memorandum of understanding, and then they decided to resume attacks again.
So my question is, again, to the letter of this resolution: What is it that you want removed as you wrote this bill demanding?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to briefly respond to the remarks from my colleague from Florida.
The gentleman from Florida has asked two basic questions. The first is: Is Iran a threat?
The second is: What troops or materiel should be removed?
There is actually a very simple answer. He answered the first one himself by quoting me when I have in the past many times said that Iran is a serious threat.
The second question: What should be removed? Also has a very simple answer. We should remove the troops and materiel that are going towards a war that has not only failed but backfired. These are troops and materiel that are depleting resources needed elsewhere in the globe. That is a very simple answer to the gentleman's question, which I will be happy to detail later.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Representative Moulton's Iran War Powers Resolution.
We are 7 months into a war of choice that President Trump said would only last 4 to 6 weeks. American families have paid over $100 billion more for gasoline and diesel, roughly $800 more per household, while gas averages more than $4 a gallon and diesel is near $6.
This resolution closely follows my resolution, H. Con. Res. 86, which passed both the House and the Senate. That resolution made clear what the Constitution makes clear: Congress, not the President, has the power to decide when the United States goes to war.
This Congress has not authorized a war with Iran, and yet this administration has kept our troops in harm's way, without a declaration of war, without an authorization from Congress, and without any plan for how to win or end the war.
Congress has already acted. H. Con. Res. 86 passed both Chambers, directing the President to remove U.S. Forces from hostilities with Iran, and in July, the House again passed H. Con. Res. 89 with the same message, a simple message: End this war.
It is important that we do so again.
I have also introduced a binding resolution demanding Speaker Johnson take legal action to defend congressional authority. When Congress' constitutional authority is challenged, this institution has an obligation to defend its own prerogatives.
The administration hasn't just continued to wage this illegal war in direct violation of the Constitution, it has done so while Americans bear the costs: 19 fallen servicemembers and more than 750 servicemembers wounded, extended troop deployments, and billions of dollars in additional spending.
The President's mismanagement of this war has hurt America's ability to prepare for future threats.
I ask this body a simple question: Are Americans better off now than before this war started?
Are we safer? Are we more secure?
Has this war produced any of the results the administration promised the American people?
The administration has yet to demonstrate that 7 months of war have produced a lasting strategic resolution to the threats posed by Iran. The Strait of Hormuz remains a source of enormous risk to global energy markets, and Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, despite what the administration claims, clearly remain.
One only needs to ask our Gulf partners who continue to bear the brunt of Iran's missile and drone attacks.
This war has been a strategic failure. What is left are depleted weapons stockpiles and a tab of more than $100 billion that taxpayers will have to cover, while families continue to pay more for gas, groceries, and electricity.
Let me be clear: This should not be a partisan question. It is a constitutional one. It is a vote about whether Congress still believes that the power to decide when this Nation goes to war belongs to the Congress, as the Constitution provides.
Our servicemembers deserve clear objectives. Their families deserve accountability, and the American people deserve a Congress willing to exercise its constitutional authority.
Let me remind this body that the House Foreign Affairs Committee has still not held a single public hearing with an administration official on this war, the committee charged with matters of war and peace, zero hearings. Our constituents did not send us here to be a rubber stamp for any administration.
We cannot bomb our way out of this war. We need dialogue and diplomacy with our allies and adversaries alike. We need real diplomats at the table, not real estate developers who are in over their heads.
We, this body, need to hold this administration accountable.
I ask my colleagues to uphold the oath that we all took. Join us and make clear, once again, that this President cannot wage war without our consent.
The American people have made it abundantly clear they do not want and they do not support this war. We should stand with them and not Donald Trump.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would first respond to my colleague, the ranking member, about hearings that we have had. He has heard me say this before. He lived it. We had Secretary Rubio not too long ago. The ranking member left halfway through the hearing never to return. He didn't want to hear from Secretary Rubio. Some of his members took their time to talk about Secretary Rubio's shoes. That was their opportunity to hear from the administration at the highest levels, to talk a little bit about the threat of Iran.
I could use any window of time. I could identify hundreds of attacks in just the 30 months before Epic Fury, or I could identify hundreds more in the last 30 years.
I am going to use the window of time to identify a few, since my colleague, the marine, Representative Moulton, made the comments that I quoted earlier.
In January 2020, 109 U.S. troops suffered attack and injuries after an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. That was just one attack that took place in that ongoing window of time.
In March of '23, an Iranian drone attack killed an American contractor and wounded five U.S. servicemembers and another contractor in a strike on a coalition base in Syria.
In October of '23, Iran-backed terrorists, of course, as everybody is well aware, killed 46 Americans and kidnapped at least 12 Americans in the October 7 genocidal massacre.
In January of '24, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed 3 U.S. servicemembers and wounded more than 40 other servicemembers in a drone attack at Tower 22: Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Moffett.
In November of '24, an Iranian national and IRGC asset was charged with plotting to assassinate President Trump.
I have more. The list goes on and on. These are just some of the many attacks that I could list since Representative Moulton made the quote that I spoke about, where he is talking about his service and before Epic Fury began.
This is the continual threat, the imminent threat that Iran is and has been. They attack the United States of America every single chance they get. They attack in the Strait of Hormuz--not just the United States of America but any country going through there--every chance they get. This is just the first time that the United States of America has said enough is enough, that we will not tolerate this any longer.
