House of Representatives
Page H3397 · Official textThe House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bean of Florida).
Wednesday, May 13, 2026
Vol. 172, No. 81 · 119th Congress, 2nd session
Designation of Speaker Pro Tempore
Page H3397 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Speaker:
Text printed in the Record (155 characters)
May 13, 2026.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Aaron Bean to act as Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Morning-Hour Debate
Page H3397 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to the order of the House of January 6, 2026, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
National Police Week: Texas Honor Guard
Page H3397 · Official text(Ms. De La Cruz of Texas was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.) Ms. De La CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Police Week, I rise to recognize two exceptional officers from Texas' 15th Congressional District, Trooper Juan Zuniga and Trooper Roman Gonzalez. Trooper Zuniga, a McAllen native, has spent over 12 years protecting the citizens of our State. Since graduating from the Department of Public Safety Academy in 2013, he has served as a mentor and a highly skilled expert in crash reconstruction and drug recognition. Edinburg native, Trooper Roman Gonzalez, has led a life defined by sacrifice. Before his 17-year career as a trooper, Roman served as a U.S. marine in Iraq where he earned the Combat Action Ribbon for his courage on the front lines. Both of these men continue to go above and beyond as members of the elite Texas DPS Honor Guard. They ensure that our fallen heroes are laid to rest with dignity, precision, and respect. Troopers Zuniga and Gonzalez represent the very best of south Texas. I thank them for their service. Ms. De La CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Police Chief Jaime Ayala of the Edinburg Police Department who was recently awarded the Mike Gentry Executive Leadership Award by the Texas Police Chiefs Association. This award is reserved for those who embody exceptional leadership in law enforcement. Since stepping into his role, Chief Ayala has shifted the department's focus from simply responding to crime to actively preventing it. By building a proactive agency and deploying drones for real-time emergency responses, he has ensured that Edinburg remains at the cutting edge of public safety innovation. Under his leadership, the Edinburg Police Department was awarded the Rio Grande Valley's Favorite Law Enforcement Agency for the third year in a row. This honor reflects his team's deep commitment to serving and connecting with our beautiful community. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Chief Ayala on this incredible achievement. Ms. De La CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alice native Sergeant Joshua Roque for his outstanding service and leadership at the Jim Wells County Sheriff's Office. Since joining the department 6 years ago, Sergeant Roque has demonstrated exceptional work ethic and leadership. Moving from his role as a correctional officer to patrol sergeant, he has distinguished himself not only as a deputy but also as a resilient member of the SWAT team. He is known throughout the agency for his professionalism and positive attitude that he brings to every shift. Whether he is supervising his squad or making critical decisions under pressure, he leads with integrity. Mr. Speaker, I thank Sergeant Roque for his dedication to public safety and unwavering commitment to the mission of the Jim Wells County Sheriff's Department.
Recognizing Burton Decker Corwin, Ph.d.
Pages H3397–H3398 · Official text(Mr. Latimer of New York was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the exceptional life and times of Burton "Burt" Corwin, a longtime resident of Larchmont who passed away peacefully at the New York State Veterans Home at Montrose on April 29 at the age of 83.
Burt was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and he graduated from Bethel Park High School. Burt attended Lehigh University where he graduated with honors and fulfilled his ROTC requirements, then commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He went on to receive a master's degree and a Ph.D.
Burt served in the U.S. Army at the Pentagon and then served his country as a captain at Long Binh in Vietnam. He received a Bronze Star for his service.
His business career with IBM spanned 33 years in varied roles. He later taught part time in the MBA programs at Fordham and Iona. Most importantly, he served as commander of the David Potts, Jr. VFW Post 1156 in Larchmont for 10 years. Under his leadership, the post focused on service to veterans and service to the community. He also served on the board of the Westchester Board of Veterans Services and was a member of The American Legion.
Throughout his life, Burt was praised for his great intellect, leadership, gentle nature, intention to get it right, and sense of fairness. He was a peacemaker, and he abhorred pettiness. He cared about people and demonstrated it throughout his life. His family and friends will miss him terribly.
Burt is survived by his wife, Deirdre, his two sons, and his stepdaughter. From the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, we salute Burt Corwin and his life of service and dedication to his family, neighbors, and country.
Mr. Speaker, not quite 2 months ago, March 21 to be specific, I filled the tank of our family car at the local gas station three blocks from my home. It was near empty in the gas tank. The price for regular gas was $4.19 per gallon, $4.59 for plus, and $4.99 for super. Twenty gallons later, I paid $85.80 and headed back home.
This past Monday night before coming here to Washington by Amtrak, I did the same thing: $4.79 per gallon, $4.99 for plus, and $5.59 for super. It was 60 cents more per gallon in just 50 days. The same gas cost me $95.80, $12 more than it did 50 days before. It was even higher back in March than it was in January.
If I needed a full tank once a week and prices were to freeze at today's rate, I would be paying $600 more per year. That is a 15 percent increase.
With a congressional salary, I can afford it.
But what about the waitress? What about the factory worker? What about the home healthcare aide, the truck driver or the firefighter?
What about the nurse or the clerical worker? Are they getting a 15 percent pay raise this year?
Many of these people don't know much about the Strait of Hormuz. They don't know much about the shifting rates of tariffs. Maybe they care, maybe they don't, but they care that it costs more today on May 13 than it did on March 21 or on January 1.
Mr. Speaker, you can't blame this on Biden, although you will try. You can't blame this on Obama or Hillary or, for that matter, FDR, Grover Cleveland, or any and every Democrat that ever existed.
The fact is that on January 19, 2025, the Strait of Hormuz was open. The fact is on January 19, 2025, there were no across-the-board tariffs on products, including those from our friends, Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Japan. They are all rethinking what friendship means now.
Let's see what it costs me to gas up on June 23 or on September 5 or perhaps on the morning of November 3.
Mr. Speaker, you can gerrymander all you want. Everyone sees the signs in neon lights all over their town: $4.19, $4.39, and $4.79. You can't gerrymander that.
Congratulating Alpha Delta Pi Sisters
Page H3398 · Official text(Ms. Foxx of North Carolina was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of a milestone for women: to congratulate my Alpha Delta Pi sisters on the occasion of the 175th anniversary of the founding of our sisterhood.
Established as the Adelphean Society on May 15, 1851, at Wesleyan Female College in Macon, Georgia, Alpha Delta Pi is the oldest secret society for college women, founded at the first college chartered to grant degrees to women.
The sorority encourages its members to "Be the First" and counts among its members the first female attorney to practice law in Missouri, the first woman to pass the Georgia bar, the first female president pro tempore in any State's senate, the first woman to lead the Marine Corps band, the first woman elected to executive office in Colorado, the first female inspector general for the 82nd Airborne Division, the first woman to join the United States Navy Blue Angels, the first female Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas, and countless other firsts in the fields of medicine, education, science and technology, athletics, business, journalism, and the arts.
Founder Eugenia Tucker Fitzgerald encouraged sisters to "never forget the unselfish devotion to service that our motto expresses."
For more than 45 years, the sorority has partnered with Ronald McDonald House. Chapters, alumnae associations, and individuals support their local Ronald McDonald House chapters through fundraising and volunteering, and collectively, Alpha Delta Pi has contributed more than $25 million and countless hours to the organization.
Alpha Delta Pi recognizes that not all women participate in sororities as collegians. Therefore, the sorority encourages the proactive recruitment of alumnae initiates who exemplify the high ideals upon which the sisterhood is based.
It was a great honor for me to be invited to be an alumnae initiate of Alpha Delta Pi 5 years ago and to count these trailblazing women among my sisters.
Honoring the Life of Stickney Mayor Jeff Walik
Pages H3398–H3399 · Official text(Mr. Garcia of Illinois was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mayor Jeff Walik of Stickney, a man whose life was inseparable from the village that he loved.
Jeff served his community first as a police officer and later as mayor, always a fighter for Stickney. Mayor Walik never stopped pushing, never stopped advocating, and, frankly, never took "no" for an answer when it came to his home and his people.
Even those who disagreed with him knew one thing to be true: His commitment to Stickney was real. He carried his community in his heart everywhere he went. He never walked away from service, always protecting and fighting for the town he believed in.
Jeff was part of an era of public service that people will speak about with pride.
We extend our deepest condolences to the Walik family, the residents of Stickney, and all those mourning this tremendous loss. May he rest in peace.
Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL)10:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate St. Procopius Church--my first parish when I arrived in Chicago--on their 150th anniversary.
Founded in 1875 and located in the historic Pilsen community in my district, St. Procopius was first built to serve the growing population of Czech immigrants who settled in the neighborhood after the Great Chicago Fire.
Since then, the church has evolved alongside the community from its roots as a predominantly Czech parish to serving a very large and vibrant Mexican-American community that Pilsen is known for today.
The parish, now merged with Providence of God Parish and Holy Trinity Croatian Parish, continues to contribute greatly to the Pilsen neighborhood and the city of Chicago through community outreach, hosting cultural and religious celebrations, and providing education to children from 15 communities across Chicago through a dual-language parish school that I am proud to be an alum of.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate St. Procopius Church for marking a century and a half of faith, resilience, and dedicated service to the people of Chicago.
Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL)10:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Juan Dies and Victor Pichardo, Mexican folk musicians who were recently recognized by the National Endowment for the Arts with the 2026 National Heritage Fellowship awards.
Juan and Victor cofounded Sones de Mexico in Pilsen, Illinois, and have dedicated their lives to preserving, sharing, and uplifting the rich traditions of Mexican folk music for new generations.
Through workshops, seminars, residencies, and performances, they have taken Mexican music from neighborhood events in Pilsen to Carnegie Hall, The Kennedy Center, and the Smithsonian Folklife Festival.
For 35 years, Victor and Juan have taught hundreds of students in Mexico and the U.S., keeping traditions alive and strengthening cultural identity.
This award is a recognition of their contributions to enriching America's cultural tapestry.
"Juan, Victor, your music and achievements fill us with great pride"; "Juan, Victor, su musica y sus logros nos llenan de orgullo."
Recognizing Coach Mike Pickett
Page H3399 · Official text(Mr. Bean of Florida was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Madam Speaker, in soccer, the final whistle marks the end of a match, but today, it marks the close of a legendary career.
I rise to recognize an extraordinary coach, mentor, and leader from my district, Coach Mike Pickett of St. Johns Country Day School in Clay County, Florida, who is retiring after an incredible 28-year career.
Madam Speaker, his record is astounding: 28 years in coaching, 684 games, 23 district championships, 22 regional championships, and 22 Final Four appearances. His teams earned an astounding 15 State championships, ranking him second all-time in Florida and fifth in the Nation. Along the way, his program achieved 9 top 10 national rankings, including three times as the number one team in the country.
Coach Pickett's legacy goes far beyond the scoreboard. He helped shape the lives of countless young athletes, including more than 50 student athletes who went on to play collegiate soccer. Through his leadership, he instilled discipline, teamwork, and a lifelong love of the game.
Madam Speaker, Coach Pickett didn't just build a community program. He built character and opportunity for his students. As he steps away from the sidelines, we thank him for his dedication, his impact, and the example he has set both on and off the field.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate Coach Pickett on an outstanding and incredible career. The final whistle has sounded, but his legacy will play on. I wish him all the best in the next game of life. Clay County and all of north Florida are very proud of Coach Pickett.
Go get `em, Coach.
Madam Speaker, they call it the Sunshine State for a reason. As a young kid growing up in Florida, I basked in the sun every day, going without a shirt. I lifeguarded. I did everything in the sun.
Years later, walking through the halls of the Florida Legislature, Dr. Ralph Massullo, who is now a State senator said, "Bean, there is a spot on you that you might want to get checked out." I did. I saw my dermatologist, and it was bad skin that had to get removed immediately.
Happy ending, Madam Speaker. That dangerous, bad skin was successfully removed, thanks to early detection and thanks to Dr. Massullo. It taught me a valuable lesson and put me on a mission, letting everybody know they have to respect the sunshine.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Skin Cancer Awareness Month to remind us all that something as simple as stepping outside can have long-term consequences if we don't respect the sunshine.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States, with over 5 million cases diagnosed each year. The good news, Madam Speaker: It is also one of the most preventable cancers.
A little sunscreen, a hat, and some shade during the hottest part of the day are small steps that make a big difference. Also, visit your dermatologist regularly because early detection saves lives.
I am not here to sound alarms--or maybe--but just to make sure that people have the tools to protect themselves. I want families to enjoy the outdoors but be safe while in the sun.
Madam Speaker, in Florida, we say the sunshine is part of the good life. Let's make sure we are protecting that life while enjoying it.
Honoring the Life and Legacy of Kathleen Anne Koch
Pages H3399–H3400 · Official text(Mr. Kennedy of New York was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the life and legacy of Kathleen Anne Koch, who passed away on March 17, 2026, at the age of 78.
Kathy was a devoted wife and mother, a proud grandmother, and, above all, a relentless fighter for justice.
Born on January 20, 1948, to Michael and Jeanne Honan, Kathy learned at a young age the importance of community, looking out for your neighbor, and never backing down from doing what is right.
Kathy grew up in South Buffalo, where she met her husband, Wally. Together, they shared a marriage of 52 years filled with laughter, partnership, and an unwavering devotion to family.
Kathy and Wally lived a true love story. They met at a New Year's Eve celebration near McKinley Parkway and got married shortly after at St. Teresa's Church. They were inseparable. They devoted every waking moment to one another and, in the process, created a lifetime full of beautiful memories.
After receiving a degree in social work from D'Youville University, Kathy began a career as an employment counselor at the Erie County Department of Social Services. For decades, she helped people find dignity, stability, and economic security. She saw people not as cases but as neighbors, often celebrating their victories as if they were her own.
She didn't stop there. Kathy frequently followed up to make sure that those she helped stayed on a path toward success. That is who she was. She never did the bare minimum. She poured her whole heart into helping others each and every day.
She passed that calling on to her children, my dear friends, Melanie, Mike, and Walt, each of whom followed in their mother's footsteps and chose a life of service.
Melanie became a supervisor of special education for the Buffalo Public Schools, helping students with special needs to reach their full potential.
Mike, my former classmate and the best OT to come out of our class at D'Youville University, works as an occupational therapist, helping patients regain independence following traumatic injuries.
Walt, one of the most selfless public servants I have ever had the privilege to work with, serves as deputy district director and senior caseworker in my Buffalo office, where he dedicates every day to the betterment of our community.
Kathy instilled in her children a deep belief in the power of civic duty and the promise of our democracy. Inspired by leaders like President John F. Kennedy, Kathy believed that if you want to see change, you must fight for it.
Kathy never missed an election. She never sat on the sidelines. She knew that one voice could make a difference, and she used her own for the betterment of our community.
Kathy was a happy warrior in the fight for a better world. Her compassion was evident in the small, quiet acts that revealed the depth of her character.
Kathy was also an avid Buffalo Bills fan who never missed a game. In 1974, when she was nearly 9 months pregnant with identical twins Mike and Walton, she went to Rich Stadium for a Bills playoff game. When the Bills lost their first Super Bowl, she forced her children to skip school to go to the rally in front of Buffalo City Hall to welcome her beloved Bills home.
Kathy passed away on St. Patrick's Day, her favorite day of the year, surrounded by her entire family. Like many South Buffalonians, she was proud of her Irish heritage and loved celebrating her roots alongside those she loved.
To Kathy's children, Melanie, Mike, and Walt, and her grandchildren, Norah, Nicholas, Noah, and Liam, our Nation mourns with you.
Though Kathy will be deeply missed, her legacy lives on in each of them in every life that she touched.
Western New York is stronger because Kathy Koch was a part of it. May we honor her by carrying forward her fight for a better, more just world.
On behalf of a grateful nation and on behalf of a grateful community, may Kathleen Anne Koch rest in peace.
Fort Thomas High School Boys' Basketball Wins 1a State Title
Page H3400 · Official text(Mr. Ciscomani of Arizona was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Fort Thomas High School boys' basketball team on winning the 2026 1A State championship.
The Apaches won their first title since 2020 with a score of 77-45 in the championship game. Nearly 10,000 fans were in attendance to cheer on Fort Thomas, making their victory that much sweeter.
Senior Damarae Dosela led the team, scoring 26 points, including three consecutive three-pointers at the end of the third quarter. His performance earned him the championship's MVP vote.
With this victory, the Apaches took home their 13th State title. Coach Matthew Dona, having led the team to this year's championship title, was named the Boys' 1A Conference Coach of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Coach Dona, the whole team, and everyone who made this win possible. Their hard work has made their school and our community very proud. I hope the Apaches enjoy their victory. They earned it. Here is to another successful season and many, many more.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Pima High School boys' basketball team on winning the 2026 2A State championship title. The Roughriders took home the State title in a 40-29 victory over North Valley Christian, thanks to an incredible defense.
This victory marks the second State championship title the Roughriders have taken home in the last three seasons, after winning in 2023, as well, and their 12th overall.
Senior Keegan Corona scored 16 points, helping secure the win for Pima. Corona was also named the 2A East Region Offensive Player of the Year.
This victory caps off a 21-year career for Coach Cliff Thompson, with an impressive 475-173 record. This puts Thompson at 17th overall in Arizona history.
I congratulate Coach Cliff Thompson, the whole team, and everyone who made this win possible. Their hard work has made their school and our community very proud.
Roughriders, enjoy your victory. You have earned it. Here is to another successful season and many, many more.
Text printed in the Record (59 characters)
Palo Verde High School Boys' Basketball Wins 3A State Title
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Palo Verde High School boys' basketball team on winning the 2026 3A State championship title.
The Titans made school history with this victory, taking home their first basketball State championship in school history. They earned the title with a score of 52-41 against Coolidge High School.
Junior Rashad Ortiz led the team with 19 points and was chosen as MVP for the 3A State tournament.
This amazing win comes after the Titans reached the 3A championship just last year.
Coach Anthony Smith has led the team since 2021, coaching the Titans to a State championship, a State runner-up, and a 96-40 record.
I congratulate Coach Smith, the whole team, and everyone who made this history-making win possible. Your hard work has made your school and our community very proud. May the Titans enjoy their victory. They have earned it.
Here is to another successful season and many, many more.
CELEBRATING JOHN McDERMOTT DURING NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING MONTH
Page H3400 · Official text(Mrs. Ramirez of Illinois was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise to celebrate a longtime Chicago leader, an organizer for housing justice, my mentor, and a dear friend, John McDermott.
John's legacy fighting for affordable housing is written across our city. From his work as the executive director at the Lakeview Action Coalition to his tenure at the Palenque LSNA, and his work to protect and preserve affordable and public housing at Lathrop Homes, there are few people whose names are as synonymous with housing justice as John's McDermott's.
