Wednesday, September 2, 2026

Pursuant to the order of the House of January 6, 2026, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 75 years, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, has welcomed hundreds of baseball players and spectators across the world to participate in the Little League World Series. Founded by Carl Stotz, this event has long been a direct reflection of the American spirit and love for the game. During the inaugural game in 1947, only teams from Pennsylvania and New Jersey competed, and a local team from Williamsport won. Today, Little League participation has expanded both in the United States and across the globe. Approximately 2 million boys and girls play Little League worldwide, representing more than 80 countries and all 50 States. While the game has not changed, participation has. Since 1947, more than 20 girls have played in the series. Mr. Speaker, children who participate in Little League learn about sportsmanship, responsibility, hard work, and, of course, build friendships that last a lifetime. Former players have gone on to play baseball and softball in college, been drafted into professional teams, become coaches, and often serve as leaders in their communities. Every year, the Little League World Series welcomes more than 300,000 fans. This event brings communities together and would not be successful without the hard work of volunteers who help support the teams, the fans, and the coaches. This annual event is a great way to continue celebrating our Nation's founding and reveling in our shared love for baseball. For many years, I have attended the games and loved seeing the teams, fans, and volunteers supporting one another. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all the teams that competed and thank all the volunteers, umpires, and officials who make this annual event possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute the work of the men and women volunteers and leaders of the White Plains Beautification Foundation. They have amassed an army of committed citizens under President Terry Hanson to get their hands dirty, and sometimes a little back and leg cramps, with sweat equity that enhances the visual improvements to the many city parks and open spaces across White Plains. This adds to the city's appeal to new residents and longtime neighbors alike. The Adopt-a-Park program, the extensive tree-planting efforts, and the improvements on Mamaroneck Avenue and North Street as travelers enter White Plains are very real achievements by this group and their generous base of donors. In addition to their president, let me recognize former presidents who serve as current directors: Mary Merenda, Deborah Donahoe, Beth Wallach, Marie Silverman Marich, Jean Bello, and Barbara Ramsdell; and former Westchester County Commissioner P. Lynn Oliva, who heads up the Adopt-a-Park program. Mr. Speaker, from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, we praise the work of the White Plains Beautification Foundation for all they have accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to recognize the men and women who are leaders in their respective buildings in Co-op City in the Bronx, the largest housing cooperative in the world. These leaders organize community events, holiday celebrations, and fundraisers and help advocate for building improvements and upgrades. We salute the following individuals for their tireless commitment to their community and their neighbors: Douglas Handler, Building 3; Dawn Mitchell, Building 4; Debbie Lowden, Building 5; KaTrina Dinham, Building 12; Josie Ferguson, Building 14; Dorothea Castle, Building 15A; Sandy Krasnov, Building 15B; Jacqueline Salmon, Building 16; Francine Jones, Building 20; Toran Smith, Sr., Building 21; Joan June, Building 22; Denise Gerrald, Building 25; Michael Adolphus, Building 29; Susan Lecoq, Building 30; Kim Toulson, Building 31; and Melanie Clunie, Building 34. There are clearly a lot of these folks. There are also townhouse associations: Kenneth Graham, Adler Place; Eva Lazaar, Broun Place; Anika Green-Watson, Cooper Place; Jacqueline Mason, Debs Place; and Ida Clark, Earhart Lane. Mr. Speaker, from the floor of the House of Representatives, we commend all of these Co-op building association presidents for their dedication in improving the community around them.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in celebration of the 100th birthday of Ponte Vedra, Florida's own Pat Jeffery. Pat was born in Miles City, Montana, on August 30, 1926, but spent much of her childhood in Indiana. She attended Indiana University, and after graduating, she moved to New York City to attend the Katharine Gibbs School. Pat soon began working as a publicity writer at NBC Studios. It was in New York City that Pat met her husband, Scott Jeffery. Soon, they were engaged. Scott was promoted and transferred to Colombia by the Colgate-Palmolive Company. Together, they moved to Colombia and married in the Panama Canal Zone on January 25, 1956. Over the next 30 years, they raised four children and built a wonderful life together in Colombia. Pat immersed herself in community service through their Episcopal church, helping to establish the Trinity school, which provided educational opportunities for children without access to schooling. Pat also helped other mothers in the area earn incomes to help support their families by teaching them how to make handbags and macrame. Some of those bags actually were eventually sold at Bloomingdale's and other boutiques throughout the United States. Pat even started her own tennis apparel company called Aire, which her daughter, Barbara, and the family helped grow. However, living in Colombia was becoming increasingly more dangerous for the family. After three decades in Colombia, Pat and Scott made the difficult decision to leave and return home to the United States. In 1986, they retired and moved to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. There, they embraced their new chapter in life and found a community filled with wonderful friends, endless activities, and a true sense of belonging. From Montana to New York City and Colombia to Ponte Vedra Beach, Pat has spent her life inspiring those around her with selflessness, curiosity, appreciation, and always a zest for life. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize and honor Pat for living an extraordinary century filled with adventure, courage, friendship, and community service. I wish Pat a happy 100th birthday from all the constituents of Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, and Florida's Fifth Congressional District. God bless her, and we pray for many more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn President Trump's illogical trade war with Canada and juvenile executive order to rename Lake Ontario. Since the White House can't figure out how to lower costs for American families or reach a trade deal with our closest ally, it is resorting to meaningless distractions, like renaming a Great Lake. While my Democratic colleagues and I have introduced legislation to stop this nonsense, we are focused on the issues that actually matter: ending the affordability crisis fueled by Trump's erratic tariffs and reckless policies and stopping the most corrupt administration in American history. Whether it is his endless war in Iran, gutting healthcare and nutritional assistance for millions of Americans, or a trade war with Canada, each manufactured crisis created by Trump shows just how self-interested, incompetent, and careless he truly is. From communities like mine across the northern border, where ties to our Canadian neighbors run deep, through the interior and every other part of our great country, people simply cannot afford the increased costs of goods because of these tariffs. In western New York, family members cross the border to visit one another, and businesses rely on efficient cross-border commerce. Our restaurants, hotels, shops, and attractions depend on Canadian visitors. This relationship grows jobs and strengthens our economy. Right now, Canadians are making a decision not to visit or do business with our country, creating economic instability at a time when Americans are already stretched too thin. People can't afford to put food on the table because grocery costs are too high. They are having trouble paying their utility bills to keep the lights on. The cost of gas is skyrocketing, and healthcare costs are through the roof. At the same time, people are worried whether or not they are going to have a job in the morning. Trump's continued chaos is making it harder for families to plan, businesses to invest, workers to save, and communities to grow. Americans are bearing the consequences of this economic ambush as Trump's failed policies make life more expensive and less secure for working families across our Nation. These tariffs are nothing more than a Trump tax, and American families are paying the price everywhere. Instead of creating jobs, growing wages, and giving working people a fair shot, this administration has pursued policies that make it harder for our families to get ahead. Americans deserve better than a President who embarrasses us on the world stage and the Republicans in Congress who rubberstamp his inflationary policies. When voters put Democrats back into the majority this November, we will overturn these failed GOP policies, lower costs, end corruption, and restore the promise of the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, let's stop Trump's tax, end these tariffs, and make life more affordable for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize an often overlooked segment of our Nation's legal profession: rural lawyers. Across our First District and in many of our communities, rural lawyers represent the very best of the profession, selfless service, and meaningful local impact. Today, I want to highlight the remarkable work of Julie Bear of Plattsmouth, specializing in criminal defense, family law, estate planning, personal injury, and more. Julie has built a reputation that is nothing short of exceptional. Before joining her firm, she served as a public defender for Cass County. In that role, she achieved the dismissal of a double-murder charge against a court-appointed client who had been wrongly accused. She is a graduate of Creighton University School of Law. She consistently rises to the occasion and goes above and beyond for her clients. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize her accomplishments and commend her as one of Nebraska's most skilled rural criminal defense attorneys.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize an often-overlooked segment of our legal profession: rural lawyers. Across our First District and in communities throughout our State, rural lawyers represent the very best of the profession, selfless service, and meaningful local impact. Today, I highlight and detail the larger-than-life career of Doug Stratton of Norfolk. Doug's focus areas include criminal defense, civil litigation, as well as domestic work. Many of you may have already heard of Doug through his breakthrough relitigation of the Beatrice Six. In sum, thanks to his belief in his clients' wrongful conviction and new evidence, Doug was able to award the defendants nearly $30 million from the United States Supreme Court. A native of northeast Nebraska, Doug worked as a small-town lawyer after he earned his J.D. from Yale Law School. Even when big-town law firms came to him to take up cases, Doug continuously worked on behalf of rural Nebraskans. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to highlight Doug's remarkable career and reputation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an often overlooked segment of our Nation's legal profession: rural lawyers. Across our First District and in many of our communities, rural lawyers represent the very best of the profession: selfless service and meaningful local impact. Today, I highlight the work of Norfolk's own Bre Flaherty. Through her career at the Platte County Attorney's Office, Bre built a strong reputation for excellence and community service, earning her appointment earlier this year as a county court judge in Nebraska's Fifth Judicial District. Her professionalism, grit, and passion for juvenile law have all paved the way for success in serving fellow Nebraskans. Earning her J.D. from the University of Nebraska College of Law, she has remained engaged in giving back to the communities and the experiences that shaped her. Mr. Speaker, I am truly honored to highlight Bre's work. I remember her as a mock trial student when I was the team coach. She should be celebrated for her community service and her integrity, which continue to guide her career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an often overlooked segment of our Nation's legal profession: rural lawyers. Across our First District and in many of our communities, rural lawyers represent the very best of the profession: selfless service and meaningful local impact. Today, I highlight the distinguished career of Tim Wollmer of David City with a practice spanning family law, business matters, civil litigation, estate planning, criminal defense, and more. Tim's integrity and steadfast commitment to the truth exemplify the vital role lawyers play in their communities. As an attorney, Tim has provided essential legal services to central and eastern Nebraska for more than 17 years, helping individuals and families navigate complex legal and financial matters. A graduate of Creighton University School of Law, Tim has earned the trust and the respect of the David City community and the surrounding areas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Tim's accomplishments and his service today on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, in Maryland's beautiful Eighth Congressional District, Montgomery County, Maryland, something shocking is about to happen. In 1 week, tens of thousands of people in our community will lose their Salvadoran temporary protected status. They will lose their work authorizations, and many will lose the careers that they have worked hard to build here, packing up whatever belongings they can fit into a couple of suitcases. They may be separated from the rest of their families and forced to return to a country where they will face violence and human rights violations. Their departure will create great dislocation and heartbreak in many neighborhoods. For the past 25 years, Salvadoran TPS holders have raised their families here and sent their kids to our schools, started small businesses, and added to the vibrant culture of Maryland's Eighth District. They have believed in America, and they form an essential part now of our communities. The Free State is the third-largest population of Salvadoran TPS holders in America. Every year, the 23,000 of them who call our State home contribute an estimated $732 million to our community. They have been a powerful driver of our prosperity. One of my Salvadoran constituents who obtained TPS and arrived in Maryland when she was just a baby has built an outstanding career here as an educator at an elementary school where she herself went to school in the only State and in the only country she has ever known. As a product of Montgomery County Public Schools, she is proud to give back to the community that helped her family establish a life in the United States. She hopes to keep educating the next generation of leaders. Yet the looming end of TPS next week threatens to strip her away from her students. The abrupt revocation of her status also threatens to separate her from her U.S. citizen spouse. Another constituent also arrived in Maryland as a child. After escaping brutal poverty in El Salvador, she went on to achieve success by providing professional cleaning services to households throughout our community. She has been an active member of her local church and congregation. With her TPS designation now in question, she worries about having to abandon her livelihood, her family, and the community she loves. She does not know what the future holds. Other hardworking Salvadorans have played an important role in the growth of one of Montgomery County's finest paint manufacturing companies. In their many years working for the company, these constituents have made impressive use of their work authorizations. They manage business affairs for the company, test its new paint formulas, and efficiently facilitate the delivery of products to doorsteps across our community. These neighbors have enriched the social, economic, and cultural life of our State. Their loss will be felt in classrooms left without teachers, unbuilt houses, renovations unfinished, landscaping projects abandoned, friendships severed, and families deprived of breadwinners and loved ones. The Trump administration, if you are listening, please extend this vital program. Do not turn a blind eye to what is taking place. America has always served as an asylum for humanity. As Tom Paine said, it is a place of refuge for hardworking people fleeing economic, intellectual, political, religious repression and poverty from all over the world. The administration should extend TPS and assure Salvadorans of their place in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, a true Texas legend, Rock & Roll Hall of Famer and the heartbeat of ZZ Top for more than 50 years, Frank Beard. Frank passed away on August 17, 2026, in Richmond, Texas, at his ranch, surrounded by his family. He is now reunited with ZZ Top's base player, Dusty Hill. As a teenager, Frank picked up the drums, and he never looked back. From 1966 to 1968, Frank played alongside Dusty Hill in the band American Blues before the two of them joined up with Billy Gibbons and formed the iconic band ZZ Top and made history. In 1970, that classic trio, Billy, Dusty, and Frank, played their first show at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Beaumont, Texas. From that night on, the trio stayed together for over half a century, putting out hit after hit and entertaining millions of fans all over the world. Frank's steady Texas backbeat was the foundation of that sound. He kept ZZ Top's rhythm locked in for more than 50 years. Billy Gibbons said it best: "The world lost one of the most naturally innovative drummers and a great and true son of Texas." I know Frank is deeply missed by his wife, Debbie, his three children, the whole ZZ Top family, and fans all over the world. Frank Beard will always be a staple of Texas and rock and roll history. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will miss seeing my friend, Frank, on the golf course and riding around in his sports car in Pecan Grove. Rest in peace. May God bless him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of 1 year since the Federal Government under the Trump administration invaded Chicago, an American city, through Operation Midway Blitz. President Trump was elected promising to go after "the worst of the worst," but what we saw in Chicago was a spree of violence committed by masked goons against nonviolent citizens who overwhelmingly had no criminal records. These Federal agents racially profiled people, pepper-sprayed neighborhoods, ripped families apart, and conducted military-style raids all to please much of the racist MAGA base. They did it all solely based on the color of a person's skin or the work they did: construction workers, landscapers, and street vendors like the beloved woman outside my district office who simply sold tamales. Then they held these people in appalling conditions at the Broadview ICE Processing Center and beat those who protested outside. ICE agents killed Silverio Villegas Gonzalez after he dropped his children off at school and then blatantly lied about it. Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum shot Marimar Martinez, a Montessori teacher, five times and bragged about it. All of this violence was brought on by their own government. It is shameful. Donald Trump and his top officials, including white supremacist Stephen Miller, tried to take our dignity and divide our community, but they failed. The people of Chicago organized. We armed ourselves with whistles, phones, and our U.S. Constitution. We looked after each other. Rapid response organizers kept the community informed. Volunteers organized walking groups and carpools to get our children safely to school. Churches and nonprofits delivered groceries for those who were afraid to leave their homes. In the face of this massive opposition, the Federal Government largely backed down. One year later, people in Chicago are stronger, but many remain fearful and traumatized. Many of these agents continue to operate with impunity and no respect for due process. However, efforts to hold these agents accountable are moving forward. These criminals cannot continue free and immune after the heinous acts they committed while working under DHS. Operation Midway Blitz serves as a tragic example of why DHS cannot be reformed. It is a rogue, lawless agency built to harm us. It must be dismantled, and in its place, we must rebuild an immigration system that keeps us safe and honors humanity. When Democrats take over Congress and ultimately the White House, we must act. It has been over 40 years since immigration reform, and we are seeing what that is doing and has done to communities under this administration. Communities like mine can no longer wait.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Raul Munoz, a beloved community member, entrepreneur, and cultural steward whose work contributed to my community's gastronomic richness. Raul helped make Little Village the vibrant center of Mexican culture and community that we know today. He first became connected to Taquerias Atotonilco while delivering ingredients in the early 1970s, eventually purchasing the restaurant and ensuring its authentic flavors remain a part of 26th Street, cementing it as one of Little Village's most enduring institutions. Raul's legacy is more than his restaurant. It is about family, hard work, and the enduring connection between heritage and community. Raul showed that even when people leave their homeland, we never leave our culture behind. We carry it with us and root it in our communities just like Raul did. Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are with Raul's family and loved ones. May he rest in peace, and may his legacy live on in the community he helped build.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Catherine Watts of Buchanan, Virginia, who celebrated her 100th birthday on August 17, 2026. For 100 years, Catherine's life has been rooted in Buchanan. She has built a life defined by faith, family, hard work, and service to her community. For more than 75 years, she has been a devoted member of Trinity United Methodist Church, serving on committees, singing in the choir, and continuing to give back to her church and her community. Catherine spent 45 years with Lee's Carpets and Burlington Industries, raised a family, and served organizations throughout the region. She and her late husband, Joseph, shared 53 years of marriage and raised a family grounded in faith and strong values. Catherine says: "God has been good to me." Her life is a testament to those blessings. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Catherine Watts on 100 remarkable years and wishing her continued health and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Virginia Phoenix Wood 16U Fastpitch softball team of Vinton, Virginia, for capturing the 2026 USA Softball One True National Championship. These talented young women completed an undefeated tournament run, averaging 10 runs per game, while outscoring their opponents 67-9, and finishing with an outstanding .490 team batting average. This outstanding team includes Alexis McFarland, Lilly Gillispie, Addie Lowry, Tinley Humphries, Averi Fuller, Heidi Dixon, Jocelyn Weddle, Morgan Smith, Elissa Caricofe, Madelynn Ray, Katelyn Mills, Olivia Pierce, Kenley Cundiff, Gianna Pitzer, Zoe Sartin, Emma Sartin, Madison McDaniel, Ava DeJesus, Matilyn Gouldthorpe, and Ashleigh Johnson. I also commend Head Coach Allen Wood and Assistant Coaches Kassie Brammer and Ashley McCallum for their exceptional leadership and dedication to these young women. I congratulate the Virginia Phoenix on this remarkable achievement. Their hard work, sportsmanship, and perseverance have brought great pride to Vinton, to the Roanoke Valley, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. I wish them continued success.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize an extraordinary achievement by a high school football program from the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. The Strasburg High School Rams captured the first State football championship in their school history, defeating Glenvar High School 49-27 in the Class 2 State final on December 13, 2025. Strasburg's come-from-behind victory under the leadership of second year Head Coach Tripp Lamb showed resilience and composure. Senior Brady Knight, playing both running back and linebacker, helped lead the comeback and finished as one of three Rams to rush for over 100 yards. Juniors Quincy Williams and Linkyn Bosworth also surpassed the century mark on the ground, while Williams delivered game-changing defensive play. Quarterback Brayden Hough added a late rushing score to seal the victory. Mr. Speaker, this win belongs to not only this year's team, but to decades of Strasburg athletes and coaches, including Jeff Smoot, Glenn Proctor, and Mark Roller, who laid the foundation for success. This championship is a testament to perseverance, teamwork, and a community that never stopped believing. I proudly commend the Strasburg High School Rams on making history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the recent arrests of 1,328 illegal immigrants across Virginia. Among those arrested were individuals wanted for serious crimes, including murder, rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, DUI, and attempted murder. During the Biden administration, our immigration laws went unenforced. When individuals who entered our country illegally are allowed to remain in our communities, the rule of law is undermined and public safety is put at risk. Govern Spanberger and prosecutors like Fairfax Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano are making it harder to enforce our immigration laws, weaken cooperation with ICE, and remove dangerous criminals from our communities. The Trump administration and House Republicans are taking action to restore accountability and protect our communities. These efforts not only make Virginia safer but also strengthen public safety across our entire Nation.

The Chair recognizes the Member from Delaware, Representative McBride, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, last month, the Delaware Community Foundation celebrated 40 years of contributing to the social and financial health of the First State. Initially pioneered by my predecessor in this Chamber and our former Governor, Pete DuPont, the Delaware Community Foundation is one of the top 100 community foundations in the country and has spent the last four decades infusing financial support into critical initiatives, community partners, nonprofits, and education for Delawareans across our State. Today, DCF is led by my friend and neighbor, Stuart Comstock-Gay, a community leader who is dedicated to improving the quality of life for all Delawareans. Over the last 40 years, DCF has engaged in philanthropy, community collaboration, and thoughtful investments in medical research, scholarships for students, nonprofit support, and improving health equity. DCF, like community foundations across the country is a critical driver of investment that can and have made a difference in the lives of every Delawarean. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate DCF on this tremendous milestone, and I thank them for their decades of enduring support and community impact that have shaped the lives of countless Delawareans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the lives lost 25 years ago on September 11, 2001. What started as a beautiful Tuesday in September turned into a day of horror, as nearly 3,000 lives were lost in the deadliest terrorist attack against our Nation in history. Two and a half decades later, our hearts go out to all those for whom that day brought a fateful call, for some from a loved one in a plane or trapped in a burning building and for others, in the hours or days after, to learn that their missing parent, child, or sibling had perished. Across our country, Americans will gather for this somber commemoration to pay tribute to the lives lost in Lower Manhattan, Northern Virginia, and western Pennsylvania, and to recommit to the charge echoed so often in the aftermath of the attacks to never forget. Let us never forget the tragedy and loss of that day nor the heroism that illuminated a nation in one of its darkest hours. As planes were hijacked, fires raged, and fear struck in the hearts of Americans everywhere, heroes literally ran into the fire and charged a cabin, sacrificing themselves to save others; first responders flocked to the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon to save lives; and firefighters, police officers, medical providers, and ordinary citizens confronted death and destruction to save as many lives as they could. As the long effort to find those missing began after the towers fell, many left their own families to focus full time on digging through smoldering rubble to find as many survivors as possible. Many who dedicated months of their lives to that rescue mission saw their own lives cut tragically short from the toxins they inhaled at Ground Zero. The sacrifice of those on the ground was matched by those in the air above Pennsylvania that morning, as the bravery of passengers on Flight 93 saved countless lives in our Nation's Capital. Once they realized the fate before them--targeting either the White House or the very building we stand in today--they decided to act. These passengers, who were strangers just 2 hours before, joined together to intervene in a cruel plot to attack the very symbols of freedom and democracy. That was the power of the heroism on and after September 11. There were no strangers to those who risked everything to save anyone. As I stand in this Chamber 25 years later, I remain as inspired by their service and sacrifice as I was as an 11-year-old watching on TV. When I think about how scared all of us were on that day, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from Mr. Rogers, who shared that when he was young and used to see something scary on the news, his mother would tell him to look for the helpers. On that day and in the days and weeks that followed, helpers were everywhere. Heroes were everywhere. Mr. Speaker, 25 years later, let us not only remember, but let us also recommit ourselves to summoning just a fraction of the courage of the helpers in the wake of that tragedy. May God bless the memories of those lost, and may we remember the enduring legacy of courage that saved lives two and a half decades ago.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Shannon Bingham of Omaha, Nebraska. Shannon is an entrepreneur, keynote speaker, author, and advocate whose life and service have been profoundly shaped by the power of adoption. Recently named a two-time Nebraska Merit Mother of the Year, Shannon has dedicated her life to strengthening families, supporting children, and raising awareness about adoption. Her advocacy began in her own home when Shannon adopted her son Seth. She quickly realized that adoption is not simply about welcoming a child into a family. It is a lifelong commitment to unconditional love, understanding, and growth. Like many adoptive families, their story has been filled with both joy and significant challenges. Through it all, Shannon developed an understanding of the unique needs of adoptees and the importance of ensuring families have the resources they need to thrive. What began as a personal family journey has grown into a powerful mission to help others. In 2023, Shannon, Seth, and their family stood alongside Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen as he proclaimed National Adoption Awareness Month in the State of Nebraska. Since then, this inspiring mother-and-son duo have continued to use their voices to support families navigating their own adoption paths. Today, Shannon continues as an adoptive family mentor with the Nebraska Children's Home Society. In this role, she provides support and encouragement to prospective and adoptive families. She has also shared her family's story across numerous television media and speaking platforms, using every opportunity to educate, advocate, and inspire. Through her platform, Adoption is an Option, Shannon works to increase awareness, encourage families to consider adoption, and advocate for children awaiting permanent loving homes. She believes that every child deserves a true sense of connection, belonging, and the knowledge that they are deeply loved. By sharing both the beautiful moments and the real challenges of adoption, Shannon has become a champion for children and families across Nebraska and beyond. Her story is a testament to this belief that while adoption begins with a single act of love, its impact echoes for generations. Shannon and her husband, Kurt, have three children, Seth, Ian, and Nora.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sue Morris, a leader and a true champion of community transformation in Nebraska. For 25 years as president of Heritage Omaha, she shaped the culture and civic landscape of our region. Under her leadership, the organization realized over $1 billion of community projects and raised more than $750 million in private philanthropic funds. From the Holland Performing Art Center and the Joslyn Art Museum to the University of Nebraska Omaha's Baxter Arena and Charles Schwab Field, her work has transformed our community. Sue's approach to philanthropy is to always focus on stewardship, ethics, and deep community impact. She mastered the art of aligning a donor's unique passion with a meaningful public need, viewing herself not just as a fundraiser but as a facilitator for the common good. Her recent work represents what she calls the crown jewel of her professional life. As president of the Veterans Trust, Sue spearheaded the development of the new Ambulatory Care Center at the Omaha VA Medical Center, which serves thousands of veterans across Nebraska and western Iowa. The Ambulatory Care Center was the first-of-its-kind public-private partnership under the landmark legislation known as the CHIP-In for Veterans Act, which Sue helped shepherd through Congress. Her efforts on behalf of veterans continue to see the CHIP-In for Veterans Act become the permanent pathway for construction of veterans' healthcare facilities through public-private partnerships. After leaving Heritage Omaha in 2020, Sue served as an adviser at Nebraska Philanthropic Trust until retiring in July 2026. Today, Sue remains a vital force in our community, driven by a simple and enduring desire to make a positive impact.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend, an incredible person in education in Dallas, and that is Diana Flores, a DISD trustee. After 30 years of hard work and dedication to the community in education, Ms. Flores is the longest-serving member of the Dallas College Board of Trustees. Throughout her tenure, she served numerous roles, including chair of the board from 2018 until 2020 and vice chair on two occasions. Most recently, she chaired the board's education and workforce committee. She has helped to build a connection between higher education and the needs of the North Texas workforce like no other. During her service, Ms. Flores helped guide Dallas College through periods of tremendous growth, including the 2019 bond program to modernize campuses and expand educational opportunities at El Centro in downtown Dallas. After three decades, my dear friend, Ms. Flores, retired on August 30, 2026. Diana did so much for our young people in the community, especially her work through LULAC. Her work with scholarships and other merit-based educational programs really are like no other. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Diana on her retirement. I thank her for everything she has done to serve the community, and I wish her well in the next 30 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my dear friend and neighbor, Vernell Sturns. This is a legend right here, Mr. Speaker, someone who rose from Mount Enterprise, Texas, down in the Piney Woods of east Texas, on to KU, part of that tremendous KU background that helped shape the city of Fort Worth. Vernell Sturns passed away on August 23, 2026, at the age of 86. Mr. Sturns' life was dedicated to making Fort Worth and north Texas a better place for all. He was the city's first Black assistant city manager and later was acting city manager and chief administrative officer. He was also the CEO of Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, one of our country's busiest and most successful airports, in 1991. He served in various leadership roles throughout north Texas, including as a trustee of TCU and later on the board of trustees at Jarvis Christian College near east Texas, where he was from. Mr. Sturns was also a force of the Metropolitan Black Chamber of Commerce in Fort Worth and so many other organizations. Vernell's life touched so many people throughout Fort Worth, and I would not have time to list all of them here. To his wife, Debra; his children, Michael, Robert, Paula, and Chris; and his grandchildren, I send my sincerest condolences. Their dad and their grandfather was an amazing man whose legacy will live forever. In Recognition of the Life and Legacy of Fort Worth Civil Rights and Community Advocate Johnny Lewis

Mr. Speaker, this is very sad for me. I rise today to honor a good friend of mine who was a community leader in Southeast Fort Worth and the Southside, Johnny Lewis. Johnny was just an incredible person who loved the community. Raised in Historic Southside of Fort Worth, Johnny Lewis dedicated his life to improving opportunities for others as vice president of the Historic Southside neighborhood. Johnny was from Georgia, but he loved the Southside of Fort Worth and lived there for more than 50 years. He worked hard to make sure that there was quality economic development, worked hard to make sure that the youngsters weren't getting in trouble, worked hard to do things about crime in the community, and was really on the front line of so many. He and his wife, Shirley, who preceded him in death, were just absolutely amazing people who loved Fort Worth, and you can see their influence with the monuments and the various edifices along Evans Avenue and East Rosedale and Terrell Avenue, where they lived and made a difference. Johnny was an amazing person who served our country in the military, and his entire family, his daughter, his brother, his nieces--that entire family is incredible, and we want to keep them in prayer because we know that Johnny is going to be someone who is missed in that family for a long time to come, as he will be missed in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my dear friend Mary Ann Kellam, who served 12 incredible years at the Irving Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. She did so much to make sure that the Chamber was in tip-top shape, and the Chamber received so many awards. I hate that I was unable to make Mary Ann's retirement party, but she is going to be missed. She was an incredible person.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental choice before our country today: Do we trust the American people, or do we trust Big Government? Conservatives believe that freedom grows when the American Government gets out of the way. We believe in rewarding hard work, protecting free speech, securing our borders, lowering taxes, giving parents autonomy, and creating an economy where Americans can build, grow, and prosper. The Democratic Party is moving in the opposite direction. Socialism was once dismissed as a fringe movement in American politics. Today, its ideas are increasingly becoming the agenda of the Democratic Party: bigger government, higher taxes, more spending, and more control over the daily lives of Americans. Their own DSA movement openly calls for extending voting rights to noncitizens. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress continue to oppose commonsense election safeguards, like the SAVE America Act, even though more than 80 percent of Americans support requiring identification to vote. That tells you everything you need to know about the competing visions before us. Republicans believe that American elections should be decided by American citizens. We believe taxpayers' dollars should serve hardworking American families and not pay for gender transition surgeries for people who entered our country illegally. We believe that Americans should keep more of what they earn. We believe a sovereign country must have a secure border. President Biden and congressional Democrats gave us 4 years of chaos at our southern border. President Trump and House Republicans proved that chaos was a policy choice. We enforced the law, secured the border, and restored common sense. There is an inverse relationship between the size of government and the freedom of its people. Democrats want to grow government and shrink freedom. Congressional Republicans want to shrink the reach of government and grow individual freedom. That is the choice before this country: government control or individual liberty, dependence or opportunity, socialism or free markets, crazy or common sense. I know which side I am on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant, a trusted member of my team, and a good friend, Tel Wittmer, as he concludes 3\1/2\ years of service to the people of the Big First District. Tel is a Kansan through and through. He grew up in Holton, graduated from K-State, and, like me, had the privilege of serving as student body president at K-State. From the beginning, I knew that Tel understood that leadership is ultimately about service. Tel first joined my office in Washington, where he quickly became someone who I trusted with some of the most difficult issues before the Congress. He brought tremendous thoughtfulness to his work as a legislative assistant, but he also brought personality and joy to the office. My Washington, D.C., staff was incredibly sad to see him leave the Capitol when he and his wife, Madelyn, moved home to Kansas last February. Fortunately for us, Tel was not leaving the team. He moved to Wamego and took on the responsibility of serving as my district director. Over the last 1\1/2\ years, Kansans across the Big First have gotten to know the same Tel who we knew in Washington. His thoughtfulness is apparent to everyone he meets. He listens carefully, treats people with respect, and approaches every conversation with a sincere desire to help. He has represented me and his office extremely well, and now my district staff feels the same way that my D.C. staff did when he left Washington. They are going to miss him tremendously, just as I will. However, the things I admire most about Tel go way beyond his work. He is a man of strong faith, a leader in his community, a devoted husband to Madelyn, and now a great father to their young daughter, Eve. I thank Tel for the 3\1/2\ years that he has given the people of Kansas. I thank him for his friendship, his counsel, his leadership, and the care he has shown to every Kansan who walked through the door. While we will miss having Tel on our team, I am grateful that he will continue serving our great State in a new capacity. I know that God has great things ahead for Tel, Madelyn, and Eve, and I look forward to watching the next chapter unfold. May God bless Tel, and I thank him for his service to the Big First.