That same entity that has been attacking us endlessly for all of these years will not be an entity that is allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Why? Because, at best, they now have the capability to hold the entire Gulf hostage because they have a nuclear weapon, and, at worst, they are an entity that does what they have been doing: utilize every asset at their disposal to attack the United States of America and our allies.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for a few minutes, and Ranking Member Meeks spoke for a few minutes. I don't know if we have come to that time where my colleague on the other side is happy to detail the pieces of equipment that he wants removed from the battle space, as he mentioned. As is the letter of this resolution, he wants to remove these U.S. forces from hostilities. I am hoping that now is that later time that the Representative will detail what he wants removed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida delivered a comprehensive list of many of the threats that Iran has presented to us in the past. I have not heard any Democrat, myself or otherwise, debate those threats.
The question is: Is Iran a threat today? I think my colleague would agree that they are.
The second question is: Is Iran more of a threat today than they were before this war began? I think anyone with common sense would agree that they are.
Never before has Iran controlled the world economy, brought the world economy to its heels, by closing the Strait of Hormuz as a result of this war not only failing but backfiring.
If we are serious about the threat, then we ought to have a serious strategy to address it. We ought to have a strategy that actually works, whereas this strategy has failed.
I stand here today with my colleagues to do what Congress failed to do for us and our brothers- and sisters-in-arms in Iraq two decades ago: to actually ask tough questions as the Constitution directs us to do--rather than be subservient to another war-mongering administration--and then have the courage to vote to end a war that should never have begun.
I joined over 100,000 other young Americans 23 years ago in invading Iraq in the spring, and we came home to a victory parade in the fall, a victory parade not long after President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared: Mission Accomplished.
We all know it wasn't a victory in 2003, far from it. We were still fighting that Middle Eastern war 20 years later. Mr. Speaker, 4,492 U.S. servicemembers were killed in Iraq, and 32,292 were wounded. Iraq civilian casualties stretched into the hundreds of thousands.
Congress failed to ask the most basic question it owed those families: Was this worth it? It is the same question we are failing to ask today, Mr. Speaker.
That is the price of a war that Congress refused to stop. It is a price that Republicans in Congress are choosing right now to let another generation start paying.
Our President declares victory a couple of times a week--well over 30 times so far--and doesn't dare to try to land a plane on an aircraft carrier to do so. Our carriers can't even land themselves in ports for resupply because our allied ports are now in too much danger of an Iranian attack. We have made our allied ports less safe in the very Gulf where we are fighting this war.
What a remarkably dumb war--dumb. Dumb, you say? Well, let's discuss for a minute what this war has achieved--not using independent metrics, not Democratic metrics, but the very metrics the President has used since day one.
We will start with oil. Well, oil prices are up. We are all paying more at the pump and more in the stores for goods shipped with oil. Good for Iran. Bad for us.
Iran's nuclear program is still intact. In fact, it is more than intact since the President just started talking about yet more strikes against a nuclear program that he and Secretary Hegseth said was obliterated. They were lying, or Iran is rebuilding. Either way: Good for Iran. Bad for us.
Of course, we don't know as much detail on their nuclear program as we once did when we had weapons inspectors and 24/7 electronic monitoring in Iran under President Obama. Trump got rid of those safeguards. Good for Iran. Bad for us.
What about projecting power? We hear a lot about Iran projecting power and what a problem this is in the Middle East and even right here at home, where, as my colleague mentioned, Iran is trying to assassinate officials--officials that the President removed protection from as if to encourage Iran. This measure is truly remarkable because Iran is projecting more power than Iran has ever projected in the history of the world. Never before has the Islamic republic singlehandedly leveraged the entire world economy. Another thing good for Iran; bad for us.
What about ballistic missiles? We were told their ballistic missiles were eliminated. It only took about $30 billion of our American taxpayer dollars to supposedly do so. Then we learned a matter of weeks later that they still have a lot of missiles and are recovering more. We haven't even begun to talk about the drones that have inflicted more damage than their missiles.
Here is the real kicker. While we were bombing their missiles with only moderate effectiveness, President Trump actually lifted the sanctions on Iran--lifted the sanctions on our adversary that they have admitted is a serious threat to the United States in the middle of a war. They kill a bunch of Americans, and we lift the sanctions? That is quite a strategy.
That alone gave Iran a gift of about $10 billion. Well, you know what? You can buy a lot of ballistic missiles for $10 billion. You don't even need to worry about your industrial base. In fact, you can buy Russian or Chinese ballistic missiles that are more sophisticated than what Iran already has. Yet again: Good for Iran. Bad for us.
Of course, the Strait of Hormuz is still closed. A reminder: The strait was open, and has been open in the entire history of the Islamic Republic, before Trump declared victory. It is truly remarkable. Good for Iran; bad for us.
What about their navy? We supposedly obliterated that, too. Yet, we can't open the strait. Any allied tankers require heavy naval escorts, and no art of the deal has gotten Iran to budge.
Any military planner, had the administration asked a single one of them, would have told you Iran could close the strait. It is still effectively closed. Good for Iran; bad for us.
How about their air defenses? We obliterated those, too, shortly before Iran shot down one of our Apache helicopters. Over two decades in Afghanistan, a war my colleague knows well and for which he has seriously sacrificed, and not a single Apache was shot down. Yet, after we supposedly obliterated their air defenses, we lose one to Iran. Good for Iran; bad for us.