Because of his mentorship and organizing, the Preserve Lathrop Campaign secured the replacement, rather than the demolition, of 925 public housing units and the preservation of historic buildings.
But John's impact extends beyond any one single campaign. John's mentorship has built housing justice leaders, many of whom serve now as Chicago's public servants today. I count myself among them.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my sincere honor to commend John McDermott for his lifetime of contributions in the fight for housing justice and affordable housing for all.
I congratulate John.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Felicia Davis Blakley for her service to community, her commitment to women and families, and her fierce leadership.
A self-described girl from the South Side, Felicia has worked at the intersection of public policy and community equity and inclusion for over three decades. Her notable and impactful career in nonprofit leadership and public service has blazed trails for women and girls across our entire city of Chicago.
Currently serving as the chief executive officer of Primo Center, Chicago's largest provider of services for families experiencing homelessness, Felicia's leadership is empowering families and creating equitable and sustainable communities across the city of Chicago.
As president and CEO of the Chicago Foundation for Women, she completed a historic $45 million campaign, expanding critical resources for women and their families, and launching the SHEcovery initiative at a moment of profound need in response to COVID.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is truly my privilege to commend Felicia Davis Blakley for her radical authenticity, her unparalleled passion, and inspirational vision which she uses to shape initiatives that address the root causes of instability.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Felicia. Her name and the impact she has made throughout the city of Chicago and Illinois is now permanently entered in the Congressional Record.
Recognizing Mayor Mike Leonhardt
Pages H3400–H3401 · Official text(Mr. Moore of Utah was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a man who has been a fixture of northern Utah for decades, who unfortunately passed away recently with a short but hard-fought battle with cancer.
It is hard to think of a man more dedicated to his community than Garden City Mayor Mike Leonhardt.
Mayor Mike spent his life serving his Garden City as a city council member, fire chief, Bear Lake County Search and Rescue volunteer, and most recently as a three-term mayor. When he wasn't serving his community, Mike was often found riding his Harley with his wife, Tami, and enjoying the scenic backdrop of northern Utah.
It has been an honor to serve Garden City alongside Mayor Mike, and I will miss him at the next Raspberry Days.
My heart is with Tami, his 7 children, 24 grandchildren, and the entire Rich County community as we remember and share our fond memories of Mayor Mike.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, on a court just blocks from here, Republicans and Democrats put aside the political divide, laced up our shoes, and went to battle.
The 26th Annual Congressional Basketball Game supports kids in our communities and stands as a reminder of what this place can be at its best.
I will be honest, the Members, a.k.a. the good team, the good guys, took a tough loss, 50-48. Yes, the lobbyists, a.k.a. the bad guys, are already talking as if they had won a world championship. We will let them have their moment, and it will be brief.
Here is what matters. When we were down, this team didn't quit. Members rallied, a 10-0 run late in the fourth quarter, defense, hustle, and heart, the very opposite of what the opposing team stands for, which mostly consists of overwhelming the refs with their aggressive fouling and other shenanigans down in the paint that leaves many Members of Congress sore for weeks after, as I have experienced.
For a moment, you could feel it, though. We were right there late in that fourth quarter. But why do we do it? Not for bragging rights, not even for the win. We do it for the kids in our community, kids who need support, opportunity, and someone in their corner.
That is the side of Capitol Hill people don't always see, where competition meets compassion. For one night, we come together not as Republicans or Democrats, but as teammates.
I will just say this to team swamp--I mean, team lobbyists--enjoy the win. We will see you next year.
Honoring Deputy Sheriff Antonio Aleman During National Police Week
Page H3401 · Official textHONORING DEPUTY SHERIFF ANTONIO ALEMAN DURING NATIONAL POLICE WEEK (Mr. Vasquez of New Mexico was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to voice my support for those who keep New Mexico safe.
It is National Police Week, and this week the House is considering a bipartisan resolution to honor law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in the line of duty.
I strongly support this bipartisan resolution. One of the heroic officers honored in the resolution is Deputy Sheriff Antonio Aleman.
Deputy Sheriff Aleman was tragically killed in an on-duty crash while serving his community on July 8, 2025. He was with the Dona Ana County Sheriff's Office since 2021. He is remembered by his colleagues as a valued member of the department who will be deeply missed. Deputy Sheriff Aleman is survived by his wife and two children.
His service and sacrifice deserves to be honored by this body, along with the courage of all those who wear the badge honorably. That is what National Police Week should be about--honoring our law enforcement officers who have made the sacrifice to keep their neighbors safe and our families safe, listening to the concerns of those currently serving, and taking concrete steps to give them the additional funding and support to ensure that they can come home safe to their families every night.
That is why I have taken the asks that I have gotten from law enforcement in New Mexico and turned it into over $3 million in direct investments to public safety.
I am also leading bipartisan bills to protect our officers, strengthen officer safety and retention, expand funding for bulletproof vests, and protecting first responders from exposure to dangerous substances such as fentanyl. I am proud that we are able to continue to work across the aisle on these issues.
Our law enforcement officers put on the uniform every day knowing the risks. They miss holidays. They respond to the toughest of calls. They comfort families in crisis, and they run toward danger to keep us safe.
They deserve police stations that are safe and functional, modern technology that helps them respond to crime quickly and safely, training that protects their physical and mental health, and leaders who listen when they tell us what they need.
I promise to keep listening and delivering results for New Mexico's law enforcement community.
Recognizing National Nurses Week
Pages H3401–H3402 · Official text(Ms. Johnson of Texas was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize National Nurses Week and honor the extraordinary nurses serving North Texas and communities across our country.
Every single day, nurses are there for us in life's most difficult and vulnerable moments. They are the first hand a newborn feels, the calm voice in an emergency room, and a compassionate presence beside patients and families facing uncertainty.
Nurses do far more than provide medical comfort. They advocate for patients, comfort families, educate communities, and hold together a health system that too often asks them to do more with less.
Over the past several years, we have seen nurses carry unimaginable burdens, from staffing shortages to burnout, while continuing to show up for their patients with professionalism and compassion. They deserve more than our gratitude. They deserve safe working conditions, fair pay, mental health support, and investments in our own healthcare workforce.
To every nurse serving in hospitals, clinics, schools, veterans' facilities, nursing homes, and community health centers, I thank you. Congress and your country honor your service, your sacrifice, and your unwavering commitment to caring for others.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act.
Let's be clear about what this bill does. It does not make our communities safer. It does not meaningfully address violent crime. What it does is continue a failed approach to a criminal justice system that punishes Texans in poverty instead of protecting public safety.
We have already seen the consequences of this approach in Texas and across the country. Cash bail systems have created a two-tiered justice system where wealth determines freedom. If you are rich, you can buy your way out of jail. If you are poor, you can sit behind bars for weeks or months before ever being convicted of a crime.
In Texas, we have watched State leaders exploit fear around bail reform while ignoring deeper problems in our justice system. County jails are overcrowded. Courts are backlogged. Public defenders are overwhelmed. Too many people accused of low-level, nonviolent offenses are trapped in jail simply because they cannot afford bail.
This bill attacks charitable, nonprofit organizations who provide bail assistance. Whether you are eligible for bail should depend on the nature of the offense, your flight risk, and your prior criminal history, not whether you have the funds to post it.
If this Congress truly wants to address violent crime, then we should invest in evidence-based solutions: funding mental health services, reducing court backlogs, supporting victims, strengthening community violence intervention programs, and ensuring judges have the resources to make individualized decisions based on actual risk, not a person's bank account.
This bill ignores those solutions in favor of political talking points and fear-mongering. Americans deserve a justice system that is fair, constitutional, and focused on real public safety, not one that criminalizes poverty and expands mass incarceration.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, for too long, this Republican Congress has failed the American people on immigration. We have allowed a broken system to remain broken: one that is too slow, too chaotic, and too unfair for everyone involved.
The American people deserve an immigration system that is fair, fast, and final--fair for families seeking safety and opportunity, fast enough to reduce years of backlog that leave people in limbo, and final so that decisions are made efficiently, transparently, and with integrity under the rule of law.
We will not fix our immigration system by abandoning our constitutional values. We will not restore order by stripping away due process rights or criminalizing people without giving them a fair hearing before the law.
That is why I voted against the Lakin Riley Act and the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act. While supporters claim these bills are about safety, they expand mandatory detention and enforcement powers in ways that undermine due process and threaten our basic constitutional protections.
In this country, we do not decide guilt or innocence without a hearing or access to an attorney. We do not throw away civil liberties because of political pressure or fear. Due process is not a loophole. It is a cornerstone of American democracy. It protects citizens and noncitizens alike from government overreach and ensures that our laws are applied fairly and consistently.
We can modernize our immigration system and protect public safety while still upholding the Constitution. Those goals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, our system works best when we defend both security and justice together.
We need comprehensive immigration reform that expands legal pathways, addresses workforce needs, invests in immigration courts, and creates clear, enforceable rules that reflect our values as a Nation.
America has always been strongest when we lead with both compassion and the rule of law. As a Member of Congress, I will never vote to sacrifice one for the other.
RECOGNIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF OHIO'S 13th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Page H3402 · Official textRECOGNIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF OHIO'S 13th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT (Mrs. Sykes of Ohio was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the courage, dedication, and sacrifice of the law enforcement officers serving in Ohio's 13th Congressional District and to honor those who have lost their lives in the line of duty.
Being a police officer is never easy. It is one of the most difficult and dangerous jobs in our society. In recent years, it has only gotten harder.
As I have met with law enforcement agencies across northeast Ohio, I continue to hear the same concerns: officers are overworked, stretched thin, and in need of better support and training to meet the demands of the job and the needs of our community and those that they are sworn to protect and serve.
That is why since coming to Congress, I have made it a priority to fight for legislation that gives officers the tools that they need to do their jobs, while also demanding accountability on behalf of the communities they serve.
After the horrific shooting of Jayland Walker in Akron, I spoke with members of our community and law enforcement. I then introduced the Law Enforcement Scenario-Based Training for Safety and De-Escalation Act.
This bipartisan legislation ensures law enforcement officers have the proper de-escalation training needed to handle complex situations that they often face in the field because, no matter what, we all want everyone to make it home safely at the end of the night.
This year, after the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good, I introduced the COOL IT Act, which would require similar de-escalation training for ICE officers. We cannot ignore these tragedies. We must respond with solutions that promote safety, accountability, and, most importantly, trust. That is exactly what this legislation is designed to do.
These bills support law enforcement by helping departments build trust with the communities they serve, and this makes our community safer for both the officers and the public. Again, these are people whom they are sworn to protect and serve.
Certainly, these are not bills that will solve every single problem, but it is a piece of the puzzle ensuring safety and accountability. In fact, the law enforcement scenario-based training for Safety and De-Escalation Act is supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police and the Akron NAACP because we all share the goal of making sure everyone goes home safely at the end of the day.
Further, I introduced the Supporting Women with Career Opportunities in Policing Services Act. This is legislation to establish a Federal task force focused on improving recruitment, retention, and advancement of opportunities for women in law enforcement. This bill takes an important step toward building a stronger, more inclusive public safety workforce by helping departments recruit talented women, support them throughout their careers, and create pathways into leadership. When law enforcement agencies better reflect the communities they serve, our communities are stronger and safer.
When I came to Congress, I promised to put the people of Ohio's 13th Congressional District first. That means supporting our officers, rebuilding trust and public safety, and working across the aisle to get things done. That is exactly what I have worked to do and exactly what I will continue to do.
Recess
Page H3402 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bean of Florida)
Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 47 minutes a.m.), the House stood in recess.
After Recess
Page H3402 · Official textThe recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker at noon.
Prayer
Page H3402 · Official textThe Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: O Lord, our guardian, guide, and stay, transform the thoughts of our minds, that what comes from our mouths will reflect our love for You and our desire to serve You well in this place. Guide our thinking throughout the day, in our comings and goings, our interviews, and exchanges, that what we perceive in these encounters would be seasoned with Your grace and that how we choose to respond would be leavened with Your mercy. Stay our tongues, that we would not be quick to retort with unwholesome talk, but harness our passions, that they would be governed with kindness, directed toward the building up of others, according to their needs, and offered for the benefit of all those who bear witness to our words. Lord, may the words of our mouths and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in Your sight. We pray this day in the strength of Your name, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.
The Journal
Page H3402 · Official textThe SPEAKER
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.
Pledge of Allegiance
Page H3402 · Official textThe SPEAKER
Will the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
Text printed in the Record (174 characters)
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Announcement by the Speaker
Page H3402 · Official textThe SPEAKER
The Chair will entertain up to 15 requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
Recognizing Todd Warner
Pages H3402–H3403 · Official text(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Todd Warner, who will be retiring as the Clinton County Director of Veterans Affairs in June.
Todd, of Port Matilda, Pennsylvania, graduated from Penn State in 1986. Following graduation, he was commissioned as an Army Reserve Second Lieutenant in the Quartermaster Corps. Todd was assigned to the 442nd Field Service Company in Bellefonte from 1986 to 1992.
Todd led as a platoon leader with a joint task force in Honduras and, a few years later, went on to lead Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Through the 1990s and the early 2000s, Todd drew up the ranks as captain, major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel.
Following assignments across Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and most recently at the Pentagon, Todd retired in 2016 after 30 years of service.
Todd assumed his current role with the Clinton County VA in 2023 and has supported hundreds of veterans across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Todd for his commitment to service and State. I thank him for his selflessness in helping other veterans across Clinton County. I congratulate Todd on this milestone. I salute him. May God bless him and his family.
Supreme Court Engaged in Ugly Recidivism
Page H3403 · Official text(Mr. KHANNA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court is engaged in an ugly recidivism to deny Black political representation in the South.
Not since 1877, when Rutherford Hayes ended Reconstruction, have we seen as fast a rollback of political rights for Black Americans.
The moral light has been extinguished from the Supreme Court. That is why we need term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Eighteen years, and you are out. That is why we need to expand the Court from 9 Justices to 13 Justices, like we have 13 circuits.
The next time the Democrats have power, we need to actually take action, not just appoint commissions.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 250th anniversary of our Nation, we need a modern Supreme Court to uphold our Nation's principles.
Appreciating Police
Page H3403 · Official text(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National Police Week, Americans appreciate all officers while honoring those who were wounded or lost their lives in the line of duty.
This year, we honor the following officers of South Carolina, who were added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial wall: F. Devin Mason, Nathaniel M. Ansay, Will G. Durant, Michael Charles Wood, Dennis D. Ricks, Jr., and Mark S. Reynolds. They all served in the tradition of the late Greg Alia of Forest Acres.
House Republicans stand alongside these courageous heroes. This week, there is legislation of commitment to those who serve our country, and we must restore law and order.
Mr. Speaker, I respect my hometown police chief, Andrew "Bear" Richbourg of Springdale.
God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump, shamefully breaking the victory day cease-fire.
As war criminal Putin bombs civilian homes, Ukrainian parents provide their children at night with whistles to assist in recovery as Putin attacks their homes and murders children.
Recognizing National Police Week and Honoring Our First Responders
Page H3403 · Official textRECOGNIZING NATIONAL POLICE WEEK AND HONORING OUR FIRST RESPONDERS (Mr. RUIZ asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise during National Police Week to honor the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to keep our community safe.
In 2016, Palm Springs Police Officers Lesley Zerebny and Gil Vega were killed in the line of duty. Because of their tragedy, I introduced the Heroes Lesley Zerebny and Gilbert Vega First Responders Survivors Support Act to strengthen the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program and make sure the families of fallen officers receive the support they deserve. With today's cost of living, they are struggling to make ends meet.
This bill will increase death benefits, so surviving families can pay off most of their debt, if not all of it. It will increase education benefits to cover the rising cost of an education. It will help officers' widows and children get on a stable footing.
Mr. Speaker, we can honor the sacrifice that families of fallen officers have made by passing this legislation, and we must.
Celebrating Sleepy Eye St. Mary's Knights Girls' Basketball Team
Page H3403 · Official text(Mr. FINSTAD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an extraordinary achievement, the first-ever State championship for the Sleepy Eye St. Mary's Knights girls' basketball team. In an unforgettable performance, the Knights battled past top-seeded Mountain Iron-Buhl in an impressive 83-63 victory.
Appearing at the Class A title game for the second straight year, the Knight's relentless defense and explosive offense brought home this year's win.
Morgan Mathiowetz scored early three-pointers and finished the tournament with a remarkable 100 total points, including 27 in the championship matchup.
Olivia Schieffert followed with 25 points of her own, showcasing the teamwork and confidence that define this historic run.
The Knights capped off their 2026 season with a 32-1 record. All of us across the First Congressional District are incredibly proud to call them our own.
I congratulate the legend, Coach Bruce Woitas and his team on bringing home the first State title. They earned every moment of this championship. Way to go, Knights.
Trump Administration Vanity Projects
Page H3403 · Official text(Mr. MAGAZINER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, President Trump is demanding $1 billion of taxpayer money for his ballroom, while Americans struggle to put food on the table.
He wants to spend millions more to build an arch as a monument to himself, while parents can't afford childcare for their children.
He is spending millions on a no-bid contract to repaint the reflecting pool, while small businesses are closing down because of the high costs of energy caused by his unnecessary Iran war.
This is all taxpayer money we are talking about, by the way, and the Rhode Islanders whom I speak to don't understand why our colleagues in Congress are putting more energy into trying to use their taxpayer money to lavish the President with gifts and monuments instead of making healthcare more affordable for the American people, along with housing, food, and childcare.
We need to get our priorities straight as a Congress and as a country.
Honoring the Annapolis Police Department
Pages H3403–H3404 · Official text(Ms. ELFRETH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, this Police Week, I rise to honor the 20 members of the Annapolis Police Department who received the Life Saving Award and the Meritorious Service Award for their heroism on June 11, 2023.
On that afternoon, Paddington Place in Annapolis experienced a heartbreaking mass shooting at a birthday party that took the lives of three of our neighbors and injured three others.
In the face of an unfolding tragedy, these officers worked quickly to stabilize the scene and provide lifesaving aid to the gunshot victims.
The officers met the families and victims with extreme professionalism, compassion, and composure--working with extraordinary teamwork under challenging circumstances.
That night was just one example of how first responders rush to the scene and show up for our loved ones on their hardest days.
I thank the officers for their unwavering service on behalf of our community.
Medically Tailored Meals
Page H3404 · Official text(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, last week in Massachusetts, I had the pleasure of speaking at the AMPL Institute's annual convening to learn about the latest research and hear directly from experts in the field of medically tailored meals.
Based within Community Servings, the largest nonprofit provider of medically tailored meals in New England, the AMPL Institute combines pioneering research, policy work, and provider education aimed at transforming the healthcare system so that medically tailored nutrition becomes a universally accessible standard of care.