Mr. Speaker, our forefathers showed tremendous wisdom at the founding of our Nation. They created a republic based on democratic values but remained keenly aware of the danger power, ambition, and corruption could present to future generations. Today, House Republicans are asking Congress to surrender its power, a power that rightfully belongs to the American people. Our Founding Fathers gave Congress countervailing power to the executive, which this ideologically captured Court is actively attempting to upend. That is disgraceful, and if we do not forcefully push back, it will not end. Expanding the Court is one of the clearest tools we have to restore its integrity. Ethics reforms and staggered term limits would prevent any single President from stripping the American people of our democracy. Every day we let this administration tighten its grip on our highest court of the land puts every single constitutional protection we enjoy at risk. I did not come to Congress to watch our democracy get dismantled in silence. I will not watch it happen now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to gather the intestinal fortitude to do what is right in this moment because history and the American people are watching.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the leadership of Niheema Malloy, the first woman and the first Black woman to serve as chief of police in Maplewood, New Jersey. Chief Malloy was appointed to this position with over 25 years of law enforcement experience. Under her leadership, Maplewood would have a department built on community partnership, officers trained in de-escalation, in crisis response, and in listening before a crisis ever happens. Chief Malloy is committed to putting Maplewood first by ensuring that community safety and protection go hand in hand with the well-being of our residents. New Jersey is proud of Chief Niheema Malloy. Her leadership reflects the very best of our communities, and I thank her for her remarkable service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Major General Christopher D. Schneider for his new role as the commanding general of Picatinny Arsenal in addition to serving as the portfolio acquisition executive for agile sustainment and ammunition. General Schneider brings to this role more than three decades of distinguished service to our Nation. A graduate of the United States Military Academy, he began his career as an infantry officer, serving with the 1st Infantry Division, the 18th Airborne Corps, and the 82nd Airborne Division. Also, he served with the 75th Ranger Regiment, with deployments to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He later transitioned to the Army Acquisition Corps, where he held senior leadership positions focused on strengthening our Nation's military capabilities and advancing critical technologies. As commanding general of Picatinny Arsenal, General Schneider takes on an important responsibility for the U.S. Army and will be supported by one of the most talented and hardworking workforces in the Army right here in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District. I congratulate General Schneider on his new role and look forward to working with him to support Picatinny Arsenal, its workforce, and our national security. I welcome General Schneider to Picatinny and thank him for his service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the treasured northeast Ohio tradition in Ohio's Seventh Congressional District, the Wayne County Fair. It is the largest junior fair in the State, with more than 7,800 junior fair entries. In a State with 88 counties, that ranking speaks for itself. In a county of just 116,000 residents, the fair welcomes over 150,000 visitors each year. This displays just how central agriculture truly is to our community in Ohio. The first two lines of motto of the Future Farmers of America, also known as the FFA, are: Learning to Do, Doing to Learn. I believe this perfectly captures the spirit of our 4-H and FFA youth here in Ohio. These students are up before sunrise, feeding their livestock before school. They communicate the importance of agriculture with pride. They act with integrity even when no one is watching. They consistently exemplify the grit, determination, and character that will make them the leaders of tomorrow. Behind them stands a remarkable community. This year alone, the junior fair auction exceeded $2 million, a testament to the families, businesses, and neighbors who invest in these students and believe in their future. The Wayne County Fair is more than an event. It is a tradition. It is a classroom, and it is a way of life for us in the Seventh District of Ohio. I couldn't be more honored to represent the students, families, volunteers, and community who make this fair what it is. The Wayne County Fair reflects the very best of the American spirit: hard work, responsibility, community, and a commitment to the next generation. When I see the young people of Wayne County carrying those values forward, I have great confidence in the future of American agriculture and the next generation of leaders who will carry it forward.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Puerto Rico want us to prioritize the basics of water and energy, and to fight corruption. Last year in this Congress, I denounced alleged irregularities in the procurement process for an emergency energy generation contract. That concern was bipartisan. Former Congressman Mark Green and I cosigned a letter asking questions that weren't answered. It turns out those concerns were warranted. Let's take a cold look at the facts. On August 28, 2025, last year, Power Expectations and Reyes Contractor won a $5.9 billion contract for temporary energy generation in Puerto Rico. But Power Expectations and Reyes Contractor didn't have the required expertise or financial capacity to perform the contract. The government agency in charge of procurement essentially told them: find a partner who does, create a consortium, and then you have a deal. Eventually Power Expectations and Reyes Contractor found Enchanted Rock. A person called Jhoby Weaks, COO of Caribbean Operations, signed the contract on Enchanted Rock's behalf. The oversight board, which must authorize contracts over $10 million, approved the contract. Everyone was happy. Puerto Rico would have emergency energy generation in time for the summer peak. The happiness didn't last. It turns out, Enchanted Rock had warned the government that there was a mistake: that they didn't sign the contract, that Jhoby Weaks was not an Enchanted Rock employee, and that the position of COO for Caribbean Operations did not even exist within their company. Apparently, someone forged the firm's signature. But it gets worse. Before the alleged forgery, Enchanted Rock got a letter from a law firm. They claim the letter attempted to blackmail them, and when they replied, the law firm denied having sent that letter. The firm denied having ever represented Power Expectations or Reyes Contractor. Apparently, someone forged the law firm's letter. Enchanted Rock informed the Government of Puerto Rico even before the contract was executed. You would expect that after all these irregularities, the relevant government agencies would have responded decisively, that they would have rescinded the contract, that they would have reported the fraud. But they didn't. Instead, they went and substituted Enchanted Rock with another company through an assumption and assignment agreement. Nearly 2 months later, someone blew the whistle. An investigative journalist broke the news. Someone forged a signature in a $5.9 billion energy contract. The government knew, and the government hid it from the public, hid it from the oversight board, and hid it from the power authority. When the oversight board found out, they canceled the contract. Under public pressure, the government referred the matter to law enforcement--again, 2 months late. The people of Puerto Rico deserve answers and accountability. Congress, which has assigned $17 billion for Puerto Rico's energy grid, deserves answers and accountability. What did the Government of Puerto Rico know? When did the government know it? Why did the government hide it? Was it corruption, incompetence, or both? This scandal has direct consequences over the people. There are power outages because we don't have emergency energy generation. As the people of Puerto Rico's Representative in Congress, I want to emphasize the following: The vast majority of Puerto Ricans are neither corrupt nor incompetent. Like the vast majority of American citizens and Members of Congress, we detest corruption, and we stand up to it. I urge my colleagues to join me in this crusade of good government. Let's ask the questions and demand the answers. Let's work together to hold the crooks accountable, to fix the basics, and turn the lights back on in Puerto Rico.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a legend in Washington State University Cougars' athletics, former head football coach, Bill Doba, who passed away last week at the age of 85. Bill was a great man and a great football coach, a longtime defensive coordinator, and 5-year head coach for the Cougars from 2003 to 2007. In all, he worked 19 seasons at WSU and was the lead architect of the renowned Palouse Posse defense, which led the country in 1994. Bill was also a very devoted husband. Many knew of his lifetime romance with his wonderful wife, Judy. Judy herself was a great woman. I knew her personally when she volunteered frequently in my mother's kindergarten classroom at Franklin Elementary. Bill Doba left a great impact on the entire State of Washington and the Pullman community, and he is remembered fondly. Given that this is Apple Cup week, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also worth noting that Coach Bill Doba had a winning record against the Huskies and gave them a spanking in his last Apple Cup. Rest in peace, Bill Doba, and thank you for all you have done for Cougar nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great member of the Spokane community, Mr. Walt Worthy. Many people know Walt and his wonderful wife, Karen, for their tremendous work to revitalize the Davenport Hotel. Today, I honor Walt for his extremely generous establishment of the Karen Worthy Memorial Wildfire Grant that will fund personal $10,000 donations to victims of the Spokane fires. In total, his generous donation could approach beyond $5 million, perhaps even $10 million, depending on how many fire victims are deemed eligible. It was only fitting that this announcement was made at Balboa Elementary School in the neighborhood of the fires and named in honor of his beloved wife, Karen. Karen taught first grade at Balboa Elementary School for nearly 20 years as Walt transitioned from his career as a survival specialist with the United States Air Force into a career as a builder and a developer. I thank Walt Worthy for his generosity to the victims of these terrible fires. I thank him for all he has done for Washington State, our Spokane community, and indeed these United States of America. I am pleased to share his lifetime romance in memory of Karen here on the floor of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great patriot, a friend, and a giant of American diplomacy, Ambassador Tim Carney, who passed away earlier this month after a long fight with cancer. Ambassador Carney was the 14th United States Ambassador to Sudan and the 45th United States Ambassador to Haiti. I got to know Ambassador Carney during my year at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq surge where we worked closely together on issues related to Baghdad. Ambassador Carney is one of those Americans that you read about in storybooks: an adventurer, a scholar, and indeed, truly a diplomat. His wife, Vicki Butler, is equally amazing. Vicki came from a prominent Spokane family. They met in Southeast Asia and had a patriotic romance that spanned the globe and made a lasting impact on Washington State and the United States of America. When Tim finished his diplomatic career, he came back to Spokane with Vicki and served as a very important director of our museum of arts and culture, helping bridge a challenging period in that institution's time. I remember Tim fondly. Here in this photo you can see Tim and Vicki with me and my wife, Eleanor, and I look to them as an inspiration in my own romance with my wonderful wife. Tim, you will not be forgotten. Vicki, you are loved, and we thank both of you for your tremendous impact on these United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a plot that threatens to undermine the security of the upcoming elections. A whistleblower has revealed that the Trump administration has directed the United States Postal Service to secretly build an untested, illegal system to intercept mail ballots on their way to State election administrators. It is a system that will disenfranchise thousands of American citizens and throw the November elections into chaos. The whistleblower reports that under this new system, the Trump administration is building their own list of who they think should be eligible to vote, and Postal Service workers will be required to scan bar codes on ballots to see if the voter appears on the Trump administration's list, a list that has not been made publicly available. They admit that it exists, but they have not shown the list to the public. If just one bar code on just one ballot does not match a name on this secret list, then the whole batch of ballots numbering as many as 10,000 will not be delivered to the States to be counted. Think about that. Do we really trust the Trump administration's secret list of who they think should be eligible to vote? And if one ballot is found not to match, should thousands of others also be seized? They are launching this system with no testing at all and with no time to identify and fix the bugs in the system. That is to say nothing of the fact that they are doing this illegally. They have defied multiple court orders telling them to stop. This secret system that they are forcing on the American people without the consent of Congress threatens to throw our elections into chaos. But the chaos is the point. President Trump knows Republicans can't win the midterm elections on the merits--not with this economy, not with these tariffs, not with this war. The Republicans have given up on trying to earn the votes of most Americans, and instead, they are trying to ensure that votes do not get counted, unless the voters are on their secret list. Vote by mail is how millions of Americans, especially seniors, exercise their right to vote. President Trump even voted by mail himself just last month. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in American elections. We must ensure our elections are secure, and I am open to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do that, but launching an untested, illegal, last-minute system that can silently wipe out thousands of legitimate ballots is a recipe for disaster. I am joining a number of our colleagues in filing an amicus brief to stop this half-baked and dangerous attempt to interfere with American elections. When Democrats take back the majority, we will end this nonsense. We will fight for every Americans' right to vote and defend our democracy from those who seek to undermine it from within.

Mr. Speaker, the President's unnecessary war in Iran has now lasted 6 months with no end in sight. Mr. Speaker, 18 American servicemembers are dead. Countless civilians, including 100 children, have been bombed in their school. This war has now cost $100 billion and counting. Think of what we could have done instead with $100 billion. We could have built 1 million new affordable homes for Americans. We could have repaired 80,000 bridges, made insulin free for every American who needs it, and given a $1,000 tax cut to every middle-class family. Instead, we are wasting this money on a completely unnecessary war with no end in sight. Because of this stupid war, the Strait of Hormuz is closed, and the cost of gas is skyrocketing. There has been a 40 percent increase since before the war began. The average American has paid $500 more for gas in the last 6 months than they would have if the President had never bungled us into this stupid and unnecessary war. To make it all worse, our top military leaders are sounding the alarm that we are depleting our munitions to the point that it has made us more vulnerable and less safe than we were before. The American people are tired of politicians sending other people's kids to fight and die in unnecessary wars in the Middle East. The President promised people that he would be different, but he is not. This is just another unnecessary war with no plan and no regard for what the American people actually need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work of the Warrior Healing Center in Sierra Vista, Arizona. The Warrior Healing Center, which I was honored to visit earlier this year, is a pillar of the local veteran community. The center provides community and peer support to veterans throughout Sierra Vista with the goal of eliminating veteran suicide throughout Cochise County. The Warrior Healing Center cares for those who have served through crisis intervention, command and control, and a one-stop shop with several veteran organizations under the same roof. The center's dedicated work ensures that local veterans have access to the resources and the tools that they need to thrive. Veterans who come to the Warrior Healing Center are met with a caring staff and volunteers, which I have met, who are committed to understanding their individual needs. Through their efforts, these veterans are able to receive amazing short-term and also long-term support. I thank Director Cathie Goodman, Chief Clerk Dr. Tim Kirk, and everyone at the Warrior Healing Center for all the work that they do for our veterans. Their efforts have made an incredible impact in Sierra Vista, in Cochise County, and beyond as well. I wish them all the best as they continue to provide veterans with the support they need after sacrificing so much for our country. recognizing tanque verde unified school district's 140th anniversary

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 140th anniversary of Tanque Verde Unified School District. Since 1886, the district has been providing public education in the Tanque Verde Valley. The first Tanque Verde school opening its doors all those years ago began a legacy of service and education that has impacted generations of valley residents. Through the work of dedicated staff and the commitment of students and their families, Tanque Verde schools have served as an example of excellent public education. The district will celebrate this historic milestone on September 23, bringing together members of the Tanque Verde community, both past and present, as a picture of the community's rich and unique history and honor the people who have made the district's success possible. To superintendent Dr. Scott Hagerman, teachers and staff, and students and families, congratulations on an incredible 140 years. Through their work and dedication, Tanque Verde Valley is home to outstanding public education. Congratulations again, and here is to many, many more wonderful academic years ahead and lives impacted of our future generations through the power of public education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Lisa Scott from the Vail School District earning the title of 2027 Arizona Teacher of the Year. Mrs. Scott, who is an eighth grade science teacher at Esmond Station K-8, has earned the highest honor among educators in being named the 2027 Arizona Teacher of the Year by the Arizona Educational Foundation. This esteemed award celebrates and honors educators who represent the very best of their profession by both inspiring their students and also strengthening the local community. Not only has Mrs. Scott been an amazing educator, she has done so while also navigating significant life changes that resulted from a near-death experience in December of 2022. The discovery of a kidney stone led to Mrs. Scott experiencing a loss of consciousness, septic shock, and treatment with a medication that restricted her limbs' blood vessels to the point of needing to amputate both her hands and feet. Committed to continuing to do what she loves, even after a life-altering event, Mrs. Scott returned to the classroom in July of 2024, where she has proven that anything is possible when you refuse to be defined by circumstances. Being a great example to all the students that she serves and teaches, her colleagues, her administrators, but also our entire community of what grit and dedication and passion for a career like education can do for someone. Congratulations to Mrs. Scott, Lisa, on this incredible achievement. I thank her for the impact she has made on her students and our entire community.

Mr. Speaker, after the Lahaina wildfire, West Maui knew we could not afford to wait to strengthen fire protection and emergency response, so the community got to work. They donated land and raised $3 million to build a new fire station in Olowalu. This station will cut emergency response times by up to 15 minutes. That can mean the difference between life and death, between a home burning and a home being saved. It will also cut fire insurance costs by nearly half for homeowners, saving families thousands of dollars annually. The land was donated. The money was raised. The project was fully funded. Then President Trump's steel tariff slapped over $300,000 to the cost, not because the project changed, not because it went over budget, but because the President changed our trade policy. This is what reckless tariffs look like in real life. Today, it is a fire station on Maui, but across our country, families, businesses, and communities are paying more because of the President's tariffs, including for the things that they need to keep themselves safe. A fire station is not a luxury, not in West Maui, not after Lahaina. I am fighting to get relief for Olowalu, but we cannot fight these tariffs one fire station, one small business, or one community at a time. Congress has the constitutional authority over tariffs and trade, and it is time we take that responsibility back. No President should be able to unilaterally impose tariffs that make it harder and more expensive for Americans to protect their homes, their communities, and their lives. West Maui has already paid too high a price. We should be making communities safer, not making safety more expensive.

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Lala never technically made landfall in Hawaii, but disasters aren't measured by whether the eye of a storm crosses a shoreline. They are measured by what they leave behind, and Lala left devastation. Over 3 days, an estimated 1.3 trillion gallons of rain fell across our State. Hawaii Island took the brunt of it, with some communities seeing 20 to 40 inches. I saw the damages myself. At Na'alehu Elementary, buildings were pushed off their foundations by the force of water and debris. Parts of Highway 11 were washed away. At Na'alehu Cemetery, floodwaters tragically disturbed the resting place of generations of loved ones. Hundreds of homes across Hawaii were damaged or destroyed. At the height of the storm, over 200,000 people were left without power. However, I also saw Hawaii at its best: neighbors checking on neighbors, community hubs feeding families, supplies flown in by helicopter and carried on horseback to communities cut off by damaged roads, school workers preparing food and hygiene supplies for our "children," "keiki," even while their campuses were closed. When disaster strikes, Hawaii shows up. Now Washington needs to show up for Hawaii. I am grateful the President approved an emergency declaration, bringing critical FEMA resources to Hawaii, Maui, and Honolulu counties, but we need a major disaster declaration and individual assistance to help our families, farmers, and small businesses recover. The storm may be gone, but the emergency is not. Families are still without power. People still need food, medicine, clothing, and basic necessities. Roads, homes, schools, farms, and businesses need to be repaired and rebuilt. Even as we recover, we have to prepare, because the Pacific is still churning. More storms are coming, and they will not wait for Hawaii to recover. We need to replenish supplies, strengthen critical infrastructure, restore essential services, and make sure our most isolated communities are prepared to withstand whatever comes next. Help our people recover, prepare for what is coming next, and do it now. That is what Hawaii needs from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Grand Master Navigator Sesario Sewralur, captain of the Alingano Maisu, a cultural teacher, steward, and guardian of ancestral wayfinding knowledge. A son of Satawal in the Federated States of Micronesia and the son of legendary master navigator Mau Piailug, Sesario began sailing with his father at just 5 years old. He went on to lead 20 voyages across the Marianas, Palau, Yap, Taiwan, and Japan, helping preserve the ancient art of navigating the Pacific without modern instruments. Sesario carried forward his father's legacy and helped ensure traditional navigation remained a living heritage, one that connects the peoples and islands of Oceana across our vast Pacific. On behalf of the people of the Northern Mariana Islands, I extend my deepest gratitude to Captain Sesario; his wife, Florentina; his children; grandchildren; family; and friends. His teachings will endure for generations, and his spirit will live on in the stars, skies, and seas. "A very big thank you"; "Un dangkulu na Si Yu'us ma'ase yan, kinisou."

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Guam-CNMI Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve State Committee for its steadfast support for our servicemembers, their families, and the employers who support them. ESGR helps our citizen-warriors balance military and civilian responsibilities through outreach, education, recognition, and assistance with employment protections under USERRA. This mission is especially meaningful in the Northern Mariana Islands, where military service is deeply rooted in our community. The Guam-CNMI ESGR has earned national recognition for three consecutive years. In 2024, Major General Benny Paulino received the James M. Roche Spirit of Volunteerism National Award. In 2025, Dave Sablan received national ESGR recognition, and in 2026 Don Clark was named National Employer Outreach Volunteer of the Year. These honors reflect the dedication of the entire committee and its volunteers. On behalf of the people of the Northern Mariana Islands, I thank the Guam-CNMI ESGR for supporting those who serve our nation and strengthening the communities they call home. "Thank you"; "Si Yu'us ma'ase." "Thank you"; "ghilisow."

Mr. Speaker, this week, Donald Trump attacked communities across the country that are raising concerns about the proliferation of gigantic, power-hungry data centers. He called them backwards and poor. According to the President, Americans should welcome data centers without question if they want to become "successful and rich." His exact declaration was: "Let data reign." That is a wildly out-of-touch response to Americans who are worried about their electricity bills, their water supply, and the future of their communities, all of which are being made dramatically worse by this administration. I represent Phoenix, Arizona, the Nation's fifth largest city, and we don't need any more data centers in our communities right now. We are already on the front lines of a severe and historic water crisis. The Trump administration just slashed our Colorado River water allocation by nearly 30 percent. Meanwhile, a single data center can consume tens if not hundreds of millions of gallons of water every year. If every currently planned project in the Phoenix area is built, data center water demand could increase by more than 450 percent. It is extremely alarming, and my constituents are right to express their concerns on how our government allocates its resources, including by providing immense tax breaks to ultra-rich AI and data center companies. Our electricity grid is also under enormous strain. Arizona families are facing higher utility bills, most especially as a result of Trump's illegal war in Iran, all while data centers demand staggering amounts of energy. Research has found that these facilities can make surrounding neighborhoods as much as four degrees hotter, in a city like Phoenix where extreme heat already kills people. These are not irrational concerns. Even Vice President JD Vance admitted that 99 percent--his words--of the backlash against data centers is happening in places where they are driving up utility bills. Protecting Arizona's water is not backwards. Keeping electricity affordable enough for seniors to turn their air conditioners on during the summer is not poor, and allowing the wealthiest companies on the planet to consume our water and power while working families absorb the cost is not progress. But here is the real reason that Donald Trump is so eager to tell communities to stop pushing back against data centers: Donald Trump is the sole beneficiary of a trust holding nearly 115 million shares of Trump Media. Trump Media is pursuing a pending $6 billion merger with TAE Technologies, an energy company that explicitly markets its technology for AI data center expansion. In other words, the President himself has an enormous financial interest in a company positioning itself to benefit from the growth of the data center energy market. He is once again using his Presidency to enrich himself and his family. That creates a glaring conflict of interest when it comes to Trump using the power and platform of the Presidency to attack communities resisting the construction of new data centers. Americans deserve to know whether he is speaking for the public interest or promoting his own investment portfolio. I support Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes' call for a statewide pause. Arizona should not approve another massive data center until we have a comprehensive plan to protect our water, our electrical grid, and Arizona ratepayers. Congress also needs to investigate the President's conflict of interest and demand full transparency about how financial holdings intersect with his administration's data center and energy policies. We can believe in American innovation without handing Big Tech a blank check on our water supply and electricity bills. Arizonans are not backward and poor. We are tired of being told to sacrifice more so that billionaires and the President himself can become richer.

Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional teacher in northeastern Wisconsin who retired this summer after decades of dedicated service in education. Mrs. Carolyn Brown began teaching at my alma mater, Notre Dame Academy, in Green Bay, in 1996, following nearly three decades in education. She taught English and journalism and was notably Notre Dame Academy's first International Baccalaureate-trained teacher. Beyond the classroom, Mrs. Brown was known as the school's biggest cheerleader. She could be found at games, plays, musical performances, and just about every other school event, always showing up to support her students. She also started the school's annual Fall Fest Week and the Academy Awards talent show, giving students a chance to share their school spirit and talents while, of course, being there to cheer them along the way. Mr. Speaker, we are so blessed to have educators such as Mrs. Carolyn Brown in northeast Wisconsin. I thank her for her many years of service to the youth of Green Bay, and I wish her the very best as she begins her much-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brown County Deputy District Attorney Wendy Lemkuil as she enters retirement after years of dedicated public service. For three decades, Deputy District Attorney Lemkuil has served the people of Brown County in the courtroom, doing work that is often difficult, demanding, and unseen by the public. Throughout her career as a prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Lemkuil has primarily handled drug- and homicide-related cases, successfully prosecuting hundreds of cases in her commitment to protecting our communities and keeping Brown County safe. Through her service to northeastern Wisconsin, she has made a lasting impact not only on our communities but also on the people with whom she has worked. Those who know her and have learned from her have said that it will be nearly impossible to fill her shoes. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Deputy District Attorney Wendy Lemkuil on her retirement and on thanking her for her years of honorable service to Brown County and northeastern Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Winnebago County Sheriff John Matz as he enters retirement after serving 16 years as sheriff and a total of 36 years with the Winnebago County Sheriff's Department. Sheriff Matz has lived a life defined by service, leadership, and a commitment to helping others. He served in the Wisconsin National Guard for 30 years and worked as a deputy throughout that time. During his service, he deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and retired as the command sergeant major of Wisconsin's 120th Field Artillery Battalion. Few people have devoted as much of their lives to their nation and community as Sheriff John Matz. Through decades in the military and law enforcement, he has shown his dedication and commitment to serving the people of Winnebago County and has made a lasting impact on countless lives across northeastern Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sheriff John Matz on his retirement and thanking him for his decades of honorable service to Winnebago County, northeast Wisconsin, and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kewaunee County Sheriff Matt Joski as he enters retirement after more than 33 years of dedicated public service. Sheriff Joski's career reflects a deep commitment to serving his community, his State, and his country. Before his law enforcement career, Sheriff Joski served for 11 years in the United States Marine Corps. He later continued that life of service as Kewaunee County sheriff and through his dedicated work with the Wisconsin National Guard. Throughout his career, Sheriff Joski has been known not only for his dedication to public safety, but also for his writing on mental health, physical safety, and community issues, and for his mentorship with first responders and military personnel. The trust he built between law enforcement and the communities across Kewaunee County has made a lasting impact on northeastern Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sheriff Matt Joski on his retirement and in thanking him for his decades of honorable service to Kewaunee County, northeastern Wisconsin, and the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate my good friend Michael Hunn on his retirement from CalOptima Health as its CEO. Throughout his time at CalOptima, Michael expanded Medi-Cal services and increased community investment initiatives for our working families throughout Orange County. As CEO, Michael followed through with his commitment to supporting our most vulnerable populations by creating a safety net so they could receive the healthcare services that they deserve. Because of Michael's efforts, Orange County today is healthier, stronger, and more resilient than ever before. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of you to join me in congratulating Michael for his accomplishments and innovative leadership.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Orange County resident Bill Thompson for his generous contributions and support of Lestonnac Free Clinic. For years, Bill has worked with Lestonnac to provide critical healthcare for uninsured communities throughout southern California. With Bill's help and the help of other generous volunteers, Lestonnac has executed on its clear vision, expanding healthcare so that nobody goes without. Just last year, Bill worked with Lestonnac to open the Nation's first dedicated free surgery clinic, a groundbreaking initiative to provide life-changing procedures to veterans and others, no questions asked. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Bill for his commitment to helping our neighbors in need.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to celebrate Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva's 12-year career in the California State Assembly. Throughout her time representing north Orange County, she has led with vigor and determination and has set the standard for what it means to truly be a public servant. She supported our veterans, expanded affordable housing options, and secured millions of dollars for our working families here in Orange County. As she marks the close of a 12-year career in the California Legislature, Sharon will be leaving a legacy of hard work, partnership, and accomplishment that have strengthened our communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues today to join me in honoring Sharon Quirk-Silva's lasting impact on our communities. I thank Madam Quirk-Lady.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Ana Nogales and her 30 years of leadership and service with Casa de la Familia. In 1996, Dr. Nogales founded Casa de la Familia with a vision of helping individuals heal their wounds of psychological trauma. Since then, Dr. Nogales and Casa de la Familia have followed through on that vision. From mental health services to stigma reduction, their work has impacted the lives of many here in California and Orange County. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Nogales and Casa de la Familia for 30 years of very important and critical work. We wish them another 30 years of success in Orange County. I congratulate and thank Dr. Ana Nogales and wish her a happy 30.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor the life of Rylee Rose Belza, a beloved 11-year-old from Marysville who entered into eternity with her Savior on July 8. Rylee was the cherished daughter of Dom and Julia Belza and a loving sister whose joy filled her family's life. Our hearts are with Dom and Julia. I have seen the deep faith, amazing grace, and love that has been guiding the Belza family during this painful time. Rylee was a bright light. She loved her family, her friends, softball, and fishing. Her church and her faith in the Lord were central to her life. The picture that really stuck with me at her memorial was Rylee worshiping with arms stretched wide even as she was battling cancer. She carried joy into every room and made people laugh. She consistently placed herself behind others. She had a beautiful voice, and she loved to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner." She wanted to be the President. She told her classmates as much, and, Mr. Speaker, I bet you she would have been. The Yuba-Sutter community has responded with compassion, love, and prayer for the Belza family. Today, I ask the House to join me in praying for Rylee's family and every person her life touched. Rylee's life was far too short, but her outsized legacy will remain with her family and her community for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, Edwin Lopez-Cornejo told his mother that he could no longer feel his face. He was losing feeling in his arm, and he was scared. He was inside an ICE detention facility despite having a valid work permit. Edwin suffered from serious medical conditions, but ICE denied him care and the medications he needed. Edwin died on August 1 after just 6 weeks in ICE custody. He was only 41 years old. He was a father. Edwin's story should stop us in our tracks because he is not alone. People are dying in ICE detention. People have been killed during immigration enforcement operations. The people the Trump administration is going after are not serious criminals or the worst of the worst. In July, more than one-half of the people arrested by ICE had no criminal convictions and no pending criminal charges. These are workers, parents, and caregivers. They are people who have lived in our communities for years, yet the administration is stripping away legal protections to detain and deport them. Look at Haitian families with temporary protected status. For years our government told them: You can come live here, and you can come and work here. They built their lives here. They pay taxes. They cared for our parents and our grandparents. In Florida alone, an estimated 93,000 Haitian workers with TPS spent years caring for Holocaust survivors. Some had worked there for over two decades, and then this administration got rid of their protections. Scores of people lost their jobs. Those caregivers were not here illegally. The government changed their status so they could send them back to a country where their lives are in danger. Then, let's look at what happened to Lorenzo Salgado Araujo. Lorenzo was a 52-year-old father of three with no criminal record, and he had applied for a legal work permit. Lorenzo had lived in this country for nearly 35 years and built his own construction business. Yet, in July, ICE agents killed him while looking for another person. One of Lorenzo's sons, Ronaldo, watched the video of his father and said: "My father was always a strong man and never wanted us to know if he was in pain. He never complained . . . but it hurt my heart to hear his scream." Two fathers: One killed by ICE in the street; one dead after 6 weeks in ICE custody. This abuse does not stop with immigrants. U.S. citizens are being rounded up and deported. When the Supreme Court allowed ICE to profile people racially during enforcement stops based on their race and their language, Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh wrote that if you are a U.S. citizen, you are going to be free to go after just a brief encounter. That is not what happened to Brian Jose Morales Garcia. He is a U.S. citizen who was deported to Mexico after a traffic stop in Texas, even though he repeatedly told the ICE officer he was a U.S. citizen and asked to get the proof of citizenship at his home. They ignored him. They deported him. For 4 months, Brian was stuck in Mexico. Imagine this: an American citizen stuck in Mexico for 4 months, separated from your work and family before you are finally allowed to come back to this country and having to hire a lawyer. Since Trump returned to office, more than 50 people have died in ICE custody. Others, including U.S. citizens, have died during immigration enforcement operations. Congress must stop this out-of-control agency and hold them accountable for every death at the hands of ICE. People are dying. Americans are less safe because of this rogue agency that is out in the streets with masks and no identification. Mr. Speaker, this administration and Republicans in Congress continue to kill innocent people and make us less safe. This must stop.

Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House the approval thereof. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule I, the Journal stands approved.

Will the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Aisha Wahab, be permitted to take the oath of office today. Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?

Will the Representative-elect and the members of the California delegation present themselves in the well. All Members will rise and the Representative-elect will please raise her right hand. AISHA WAHAB appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of office, as follows:

Congratulations, you are now a Member of the 119th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the people of one of the most diverse districts in America, my home, California's 14th Congressional District. In the gallery today are people from across our district, representing different walks of life, from educational backgrounds, economic circumstances, and immigration stories. Yet, every single one of them is an American, and every one of them believes in the American Dream, a dream rooted in a simple promise, that we are all created equal and that, no matter where we begin, each of us deserves an opportunity for a better life. Today, Americans are tired, tired of Democrats and Republicans fighting with one another, tired of the division that this Capitol sometimes represents. Republicans and Democrats alike are struggling to afford housing, utilities, groceries, education, healthcare, and the basic necessities of life. That struggle belongs to all Americans. For generations, the American Dream has made this country a beacon to the world because of one powerful promise: Your past does not determine your future. Today, I stand here as a reminder of that promise. I walked into Congress carrying the beating heart of a former foster care kid, the daughter of Afghan refugees who came here searching for a better life, the daughter of a murdered father from a family shattered by loss, a child born in New York City and raised in the bay area, a woman whose family was devastated by the Great Recession. I am grateful for all of those experiences however heavy they may be, not because they were easy but because they taught me what it means to fight for justice for all. I am a proud American. I often say Uncle Sam raised me. Because of that, I have always seen the people of this Nation as family, regardless of background: the people too proud to ask for help, the people who wake every morning and work hard, who struggle in silence, who hold on to hope that tomorrow can be better than today. I have seen some of the darkest corners of our society, but I have also seen its greatest light. I have met many Americans: refugees, immigrants, foster children, people with disabilities, families relying on food assistance, seniors stretching every dollar, and people who have trusted me with their deepest fears and hardest setbacks. They believe dignity belongs to everyone, regardless of faith, gender, education, income, background, or circumstance. That is the belief of the American Dream that still burns today so brightly. Millions of Americans are weary of the fighting, the rising bills, and being told to fear their neighbors while they struggle to make ends meet. They are tired of being overlooked by those in power, by the wealthy and those who have forgotten what it means to struggle. Americans deserve better. They deserve justice, dignity, and a quality of life worthy of the promise this country has made to them. They deserve to be able to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Their children deserve an excellent education and the brightest possible future. A person who is sick should receive excellent care without fearing financial ruin, and those in their golden years or those who have simply fallen on hard times should know their country has their back. That must be our purpose here: the people. As a policymaker, my goal is simple: to work with each and every one of you to deliver for the American people, regardless of party. These are our people. If we choose common purpose over division and people over politics, we can make the promise of America real again, because the American Dream does not belong to Republicans or Democrats. It belongs to every American who believes tomorrow can be better. I believe in that dream. I believe in this country. As patriots of this beautiful Nation, we have a duty to fight for one another, to see one another as fellow Americans, and to deliver on the promise to the people. I stand with you in this fight for the people of the greatest Nation. God bless the United States of America.

Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Wahab), the whole number of the House is 433.

The Chair will entertain up to 15 requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Penn State's National Security Institute, which advances national security solutions through research and partnerships with Federal agencies and industry. For decades, Penn State has remained focused on addressing the challenges facing our Nation's security. The launch of the National Security Institute is proof that the university is a trusted adviser for keeping the United States safe and secure. Penn State's commitment to innovation allows us to increase the capabilities of our military and improve critical technologies. The research conducted at the institute provides educational opportunities for younger generations and expands workforce development for businesses across our Commonwealth. This institute doesn't just impact Penn State. It reaches people across the State, the country, and the military personnel who rely on these technologies. The university's continued leadership serves our Commonwealth now and for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leading engineers, scientists, Federal officials, and businessowners who are dedicated to improving our country's national defense. I congratulate Penn State on this historic achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my constituents, Will Plunkett, who was recently selected by the Baltimore Orioles in the 2026 Major League Baseball draft. Will graduated from Mamaroneck High School this spring, where he led the baseball team to the Section 1 championship as the starting shortstop. During his senior season, Will had nearly a .500 batting average, hitting 6 home runs, knocking in 28 RBIs, and stealing 23 bases. Mamaroneck High School baseball coach Mike Chiapparelli describes Plunkett as a heck of a baseball player, being able to stay calm in a high-pressure situation, kind of like politics. Mr. Speaker, from the floor of the House of Representatives, I congratulate the Plunkett family and Will personally on this momentous accomplishment. I look forward to seeing Will on a professional baseball field very soon and on my television set thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, under the progrowth agenda of President Donald Trump--and backed by Republicans, Governor Henry McMaster, Speaker Murrell Smith, and Senate President Thomas Alexander--South Carolina is one of the fastest growing States in America, driven by the creation of jobs and affordability. South Carolinians are achieving bigger paychecks, opportunity, business growth, and creating jobs. The Working Families Tax Cuts Act keeps money in the pockets of families and seniors. Workers no longer pay taxes on overtime. Seniors benefit from the deduction on Social Security. Taxpayers saw average tax refunds reach over $3,000. South Carolina's gross domestic product is $393 billion, increasing by $26 billion since the current Trump administration. Promises made. Promises kept. In conclusion, God bless our troops. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing that war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump. Yesterday, Putin announced: "Necessary assistance" to Iran as Putin provided Iran targeting assistance to kill Americans and our Gulf allies with new missile strikes today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Barbara Matteson of Tucson, Arizona. I can't think of a major education event, rally, or protest in Tucson where I didn't see Barbara front and center. A lifelong educator, the first in her family to go to college, Barbara spent over 38 years as a classroom teacher in the Tucson Unified School Direct. As mentioned in her obituary, her ability to make learning fun and meaningful left a lasting impact. Being out and about in Tucson with Barbara inevitably meant being stopped by a former student who would share their stories of how she influenced their lives. As a union organizer and fierce advocate for public education, Barbara dedicated herself to fighting for our students, our teachers, and our schools. She showed up, She spoke up, and she never stopped standing up for what she believed was right. Barbara was not only a champion for education, she was a friend and someone who made our community stronger through her service and her commitment. To Barbara, I thank her for always fighting for our students, teachers, and schools. To Barbara's family, I thank them for sharing her with us. Mr. Speaker, may my friend rest in peace. I will always remember her.

Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't have a country without our brave men and women in law enforcement who risk their lives to keep us safe. Today, I have the privilege of recognizing a friend, a constituent, and a former law enforcement officer, Jeffrey A. Katz, from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District, whose dedication to honoring law enforcement officers has made a profound impact across central Virginia. Jeffrey A. Katz established the Lieutenant Jan McTernan Blue Friday Honor, a recognition that has been bestowed to many Federal, State, county, and city officers for their service and sacrifice. Mr. Katz' unwavering support to the law enforcement community extends far beyond the establishment of this honor. He is also a board certified mental health coach specializing in services for first responders and holds the certified advanced peer support provider designation from the Virginia Peer Support Association. Mr. Katz is an exemplary member of the Commonwealth, and I thank him for his commitment to the law enforcement community.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about politics. This is about a friend, a good man, a husband, a father, a superhero, whose not-so-secret power was that he just happened to be one hell of a public servant, not to mention his sport coat game which was unmatched. I don't have to talk about my personal experience with him as a mentor, as a leader, and partner on countless initiatives that always were about making things better for the people of Dellwood and of St. Louis County. When unrest ensued in 2014, Mayor Reggie Jones refused to let Dellwood be forgotten in the shadow of its nationally known neighbor. If that wasn't enough, he had another super, also not-so-secret, power, his service to our kids. Reggie poured countless hours into our young people long before he held public office. For more than 30 years, Reggie served as the Herbert Hoover Club director for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater St. Louis. The entire community mourns with his lovely wife, Rukiya; his children; family; and loved ones and is here for them. I will continue to honor Reggie by doing exactly what he would be doing if he were with us now, through work, the work for Dellwood, for St. Louis County, for our youth and anyone who needs a helping hand. Cool Reggie Jones, may his memory be a blessing and may his example be our charge. My friend will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend Kenny Cox, who passed away in July following a battle against Parkinson's disease. Kenny led a life defined by service, courage, and unwavering commitment to the men and women of our Nation's firefighters and emergency medical response teams. A firefighter right out of high school, Kenny was forced into early retirement because of a midcareer injury, but Kenny couldn't walk away from the cause he loved. For 37 years, he served in elected leadership roles in the International Association of Fire Fighters, including as its president. Kenny was the longest-serving elected official in the union's history, recipient of the District of Columbia's Silver Medal for Valor, and the IAFF's unofficial press secretary. He valued service to others and love of community and country, and both of these informed his work as a firefighter and as an organizer. As I noted at the dedication ceremony naming the IAFF Local 36 building in his honor, his hallmark was a profound care for his local members, their families, and the quality of training needed to keep our communities and firefighters safe. On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus leadership, I extend my condolences to his son, Ken Jr.; his sister, Karen Hallman; and his entire family. Kenny's wife sadly passed away after 61 years of marriage last year, and their beloved daughter, Michelle, who sang so beautifully at the annual Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service that so many Members have attended, lost her battle to cancer in 2020. May Kenny's memory be a blessing and comfort to all who serve on the fire line and the emergency response teams.

Mr. Speaker, over the August recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the incredible work being done by Verde Vida at their La Casita site and popup market at an elementary school in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City. Across multiple school-based sites in the city, Verde Vida and their partners work to rescue and repurpose perfectly good but unused fresh produce to distribute to families in need. Along with my colleague Congressman Adriano Espaillat, we got to visit with students participating in summer programming at the Magnet School of Inquiry and Expression. Students had the opportunity to pick out healthy snacks at La Casita's community fridge and then fill a bag of fresh fruits and veggies to bring home to their families. Seeing the kids' excitement over choosing fun and healthy snacks brought a huge smile to my face. Mr. Speaker, we ought to be uplifting more innovative models like Verde Vida that address food waste, promote nutrition and learning, and are rooted in trusted community spaces. We can and should end hunger now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the California School of the Arts in the San Gabriel Valley. Over the past decade, this special institution has inspired so many talented young students in California's 31st District to embrace their creativity and pursue their dreams as artists. I visited the campus earlier this year and saw firsthand the talent on display. Students here are equally dedicated to academic excellence and mastering the artistic process. It is truly an inspiration to witness. To the staff and educators, I congratulate them on their 10-year anniversary of setting our California-31 students up with the foundation for success. Best of luck on the new school year, and I wish them all success in their future academic and creative endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in recognition and honor of the positive impact of Dyckman Basketball and what it has had on the communities of Inwood, Washington Heights, and across Upper Manhattan. All summer, players and fans from the community descend on the famed court on 204th Street. I may say that the entire city goes there because of its caliber. In the 1980s, Kenny Stevens, Omar Booth, and Michael Jenkins established the Dyckman Tournament, seeing that basketball was a positive outlet for neighborhoods that were in the throes of the crack epidemic. Sharon Bond and Kenneth Stevens continue to be the leaders of this program. Since then, it has grown tremendously and now is viewed as the premier--not one of the premiers, but the premier--street ball contest program in the country, which draws crowds, sponsors, and talent from across the Nation. The courts are equally packed and lively during pickup games and exhibition games, which include top talent such as Kyrie Irving, J.R. Smith, and Kevin Durant. Basketball is integral to the identity and passion of New York's 13th District. We have the Dyckman Tournament and staff to thank for it. Don't forget: Go Knicks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a friend and a local hero in the San Francisco Bay Area, Dr. Kent Lee Sack, who sadly passed away in June. Dr. Sack, after completing a family medicine residency at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, was drafted into the Navy after his residency, where he served as a Marine Corps surgeon in combat in Vietnam. Returning to the bay area after his military service, Kent became an early provider of HIV care during the AIDS epidemic and established social services for patients, deeply connected to his patients. Kent's commitment to social justice led him to leadership roles in the Bay Area Physicians for Human Rights and the Rainbow Community Center in Concord, California. Kent will be remembered for his compassion and his commitment to equality. Please join me in honoring this great American and a dear friend, Dr. Sack, for his life of service to our community and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to what is happening in Hong Kong, especially to Joshua Wong. As a teenager, he led millions of people to the streets of Hong Kong to speak out for democracy and for freedom in Hong Kong and for the Chinese Government to honor its commitment to the Basic Law, which was the foundation of the transition in 1997 from Great Britain to the Chinese Government having control over Hong Kong. Speaking out for freedom should not be against the law. Since the Basic Law, the Chinese have passed a security law, which is anything but security. It is a repression law. Under this law, Joshua Wong has pleaded guilty to speaking out for freedom. He said: Yes, I have done that. He can be sentenced to life for speaking out for freedom. This House, this Congress, has always been bipartisan in joining together for freedom, whether it is in Hong Kong, whether in Tibet, or wherever in China, and for human rights in China. Let us not forget Joshua Wong at this time and not forget Jimmy Lai at the other end of life. Joshua Wong is a young teenager who is doing this now, or in his early twenties. Jimmy Lai is toward the end of his life in prison. We must speak out for freedom. We must not let this be ignored. The most horrible form of torture that the Chinese have over these people is to tell them that nobody remembers you or why you are here. We want to be sure that they know we remember them.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.