What about regime change? That was the stated objective of the President from day one. Now, I want to be a fair arbiter, as we all should in Congress. So on this one count I will give the administration credit. They did achieve regime change. They took out an 86-year-old religious zealot in failing health, who had a fatwa against producing nuclear weapons, and replaced him with someone in his fifties, who is apparently even more committed to their nuclear program, alongside a military government that so far seems more effective than the religious government it replaced. So Trump got regime change. It has just been good for Iran; bad for us.
All of this translates to one sad, embarrassing but unavoidable conclusion: Iran is winning, and America is losing. We didn't get rid of the threat. We empowered it. If that is not dumb, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is.
Remember when Donald Trump said this war would last just a few weeks? Well, it has been over 6 months and counting.
In April, Pete Hegseth stood at a podium and proudly declared a capital V military victory. He said the United States had achieved every single objective. He said that America's objectives were unchanged, on target, and on plan. Yet, as I have just detailed, it seems like we have achieved Iran's objectives quite effectively for them.
Those were Hegseth's terms. He declared victory on them. Really? Well, here's a question for Secretary Hegseth and for every Republican who has taken his word for it since: If we already won, then why is Iran still in control of the Strait of Hormuz? If we already won, why are gas prices still climbing? Why are diesel prices at historic highs, the highest ever? What an achievement.
If we already won, why are our troops still getting hurt 6 months after Hegseth stood up before the American people and declared this victory was won?
If we already won, why does Iran's nuclear program still exist? Compare the state of Iran's nuclear program today to what President Obama achieved with the Iran nuclear deal. Ninety-eight percent of Iran's uranium stockpile was gone. Enrichment was capped at a level so low that it could not be weaponized. The Strait of Hormuz was open, and zero American troops were killed and zero were wounded. All that, and no war was required.
All of this losing that Trump and Hegseth have been doing comes at a tremendous cost: 18 U.S. servicemembers killed.
At $100 billion and counting, that translates to an additional $602 for every American taxpayer on average. How many Americans, how many constituents of mine or the Congressman from Florida, want to be paying $602 in taxpayer money to lose a war in Iran?
Now, I am saying all this standing here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, how about we stand up for our troops and our citizens for a change rather than perpetuating a war that, by all these measures, on the administration's own terms, is good for Iran and bad for us?
I think it is time to get some common sense, stop taking Trump and Hegseth at their word, find the courage to follow the Constitution and act as our own branch of government, end this war before it gets worse, and stop doing more for Iran than we are doing for us.
Our job is to help America, Mr. Speaker, not help Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
My colleague said: Good for Iran; bad for the U.S. Good for Iran; bad for the U.S. He went back and forth. The best thing for Iran are Representatives that are going to deny that Iran was killing Americans.
To quote my colleague, literally just now, after I just identified to him Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, Sergeant Moffett killed at Tower 22 by the hand of Iran, he literally just told us: zero Americans killed. Somebody that is treating our servicemembers, their sacrifice like that, that is the best thing for Iran.
The best thing for Iran are those that have this idea that: Well, you know what? Iran has been attacking us for all these years, but if we bring that to an end, they might fight back. People that are scared of Iran fighting back when we stopped them, that is the best thing for Iran.
My colleague opened up by saying: Nobody on this floor is denying that Iran has been a threat. You don't have to look any further than immediately to your left. In one of the previous debates my colleague was discussing, he has seen no imminent threat from Iran. Ranking Member Meeks argued on this floor literally numerous times: no imminent threat from Iran.
Even though all of these Members, both Republican and Democrat, came to the floor of the House and literally took a vote to say-- Representative Moulton did not vote in favor of this, but many did--use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Why? Why would that be a vote that overwhelmingly the floor of the House would vote in favor
The dozens of times a month that Iran attacks the United States of America, month in, month out, regardless of the year, that is why everybody overwhelmingly took a vote to say: Use any and all means to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The best thing for Iran are Representatives that are going to come to this floor, forget that they took a vote to prevent Iran by any means from obtaining a nuclear weapon, because it is politically convenient for them to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will respond briefly to my colleague from Florida. My colleague has made a very convincing case, Mr. Speaker, for why we ought to have a strategy or use means necessary to actually defeat the threat from Iran, not a strategy that has backfired and empowered them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Moulton for his leadership on this.
I want to highlight a different component to this. There is a debate around imminent threat. Very clearly, in my opinion and in the opinion of most folks, there is no imminent threat. In fact, the administration itself has stopped even trying to show that, which I think is a clear illustration that there never was one and there isn't one.
Beyond the debate on this floor, one of the things that gets lost, and the important thing that gets lost, is the people who actually get to make this decision are the American people. The genius of our system is that it is Americans who get to decide matters of war and peace, through the Representatives in this body.
For 25 years now, America has been in endless conflict. There have been threats that have come and threats that have gone. The answer can't be that whenever there is a threat, instantly it means we have to go to war. That is the logic on the other side: threat equals war. If a threat pops up, you go to war.
That can't possibly be the logic. If that is the case, then we will be at war forever. We will spend another $3 trillion in addition to the $3 trillion we have already spent. Regardless of the nature of the threat posed, the answer always will be to send our military. Americans know that is not tenable, in fact.
What is the accountability mechanism? The accountability mechanism is that Americans are in the driver seat because Americans are the ones that have to do the fighting, do the dying, and pay for this. It is not the elites and the pedigreed folks in this administration that are fighting and dying. They are banging the war drums and sending working- class kids like us to go do it.