The incredible work of Community Servings is what got me interested in, and now passionate about, expanding the reach of medically tailored meals. They are the reason I have introduced a bipartisan bill to pilot coverage of MTMs in traditional Medicare at hospitals across the country.
Medically tailored meals have the power to transform lives. They improve health outcomes, support vulnerable patients, and strengthen the Food Is Medicine movement.
It is time to pass my bipartisan bill, the Medically Tailored Home-Delivered Meals Program Act, to really advance the Food Is Medicine movement in this country.
Honoring Officer Suzanne O of Maui
Page H3404 · Official text(Ms. TOKUDA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, this Friday, May 15, the Nation will observe Peace Officers Memorial Day. This year's observance is especially difficult and deeply personal for our Maui ohana.
Maui Police Department Officer Suzane O was added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial this spring. Officer O, a beloved daughter, sister, partner, auntie, and friend was killed in the line of duty in August 2025, when she encountered an armed suspect in response to a terroristic threatening call.
Raised in American Samoa and a graduate of Farrington High School, Officer O was a role model for many Pacific Islander girls. She was a dedicated public servant and a proud member of the MPD Honor Guard and had received a Certificate of Merit for her heroic efforts during our Maui wildfires.
Officer O is deeply missed by her family, friends, and colleagues.
All police officers and their families deeply understand the risks that come with putting on the uniform every single day. Today, we remember and honor the courage and the sacrifice of officers like Suzane O who have paid the ultimate price to keep our communities and our families safe.
Providing for Consideration of H.r. 5625, Cashless Bail Reporting Act; Providing for Consideration of H.r. 6260, Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025; Providing for Consideration...
Pages H3404–H3410 · Official textOUR STREETS ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8365, MONITOR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 96, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8469, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2027
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1275 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (6,951 characters)
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5625) to direct the Attorney General to make publicly available a list of each State and unit of local government that permits cashless bail, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6260) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud in connection with posting bail. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8365) to provide for conditions on the appointment of monitors by courts, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) expressing support for law enforcement officers. All points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
Sec. 5. At any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8469) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
Sec. 6. (a) No amendment to H.R. 8469 shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 7 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 8 of this resolution.
(b) Each amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 8 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en bloc described in section 7 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 7. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en
bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 8 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 8. During consideration of H.R. 8469 for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate.
Sec. 9. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8469 for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett)
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 1 hour.
H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore12:20 p.m.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Rules Committee met yesterday and reported out a rule providing for consideration of five measures: H.R. 5626, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act; H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025; H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act; H. Con. Res. 96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers; and H.R. 8469, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027.
House Resolution 1275 provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R. 6260, and H.R. 8365, each under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each bill, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides for each bill one motion to recommitment.
The rule further provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers, under a closed rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides 1 motion to recommit and makes 51 amendments in order.
This rule will provide for consideration of several important bills, Mr. Speaker, that I believe will improve the safety of our local communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them. It will also bring the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027 to the floor so we can begin the process of passing the bills before the September 30 end of the fiscal year.
First, I would like to start by saying thank you to our law enforcement officers, particularly since this week is Police Week. We honor our law enforcement officers and the men and women who gave their lives in the line of duty.
I am glad we are bringing bills to the floor this week to do Congress' part in helping and honoring law enforcement officers. Among those is H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act. This bill provides commonsense accountability measures for charitable bail funds. These are organizations that use money given as donations to bail out defendants, many of whom have been charged with violent felonies or whom are repeat offenders.
Charitable bail funds have consistently helped release violent criminals back onto our streets where they have committed robbery, assault, kidnapping, and even murder in some cases.
H.R. 6260 closes loopholes that have allowed for potential fraudulent practices and include charitable bail funds as entities "engaged in the business of insurance," thereby ensuring that charitable bail funds will be subject to the criminal provisions under Federal law that apply thereto.
Another bill in this rule is H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act. This legislation requires the Department of Justice to publish an annual report listing the State and local governments that allow cashless bail for criminals who pose a clear threat to public safety.
Recently, destructive policies in some States and cities are allowed for the gradual elimination of monetary bail systems and, as a result, has led to increased crime. According to a March 2023 study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the percentage of violent felony offenders who were rearrested increased from 62 to 72 percent.
The correlation is clear: Cashless bail policy leads to increased crime in our communities, and the American people should know if their local governments are participating in these ill-advised programs.
Additionally, this rule brings to the floor H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act. This bill provides for needed reforms for court monitors, which are independent officials whose job it is to conduct oversight during court proceedings. While many court monitors have performed their duties well, others have initiated unnecessarily long agreements and have charged government agencies with the expensive fees.
H.R. 8365 curbs the excesses of court monitors by imposing a maximum term of service, regulates the fee amount a monitor may charge, and sets general expectations for the court monitor industry. This bill codifies many of the recommendations that then-Attorney General Garland put into place after the Biden administration reviewed the Federal monitoring program.
This rule also brings up H. Con. Res. 96, a resolution that supports National Police Week by honoring the courageous law enforcement officers across our Nation who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe.
This resolution expresses Congress' immense gratitude for the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers at every level. At a time when officers are facing growing dangers in carrying out their duties, it is important that the House stand in unison to honor these brave men and women.
Lastly, the rule provides for consideration of the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027, H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The bill provides robust funding for military housing, services for children and military members, and maintenance projects for military base facilities.
This legislation also takes care of our veterans by fully funding veterans' healthcare program benefits, and investing over $2 billion in capital improvements for VA medical facilities and national cemeteries.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8469 also bolsters our national security through continued investments for military bases and infrastructure for advanced weapons systems in places like the Indo-Pacific, where it is imperative that we strengthen our capabilities vis-a-vis China. As we heard in the Rules Committee last night, this appropriations bill, the MILCON-VA bill, passed unanimously, 58-0, out of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his remarks. I honor our law enforcement officers, as does everybody on the Democratic side. Yet, as I look at the list of bills that Republicans are bringing to the floor this week, I have to say that the American people deserve way, way better than this.
I mean, Republicans love to talk about supporting the police, but talk is cheap. Look at what they do. There is not a single penny of public safety funding in any of these bills--not one.
I mean, these guys are more interested in passing press releases than they are in passing meaningful legislation that will make a real difference in our communities.
At the same time, Donald Trump's own budget--get this--calls for massive cuts to programs that support law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, go read it yourself. The President's budget cuts 55 percent from Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. It cuts more than 60 percent from the COPS program, a program that Trump's own Justice Department calls the cornerstone of our Nation's crime-fighting strategy. I mean, how is this possible?
Let's not forget that mere hours after he was sworn in, on his very first day in office, President Trump pardoned the violent criminals who attacked police officers on January 6. Let me say that again in case anyone forgot. Donald Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned felons who viciously beat police officers at the Capitol Building.
Mr. Speaker, some of the people he pardoned have since gone on to do even more terrible things, including in my district, where one of them was just rearrested on child pornography charges.
Don't come down to this Chamber and lecture people on law and order. The leader of the Republican Party wants to cut funding for public safety after he pardoned his own supporters who violently attacked police.
Talk is cheap around here. Look at what the radical, far-right people in charge of this government are doing. Look at how they vote. Look at their agenda for this week. Look at their priorities. This is another week without a single bill to make life more affordable and without a single bill to address the cost of living.
Why not? Well, the answer is simple: Republicans are not focused on your grocery bill. They are not focused on how much you pay at the pump. They are not focused on your rent, your healthcare, your utility bills, or your paycheck. They aren't focused on you.
They are focused on their obedience and obsession with Donald Trump, on his tariffs, his war, his billion-dollar ballroom, his arch, his reflecting pool paint job, and his golf course on the Potomac. Whatever he wants, they just say yes, and the rest of us pay the price for their radical MAGA extremism.
They ripped healthcare from millions of people in this country. They cut food assistance for kids, veterans, seniors, and Americans with disabilities. They raised the price of everything from utilities to groceries. They did it all to give tax breaks to their billionaire donors and rubberstamp every dumb idea that President Trump comes up with.
Yesterday, the President said the quiet part out loud. He finally told the truth about something. When asked a simple question of whether he thinks about the terrible economic situation that he has put American families into, thanks to his illegal war, do you know what he said? "Not even a little bit."
Now, let that sink in. The President of the United States of America was asked if he cares how badly he screwed up your family's finances with his stupid, illegal war, and his answer was: "Not even a little bit."
Your gas is $4.50 a gallon. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your pay isn't keeping up with inflation. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your health insurance is way up. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your fridge is empty until payday. He doesn't care, not even a little bit.
That is what he said. That is what he believes. That is how this radical, far-right majority in Congress is governing.
Those at the top are doing better than ever. The Epstein-class billionaires and special interests who write the campaign checks are doing great. They can't thank my Republican friends enough. Yet, the rest of us--for my constituents and for everyday people in this country--Donald Trump's economy sucks, and Republicans don't care, not even a little bit.
They tell themselves over and over again that everything is going well. Well, it is time for them to listen, to listen to the American people, who have had it up to here with these failed economic policies and who are sick and tired of a government that bends over backward to help those who are well-off and well-connected and turns a blind eye to the struggles of the working people in this country.
We have to do better. We have to do better.
Mr. Speaker, as we come together this week to honor our law enforcement officials, those who serve our communities and protect our communities, the least we could have done is brought a bill to the floor that would actually provide real help to our local police departments to be able to hire people and to be able to obtain the equipment that is necessary to protect our police officers.
Instead, we got a press release. We got a press release.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a "no" vote on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with some interest. It sounds like he doesn't like the current occupant of the White House and has serious concerns about that, but it doesn't sound like he dislikes any of the bills that much because he didn't spend much time talking about them.
That is what this rule is about--bringing those bills to the floor. In the MILCON-VA appropriations bill that passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, I grant you, there were things in there that Democrats didn't like and things in there that Republicans didn't like. Yet, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee, the Appropriations Committee came together. They all had to compromise on certain things, but they got the bill done, and they felt like it was, overall, a good bill. There were certain disagreements, but overall, they felt like it was a good bill.
Then, we are doing some things, and they may want to do more, but we are doing some things that are very positive for law enforcement and for our local communities that will help communities be able to better figure out what is going on, whether it be bail or the monitoring system, et cetera.
That is what we are discussing here today. There is lots of time in the leadership hours and in the morning hour to give 1 minutes, 5 minutes, or an hourlong speech. Yet, today, we are supposed to be discussing during this time period the rule that brings to the floor four bills that are good bills and an appropriations bill.
I am glad to hear that there is not a whole lot of consternation about the bills that we are presenting this rule on. While there may be disagreement on other items, I am glad that we are moving forward on that.
It is always tempting when you are here presenting a rule to get dragged into the cesspool or the thoughts that the other side wants to talk about, but that is what I am here to talk about: the bills that are in the rule that we are presenting today.
Apparently, they are pretty good. I know they don't like them 100 percent, but they must be pretty good, or they would have spent more time talking about them in the opening salvo of this debate on the rule. So, I think that should encourage all Members, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say to the gentleman there will be at least 5 hours of debate to talk about these less than impressive bills that he is bringing to the floor today. There will be even more debate on a handful of amendments that have been offered.
We are talking about the rule today, and the rule basically is Republicans' agenda for the week. It is not about lowering the price of groceries. It is not about dealing with the high price of gas. It is not about dealing with the rising costs of healthcare. Republicans' agenda is to avoid talking about the real problems that Americans are facing as we gather here on the House floor.
I want to talk about your agenda, and your agenda sucks. I mean, I don't know how else to put it more plainly. It is a disgrace that my Republican friends spend more and more time trying to avoid dealing with the real issues that are hurting their constituents, but that is what their agenda is all about.
I get it. Everybody over there is afraid of the guy in the White House. Maybe you should be more afraid of your constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7711, which would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is Police Week, and Republicans will come to the floor, as we have just heard, and talk about how much they support and honor our law enforcement officers. We all support law enforcement officers who keep us safe and protect our communities. But what most, if not all, of these Republicans will fail to do, and have failed to do repeatedly, is condemn the pardons that Donald Trump issued to over 1,500 individuals that attacked this building and attacked our democracy on January 6. Many of them were convicted of violent felonies.
For those who weren't here that day, go back and look at the videos, and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Over 140 brave Capitol Police, the ones in this Chamber now, the ones protecting all of us every single day were injured. Some tragically died.
What did this President do on his first day in office? He pardoned every last one of those violent offenders.
Now, these rioters outrageously are seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages, claiming that the indiscriminate use of force by police officers repelling the attack caused them physical and emotional injuries. Are you kidding me? I mean, where is the outrage on the Republican side over this? It is a disgrace.
If my Republican colleagues cannot denounce the actions of the President's supporters that day or condemn the pardons maybe--maybe, at least they will vote to ensure that these convicted felons aren't awarded millions of taxpayer dollars by the Trump administration as a reward for attacking police officers. I will give them a chance to do that with the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore12:40 p.m.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) to discuss our proposal.
Deborah K. Ross (D-NC)12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for yielding time to me.
If we defeat the previous question, we will offer a bill, my bill, that will truly honor police officers: H.R. 7711, my No Rewards for January 6 Rioters Act.
On January 6, as we all know, violent rioters assaulted Capitol Police, beating them with flag poles, dragging them through crowds, and pepper spraying them in the face at point-blank range.
President Trump has not only called these criminals patriots, he decided January 6 insurrectionists deserved a blanket pardon for their attacks on police officers. It is shameful.
Now, the Trump administration is considering millions of dollars in payouts to these insurrectionists, which is a giant slap in the face to all the brave officers who fought to protect us--us, and our democracy on January 6.
My bill would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate any convicted January 6 rioter.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were serious about honoring police officers, they would take up my bill to prevent President Trump from paying off his favorite cop beaters.
H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said something last night about not having heard voices on our side of the aisle talking about the pardons, and Mr. Scott said: I did. I had a problem with it. That was Mr. Austin Scott from Georgia.
I would remind the gentleman that he and I had a colloquy in the Rules Committee on February 4, 2025, on that same subject where I indicated that I had significant concerns about pardoning folks who had assaulted police officers.
It is not fair. That was something they pulled up because I am a member of the Rules Committee, and they brought it up in the Rules Committee meeting because I made a comment to the media in my home district. I am sure there are lots of other Republicans who have done the same, raised some concerns, raised some issues, and as a result, the White House came out with some explanations. People can choose to accept or not accept those explanations. It is what it is. But a number of us did raise concerns about that at the time.
Now, that being said, we have some bills before us today that are good bills. That is what we are supposed to be talking about.
We have got bills that deal with monitoring of courts. We have got bail bills that we are dealing with. There are a number of things. We have got a resolution that expresses Congress' support for our law enforcement, which I think we are all in agreement on, and the gentleman said as much that we all support our local law enforcement and our law enforcement folks out there.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, let's look at these bills. That is what we are debating now is whether or not to bring these bills to the floor. I think all the bills that we presented should be brought to the floor. We can talk about other bills on another day, but these bills are appropriately before the House.
Then let's talk about the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies funding bill from Appropriations, which passed unanimously out of committee.
My colleague has indicated that we are offering a handful of amendments. Now, I have managed a couple of these rules before, and some of them have been closed. He consistently says: You haven't allowed any amendments, and now he depicts the amendments that we are allowing as a "handful." A majority of those--in fact, it is a supermajority of those that were theoretically in order, and it is 51.
Now, by my count, Mr. Speaker, that is 10 handfuls and a little bit more. It is not a handful of amendments. It is 10 handfuls. I would have to get a whole line of people here to hold on to all these amendments. We are going to hear debate on them, and we are going to have discussion about it.
So it gives you some idea of the hyperbole that my friends on the other side of the aisle are using when you take 51 amendments and depict them as a mere handful.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You have got to love these guys. I remind everybody, especially those who may be watching this on TV, that four out of the five bills that we are considering today are under completely closed rules, number one.
Number two, I appreciate the gentleman expressing some concern about what happened on January 6. He said that some of them, you know, expressed their concern about the President's pardon publicly, so I just kind of Googled what my colleague from Virginia said to his local newspaper. He said that he has mixed feelings about President Trump pardoning those who were charged in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
I don't know what "mixed feelings" means, but if my friend were genuinely outraged by what happened that day and by the pardoning of these people who violently attacked the police officers that were defending us that day, then I guess my question to the gentleman would be: Then why did you vote consistently against hanging a plaque honoring those police officers who protected our lives that day?
Again, I find the silence on the other side of the aisle not only in regard to what happened in this Chamber on January 6--I find it particularly disturbing--but the silence in the aftermath of Donald Trump pardoning all of these criminals.
Again, we have police officers who were severely wounded. Some ended up losing their lives. I mean, if you have objections and you have concerns, and even if you have mixed feelings, whatever that means, about the President pardoning all of these people, then does that mean that the gentleman will support our amendment that we are bringing up here that would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021?
I mean, I am not going to hold my breath, but I am willing to bet that virtually every Republican, if not every Republican, will vote against this amendment.
Again, we get a lot of lectures about law and order from Republicans. Let's not forget, again, the leader of their party, the President of the United States, pardoned over 1,500 of his own supporters who violently attacked this building, including pardons for hundreds of convicted felons who violently and viciously beat law enforcement officers on January 6, sending many of them to the hospital with serious injuries.
Donald Trump pardoned every single one of them. Many are repeat offenders who are now back in our communities because of the radical, far-right policies of this President and because of the acquiescence and the silence of the party that controls this Chamber.
I mean, Matthew Huttle, a man with 12 prior criminal convictions, including a shocking case where he pled guilty to brutally hitting his 3-year-old son, leaving bruises all over his child's backside and neck, after he was pardoned by Donald Trump for the crimes he committed on January 6, went back to Indiana, where he was killed during a violent confrontation with law enforcement. He was a child abuser with a history of violence, who put law enforcement in danger again after he was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Theodore Middendorf, accused of sexually assaulting a 7-year-old child--this guy pled guilty to this horrific crime in 2024, and he was sentenced to 19 years in prison. That wasn't all. He also pled guilty to destroying government property and using an American flagpole as a weapon during the Capitol riot. He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Peter Schwartz, a man with 30 prior criminal convictions, including abusing and assaulting his wife, biting her and repeatedly punching her, was convicted of attacking police officers on January 6 with pepper spray. He is another repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.
Andrew Taake was arrested in 2016 for soliciting a minor online for sex, but his criminal history didn't stop there. He assaulted police officers with bear spray and a metal whip on January 6. He is another repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.
Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are complicit in these crimes. I mean, thanks to these pardons, we have child sex predators and violent criminals back on our streets. We even have January 6 perpetrators who have been rearrested on new charges after being pardoned.