Pursuant to House Resolution 1499, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 1.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's job is to tell the American people the truth about the law, even when that truth is unpopular, even when a President doesn't like it, and even when Congress doesn't like it. That only works if the Court is independent. Alexander Hamilton expressed this in Federalist 78. He explained that the courts must be insulated from the political branches or they cannot do their job of protecting the rights of the people. Disagreeing with the Supreme Court is not just legitimate. It is American. We amend the Constitution, or we pass new laws. We elect Presidents who appoint different judges. That is how you change outcomes you don't like. That is the process the Founders gave us. But there is a world of difference between changing the law and changing the rules of the game because you don't like the last call. Packing the Court is not simply a policy disagreement. It is an attempt to change the structure of one of the three branches of government in order to guarantee the outcome you want. That is not reform. That is revolution. Here is the question every American should ask: If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? What stops them from doing the same thing? As Justice Breyer said, this will start an "arms race." Once you go down that road, the Court stops being an independent check on government power. It becomes another political institution controlled by whoever happens to hold the majority. We have already seen what this kind of rhetoric looks like. In 2020, Senator Schumer stood outside the Supreme Court and told Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: " . . . you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price." That was a threat, a threat that goes well beyond any normal policy disagreement. Mr. Speaker, 2 years later, an armed man was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh's home. Thankfully, law enforcement intervened before anyone was hurt. Words have consequences, and when political leaders convince people that the Supreme Court is illegitimate, some people take that rhetoric seriously. Some on the left aren't even hiding where this leads. The Democratic Socialists of America now openly call for abolishing the Senate and replacing the Presidency and the Supreme Court. I am not making that up. That is in their platform. Seeking to expand the Court is an admission that your arguments have not been good enough to persuade voters or your fellow legislators. We rely on a political process, including robust one-on-one debates, to convince voters that ours are the superior plans. When you can no longer convince enough voters that you have the best ideas, you have two choices: You can go back to voters with a better argument, or you can try to change the system so their vote doesn't matter as much. That is why the amendment before us is so important. It fixes the number of Justices at nine permanently. That is not because nine is a magic number. It is because a fixed Court cannot be expanded by whoever happens to win the next election. It makes the rule the same regardless of who is in power. To my friends on the other side of the aisle: We don't have to like every decision the Supreme Court makes. Heaven knows there are plenty of decisions I have disagreed with. That is not the point. The point is whether we are willing to live under a Constitution that limits our power even when we are the ones holding it. If we want to change the law, we can change the law, but we should not change the Supreme Court simply because we don't like the people sitting on it. Constitutional government requires accepting outcomes we don't like and fighting for change the right way: through elections, through legislation, and through the amendment process this very body is using today. Let's keep the Supreme Court independent. Let's keep it at nine Justices, and let's keep the Constitution bigger than whoever happens to be in power. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In this 119th Congress we have watched the President's followers in Congress surrender to the President one constitutional power after another. Amazingly, the Speaker and the MAGA party have abdicated nearly every single essential power that the Framers exclusively vested in us, Congress, the Representatives of the people. First is the power to declare war, which has been usurped by the President with catastrophic results for the country and without a peep from his sycophants in Congress. Next is the spending power, the power of the purse, the power to appropriate Federal dollars to spending and grant programs and to specify their purposes, powers that have been continually violated in acts of impoundment, nullification, and redirection by the President who has not only effectively shut down the Department of Education, USAID, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but has even helped himself, without any appropriation from Congress, to $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to give away to Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other convicted insurrectionists who attacked this body in order to try to overthrow a Presidential election in January of 2021; Next is the power to impose tariffs and taxes and the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, powers that have been ripped away from us without any protests from the majority so the President could launch preposterous trade wars against the world and aggressively insult and alienate our beloved neighbor and democratic ally Canada. They have abandoned even the power to decide whether or not the President should receive Presidential emoluments, gifts, payments from foreign governments as he piles up a pirate's treasure of hundreds of millions of dollars in gifts from foreign autocracies and monarchies. They have abandoned the unquestioned exclusive congressional power of Congress to build and exercise control over needful buildings and structures for the national government like the White House; the Reflecting Pool, which they are now calling the strait of warm ooze; and The Kennedy Center. All of these structures are being bulldozed, demolished, desecrated with Presidential graffiti, and renovated according to unilateral and independent executive decisions without even congressional consultation--all for the first time in American history. They are dangerously ceding our power to regulate the times, places, and manner of Federal elections conducted in the States to the post office and to our monarchically minded President who has no constitutional role in elections and was impeached by this Chamber for inciting a violent insurrection to try to overthrow an election, which he lost by more than 7 million votes, 306-232 in the electoral college. So what constitutional power do our colleagues propose to surrender today? Well, it is just a power that Congress has had since the beginning of the Republic under Article III, Section 1: the power to define the composition of the Supreme Court and the number of Justices who serve there. Over the course of our history, Congress has exercised this authority seven different times by changing the number of Justices on the Court. With the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress established the first Court with six Justices. In 1801, President Adams and Congress shrank it to five Justices. When President Jefferson won in 1800 and came back to power, then it was back to six Justices. In 1807, Congress expanded it to seven Justices when it created the Seventh Circuit, keeping to the congressional tradition of one Justice per Federal Circuit. In 1837, Congress expanded the number of Federal Circuits to nine and then added the corresponding two seats to the Court, bringing the Court to nine Justices. In 1863, Congress briefly added a 10th Federal Circuit during the Civil War and added a 10th Justice, giving Lincoln one more to appoint. In 1866, Congress went back to seven Justices. In 1869, President Grant and Congress increased the Court to nine again with another Judiciary Act, again, matching the number of Justices to Federal Circuits. That is the tradition of circuit riding. Today, we still have nine Justices, although we have 13 Federal judicial circuits, the vast majority of which are not represented by even a single Justice among the nine currently serving on the Supreme Court. In fact, the floor leader from Arizona has not only no Justices from his State on the Supreme Court, there are no Justices from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 67 million Americans living there. Five of the Justices today come from the New York City metropolitan area, basically one for each borough. Is it really possible that there are not people from other parts of the country who could effectively and honorably serve on the Supreme Court? Well, if we decided this on an originalist basis, we might move to place 13 Justices on the Court to match our 13 Federal circuits or we might go to 6 Justices, which was the original number there. However, MAGA's proposal is to strip Congress of all authority in the matter, to freeze it and cement it permanently in the constitutional architecture for all time, with the suddenly magic number nine. This is odd. Nine is neither the number of Federal circuits we have--that is 13--nor is it the original number of Justices Congress placed on the Court. That was 6. Therefore, what is going on here? Well, surprise, surprise, America, it is another partisan power grab by MAGA, our colleagues who fear for the results of the November election, as their policies have brought us nothing but war, inflation, corruption, lawlessness, and a $40 trillion debt, one-quarter of it supplied by this Presidential administration. The MAGA party wants to cement into place a profoundly partisan and lopsided 6-3 Roberts Court that was gerrymandered and engineered by Mitch McConnell after the untimely deaths of Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, each in the final year of a Presidential term. After Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, President Obama nominated my constituent, Merrick Garland, to fill the seat. Senator McConnell did not even allow hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less a vote in the committee, much less a vote on the floor. He said he wanted to let the people decide, and 11 months was too close to the next election; forgetting, I suppose, that President Obama had won one of those genuine constitutional 4-year terms in office. That seat sat open for a record-setting 422 days before they filled it with Justice Gorsuch. In other words, they were for an eight-Justice Court during that year, but when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, less than 2 months before the election, when early voting had already started in some States, Senator McConnell rushed through confirmation hearings and then a final vote for Amy Coney Barrett just 8 days before the 2020 Presidential election took place, laughing about this glaring disparity in treatment, acknowledging what everyone knew: Well, that 1-year rule was just for the Democrats. They were very happy to barrel through that nomination at the last moment. Now, by essentially stealing these two seats from the American people, MAGA has put four of the five seats in the ruling majority rightwing faction in the hands of Justices appointed by two Presidents who lost the Presidential popular vote--George W. Bush in 2010 and Donald Trump in 2016. The rightwing capture of the Court, fueled by corporate dark money and the Citizens United decision, has plunged this Court into a legitimacy crisis, an ethics crisis, and a jurisprudential crisis like has never been seen before in American history. Trump's followers in Congress now seek to freeze into place the political Court that MAGA built for decades to come. Thus, they urge us to give away another critical power that the Framers vested in us. As gas and diesel prices soar out of control and Trumpflation spirals up for groceries, healthcare, housing, as Trump's reckless and forever war of choice in Iran spirals downward, and America increasingly stands isolated in the world, MAGA wants to impose a straitjacket clamp-down on our democracy, our freedom, and our constitutional rights. The Roberts Court overthrew Roe v. Wade and destroyed the constitutional right of women to comprehensive healthcare in every State in the country. It demolished the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, and the Callais decision just this term. Also, these fraudulent textualists invented out of thin air Presidential immunity from prosecution for felony crimes committed in office. In Federalist 51, Madison said that the major safeguard against tyranny and despotism in America would be the natural identification and loyalty that Members of Congress would show to our own branch of government. We would stand up for ourselves, Madison thought. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," he wrote, but today's Republicans show no loyalty to the constitutional architecture of Congress, to our rights, our prerogatives, our powers. They are content just to keep their heads down, to close up shop, to go home as early as possible just to keep their jobs so the President will not mobilize social media and Elon Musk's money against them in a primary. They want to preserve their survivability, their marketability. What a humiliating and spectacular collapse of the tradition of congressional self-respect and constitutional patriotism. I urge every colleague in this body to oppose this ridiculous constitutional amendment and giveaway of congressional powers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I get it, that the gentleman does not like Donald J. Trump and that this is an ideological position he is taking, which is kind of what the scholars have said is the definition of Court packing. When you want to increase the number of people on the Supreme Court so you can effectuate your ideological bent, yes, that is Court packing. This isn't new, this position that we are taking today. This was introduced in the 116th, which was under Donald Trump. It was introduced in the 118th, which was under Joe Biden. By the way, it was Joe Biden's own special commission that said it would be wrong to actually increase the number of people on the Supreme Court. Now, we have introduced this in the 119th. I do appreciate the gentleman talking about Arizona needs representation on the Supreme Court. I also think we need representation in the Ninth Circuit--it would be nice if you could help us along there--the circuit, a court that actually goes from the equator to the Arctic Circle. You can't even get an en banc there because they have 29 justices, appellate judges. You can't get an en banc in the Ninth because it is all random. Anyway, back to the point here, my colleagues on the other side tell us that the Supreme Court has changed before. They are right. However, there is an important piece of history that they leave out. For much of the 19th century, the size of the Supreme Court was tied to the size of the Federal judiciary. As the country expanded and Congress created new judicial circuits, Congress added Justices to help carry those responsibilities, but that changed in 1869. Congress fixed the Court at nine Justices, and for more than half of the length of this country, it has been nine Justices, regardless of the number of circuits. There is one historical example that matters most to the question before us today, and that is Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1937, after winning reelection, was furious that the Supreme Court had repeatedly struck down parts of his New Deal as unconstitutional. That was the birth, perhaps, of the attempt to have an imperial executive. Instead of changing laws to comply with the Constitution, he proposed changing the Court. His plans would have allowed him to add up to six new Justices, and who would appoint those Justices? The President of the United States would. Who was the President? Franklin Roosevelt. Everyone understood what was happening. It wasn't about building a better courthouse. It wasn't about adding circuits. It wasn't about helping manage expanding judicial caseload. It was about changing the composition of the Court for ideological purposes. Here is what happened: The plan faced fierce opposition, including from members of Roosevelt's own party. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes pushed back. The Senate ultimately rejected the plan, and this is what they said--this is from the records today: "We recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle." Not holding firm at nine, but because you wanted--not you, but the Democratic Party at that time--not even the Democratic Party, excuse me, let's be very clear, one individual, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "It is a proposal without precedent and without justification," they said. "It would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights." "It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and establishes the method whereby the people may be deprived of their right to pass upon all amendments of the fundamental law." "It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America." Do you know what "it" was, the measure that they were so offended by? It was an attempt to pack the Court. Next time, I will probably start reading all the folks on the other side who want to do that very thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), for his leadership in this. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 1, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution that would require the Supreme Court of the United States to be composed of nine Justices. This action will uphold the Court's legitimacy, protect the checks and balances that defend our fundamental freedoms, and ensure that every American's rights will remain protected, regardless of who holds political power. For decades, we have heard calls from those unhappy with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court to pack the Court. The alarming rise of such calls should worry all of us because their objective is not to uphold ethical principles or even to protect individual rights but rather to consolidate power and intimidate the Court. Our Founders understood that liberty cannot survive when power goes unchecked. They therefore built a system of checks and balances, with an independent Supreme Court serving as a critical safeguard for the rights and freedoms of every American. The Court's role is not to advance a political party's agenda but to uphold the Constitution and protect liberty even when doing so means standing apart from the passions of the moment. At a time when our Supreme Court is facing ongoing and escalating attacks, Congress must and can act to defend it. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this proposed amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to support maintaining the integrity of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The floor leader offers a charming and completely self-defeating argument when he goes to the Roosevelt plan. FDR was a President, and Congress rejected his plan. The gentleman acknowledges that Congress has changed the size of the Supreme Court seven different times, and we have also declined to change it several times. Now, he describes what Roosevelt wanted to do as Court packing. This is Court packing on steroids. The gentleman wants to say that this President happens to like the people on the Court right now, through all of the packing and stacking and gerrymandering that has taken place in the last few years, and therefore we should freeze it, not just only for his own term but for all time. That is extraordinary. In the meantime, they have not offered a single argument to explain why nine Justices should be the number that we constitutionalize and place in cement forever. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), who is the ranking member of the Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I rise in opposition to this resolution. For decades, MAGA Republicans have systematically chipped away at the impartiality of our third branch. They have already delegitimized our judiciary, yet they now stand before the American people pretending to be guardians of judicial integrity. Today's blatant attempt to rewrite history would be laughable if the consequences were not so dangerous for our democracy, but history matters. The American people deserve to understand how we got to this moment. To understand how we get here, we must follow both the money and the machinery behind the modern conservative legal movement. The Roberts Court is the culmination of a decades-long crusade by Republicans to concentrate power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many by packing the United States Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts as well. Wealthy donors and corporate interests led by The Federalist Society spent billions of dollars to pack the judiciary with rightwing, conservative, corporate, polluting-serving judges and justices, and nowhere is the success of this decades-long Court-packing effort more visible than at the Supreme Court where a carefully curated, appointed, and conservative supermajority now delivers the conservative outcomes this movement spent billions of dollars to achieve, and achieve they did. In the last several years, the Roberts Court opened the floodgates to unlimited dark money in our political system, empowering billionaires and oligarchs and other powerful special interests to accomplish through the Supreme Court what they can't accomplish through the legislative branch, and that is to drown out the voices of ordinary Americans. Abraham Lincoln once said that: "This government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free." Yet that seems to be the vision for America that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito, and the other MAGA majority members on the Court believe. Where some enjoy easy access to the ballot box while others are forced to overcome legal barriers, this is not America. They want to make it such that the voices of those who look like Justice Thomas are quieter. Our Nation is now in Jim Crow 2.0. We are a nation where the right to vote can, once again, be diluted, restricted, or simply ignored and where the voices of rich and powerful people carry more weight than the voice of ordinary Americans; but, particularly, Americans who look like Clarence Thomas, who no longer have the equal opportunity to elect the Representatives of their choice. The American people deserve a judiciary that serves our democracy, not a narrow ideological agenda that only benefits the rich and powerful. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do think it is a charming and quaint argument to say that President Trump has packed the Court. Here are some patterns that you need to know just from the last term alone: 50 percent of the cases decided were decided unanimously. That doesn't sound like a packed Court, and only 5 of 57 cases, just 8 percent, were decided 6-3 with six Republican appointees on one side and three Democrats on the other. Ninety percent of the 57 cases were decided with at least one liberal Justice in the majority, 90 percent. The three liberal Justices voted together in fewer than one-quarter of the nine unanimous cases. That doesn't sound like packing. That sounds like a lot of thoughtful folks on the United States Supreme Court rendering decisions they believe in and they believe comprise constitutional opinion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. It is planned, and it is orchestrated. The Democrats' systematic attack on the independence of the Court has been going on now for several years, and it started right where the sponsor of the legislation read from first, when he said that Senator Chuck Schumer said: "I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh; you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price." Guess where he said that, Mr. Speaker, the top Democrat in the government at the time, where did he say that? It was on the steps of the United States Supreme Court. Then, of course, 1 year later, Democrats--not just any Democrats, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee--introduced the bill to go from 9 to 13, the Court-packing bill. Why did they want to add four? Why not one? Why not two? Why not three? Why four? It is because they want to take the Court from a 6-3 conservative majority Court to a 7-6 liberal Court. It is all planned. Then, of course, we had the systematic attacks on two Justices in particular, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. They even had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee where they brought in the guy who was demonstrated to be a liar when he was trying to say that Justice Alito was involved in leaking an opinion. That was total garbage. Then, of course, we had the real leak, the Dobbs leak, on May 2, 2022. What happened after that? Mr. Speaker, 150 churches and crisis pregnancy centers around the country were attacked, not to mention the planned assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh in the aftermath of that leaked decision. This whole systematic, orchestrated, and planned attack on the independence of one of the separate but equal branches of our government is serious stuff. Then, of course, we now have the Democratic Socialists of America who want to get rid of the Court. They want to get rid of the Senate, and they want to replace the President. This is their party, the once great party. We mentioned FDR in this context, but in the broader context, the once great party of FDR and JFK is now controlled and is now anti-Israel, socialist, and all kinds of crazy ideas that go to the heart of what our country is about and our Constitution. This is a good piece of legislation. Maybe this is a question these guys want to answer, Mr. Speaker. Maybe they want to answer some of these questions. Do they support replacing the Presidency? Do they support replacing the Court? Do they support abolishing the United States Senate? That would be an interesting question for the folks on the other side. We know they want to pack the Court. Do they agree with the Democratic Socialists who want to abolish the Court? I thank the gentleman and also one of our other colleagues, Mr. Johnson from South Dakota, who has worked on this legislation for a long, long time. This is important. This is important because we know where they want to go. We should remember when the Democratic Socialist Mamdani was sworn in as mayor of our largest city 9 months and 2 days ago, he said: "I was elected as a Democratic Socialist, and I will govern as a Democratic Socialist." These are their principles. Does my friend and colleague, Mr. Speaker, on the other side, controlling the time, the law professor, does he agree with what the Democratic Socialists are saying? That would be an important question for this body to understand. Mr. Speaker, I thank the guys who sponsored this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the interesting questions raised by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Jordan, in seriatim. First of all, anything that we do to try to improve the fortunes and the well-being of the American people, our colleagues call socialist. They call Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid socialist. That is just water off our back. The President talks about communists. The only communists on Earth today are his best friends and his role models, like Kim Jong-un, who he writes love letters to, and President Xi, who he has praised more than two dozen times in public. How about Vladimir Putin, who he follows around like a puppy dog? Vladimir Putin was head of the KGB. If there is a problem with communism, it is over on that side of the aisle. The gentleman legitimately asked the question: Why did the former chair of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler, advocate for an increase of four seats on the Supreme Court--which we are not debating today? What we are debating is whether Congress should have the power to do anything, to increase or reduce the size. He asked about that. It is a legitimate question. I will tell you exactly why. The gentleman may be unfamiliar with the history here, but Congress has traditionally linked the number of Justices on the Court to the number of Federal circuits. We have 13 Federal circuits. His proposal was to go from 9 to 13. Even the gentleman's beloved Ninth Circuit--which I think he is supposed to be representing in some sense--would be represented on the Supreme Court. We could have one Justice from each Federal circuit. That is what circuit riding was all about. You don't need some conspiracy theory to explain it. He was very overt about why he wanted to go from 9 to 13, which we could discuss another day. Here the question is whether we should nullify, obviate, and destroy our own power to decide who should be on the Court. Still, the gentleman has not offered one single argument explaining why the number nine should be magic other than it cements into place all the decisions of this rightwing Roberts Court. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, I am here to emphasize that this proposed constitutional amendment would undermine our system of checks and balances and fly in the face of the Founders' wisdom. I think it would be a grave mistake to dictate how many Justices should sit on the Supreme Court in perpetuity and, thereby, lock in for a generation, or more, a rightwing majority, which has engaged in an unprecedented assault on Supreme Court norms and our constitutional order. For the past several years, in the wake of the Court packing that occurred during the first Trump administration and under the Senate leadership of Mitch McConnell, constituents have called for Supreme Court reform at every townhall that I have held. Those calls have grown louder in the wake of each decision that has lessened our individual rights and liberties or enabled the administration to avoid accountability or overrule the powers and duties reserved to the American people through their Representatives in Congress and in the ethical lapses of the Court's own members. People are paying attention. They are demanding a Court that is more responsive to we the people than to an administration that is beholden to special interests and oligarchs. The American public, the Founders, and the Constitution demand more than a misguided constitutional amendment that would permanently tie Congress' hands by capping the number of Justices, especially when there are more pragmatic solutions that have not yet received due consideration. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Biggs' constitutional amendment. As Congressman Jordan mentioned, this is serious business. Just like it is serious business about what the other party did on letting 20 to who knows illegals in this country to create a power base. That is who you are going to have to answer to, the public. That is who this country is paying for now. The 20 to 30, who knows, illegals in this country. Why don't you pass the SAVE Act, which is just a verification that you are an American citizen to vote? This is following a dangerous path, and I am glad the citizens are finally showing up to recognize the problem that we have with this. Just the other day, my Democratic colleague Jim Clyburn said he wants to pack the Court with 13 Justices. I couldn't disagree more. South Carolina doesn't need a baker's dozen of Supreme Court Justices. We need politicians to respect the independence of the nine that we already have. Court packing was a bad idea when FDR tried it in 1937. It is a bad idea today. Even members of his own party pushed back against this scheme. FDR wanted to reshape the Supreme Court that was standing in the way of his agenda. The same principle is at work here today: When you don't like the ruling, change the Court. The Constitution does not guarantee either party the Supreme Court decisions it wants. Losing a case is not justification for adding Justices. Thirteen is not some magic number. Once politicians start changing the size of the Court to get favorable rulings, there is no logical stopping point. Today it is 13. Tomorrow it could be 17 and then 21. That would turn the Supreme Court into just another political arm of Congress. Mr. Speaker, you don't protect democracy by changing the rules every time you lose. You protect it by respecting our institutions, even when you disagree with the outcomes. The answer is to take Court packing off the table permanently, which is why I support this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Biggs for bringing this amendment up. The fact that we are having to debate this and fight what this leftwing socialist group is trying to do to this country is serious.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. By "leftwing socialist group," I assume the gentleman is referring to the Framers of the Constitution. It is the Framers who set up the system. They are trying to overthrow the system that the Framers created. The Framers gave Congress the power to control the number of Justices on the Court. Where does the number nine come from? I still await a single positive argument for why we should inscribe into law forever the number nine as the number of Justices we should have and nullify the power that the Framers of the Constitution and the Founders of the country gave to us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, today, the GOP is proposing a constitutional amendment to lock in the current conservative Supreme Court. In fact, it would take away the power of this Congress to reform the Court. The question is why? Who asked them to do this? Where did this proposal come from? Why are Republicans arguing that they have to protect the Court from reform? This is a Court that has, under this conservative majority, undermined democracy, undermined our rights, and undermined the system of checks and balances that make this country great. These reforms would bring equity, fairness, and ethics to the Court. Why are my colleagues across the aisle bringing this constitutional amendment? It is clear in the debate here on the floor itself that they don't even know how many Justices are currently sitting. In fact, my colleague across the aisle just claimed that there are currently 13 Justices sitting on the Court. What is this? Political theater? Is this what you plan to run on because you don't actually have an agenda to run on this election cycle? Because you have decimated the economy, because you have an unending war in the Middle East, and because Americans can't afford their healthcare, their housing, and putting food on the table and a roof over their head, I am a hell no on this resolution, and I will vote "no."

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will add to the remarks of the distinguished gentlewoman, this point: It is interesting that our colleagues suddenly want to dabble in constitutional amendment politics. Nobody is crying out for this, as my colleagues have argued, but you know what people want by 85 percent? People want the equal rights amendment. Where is the Republican Party on that? They used to support it. Three-quarters of Americans, more than 75 percent, want to overturn Citizens United by a constitutional amendment, which transformed every corporate treasury in America into a dark money political slush fund. We want to get rid of that. How come they are not here today on that? How about a constitutional amendment on the right to vote or abolishing the electoral college and giving us a national vote for President? We have commanding popular majorities that want all those things. Yet, they come forward with a constitutional amendment no one is talking about where you need two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-quarters of the States. You can measure the sincerity of this whole proposal by virtue of the fact that there is no national movement for it in any way. This is, again, another little bone that is chucked over toward the White House to show them that they want to freeze into place the vanishing power of Donald Trump. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I get a kick out of their arguing about following the constitutional tradition and talking about using the constitutional system. That is exactly what we are doing. We are using the constitutional system. This is not the first time this has been offered. This has been used multiple times. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today's debate has convinced me more than ever that we need to cap the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. Now, for the last 5 years, I have been a leader in this push to keep the nine, and I am thrilled we are taking this measure up today. In Washington, we have a habit of weaponizing everything for political advantage. Seemingly no norm is safe, and indeed prominent leaders on the other side of the aisle have promised us that they will pack the Court with four more Supreme Court Justices when they regain power. Now, the size of the Supreme Court should not be an arms race. It should not swell after an election to be able to grab some additional political power. That is the stuff of banana republics and authoritarian regimes. By the way, I am not making that up. You can look across the globe in recent history and you can see Hungary increasing their court to 15. You can see Turkiye increasing their court to 17. You can see Venezuela increasing their court to an eye-watering 32 justices in the pursuit of political power. This is not a theoretical threat. Let's look to history. For 150 years, nine Supreme Court Justices have served us well. The gentleman from Maryland indicates that there is no possible reason that somebody could support nine as the right number. Actually, Supreme Court Justices support nine as the number. They think that is the right size of the Court to have a collaborative, deliberative, functional Court. That is the Goldilocks spot, and it is not just conservative Justices who say it. Retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said nine was the right number, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, before her death, said nine was the right number. They are joined by thousands of legal minds across the political spectrum. That, the gentleman from Maryland should know, is the right reason to set nine. Today, we have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to heed those bipartisan calls, to remove a weapon in the hands of partisans, to defend and to protect a longstanding judicial norm, and to place the number of Supreme Court Justices as nine in our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I support the measure before us today. Let's keep the nine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman quotes me as having said that I said there was no possible reason that someone would want nine. No, I didn't say that at all. I think there might be a number of reasons. One very clear one is they want to freeze into place the majority they have in the Court right now, a majority that was created by the most suspect political maneuvers on the Senate side. The gentleman would like to lionize the number nine and place it in cement. Why wasn't it nine when Senator McConnell blocked any confirmation or vote on a replacement for Justice Scalia after he died? He kept it at eight for an entire year in order to get to the next administration so they could put Justice Gorsuch in instead of my constituent, Merrick Garland, who is one of the most talented people ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He was the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, and they kept him off. Eight was fine with them then. Now, they want to go to nine because President Trump likes it just fine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this constitutional amendment that would lock the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. The more I listen to this debate, the more it is abundantly clear to me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no desire to use the power that was given to us under the Constitution. When President Trump starts a war in Iran, they refuse to pass a War Powers Resolution. Now I am hearing an argument that we should lock the number at nine because that is what the Supreme Court wants, but that is not how the Constitution works. The Constitution says that it is Congress that has the power to set the size of the Supreme Court. It is our call, and this has happened multiple times in the history of this country. Ask yourself, why would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to give that power away? Because they want to lock in this Supreme Court--this Supreme Court that has gutted voting rights, this Supreme Court that has taken away a woman's right to choose, and this Supreme Court where Justices take secret gifts and private jets and answer to absolutely nobody. Americans are asking for something in the Supreme Court. They are asking for reform. They want to see ethics reform. They want to see term limits. They want to see a Supreme Court that reflects the American people and not just the few, a small group of elites. Congress should be using its power, not giving it away. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote "no."

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 1, proposing a constitutional amendment to maintain nine Justices on the United States Supreme Court. The composition of the Supreme Court has consistently been maintained at nine members for over 150 years, a period of time during which the Court issued some of its most important constitutional jurisprudence. Throughout these years, and as the Founders intended, the Court has served as a vital check on government power, blocking those actions that violate the Constitution and threaten individual liberty. We must remember that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. In recent years, however, and as the Supreme Court has correctly returned to its originalist roots, there are many on the left who have sought to politicize the Court. They justify their actions not because the Court's decisions do not fully comport with the Constitution but because such decisions undermine the leftist views of the world and the radical agenda as described repeatedly today by those on the other side. Their solution to losing these constitutional legal arguments isn't to seek to change the law but to attack the Supreme Court and threaten to pack it with judicial advocates. They thus seek to upend and eradicate 150 years of precedent to further their political agenda, an agenda that they have been unable to pursue through the legislative process. We know their agenda is both unwise and unpopular amongst the American people and will only serve to politicize a body that was always meant to be independent and impartial. Calls for packing the Supreme Court, whether it be from FDR over half a century ago or from elected Democrat officials in the 21st century, are designed to do one of two things: threaten and hold the Court hostage to control its decisions or to load it with political actors so as to change its nature entirely. Members of this body and the American public at large should recall that when one branch of government consumes another and controls its functions, the Republic ceases to exist and we descend into a state of tyranny, which is what the Democrats are seeking and especially the Democratic Socialists of America. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Biggs and Chairman Jordan for their leadership on this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, quickly, just as Congress has exercised its authority seven different times to reduce the size of the Court or increase the size of the Court according to appropriate historical circumstances, it has rejected numerous proposals to do that, including in the famed Court-Packing Plan. I don't know why our colleagues insist on thinking that FDR's field proposal is somehow an argument for giving our power away. We exercised our power properly in that moment. The gentlewoman from Wyoming refers to the Democratic political program. I am not sure what she is referring to, but it is certainly the opposite of the GOP political program of endless war, inflation, corruption, illegal tariffs, and billion-dollar ballrooms. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Supreme Court of the United States is not a partisan prize to be captured. It is an independent branch of our government, and it must remain impartial. My colleague's amendment to limit the Supreme Court to nine Justices preserves judicial fairness, ensures unbiased decisionmaking, and upholds the constitutional duties of our Nation's highest court. Some on the left have advocated for expanding the Court to 13 Justices, paving the way for the majority of leftwing ideologues to sit on the Supreme Court under future Presidential administrations. We cannot simply change the rules because one side thinks that they are not getting their way enough. That is not how a constitutional republic works, Mr. Speaker. This is what happens in the Third World, and it cannot happen here in America. Democratic Socialists, kind of an oxymoron, are on the rise, and they want to pack the Court so they can impose an agenda the American people never voted for. Look at what happened yesterday. Democrats could not even vote against socialism because their own party is overrun by self-proclaimed socialists. We already saw what the far left did under Joe Biden by opening our borders. Just imagine what they would do with a court packed with DSA judges. The proposed expansion of the Supreme Court is not about faithfully interpreting the laws of the United States and the Constitution. Rather, the expansion would support a radical leftist agenda, repugnant to the ideas in equality, liberty, and impartial justice under the law of our Founding Fathers. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am moved by the remarks of the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado. It seems to me if it doesn't make money for the Trump family, they call it socialist. That is interesting, especially when it is President Trump who is taking large pieces out of American corporations, like Intel. No other American President has done anything like that. He is, obviously, the state socialist and hanging around and palling around with every communist dictator on Earth. Again, we have not heard a single positive argument for why we should cement for all time nine as the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. I am beginning to conclude that there simply is no argument. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).

Mr. Speaker, you will hear from advocates of Court expansion that the Court is a mere rubber stamp for Trump. This is a Court that defied Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, to deport people without a hearing, to send troops to Chicago, to use emergency powers to impose tariffs, and to revoke birthright citizenship by executive order. Some of my colleagues on both sides may be surprised that I just uttered those words, but those are not my words. Those are the words of three of my former colleagues, three former State Democratic attorneys general, who strongly support the Keep Nine Amendment and disagree with my friends on the other side: Chris Gorman from Kentucky, Steve Rosenthal, and Tony Troy from Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is sad that until this Congress, this was a bipartisan issue. It wasn't a Republican issue. It wasn't a Democratic issue. Back when I served my State as attorney general in 2020, I wrote to the then-sponsors of this measure in this body and expressed my support for it, and it was a Republican from Virginia and a Democrat from Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I include both of these statements and letters in the Record at this point. State of Kansas,

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported the Keep Nine Amendment because I think it is the right thing to do for our Republic. As has been stated here many times in today's somewhat jovial but I think very serious debate, turning the Supreme Court into a political football, whose size is expanded first by Republicans, then by Democrats, whoever has the political will and whoever is aggrieved at the moment will undermine that Court's ability to perform its unique and critical constitutional function. For all of the distress that my friends on the other side have right now in their complaints about the Court, I assure this body those will be magnified manyfold if we allow ourselves to get into a bidding war over the size of the institution across the street. Mr. Speaker, I have sat there seven times at counsel table. I have argued three causes. I have second-chaired four others--

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas.