Why are the Republicans so desperate to avoid even voting on this? Why have they literally canceled votes this year to avoid voting on this? Because they know that Americans don't want it. Republicans and Democrats alike don't want it.
President Trump himself used to know that. I don't know what happened, but he campaigned on this. He went around the country and said, let's stop the endless wars. Let's pull out. Let's focus back home. He was right about that. Then he became President and turned his back on the American people and on the very promise he made.
Let's have these votes. Let's let people know where we stand, then go home, stand in front of our constituents, and answer the tough questions. Why send your taxpayer money? Why send your sons and daughters to go do it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the author of the bill that he need only look to his left to see somebody who totally disagreed. There are people that are down here denying that there is any threat posed by Iran. There is not agreement. It is something that, again, the floor of the House voted and said, use any and all means necessary to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon. You have people who can't even acknowledge that they are a threat.
It was said that we can't just go out there and wage war every time a threat just pops up. Iran is not a threat that just popped up. Iran is not some poorly funded militia. It is a country of 92 million people that has been putting every bit of spare currency into creating terrorist groups, funding military, developing nuclear weapons, and continually working to control and threaten the Strait of Hormuz. That is not a new thing.
Let's bring something new into this conversation. You take a company like Lloyds of London or some other big insurance company. They, literally, are out there writing policies for years, not just since Epic Fury, but for years, for every ship going in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, on their way in and on their way out.
Why are they writing these catastrophic risk insurance policies for every ship going in and every ship going out? They do so because of the threat that Iran has been demonstrating day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, every single year.
There is a forever war. President Trump is absolutely against forever wars. That is what he is ending. Iran has been waging war forever against the United States of America. The forever of this regime, they have been waging war against the United States of America. It comes to an end in only one way: us bringing it to an end. That is what the United States of America is working to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I detailed how on so many counts--oil, nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and regime change that we are worse off today than we were when this war started, but I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing up another one, which is insurance rates.
I ask my colleague: Are insurance rates higher or lower to go through the Strait of Hormuz today than they were 5, 10, or 50 years ago? Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, it is worse.
Then my colleague said, well, that is why we need to end this forever war. How is that going? What are we up to, 40 times that President Trump has said the war is ending. I would like to see the day.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. Speaker, as we have this debate and talk about the lack of strategy of this administration, I am reminded of Sun Tzu in the book, ``The Art of War'' where he wrote: The one who figures on victory at headquarters before even doing battle is the one who has the most strategic factors on his side. He continued, more than 2,000 years ago, saying: The one with many strategic factors in his favor is the one who wins.
We all agree that Iran, the regime in Iran, is an intolerable threat to the United States, our Gulf allies, Israel, Europe, and much of the rest of the world. We agree that Iran must never ever have a nuclear weapon.
Before President Trump launched the current war with Iran, we had four goals: eliminate Iran's nuclear program; thwart Iran's missiles, rockets, and drone capabilities; dismantle Iran's terror support network; and address the regime's human rights abuses.
Two hundred days later, having lost 19 servicemembers with more than 800 wounded and dangerously depleting our weapons stockpiles, Iran is still pursuing its nuclear program. It still has missiles, rockets, and drones. It is still threatening the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf States, and Israel. It is still supporting its terrorist proxies, oppressing its citizens, and violently suppressing dissent.
After 200 days of war, none of the four original goals are realized, and we have added a fifth: reopening the Strait of Hormuz to public shipping. After 200 days, we have had no hearings in this body and no substantive debate.
Our Constitution is clear: Our Framers gave only Congress the power to declare war and commit our troops to extended conflict. The President is, indeed, the Commander in Chief, but that authority does not create or erase the role and responsibility of our legislative branch.
Before we ask more American servicemembers to risk their lives and the American people to take on more sacrifice, Congress and the American people deserve to know the administration's military objectives and how we intend to achieve them.
That is why this War Powers Resolution exists. President Trump has a responsibility to come before Congress, and Congress, this Congress, has a responsibility to hold open hearings, public debate, and a vote.
Mr. Speaker, if we allow any President, Republican or Democrat, to take our Nation into an open-ended war without congressional authorization or a basic explanation to the American people, we establish a dangerous precedent that will outlast this conflict and this administration.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said at the end of his comments that he would like to see the day that this war comes to an end. I don't think my colleague wants to see that day because, again, my colleague brought forward a resolution today saying remove any of these forces that are engaged with Iran from the area. Those are not the exact words, but that is basically what it says.
I have yet to see the identification of which forces my colleague wants out of there. It was promised. I haven't heard it, but I don't think that they want to see that day.
The strategy, one of many that is taking place, as you probably heard Secretary Rubio state: They fire at one of our ships, we destroy one of theirs. That is a change from what has taken place. They attack the United States of America or our interests or our allies, we respond.
That is the change. Not everybody has the stomach to respond to threats. That is just the world we live in. Few are capable, and few are willing.
This administration has the stones to say that Iran has been attacking us endlessly, this comes to an end. They attack us. We destroy them. They attack us. We destroy them. My colleague would capture that as good for Iran, but the truth is it is anything but good for Iran.