Daniel Ball, a convicted felon because of his involvement in the Capitol insurrection, was pardoned by Trump on January 20, only to be rearrested 2 days later on gun charges.
How dare you guys come down here and talk about law and order when you are complicit in these crimes? How dare you come down here and talk about supporting the police after you let out violent criminals who attacked law enforcement officers on January 6?
I mean, I get it. We have different opinions on a lot of issues, but the one thing that should unite us is our praise and our respect for those who defended not only all of us who were here on January 6 but also defended our democracy.
Because the guy in the White House doesn't want anybody to acknowledge that that was a terrible day, everybody just caved. Everybody caves on the other side.
I don't have any mixed feelings about what Trump did. I think it was outrageous. I think most Americans that I talk to, and I think most Americans across this country, don't have mixed feelings. They think what happened that day was outrageous. These guys should not have been pardoned. Some of them should still be in jail.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I am to be pilloried on the floor of the United States House, let us get the facts correct.
First, I am sure that WJHL, a television station, would not appreciate being called a newspaper. Second, let me read you the first quote.
Griffith: "I have mixed feelings. I personally think that some of those folks who assaulted police officers deserve some of the time they got." If I am to be pilloried, there is what I said.
The following week, in the Rules Committee, in response to questions from my colleague, I responded that I did not have every case in front of me, speaking of pardons. It is a difficult decision, and I would have had a hard time pardoning people who assaulted police officers on any occasion.
If I am to be pilloried, let's get the record straight, and I think the same would be true for many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle.
Let's talk about violent criminals because we have a bill in front of us today that will deal with that. We have the charitable--the phraseology is the "charitable bail funds." We have a bill in front of us that will treat them as insurance.
Now, people may think at home, if they are watching this, what in the world do bail bonds have to do with insurance? Well, having been a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that the insurance is to ensure that people show up for their court dates, and that is what bonds are for.
If you put up a bond, an insurance company usually writes that. If it is a corporate surety bond, that is usually what you have. Sometimes, you have property bonds, and there are other ways of doing it. If you have a corporate surety bond or a group comes forward and puts the money up for you, that group ensures that you will be present in court, or you forfeit the amount that you have put forward.
That is all fine and good. We have charitable groups out there, and they are looking at cases where you have people who can't afford it, but it is not a violent crime or something where there is a danger to the public. I understand that. That is what the bill does. It says we are going to treat them like they are insurance companies because they are, in fact, stepping into the shoes of an insurance company.
It is not grandma who is putting up her house, which many of my clients had their grandmas put up their houses to guarantee they would be present in court when they were supposed to be there to be tried for their offenses. They are acting like those corporate surety bonds. They are stepping into those shoes, and they ought to be treated accordingly under the law.
Then, we heard a whole litany--and I really didn't want to get into it--a whole litany of things that people did who were doing bad things on January 6 and did some bad things afterward, as well. I point out also that that is not before us at this very minute. What is before us is a bill on these charity bonds and cashless bonds.
When people are released on cashless bonds or artificially low bail, they have a greater propensity to reoffend, as I said in my opening. Because I feel compelled, for example, in Wisconsin, Darrell Brooks was released on a $1,000 bond after running over a woman with a vehicle, despite a lengthy criminal history and an additional outstanding warrant.
Brooks was previously charged with aggravated battery and had an outstanding warrant in Nevada after skipping bail for a sex-related crime. Then, on November 21, 2021, Brooks drove through a Christmas parade, injuring over 50 individuals, killing 6, 1 of whom was an 8-year-old child.
A March 2023 study, which I mentioned before, by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, found that approximately 72 percent of violent felony offenders who were released without bail were rearrested.
We could stand here and go through hours of this, but, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a good number of bills that deal with trying to make our communities a little bit safer, giving people more information, and trying to make sure we are getting it right, trying to help our police officers and our local communities be safer.
These are all good bills. They may not do everything that everybody wants, but these bills before us and this rule that we are presenting are good bills. Then, we have the MILCON-VA bill, which passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, 58-0.
I believe that we should pass these bills. The first step in doing that is passing the rule so we can bring the bills to the floor with set time for debate. There will be plenty of time for debate. There will be time on the MILCON-VA bill to go over amendments and to then consider as a House, as the House for the United States, whether or not we want to pass them. I think we should.
The first step is we have got to pass this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to all vote "yes" to bring these bills to the floor. My colleagues on the other side can debate whatever deficiencies they may see in the bills and have their time to tell the American people about those bills.
I really wish they would focus, when we are talking about a rule, on the rule to bring the bills to the floor and not all these other matters. I understand they want to talk about other things. I get it. That is the role of the minority. However, Mr. Speaker, as the majority, we need to pass this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I advise that whenever my colleagues are ready, I am prepared to close. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me apologize to the TV station that I called a newspaper. What a terrible sin. I appreciate the gentleman's clarity in reading that I have mixed feelings because some of the people deserve some of the time. Boy, that is really a strongly worded condemnation.
I want to disagree with the gentleman on one thing he said, and that is somehow this is not on the agenda today. The gentleman just read off what the Republican agenda was and the votes that the Republicans want us to consider on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question.
Our staff handed my friend's team the amendment that we want to vote on. The next vote that we have, by the way, will be on whether we would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. I guess that is the next vote. So people are going to have to vote "yes" or "no" on that, and it is in front of us.
I don't really understand why the gentleman would say that it is not in front of us. If he wants to support what we are trying to do here and make sure that the people who viciously attacked Capitol Police officers on that day on January 6 that threatened the lives of those who work here and who destroyed all of this property, that is well-documented, all of this is on video, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he would like to endorse what we are trying to do so maybe we can agree on something.
Okay, well, I guess I am not going to get that support.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the next vote, again, I remind people, will be on whether or not we want to prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The President is hinting that maybe he would be favorable to compensating some of these people who are responsible for the terrible crimes on that day. I find that sickening, quite frankly. He wants to give money to criminals, the people who attacked our democracy, who beat up our police officers, and yet he doesn't want to give money to our police officers, as I pointed out in the beginning. There is not a penny contained in any of these bills that actually help support our local police officers.
Let me also bring us back to what I think this debate is all about. It is about priorities. This is another wasted week, and the debate is really about what Republicans are not doing and what they refuse to do. It is about their wasted time in the majority and their total failure to bring up legislation to help everyday people.
People are begging us. They are begging us to do something about inflation. They are pleading with us to bring grocery prices down, to lower gas prices, to make life more affordable, and to stop the war and reverse the tariffs that are eating into their paychecks and killing their finances.
What do Republicans prioritize week after week after week after week?
It is billionaire tax breaks, loopholes for the rich and powerful, giveaways to the giant corporations, the price gougers, and the big donors who line their pockets with campaign cash.
Listen to me, America: These guys promised to lower your prices on day one. It is year two for God's sake, and who are you going to believe, them or your empty wallet?
Republicans have done nothing--nothing--to lower your costs. Their agenda does nothing to help everyday people. Their bills do nothing for working families. Their leader said so on TV yesterday.
He doesn't even think about how his reckless, illegal, vanity war hurts your pocketbook. He thinks about his arch. He thinks about painting the reflecting pool. He thinks about his golf course on the Potomac River. He thinks about bailouts for foreign governments and corrupt, shady deals that enrich his inner circle.
He thinks about his ballroom. Boy, does he bring that up every day. He wants $1 billion of your money for his tacky ballroom.
However, when it comes to helping you, when it comes to helping your family, when it comes to the medical bills piling up on your kitchen table, and when it comes to figuring out how to keep your fridge full until your next paycheck, he told us the answer himself: He doesn't care, not even a little bit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a "no" vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska)1:00 p.m.
Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)1:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us the MILCON-VA bill. For folks watching at home, I will translate: military construction at our bases and Veterans Affairs, which is our VA hospitals, et cetera. That is what this rule has in it. It also has a number of bills related to law enforcement making things better: the monitoring systems, the bail systems, cashless bonds, et cetera.
These are good bills, and the rule ought to be passed, as I said before.
I would be remiss if I didn't speak about the fact that this is Police Week. It is one of the reasons why we have these bills and others in front of us.
This year, unfortunately, and it has happened before since I have been in office, an officer was killed in the Ninth Congressional District. Officer Hall was killed in an inmate attack at the River North Correctional Center in Independence, Virginia, which is in Grayson County in November of last year.
Two additional officers were attacked at that time. Both are physically doing okay, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you ever get over an act of violence where you witnessed a colleague, a friend, a brother in law enforcement, being murdered.
That is really what we are about this week, and this rule promotes four bills that will help. It doesn't solve everything. It doesn't resolve everything. Jeremy Hall will be remembered in another resolution coming up this week that we will be voting on to honor fallen law enforcement officers.
We can also honor them all by taking these steps forward in trying to make our system better and recognizing that we probably ought not let violent felons, people who have already committed crimes, out on either no bond or low bond. We probably ought to make sure that the folks posting the bonds are capable and available to actually ensure the presence of the defendant at trial.
Mr. Speaker, I left this out earlier, and I apologize. It is a big part of the bail system. It is also to ensure their good behavior while out on bond. It is both presence on the court date and good behavior between the time the bond is posted and the time of that court date.
What the data shows us is that without one of these bills, there is an increase from 62 percent to 72 percent of recidivism. That helps our police officers and honors those who have been wounded, physically or psychologically, while serving in law enforcement, and those who answered the last call, like Officer Hall.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote to put this rule forward. I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment To H. Res. 1275 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Text printed in the Record (1,657 characters)
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 7711) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to
compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their
involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on
January 6, 2021, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX
shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7711.
Sec. 12. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message
that the House has passed H.R. 7711 no later than three
calendar days after passage.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Providing That Section 11 of House Resolution 1224 Shall Have No Force or Effect
Pages H3410–H3417 · Official textMr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1274 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (462 characters)
Resolved, That section 11 of House Resolution 1224 shall
have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is simple. Two weeks ago, the Rules Committee met to provide for consideration of the farm bill, H.R. 7567, in addition to H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act.
Nothing in this rule changes that. Instead, the rule before us makes a procedural change, which will allow H.R. 1346 and the farm bill, both, to be transmitted to the Senate separately for their consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1346. For too long, the people of western Minnesota, along with families and farmers across the entire country, have been subjected to frustrating, outdated, and unnecessary regulations.
Currently, our growers are subjected to patchwork regulations that effectively ban the sale of E15 during the summer months. The summer ban is a direct hit to the American taxpayer. It limits consumer choice, drives up prices at the pump during the height of the summer travel season, and restricts the market for homegrown biofuels.
Because of these antiquated rules, farmers have been forced to rely on temporary, short-term emergency waivers that create confusion rather than progress.
The legislation before us today changes that. It includes text for permanent, year-round E15 to finally provide the certainty that our agriculture and energy sectors deserve. We are moving past the era of temporary fixes and toward a future of long-term stability.
The benefits of E15 are clear and backed by significant data. First, this is a major win for American consumers. E15 is a lower cost fuel option, typically priced 20 to 40 cents per gallon less than regular unleaded gasoline.
In a time of fluctuating global energy markets, providing this relief is a necessity for hardworking Americans. In fact, E15 adoption would save American drivers an estimated $27 billion a year on gas purchases, putting roughly $200 back into the pocket of the average American household annually.
Second, this is a win for our national security and energy independence. Ethanol is produced within American borders by American workers. Every gallon we blend is a gallon of oil we do not need to import from foreign countries.
By leaning into domestic production, we are strengthening our energy independence and reinforcing our commitment to American-made energy.
The American people understand this. Eighty percent of citizens believe renewable fuels, like ethanol, are necessary for our energy independence, and 71 percent support increasing the availability of E15 to help lower prices.
Year-round E15 is a massive win for the American farmer. In western Minnesota, our corn growers are large supporters of the biofuels industry. They deserve a fair and consistent market for their product.
Full adoption of E15 would increase corn consumption by 2.4 billion bushels, supporting our rural communities and ensuring steady, predictable demand year-round.
Beyond the farm, the economic impact is staggering. Full E15 adoption would add $25.8 billion to the U.S. GDP and support an additional 128,000 full-time jobs.
Beyond the economic and agricultural benefits, H.R. 1346 provides essential regulatory and market certainty. It enhances fuel supply chain stability and improves certainty for the entire fuel industry by eliminating unfair advantages for some refineries over others.
By reforming the small refinery exemption process, this bill helps the Environmental Protection Agency set renewable fuel standard annual volumes in a timely, transparent, and fair manner. It removes the reoccurring tension between refiners and agricultural stakeholders, allowing everyone from farmers to fuel retailers to better plan for the future.
It is important to address the technical advancements of vehicles since the current regulations were created.
E15 is legally approved for all vehicles built since 2001 or later, which accounts for more than 96 percent of the cars on the road today. Furthermore, E15 burns cleaner and reduces emissions that harm our health and our environment.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to keep hitting the pause button on American energy every summer. This legislation removes the hurdles that have stifled E15 for decades. It gives farmers the confidence they need to plan, and it gives consumers a lower-cost option when they need it most.
The American people are calling for solutions. This bill provides more choice at the pump and lower prices for America. It is real savings and real money back in the pockets of hardworking Americans.
It is time for a permanent, nationwide solution that supports our growers, lowers costs for families, and reinforces our commitment to American-made energy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is what happens when you try to make a deal by telling people what they want to hear. It is what happens when you come to an agreement by telling one group of people one thing and another group of people the total opposite.
That is the situation that Speaker Johnson finds himself in. He can't keep his word to his own Members, can't manage his own Conference, can't figure out how to pass a bill, and apparently can't keep his stories straight between the two groups he was negotiating with. The incompetence takes my breath away.
We are now wasting floor time to basically undo something Republicans did last week, to unattach an E15 bill from the farm bill after Republicans had us vote to attach an E15 bill to the farm bill. You can't make this stuff up.
That is what this is all about: shady backroom deals falling apart because Republican leadership can't keep its word and just hoped that everything would somehow work out and nobody would notice anything.
Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy used to do the same thing: promise everything to everyone, cut one side deal after another, and hope nobody noticed. How did that work out for him?
Maybe, just maybe, there is a lesson here. If you are going to make a deal, make an honest deal. If you are going to write a bill, know what is in the bill. If you are going to promise your Members something, maybe don't come back 3 weeks later and say: Actually, never mind.
I have to say I am a little surprised that some of my Republican colleagues from the Midwest are going along with this strategy because if you think separating E15 from the farm bill will help you get what you want, I have a degree from Trump University for you.
This is not some brilliant legislative maneuver. It is a quick way to make sure the Senate never takes it up. The reason I know this is because the way the bill is written. The reason why this doesn't have much of a future is because--get this--this bill will cost over $2 billion, billion with a b, and none of it is offset.
What happened to the deficit hawks? $2 billion, basically, that is just going to be added to the debt. It will be dead on arrival at the Senate, and again I think everyone knows that.
If I represented a corn-producing State, I would not be thrilled that my leadership took one of my top priorities and pulled it out of a bill that possibly had a chance to move and said: Trust us.
I don't know whether the gentlewoman read the rule because it sounded a little bit confused here, but here is the rule. It is one sentence. It doesn't talk about bringing E15 to the floor. It doesn't allow for there to be a debate or an amendment on an offset so that we don't add $2 billion to the credit card. It basically just is a rule that will detach E15 from the farm bill. That is it. I don't know. I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable if that is all that we were doing today, that that is all that the bill is accomplishing.
What we have here is a majority that cannot manage its own Conference, cannot keep its promises, and cannot pass its own agenda without completely breaking into disarray. The American people see this.
They see a Republican majority that spent weeks fighting with itself over the farm bill.
They see a Republican majority that cannot decide whether E15 belongs in the farm bill, outside the farm bill, attached to the farm bill, detached from the farm bill, or shoehorned into something else.
They see a Republican leadership that panders to the American people talking about lowering costs and inflation and then does none of it.
Here is the thing. Republicans are bad at governing because they do not actually believe in governing. They believe in power for the sake of power. They believe in theatrics. They believe in blaming everybody else. When the time comes to do the basic work of this House, they fall apart. They block amendments. They shut down debate. They cut food assistance and healthcare, while protecting the rich and powerful. They fund Donald Trump's vanity projects, while families are getting crushed by the cost of groceries, rent, gas, and medicine. They know that their agenda is unpopular, and that is why they are not trying to earn people's votes anymore. They have given up on that.
Instead of changing their agenda, they are changing the rules of democracy itself. Instead of earning votes, they are rigging maps. Instead of persuading people, they are silencing them. Instead of serving voters, they are choosing their voters. Just look at what is happening across this country.
Donald Trump demanded that red States start gerrymandering so Republicans can cling to power in this House, and Republican politicians lined up to do it--the hell with democracy, the hell with what the people want.
It is a very different story in States like Virginia where they actually had a vote on the new maps. People voted. Guess what. Voters approved a redistricting plan to fight back against the staggering Republican assault on our democracy. A narrow majority on the Virginia Supreme Court tossed it aside--an awful, awful decision in my view.
Now, the United States Supreme Court has taken another wrecking ball to the Voting Rights Act, a law that for generations helped protect many communities from having their voices diluted and their powers stolen.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker, we are not going back to the days of Jim Crow. Too many people have fought too hard for equal representation in this country.
A party that is confident in its ideas does not need to make it harder for people to vote.
A party that is proud of its record does not need to dilute people's representation.
A party that knows how to govern does not spend its time making shady side deals and begging courts to save it from voters.
But this Republican majority is not confident, not proud, and sure as hell not competent. Case in point: today's rule, a rule to undo just one more mess of their own making.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as it often happens with the opposition, they stray off into every topic that they can think of and forget to focus on what we are here to talk about. What we are talking about is a rule to allow E15 to come to the floor to have a vote, so we are talking about energy independence. We are talking about saving Americans dollars on their gas bill. I just wanted to remind the public that that is what we are talking about today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann) to talk about E15.
Tracey Mann (R-KS)1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for year-round E15, this rule, and the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, which finally makes it a reality.
For too long, Washington has prevented Americans from having more choices at the pump. E15 is an available, affordable, American-made fuel that can help lower costs, strengthen our energy independence, and support the men and women who feed, fuel, and clothe the world.
This is exactly the kind of commonsense, all-of-the-above energy policy that House Republicans were elected to enact--one that embraces American resources, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and trusts the American people to make their own decisions.
In the Big First District of Kansas, our farmers work hard every day to produce the feedstocks that power American ethanol. Year-round E15 is a win for those farmers, a win for consumers, and a win for American energy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1346, this rule, and I support year-round E15.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion here. I have the rule. Maybe I have the wrong rule, I don't know, but the resolution says: "Resolved, That section 11 of House Resolution 1224 shall have no force or effect."