I will tell you that sometimes I like how the court rules, behaves, and questions. Sometimes I don't like it. I have been on the winning end. I have been on the losing end, but neither of those is a justification to attack the institution itself. My friend asks why nine and why would we give up our power? And the answer to that is we are not giving up our power because it is not within our power to do so. We are asking the people of this country, through the process that the Constitution establishes, whether they want to restrict our power and protect their Court at nine. We should say "yes," and I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 1.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

The gentleman from Arizona has 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

The gentleman from Maryland has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, finally, a serious argument. I thank the distinguished gentleman, the former attorney general of Kansas, for responding. First of all, he describes this as the Keep Nine Amendment. If you want to keep at nine, you don't need a constitutional amendment. You just make that argument in Congress, just like people argued in prior centuries to keep it at ten or keep it at six or let's move to seven, so we don't need to freeze it into the Constitution. Secondly, he says that this should be a bipartisan issue. It should not be partisan. Agreed. We should have a bipartisan commitment to the handiwork of the Framers. It is in the Constitution that it is up to Congress. Yet, the gentleman leaves us by saying: Well, we are actually going to turn it over to the people to decide whether to revoke this power that the Framers invested in Congress. Of course, that is what it would mean to amend the Constitution. Why would we want to do that? We have dealt with this in a responsible way throughout American history. We are suspicious that our colleagues first gave away the war power to the President. Then they give away the spending power by letting him just abolish entire agencies and entities, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, USAID, and the Department of Education. Then they give the President the power over tariffs, which we have because we have the power to regulate commerce domestically and internationally, and he imposed the largest tax in American history unilaterally. That is what a tariff is. It is not a tax on China or any other country. It is a tax on our businesses and our people. Now we are in a trade war with Canada. If you travel to the north of Michigan in the Upper Peninsula, you go to the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, you go to the Adirondacks in New York, the small businesses are crying out for help because Canadians are boycotting us because of the whimsical, irrational, and deranged trade policies of this administration. We have real problems to deal with. We don't really need to be giving away the powers of Congress and upsetting the proper balance of powers that was set by the Framers originally. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, one still searches in vain for a single justification for why we would surrender and abdicate yet another power that Congress has in the Constitution, this time freezing it into the cement of constitutional architecture for all time, that there will be nine Justices. Mr. Speaker, they haven't even explained what that means. For example, let's say another Senate decides to do what Mitch McConnell did and hold a seat open for a year. Now that we have written a number into the Constitution for the first time, does that mean that the Supreme Court can't meet or can't vote? It is a serious question. In other words, can the Supreme Court not operate if it doesn't meet the magic number of nine? They haven't told us, which shows this is just frivolous political confetti that is being thrown into the air. It is not an attempt to really think through the powers of Congress, the powers of the Court, and so on. My friend from Kansas said that the Court shouldn't be a political football, and I agree with him about that because there are important things entrusted to the Court, like the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and due process, all things under attack by this administration. Their gerrymandered Supreme Court, well, they have done all right sometimes, not as good as the district courts and the appeals courts have done. We have won more than 80 percent of the cases against President Trump in those courts, which is why they have been calling for the impeachment of judges, including Republican-appointed judges like Judge Boasberg, who was appointed by President Bush. They have called for his impeachment. That is making a political football out of it. We have had colleagues who have put up posters to impeach this judge and impeach that judge. They wanted to have a hearing about it in the Judiciary Committee, where they are talking about it. That is making a political football about it. I think we can all be intellectually honest. We know after Brown v. Board, the right-wingers, the anti-integrationists said to impeach Earl Warren, and the Republican platform for decades had language attacking the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. People have a right on all sides of the political spectrum to express what they feel about the Supreme Court, but why suddenly should we amend the Constitution of the United States to revoke our own powers simply because President Trump happens to like this Supreme Court and they voted for his immunity from felony crimes committed while in office, the so-called textualists and the so-called originalists. Where do you see in the Constitution anything about the President having immunity? When the Framers wanted to write immunity into the Constitution, they did it, like through the Speech and Debate Clause for Members of Congress. Maybe that is what they are going to want to give up next, the Speech and Debate Clause protecting us from prosecution by the executive branch for saying things that he doesn't like. That is not in the original Constitution. The President has it, but they made it up. Where did that come from? The stork brought it. They invented it. They call themselves originalists. It wasn't in the Federalist Papers. It wasn't in the original Constitutional Convention records. It is not in any of the ratified convention records. Where did that doctrine come from? They made it up. Mr. Speaker, we all can argue about what the Supreme Court does, but nobody yet has made a single satisfactory argument about why we should freeze, for the first time in American history, the number of Justices at nine when it has always been up to the Representatives of the people in the House and the Senate. Let me just close on that thought. The Senate already gets some say over the Supreme Court by rendering the power of advice and consent. The only power we have is the power they want to give up. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consternation my colleague across the aisle has when he says that he hasn't found any arguments persuasive. Let me tell you something: He would never find any of these arguments persuasive because he wants to pack the Court. His very argument is that if you pass a constitutional amendment, you can never change the Constitution. It is absolutely one of the most specious arguments I have heard because if you amend the Constitution, guess what. Does that mean that that amendment itself, that you have brought in, can never be amended again? No, because the system is clear, the system that he has been arguing against this entire time. The system, the Constitution itself, allows us to say to the American people: We would like to amend the Constitution. We are going to give it to you. We think this should be done. Mr. Speaker, that is really what we are talking about here. We are talking about this failure to appreciate the position that they sit in. They say that this whole thing, quite frankly, has been about Donald Trump. That is what their whole argument against this has been. Oh, they passed this immunity clause. Where did that come from? Well, maybe stare decisis. That is what they argue. That is where the Court is. Take a peek at that. Yes, go back and read it. You will enjoy it. Here is the deal. They sit right now upset over a few decisions that this Supreme Court has made. They cannot accept that you have probably three conservatives, three liberals, and three in the middle. That is where the Court sits today. An amendment freezing this at nine, first of all, doesn't mean that you can never amend it again, but it also doesn't mean that these are going to be the same nine in perpetuity for eternity. They want to set aside a tradition that has been in place for over 150 years. They make this argument regarding the circuits. Guess what. Those circuits have changed and changed, but oddly enough, we have kept it at nine. Instead, they want to negate and have ignored what their personnel have said for the last few years, ever since Donald J. Trump was reelected, ever since you put some new people on the Court, even though, as we take a look, they are winning cases against this administration. Yet, they say that we have to take and expand this so we can get to 13. That is what they want. Why do they want it? It is because they want to make it progressive. They want to turn the Court around. They want to change its ideological principles or what they perceive to be ideological principles. That is what they want. They want to pack the Court. That is what packing is. It is where you put a number there. That is why Stephen Breyer said and that is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, no, don't do that. Justice Breyer said that if you do that and it is 13 next time, does it become 21 after that, or 50, or where does it end, because it becomes a political arms race at the Supreme Court. We are saying not to get into a political arms race. Let's make it permanently nine. Let's give it to the voters. That is a rational thing. It will never be persuasive to these folks, and that is too bad because guess what. This has been comfortable. The Biden administration was comfortable with nine. This particular provision was proposed in the 116th Congress, in the 118th Congress, and now again in the 119th Congress. It didn't matter whether there was a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. What it meant was let's make sure the Supreme Court is protected from those who want to change it ideologically. That is where they are. That is why everyone should be supporting this particular amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) that the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 1.

In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 1501) to amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities as a covered project, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Pursuant to House Resolution 1499, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources printed in the bill is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.

The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

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 H.R. 1501.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of 2025, which extends FAST-41 eligibility to mining and mineral processing projects. I thank my colleague Representative Jefferson Shreve for introducing this important piece of legislation, which will bring much-needed efficiency and transparency to our domestic mining permitting process. On average, it takes 19 years to bring a new mine into operation in the United States. Permitting delays drive up costs, halt economic growth, stifle innovation, and increase our reliance on foreign adversaries. Since taking office, President Trump has moved swiftly to set America on a path to mineral dominance. President Trump's March 2025 Executive Order 14241 entitled: "Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production" identified mining as a priority for national security and directed the Permitting Council to publish additional mining projects to its FAST-41 dashboard. Under this administration, the Permitting Council has published 60 additional mining projects on the FAST-41 dashboard. Mr. Speaker, 22 mining projects and counting have completed the Federal permitting process under the dashboard. I will say, yesterday that was 21. They just completed another project this morning. This impressive record stands in stark contrast to the Biden administration, which over 4 years, did not complete a single Federal permitting process for a mining project through FAST-41. Permitting efficiency is crucial to building critical infrastructure projects. Extending FAST-41 eligibility to mining projects would help meet our Nation's increased demand for energy and mineral resources, and it would provide greater certainty for the domestic mining industry. It is not enough to just mine here at home. Our country also needs mineral processing capabilities to secure our domestic mineral supply chain. Crucially, this bill extends FAST-41 eligibility to both mining and mineral processing projects. We must have a comprehensive mineral strategy that engages and bolsters the entire supply chain. Developing domestic processing capabilities encourages the onshoring of industrial sectors and strengthens domestic supply chains from mining to manufacturing. H.R. 1501 would also prohibit any future administration from finalizing or implementing the Biden-era proposed rule to narrow FAST-41 coverage to only critical mineral mining projects. Narrowing FAST-41 eligibility in this manner would further increase our country's dependence on foreign nations and adversaries for mineral production. The U.S. Geological Survey annually publishes the "Mineral Commodity Summaries" that provide astonishing data on our net import reliance of certain minerals. The report, which is illustrated behind me, highlights our Nation's overwhelming reliance on foreign sources of minerals, including from adversarial nations. If you look at this list, and I know the print is small, the major supplier for most of these critical minerals is China. Mr. Speaker, we need these minerals to build a better future. We have the safest, most sophisticated, efficient, and environmentally friendly mining technology in the world, and we also have the workforce to match it. The United States should be leading the world's mineral supply chain. Representative Shreve's legislation is an important step in strengthening domestic production, securing supply chains, and ensuring that America leads the way. I thank Representative Shreve again for his work on this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is our third day back from a 5-week recess. We have 15 days left here in Washington before the election. It should be a time that we are trying to get some real work done, but instead of doing that, instead of doing a single thing to help our constituents who are struggling under skyrocketing costs of groceries, gas, and electricity bills, Republicans are scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with any bill that their chaotic Conference can find a way to pass, and one of the surest ways, it seems, is to find a way to do another favor for the President's friends and for foreign-owned mining conglomerates. We could actually use some responsible, balanced mineral policy in this country to meet our needs, but, of course, that is not what we are here to do today. We could all agree that we have been overreliant on adversaries for critical minerals for too long. As demand for these minerals grows, we should also want to strengthen our domestic and allied supply chains strategically with American security, sustainability, and human rights at the center of those efforts. Unfortunately, this administration seems to have a different approach. They are throwing billions of taxpayers' dollars at the projects that only seem to benefit themselves. There is a lot of money flying right now in the name of strengthening the mineral supply chain, but when you look beneath the surface, it is going to projects that will not actually help the American people. We have seen this administration make major investments and backroom deals with mining projects with no transparency about who benefits, about what the national security rationale is, or how these decisions actually reduce our dependence on foreign adversaries. Who is actually benefiting? The President's sons, Secretary Lutnick's sons, and campaign donors are all profiting off their personal investments and business ventures. Democrats are asking questions. Unfortunately, we are not getting any help from our friends across the aisle. We are getting stonewalled. Handing out favors to industry and boosting your children's stock portfolios is not a mineral strategy that helps the American people. Now this brings us to H.R. 1501. This bill would codify mining and mineral processing as covered sectors under FAST-41. FAST-41, of course, creates an alternative permitting pathway for covered infrastructure projects. It covers 18 specific sectors, including energy production, surface transportation, semiconductors, and more. The FAST-41 permitting process includes some positive transparency provisions like a centralized public platform that tracks Federal permitting timelines and milestones. Covered projects can also receive additional coordination and resources to help agencies move them through the process more efficiently. It also places some limits on public input, including for Tribes. It also limits judicial review, and it includes limits on court-ordered protections. Here is the thing, Mr. Speaker: We have just heard the main rationale for this bill, that we have to make sure critical minerals mining projects and the processing projects for those critical minerals are eligible for FAST-41. They made it sound as if today's bill would finally make that possible. Well, I have a news flash for everyone. Mining is already a covered sector under a regulation adopted during the first Trump administration. Mineral processing projects are also allowed on FAST-41 as manufacturing, so we have an advertised solution here to a problem that does not exist. What is this bill all about? That is the other half of the bill, the part that would potentially tie the hands of this and future administrations from using FAST-41 in a smart and targeted way that would focus on actual critical minerals projects that were in our national interest, that were all about our national competitiveness. I will explain. The Permitting Council, which implements FAST-41, has limited resources. Its job is to provide additional coordination and attention to projects that meet the statutory requirements of FAST-41 coverage. Under this bill, every single mining project could be eligible for that treatment, regardless of whether it advances our national interests, our strategic mineral needs, et cetera. FAST-41 Permitting Council is required to put all eligible projects forward even though they have limited resources. The Biden administration began considering a regulatory change to limit coverage to just critical minerals. That is what this bill is all about. H.R. 1501 would block that change from ever taking effect. That regulation was not finalized. It is not being implemented, but this bill would preemptively block anything like that from ever taking effect. Under this bill, a gold mine with no connection to our national security could receive FAST-41 treatment. The same would apply to a mine controlled by a foreign adversary or a mine that plans to ship its minerals straight to China for processing, with no benefit to the American supply chain. Under this bill, the Permitting Council would be required to devote precious time and resources to expedite these projects, to the detriment of real critical minerals projects, and it may prevent a future administration from ever narrowing the scope. How does that make America more secure? The answer is it doesn't. Democrats have offered straightforward solutions. We have proposed targeted FAST-41 coverage for projects involving critical minerals, projects that actually strengthen key supply chains essential to our national security and our economic resilience. We also proposed preventing companies owned or controlled by our foreign adversaries from receiving this fast-track status. These amendments were rejected by Republicans in committee and blocked from consideration on the floor here today. This should not be a partisan issue. We have the opportunity to build a mineral supply chain that is secure, resilient, and independent of our foreign adversaries. To achieve that, we should be making strategic investments, not handing out blanket favors. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say that my colleague just made the case for why we need this bill. As I have testified, the Trump administration has 60 projects on the dashboard. They have completed 22 projects. The previous administration completed zero projects under FAST-41. Both administrations had access to use the FAST-41 process, but some administrations choose not to use the process. These mining projects now take an average of 19 years to permit. That is down from 29 to 30 years just a few years ago because we have seen projects permitted more quickly under this administration. Our need for critical minerals and mining spans administrations. We need certainty in the process so that we can access the supplies of ore that we have here in the United States to meet our own demands. If we start playing political permitting ping-pong from one administration to the next, that gives no certainty to investors in America to use our own materials. That is exactly why we need to codify this, so that it gives everybody a fair shot to use the process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Shreve), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the House's consideration of my bill, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act. The purpose is straightforward: Qualified American mining and mineral processing projects should have access to a coordinated, transparent, and timely Federal permitting process. That is what FAST-41 provides. It brings Federal agencies together. It establishes a public timetable, and it holds the government accountable for reaching decisions. No environmental law is waived. No project is rubber-stamped. FAST-41 simply ensures that our Federal Government conducts its reviews efficiently and reaches a decision. Mining was added as an eligible FAST-41 sector back in 2021. It was the right decision. In my home State of Indiana, we build things. We build cars, engines, aerospace systems, defense equipment, and the infrastructure that powers communities. All of these depend upon reliable access to minerals and processed materials. Copper carries electricity. Iron ore and other inputs become the steel used in our vehicles, bridges, and buildings. Critical minerals support our military and advanced-manufacturing base, in Indiana and across our country. Yet in 2023, the Biden administration proposed narrowing the mining projects eligible for FAST-41. Under that proposed rule, a company could invest millions of dollars developing an American project, only to learn that a shifting Federal definition had made it ineligible for that coordinated review. It creates uncertainty, discourages investment, and pushes mining and mineral processing abroad, often to supply chains dominated by China. We should not make the United States more dependent upon a strategic competitor for minerals essential to our economy and our national security. My bill does two things. First, it writes mining and mineral processing directly into the FAST-41 statute. Second, it prevents implementation of the 2023 proposed rule that would narrow the sector's eligibility. America can maintain high environmental standards and still build. We can conduct thorough reviews without accepting needless delays, and we can produce more of the materials we need here at home, under American laws, with American workers, and in support of American national security. I thank Chairman Westerman for his leadership and Congressman Blake Moore for partnering with me on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting Domestic Mining Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The chairman has touted the number of projects added to FAST-41 under the Trump administration. Therein lies the problem. Many of those projects are not critical minerals. The Permitting Council only has so much budget, only so many resources in order to administer this FAST-41 process. When you throw the door wide open to any old sand, gravel, gold mining project, when you invite in projects that might just have investments from the President's sons or Secretary Lutnick's family or your Mar-a-Lago oligarch pals, when the door is widened in that way and there is no new resources for the Permitting Council, then actual critical minerals projects and projects that are actually important to our competitiveness and our national security suffer. They go more slowly. They get less attention. The Chair is actually making our point. We need to allow prioritization and focus so that this FAST-41 process can actually work as it was intended to work. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act. At a time when we should be strengthening environmental protections, respecting Tribal sovereignty, and ensuring communities have a meaningful voice in decisions that affect their land and water, this bill moves us in the wrong direction. I offered an amendment that would have required robust, meaningful, and enforceable consultation with potentially impacted Tribal nations before a mining project may be eligible for expedited permitting under FAST-41. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make my amendment in order, denying this body the opportunity to even debate or vote on a very basic principle: Tribal nations deserve a meaningful seat at the table when mining projects threaten their lands, resources, and communities. My amendment would have ensured that Federal agencies uphold the United States' trust and treaty obligations by engaging in intentional and substantive consultation with Tribal Governments. It would have made clear that consultation is not a procedural checkbox but a meaningful government-to-government dialogue. It would have also ensured that no mining project could receive expedited permitting treatment unless the affected Tribal nations had been engaged from the earliest possible stages of the project's development. This issue has become increasingly relevant in my district with the Hermosa Project in the Patagonia Mountains, southeast of Tucson, Arizona. Its designation as the first critical minerals project under FAST-41 highlights the growing use of expedited permitting frameworks. While FAST-41 is intended to improve efficiency, mining is among the most environmentally consequential sectors it covers. Expedited timelines must not come at the expense of meaningful public participation or environmental assessment. We have already seen the consequences of insufficient engagement and analysis. The town of Patagonia formally requested a comprehensive groundwater study of the Patagonia mountains from the Coronado National Forest in both 2020 and 2021, specifically citing concerns related to the proposed Hermosa project. Despite these repeated requests, and the support of my dad, Congressman Raul M. Grijalva, the study was never completed. For that exact reason, I sent a letter to the U.S. Forest Service in April to follow up on this same request. This gap leaves significant uncertainty about potential impacts to groundwater and undermines public confidence in the adequacy of the review process. I also think it is noteworthy that I kept hearing: American project, American project. This specific project is run by an Australian mining company. When I met with local leaders and community members in Patagonia, they raised serious concerns about their drinking water, their health, and the long-term sustainability of their aquifers. Those concerns are not abstract. They reflect lived experience and legitimate questions that deserve answers before, not after, decisions are made. What these experiences make clear is that the communities closest to these projects cannot be left to react once decisions are already in motion. They must be engaged from the very beginning, with their voices meaningfully incorporated into decisionmaking.

The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment does not slow progress. It strengthens it. By ensuring Tribal nations and impacted communities have a real seat at the table, we produce more informed and more mindful policy outcomes. Respecting Tribal sovereignty and listening to affected communities is not optional. It is a fundamental obligation. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 1501, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will, again, point out no Tribal consultation and no environmental laws are waived. This is just a process to fast-track permitting. Also, I point out that when the ranking member talked about any old sand or gravel mine, that sand and gravel--gravel and then sand are the two main ingredients in concrete with Portland cement being the third, which is another product that we rely on about 20 percent of imports. Concrete is the main ingredient in housing and in public infrastructure. The cost of concrete affects the cost of housing and public infrastructure projects. It affects Americans. If we want to address high costs, we should be opening more of these sand and gravel mines and producing more Portland cement here so that we can have more supply and lower the costs here at home. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, which will ensure domestic mining projects are able to enjoy the benefits of title 41 of the bipartisan and wildly successful FAST Act. I thank my colleague Representative Shreve for his leadership in bringing this legislation forward. The FAST Act has been used to permit and build countless projects that are necessary for our country's national and economic security, and under the Trump administration, mining projects have been eligible and have advanced. By codifying mining and mineral processing projects, we will ensure that these important projects are able to enjoy this benefit, no matter if we have a pro-mining President like President Trump in office or an anti-mining President like President Biden in office. My district in northern Minnesota is home to proposed projects like the NewRange Copper Nickel project, which is enjoying the benefits of FAST-41 as a transparency list project as they pursue their section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act, a permit that was pulled by the previous administration for purely political reasons. Thanks to FAST-41, I am confident NewRange won't fall through the cracks and will be granted their permit when they meet and exceed all our strict environmental standards. This is a great benefit more for not only northern Minnesota but a benefit for our entire Nation and our strategic mineral national security. By codifying mining and mineral processing projects' eligibility into law, NewRange and other important projects won't have to worry about the rug being pulled out from them again the next time we see a change in administrations. It will further give a strong signal to the private sector that the Federal Government is committed to securing our mineral security and mineral independence, no matter who is in the White House. Representative Shreve's legislation will send a strong signal: We are ready to mine here in the United States once again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a little blinding flash of the obvious: When it comes to sand and gravel, we are not dependent on China or any other foreign adversary or any other foreign country. We have a lot of sand and gravel in this country. This is not about critical minerals. This is not about our competitiveness. It is about sand and gravel which we can mine, as we always have. It is not what FAST-41 was intended to do or intended to benefit. But you just heard it right here on the floor in this debate, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues on the one hand are selling this bill as urgent to meet our competitive situation with China. On the other hand, they are opening FAST-41 wide open to anything that can be pulled from the ground including sand and gravel. It just makes no sense whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This administration's corruption playbook is impacting industries across the board and raising costs for working families like the ones I represent. Their next target is the mining industry. Representative Grijalva offered an amendment that would require the Secretary to ensure there is meaningful and robust Tribal consultation for any mining project to be eligible to be covered under FAST-41. This amendment was not accepted. I represent four of Oregon's nine Tribal nations and one-third of the members of two others. Tribal consultation is critical to my district and to our State. We tried to make this bill better and protect Tribal consultation, but Republicans voted against it. Too often, essential Tribal consultation and community engagement are treated as a box-checking exercise. Consultation is a process, not an event, and it is our trust responsibility to ensure this happens. Tribes deserve a real say in mining projects that could forever alter and destroy the lands they have stewarded since time immemorial. This legislation does not make our supply chains more secure or even ensure that more of the domestic critical minerals that we need will get mined for American workers. This issue affects mine and Representative Huffman's district in that there is a foreign company that is looking to mine low-value minerals that will destroy drinking water, fish habitat, and recreational opportunities on the Smith River. We do not need to be a cheap date for foreign entities so the President and his family and his donors can get rich off the companies that they are personally invested in. That is not in the best interests of Americans or American workers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and work on something better for the American people and the resources that we depend on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, to strengthen America's security, unlock economic investment, and support thousands of hardworking men and women. As chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, I held a field hearing in Indiana earlier this year focused on the mining industry. I heard and saw firsthand how innovation and emerging technologies have transformed mining operations. These conversations reaffirmed what we all know: America has abundant natural resources, and when producers have a fair and efficient permitting process, they can safely and competitively access those resources to keep prices down, supply chains stable, and people employed. Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration sought to implement excessive permitting burdens that slow domestic production, increase costs on both producers and consumers, and deepen our dependence on foreign adversaries like China for essential minerals. These misguided efforts threaten both our national security and our competitive edge by narrowing the scope of projects eligible for expedited permitting. The Protecting Domestic Mining Act reverses that course. By expanding eligibility for fast-tracked mining permits, this bill cuts permitting delays and gives American producers the certainty they need to invest, innovate, and build here at home, creating more jobs for American workers. If we want to build on our manufacturing momentum, Congress must ensure we have reliable access to the critical minerals that support a surge in modern manufacturing. The Protecting Domestic Mining Act strengthens American manufacturing, encourages job creation and economic growth, and ensures we can fast-track projects, reducing costs for producers and consumers alike. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1501 and uphold American competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of support from the American Exploration & Mining Association, Essential Minerals Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and National Mining Association.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act. This bill extends the streamlined, coordinated permitting process under FAST-41 to all mining and mineral processing projects and blocks a Biden-era proposal that would have narrowed eligibility and deepened our dependence on foreign adversaries for the minerals America needs. Mr. Speaker, no State has more riding on this than Alaska. We are the fourth-largest mineral producer in the Nation, sitting on world-class deposits of rare earths, antimony, zinc, cobalt, and more. Yet, with over 60 percent of our State under Federal management, permitting timelines often extend for decades. That kind of paralysis does not help Alaskans, and it doesn't help the rest of America. It only helps our adversaries. While Washington dithers and delays valuable projects, China floods markets, corners processing capability, and wields mineral exports as leverage against American industry and military readiness. Alaska has the resources to help end our dependence on China for critical mineral production and processing. H.R. 1501 doesn't ask agencies to skip environmental review. It asks them to run it once on a predictable timeline rather than dragging responsible projects through duplicative reviews and years of shifting requirements. Alaska has shown time and again that resource development and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. Our Nation has the capability. What we have lacked is a Federal process that lets projects get built. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill. It strengthens our mineral supply chains, supports good-paying jobs in Alaska and across the country, and advances American resource independence. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman, Representative Shreve, and colleagues on the House Natural Resources Committee for their work on this important piece of legislation. Every modern economy, every advanced technology, and every military capability depends on these kinds of minerals. Copper, iron, lithium, rare earths, and other minerals are essential to our power grid, our manufacturing base, our defense systems, and the technologies that will define our future. Yet, we continue to rely heavily on foreign nations, including our geopolitical adversaries, for the minerals we need to manufacture these products. That is a national security vulnerability. The problem is not that America lacks these resources. We certainly have them. The problem is that it has become easier to permit a mine almost anywhere else on Earth than here at home, so the mine is developed somewhere else; jobs go somewhere else; and the supply chain we depend on ends up running through countries that do not wish us well. Endless permitting uncertainty does not protect anything. It simply hands our competitors the advantage over the industries that power our economy and national defense. I represent Utah, and I have seen what responsible mineral development looks like. Utah has a proud history of it. Today, mining supports in our State more than 43,000 jobs and contributes billions of dollars to our economy. The Protecting Domestic Mining Act takes an important step toward fixing that problem. It ensures that mining and mineral processing projects can benefit from a predictable and coordinated permitting process. Republicans are cutting through Washington's red tape to give American producers the certainty that they need. Without it, nothing gets built. No one invests billions in a mine that takes a decade to complete if the rules might be rewritten in 4 years. Mr. Speaker, this is about whether America can still build what it needs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we agree with the gentleman from Utah that we need to be taking seriously our dependence on foreign adversaries when it comes to critical minerals and processing. That is why time and again my Democratic colleagues and I have offered amendments to make sure that when it comes to opening up our public lands--and, in this case, when it comes to opening up the benefits of this fast-tracked FAST-41 process--we are not handing it over to our foreign adversaries. We have proposed amendments time and again, and those amendments have been opposed by our Republican colleagues. We have yet to hear a good reason why they keep opposing this, nor is there one. The language we have proposed time and again comes from one of their own Republican colleagues, the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party chairman, Mr. Moolenaar. We have proposed his exact language time and again as a commonsense guardrail to make sure that our public resources and the benefits of this fast-tracking are not simply used to hand a gift to the very foreign adversary we say we are so terribly concerned about. It keeps getting rejected time and time again, which makes you wonder what this bill is really about. It is definitely not the competitive rivalry with China. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would note that Congress has already addressed this issue of foreign ownership through previous legislation, and it has passed well-considered restrictions on Chinese ownership. The amendment that was offered would create an ambiguous standard that could inadvertently prevent non-Chinese publicly traded companies from mining domestically. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, already reviews foreign investments in American businesses to assess any national security risks. Mr. Speaker, if you support our domestic supply of critical minerals, this bill provides the regulatory certainty necessary to strengthen domestic mineral supply chains. If you support weakening China's global control over minerals, then I would say join us in voting for the Protecting Domestic Mining Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the Protecting Domestic Mining Act. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to give the ranking member, the gentleman from northern California, another opportunity to agree with a Utahn today. I am very proud to co-lead this legislation, including this bill, with Representative Shreve and sincerely thank Chairman Westerman for his leadership on this issue. This committee is about getting things done. This committee is about being productive, and it is an honor to have been on this committee and to continue to be associated with it. I am glad to see this very important bill progress through our Chamber. It is no question that the American domestic mining industry is critical to our national security and our energy dominance. In Utah alone, mining supports over 43,000 jobs and contributes over $5 billion to our State GDP annually. Across the country, those numbers jump to nearly 600,000 jobs and over $375 billion to our GDP. Growth in this sector has historically been difficult. It takes an average of 19 years for a new mine to go through the permitting process. These delays unnecessarily burden our growing supply chain demands and create further reliance on Chinese mineral production. The FAST-41 Program was a move in the right direction to ensure more efficient and predictable timelines when working with the Federal Government to open new mines. The increased coordination and cross-agency engagement are exactly the kind of improvements that our government needs. Unfortunately, the Biden administration decided that only certain types of mines should be eligible for FAST-41. This bill corrects that decision and protects the eligibility of all hardrock mines. We often speak about the importance of supporting domestic production and the risks associated with overreliance on countries that want to see us fail. We have a real opportunity to change our programs, to support domestic industry, promote American energy and national security, and fulfill our responsibility to make government work better for the people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this argument that we need this legislation to address our dangerous dependency on foreign adversaries for critical minerals continues to ring very hollow. One of the ways that we can avoid being too dependent on foreign adversaries is to develop trading relationships with our allies, none closer to us than Canada. Canada, for example, is one of our largest mineral trading partners. They exported about $76 billion in minerals to the United States in 2025. If making sure that we are not dependent on adversaries like China was really important to us, I should certainly hear a lot of alarm from my friends across the aisle about the fact that President Trump is starting a trade war with Canada, our neighbor, one of our closest allies and a critical minerals trading partner that makes us less dependent on foreign adversaries. Instead we hear crickets. He is even trying to rename Lake Ontario to further antagonize this trading partner, and we hear nothing from the other side. This bill is about many things, but it is certainly not about reducing our dependence on minerals from foreign adversaries. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act. The United States of America is one of the most richly blessed nations on Earth. We have an abundance of resources and expertise and are good stewards of both. For far too long, we have let nations that despise us control our access to critical minerals that power our economy and our military. Right now, China refines over 90 percent of the world's critical minerals. They graduate 3,000 mining engineers a year, while the United States graduates between 160 and 300. That cannot continue to happen. This bill does something that is very simple and overdue: It makes mining and mineral processing permanently eligible for streamlined Federal permitting. Endless red tape does not protect a single acre of ground. It only protects China's monopoly and smothers American innovation before it can break ground. This bill does not gut environmental review. It clears out the paperwork maze so we can build responsibly and build fast. Let's be honest about who does this work best. No workforce on Earth is treated better than the American miner. No nation mines and processes minerals cleaner than we do. We should be proud to do it and do more, not be ashamed and fall further behind our adversaries. A real mining strategy cannot change every 4 years. H.R. 1501 puts that certainty into law so American workers and American companies can excavate, invest, and build with our workers knowing there is always going to be steady, well-paying jobs that will support their families. We have the minerals. We are rebuilding our workforce. All we need now is a government that gets out of the way. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this administration has demonstrated that it is all too willing to abuse the tools at its disposal to promote projects that simply line the pockets of members of this administration, their family, and their oligarch pals. I will give you a few examples. Not too long ago, the Trump administration announced that it would invest over a billion dollars and take an equity stake in USA Rare Earth, a mining and manufacturing company. Reporting uncovered that USA Rare Earth hired Cantor Fitzgerald, a firm chaired by Brandon Lutnick, the son of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. How about that coincidence? Last October, the Trump administration announced equity investments in the mining company Trilogy Metals while simultaneously directing agencies to fast-track permitting for Ambler Road, the controversial project needed to access Trilogy Metals' proposed mine site. Trilogy Metals' third-largest shareholder is John Alfred Paulson, a Trump MAGA donor and economic adviser. His Trilogy shares increased by $70 million in value after that announcement. The administration is making a pattern out of picking winners and losers in the mining industry and a suspicious number of those winners have close ties to Donald Trump. These deals tie taxpayer dollars to corporate balance sheets and incentivize administration officials to prioritize individual corporate interests over the broader public good. To date, there has been no public disclosure of safeguards or procedures to ensure that these ownership stakes do not influence permitting, regulatory enforcement, contracting, and other agency decisions relating to these mining and minerals projects. Before we give this administration yet additional power to enrich themselves at the expense of everyday Americans, let's get some answers to some of these questions we have been asking about all this corruption and self-dealing. We have been talking about whether the administration should prioritize when it comes to doling out the limited capacity of the FAST-41 Permitting Council. If everything is a priority, nothing is. H.R. 1501 ties this and any future administration's hands from doing any prioritization to make sure that FAST-41 permitting is limited to critical minerals projects. This does nothing to help lower prices for Americans. It just gives gold mines or even mines owned by our foreign adversaries the same access to FAST-41 streamlining as minerals projects needed for our national or economic security interests. This ties up limited staff and resources meant to get nationally important projects built faster. It gives this corrupt administration another tool to abuse, to help their buddies get ahead. Let's be clear, even though the Permitting Council is supposed to work with any eligible project that is put forward by a sponsor, we know that that won't stop this administration from pushing to prioritize their favorite projects, which seems to be determined more and more by the President's profits than by the public interest. This is an administration that has repeatedly put pressure on agencies to do favors for their buddies, whether that is pushing the National Park Service to give part of Yosemite to a private developer or making a call to the Department of Defense to speed up a funding deal for a mining company with ties to the President's son. Why would this permitting be any different? To rein in possible abuses, we did offer commonsense amendments to limit fast-track eligibility to critical minerals projects, projects that are by definition actually critical to our national and economic security, but Republicans voted it down in committee and then blocked it from even being considered here on the House floor. Let's be clear: This legislation is not about what is best for our country. It is about giving one more of the President's favorite industries carte blanche for special treatment. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this administration has sent a clear message that we must support our domestic miners and processors. This legislation isn't about our current administration. There is a bit of illogic in the minority's argument. On one hand, they say: Why do we need this legislation, because the administration already has the authority to do projects under FAST-41. They are exactly right, just as the Biden administration had authority to do projects under FAST-41. Anything this administration has been doing to permit mining projects, they can still do, whether we pass this bill today or not. This is about the future of mining in our country. This is about giving people certainty that if they go through the process to build a project, they will be able to invest and get a return on that project to supply those critical minerals and other mined products that are important to our country. It has also been said that the Permitting Council doesn't have the bandwidth to do more projects. The Permitting Council has testified that they are: "well situated to bring in additional projects and continue to show that FAST-41 works for projects of all shapes and sizes." The bottom line is that supporting our mining industry is foundational to our economic and our national security. For the United States to reestablish American leadership in the mining sector, it is crucial that we pass this legislation to secure our mineral supply chains. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1501, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 1499, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The question is on passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.J. Res. 1; and Passage of H.R. 1501. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) that the House suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), my friend and manager of the Democratic baseball team.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Coach Roger Williams and the Republican team on their victory in the Congressional Baseball Game. It is well-deserved. I have to say I was very proud of how hard the Democrats worked this year. They spent the entire spring improving their batting, and it showed from the plate, even if it didn't show in the box score. Morgan McGarvey led and went 4 for 4, including a ground rule double that nearly cleared the fence. Dave Min added two RBI singles up the middle. Johnny O was hitting the ball well all night but got robbed by an absolutely outstanding catch from Senator Schmitt. Please don't let the other Chamber know I just congratulated a Senator. As proud as I am of this team, I am even more proud of what we all accomplished together, Democrats and Republicans alike. I have always said that two things that bring people together are sports and music. After playing in this game for nearly 20 years and coaching the Democratic team for the last 3, I believe that now more than ever. Despite our political differences, Republicans and Democrats came together to enjoy America's pastime, celebrate our Nation's 250th anniversary, and raise money for a good cause. Together, we raised more than $3 million for D.C.-based charities and scholarships for area students, and that is something we all can be proud of. Again, I congratulate Coach Williams and the entire Republican team. I am already looking forward to next year when Democrats have a chance to break your winning streak and reclaim that trophy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager very much for those kind words. Mr. Speaker, on June 10, 2026, we had a game at Nationals Park. Nearly 40,000 people attended, breaking a record. As we have already heard, $3.2 million was raised for charity. We had co-MVPs for the Republican team. We didn't play that good, but we played good enough to win. I thank Greg Steube who pitched a full seven innings and in seven innings threw only 97 pitches. I also thank Senator Schmitt for making a catch that made ESPN's top 10 catches for that week. We are proud of that. We won seven in a row, and we plan on doing better next year. We have lost some players, and I thank Morgan Luttrell and Randy Feenstra for all the time that they have committed to the game. To recover from the loss of players, you have to go recruit players. We are trying to do that now so we can be competitive, Linda, when we play next year. That is what we want to do is be competitive. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my players for their hard work. We had a good first workout today. It was not too cold. It was good. We played pretty good this morning. The game is great. Baseball is the greatest game there is. It is always there. We plan on being as good as we can play next year if we can get the right people, but it is an honor to represent the team that we have. It is an honor to take this trophy. For the seventh year in a row, Republicans have received this, so let's get the trophy. The Democrats have a good team. They are very competitive. May God bless everybody. See you next year.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 1501) to amend the FAST Act to include certain mineral production activities as a covered project, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