What took place against Iran? Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordo destroyed. There were 13,000 targets struck, 2,000 command-and-control targets defeated, 1,450 defense- and industrial-based targets destroyed, 1,500 air defense targets destroyed, 700 mine systems destroyed, 800 attack drones destroyed, 600 naval targets destroyed, 450 ballistic missile targets destroyed, 1,000 incoming attack drones intercepted, 700 ballistic missile threats intercepted. The list goes on and on. None of that is good for Iran.
Every single one of those that Iran has done, whether since Epic Fury or before, was intended to indiscriminately kill any civilian that they can, not just military targets but anybody that they can hit. Just like October 7 was to indiscriminately kill anybody that they can, not just military targets but anybody, civilian or otherwise.
That is what Iran's aim has been dozens of times a month, and that is what the United States of America is bringing to an end, whether by their willingness to leave their ways or when they are no longer capable to do so. That is the way that this ends for Iran.
It does take a strong stomach to do that. It does take individuals that are willing to acknowledge there were U.S. servicemembers that were killed before Epic Fury. If you are not recognizing that very serious and simple fact, then you are not understanding the threat of Iran and have no business dealing with it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, before my colleague launched into a Westmoreland-like list of targets, which has nothing to do with whether or not we are actually winning this war, he talked about the President having the stomach to go to war, maybe the stomach to end it.
I would ask my colleague, who is the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, when we are going to find the stomach in Congress to just hold a hearing on this war? That shouldn't be a very high bar. Yet, the chairman hasn't reached it.
Why is it that the Republicans in Congress will literally cancel votes before they have a vote on the most important responsibility that we have?
If the end is truly in sight for this war, then why, as I have detailed on every single measure, is it getting worse and the threat is increasing?
Yes, Iran has been a threat for a really long time, and that is why we should have a strategy that ends the threat, not further empowers Iran.
Yes, Americans have been killed in the past by Iran. The question is will more Americans be killed in the future? I think we all know, sadly, what that answer is today.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution delegates to Congress no more important responsibility than deciding when to send the best of America, our young Americans, to war--decisions that make our families more or less safe here at home.
The unmistakable conclusion of this debate is that Iran is sadly better off today, more empowered today than they were before this began, this unconstitutional, illegal, dumb war that has truly not just failed but backfired. Doubling down with wars escalating follows the precedent set by other forever wars in the Middle East.
We haven't even talked about the greatest threat in the world today, which is not Iran, but Xi Jinping in China. As we take more and more assets away from deterring China, away from deterring Russia, which is inching closer and closer to starting a war with NATO in Europe, it is a gift to Putin and Xi Jinping, a gift.
This war has been a tactical failure and a strategic disaster. We are not better off than we were before, and that is why we need to bring it to an end.
But, most fundamentally, we ought to have the courage or, as my colleague says, the stomach to debate it, to talk about it, to not continually try to put off these votes, but to have the courage to vote on these resolutions for the American people, the constituents that we represent, and then go home and ask them--constituents in Florida, constituents in Massachusetts, and military families all across the world--whether this is worth it, whether a war that we are losing is worth their sacrifice, worth their taxpayer dollars.
Let's have the courage to take that vote and then answer to our constituents, because our troops, our families, and the American citizens deserve nothing less.
I don't think I am going to need 11\1/2\ minutes, but I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin by answering some of my colleague's questions. When will we find the stomach in Congress to hold hearings on this war? I mentioned it already. The Committee on Foreign Affairs not too long ago held a hearing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The ranking member, as I pointed out, was walking out of the room, not wanting to stay and respond. He left midway through the hearing and didn't even want to stay to hear Secretary of State Rubio.
We have held hearings. Democrats, unfortunately, wasted a lot of their time trying to make quips about Secretary Rubio's shoes and other silly things really unbefitting members of that committee.
This resolution, in my opinion, is designed for two things. I don't believe it to be serious. I have seen the same language numerous times now. It is designed for political points. This is a resolution stating remove all of these forces from hostilities. I gave you a comprehensive list of forces, but you can't tell me one that you want removed. That is just political theater.
You are just saying you want something done, and either you haven't thought through what you actually want done or there is really nothing you want done. You just want to pretend and say it. That is political.
I think the second point of this resolution is to destroy our ability to pressure the Iranian regime by removing any offensive capabilities that we have in the region. I don't think they want an ability for us to go out there and say: We are going to hold this blockade over Iran because Iran has been attacking our ships, not just in the year 2026, but in the years 2025, 2024, and 2023, and well beyond. I have given the list on this floor numerous times of hundreds of attacks just in the 30 months before Epic Fury even took place.
Sometimes the only choice you have is you are going to hit back.
There have been a lot of questions asked on this floor. What I would like to know is: When are my Democrat colleagues going to have the stomach to hit back against an enemy that has been hitting us? Because, apparently, you don't have it.
You are unwilling to do so, and you are willing to come to the floor of the House and say things so untruthful, such as that there weren't any Americans killed prior to Epic Fury, to quote my colleague on the other side of the aisle, when just before that, I identified to my colleague three U.S. servicemembers who were killed, Sergeant Rivers, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Moffett, and a list of hundreds who were injured by Iranian attacks.
All of those things were ignored so that they could say that there was nobody killed. Why ignore those things? Why ignore something so serious as servicemembers, our brothers and sisters, our brothers-and sisters-in-arms, being killed? Why ignore that? It is because it doesn't fit the political narrative. That is a sad thing.