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman if she could tell me where in this rule it says that we are bringing E15 to the floor. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman to tell me where in this rule it says that.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)1:30 p.m.
Will the gentleman yield?
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:30 p.m.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker and Mr. McGovern, I believe that you understand that that is referencing the decoupling, and it does allow for E15 to be brought to the floor--I mean maybe not exactly in the language that is on the paper.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:30 p.m.
I reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in the other rule we did, it makes it in order. It is already in order. It can be called up right this second, but in this, it basically doesn't make it in order. There is nothing here that says that this bill will be brought to the floor. This decoupling makes it more likely that the Senate could ignore it.
It doesn't even guarantee that we are going to have a debate on the House floor on this, otherwise, it would say that specifically.
The rule that we are voting on today does not bring E15 to the floor. If it did, it would say it.
Again, this is a good education, I think, for my colleagues here. Read the rule because my friends on the other side don't always explain the rule correctly and here it is. It is one line, and it does not bring it up.
What it does is, it decouples E15 from the farm bill, which makes it more likely that the Senate will kill it if it ever gets over there.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will clarify. I think my point was that the opposition went off on a whole bunch of other issues, and from his own admission, this is about E15. This is about decoupling from whatever the technical language is in that amendment.
We are talking about E15, not about all of the other issues that he spoke about earlier, so I will focus on E15.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).
James R. Baird (R-IN)1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation for H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, which would finally allow the year-round sale of E15 fuel nationwide.
For States like Indiana, this bill is not just a fuel policy. It is about supporting our farmers, strengthening rural economies, and lowering costs of hardworking families. My district is home to the countless corn producers whose livelihoods depend on strong and reliable markets. Right now, corn prices are painfully low, and many farmers are facing significant uncertainty heading into another growing season.
Passing year-round E15 would provide immediate relief. Experts estimate this policy would increase corn demand by roughly 2.4 billion bushels and raise corn prices by approximately 35 cents a bushel. That matters to the family farms in my district. It means stronger markets, greater stability, and more confidence for producers making investments in the future.
The Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act is also a major win for American consumers. Year-round E15 is projected to save drivers nearly $27 billion annually at the pump, with the average household saving around $200 a year on gasoline purchases. This bill will bottom line lower prices at the gas pump and provide another source of fuel as we unleash American energy dominance.
Ethanol is already a powerful economic engine, generating more than $9 billion in tax revenue in 2025 alone while supporting jobs across agriculture, transportation, and energy production. This is an American-made fuel that reduces dependence on foreign energy while supporting domestic manufacturing and agriculture at the same time. H.R. 1346 is a commonsense, bipartisan solution that benefits both producers and consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this legislation.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have to read the rule again for my colleagues on the Republican side: "Resolved, That section 11 of House Resolution 1224 shall have no force or effect." Just like Midwest House Republicans if they agree to this deal.
Bottom line is, you fought to get this provision attached in the farm bill, and now we have a rule that basically detaches this issue from the farm bill. It doesn't even give us a pathway to bring it to the House floor. I am stunned by all of this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 8698, the Lower Prices at the Pump Act, which would make it a Federal crime for oil companies and gas stations to price gouge the American people under cover of President Trump's illegal and misguided war in Iran.
Mr. Speaker, today, the average price of gas across the United States increased to more than $4.50 per gallon. That is up from roughly $3 per gallon a year ago before Trump launched this disastrous war.
What are Republicans doing about this price gouging? Nothing. Not a thing. They don't care if people are struggling to put gas in the tank. When asked just yesterday about the situation, the President said: "I don't think about Americans' financial situation." However, 1 month before the 2024 elections, Donald Trump said: "within 1 year, you are going to have electric bills and energy bills and gasoline for your cars is going to be 50 percent cheaper than it is right now." That is what Trump said. What a crock. What a crock. I need a neck brace for the whiplash here. If my Republican colleagues actually want to address the cost-of-living crisis, they will vote with Democrats to defeat the previous question, which would allow us to vote on legislation to bring down gas prices.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McGuire)1:30 p.m.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier) to discuss our proposal.
Kim Schrier (D-WA)1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because people in the district I represent and across the country are being crushed by skyrocketing gas prices.
Prices have been rising since this President got into office for healthcare, for groceries, and now for gas prices because of this reckless war of choice.
Our constituents deserve better. They deserve immediate relief. They deserve better than emptying their wallet every time they fill up at the pump.
As we know from watching other crises, Big Oil and Gas will take any opportunity to pad their profits, so Congress should act now to protect consumers. That is why I am offering this bill, the Lower Prices at the Pump Act, the commonsense solution to protect the American people from price gouging.
The bill I am offering prevents Big Oil from price gouging in case they attempt to take advantage of the economic uncertainty and instability created by the war with Iran. They have done it before, and they could do it again.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to join us to bring this bill up for a vote.
Our constituents are being crushed by prices across the board as it is, and President Trump has told us that he is too preoccupied with his ballroom to care.
We must protect consumers at the pump to protect them from big corporations who might try to pull a fast one.
Our jobs are to make lives easier, not harder, for Americans, and the time to act is exactly right now. That is why I am asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up this important bill.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), the great E15 leader.
Randy Feenstra (R-IA)1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of E15 year-round. This will lower gas prices. At a time when we need to help the family budget, today, we are doing something about it. Today, the Republicans are actually doing something to lower the gas prices for everyone in this great country.
I represent the Nation's largest agricultural district, and there is a reason why Iowa farmers and families are so passionate about this issue. It will expand the market for farmers. It will secure energy independence. It will lower the gas prices for all of our families.
Gridlock in D.C. has prevented the passage of E15 for over a decade. Today, we are finally taking action.
Trump called on Congress to get year-round E15 passed and to his desk when he was in Iowa earlier this year. I agree with President Trump that our farmers, our families, and our rural communities deserve this victory.
At the beginning of this year, I was appointed as co-chair of the E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council to find a solution, and that is what we have. From farmers to energy producers to fuel retailers to equipment dealers, support of year-round E15 spans all sectors of our economy.
In Iowa, the option to buy E15 means lower gas prices by up to 40 cents per gallon. It drives nationwide savings of about $20 billion. It will boost corn demand by 2.4 billion bushels and increase farm income by $14 million.
E15 is truly a game changer for our State, and we want to see these benefits shared across the country. After months of negotiation and listening to the voices of all stakeholders, it is time to get this bill passed.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support E15 and lower gas prices for all families, small businesses, and the agricultural community. That is what this bill will do.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am just kind of amazed listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Republicans fought tooth and nail to get this attached to the farm bill. I mean, they said this was like a huge, huge issue, and now, they are leading the charge to detach it from the farm bill. I mean, I don't get that.
That means that if it gets sent over on its own to the Senate, and it is not going to have an offset, then it is not going anywhere, even if you can pass it in the House.
I mean, it is a complete capitulation by midwestern House Republicans. I mean, it is stunning to me that my friends are caving like this.
This whole E15 debacle is a great example, I think, of just how dysfunctional Congress has become under Republican rule. Year-round E15 was included in a bipartisan, end-of-year spending package back in 2024, a deal that was negotiated by none other than Speaker Johnson. That was 1\1/2\ years ago.
Guess what happened. Elon Musk and President Trump blew up the deal. Musk tweeted about how much he hated the bill over 100 times and, over a 2-day span, threatened to fund primary challenges to anybody who voted for it. Then, later that second day, President Trump came out against the deal.
Fast forward to this January, where Republicans in support of year-round E15 threatened to vote against their own party's agenda until they got an up-or-down vote on their proposal. They said that this issue was existential to the farmers they represent.
Yet, in the end, they caved like they always do, and a deal was cut between midwestern Republicans and the leadership to create an E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council. They didn't get a solution. They got a do-nothing task force.
At the time, Representative Miller-Meeks of Iowa said that the Council was created because Republicans "failed in our primary duty to deliver immediate relief to rural America."
The partisan task force failed to produce a bill by the February 15 deadline, breaking another promise. Months later, at the end of April, text mysteriously appeared from some back room in the Capitol.
The text was filed by Representative Fischbach as an amendment to the farm bill. She even tried to sweeten the deal by adding billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded handouts to the oil industry, but that amendment was, once again, blocked by Republican leadership, and it never got a vote.
Instead, Speaker Johnson told one group of Republicans that E15 will get its own vote and be added to the farm bill, while telling a different group of Republicans the exact opposite.
Now, here we are, debating a bill to detach the E15 proposal from the farm bill after just passing a rule that combined the E15 proposal with the farm bill.
I hope my midwestern Republican friends take note. They all got bamboozled. If this rule passes, E15 will be delinked from the farm bill and ignored by the Senate, and they will be back at square one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Darin LaHood (R-IL)1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Fischbach for her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill allowing for year-round sale of E15 fuel and bringing much-needed certainty to our Nation's fuel markets.
I remind people often that the number one industry in the State of Illinois is agriculture. It is not anything in Chicago or elsewhere. It is agriculture. We lead the Nation in soybean production. We are second in corn production.
My own district is the 10th largest ag district in the country. I am proud to have nine ethanol plants that touch my district. The bill here today will help our farmers, help rural America, and help agriculture.
Right now, outdated Federal rules create unnecessary barriers to selling E15 during the summer months. This leads to confusion, market disruptions, and, ultimately, higher costs for consumers.
Refiners are forced to make decisions months in advance, often without clarity on whether E15 will even be allowed when the fuel reaches the pump. That uncertainty ripples across the entire supply chain.
H.R. 1346, which we are debating and voting on today, fixes this problem with a simple, commonsense solution, allowing for year-round sales of E15 while making reasonable reforms to the small refinery exemption process.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This bill does not mandate anything. It does not force retailers to sell E15, and it does not force consumers to buy it. What it does is expand choice. It allows retailers to offer E15 year-round if it makes sense for their businesses and their customers.
That is why this legislation has earned support from a broad coalition--farmers, biofuel producers, refiners, and fuel retailers alike. Groups that don't always get along have come together because they recognize the value of certainty, transparency, and fairness in our fuel policies.
For consumers, this means more options and lower prices at the pump. For farmers in districts like mine, it means stronger demand for our homegrown crops and greater economic stability in our rural communities.
For our energy sector, it means a more predictable regulatory environment that supports investment and long-term planning. At a time when American families are sensitive to energy prices and our farmers are navigating tight margins, we should be doing everything we can to promote stability, expand opportunity, and support more domestic production.
Year-round E15 is a win-win-win. It is a win for consumers. It is a win for our farmers. It is a win for American energy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1346.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of things I will say to my friends who are talking about how important E15 is. Supporting the rule makes it less likely that it is going to become law. I don't understand the way they think.
In any event, the gentlewoman earlier chastised me for talking about other things besides this one-sentence rule. The reason why is because the Republican agenda sucks. It is awful. It doesn't address what real people are dealing with every day.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the Trump administration's own analysis of rising food costs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore1:40 p.m.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Text printed in the Record (11,949 characters)
This page summarizes the April 2026 Food Price Outlook forecasts, which incorporate the March 2026 Consumer Price Index and the March 2026 Producer Price Index numbers.
See the Overview page for Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index datasets that include recent price changes and forecasts of price changes for all categories discussed in this summary.
Consumer Price Index for Food (not seasonally adjusted)
The all-items Consumer Price Index (CPI), a measure of economy-wide inflation, increased 1.0 percent from February 2026 to March 2026. It was up 3.3 percent from March 2025.
The CPI for all food increased 0.1 percent from February 2026 to March 2026. Food prices in March 2026 were 2.7 percent higher than in March 2025.
The level of food price inflation varied depending on whether the food was purchased for consumption at home or away from home:
The food-away-from-home (restaurant and other foodservice purchases) CPI increased 0.2 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and was 3.8 percent higher than in March 2025.
The food-at-home (grocery store or supermarket food purchases) CPI was unchanged from February 2026 to March 2026 and was 1.9 percent higher than in March 2025.
Rates of price change for the 15 food-at-home categories examined in the Food Price Outlook also varied widely. Average prices declined from February 2026 to March 2026 for eight of these categories, were unchanged for two categories, and increased for five categories. Two categories experienced a large price swing, defined as a 1-month price increase or decrease of at least 1.0 percent. Prices for sugar and sweets fell by 1.0 percent, while prices for eggs fell by 3.3 percent. No categories experienced a large price increase.
In 2026, prices for all food are predicted to increase 2.9 percent, with a prediction interval of 1.3 to 4.6 percent. Food-at-home prices are predicted to increase 2.4 percent, with a prediction interval of 0.0 to 4.8 percent. Food-away-from-home prices are predicted to increase 3.6 percent, with a prediction interval of 2.8 to 4.5 percent.
The Food Price Outlook tracks and forecasts the annual percentage change in food prices by averaging observed and forecast prices for all months in the current year, compared to all months in the previous year. The Food Price Outlook does not forecast the 12-month year-over-year change from the month of the forecast. The Food Price Outlook forecasting methods are based entirely on statistical models that are fitted to recent trends in the data. These methods provide prediction intervals that narrow over the forecast period as more data become available and the degree of uncertainty declines. Discussions of price changes focus on the midpoint of these forecast intervals (titled "Mid" in the Food Price Outlook data files) and use the lower and upper bounds of a 95-percent prediction interval--based on past data the annual level of inflation is expected to fall in this interval 19 out of 20 times--to reflect the level of uncertainty (titled "Lower" and "Upper" in the workbooks, respectively). For a summary of forecasting methods used in the Food Price Outlook, see the article ERS Refines Forecasting Methods in Food Price Outlook.
Between the 1970s and early 2000, food-at-home prices and food-away-from-home prices increased at similar rates. However, between 2009 and 2019, their growth rates diverged; while food-at-home prices deflated in 2016 and 2017, monthly food-away-from-home prices rose consistently. Differences between the costs of serving prepared food at restaurants and retailing food in supermarkets and grocery stores partly explain this divergence.
In 2020, food prices increased 3.4 percent, including prices for food at home (3.5-percent increase) and food away from home (3.4-percent increase). This convergence in growth rates was largely driven by a rapid increase in food-at-home prices following the onset of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly for meats and poultry, while food-away-from home price inflation remained similar to its 2019 rate.
In 2022, food prices increased by 9.9 percent, faster than in any year since 1979. An outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) affected egg and poultry prices. The Russia-Ukraine war and economy-wide inflationary pressures, such as high energy costs, also contributed to food price inflation. Food-at-home prices increased by 11.4 percent. Food-away-from-home prices increased by 7.7 percent.
In 2023, food price growth slowed as economy-wide inflationary factors, supply chain issues, and wholesale food prices eased from 2022. Food-at-home prices increased by 5.0 percent. Foodaway-from-home prices increased by 7.1 percent.
Food prices rose by 2.3 percent in 2024 and 2.9 percent in 2025, slower than they had increased during 2020-23. Food-at-home prices increased by 1.2 percent in 2024 and 2.3 percent in 2025, lower than their historical average pace of growth (2.6 percent per year). Food-away-from-home prices rose by 4.1 percent in 2024 and 3.8 percent in 2025, still faster than their historical average (3.5 percent per year).
In 2026, overall food prices are predicted to rise 2.9 percent. Food-away-from-home prices are predicted to rise 3.6 percent, faster than their 20-year historical average rate of price increase (3.5 percent). Food-at-home prices are predicted to rise 2.4 percent, slower than their 20-year historical average rate of price increase (2.6 percent).
In 2026, among the 15 food-at-home categories examined in the Food Price Outlook, prices for 7 categories are predicted to grow faster than their 20-year historical average rate of growth. These include beef and veal, fish and seafood, fresh vegetables, processed fruits and vegetables, sugar and sweets, nonalcoholic beverages, and other foods. Prices for five other food-at-home categories are predicted to grow slower than their 20-year historical average rate of growth. These include pork, other meats, poultry, cereal and bakery products, and fresh fruits. Prices for eggs, dairy products, and fats and oils are predicted to decline in 2026 compared to 2025.
Beef and veal prices decreased by 0.4 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 after having increased by 1.4 percent from January 2026 to February 2026. Beef and veal prices were 12.1 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. The ERS Cattle & Beef--Sector at a Glance topic page reports that the U.S. cattle herd has decreased in size since 2019. However, according to analyses and forecasts reported in the ERS Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, consumer demand has remained strong in the face of tighter supplies. Beef and veal prices are predicted to increase 6.3 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of 0.1 to 13.1 percent.
Pork prices rose 0.4 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and were 0.5 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. Pork prices are predicted to increase 0.4 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -3.8 to 4.8 percent.
Poultry prices increased by 0.4 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and were 1.5 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. Poultry prices are predicted to increase 0.7 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -2.6 to 4.1 percent.
Retail egg prices decreased 3.3 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and were 44.7 percent lower in March 2026 than in March 2025. An ongoing outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) that began in 2022 has caused egg prices to increase by reducing egglayer flocks and egg production. Retail egg prices increased 32.2 percent in 2022, 1.4 percent in 2023, 8.5 percent in 2024, and 21.9 percent in 2025. However, USDA is projecting an increase in egg production in 2026 over 2025. There were fewer new detections of HPAI during the first quarter of calendar 2026 than there were during the first quarter of calendar 2025. Moreover, as discussed in the ERS Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, the availability of replacement pullets has been sufficient in 2026 to cover both regular flock turnover and unpredictable HPAI-related losses. Egg prices are predicted to decrease 29.4 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -40.0 to -15.6 percent.
Retail fresh vegetable prices increased by 0.9 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and were 7.5 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. Prices for fresh vegetables are predicted to increase 4.8 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of 0.3 to 9.5 percent.
Retail fresh fruit prices increased by 0.3 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and were 1.2 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. Prices for fresh fruits are predicted to increase 1.0 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -2.2 to 4.4 percent.
Prices for sugar and sweets decreased by 1.0 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 but were 8.1 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. Prices have increased primarily for candy and chewing gum, a subcomponent of the CPI for sugars and sweets that includes most types of chocolate candy.
Prices for sugar and sweets are predicted to increase by 8.1 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of 5.5 to 10.7 percent.
Prices for nonalcoholic beverages decreased by 0.3 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 but were 4.7 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. Prices for nonalcoholic beverages have been increasing faster than the 20-year historical rate due in part to higher global coffee prices. Prices for nonalcoholic beverages are predicted to increase by 5.2 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of 2.6 to 7.9 percent.