The question is on the passage of the bill. This is a 5-minute vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true daughter of Tennessee, Dolly Parton--a woman who needs no introduction. Dolly was a native of my district in East Tennessee, and she was from Locust Ridge in Sevier County. She never forgot where she came from. Her music told the truth about hard work, faith, and family, and that truth is why the whole world fell in love with Dolly. But it was her heart that made her a legend back home. She rebuilt the community after the wildfires in 2016 that tore through Sevier County. She opened doors for children to learn to read through her Imagination Library. She supported healthcare and research for Tennessee families. She protected the mountains that she loved. Most people will know her theme park that is in the district called Dollywood. She was guided by her faith and her East Tennessee upbringing, and Dolly used her success to lift people up around her at every turn. My prayers are with her family and everyone who loved her. The Tennessee delegation is committed to ensuring that her legacy is remembered for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to serve as the dean of the Tennessee delegation, and it didn't come too soon. Time is running out. Dolly Parton was a phenomenal Tennessean, probably the best representative we ever had. She never looked down on anybody. She had a big heart. Whenever there was a tragedy or somebody in need, she came forward and wanted it to be anonymous. She was a good human being, and she had a beautiful voice. I had a friend who was involved in the music business in the early seventies in Laurel Canyon when the Eagles and others were getting together. He told me about Dolly being out there, and that is where she got to know Linda Ronstadt and others. He said she had such a beautiful voice, and she did. She will be remembered forever for all she did for humanity. Tennessee is proud to have her and will always love her.

Mr. Speaker, she was a funny lady. She had a lot of quick sayings--and I won't go into that--but we lost an icon, not just to us in Tennessee but to the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House now observe a moment of silence in her memory.

Will all Members and those in the gallery please rise for a moment of silence.

Today, we honor the lives of Cameron Davis Capara and Vincent Anthony Siqueiros, who were taken from us far too soon in an act of gun violence and hate at the Venture-N in Tucson, Arizona, a cherished place for queer people across the city. This type of targeted violence does not happen in a vacuum. It is cultivated by anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, laws, policies, and executive orders. And it is a direct consequence of this body's failure to act on gun violence. Cameron and Vincent should still be alive today. Mr. Speaker, how many more parents need to bury their children before Congress takes action to address the gun violence epidemic? How many more people need to die before this Chamber stands up to the gun lobby? Our communities are sick and tired of hearing our thoughts and prayers. We should be acting today to pass commonsense gun safety laws and to combat hate and violence targeting our LGBTQ folks. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join members of the Arizona delegation and the Congressional Equality Caucus in a moment of silence to honor their lives and commit this Chamber to action.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 9535.

The gentleman's request is granted.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska?

Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 10193.

The gentlewoman's request is granted.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 4586, H.R. 1114, and H. Res. 179, all originally introduced by Representative Cherfius-McCormick of Florida, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of John P. O'Malley, a devoted husband, father, grandfather, and respected law enforcement investigator, who passed away peacefully on July 16 at age 73. Born and raised in the Bronx, John spent more than 20 years with the New York City Police Department, becoming one of the Bronx's most respected homicide detectives. Known for his integrity, professionalism, and investigative skill, he was widely regarded as a detective's detective. After retiring from the NYPD, John continued his commitment to justice as an investigator with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, earning the respect of prosecutors, agents, and investigators alike. But above all, John was a devoted family man. He and his wife, Annie, built their life in Pearl River, where they raised their children. My thoughts and prayers are with Annie; his sons; and especially his beloved grandchildren, who were his pride and joy. John will be remembered for his honor, humility, humor, and unwavering dedication to his country, community, friends, and family. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight Dukku Lee. Mr. Lee is retiring from his position as general manager of Anaheim Public Utilities, where he oversaw the electric and water utilities for over 350,000 residents, 15,000 businesses, and 25 million visitors annually. In his 33 years in the industry, Mr. Lee has guided major investments in Anaheim in groundwater treatment, underground power lines, new high-voltage substations, renewable resources, and the new Sustainability Education Center. Mr. Lee has made an immense improvement to the city of Anaheim, and I am proud to work with him and to see all of his accomplishments. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Dukku Lee and his 33 years of work for the good city of Anaheim. I congratulate Mr. Lee, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in his next career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the service of Marilla town supervisor Earl "Skip" Gingerich, Jr. Skip was a farmer, a patriot, and a man who deeply loved his community. His untimely passing is a profound loss for the people of Marilla. As a lifelong resident, Skip understood what made Marilla special, and he understood that preserving its traditions and rural way of life required work and dedication. I had the honor of joining him at Marilla's America 250 celebration, where he inaugurated a liberty bell as a reminder that freedom is never free. He tended to the town with the same care that he devoted to his third-generation family farm. He was a proud advocate for agriculture and a true steward of the land. Whether at the barn or the town hall, Skip embodied integrity, hard work, faith, and service. My prayers are with his family, his friends, and the entire Marilla community at this difficult time. May God bless Skip Gingerich, and may he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Boating Caucus, I am so proud to recognize Spencer Yachts, Bayliss Boatworks, and the skilled men and women who keep eastern North Carolina's boatbuilding tradition alive and strong. Boatbuilding is more than an industry. It is part of our coastal heritage, our economy, and our way of life. Visiting these businesses, I saw firsthand the craftsmanship, innovation, and pride that goes into building world-class boats. These companies support good-paying jobs, train skilled workers, and strengthen communities across eastern North Carolina. They also showcase what American manufacturing can accomplish when we protect our coastal economy and preserve our rich maritime heritage.

Mr. Speaker, during the August work period, I visited the Dilley family immigration detention center with my colleagues to see conditions firsthand. Over 500 people are being detained in inhumane conditions, including pregnant women, children, infants, and babies who are just 2 months old. These individuals should be living their lives, getting ready for school, and raising their families. Children should not be detained. Dilley must be shut down, and ICE must be abolished. While Republicans continue to let ICE run out of control, working families are struggling to afford basic essentials like groceries. I visited the North Valley Caring Services in North Hills to see the work that the L.A. Regional Food Bank does to help families who are struggling with food insecurity. I spoke with healthcare workers about the importance of protecting Medicare for our constituents. I visited a Head Start program to learn about how Republicans' cuts make it harder for working families to thrive. What I heard from my constituents at all of these visits is that they need relief from Republicans' affordability crisis.

Mr. Speaker, free Sama Safi now. Sama Safi is a 20-year-old U.S. citizen and honors student of psychology who was kidnapped from her home in the middle of the night by the Israeli forces. For exactly 3 months today, Sama has been suffering in the Israeli military prisons. Sama has a severe chronic medical condition that requires daily medication. Her doctors say that she could have irreversible organ damage. Mr. Speaker, 40 of my colleagues and I, along with 6 Senators, sent a letter to Secretary Rubio demanding him to work on her release immediately. I have actually spoken directly to Sama's parents, who are terrified for their daughter. They tell me that they wake up every morning hoping to hear Sama playing her music. They told me that Ben-Gvir, Israel's Minister of National Security, went to the women's prison where Sama is being held, and he taunted the prisoners and assaulted detainees. He mocked the inhumane conditions, saying that it is what they deserve. Sama doesn't deserve this. No one does. She deserves to be home with her family, studying for her classes. Free Sama now.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years after the Lahaina wildfires, survivors are rebuilding and finally returning home. They should be welcomed back and not told that the basic services they had before the fire are now gone. Yet, the United States Postal Service is denying street delivery to rebuilt homes and forcing residents to use cluster mailboxes instead. That is a slap in the face. A cluster mailbox is not a welcome mat for families who fought to come home. It is an insult. Now, adding insult to injury, the U.S. Postal Service is considering permanently closing the downtown Lahaina post office damaged in the fires, with little notice and virtually no meaningful community input. The United States Postal Service needs to restore home delivery, stop the closure, and listen to Lahaina. Our community has already lost enough. Recovery means restoring what was lost, not taking more away.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the contributions of NBA Finals MVP Jaylen Brown to the city of Boston on and off the court. Born in Marietta, Georgia, and drafted number 3 overall by the Celtics from the University of California, Jaylen embraced our community and the city of Boston from the day he arrived in 2016. Fiercely competitive on the basketball court, never missing the playoffs in his 10 seasons with the Celtics, he has been equally driven to uplift those around him through mentorship in his nonprofit, Boston XChange, which seeks to build wealth in communities of color, as well as his 7uice Foundation, connecting young people in and around Boston with opportunities. In 2022, just before the Celtics turned their season around and made it all the way to the NBA Finals, Jaylen stated simply: "The energy is about to shift." Mr. Speaker, thanks to the example, impact, and influence of this brilliant and proud Black man, the energy has shifted in Boston. Jaylen delivered banner number 18, the most in NBA history. His legacy as an advocate, truth teller, community builder, justice seeker, and champion will endure. Job well done. We thank him. His faith, consistency, and hard work have certainly paid off.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am calling to ban data centers in residential communities and to ban Federal funding for Flock cameras. We can't have a surveillance state in America. We didn't fight a revolution to be ruled by tech billionaires. Americans are for innovation but not for the extraction of natural resources. Americans are for safety but not for the abuse of their privacy. We need guardrails on this technology. Communities should have the right to say "no" to a data center being shoved down their throats, and we should have the right for women not to be surveilled by Flock cameras by rogue police officers. As a Representative of Silicon Valley, I am calling for democratic accountability of this technology revolution. We the people should call the shots.

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the House Agriculture Committee and grew up a potato farmer's daughter in Buhl, Idaho. I now represent Maryland's most agricultural district, Maryland's Sixth District. It encompasses 1,200 farms in Frederick County alone, the Agricultural Reserve in Montgomery, and specialty crops and livestock farms in Garrett, Allegany, and Washington Counties. I represent all working families in the Sixth that eat food and trust that our government has the necessary resources and mechanisms in place to ensure that it is safe. Unfortunately, that trust has been broken. That probably is what Project 2025 and massive cuts to our agencies has been all about. This summer, more than 17,000 Americans were confirmed sick with cyclospora, the largest outbreak of its kind in our history. Nearly 500 were hospitalized, and two died. The lettuce came from a facility that the FDA had not inspected in 7 years. That is not bad luck. It is a choice. The administration has cut the FDA by 23 percent. It is closing the USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center facility. It has cut USDA by 25 percent and the CDC by 28 percent. The administration is requiring States to not track cyclospora at all. We need to reinstate the resources necessary to make sure that our food system is safe. National security is food security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill with Ms. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act. No student or professor should be shut out of research, study abroad opportunities, academic partnerships, or feel unwelcome in the classroom because of where they are from or what religion they practice. Yet, that is what boycott, divest, and sanction seeks to do, which targets one country and one religion: Israel and Judaism. My bill prevents discriminatory BDS practices and policies from being enacted at universities that undermine academic freedom by cutting off study abroad, joint research and exchange, restricting students' and faculty's ability to study what and where they choose. It is narrow, targeted, and doesn't touch anyone's speech. It doesn't touch protest or academic debate. It simply says: If your university that takes federal taxpayer dollars, it can't discriminate against academic partnerships or investments with one country. That is it. This has been our Federal funding policy for decades. This is why this bill passed out of committee with overwhelming bipartisanship support, including the ranking member and five other Democrats. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan bill.

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 the topic of this Special Order.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to welcome my colleagues to speak with me tonight during this Special Order. I understand some of my colleagues have commitments, and I want to be respectful of their time. I will have them start us off before I provide some of my own comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Knott).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize and salute the Little League Softball World Series Champions from Johnston County, North Carolina, today. Earlier this month, they won a rigorous contest to become the champions, making all of North Carolina's 13th Congressional District proud. The team is out of Clayton, North Carolina, and all of these girls and their coaches are from the greater Johnston County area. Many of them are classmates, neighbors, friends, and family. For the entire season, they worked, competed, and improved together. On August 8, they took the field against Kentucky in the championship game of the Little League World Series. They did not just win. They won in dominant fashion. Pitcher Anna-Lynn Clark threw a complete game and also completed a shutout. The team's defense allowed one Kentucky runner to reach scoring position for the entire game. The final score was 2-0. This was, remarkably, their second straight shutout of the tournament. But the scoreboard is not the whole story. In the first inning of that championship game, the girls from Johnston County lost their starting second baseman to a serious injury. Her team did not fold. They rallied around her, dug in, and secured the victory. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate these champions, their families, their coaches, and the greater Archer Lodge community. All of North Carolina is proud of them.