I have the stomach to hit back our enemies. Some of my colleagues don't. That is the question on the floor here: Do you have the stomach to hit back our enemies, or are you going to throw up the flag of surrender and say: Remove these forces.
We don't know what they are. We don't know what they are doing. We don't know the capabilities that they bring. We don't know the increased danger that it puts other forces in to remove them. We don't know anything about it, but remove them because it is politically expeditious, instead of having the stomach to go out there and seek and destroy the enemies of the United States of America, as we trained to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, Ricky Parks of Rocky Mount is a true servant whose life has been defined by duty, courage, and selfless service.
Ricky was honored with a special quilt, ``A Thin Blue Line,'' from the Tar River Peacemakers Quilting Guild, honoring his service to the community, eastern North Carolina, and our State.
He was also instrumental in helping to start the Ride of Honor in Nash County, which honors our veterans.
For more than 37 years, Ricky has served in law enforcement, mostly on patrol. His commitment to public service continued when he was appointed marshal of the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Through every chapter of his life, Ricky has answered the call to serve.
I thank Ricky and his wife, Rebecca, for a lifetime of service, and I congratulate them on being great Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I am here and we have gathered this evening to talk about Trucker Appreciation Week.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the unsung heroes who spend their days hauling the American Dream across our Nation's highways.
America's truckers are the men and women who keep America moving. They drive for hours on end to make sure that our shelves are stocked. They rush in to deliver lifesaving supplies when disaster strikes. They keep our industries running by delivering the raw materials needed to build our country. Simply put, truckers are the reason Americans have and continue to live in an era of unprecedented prosperity.
Unfortunately, our truckers face challenges from the lingering consequences of years of open borders and political leaders who flooded the Nation's highways with unqualified, foreign drivers who undercut our homegrown American labor. These new foreign drivers not only undermine wages and opportunities for American truckers but exacerbate the shortage of infrastructure to keep our goods moving.
Worst of all, however, are the deadly crashes caused by these unqualified drivers who have been killing Americans, all of which have been made possible by the intentional decision of some to disregard commonsense Federal safety standards.
The highway tragedies that have become so ubiquitous in the last couple of years have shone a spotlight on those collisions that could have been prevented but for the decisions by States like California, New York, and Illinois to unleash tens of thousands of unqualified drivers on our American freeways.
These high-speed, 80,000-pound guided missiles have been barreling down our highways at 80 miles an hour, leaving way too many victims in their wake, and these illegally licensed drivers who have killed our fellow American residents simply have no business being on our roads.
My home State of Wyoming, home to snow-covered and windswept highways built at elevations higher than the Sierra Nevada, suffers the highest rate of fatal truck crashes of any State. Threats to drivers anywhere are threats to families everywhere.
The status quo is unacceptable, and it is time to prioritize our hardworking American truckers while keeping every motorist safe.
I have introduced a series of bills to clean up our roads and crack down on bad actors who are exploiting loopholes in the system. I introduced the Commercial Motor Vehicle English Proficiency Act to require that all testing for commercial driver's licenses be administered in English.
I also introduced Connor's Law with Representative Dave Taylor to codify the Trump administration's reinstatement of longstanding English proficiency requirements for anyone getting behind the wheel of a big rig. Understanding our national language to read our signs, adhere to warnings about hazardous conditions, and communicate with law enforcement should be the bare minimum to operate a commercial vehicle.
I introduced the SAFE Act, included in this year's surface transportation reauthorization package, to enhance the ability of Federal regulators to effectively detect and crack down on chameleon carriers.
Chameleon carriers are those that rack up safety violations yet continue to operate by adopting new identities to drive under the radar.
The SAFE Act has been endorsed by nearly a dozen major industry advocates, including the American Trucking Association, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Teamsters, Truckload Carriers Association, Truck Safety Coalition, American Truckers United, National Tank Truck
I also introduced the ROUTE Act to expand opportunities for young CDL holders to operate across State lines.
Right now, an 18-year-old licensed to carry a load and travel 450 miles from Cheyenne to Jackson, Wyoming, is prohibited from making the same trip just 45 miles to Fort Collins, Colorado, because the latter journey crosses State lines.
Easing nonsensical regulatory barriers will help bring more young people into a promising profession without the burden of a costly college degree.
I most recently introduced the STOP Improper Licensing Act, requiring continued oversight of States issuing non-domiciled CDLs to drivers, ensuring that standards are properly adhered to. This bill withholds funds for any States refusing to comply with commonsense Federal safety standards.
America's truckers make our modern life possible, and they have improved our standard of living. They deserve leadership and support to make their profession safe and profitable.
By working together and passing this series of pieces of legislation, the Wild West of trucking undermining American truckers and threatening our families will finally be over.
I thank my colleagues for participating in this evening's Special Order, and I thank the Congressional Trucking Caucus and the group's chairman, Congressman Dave Taylor of Ohio, for collaborating on these issues.
I also thank the industry groups which have supported our efforts to get critical legislation past the finish line to lift the men and women who keep America moving.
I thank every truck driver in this great country. We appreciate them and what they do for us.
I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor) to address the body.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Truck Driver Appreciation Week. It was established in 1988 by the American Trucking Association. This week gives communities across the United States a chance to honor the dedication truck drivers bring to their careers and the impact they have on our communities.
Truck drivers are critical to the United States' supply chain, often being the last mode of transportation delivering food to grocery stores, medical supplies to hospitals, and other vital goods to our constituents which they rely on every day. Virtually every time you purchase something, you can thank a truck driver for making it possible.