Producer Price Index for Food (not seasonally adjusted)
A Producer Price Index (PPI) resembles a CPI in that a PPI reflects price changes over time. However, instead of retail prices, a PPI provides a measure of the average prices paid to domestic producers for their output. PPIs are reported for nearly every industry in the goodsproducing sector of the economy. Three major PPI commodity groups are of interest to food markets: (1) unprocessed foodstuffs and feedstuffs, (2) processed foods and feeds, and (3) finished consumer foods. The farm-level and wholesale-level prices of commodities in these groups give a general sense of price movements across various stages of production in the U.S. food supply chain.
The PPIs are typically far more volatile than the CPIs, which are further down the supply chain. Price volatility decreases as products move from the farm to the wholesale sector to the retail sector. Because of multiple processing stages in the U.S. food system, the CPI typically lags movements in the PPI. The PPI is thus a useful tool for understanding what may soon happen to the CPI. ERS does not forecast industry-level PPIs for unprocessed, processed, and finished foods and feeds. However, these prices have historically shown a strong correlation with the all-food and food-at-home CPIs.
Farm-level cattle prices decreased 2.7 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 but were 16.2 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. A cyclical contraction of the cattle herd has resulted in tight cattle supplies and driven farm-level cattle prices higher. Farm-level cattle prices are predicted to increase by 7.5 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -2.8 to 19.6 percent.
Wholesale beef prices increased 2.8 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and were 19.7 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. Wholesale beef prices are predicted to increase by 7.8 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -6.6 percent to 25.4 percent.
Prices for farm-level eggs rose 31.6 percent in 2025, primarily due to the spread of HPAI and reductions in egg production. However, U.S. egg production is recovering. Farm-level egg prices fell 12.5 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and were 83.6 percent lower in March 2026 than in March 2025.
Text printed in the Record (2,271 characters)
Farm-level egg prices are predicted to decrease by 73.0 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -84.3 percent to -44.9 percent.
Prices for farm-level milk rose 5.3 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 but were 24.7 percent lower in March 2026 than in March 2025. Farm-level milk prices have been trending downward as U.S. milk production increases. Prices for farm-level milk are predicted to decrease 17.9 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -32.6 percent to 1.9 percent.
Vegetable prices can undergo large swings based on weather, production, seasonality, and other factors. Prices for farm-level vegetables decreased 7.1 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 after increasing 48.2 percent from January 2026 to February 2026. Farm-level fresh vegetable prices were 49.0 percent higher in March 2026 than in March 2025. Farm-level vegetable prices are predicted to increase 16.4 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -2.0 percent to 40.3 percent.
Prices for farm-level fruit decreased 14.0 percent from February 2026 to March 2026 and were 10.4 percent lower in March 2026 than in March 2025. Farm-level fruit prices are predicted to decrease by 6.0 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -16.3 percent to 6.0 percent. Prices for fruit, like those for vegetables, can undergo large swings based on weather, production, seasonality, and other factors.
Prices peaked for farm-level wheat in the first half of 2022 following the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war. After decreasing by 23.1 percent in 2023, 22.3 percent in 2024, and 10.9 percent in 2025, farm-level wheat prices are predicted to increase 8.4 percent in 2026, with a prediction interval of -9.3 to 31.9 percent.
For official USDA farm-level price forecasts, see the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates at a Glance report. For additional information, detailed explanations, and analyses of farm-level prices, see ERS outlook publications including the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, Oil Crops, Wheat, Fruit and Tree Nuts, and Vegetables and Pulses reports.
See the Overview page for Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index datasets that include recent price changes and forecasts of price changes for all categories discussed in this summary.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the USDA's April 2026 Food Price Outlook makes it clear that prices are not down. They are up. They are way up. Food prices are up 2.7 percent from last year. Restaurant prices are up 3.8 percent. Beef and veal prices are up over 12 percent. In fact, the average cost of a pound of beef is more expensive than the Federal minimum wage. I mean, let that sink in. Veal prices are up. Fresh vegetables are up 7.5 percent. Nonalcoholic beverages are up 4.7 percent. Grocery prices, overall, have gone up around 2 percent.
These are not Democratic talking points. These are the Trump administration's own numbers after 16 months of total Republican control in Washington.
They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They passed tax breaks for those who are well-off and well-connected, billionaires and millionaires. At the same time, they cut SNAP by $200 billion. I hope they are proud of themselves.
They imposed tariffs. They started the war that is driving up food and gas prices. The price of fertilizer is going through the roof.
All they do is blame Biden, blame Democrats, and blame anyone, while they fail to find any solutions. They promised lower costs. What a crock. Their own USDA says that families are paying more because of their disastrous economic policies.
We are going to continue talking about things that my Republican friends think are extraneous because these are real issues. These are real issues that everyday families are struggling with right now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), another great E15 leader.
Zachary Nunn (R-IA)1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Fischbach for her leadership on this.
Here is the reality. Republicans and Democrats should all be wanting to help drive down costs for Americans right now: supply chain costs, costs for the home, and costs at the pump. Right now we have got a viable solution, 50 cents off per gallon with year-round nationwide E15. Whether you are filling up a truck or a tractor-trailer, a motor home or a minivan, this has a direct impact on families, and it is something we have been asking for in this Chamber for a long time on both sides of the aisle. Why hasn't this come to the floor for a vote?
I was just back in Iowa a couple weeks ago at a farmers roundtable in Atlantic, Iowa, and I heard the same question that I have heard from hundreds of roundtables in listening sessions across Iowa's 21 counties: How are we going to get year-round, nationwide E15 across the finish line? And when is Congress going to make sure that they are fighting for a waiver so that every spring our growers, our planters, and our farmers aren't asking this question?
Today, we have a chance to answer both those questions. This bill that we are about to vote on fixes the outdated regulations that have been holding E15 back for years and replaces it with a nationwide, permanent solution that is voluntary.
Importantly, throughout this fight, we have been able to focus on things that matter: American energy independence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have flown more combat missions in the Persian Gulf than I care to remember in my time with the U.S. Air Force all to be able to provide foreign energy sources to places like today in China where they consume 80 percent of the oil coming out of the Middle East. We should be focused on a domestic-based energy source, one that pairs up our traditional fuels with our biofuels, and this bill has that privilege of doing it.
Now, there is a lot of misinformation out there. There is insider lobbying going on, and there have been back-room deals on this very floor between people who are putting Iowa farmers and American consumers last.
I stood up. I was not going to let that happen. I am proud that we have been able to stand together in this. We have been able to negotiate and do what Congress should do: stand firm. They tried to kill it by making sure it never reached the floor, and foreign companies flooded this building with lobbying dollars. We have stood to reject that, and I think we have been able to bring forward a strong path to make E15 year-round.
Just weeks ago, President Trump came to Iowa and said he would sign an E15 bill into law. The Vice President was just in my district on Tuesday and said that they would sign this into law.
This is an opportunity for American-made energy independence to start right here, not just in what we grow in our cornfields but what we produce in America. Every dollar saved at the pump is a dollar back in America's pocket.
I want to make sure that Iowa producers who support this industry receive the certainty that Congress will stop treating year-round access like a favor instead of recognizing it as a solution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, the gentleman makes a strong case for his position. I don't know if he read the rule or not, but what he is doing with this rule is making it less likely that this will ever become law.
The reason why this was going to be attached to the farm bill is because I think my Republican colleagues understood that that may be a vehicle that was moving but that the Senate would not consider this legislation on its own.
Why is that? Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this measure would cost $2.27 billion, billion with a b, and none of this is offset. If this were a program to help feed hungry people or if it were to help people get healthcare, my Republican friends would be quoting CBO left and right, but not in this case.
Some Republicans have a problem with the fact that this is $2.7 billion added to the debt. My friends know that just sent over on its own, it is going nowhere in the Senate.
What we are doing today is Republicans are reversing their position. Again, Republicans insisted and fought to get this so that it would be attached to the farm bill, and now we have a rule that will unattach it to the farm bill. I don't know when the Speaker will bring this up for a vote, but I think everybody is pretty certain that the Senate isn't going to take it up, certainly not adding $2.7 billion to the debt.
I don't understand the way my friends who claim to be champions for the farms in the Midwest--I don't understand why you flip-flopped on this issue, but you can explain that to your farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).
Dusty Johnson (R-SD)1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, like most everybody here in the Chamber, I spend a lot of time at home in my district. I am there every single weekend, and what you really hear related to energy is you hear three things:
First off, of course, people want lower prices at the pump. That is a no-brainer.
Secondly, of course, they want American energy dominance. They don't want to be reliant on others.
Then number three, they don't understand the role of outdated regulations. They would like more freedom to make their own decisions.
Well, boy, do I have a deal for them, and do I have a deal for us. Year-round E15 addresses all of those concerns.
Let's go to affordability first. We know that E15 is 40 or 50 cents a gallon cheaper than standard gasoline, and that will have a big impact on American families.
Secondly, when it comes to American energy dominance, I think most South Dakotans would rather our energy future be driven by what is going on in South Dakota cornfields rather than in Iranian oilfields. This is an incredible opportunity to make sure that we are able to buy more homegrown American fuel.
Now, number three, when we get to the freedom and rolling back outdated regulations, let's be really clear what this does. This just gives people more options at the pump. Nobody will be required to buy E15 at the pump. Nobody will be required to sell E15 at the pump. This is going to be the market at work.
What we know is that a 1970s-era EPA rule just tells Americans that, no, you can't--even if somebody wants to sell you E15 in the summer months--you can't buy it. What we know for those people who are concerned about environmental impacts is that E15 has a lower Reid vapor pressure than E10, so any smog concerns are not applicable. E15 is better for the environment in that way.
So, Mr. Speaker, almost no matter how you come down, whether you are concerned about affordability, whether you are concerned about geopolitics, whether you are concerned about overregulation, E15 gives us the tools we need to move in the right direction.
I would close by saying this: I know the wheels of progress don't always turn quickly, but they are turning today, and when we vote off this House floor year-round E15, the winner will be the American people.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman just said the wheels of progress don't always turn quickly. Well, you guys are turning them backwards.
Nobody has explained to me why my Republican friends are leading the charge to undo what they demanded be done in the first place. So this doesn't smell right.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say on another issue that electric bills are up. Gas bills and prices are up. Grocery prices are still too high. Inflation is at the highest rate it has been in 3 years.
And what is the President focused on? He is focused on a ballroom--get this--a ballroom, a billion-dollar security request tied to his White House makeover. Even some Senate Republicans are saying they need more details. Good. I hope they actually mean what they say. They should because the American people deserve the details, too. They deserve to know why Republicans can always find money for Donald Trump's wide range of vanity projects around D.C. but somehow can't find money to lower the costs for average working families.
Last year, Trump had his big birthday military parades. Tanks were in the streets. Troops were marching through Washington. It was a taxpayer-funded spectacle that the Army said cost tens of millions of dollars for a parade that just happened to fall on Donald Trump's birthday.
Now he has a laundry list of renovation requests. He wants to repaint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Meanwhile, preservationists are warning it could permanently damage a historic landmark.
He wants to turn the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool bright blue like a swimming pool in Florida. A Federal contract for that project has been reported in the millions, and preservation groups are suing because they say the administration skipped required historic review.
He wants a UFC fight on the White House lawn with a 4,500-seat arena built on the grounds of the White House. He wants race cars roaring down the streets of Washington in August. He wants a giant triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, a 250-foot monument that veterans and historians are already fighting in court.
He wants to turn humble, public golf courses in D.C. into championship-level resorts while also using some areas as a dumping ground for remnants of his historic East Wing.
Mr. Speaker, none of this is serious or necessary. This is a rich guy decorating national buildings and monuments like they are one of his hotels and sticking taxpayers with the bill: enough money for the parade; enough money for the ballroom; enough for the blue reflecting pool, the UFC cage fight, race cars, the arch, and the golf courses.
I say to my Republican colleagues: Stop funding the vanity tour, and let's get back to work to actually helping hardworking people in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)2:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on E15, and I reserve the balance of my time.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)2:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore2:00 p.m.
The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6 minutes remaining.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)2:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let's be honest why we are here. Republican leadership made promises they could not keep, and they are now back here asking the rest of us to help clean up their mess. That is the whole story.
The longer this goes on, the more the American people lose faith not just in this Republican majority--I think they have lost faith in the Republican majority in this Congress--but in the basic idea that Congress can actually solve real problems.
Again, nobody can explain to me why, after defending this program, we are here with the rule to basically make it more likely that this will never materialize. This will go nowhere in the Senate.
Two-thirds of the American people say this country is headed in the wrong direction. And what do House Republicans do?
They gutted healthcare so that billionaires can get another tax giveaway.
They supported Trump's unpopular war, which has killed American servicemembers and driven up costs for everyday families.
Know why gas prices are going up? Look no further than the illegal, risky and reckless war that this President has launched.
Here is what is really frustrating: The majority in this Congress can't even bring itself to have a serious debate and vote on whether or not to authorize the use of military force in Iran. They step away. They don't want to get involved in that debate.
On Trump's ballroom, Republicans want to spend a billion dollars, billion with a b, on his tacky, stupid, vanity ballroom. That is what they would rather do than lower your costs and fight inflation. It is insane, and it is outrageous.
To my midwestern colleagues, again, who care about E15, I hope you got more than a handshake from your leadership, because once this gets separated from the farm bill, lots of luck.
Then what do you say to your farmers? What do you say to the people who you promised that you would fix this?
The bottom line is, we all know what is going on here. Again, the Senate is not going to take up an independent E15 bill. I stand corrected. Earlier I said that it costs $2.2 billion. It is actually $2.27 billion that it adds to the deficit and the debt.
This place is no longer a serious place to get stuff done, to solve problems. The American people are hurting. They are suffering.
I just did a townhall in Massachusetts, and all people wanted to talk about was how everything was more expensive. They were saying: What are you doing about the affordability crisis?
To be honest, the legislation being brought to the floor today by the previous rule and even now is not going to do anything to help lower costs for anybody. That is sad because people are depending on us to help make their lives a little bit better, to help make their lives easier and more manageable.
People are hurting, and my Republican friends are just doing nothing. Legislation that amounts to press releases are now, you know, making it more difficult to pass legislation that my Republican friends say will help their farmers.
This is not the way government should be running.
I close by urging my colleagues to get their act together. I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the previous question, vote "no" on the rule, and let's get back to doing the actual work of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)2:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. We are here to move the E15 legislation forward. That is what we are here to do today.
It is interesting that the good gentleman from Massachusetts used his time to talk about almost everything except E15. I was happy to yield time to my colleagues to talk about E15 and the benefits and the advantages and what it could do for our farmers and energy independence.
I rise today to close this debate because the choice before us is clear. Do we continue with the status quo of emergency waivers, or do we finally provide permanent certainty that American families and farmers deserve?
We have spent decades hiding behind outdated regulations that do nothing but hike summertime fuel prices. Every single year, this country is forced to hit a pause button on American-grown energy. It makes no sense and, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am tired of it.
H.R. 1346 is about two things: lower costs and market stability. When families pull up to the pump, they should not be forced to pay more just because of what month it is on the calendar.
This is about providing real, permanent relief for hardworking Americans who are tired of seeing their pocketbooks take the fall for outdated red tape. This vote represents a choice between foreign oil and American energy independence. It is a vote for our corn growers across the country who are ready to fuel this country.
There is zero reason to rely on foreign countries for our energy needs when we can support American workers and strengthen our national security.
We are done with the era of temporary fixes that only create market instability. Our refiners, our retailers, and our rural communities deserve certainty.
E15 is cleaner. It is cheaper, and it is grown right here at home. Let's stop the games. It is time to pass a permanent, nationwide solution that provides for our growers, puts American families first, and reinforces our commitment to American-made energy.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here today. That is the issue in front of us, to move E15 year-round forward.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1274 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Text printed in the Record (1,569 characters)
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 8698) to protect consumers from gasoline and fuel
price gouging, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX
shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 8698.
Sec. 4. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message
that the House has passed H.R. 8698 no later than three
calendar days after passage.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Recess
Page H3417 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess.
After Recess
Page H3417 · Official textThe recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Yakym) at 2 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Pages H3417–H3418 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1275;
Adoption of House Resolution 1275, if ordered;
Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1274;
Adoption of House Resolution 1274, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules and adopt House Resolution 1252.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Providing for Consideration of H.r. 5625, Cashless Bail Reporting Act; Providing for Consideration of H.r. 6260, Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025; Providing for Consideration...