Mr. Speaker, I concur. The greatest sporting event of the year is always, of course, the Little League World Series. Thank you to the gentleman from North Carolina for highlighting it, and congratulations to that incredible team. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Kiggans).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on one of our Nation's most sacred founding principles: the idea that the Federal Government should work for the American people, not the other way around. It is an ideal that dates back to the founding of our constitutional Republic and one that I never thought would need to be reaffirmed. However, it became a topic of debate this week, as my colleagues and I voted to advance a resolution condemning and denouncing socialism in all of its forms. Socialism, at its core, represents the very antithesis of small government. In socialist economies, the means of production are wholly owned and controlled by the State, completely dismissing the potential for human innovation and without the accountability and opportunity that only come from free market capitalism. Growing up during the Cold War, members of my generation witnessed the failure of the very socialist policies that some are advocating for today. We saw the poverty-stricken cities of eastern Europe, the underserved healthcare system of Cuba, and the violence committed against political dissidents that bravely spoke out against their failing governments. Socialism is not just about bad policy, but it represents principles that are fundamentally at odds with economic freedom and individual liberty upon which our great Nation was founded. I believe, just as the Founding Fathers believed, that government works best when it gets out of your way. We should never feel government. Unfortunately, so many rules and regulations have been put in place on local, State, and Federal Government levels that are growing the size of our government. Limited government means knowing where the Government's responsibilities end and where people's freedoms begin. That means cutting unnecessary red tape and protecting taxpayer dollars from waste, fraud, and abuse. Choosing to ignore identifiable fraud in our government isn't just wrong. It is theft at the expense of the American taxpayer. A small government is one that supports our small businesses because it recognizes that they are the backbone of our local economies, driving job creation and opportunity across our Nation. A small government gives businesses the freedom to invest, grow, and put more men and women to work. A small government protects our environment without stifling growth and development. A small government sets its eyes on the responsibilities that only it can fulfill, from taking care of our veterans and securing our borders to providing a strong national defense and standing by our allies. We, as elected officials, have a duty to meet the constitutionally outlined obligations entrusted upon us every election day. These values that prioritize a small government are important to me as a commonsense Conservative, and they are the very same values that our brave men and women in uniform have gone to some of the most dangerous places around the world to defend. I have worn that uniform, my husband has worn that uniform, and my son proudly wears it today, as do so many across Virginia's Second District. I am proud of the work that I, alongside my Republican colleagues, have been able to accomplish in pursuit of these ideals. We passed the Working Families Tax Cut Act to keep the Federal Government out of your bank accounts and out of your pocketbooks by doubling the standard deduction, expanding the child tax credit, and establishing a new deduction for seniors because we believe that you, not the government, should keep more of your hard-earned money. We passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act to cut burdensome red tape so we can incentivize developers, lower costs, and put the American Dream of homeownership back within reach for millions of Americans. We most recently passed the Stop Insider Trading Act to increase transparency in Washington because public office should never be a pathway to personal profit. These pieces of legislation embody the very spirit of what it means to have a limited government. They reflect the belief that you know how to spend your money better than the government does, the potential for growth and innovation when Washington gets out of the way and, most importantly, the assertion that at the end of the day, we work for you. With much more work to be done, I couldn't be prouder of what we have achieved and what Americans will continue to achieve. Limited government isn't just a talking point. It has been proven to deliver prosperity and economic freedom for millions around the world, and it is firmly ingrained in the fabric of the American way of life. The United States is the greatest country in the world, not because of the power and scale of our government, but because we empower the people to live their lives by embracing freedom, ingenuity, and hard work here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Commonwealth of Virginia for her remarks. I appreciate all of the work that she does. She cares. I have been able to go throughout her district with her to her military bases. I know of nobody who understands the issues more than her and who cares about the issues of our servicemen and -women more than Jen Kiggans. I thank her for sharing that message with us tonight. I now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend and colleague from Utah organizing our time this afternoon. In Congress, a lot of times the public focuses on the things we don't get done, which is fair. I think it is good to celebrate the things that we can accomplish that are good for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that last year House Republicans worked with President Trump to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which stopped the largest tax increase that could have happened in American history. There is no doubt that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is rooted in our Nation's founding principles, and that is limiting Washington's reach into the lives and also the paychecks of Americans, which gives people the freedom to shape their own future, quite frankly, allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money in their own pockets. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I was proud to help secure lasting tax relief and certainty for individuals and for small businesses. During this August district work period, I was back on the road in west Tennessee, talking and meeting with farmers, manufacturers, small business owners, and people. Time and again, I heard how heavily their decisions depend on a tax code that they can count on and also depend upon. For a family farm, the tax code affects plans for the next season. On Main Street, the tax code affects the next payroll. Workers' livelihoods depend on decisions that cannot wait for the next vote in Congress. Mr. Speaker, from no tax on tips to no tax on overtime to a doubling of the standard deduction to lowering tax brackets for everybody at all income levels, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a benefit to working Americans across the board. One of the most important provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act--and there are a lot--for small businesses was something known as section 199A. It allows eligible small businesses to deduct up to 20 percent of their qualified business income. Now, for a small business, permanence is paramount. Farmers and local employers can now plan ahead rather than wait for the next congressional deadline. For everybody who voted "no" on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, I will tell them that my Republican colleagues and I worked with President Trump to make section 199 permanent, which delivered substantial relief for small businesses as well as American farmers. I also worked to strengthen the employer-provided childcare credit under something known as section 45F. Before we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, I introduced the Child Care for American Families Act to make this credit more useful for employers, especially for small businesses. Language from this bill was included in the final law. For most employers, the law increased the credit from 25 percent to 40 percent of qualified childcare credit expenditures and raised the annual cap from $150,000 to $500,000. Eligible small businesses can now claim a 50 percent credit with an annual cap of $600,000. Employers can now partner with outside organizations or other businesses to provide childcare. That is so important because when childcare is reliable, parents can stay in the workforce and employers can retain valued employees. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a victory for families, for Main Street, and for manufacturers. I am proud of what House Republicans and President Trump were able to accomplish. We should all pledge to fight for lower taxes and limited government so small businesses can create jobs and people can keep more of what they earn. I am proud of this. We showed that Congress can work with the American people and accomplish a lot under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. I again thank my colleague from Utah for organizing this Special Order hour today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his remarks. I loved the opportunity to work with him on that bill. As he brings up 199A, it is always fascinating. The one thing I wish we didn't have to go through back here--there is a long list of that, I guess--is the misrepresentation of that bill. The vast majority of it is targeted at small business and middle- and lower-income Americans. There is a constant, let me call it, like I said, misrepresentation of "this goes to the billionaires and doesn't help the working class." Then explain to me why the child tax credit is income capped, so middle- and lower-income Americans are the ones who take advantage of it. Then you add in the standard deduction, things like 199A, those are all targeted at small businesses and lower- and middle-income Americans. It is frustrating and disheartening to constantly hear the misrepresentation from the left on that tax policy. It is what it is, unfortunately, but it is one of the things that really wears on you because it is just not accurate, and they know it, but it is where we are. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for sharing that. I now yield to the gentleman from the great State, maybe the greatest State, I think we can call it the greatest State in the United States of Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Moore for the opportunity to speak in this Special Order and also for the gentleman's advocacy for our outstanding State. I am proud to be with my friend and the congressional delegation from the great State of Utah. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on a principle that is as old as our Republic: Small government delivers big results. Before I came to this Chamber, I spent my career as a family physician in Utah. Throughout those years, I saw firsthand what happens when Washington inserts regulations and when the bureaucracy inserts themselves between people and their lives. As an example, I wanted to bring up an experience that I had as a doctor years ago with an individual with whom I spent a significant period of time in the room trying to understand the symptoms that this person described and trying to help them move forward in their health and well-being. In that circumstance, some of the symptoms that this person described worried me or had me concerned about a possible cardiac condition, some problem with their heart. I ordered a stress test, which is an expensive test. It is a test to look at the function of the heart to see if there are any blood flow issues or aspects of the heart that would threaten for a heart attack. I ordered that test, and, Mr. Speaker, I waited for days, ultimately 13 days, for the insurance determination as to whether they would pay for that test. On day 13, I received notification from this person's insurance that they would not pay for the heart test. Come to find out, the very next day this individual suffered from a heart attack. The insurance in this case thought it was beneficial to their bottom line to reject the judgment that I had as a professional to determine that this person needed a preventative heart evaluation to make sure that they wouldn't have a heart attack. Instead, they denied my efforts to diagnose this problem before it became a critical problem, saving themselves a few thousand dollars potentially on a heart test and subsequently threatening the life of this patient, as well as spending tens of thousands of dollars. Ultimately, the person went through the heart symptoms that they had. They went to the emergency department and were admitted to the hospital. They had a coronary artery bypass graft, the procedure that was done saving this person's life, but after serious debility associated with that--and also this person's life was threatened. Subsequently, the insurance company spent tens of thousands of dollars instead of a few thousand dollars on that person. Excessive government has built a great deal of bureaucracy between a doctor and that doctor's patients. There are rules. We have approvals. We have requirements and determinations that are made somewhere far away by someone who has never met the patient and never sat with them or their family. In many cases, these individuals have no medical training at all, yet that person or those systems can still override the judgment of the professionals or the people. Nearly every one of those barriers began with someone's good intention, someone who is trying to fix a real problem and believed that another rule, another program, or some other layer of government was going to be the answer to the problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, good intentions are where Big Government contributions end. That is because when those ideas are put into practice, Americans are too often left with a government that is slow, a government that is costlier, and a government that is more obstructive than is needed. For too long, Washington has operated under the flawed assumption that the size of the program measures its success and that the more money Federal agencies spend, the more the American people will benefit. Progress does not come from expanding bureaucratic power in this way. Progress comes from individuals, from their dreams, and from their aspirations and their inspiration. Nowhere is that principle more clearly demonstrated than in the tangible benefits that Americans are already seeing through the working families tax cuts. When we passed that landmark legislation, we made simple promises to the American people: They should keep more of what they earn, and we, Congress, would rein in Federal overreach, eliminate wasteful spending, and return resources to the people who worked to earn them. Today, those promises are producing real results in Utah and across the country. Mr. Speaker, the government cannot create lasting prosperity. The American people are who create lasting prosperity. When Washington steps back, American families will step forward. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah (Mr. Moore). I am grateful for the opportunity to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy) for his excellent words. They come from a place of firm understanding, being a physician and recognizing that the answers are not derived from Washington. I had it couched. I was talking with a colleague the other day, saying that the legislation of the working families tax cuts that we accomplished last year had the largest spending reductions in history. At the same time, it has provided more relief to families with respect to the tax policy than any piece of tax legislation that we have seen. It is all focused on middle- and lower-income Americans. That is where the bulk of that comes from, and it gives them more opportunities and options to be able to choose their course, their decisionmaking, and their potential upward mobility. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for highlighting all of that. Mr. Speaker, this week, we passed legislation to prevent another government shutdown and provide more time to make intentional decisions about the other Federal spending aspects that still need to be accomplished. We acted early to keep the government open and made the investments needed to keep America running, putting the interests of families and businesses first. There was no last-minute crisis, just responsible government well ahead of the shutdown date. That keeps America moving forward. This bill protects veterans, families in need, and our national security. It preserves programs for senior nutrition; women, infants, and children in the WIC program; housing assistance; veteran services; and disaster relief. It provides the stability needed to meet critical national security obligations and maintain America's strength. It extends major highway, rail, and transit authorities, which gives States and communities certainty while longer term legislation will continue to move forward. Now, we will continue debating, discussing, and moving forward on that larger appropriations process. We are ensuring the process is committee-led and Member-driven, as it should be, with more transparency and accountability. Last year's government shutdown hurt American workers and families. I am grateful both sides of the aisle came together to avoid another one. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials in the Record.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the time, and I thank my colleagues for their presence today. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I rise at this moment and in this Chamber to give a voice to the tens of millions of Americans who do not believe that diversity, equity, and inclusion is an offense to the spirit of America. Nor are they under the impression that intentionally including the talent and abilities of qualified Americans who have been historically and systematically locked out of the promises of America is anything other than the right thing to do. In fact, there are millions of Americans who understand that it is impossible to remunerate 300 years of oppression with only 62 years of inclusion. However, that is why we are here, and that is why we find ourselves here today, making sure that this voice is given airtime. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, it is also where we begin because we will let the word go forth from this time and in this place: If the Government of the United States had simply honored the 14th and 15th Amendments ratified in 1868 and in 1870 respectively, there would be no need for diversity, equity, and inclusion today because we would have fulfilled our promise and our obligation. There would be no need for affirmative action had we simply gone forward and honored the 14th and 15th Amendments. There would be no need for civil rights legislation had we honored the 14th and 15th Amendments. To state the matter with even greater clarity, if the government of this country had honored its own laws, then this country would have never needed a civil rights movement. That is because we would have fulfilled that obligation in our 14th and 15th Amendments. Unfortunately, it was not honored, and here we are. We will continue this fight to make sure that America fulfills its promise and its destiny. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be joined by my colleague and good friend, the Honorable Congressman Cleo Fields, who hails from the great State of Louisiana. Congressman Cleo Fields is the co-chair and founder of the DEI Caucus. Congressman Fields has led an incredible career in public service my entire adult life, over the last 35 years and counting. All the while, he was championing voting rights issues on behalf of his constituents in the face of relentless opposition. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr. Fields).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and including me in this very Special Order. In fact, I remember the first day we were here. The late Sylvester Turner and I were sitting right on this floor, and the gentleman from Illinois invited us to be a part of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Caucus. Let me just tell the gentleman that I am so proud to be a part of this caucus. When the President signed an executive order to do away with diversity, equity, and inclusion, it was, in my view, totally wrong, and I think people need to stand up for what they really believe in. I was going through the dictionary today, Mr. Speaker, and I was looking at all three of these terms. First, diversity. Diversity simply means the quality or condition of having or being composed of different elements, such as forms, types, and ideas. There was a time that our military wasn't diverse, and then the American people said there is nothing wrong with African Americans serving in the military. There is really nothing wrong with women serving in the military. There were some folk all across the country who said, oh, you are going to weaken the military. Did it make the military weaker? No, you bet it didn't. It made the military stronger. When we became diverse, it became the most fierce fighting machine in the world. We need to talk about what is good about diversity, equity, and inclusion and not talk about all of these scare tactics that we have heard from people all across the country. Second is equity. What is equity? The quality of being fair, just, especially in a way that takes account and seeks to address existing inequities. Let's be honest about it. There are people in this country who have been facing all types of inequities from the day they were born. We used to debate affirmative action, for example. Folk used to say affirmative action is two parallel lines where you take somebody who is unqualified and elevate them to the level of somebody who is qualified. That wasn't affirmative action. Affirmative action should be viewed as a circle instead of two parallel lines. When you take a certain person out of the circle, they are all equally qualified. We have been fighting those battles all along. There has been some talk that there is no need for equity. Businesses across America have decided to end their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as a result of the Executive Order No. 14151 signed by the President on January 20, 2025. Finally, Mr. Speaker, inclusion. Who can be against inclusion? Inclusion means inclusion. People of all walks of life. There was a time in this country that Blacks weren't able to even register to vote. This Nation said that was wrong, and they changed it and passed the 15th Amendment. Did you know there was a time in this country that folk did not even allow women to vote? How crazy is that? This country said no, we need to include everybody. Every single person, every single U.S. citizen, should, when they reach a certain age, be eligible to vote. It didn't make our democracy weaker. Inclusion made our democracy stronger. Mr. Speaker, I urge the gentleman from Illinois to keep on fighting for diversity, equity, and inclusion because it is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, Congressman Cleo Fields, representing the Sixth District of the great State of Louisiana, who has a remarkable story. He expanded democracy, not only asking for the opportunity but for equity and inclusion for the voice of all members of Louisiana to be included in what will go down as one of the most shameful acts in American history, the decision of Louisiana v. Callais, where they stripped the voting representation of African Americans in the great State of Louisiana. I thank Congressman Cleo Fields for his magnanimous service to this great country, for continuing to expand democracy, and for having made America better. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a leader on clean energy, environmental justice, and environmental policy, who has represented the capital region since 2009. He is a person we hold in high esteem, a voice that is fearless and confronts injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Jackson, for bringing us together for a discussion and dialogue on what is an essential wrongdoing of late by this administration: denying the opportunity, the concept, of DEI. Across our great country, we are witnessing an onslaught of dangerous policies, executive actions, hateful legislation, and vile rhetoric, all designed to strip away rights, sow fear, and erase hard-fought progress. The Trump administration has engaged in a calculated and relentless assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion across the Federal Government and beyond. These harmful policies would eradicate programs that address persistent inequalities in American life. They would worsen systemic disparities in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. They would restrict the right for Americans to exist as they are. Our STEM education workforce has suffered because of sweeping cuts to DEI initiatives. Since January 2025, the Trump administration has made dramatic cuts to NSF programs, many aimed at broadening opportunity for underrepresented students in STEM education. Of the 1,500 grants that NSF has canceled, nearly 90 percent had references to DEI. One of those terminated grants was an NSF award at the University at Albany, which I represent in the 20th Congressional District of New York. Called Striving to Achieve Gender Equity in STEM, this program is essential. It aims to increase the number of women in STEM fields. Just last month, the Department of Justice declared three Federal educational programs aimed at diversifying STEM as unconstitutional. University at Albany has done great work with funding from the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation programming to develop inclusive teaching practices and increase participation by underrepresented students in STEM. Terminating programs like this sends a clear signal by this administration of who is allowed to participate in science. Upholding scientific integrity means protecting the independence of science and the civil rights of our scientific workforce. Beyond attacks on our scientific education system, we have seen attacks on our historical institutions and museums in the name of anti-wokeness: from policing content at national parks and monuments, to removing artwork and displays referencing slavery, to attacking the independence of the Smithsonian and how stories are told. This manipulation of history serves to consolidate political power by erasing marginalized voices and experiences and limiting whose humanity is considered valid. DEI is not radical, wasteful, and certainly is not just an acronym or a policy. It means our histories, our stories, no matter how uncomfortable and challenging, continue to be shared. It means first-generation college students can join programs that connect them to research and open doors to new career paths. Mr. Speaker, it is a commitment to removing barriers and expanding opportunity so that every person can succeed. It is a commitment we must continue to fight for, making certain that there is equity, inclusion, and diversity that brings the great diversity of this Nation into a celebratory moment, one that speaks to fairness and justice, to opportunity, to make certain that all people, no matter what their background, have a chance to succeed and share their talent with the American experience. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing us together this evening. He is an awesome voice for fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Tonko so much for his clear voice and analysis. I thank him for the update as we confront the resurgence of the confederacy. We need the abolitionist's voice. We have gone from the veiled attempts of the segregationists now to the overt racism carefully wrapped up and disguised and repackaged saying that DEI, the program that expanded opportunity, is exclusionary. No. Mr. Speaker, we have had a long history of racism, segregation, and discrimination. Now that we have put some ointment on and had some healing, now this is being called the cause of division. It is not, and we continue to stand. We will fight until America is right. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honor to introduce a colleague of mine from the great State of Illinois, Congresswoman Robin Kelly, who has been here, who has championed fearless amounts of deals to make sure that the Nation is made stronger. She is a national voice on gun violence, also a doctor of medical sciences and public health, who represents the great Second District of the State of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congressman Jackson, my next-door neighbor for yielding. Mr. Speaker, since day one, this President and his administration have waged war on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Let's be clear: DEI means all of us. Diversity strengthens our communities, our economy, our businesses, and our future. DEI means helping people of every background overcome barriers in their way. Systemic racism has deep roots in this country, poisoning healthcare, housing, and opportunities for generations. It is our job to finally pull those roots up. Trump is trying to erase Black history, gut programs that benefit us, and target anything that says DEI. He is threatening to undo all the progress we have made toward economic equality. Black women are more likely to be denied a mortgage as a home buyer, more likely to die giving birth, or buy a gun, and we still just earn 69 cents to a man's dollar. This isn't about ending wokeness. This is about erasing hard-won progress and locking people out of opportunity because of who they are. I always tell people, do not get weary because that is exactly what he wants you to do. You can't go in your house and close the door. We have to continue to fight this nonsense. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, and I, for one, will never give up in the fight for a better future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honorable Congresswoman from the great State of Illinois for her remarks. It has been truly an honor to serve with her, to admire her from afar, and to work with her up close. I thank her for her work and her commitment to justice for us all. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be joined by the Honorable Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of the great State of Michigan. She is a true advocate and freedom fighter for those that have been marginalized, a determined advocate for Detroit's working poor and working families, and one of the first Muslim women to serve in the United States House of Representatives. It is an honor to be her colleague. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Jackson for his incredible leadership and, of course, CPC for hosting this Special Order hour. Mr. Speaker, we know that since day one, the President of the United States has targeted policies and programs that are about equity, about women's rights, making sure that we are attacking and targeting racial injustices all around the country. Let's call what it is. When you attack DEI, you are attacking people of color. You are attacking inequities, attacking again those that continue to allow the status quo which makes them money to again have injustices within programs and so forth. To this President, anyone who does not look like him or does not have the same amount of money or income, shouldn't have equal opportunities. That is what we are telling the American people. It is no surprise then that he has filled his Cabinet administration with people who are set on racist daily deportation quotas, firing women in the military, or having senior advisers spend their time literally tweeting at and name-calling Black Congresswomen and community leaders. This anti-Black and racist administration does not reflect the beauty and dignity of the American people. They have made it clear from day one about their policy choice to ignore and hurt our Black communities. I grew up in the most beautiful, Blackest city in the country, where my strength and the way I move in trying to attack poverty and making sure that no child goes hungry, that we have clean air to breathe, that we have clean water to drink is because this is a city that knows what it feels like again for their government to turn their back on them. The Health Department right now has canceled over a thousand grants dedicated to address issues that affect Black people, including Black maternal health where Black mothers are dying at a higher rate giving birth. Those funds were supposed to research maternal mortality, environmental injustices and contamination, disease prevention, and more. Yet again, this administration thinks Black people are disposable. I know as the founder and chair of the Mamas' Caucus that Black women are three times more likely to die due to pregnancy-related causes, but now we are not even allowed to say Black for programs dedicated to solving maternal mortality. As co-chair of the People's Environmental Justice Caucus, I know that pollution deeply affects the majority of Black communities. Growing up in Detroit, I thought that the smell of rotten eggs was normal. Then I learned it was because the government sacrificed our air and water to big polluters in communities like ours. Just last month, homes in Gary, Indiana, were literally under water due to flooding. Our government was too slow and is still not responding like they should. Lead-contaminated pipes, dust, and paint still affect many homes across our country, especially in our city. There is no safe level of lead, but again, the Trump administration, using the anti-DEI movement, canceled programs dedicated to replacing lead pipes. Think about that. Our U.S. administration right now thinks that clean water is not a great need in our country. Trump's attacks against DEI aren't simply a culture war. It is through his executive orders and policies directly impacting our health, our wallets, and our future. We all deserve to be able to live with human dignity. What we are seeing with this administration is they don't care for that if we don't look like him. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois hosting this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it would have been my privilege and pleasure to introduce the Congressman from the great State of Maryland, an outstanding advocate for justice for all, a modern day abolitionist, a man who has been committed to equal opportunity and equal justice for all, the incomparable, the Honorable Congressman Jamie Raskin from the great State of Maryland, but he is not here yet. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury), an outstanding woman from the great State of New Mexico. The Honorable Congresswoman is a modern day abolitionist from the great State of New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, good evening. I thank Mr. Jackson for yielding. He is not only one of my dear friends, but also a mentor, and I believe one of the greatest fighters in this institution. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on behalf of the people of New Mexico because in New Mexico, the assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion is not just an assault on our communities but on our identities, our histories, and our ways of life. The consequences go far beyond a slogan or some polling that some political firm has done. They reach into our hospitals and our clinics. They reach our veterans. They reach our military bases. They reach our Tribal nations and our Native communities. They reach the LGBTQ+ community, our small businesses, our nonprofits, and our working families. What this administration is doing is nothing short of an assault on our communities, their identities, their histories, and creating something that no person should ever live with which is fear. In New Mexico, healthcare is not an abstract policy debate. It is whether a patient can see a doctor, whether a rural clinic can keep its doors open, and whether a family can afford care. Every day we are watching as the assaults on DEI are affecting the ability of our communities to access care. It affects our veterans who depend on the VA, not as a political favor but as a promise our Nation made to them, is being impacted by cuts to DEI. It affects our military, which is a part of the culture in service of who we are as New Mexicans, generals being denied promotions, and people in our communities wondering if the military still represents them. It affects our Tribal nations impacted and threatened by cuts to Tribal programs and essential services. These are programs that help our elders, our young people--nutrition, family, housing, their healthcare, their jobs, their opportunity, and our Federal Government's fundamental responsibility under treaty obligations. These are legal responsibilities of the Federal Government. In our LGBTQ+ community, the message coming from Washington is increasingly clear, which is that the government is trying to erase the existence of LGBTQ+ people. That is not equality. That is not equity. That is about targeting our communities. Meanwhile, our nonprofits and small businesses that depend on Federal grants and contracts are being forced to ask whether the programs they have operated for years and generations will be considered politically unacceptable for merely serving the Americans who live in our communities. This administration has gone far beyond just eliminating Federal DEI offices. They have slashed Federal programs. They have targeted Federal contractors. They have taken out hundreds of Americans who have given their life to service to this Nation as Federal employees, as members of the military, as leaders, and they have slashed fundamental programs that make it possible for our communities to survive. Mr. Speaker, diversity, equity, and inclusion are not about giving special treatment. They are about making sure that every American has a fair shot--that those who have been left behind have the opportunity to move forward. They are about honoring the cultures and identities of who we are. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to come to New Mexico, where we live our culture, where we live our identities, where we live our traditions. Walk in our communities, meet our people, shop in our small businesses, hike on our public lands, pay your respects to our Pueblo and Tribal leaders. Come learn our stories directly from our people, directly from our lands. Come learn about the resilience of our people, who have persisted not just for centuries but millennia, because we live our culture. We live our identity, and we learn from our history. We know that no matter what kind of efforts you take in the coming days, months, or years to try to cut programs, to try to erase history, to try to stop our people from speaking loud and clear, we know that our people are strong. They are resilient, and they will continue. As the congresswoman for New Mexico's First Congressional District, I will continue to lift up their stories every single day and continue this fight, because, Mr. Speaker, we are not going back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Stansbury for her remarks. It has been a true honor to serve with her and to continue to serve with her. Mr. Speaker, I now take the privilege to introduce the Honorable Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva, the first Latino to represent her State in the United States Congress--carrying forward a legacy of her father, her family, as she molds and shapes her own. She came in here not as a freshman, but as a leader, carrying forward the fighting legacy, and I am honored that her father worked with my father. She has been working for families and environmental justice. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Jackson and the Congressional Progressive Caucus for bringing attention to this important issue during this Special Order hour. We are all here to call out the quiet, calculated campaign sweeping across our Federal agencies. Under the banner of defeating wokeness, the Trump administration is dismantling the structures that protect civil rights, equal opportunity, and equal protection under the law. This is not a theoretical debate over acronyms. It is about the resources, protections, and dignity of everyday families. In southern Arizona--from Tucson to Nogales, Yuma, Avondale, Tolleson, Douglas, and our border and travel communities--the impact is deeply personal. Let us take a look at what is being dismantled. They are stripping economic lifelines from rural communities. The Department of Agriculture canceled a $300 million program to help minority and marginalized farmers buy land. For Arizona's small-scale, Tribal, and Latino farmers, this isn't about ending favoritism. It is about crushing the dream of land ownership. They are silencing families by cutting language access. In Arizona's Seventh Congressional District, bilingualism and multilingualism are our strengths. When language access is rolled back, grandmothers struggle to understand their doctors, and parents struggle to access basic Federal services. They are compromising our local healthcare security. In border and rural communities where healthcare deserts are a reality, rolling back health equity initiatives means leaving mothers, children, and our most vulnerable neighbors behind. They are blinding our civil rights watchdogs. After 60 years of progress, our Federal civil rights agency is moving to end demographic data collection. For six decades, that data has helped us identify where discrimination exists. We cannot address what we refuse to see. They are politicizing our military and threatening free media. They are replacing merit with ideological litmus tests in Pete Hegseth's military. They are weaponizing independent watchdogs, with the FCC ordering a review of ABC's broadcast licenses over its diversity and inclusion policies. Mr. Speaker, these attacks are not isolated. They are interconnected. When this administration rolls back protections for people with disabilities, strips LGBTQ+ protections, or targets women's medical research, it is not simply streamlining government. It is unravelling the public infrastructure of our democracy, because diversity, equity, and inclusion are not buzz words. They are guarantees. They guarantee that a child with a learning disability in Tucson gets a fair and just education. They ensure that a small business owner in Yuma gets an honest shot at a Federal contract, and they uphold a basic promise: every American deserves an equal opportunity to succeed. We in southern Arizona know how to stand our ground. We will not sit in silence while 60 years of civil rights progress are erased by an executive decree. I urge my colleagues and the American people to see this campaign for what it is: a systemic dismantling of our civil rights. We must stand united. We must organize, and we must fight to defend equal opportunity for every community in this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield the floor to the Honorable Congressman from the great State of Maryland, a modern-day abolitionist, a man who has risen to the height of this hour to combat the spirit of the Confederacy that also lived in this Chamber that has found a resurgence; a man who is fearless, who is keenly articulate and persuasively analytical and instinctively intelligent, who leads this Democratic voice on justice, the Honorable Jamie Raskin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our floor leader here on our Special Order hour, Congressman Jackson, for being such an extraordinary leader for all of us in keeping the movement for civil rights, for civil liberties, and for democracy going in the country. I want to start by just saluting Congressman Jackson for bringing national focus to the assault on DEI, which, of course, has been primarily just a system for opening up the doors to institutions that have discriminated in the past. I am seeing two kinds of people or, I should say, two kinds of categories of people working in the government under the Trump administration. One is what they call DEI hires. Who are some of the DEI hires? Well, when Secretary Hegseth became the Secretary of Defense, which he would later rename Secretary of War, he launched a campaign against so-called wokeness in the military, and one of the first people who he fired was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General CQ Brown, only the second African American to serve in that capacity. Now, what were his qualifications? Well, he was a U.S. Air Force general and a command pilot with more than 3,100 flying hours, primarily in the F-16 Fighting Falcon. He logged more than 130 combat hours in wartime. He was a commander of global operations and was given nothing but superior reviews, but he was profiled as the reviled DEI hire, and they sacked him. Then, Secretary Hegseth also got rid of a four-star admiral, Lisa Franchetti, who was one of the first women in the U.S. Navy to serve in a combat role and rose steadily through the ranks of the military to become the first woman ever to lead the United States Navy. Throughout her extraordinary 40-year career, Franchetti commanded at every level of the Navy, including the guided-missile U.S. destroyer USS Ross, Carrier Strike Group 9, and the U.S. 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. So here we have two people who are at the very top of their profession, and of course, there were many more periods in American history where they would not have been able to do that because women and African Americans were excluded. They were able to do it in our time, precisely because the armed services opened up their vision and opened up their vista to include women, African Americans, and others who had been traditionally excluded. Yet, they are essentially labeled DEI hires, and that becomes the justification for getting rid of them. Well, there is another group of people. Take, for example, Secretary Hegseth himself, who was a weekend talk-show cohost who was forced out of the leadership of two different veterans nonprofit organizations before he was named as Secretary of Defense. Why was he forced out? Well, it turns out that he was reportedly engaged, repeatedly, in financial mismanagement, improper disorderly and drunken misconduct, and he faced repeated accusations of sexual harassment and assault from multiple women, to the point where even his own mother took him to task for these multiple episodes. Well, here is another one. The Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, who made news this spring because his security team reportedly requested breaching equipment when he was completely unresponsive one morning. He has been spotted chugging beers with the U.S. men's hockey team in their locker room and giving out free personalized bourbon bottles that say "Kash Patel FBI Director" on them. These are the people who were brought in who end up firing all of the so-called DEI hires. I remember when the new administration came back into power and there was a joint session of Congress in this room. The President came and made his big speech about everything they were going to do. Then, when it all broke up, afterward, somebody went outside and plowed his car into the back and side of a parked police cruiser. It turns out that was the chief of staff to Speaker Mike Johnson, but he was forgiven immediately for what he had done. I am not saying he shouldn't have been, but let's just say generally, and I am not speaking necessarily in terms of legal prosecutions here, but in terms of culture, we have the DEI hires who are being fired by the DUI hires. There is a frat-boy culture, which is what I am referring to, which dominates within the Trump administration, and those people are sacking, firing, kicking out of their careers people who have done nothing other than to thrive and succeed because the doors of discrimination have been taken down in the past. They, the Trump administration, want to put them back up. They want to reinstate all of the blockades to people's progress. Let's see fewer DUI hires and more DEI hires and let people succeed on their actual merit. Mr. Speaker, we have made progress in America when we dismantle the professional chokehold of good old boy networks and race and gender-exclusionary policies adopted by the groups that have dominated forever. There are established networks that thrive on keeping other people out. Let's open the market and government up to merit and hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honorable Congressman Jamie Raskin. We would like to see fewer DUI Secretaries and more DEI candidates, persons who are simply looking for equal opportunity to be included in serving our Nation. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and my privilege to introduce the Honorable Congressman from the great State of Texas, a career prosecutor, a fighter for justice, a champion for the least of these, those who have been left behind, the Honorable Congressman Menefee from the great State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Jackson for setting this up and for shining a light on such an important issue. Mr. Speaker, President Trump has spent more than a year promising that he would make life more affordable for Americans, but when he took office, instead of lowering grocery bills, rent, and healthcare costs, he went straight after diversity, equity, and inclusion. He threatened private corporations that refused to give up their programs without legal action, while Vice President JD Vance even went so far as to describe these policies as discrimination against White men. That sounds ridiculous because it is, and my constituents know that. Last month, a Federal judge ruled that Houston's minority and women-owned business enterprise program is unconstitutional for considering race when awarding city contracts because of President Trump's anti-DEI policies. That program was created under the President Reagan administration because Houston had clear evidence that Black, Brown, and women-owned businesses were being left behind in city contracting. That evidence still exists today in 2026. Across industries, Black-owned businesses were consistently at a disadvantage. The goal of the program was simple: to address those barriers and give qualified businesses a fair opportunity to compete. Instead of asking why those disparities exist, we are being told that addressing them is the issue. If you look at every single metric for families in this country, whether it be annual income, wealth accumulation, or education, Black folks are behind in just about every single metric. Instead of us asking why those disparities exist and instead of us working as a government to solve those problems and address those disparities, we are now being told that it is reverse racism to address issues that come from a system that enslaved folks in this country and perpetuated inequalities and Jim Crow for much longer than that. Houston knows better. Republicans call DEI policies handouts and reverse discrimination, but we know that is not true. This is how we correct injustices that disproportionately harm Black and Brown communities like the ones I serve. That is what these programs are about, and that is a promise that is worth defending.