Annually, truck drivers haul more than 11 billion tons of goods and navigate over 330 billion miles across the United States, rain or shine, day and night, to ensure communities have access to the items we need.
Along with some of my colleagues, I am proud to have founded the first Congressional Trucking Caucus to provide a forum for lawmakers in Congress to suggest ideas and policies to support truck drivers across the United States. Earlier this year, the caucus introduced a resolution highlighting the administration's ``Our Roads, Our Safety'' campaign to promote safety tips on our Nation's roadways to keep all drivers safe.
I thank Congresswoman Hageman for hosting this Special Order hour and members of the Congressional Trucking Caucus who came today to highlight truck drivers.
Lastly, I thank our American truck drivers for their hard work and dedication and recognize the role they play in our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Hageman for leading this charge.
As a proud member of the Congressional Trucking Caucus and as a Member who has had my CDL for 35 years or more, I rise today in recognition of National Truck Driver Appreciation Week and the hardworking men and women who keep America moving.
We talk a lot in this Chamber about what makes our economy work. Well, the answer is pretty simple. It takes people who are willing to work. American truck drivers do exactly that.
Nearly 3.6 million professional truck drivers are on our roads today, delivering the food on our tables, the medicine in our pharmacies, the materials on our construction sites, and the products that keep American businesses running.
In South Carolina, we know just how important these men and women are. Nearly 80 percent of South Carolina communities depend exclusively on trucks to move their goods. Trucks transport nearly 94 percent of our State's manufacturing tonnage, roughly 149,000 tons every single day.
There are more than 21,000 trucking companies located in South Carolina. The vast majority of them are small, locally owned businesses.
Those numbers tell the story. If the trucks stop moving, South Carolina stops moving. Behind every one of those trucks is a driver. These are men and women who wake up early, work long hours, spend time away from their families, and take on tremendous responsibility every time they get behind the wheel.
They do it because there is a job to be done. A lot of times bureaucrats don't understand that, and government should remember that.
Truckers already pay licensing fees and taxes while using our roads and bridges that are necessary to do their jobs. We should be making it easier for these hardworking Americans to earn a living, not piling on unnecessary costs and burdens on top.
While we stand up for our truck drivers, we also have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the profession. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the SAFE Driving Laws Act. This bill says States should not be handing out driver's licenses or commercial driver's licenses to those who cannot prove that they are a U.S. citizen or have a permanent residency, while at the same time refusing to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement.
States that refuse to follow these basic standards could lose 50 percent of certain Federal highway funding. This is about accountability. A CDL is not just another piece of paper. When someone gets behind the wheel of an 80,000 pound truck, Americans have every right to expect that the driver was properly vetted, properly licensed, and qualified to be on the road. That principle goes far beyond any one bill.
More than 72 percent of our Nation's freight tonnage is moved by trucks, and more than 80 percent of American communities rely exclusively on trucks for their freight needs.
I thank the truckers in this country from the bottom of my heart. I thank them for the miles they drive. I thank them for the time they spend away from their home. I thank them for everything they do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Truck Drivers Appreciation Week.
This week means some very special things to me. I know this business firsthand. I was born and raised in the trucking business. My grandfather started a trucking business in 1933. My dad and my uncle moved and grew that business, and I spent my life growing up in that business.
I drove my first tractor-trailer across a lot when I was 9 years old. Now, I also first drove my first end-loader through the side of a new garage at about 6, but that is another story.
I spent my whole life around the trucking industry. I went off to the Marine Corps, but I came back home and ran the business for 10 years. My brother and my cousin now run it still. It started out as W.J. Bost & Sons, and it is now Bost Trucking.
I grew up in it, from washing trucks to I have never had a car license. When I was 16 years old, I got my license as a tractor-trailer license because it was before CDLs. Therefore, I started delivering goods and running and working in the business.
I know the business well. It is not an easy job. It is early mornings. It is late nights. It is long stretches far from home and a whole lot of responsibility. That is another reason why we need to make sure that the people who are doing it are well trained, are people who understand our language, who understand what it is to speak that language, and understand, when you are rolling down the road, how to be safe with 80,000 pounds-plus of vehicle.
During this National Truck Drivers Appreciation Week, I say a special thank you to the hardworking men and women behind the wheel, but I also want to say a special thank you to their families. Remember, those men and women behind the wheel, they miss a whole lot of baseball games, football games, basketball games, school plays, and Christmas concerts in grade school. They miss those things because they are making sure that those goods and services that we need every day are there when we walk into the grocery store or the auto parts store. Oh, when we go shopping for cars, those cars that are sitting there, and every other good that is in every business that we go into has been on somebody's truck, moving from point A to point B.
They are sacrificing their time. Yes, they get paid, but some of those things they give up can't be gotten back, like time with their families.
We do want to say thank you to them for every mile they drive. Thank you for supplying all of these store shelves and growing our economy, and thank you for keeping America moving every single day.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from Wyoming, Representative Hageman, for hosting this important Special Order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today representing central Illinois, a region that sits at the crossroads of our Nation's transportation network.
Illinois is one of our Nation's most important hubs for interstate commerce, driven in large part by a thriving trucking industry. Trucking supports nearly 340,000 jobs in my home State. Ninety-five percent of Illinois' manufactured goods are transported by trucks. Seventy percent of the State's towns and communities depend exclusively on trucks to move their products.