Pages H3418–H3419 · Official textOUR STREETS ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8365, MONITOR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 96, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8469, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2027
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 1275) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5625) to direct the Attorney General to make publicly available a list of each State and unit of local government that permits cashless bail, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6260) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud in connection with posting bail; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8365) to provide for conditions on the appointment of monitors by courts, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) expressing support for law enforcement officers; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8469) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, nays 208, not voting 11, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,723 characters)
Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mace Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClellan McCollum McDonald Rivet McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA)
Carey Dunn (FL) Kean LaLota Leger Fernandez Letlow McClain Delaney Meuser Moulton Stefanik Wilson (FL)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Messrs. SCOTT of Virginia, LANDSMAN, and BELL changed their vote from "yea" to "nay." Mr. BAUMGARTNER changed his vote from "nay" to "yea." So the previous question was ordered. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:20 p.m.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)3:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:20 p.m.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, noes 208, not voting 8, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,724 characters)
Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad
Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mace Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClellan McCollum McDonald Rivet McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA)
Dunn (FL) Kean Leger Fernandez Letlow McClain Delaney Moulton Stefanik Wilson (FL)
So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Providing That Section 11 of House Resolution 1224 Shall Have No Force or Effect
Pages H3419–H3420 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution (H. Res. 1274) providing that section 11 of House Resolution 1224 shall have no force or effect, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on ordering the previous question.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, nays 206, not voting 13, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,724 characters)
Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mace Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBride McClellan McCollum McDonald Rivet McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan
Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA)
Crenshaw Dunn (FL) Fedorchak Garbarino Kean Leger Fernandez Letlow McBath McClain Delaney Moulton Sewell Stefanik Wilson (FL)
So the previous question was ordered. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:34 p.m.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
James P. McGovern (D-MA)3:34 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:34 p.m.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, noes 208, not voting 9, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,723 characters)
Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Davidson De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gooden Gosar Graves Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mace Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Patronis Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bishop Bonamici Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Davis (NC) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Goodlander Gottheimer Gray Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Landsman Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClellan McCollum McDonald Rivet McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Perez Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA)
Crenshaw Dunn (FL) Kean Leger Fernandez Letlow McClain Delaney Moulton Stefanik Wilson (FL)
So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Memorializing Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the Line of Duty
Pages H3420–H3421 · Official textMEMORIALIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1252) resolution memorializing law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Knott) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418, nays 2, not voting 10, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,724 characters)
Adams Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen Amo Amodei (NV) Ansari Arrington Auchincloss Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Balint Barr Barragan Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Beatty Begich Bell Bentz Bera Bergman Beyer Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Bishop Boebert Bonamici Bost Boyle (PA) Brecheen Bresnahan Brown Brownley Buchanan Budzinski Burchett Burlison Bynum Calvert Cammack Carbajal Carey Carson Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Ciscomani Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Cline Cloud Clyburn Clyde Cohen Cole Collins Comer Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crane Crank Crawford Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (IL) Davis (NC) De La Cruz Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier DesJarlais Dexter Diaz-Balart Dingell Doggett Donalds Downing Edwards Elfreth Ellzey Emmer Escobar Espaillat Estes Evans (CO) Evans (PA) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Fields Figures Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fletcher Flood Fong Foster Foushee Foxx Frankel, Lois Franklin, Scott Friedman Frost Fry Fulcher Fuller Garamendi Garbarino Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gill (TX) Gillen Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Goldman (TX) Gomez Gonzalez, V. Gooden Goodlander Gosar Gottheimer Graves Gray Green, Al (TX) Griffith Grijalva Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Harder (CA) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hayes Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR)
Himes Hinson Horsford Houchin Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Hudson Huffman Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Ivey Jack Jackson (IL) Jackson (TX) Jacobs James Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (NY) Kennedy (UT) Khanna Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Krishnamoorthi Kustoff LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Lynch Mace Mackenzie Magaziner Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mannion Massie Mast Matsui McBath McBride McCaul McClain McClellan McClintock McCollum McCormick McDonald Rivet McDowell McGarvey McGovern McGuire McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Messmer Meuser Mfume Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Min Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Moran Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Murphy Nadler Neal Neguse Nehls Newhouse Norcross Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ocasio-Cortez Ogles Olszewski Omar Onder Owens Pallone Palmer Panetta Pappas Patronis Pelosi Perez Perry Peters Pettersen Pfluger Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Randall Raskin Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rivas Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Ross Rouzer Roy Ruiz Rulli Rutherford Ryan Salazar Salinas Sanchez Scalise Scanlon Schakowsky Schmidt Schneider Scholten Schrier Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Self Sessions Sewell Sherman Shreve Simon Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spartz Stansbury Stanton Stauber Steil Steube Stevens Strickland Strong Stutzman Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Titus Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Turner (OH) Underwood Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Wagner Walberg Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Whitesides Wied Williams (GA) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Ramirez Tlaib
Crenshaw Dunn (FL) Feenstra Kean Leger Fernandez Letlow McClain Delaney Moulton Stefanik Wilson (FL)
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025
Pages H3421–H3428 · Official textMr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1224, I call up the bill H.R. 1346, to amend the Clean Air Act with respect to the ethanol waiver for Reid Vapor Pressure under that Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Van Drew)
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (9,601 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. YEAR-ROUND E15 AND RFS REFORM.
(a) Ethanol Waiver.--
(1) Existing waivers.--Section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(f)(4)) is amended--
(A) by striking "(4) The Administrator, upon" and inserting the following:
"(4) Waivers.--
"(A) In general.--The Administrator, on";
(B) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated)--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) by striking "of this subsection" each place it appears; and
(II) by striking "if he determines" and inserting "if the Administrator determines"; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking "The Administrator" and inserting the following:
"(B) Final action.--The Administrator"; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
"(C) Reid vapor pressure.--A fuel or fuel additive may be introduced into commerce if--
"(i)(I) the Administrator determines that the fuel or fuel additive is substantially similar to a fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year vehicle pursuant to paragraph (1)(A); or
"(II) the fuel or fuel additive has been granted a waiver under subparagraph (A) and meets all of the conditions of that waiver other than any limitation of the waiver with respect to the Reid Vapor Pressure of the fuel or fuel additive; and
"(ii) the fuel or fuel additive meets all other applicable Reid Vapor Pressure requirements under subsection (h).".
(2) Reid vapor pressure limitation.--Section 211(h) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(h)) is amended--
(A) by striking "vapor pressure" each place it appears and inserting "Vapor Pressure";
(B) in paragraph (4), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking "10 percent" and inserting "10 to 15 percent"; and
(C) in paragraph (5)(A)--
(i) by striking "Upon notification, accompanied by" and inserting "On receipt of a notification that is submitted after the date of enactment of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and is accompanied by appropriate";
(ii) by striking "10 percent" and inserting "10 to 15 percent"; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following: "Upon the enactment of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, any State for which the notification from the Governor of a State was submitted after January 1, 2022, and before the date of enactment of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 and to which the Administrator applied the Reid Vapor Pressure limitation established by paragraph (1) shall instead have the Reid Vapor Pressure limitation established by paragraph (4) apply to all fuel blends containing gasoline and 10 to 15 percent denatured anhydrous ethanol that are sold, offered for sale, dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, transported, or introduced into commerce in the area during the high ozone season.".
(b) Definition of Small Refining Company.--Section 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (L) as subparagraph (M); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (K) the following:
"(L) Small refining company.--The term `small refining company' means a company, entity, or group of affiliated entities, including through subsidiaries, parent companies, joint ventures, holding companies, spin-offs, or other associated corporate or legal structures, the daily average aggregate production of obligated fuels of which for calendar year 2025 did not exceed 75,000 barrels per day across all of the facilities of the company, entity, or group of affiliated entities that produced transportation fuel subject to the requirements of paragraph (2).".
(c) Termination of Petitions; Adjusted Small Refining Company Obligation.--
(1) In general.--Section 211(o)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(9)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking "A small" and inserting "Subject to clause (iv), a small"; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
"(iv) Termination of exemption and petitions.--
"(I) In general.--Beginning in calendar year 2028, the Administrator may not apply or enforce any extension of an exemption granted pursuant to a petition under this subparagraph or otherwise continue to enforce the exemption under subparagraph (A) with respect to any small refinery.
"(II) Limitation on petitions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
"(aa) no small refinery may petition for an extension under this subparagraph with respect to any calendar year after calendar year 2027;
"(bb) the Administrator may not consider any petition for an extension under this subparagraph, with respect to any calendar year, that is submitted after July 1, 2028; and
"(cc) to the maximum extent practicable, the Administrator shall, not later than October 1, 2028, act on all outstanding petitions.";
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
"(C) Adjusted compliance requirements for small refining companies.--
"(i) In general.--Beginning in calendar year 2028, the Administrator shall, subject to clause (ii), reduce the compliance requirements of each small refining company under paragraph (2) by 75 percent.
"(ii) No subsequent redesignation.--If the average aggregate daily production of obligated fuels of a small refining company exceeds the limit described in paragraph (1)(L) in calendar year 2026 or any subsequent calendar year, the small refining company shall no longer be eligible for the adjusted compliance requirements under clause (i) during that calendar year or any subsequent calendar year, regardless of whether the average aggregate daily production of obligated fuels of the small refining company drops below that limit again.".
(2) Savings provision.--Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act affects any remedy available to a small refinery (as defined in paragraph (1) of section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o))) with respect to petitions for extensions of exemptions under paragraph (9) of that section and, for purposes of
the application of such extensions and the review of the denial of such petitions, section 211(o)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(9)) shall be applied as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Generation of Credits by Small Refineries Under the Renewable Fuel Program.--Section 211(o)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(9)) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
"(F) Credits generated for 2016-2018 compliance years.--
"(i) Rule.--For any small refinery described in clause (ii) or (iii), the credits described in the respective clause shall be--
"(I) returned to the small refinery and, notwithstanding paragraph (5)(C), deemed eligible for future compliance years; or
"(II) applied as a credit in the EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) account of the small refinery.
"(ii) Compliance years 2016 and 2017.--Clause (i) applies with respect to any small refinery that--
"(I) retired credits generated for compliance years 2016 or 2017; and
"(II) submitted a petition under subparagraph (B)(i) for that compliance year that remained outstanding as of December 1, 2022.
"(iii) Compliance year 2018.--In addition to small refineries described in clause (ii), clause (i) applies with respect to any small refinery--
"(I) that submitted a petition under subparagraph (B)(i) for compliance year 2018 by September 1, 2019;
"(II) that retired credits generated for compliance year 2018 as part of the compliance demonstration of the small refinery for compliance year 2018 by March 31, 2019; and
"(III) for which--
"(aa) the petition remained outstanding as of December 1, 2022; or
"(bb) the Administrator denied the petition as of July 1, 2022, and has not returned the retired credits as of December 1, 2022.".
(e) Prohibition on Reallocation of Obligated Volumes.--Section 211(o)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(9)) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
"(G) Prohibition on reallocation.--For the purpose of making the determinations in paragraph (2)(B)(ii), for calendar year 2028 and each calendar year thereafter, the Administrator may not reallocate to other persons any renewable fuel obligation applicable to a small refining company the compliance requirements of which were reduced pursuant to subparagraph (C).".
(f) Fuel Infrastructure Rulemaking.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, after a period of notice and public comment, finalize a rule modifying the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) (commonly known as the "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976") relating to the sale and distribution of gasoline-ethanol blends that contain greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and less than or equal to 15 volume percent ethanol.
(2) Requirement.--In finalizing the rule required under paragraph (1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall modify the E15 fuel dispenser labeling requirements and the underground storage tank regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to compatibility with gasoline-ethanol blends.
(g) Exemption for At-risk Qualifying Small Refineries.--Section 211(o)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
Text printed in the Record (4,604 characters)
7545(o)(9)) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
"(H) Exemption for at-risk qualifying small refineries.--
"(i) In general.--Beginning in calendar year 2028, not later than December 31 of a calendar year, a qualifying small refinery may petition the Administrator for an exemption from compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2) for such calendar year for the reason of the imminent risk of closure, permanent idling, or conversion to a renewable fuel production facility.
"(ii) Matters included in petitions.--In submitting a petition for an exemption under clause (i), a qualifying small refinery shall include in such petition the following:
"(I) Information demonstrating that--
"(aa) the qualifying small refinery is at imminent risk of closure, permanent idling, or conversion to a renewable fuel production facility;
"(bb) such risk is solely caused by the cost of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2); and
"(cc) the ownership of the qualifying small refinery has not changed after the date of enactment of this paragraph.
"(II) An attestation, executed by a senior corporate officer (or any equivalent position) with direct responsibility for the applicable operations of the qualifying small refinery, certifying that the information included under subclause (I) is correct.
"(iii) Public disclosure.--Any petition submitted under this subparagraph, including any information, attestation, or other supporting documentation included in such a petition--
"(I) shall not be eligible for treatment as confidential business information for purposes of section 114(c) or any other provision of law; and
"(II) shall be made publicly available by the Administrator not later than 30 days after the date of such submission.
"(iv) Deadline for action on petitions.--The Administrator shall act on any petition submitted by a qualifying small refinery for an exemption under this subparagraph not later than 90 days after the date of receipt of the petition.
"(v) Administrator determination.--The Administrator may grant an exemption under this subparagraph only upon a determination by the Administrator that the petition submitted for the exemption adequately demonstrates the matters specified in items (aa) through (cc) of clause (ii)(I) and includes the attestation described in clause (ii)(II).
"(vi) Scope and duration.--An exemption granted for a qualifying small refinery under this subparagraph--
"(I) may exempt the qualifying small refinery from compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2) in whole or in part;
"(II) may only exempt the qualifying small refinery from compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2) to the extent necessary to prevent the closure, permanent idling, or conversion described in clause (i); and
"(III) shall only apply with respect to the calendar year for which the petition for the exemption is submitted.
"(vii) Exempted volumes.--
"(I) In general.--In acting on petitions submitted by qualifying small refineries for exemptions under this subparagraph, the Administrator may not exempt, in total, renewable fuel obligations for qualifying small refineries such that the total volume of renewable fuel so exempted exceeds the relevant volume cap for the applicable calendar year described in subclause (II).
"(II) Volume cap.--The volume cap described in this subclause is--
"(aa) for calendar year 2028, the volume of all renewable fuel, including advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and conventional biofuel, that the Administrator determines has, in total, an energy content equal to the energy content of 150 million gallons of conventional biofuel; and
"(bb) for each calendar year after calendar year 2028, the volume of renewable fuel determined under item (aa), as adjusted by the Administrator in direct proportion to any changes to the applicable volume of renewable fuel established for the calendar year under paragraph (2)(B)(ii) as compared to the applicable volume of renewable fuel established for calendar year 2028.
"(viii) Qualifying small refinery defined.--In this subparagraph, the term `qualifying small refinery' means a small refinery--
"(I) that received an extension of an exemption under paragraph (9); or
"(II)(aa) for which the average aggregate daily crude oil throughput for a calendar year (as determined by dividing the aggregate throughput for the calendar year by the number of days in the calendar year) does not exceed 10,000 barrels; and
"(bb) that began production on or after January 1, 2007, and before January 1, 2026.".
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print 119-28 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The bill, as amended, shall be debated for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) will each control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
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 H.R. 1346.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025. The bill before us today, specifically the substitute text, was developed by some members of the Rural Domestic Energy Council established by the House in January to work with the stakeholders to identify potential reforms to the RFS program.
The underlying bill will allow for year-round sale of 15 percent ethanol and gasoline, which farmers say is needed to provide an additional market for their crops without impacting air quality.
Some Members have noted that the proposal would make it more difficult for small refineries, which already face economic and regulatory hardship, to continue to qualify for existing exemptions of RFS obligations and risk their closure as a result.
Consideration of this bill today does not mean the work to modernize the RFS program is finished and that other reforms shouldn't be considered.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. I am a supporter of the Renewable Fuel Standard, including allowing the voluntary year-round sale of gasoline with 15 percent ethanol, known as E15, because it lowers prices for American drivers, supports our farmers, and fosters investment in cleaner transportation fuels.
That is why we are here today, to preserve and expand the availability of a cheaper and cleaner fuel option for the driving public. Blending more biofuels, like ethanol, into gasoline displaces demand for petroleum, helping to bring down gas prices for consumers.
That is particularly important when Trump's reckless war of choice in Iran is driving up prices at the pump for Americans. Just yesterday, new inflation data showed that, overall, energy prices are up nearly 18 percent over the last year, and Americans cannot afford Trump's price spikes.
Issues concerning the Renewable Fuel Standard have a long bipartisan history. For example, at the end of 2024, Democrats and Republicans from the Energy and Commerce Committee worked to secure meaningful provisions in a bipartisan, bicameral, end-of-the-year government funding package.
That agreement included similar year-round E15 language that would have lowered costs and made a meaningful difference in the lives of hardworking Americans. Allowing year-round E15 would have ensured that Americans have access to homegrown biofuels that save drivers money at the pump and help insulate people from dramatic global price fluctuations.
Congress had a chance to address the year-round E15 issue then, but Speaker Johnson backed out of that bipartisan, bicameral deal because Elon Musk, of all people, voiced his opposition to it. This problem of Republicans' own making has persisted with no resolution for more than 2 years now.
Earlier this year, Speaker Johnson set up an E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council of only Republican Members to bring a new E15 deal to the House floor. This council operated without transparency, abandoned bipartisan cooperation, and ignored longstanding and clear Energy and Commerce Committee jurisdiction on legislation amending the Clean Air Act and the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Next, they tried to slip this deal into the farm bill but were blocked by Republican opposition and a score from the Congressional Budget Office.
The net effect of the deal brokered by the Republican-only E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council would be a $2.3 billion increase in the deficit over a 10-year window.
The Republican majority scratched the amendment because it costs money, and here we are, debating a standalone version to allow them to get around their budget requirements. Republicans like to give the impression that they are fiscal hawks, but that is a joke. It is just another example of how they can't get their act together and actually govern.
Republicans are going to turn the other way on supposed fiscal discipline to try to pass this bill, but they refuse to address so many other priorities to help Americans.
Families across the country are dealing with an affordability crisis, thanks to high prices for healthcare, energy bills, and groceries, but House Republicans won't lift a finger to help us on any of these issues.
These are the games the Republican majority plays daily. They are a mess. They are incapable of governing, and the American people are paying the price.
Mr. Speaker, to be clear, I am not opposed to this bill, but I have serious concerns with the Republican majority's artificially rushed, partisan, and secretive process. This is not a bill that I would have proposed if I or any Democrats were given a seat at the negotiating table.
However, it is a compromise, and despite my reservations, I am voting "yes" because year-round E15 can offer some relief at the pump as prices soar across the board due to Trump's reckless war in Iran and the disastrous Republican energy agenda.
Despite my serious concerns with the process by which this bill was brought to the floor today, the bill is a step in the right direction, as President Trump and congressional Republicans carelessly undermine renewable fuels and push policies that hurt our farmers.
Today, drivers are saving, on average, about 30 cents per gallon to fill up their tanks with E15. This fuel provides significant savings for families during the summer driving season, so let's ensure it continues to be available at gas stations across the country all year with certainty, which is what this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I support the bill but not the methods used to get here. In any case, I do support the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote "yes," and I reserve the balance of my time.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), a valued member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee for allowing me time. I am proud to stand here--I know, I really am standing--in strong support of H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act.
Every single year since 2011, the EPA has issued an emergency waiver to allow E15 to be sold during the Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), a valued member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee for allowing me time. I am proud to stand here--I know, I really am standing--in strong support of H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act.
Every single year since 2011, the EPA has issued an emergency waiver to allow E15 to be sold during the summer months. That means Washington already recognizes that this policy makes sense.
What we are doing today is removing an outdated prohibition and finally providing certainty for farmers, producers, retailers, and consumers year-round.
E15 is an American-made, domestic fuel that is homegrown, lowers gas prices, strengthens our energy independence, and supports rural communities across Iowa and our country.
Nationwide E15 adoption would save drivers nearly $27 billion annually, but this debate is about much more than fuel. Agriculture is hurting right now. Input costs remained high through the Biden administration. Commodity prices are down. Farm bankruptcies are rising.
I have looked farmers in the eye as they have told me that their family farms, their legacies, are at risk, along with their community bank and their community implement dealer. That is not because they are failing, but because Washington keeps moving the goalpost.
Year-round E15 provides the certainty that farmers have been asking for. It would increase corn demand by 2.4 billion bushels, strengthen domestic energy production, support more than 128,000 American jobs, inject billions of dollars into rural economies, and save Americans money.
Let's clear up some misinformation being pushed about this bill. The legislation doesn't mandate E15. It simply gives retailers the option to sell it year-round. Again, it is removing an outdated prohibition.
The fear-mongering and falsehoods being spread about this bill are coming at the expense of America's farmers, rural communities, and the American people. Farmers do not need more uncertainty. They need Congress to finally act and get out of the way. It is time to deliver permanent year-round E15.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Paul Tonko (D-NY)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about how this bill is being considered today.
The Environment Subcommittee has not held a single hearing on the Renewable Fuel Standard in the 119th session of Congress. CBO has said that this bill will have a significant impact on our budget. Yet, there has not been any legislative record, independent analysis, or technical assistance from EPA that could help us better understand its consequences.