I thank Congressman Menefee for his time, his talent, and his contribution to this country. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you that the history of the United States has been replete with so many examples of the resilience of minorities having to overcome hostilities. We do not find in the pages of American history over and over again that the government of this country has continually been complicit in the systematic disenfranchisement, specifically of African-American citizens and Native Americans by denying, as a matter of both law and custom, the legal privileges of both law and custom and the protections enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. Whereas the problem of racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamophobia continues to be prevalent in the cultural, political, and economic life of this country. And as the cofounder of this DEI Caucus, I must rise to declare that with respect to the issue of equal access, equal opportunity, and equal protection under the law that the government of the United States, as it is currently configured, cannot be trusted unless we have explicit laws and codify these programs to ensure a greater America. Nor should the economic and democratic future of over 13 million African Americans be left to the meandering and whimsical generosity of people who recently came to terms with the idea that all of us are created equal. The country is not there yet. We have been moving toward a more perfect Union, and this administration amongst all administrations has been the most hostile towards inclusivity. To echo the words of Congressman Jamie Raskin, we have had more DUI hires in this administration's Cabinet than we have had DEI hires of those that have been qualified. When we think of what happened to General CQ Brown being replaced by Mr. Pete Hegseth, who was then denied the opportunity to stand guard over the inauguration of President Joe Biden because of his ties to white nationalist organizations. That is something that we cannot look past. I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are moving toward a more perfect Union. This administration seems to be an echo, a revision of the book "1984," an Orwellian vision. Everything this administration says is the exact opposite. It says they are moving towards meritocracy, but they have hired some of the most incompetent people. Look at our Nation. This country says they want to stand up for farmers. This administration, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, has been the most antifarming administration this Nation has seen. It has attacked the immigrant community that the farmers have relied on. It has entered a war that has been unnecessary and that has made the cost of fuel and fertilizer rise. This administration has attacked the open markets so that the Chinese Government could not afford to purchase our soy and our corn because they could buy it cheaper from Argentina and from Brazil, although Brazil is further away from China than California. Why? It is because they have been hand-tied. When we look at how do we make Canada, one of our oldest and longest and greatest political allies become a trade war partner. How have they simply enriched all the members of the administration? If the President would make deals as good for the American people as he has made for himself personally, America would be doing better, and the country would be more affordable for the least of thee. We have heard my colleagues, and I have discussed, the problems we have had with the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion and civil rights protections across our government and across many aspects of our society. We will continue to stand up to defend these relentless attacks. Finally, it should be clear to all of us that the executive actions and the bureaucratic assault on this government's commitment to diversity is not a passing phase. It will have long, enduring consequences. And it should be obvious to all of us who believe in the possibility of a diverse and a more composite nation that prosperity is in our realm if we uphold the ideals of our values. Mr. Speaker, even as our companies, universities, and public institutions are incentivized to walk away from the commitment to inclusion, I challenge every institution to remember that history is recording your action. Have the courage and the character to stand up now for what you believe in. The stars shine brightest in the dark, and I would tell the CEOs: History will record your action and your inaction. I challenge every institution to prove that their devotion to diversity need not come from the force of law, but rather from the natural consequences of their understanding of the things that make for peace. We can only hope that the illegality of discrimination will one day fall from the body politic of this Nation like scales falling from our eyes. But until that day arrives, we must continue to stand up for what is right. We must continue to stand up for what is just. We must continue to stand up for what is equitable. And what is the promise to every American in the Constitution? It is independence in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues and my friends: Do not cower in the face of this administration. History is recording us, and it will ask: Where did you stand? What did you do for justice? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have several topics that I don't think have been addressed enough recently, and I would like to talk about them at this time. I was not going to talk about DEI, but given the past speech, I think I ought to say something. Required reading for all Americans ought to be a book entitled: "America's Cultural Revolution" by a guy by the name of Christopher Rufo. In the book he cites a guy by the name of Herbert Marcuse, who is a genuine communist who wanted to destroy America. He became politically active in the 1960s. Of course, in the 1960s there were a lot of people who were hoping to take down America, and there were a lot of protests and a lot of bombings. His analysis, though he was more of an academic, was that in the 1960s they tried to destroy America by setting America against the rich and creating a war or such a disagreement between the wealthy and the rest of the country that America would fail. The hardcore left failed in their goal. They failed, in part, because I don't think Americans are naturally that covetous to be jealous over the wealthy people. And secondly, they failed because the American middle class was so well off that they didn't feel anything approaching a revolution was necessary. So Herbert Marcuse came back with a second plan. His second plan was to try to divide America by race. It was the beginning of what they called the DEI movement. Today--prior to President Trump trying to dismantle it, but it is still out there in a lot of its forms--these people want Americans to not view themselves as primarily Americans but as a subgroup. So we would have African Americans. We would have Hispanic Americans. We would have Pacific Islander Americans. We would have Native Americans. We would have Americans from every different background. We would have Asian Americans. And they would all be told that America was a horrible, racist country, and they would need the government to help them out. Today, we live in a country--it is hard to believe that anybody would think this is necessary. We live in a country in which most ethnic groups are from places other than Europe, and they are actually doing quite well. Indian Americans may well be the wealthiest subgroup out there right now. Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans, Japanese Americans, Persian Americans are all doing wildly better than the native born. I don't think it is a matter of color. Cuban Americans have long done better than the average American does. People coming here--African Americans coming here from Nigeria do very well. And the fact they all come here shows that either prejudice has entirely disappeared or that it is truly a minor thing. But it doesn't prevent a DEI bureaucracy from trudging ahead and trying to educate people how racist America is and trying to educate people that they ought to walk around with a chip on their shoulder. This is a very dangerous movement. President Trump has slowed it down for now, but I think Republicans and freedom-loving people have to be a little bit more aggressive in pointing out the absurdity that you cannot succeed in this country unless you are of European descent because so many people are succeeding. They also should point out the motive of the founder of DEI, Herbert Marcuse, wanted to destroy America. I hope when President Trump leaves the scene that his successor Presidents do what I think is the only constitutional thing to do, and that is to continue to dismantle the DEI bureaucracy, the goal of which is to make Americans bitter and angry. In the past week, we talked about socialism. This is another topic that I think we have not done a good job of explaining how bad it is and even what socialism is. Socialism can be used to describe a great deal of governments, but in its purest form, under socialism the government runs everything. Every store is owned by the government and every employer is the government. The idea behind socialism is if all the decisions that are currently made by the millions of businesses in America are made by government, that somehow more people will become wealthier, and there will be no income gap. I want people to stop and think why socialism fails and how miserable life would be under a pure socialist state. Even Europe is not purely socialist, though they are much more socialist than America. I recently ran into some Pakistani immigrants who were happy to be in America, and above all they were happy to be in America as opposed to Europe because they felt Europe was a socialist state. In any event, in a socialist state, because the government runs everything, again and again you have to bow before the government to get anything done. My office is in a city called Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. I don't know how many landlords there are, but I would say 250 landlords. In a socialist state, you have one landlord. If the government doesn't like you or has something against you, you may not be the favored one to get an apartment or you may find you have to be on a waiting list. Since the government runs the grocery stores, some government bureaucrat determines how many grocery stores are in your town and what they are going to sell at the grocery stores. I want you to think, would things get better or worse if you had the government decide what we are going to put on the shelves of the grocery store? Since all the businesses are owned by the government, they would determine whether you get a job, what sort of raise you are going to get, what your career path is. Obviously, because the government is in control of everything, they will penalize you or may penalize you for what you say or what your thoughts are. You will begin to get promoted. As happens in socialist nations, you will get promoted based on how the government feels about you because the goal of socialism, the stated goal, which is never achieved, is that we want everybody making the same amount of money or in the same place materially. You create a situation which is a problem for them if, say, one Uber driver worked 60 hours a week and the other Uber driver works 40 hours a week. Pretty soon, the Uber driver who works 60 hours a week will have money for things that the guy who drives 40 hours a week will not have. This presents a problem for socialism, but as is apparent from the dislike of people who are working harder from people on the other side of the aisle, what will happen is that they will necessarily feel they have to do something to penalize the person who works 60 hours a week rather than 40 hours a week. Another situation is if two different people work 40 hours a week and one is more frugal than the other person and saves more money, that is also considered a problem in socialism because all of a sudden we have a wealth gap, and the government has to step in and make sure that the person who was more frugal does not have more assets than the person who spends a lot of money. Since the government runs everything in socialism--I have to point this out again--the government determines whether you get a job, whether you are promoted in your job, whether you get to work in a favorable location or not a favorable location. Even today, in a government that is much more limited than under a socialist paradise, I can think of examples in which people were afraid to speak honestly because they worked for the government, and that is something that we should all be considering, do we want to work in a world in which if you are critical of--well, for example, there is a woman I know who wanted to be a substitute teacher, but she was afraid to put a yard sign out for me for fear that since the local school district had a leftward tilt, she was afraid to say she supported me or would give me any money for fear that she wouldn't be called to be a substitute teacher. That is what happens in a socialist state, where the government runs everything. When we dealt with what was referred to as Act 10 when I was a State legislator in Wisconsin, there were people who were supportive of Governor Walker but afraid to say it because they worked for the government, and there was a government bias against him. Therefore, people had to pay a price if they took a different tack than the majority of people in the government wanted to. You can see this is, in a way, the ending of freedom if you have a genuine socialism. To my shock, way, way, way too many of my wonderful colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted yesterday for a resolution that could only be taken--or voted against a resolution that was contrary to socialism. Socialism is the end of freedom. Our whole Constitution is built on the idea of limited government, and of course socialism is all built on the idea of more government. We recently had a bill coming out of the Budget Committee. There were, I think, 16 or 17 amendments. Every one of the amendments was a Democratic amendment to add more money to some area of the government. In other words, to strengthen the role government has in life and to decrease the free-market segment of the society in which people are free to form their own business or work for whomever they want. It is, quite frankly, a scary thing that any young people are enthralled with socialism in any sense. I don't think they should even call it socialism. I think they should call it a government economy where the government runs everything and makes all the economic decisions or if not the government economy, they should call it a free economy, in which I am free to work for whomever I want, I am free to open up my own business, I am free to work 50 hours a week if I want and make more money, I am free to take a chance on a different type of product, manufacture a different sort of product, and if it does well, it does well, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. Another problem with government, of course, is the government decides when any business or any store closes. We all know in our hometowns businesses that close, stores close, but do you know what never closes? A government program. That is another problem with socialism. If there is something inefficient, if there is something that is producing something most people don't want, because it is owned by the government, it continues to sit there. People who are for socialism, if they are nailed down on it, probably would never let any business fail. In any event, I do think young people ought to be educated that socialism means a government-controlled economy and a free--I don't like the word capitalism. We will say a free market economy means you are able to work wherever you want, you are able to open up your own business, you are able to invest in apartments if you want, and in general you have a free life when it comes to economic decisions. That is why America is great. We have to hope that we never fall victim to the idea that socialism is a good thing, and we don't elect people who think having the government own more of the means of production is in any way going to make us more materially better off--which it won't--but even more, we always have to realize that the larger the government gets, the less freedom you have. The final thing I am going to deal with tonight is the topic I have dealt with before, and that is the huge marriage penalty associated with our welfare programs. Almost all the income transfer programs, be it food share, be it low-income housing, be it Pell grants, be it Medicaid, or be it earned income tax credit, they all, in order to get them, rely on somebody being below some poverty line. That is because with a married couple you have both a man and a woman who may be working. It is rare that a married couple is eligible for these programs. Very quickly, young people in this country figure out that if they want to have children, then they might be materially better off by not being married. We wind up changing the culture.

Ever since the horrible LBJ was President, we wind up changing the culture from one in which a very high percentage of people are getting married before they have children. The number of children born out of wedlock used to be under 5 percent. We have shifted families, because of our overwhelming bias, to a situation in which about 45 percent of the babies born in this country wind up being born out of wedlock. This is unfortunate for the babies. It is also unfortunate for the men. Usually, Mr. Speaker, when you have beneficiaries in these programs, it is the single woman who is the beneficiary, and therefore the men have a much less productive life because they are not connected with a married family. They are not connected with raising children, and it results in them adopting antisocial behavior. We see this in particular parts of America in which the nuclear family has almost entirely disappeared. There is more crime and more drug abuse, and I attribute that all to the massive expansion of the welfare state beginning in the 1960s. In any event, I know President Trump's goal is to make America as great as it was at its peak. I would encourage President Trump to put together a committee, or a commission, to see what we can do to get rid of these programs that can penalize people $30,000 to $35,000 a year for getting married. In America, we should treat everybody equally, and right now we are not doing that. Like I said, I think the result is a more difficult background for young children, a more difficult background for the women, and particularly a more difficult background for the men who cannot assume their role as provider in the family. I encourage President Trump, as he prepares for the seventh and eighth years of his Presidency, to put forth an agenda in which we stop penalizing people who decide to get married before they have children. In any event, those are some of the issues that I think are important for the press to pay attention to. I look at my wonderful Democratic colleagues over there. I remember there was once a Congresswoman, I can't remember her first name, but her last name was Tsongas. You should look her up. She was from Massachusetts. She did understand that this huge marriage penalty we had was a harm to significant segments of the American population. Hopefully, some Democrats can follow Congresswoman Tsongas on board and try to help us do something about this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to open this Special Order to discuss the destructive, counterproductive, and tragic choice by the Trump administration to disband the U.S. Agency for International Development and to dramatically cut U.S. international assistance. I thank the many Members who will be joining me this evening to raise this important topic and for their leadership in fighting back against this senseless decision. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Beyer for yielding and for bringing us together on this very urgent and important issue. This is very personal to me because after college, my son, Ben, was commissioned as an officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served overseas in two war zones, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Like so many military parents, I lived with the fear of getting that knock on the door. My family was blessed. Ben came home safely, and later he returned overseas, this time working for USAID, America's civilian development and humanitarian agency. Ben taught me something I have never forgotten. That is because he said when he came home: Mom, the way to peace is not just through bombs and bullets. It is through soft power, such as helping people, building relationships, creating opportunity, and preventing conflict before it starts. That lesson changed the way I looked at America's role in the world. When I came to Congress, one of my missions was to help keep our sons and daughters out of harm's way by strengthening American soft power. Never has this mission been more urgent. For 6 months, we have been in a costly war with Iran with no clear end in sight. It is a stark reminder that real security requires not only military strength but diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership. I diverge because when Mr. Trump was elected, then came DOGE, and then USAID was eliminated. Programs were canceled, and thousands of experienced professionals were shown the door. Decades of experience and relationships were torn apart. The Trump administration dismantled one of America's most important national security tools. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what USAID looked like to Fatima, a mother in northeastern Nigeria. For most of her life, Fatima walked long distances to collect water from a stream shared with cattle, or she bought water from vendors when her family could afford it. She worried whether the water was safe for her children. Then a USAID-funded project drilled a borehole and brought clean water directly to a tap at her home. There was clean water for her children. There were no more long walks just to meet one of life's most basic needs. That is soft power. Then there is Apsana, a 16-year-old girl in Nepal who had never attended a formal school. Her brothers went to school while she stayed home. Then a USAID-funded program brought teachers directly to girls like Apsana. For the first time, she was getting an education and a chance at a future beyond early marriage. Then the U.S. funding stopped. All over the world, teachers stopped coming. The classrooms disappeared. Here in Washington, we canceled programs. For Apsana and millions more, we closed the doors to classrooms with brighter futures. May I add, I think we went from 500 programs to 2. I know what Americans are asking. Why should we care? Why should American taxpayers care about a mother in Nigeria or a girl in Nepal? It is because helping them helps us. Clean water prevents disease. Educating girls creates stronger economies and more stable communities. Of course, we should reform programs that don't work. We should demand results and accountability. Demolition is not reform. Foreign assistance is not simply a charity. It is national security. It stops disease before it reaches our shores. It restores and creates stability before the instability allows extremists to exploit it. It creates friends, allies, and future trading partners. It builds good will toward the United States without firing a shot. For Fatima, American soft power meant clean water. For Apsana, it meant a chance to choose her own future. For America, it means fewer costly crises, fewer wars, and fewer of our sons and daughters sent into harm's way. That is what my son, Ben, learned after serving in war. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, a well, a vaccine, a bag of food, or a schoolbook could do more for American security than a bomb ever could. To the thousands of USAID professionals who spent their careers preventing disease, fighting against hunger, educating children, empowering women, responding to disasters, and representing the very best in America, I want to say thank you. Thank you for your service, the lives you saved, the communities you strengthened, and the good will you built for our country because your work mattered, and your mission still matters. We may have lost an agency, but we will not abandon the mission. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who are here, and I know they agree with me when I say we must work to restore America's humanitarian and development leadership, rebuild the expertise and partnership that were lost, and make sure that America leads not just through military might but through the power of our generosity, humanity, and diplomacy. I know that is what my son taught me, and the mission stays ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the Democratic leader of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for organizing this Special Order. Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump calls himself the President of peace. He has failed spectacularly to live up to that self-proclaimed title. I am not just talking about his illegal intervention in Venezuela, or his campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean, or his disastrous, costly, and illegal war with Iran. I am talking about the seeds of conflict his administration helped to sow by destroying USAID and firing some of the most dedicated public servants that have ever served in any government in the world. USAID saved lives, fought hunger, and strengthened democracy. It prevented problems that started overseas from finding their way back to us. It wasn't a perfect institution--none are--but through its work, the American people tried to make life better for our neighbors. Let me give you an example. In Colombia, where 50 years of conflict left hundreds of thousands dead and millions more displaced, USAID was helping implement the historic 2016 peace accords. The Colombian people staked their lives on the success of the accords. Helping them keep the peace is the moral and smart thing to do. By helping campesinos stop growing coca and transition to planting legal crops, USAID reduced the supply of illicit drugs in our hemisphere. By helping strengthen Colombian institutions, USAID helped to stabilize a major U.S. partner. By helping tens of thousands of Venezuelans find refuge in Colombia, USAID reduced the number of migrants seeking assistance at our own borders. Mr. Speaker, USAID accomplished all of that for a fraction of a percent of the Federal budget. Not long ago, Members on both sides of the aisle willingly recognized the benefits of investing in foreign aid. Then-Senator Rubio was among them. In 2021, he sent a letter to the Biden administration urging them to robustly support the Colombian peace process through the State Department and USAID. He said that the investment in the security and rights of the Colombian people "must continue to transcend party affiliation and political philosophy." Last week, Colombia's new President, who is backed by Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, declared an end to the peace process--an end to the peace process. He envisions a future of mega prisons and mass incarceration in his country. That is not peace or security. That is tyranny. Mr. Speaker, true peace--peace in which all people can enjoy the fundamental rights they are guaranteed--is difficult to achieve, but it is worth the investment. Mr. Speaker, we must dedicate the power of our government to building a future where we can live as good neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).

Mr. Speaker, 19 months ago, President Trump took an axe to our foreign assistance, illegally freezing aid and demolishing the United States Agency for International Development. Thirteen days later, he ranted that USAID was "run by a bunch of radical lunatics." The very next day, Elon Musk bragged that DOGE had "spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper." Well, the chips fell, and kids died. When I asked Secretary Rubio about the consequences, he told me: No children are dying on my watch. A year later, the hatchet men were still lying. Children are still dying. Elon Musk recently proclaimed that he cannot cite a single name of someone who died because of aid cuts. Just because Elon can't name one of the 700,000 people killed by his cruelty doesn't mean they didn't exist. We know their names. Abdullahi Ibrahim was 10 years old when USAID-supported asthma treatment disappeared from his clinic in Nigeria. His family could no longer afford his medication. He suffered a fatal asthma attack. Mohammed Hashim was 2 years old. When food assistance disappeared from his refugee camp in Myanmar, he died of starvation. Gbessy Kiadu was only a 1-year-old. He died of malaria after clinics in western Liberia ran out of malaria medication because of USAID cuts. These are not just statistics. These are children. They had parents, dreams, and full lives ahead of them. Today, the warning signs are flashing that if these cuts continue, hundreds of thousands of additional children could die every year. Abdullahi, Mohammed, and Gbessy are three of the more than 700,000 no longer with us because of Trump's choice to close USAID and decimate U.S. foreign assistance programs. We are seeing the consequences in Nepal, where deaths have risen after Trump's cuts to lifesaving maternal health programs. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, cuts to USAID-funded disease-detection systems delayed detection and response to the Ebola outbreak. It is now the worst outbreak on record, with nearly 3,000 people dead and over 6,000 confirmed cases. Make no mistake, America is paying a price, too. Shuttering USAID eliminated more than 23,000 American jobs. American farmers and manufacturers who supply food products to USAID were left struggling. From peanut farmers in Texas to sugar farmers in Florida, to American longshoremen moving food through our ports to manufacturers in my home State of Rhode Island, Trump's cuts left wounds across the country. Cuts to USAID disease monitoring and prevention systems leave Americans at greater risk of disease. As the COVID-19 pandemic clearly showed us, disease does not care about borders. Eliminating global health programs puts us at greater risk of a future pandemic. American security on the world stage is suffering, too, as Trump backs away from our strongest soft power tool: helping others. American taxpayers lost the return on an investment that made our country safer and stronger. Our foreign assistance was never charity. It was about American leadership, security, and workers producing food, medicine, and lifesaving technology. It told the world something powerful: When America gives its word, America keeps it. As the USAID logo reminded the world, it was from the American people. Now, that good will is gone because Trump threw that promise into the wood chipper. Our allies are left wondering whether they can trust us. Our adversaries are filling the vacuum. Families are burying children who might have lived. Mr. Speaker, as we look to the future, let's be clear about what we must do. We must rebuild American foreign assistance, restore American leadership, hold accountable those who recklessly dismantle these programs, and remember every single life that was lost. Abdullahi was not a number, Mohammed was not a statistic, and Gbessy will not be forgotten. They were children. They were loved. They should be with us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam), my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for having this Special Order hour tonight. Mr. Speaker, when the Trump administration slashed USAID funding and fired its dedicated employees, they said it was a crowning achievement of fiscal responsibility because why spend money abroad, spend it on everyday Americans instead. Well, they didn't spend the savings on Americans. They gave tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations and cut Americans' health benefits and food assistance instead. Because of the cuts to USAID, we are now seeing how it actually puts American lives and American dollars at massive risk. If you think foreign aid doesn't affect you, let's look at the most recent example, because more than 70 Americans, including 9 Virginians, some in my district, are missing right now in Nepal because of the catastrophic floods that happened there last week. Over a thousand people are dead. USAID was running a natural hazards program to monitor and identify landslides, disasters, and climate events in Nepal and the project's former director said that the cuts to that program undermined "landslide situational awareness." Imagine how many lives, and yes, even how much money we could have saved, and all the damage we could have prevented. It is more than just that. USAID was America's frontline defense against global chaos by building peace, providing clean water, and stabilizing unstable regions. It aimed to stop humanitarian crises from exploding into violent conflicts, crises that affect Americans at home and abroad. Look at the trillions of dollars being spent on wars right now. We can spend pennies on the dollar instead to prevent them. In fact, Jim Mattis, Trump's old Secretary of Defense said: "If we don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately." Let's refund USAID. It will save American lives and, yes, it will save money, too.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have with me just some of the products USAID had used around the world to save lives and to protect nutrition. On February 19 of last year in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 5-year-old Suza Kenyaba died of malaria. The shipment of antimalaria drugs that could have saved her life was stranded in a distribution warehouse just a few miles away from her clinic after United States Government payments to local contractors were frozen, ordered by the President of the United States. Suza was not alone. According to The Washington Post, 95 percent of malaria medication shipments in the first 6 months of 2025 were either delayed or did not arrive at all. In Suza's province, death caused by malaria tripled. There is no mystery about what happened here. Suza died because President Trump, in his first year back in office, slashed humanitarian aid by nearly 70 percent and people died. Just look at USAID, which Trump's billionaire buddy Elon Musk, now the world's richest man, bragged about "feeding it into the wood chipper." The result of this deliberate, gleeful destruction has been nearly 750,000 deaths around the world, nearly one person a minute, an irreplaceable humanitarian loss. In sub-Saharan Africa, as many as 159,000 people are estimated to have died due to the interruption of critical USAID and PEPFAR funds. Nearly 700,000 more children are expected to develop malaria and nearly 164,000 could die from malnutrition. These figures are from researchers around the world, and I have seen the work close up right on these different countries. Due to the interruption of critical USAID funds, it is likely that the final death toll by 2030 is estimated to be even higher, maybe more than 9 million people. Nearly all of these deaths can be prevented, and they were being prevented for pennies on the dollar. I serve on the Appropriations Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have seen the numbers on how, sometimes for pennies a day, American food and medicine saves lives, but it does so much more. We often argue that we spend less than 1 percent of our budget on foreign aid. I argue we should spend more on foreign aid because it returns to us in our national security and, of course, in security around the world. What happens when we withdraw from that indispensable leadership position? Representatives from China or Russia, adversaries, visit these locations and say, how can we help you? And how would you ever trust America again? For less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, we save millions of lives. We save people from starvation, stop pandemics before they start, and build a network of alliances and goodwill that will help achieve America's goals worldwide. This President may imagine a fortress of America, disconnected from the world, hoarding our tremendous prosperity for ourselves or for himself, but we cannot wall ourselves off from disease and disorder. One way or another what happens abroad affects us here at home. If America does not lead, our adversaries will. Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Trump to restore the funding to USAID.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for her eloquent words. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a longtime leader of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a good friend, and a national leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Beyer for bringing us together. Mr. Speaker, foreign aid has been a political whipping boy in this country for decades. The American people believe, if you poll them, that we spend 25 percent of our Nation's budget on foreign aid and they want it reduced to 10 percent. It is already less than 1 percent, less than a quarter percent of our GDP. Obviously, if you are moral, if you care about the world, these programs should be fully funded and that should increase. But what if you are only focused on America? What about our soft power that is dependent upon our image in the world? What about preventing enormous migration caused by desperation? But let's focus on public health because what USAID does more than anything else is fight malaria, Ebola, tuberculosis, and HIV-AIDS. If we don't fight those diseases over there, they replicate, mutate, and migrate. Every one of these diseases replicates in every body that it infects. Then one out of a thousand times or one out of a million times it mutates into a new strain that is either more drug resistant or more communicable, and then those diseases migrate back to the United States. Every one of those diseases is found here and none of them started here. Mr. Speaker, I thank 120 Members of the House who joined with my letter urging the Appropriations Committee to fully fund foreign aid. I thank every member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the Democratic side for cosponsoring my Evan Anzoo Memorial Act. Who is Evan Anzoo? This was the first child killed by Elon Musk who took away his HIV-AIDS medicine in the first month of the Trump administration. This bill requires us to ask the GAO to calculate for us how many have died in the last year and a half. A Harvard professor says hundreds of thousands of deaths have already occurred. Boston University calculates that we have lost 781,000 people in the world, most of them children. A peer-reviewed study led by UCLA says that we are looking at over 14 million who will die if we continue these policies through the end of this decade. Hundreds of thousands have died already, millions will die in this decade if we don't change course, and untold hundreds of thousands of Americans will die if we don't fight the disease over there and instead give that disease a chance to replicate, mutate, and migrate back here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Sherman for speaking. Mr. Speaker, last year, President Trump teamed up with his trillionaire donor Elon Musk to dismantle USAID and pause or permanently cancel a large portion of our international assistance programs. This was done in the name of furthering Trump's America First policy, but it is mostly combating mostly fictional and exaggerated claims of waste. The authors of this policy claimed that their goal was to achieve deficit reduction, to further Trump's America First policy on largely imaginary claims of waste. Far from reducing waste, the headlong rush to shutter USAID has forced the government to set aside billions of dollars for lawsuits, pay former employees to stay at home, and settle outstanding agreements with contractors. Our national debt passed $40 trillion this week, the latest in a strong string of facts to show how little Trump and company actually care about fiscal responsibility. The decision and the chaotic and callous way it was implemented has led to needless death, suffering, and damage to our national security and international reputation. But the worst impacts have been the devastation this has inflicted on poor and sick people around the world. In defense of the aid cuts, Elon Musk claimed zero people in Africa died. Secretary Rubio likewise claimed no one has died, claiming that lifesaving aid programs would be maintained or replaced. These statements are lies, and they are insults to our intelligence. Available government data shows large reductions of spending from 2024 to 2025, such as a 48 percent cut to global health programs, 39 percent cut to the Food For Peace program, a 65 percent cut in development assistance, and a 21 percent cut to international disaster assistance. Several large-scale independent studies and reporting from numerous news outlets have shown the human toll on these reductions. I thank my colleagues who pointed out names and photographs. Let me give some examples. The Gates Foundation estimates that child deaths will rise for the first time in the 21st century in 2025, and projects that if the aid cuts continue at a similar scale, we should expect an additional 12 million child deaths by 2045--12 million kids. Harvard University's Atul Gawande, one of the leading public health experts in the world, published an analysis nearly a year ago finding that hundreds of thousands have already died as a result of the USAID cuts, less than 10 months after they were implemented. A study published by UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health projected that the elimination of foreign aid funding last year would lead to 14 million preventable deaths by the end of this decade, over a third of them children. In a more granular report, research from Oxfam has shown that cholera cases have risen by 62 percent in 2025 compared to the previous year, just as USAID clean water and sanitation programs were cut--one-to-one correspondence. These are numbers, but each statistic represents suffering and misery that our government chose to inflict on some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I love and greatly appreciate The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof. He has gone to Africa and written in heartbreaking detail about the individual human costs of aid cuts. He writes about deaths of children in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Uganda dying due to the lack of ordinarily available food assistance, medicine, mosquito nets, and other U.S.-provided aid. I am a Representative that serves Northern Virginia, so I have heard from hundreds of former USAID employees and their private sector partners who worked on these cut programs. Besides the justifiable outrage felt by these men and women due to how they were treated by this administration, by Elon Musk, and his band of DOGE acolytes, what has really struck me is the grief that they feel being unable to continue to serve our country and help some of the world's most vulnerable people. They understand that U.S. international assistance is not charity. It is a critical component of our national security strategy, alongside diplomacy and defense. They reduced the risk of lethal diseases, like Ebola and the avian flu, from spreading to our shores. They promoted economic growth and democracy in developing nations, enhanced counterterrorism initiatives, and alleviated international crises and disasters. But it is up to us to build and improve what remains of our aid infrastructure. We can and we should work to reduce the risk of this happening again, and I look forward to rebuilding USAID in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time, such as it is.

Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly, (at 7 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 3, 2026, at 9 a.m.