Looking at the combined total of all commercial shipments, Illinois is the third busiest freight State and fourth by tonnage. With that type of volume comes an enormous responsibility to keep our roads and transported goods safe.
I believe this is a matter of national security. Every American deserves to travel our roads without the threat of an illegal alien behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle who cannot understand road signs. Congress has a duty and an obligation to ensure our laws establish strong standards for commercial drivers and give law enforcement the tools necessary to keep unqualified drivers off our roads.
Multiple sanctuary States, including my home State of Illinois, are issuing driver's licenses and CDLs to illegals. This creates an extreme level of risk for all those on the road. The consequences can be deadly.
Last year, an Illinois-based company, JKC Trucking, sounded the alarm about the rampant abuse of our licensing system and the growing threat of illegal truckers on American roads. The company showed this issue not only leads to decreased safety, but also leads to the closure of many honest, professional American trucking businesses because they are unable to compete against illegal companies and illegal drivers.
Those are the men and women I want to recognize today, the professional truck drivers who don't cut corners, who work long hours to make sure our communities have what they need. The food on grocery store shelves, medicine and prescription drugs in our pharmacies, the materials used to build our homes all depend on a reliable trucking industry.
America moves forward because of our truckers. America survives its harshest winters and hottest summers because of our truckers. These men and women are often away from their families for days or weeks at a time, all so communities like mine are well stocked and ready for the day ahead. They deserve a Congress that respects their work and stands up for an industry that is essential to our economy and our way of life.
I want to pay a special thanks to Representatives Taylor, Hageman, Harrigan, and Figures for joining me in launching the bipartisan Congressional Trucking Caucus. For the first time in U.S. history, we have a caucus focused directly on addressing the issues related to America's trucking industry and on policies that promote integrity, safety, and growth in industry.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the caucus to defend our hardworking American truckers and to keep our roads safe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hageman for her continued friendship and leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming, my friend, for hosting this well-deserved recognition for a group of fantastic people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Truck Driver Appreciation Week and the hardworking men and women who keep Kansas and our great country moving.
Across America, 3.6 million professional truck drivers spend their days on the road delivering the food, fuel, equipment, and countless goods that families and businesses rely on every day.
In Kansas, the trucking industry supports roughly 84,000 jobs, one out of every 14 jobs in our State. Trucks move 63 percent of Kansas freight by tonnage, including more than $21 billion worth of beef and poultry.
For an agriculture State like Kansas, this is especially vital. Our farmers and ranchers raise the best wheat, corn, sorghum, cattle, and other commodities in the world, but we still need dependable truck drivers and reliable roads to get those products to markets across the country and around the globe.
Nearly one-half of Kansas communities rely exclusively on trucks to move their goods. In rural communities throughout the Big First District, truck drivers are a critical link connecting farms, ranches, small businesses, manufacturers, and families with the rest of America.
Their work often means long hours, early mornings, late nights, and days spent away from their families, yet they continue showing up and delivering for the rest of us.
During National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, I say thank you to the professional drivers in Kansas and across the country who keep our supply chains moving, our rural communities connected, and our economy running.
Mr. Speaker, Indiana is the Crossroads of America. This National Truck Driver Appreciation Week, and I thank the professional drivers who deliver what our farms grow, our factories make, and our families need.
They work long hours, they miss time with their families, and they take seriously the responsibility that comes with driving a big rig.
Last month, I hosted our Nation's top trucking safety official in Indiana to hear directly from our Hoosier drivers and trucking businesses.
Truckers who follow the rules of the road shouldn't have to compete with operators who cut corners, and the families traveling beside them deserve to know that every commercial driver is properly trained, licensed, and qualified.
Whether someone is behind the wheel of a semi or riding in the family car, they deserve to get home safely. To the drivers who make that their business every day, I thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Shreve for his words.
In summary, I think that the message to be taken away this evening, Mr. Speaker, is that we all have an enormous amount of respect for our trucking companies and our truck drivers who make this country run.
I have just a few anecdotes about Wyoming. We are the least populated State in the Nation. We became a State in 1890.
I have had the opportunity to meet with several family-owned businesses in Wyoming, family-owned trucking companies. One of them was one of the very first trucking companies that was ever formed in the State in the late 1800s. They used horses and wagons to haul goods from the oil fields to their destination. This is a family-owned business for over 130 years.
Another interesting tidbit about Wyoming is that we can have terribly treacherous roads. I-80 crosses Wyoming. It is one of the longest continental highways in the United States. It goes from the East Coast to the West Coast. In Wyoming the very highest point is between Cheyenne and Laramie, and it is over 8,000 feet.
There are many occasions when highway I-80 is closed because of the snow and the wind, and it is non-traversable. We have truck drivers who are some of the first ones on any scene of an accident, and they are the ones who continue to move the goods across this country.
That is also one of the reasons why it is imperative, as so many have spoken about this evening, that we have people who are well-trained, that understand our English language, that can read our variable speed and variable signs as they drive down the highway in Wyoming and other States.
Again, that is why I so appreciate our trucking companies and our truckers for the work that they do. Oftentimes, they take their own lives in their hands when they are crossing Wyoming to deliver goods from the East Coast to the West Coast, and they provide a valuable service.
Mr. Speaker, in this Trucker Appreciation Week, one more time, I thank the men and women who have made this profession their own for the work that they do.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