We know that this bill will affect USDA programs, the highway trust fund, and vehicle fuel economy to some extent. We also know that it will have consequences for the RFS RIN market. Reducing demand for RINs by not reallocating small refiners' gallons will affect RIN prices, and it seems likely that producers and retailers of advanced biofuels will be the ones who suffer the most.
Mr. Speaker, this might just be assumptions on my part, but that is all we have to go on because this bill failed to have any legislative process to help us best understand these complex issues. I hope our counterparts in the Senate will take the time to do a proper review of this proposal.
I also hope that EPA does not interpret this bill as having any sort of congressional intent that would lead to increasing the annual volumes of conventional biofuels beyond its historic 15 billion gallons per year.
Despite my serious concerns with this bill's process, I will acknowledge that administrations have been granting year-round E15 waivers for years. If that is going to continue to be the case, it simply makes sense to codify. I also acknowledge that the RFS' small refinery exemptions have been a source of uncertainty and litigation, and that process should be reformed.
While I have reluctantly supported this bill, it is such a huge missed opportunity. For one, it does nothing to recognize a significant and growing segment of the fuel pool, that being electricity. We should be providing certainty for e-RIN pathways. There is no good reason to keep electricity produced from qualified feedstocks out of the program. Frankly, that is not even enough.
As long as we continue to have a volumetric approach to our national fuel program, it will be filled with uncertainty, unnecessary litigation, and worse outcomes for both consumers and, yes, for our environment. We should embrace a performance-based clean fuel standard that rewards fuels of all types for their pollution reduction.
While this bill is a missed opportunity, I can at least recognize that E15 is about 30 cents per gallon cheaper, and we know that Americans are feeling a lot of pain at the pump due to President Trump and his disastrous, illegal war with Iran.
Today, the average gas price is $4.51 per gallon. Compare that to under $3 a gallon before the war started. The $200 billion that the administration has previously said was necessary for this war could have been better used to incentivize more than 26 million people to buy an American-made electric vehicle.
Instead, Republicans have repealed the tax credit that was allowing people to take back some control and end their dependence on volatile oil markets.
While I support this bill today, I hope that Republicans will get serious about what it is going to take to lower energy prices for Americans and enact a sensible, long-term fuels policy for our country.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak), another valued member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Julie Fedorchak (R-ND)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of North Dakota farmers and rural communities to support this step forward on year-round E15.
For those of us who talk to farmers on a daily basis, we know that agriculture is hurting. Across the country, input costs are up. Interest costs are up. Fuel costs are up.
Many of our producers are also dealing with uncertainty in domestic and foreign markets, and this is exactly why year-round E15 matters.
This is the top priority for farmers in my State and across our Nation. I hear about it in every conversation in every townhall and every radio show: When will we get year-round E15? It is what they are asking for. They want markets, not disaster payments. They want an increase in the demand right here in America for their products, and this is what E15 creates.
E15 is homegrown American energy. Most importantly, eliminating the artificial prohibition on summer sales of E15 is an important step toward creating the consistent demand that will allow this industry to grow and stand on its own without RFS one day.
We have to get this done first. It will add $25.3 billion to U.S. GDP and support more than 128,000 full-time jobs. In North Dakota, the ethanol industry contributes $1.7 billion annually to my State's economy.
Congress has a chance right now to find a lasting solution for year-round E15 with today's consideration of the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, legislation I was so proud to cosponsor.
President Trump and Secretary Rollins support this effort, and rural America is counting on us to deliver. Let's get it done.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), a member of our committee.
Greg Landsman (D-OH)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone for yielding. I am a newer Member of Congress, so this one was crazy to me: this idea that we didn't allow farmers to produce this biofuel all year-round; that we didn't allow consumers to have this option; that there was a law that said that only when we say so can E15 biofuels be produced.
The question with this bill is: Do we want to allow farmers to produce more ethanol, to produce E15 all year-round whenever they want? Do we want our consumers to be able to buy lower priced gas all year-round?
Unfortunately, the answer isn't obviously yes for everyone. There are some folks who don't agree that in the land of the free somehow our farmers can only produce this ethanol and bring it to market sometimes, that consumers can only get this lower-priced gas sometimes, and they will vote against this bill.
Hopefully, a majority of us will get this thing done. It will pass the Senate, and this country will finally have a policy where E15 biofuels can be sold all year-round. Our farmers can produce this all year-round, and consumers can buy it all year-round. Those are families and small businesses.
Permanentizing E15 sales obviously grows domestic demand for ethanol. It is nearly 7 billion gallons every year. That will make a huge difference for our farmers who are struggling with higher costs associated with these tariffs. This will save drivers in the United States more than $150 million just this summer--$150 million just this summer. For every single driver and every driver in Ohio, that is a 30-cent savings with every gallon. That is how much more affordable this option is.
Any car that was made from 2001 on, which is 96 percent of cars, can take E15. So that is the vast majority of Americans get 30 cents off per gallon when we pass this.
Why did this take so long? It took so long because oil refineries and Big Oil, these big companies and folks who have a lot of money, they spent that money or some of that money convincing Members of Congress not to bring this to the floor even though it is better for farmers and better for consumers.
I am a farmers first guy. There are a lot of farmers first Members of Congress here on the Republican side and on the Democratic side, and we banded together. We got this thing on the floor, and, hopefully, it will pass and provide meaningful support for our farmers who desperately need it and meaningful relief at the pump for consumers and for our families.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Adrian Smith (R-NE)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to move toward American energy independence and pass my bill, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act.
With global tensions, volatile fuel prices, and persistent uncertainty in the energy sector, energy independence is no longer a theoretical goal but a vital part of America's national security and economic survival.
Fortunately, E15 is a winning solution. It is a reliable, clean, and affordable homegrown fuel that strengthens every link in our domestic energy supply chain.
Nationwide, year-round E15 would provide immediate relief to consumers, lowering costs at the pump at different levels, but in my district you can see up to 52 cents per gallon at a time when families need it most.
It would increase demand for corn, as you have been hearing, by over 2 million bushels a year, delivering the certainty, opportunity, and market development America's farmers have unequivocally called for.
E15 compatibility is here and can be delivered through existing infrastructure, as the past 5 years of summertime waivers have already demonstrated.
The question is no longer whether E15 makes sense. We know it does. The question is whether Congress will allow consumers to have this viable option.
To my colleagues in Congress, I urge you to stand with America's consumers, America's farmers, and America's energy future by making nationwide, year-round E15 a reality.
Together, we can finally deliver the certainty, affordability, and energy independence the American people deserve.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. She used to be on our committee, but we lost her as she moved to the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee.
Angie Craig (D-MN)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for yielding.
As co-chair of the bipartisan Biofuels Caucus, this has been a longtime coming. Getting year-round E15 across the finish line has been a priority of mine since the day I came into Congress. In fact, I led the charge for Democrats when we were in control of the House in 2022, the only other time that year-round E15 has passed the House of Representatives.
Back then, the farm economy wasn't great, but now it is downright terrible. Farm bankruptcies in the Midwest are up 70 percent year over year. Our family farmers are hurting, and so are our working families in this country.
Tariffs and trade wars have shut corn and soybean farmers out of their largest markets, and the war in Iran is hitting every single person I know in the pocketbook when it comes to gas prices.
We have the opportunity today to expand market opportunities for farmers who badly need them while at the same time lowering costs at the pump.
Make no mistake about it: It is going to lower costs to allow for year-round E15 if the adoption rate goes up as retailers put in more infrastructure at the pump so that people will have broader access to year-round E15.
But the dynamics of the policies in this country are not changing today. As we think about the administration, the tariffs, the war in Iran, the Strait of Hormuz and the problems we have there, fertilizer costs, diesel costs--we can stand here all day long and say this is a good bipartisan bill, and I believe it is. In 2022, we passed a bipartisan bill. But until this administration changes its actual policies that impact family farmers, there is going to be pain throughout farm country.
As we think about E15 and biofuels in our country, E15 is homegrown, renewable, and available. All we are asking to put into law is that we not arbitrarily limit this cheaper option for consumers to a few months out of the year. In fact, what we are putting in place today, should this pass, is a status quo because we are seeing waivers every single year anyway.
Let's make it available to any American anytime they want to choose it. Year-round E15 is a win for consumers, and it is a win for farmers who desperately need these domestic markets because of so many bad policies on the part of this current administration.
I urge my colleagues to support this package, to support our family farmers and working people across this country.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Scott Perry (R-PA)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we support our farmers, but we also support our consumers. I appreciate my friends on both sides of the aisle for this position, but these two positions of being for farmers and being for consumers are not mutually exclusive.
They are right that we should all have a choice of whether we buy E15 or not, but the problem is that we don't have a choice about the Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires us to produce more ethanol than we ever use.
As a matter of fact, these folks up in the gallery here are paying about $750 a gallon to produce ethanol, about 2 to 4 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol. Thirty cents of every gallon you currently buy of ethanol, after you pay the subsidy, is added to your gallon of gas price. This is going to raise prices.
By the way, you already have the chance to do this. Twenty-two States already have the option to sell E15 year-round. Less than 14 percent of fueling stations in Iowa, where they grow a heck of a lot of corn, sell E15 because the consumer doesn't want it. You get less miles per gallon. First of all, you pay more, subsidize it, and then get less miles per gallon when you put it in your tank.
This is craziness. As the price of fuel goes up because of Iran--not because of President Trump, but because of Iran--we are actually going to increase prices in this House if this bill is voted in favor of.
Delta purchased the Monroe facility in Pennsylvania for $150 million plus $30 million from Pennsylvania, but they spent $2.3 billion on renewable fuel compliance. That is 20 times the purchase price.
Where do you think the price goes, ladies and gentlemen? It goes in your wallet. You are paying for all of this stuff.
I absolutely urge a "no" vote on this. Let's not raise everybody's gas prices.
By the way, it doesn't help the environment, either. I have all of those numbers, too, but I am out of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Van Orden)4:20 p.m.
Members are reminded not to refer to persons in the gallery.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids).
Sharice Davids (D-KS)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bill allowing for the year-round sale of E15.
For years, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, farmers, fuel producers, and through multiple administrations to push for year-round E15 because this is one of the clearest bipartisan ways we can help lower costs for families while supporting American agriculture and energy production.
Back home in Kansas, families are making tough choices every single day, whether it is filling up their gas tank, paying rent, buying groceries, or covering the cost of childcare. You name it, they are making tough choices. Right now, with gas prices averaging more than $4 a gallon in Kansas, people are feeling the pressure everywhere they go.
Just the other day, I was at a gas station in Kansas where the fuel with E15 was 15 cents cheaper than regular unleaded. I don't know about y'all, but my mom will drive across town for a 6-cent difference. That makes a huge difference, 15 cents a gallon. It might not sound like much to some folks out here in Washington, but for folks who are at home, driving to work, taking kids to school, those savings can add up really quickly.
We already know that E15 works. We have had summer E15 for years, and it has consistently helped lower prices at the pump.
Families shouldn't lose access to cheaper fuel options just because the calendar changes. We need year-round E15. It matters not just for consumers of gasoline but also for Kansas agriculture.
I really want to give a shout-out to the folks at East Kansas Agri-Energy in Garnett. They are an ethanol producer in my district. They are helping turn Kansas-grown corn into fuel that powers our country.
Right now, the farm economy is the toughest it has been in years. Producers are dealing with rising costs and shrinking margins, and uncertainty is coming at them from every single direction. Frankly, this administration's chaotic economic policies and reckless approach to tariffs are making things worse and harder.
Kansas has lost 700 farms this year. Think about that. These are folks who are working hard, doing everything right, and still wondering whether they are going to be able to keep going another year.
Expanding year-round E15 creates a stronger and more reliable market for what our farmers grow. At a time of global instability and conflict around the world, that really matters because E15 is made with homegrown ingredients produced by American farmers, not imported from other countries overseas. That strengthens our energy independence and our national security while helping lower costs for everyday Americans here at home. This should not be controversial.
Instead of getting this done quickly, though, we have seen unnecessary delays from Republican leadership, and this is all happening while families continue to pay higher prices.
People back home don't care about political games. They care about whether they can afford to fill up their tank and get to work. This is common sense and bipartisan. We are talking about a solution that is going to help drivers, farmers, rural communities, and consumers alike.
I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle--Representatives Nikki Budzinski, Angie Craig, Dusty Johnson, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and Adrian Smith--for joining in this bipartisan effort.
Let's stop stalling. Let's lower costs now. Let's support our farmers, strengthen American energy, and deliver real relief for the people we represent.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
Harriet M. Hageman (R-WY)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1346. This bill is disastrous for Wyoming refiners and independent petroleum producers, leading to a direct loss of at least 750 jobs in my home State.
Just to correct the record, it isn't the farmers who produce ethanol or E15. It is the refiners, and this bill threatens to put them out of business.
In fact, it is interesting that anyone who supports this bill has not yet mentioned the fact that it is the refiners that will be forced, mandated, to meet the E15 requirement.
The refineries that are at risk of closure because of this bill across the country employ more than 5,800 workers. We could lose upward of 266,000 indirect jobs that depend on small refineries.
The EPA's own Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 2026-2027 biofuel mandate says the RFS will cost American families about $20 billion a year.
This bill would create a $3 billion or more annual cost increase for small refineries because of the blending and compliance costs.
This bill will increase the cost of gasoline by an average of over 35 cents per gallon, with some States seeing an increase of well over $1 per gallon.
At a time when the American consumer and small businesses are already struggling to make ends meet, we should not be adopting policies that make it even harder.
This bill is not in line with the values we support as Republicans such as free and fair markets. This bill is nothing short of a new tax being imposed by Washington, D.C., and it is wrong.
If higher ethanol blends were truly competitive on their own merits, they would not require Federal blending mandates, compliance credit schemes, subsidies, and special regulatory carve-outs to survive in the marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this bill.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski).
Nikki Budzinski (D-IL)4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, as amended.
As a lead Democrat on this bill, I have been proud to work with Congressman Adrian Smith on this issue. We both understand, like many other Members, that year-round E15 is bigger than politics. This is about American farmers. It is about American consumers, and it is about American energy.
E15 is truly one of those rare issues where everyone wins. Here is why: American farmers win because it creates strong and stable markets for homegrown corn. American consumers win because E15 helps to lower prices at the pump. Our economy wins because E15 supports jobs and investment in rural America.
I represent one of the leading corn producing regions in the United States. I have sat down with growers, producers, and small business owners across central and southern Illinois who all understand the same thing: Year-round E15 works.
Yet despite years of support, years of advocacy, and years of evidence proving its benefits, we are still relying on temporary waivers and short-term fixes to keep E15 available during the summer months. Those waivers may get us through another season, but they do not provide certainty that our farmers need and deserve. Farmers cannot plan their future around temporary decisions. Producers cannot invest with confidence when policy changes year to year. Consumers should not lose access to a cheaper fuel option simply because Washington refuses to finish the job.
We have been close before. In fact, it feels like every year we get right to the goal line, and every year politics, delay, or dysfunction gets in our way.
Today we are here to say: Enough. Enough excuses. Enough kicking the can down the road. The time for bipartisan, permanent, nationwide, and year-round E15 is now.
Family farmers are heading toward a crisis, facing rising costs, shrinking margins, and growing unpredictability not because they are failing, but because the system is failing them.
While our producers are struggling, American families are being squeezed, and that is especially at the gas pump. Right now, the average price of gas nationwide is around $4.50 per gallon. Families need relief, and year-round E15 is the solution. That is why today I am calling on my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to come together and let's finally pass this bill.
Let's deliver certainty for our growers, lower costs for consumers, and let's strengthen American energy independence.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).
Ashley Hinson (R-IA)4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act to allow permanent, nationwide, year-round access to E15.
Mr. Speaker, if you ate today, thank a farmer; if you got dressed today, thank a farmer; and if you put gas in your car today, thank a farmer.
This is a challenging time for our ag economy, and we should be using every tool available to us to support our farmers and our rural communities. This bill does just that, driving new demand for American agriculture products and boosting our farm income by $13.8 billion.
Year-round E15 would lower costs across the board for working families across the country, saving drivers up to 30 cents per gallon and reducing those prices along the supply chain. That is a savings of about $200 a year in fuel costs for the average family. Iowans, just for a stat here, have saved $126 million in the last decade by choosing E15 over E10. That is real savings.
Full E15 adoption would also help to support 128,000 full-time jobs.
After years of uncertainty, it is time for Congress to step up and provide a permanent solution. This is something I have been pushing for years. This is not a mandate. This is commonsense regulation fixes focused right on the consumer.
This is not a mandate. It is a market. It is a win-win-win supporting homegrown energy, reducing reliance on foreign oil and continuing to support America's producers who do the best thing which is feeding and fueling the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense bill.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong)4:30 p.m.
The gentleman from New Jersey has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 18 minutes remaining.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood).
Mike Flood (R-NE)4:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to offer my strong, unwavering support for the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act introduced by my fellow Nebraskan, Adrian Smith, as well as Senator Fischer over in the Senate from Nebraska.
I support ethanol. Why?
Because it is cheaper, it is cleaner, it is homegrown, and it is a fuel that has been an economic game changer for Nebraska.
I grew up in the 1980s. I watched the farm bankruptcies. I saw what was happening in middle America, and then I saw what happened with the renaissance ushered into middle America by ethanol. I recognize that not everyone, including some of my colleagues in this Chamber, do not have the same feelings about ethanol. While I may disagree with that perspective, the beautiful thing about this bill is that it offers consumers a choice. You can choose E15, Mr. Speaker, you can choose E10, and you can choose E-zero. It is up to each and every person when they fill up at the pump.
This bill allows people to choose or not choose E15 based on their values. They may want cheaper gas, they may not. They may want higher octane, they may not. They may want to support America's farmers, or they may not. It gives everyone the choice.
That is why we need a vote on the clean E15 vote today.
This bill fixes an outdated regulatory barrier that prevents 15 percent ethanol blends. We have come a long way in fuel science, emissions data and vehicle technology in the last 40 years. The decades-old rules no longer fit current conditions.
This wasn't a proposal put together overnight. Lawmakers worked with the liquid fuels industry and farmers to come together to find a solution. Everyone wants regulatory certainty.
Nebraska has enjoyed year-round E15 due to emergency waivers. While we are thankful it has been granted for our State, we can't rely on the Federal Government every year to issue ad hoc relief.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I urge its adoption.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans), my good friend and a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Gabe Evans (R-CO)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to the bill before us. Let me be clear: If this was just year-round E15, I would be a "yes," but it is not just year-round E15. It makes significant changes to definitions under the Renewable Fuel Standard that impact 80 percent of small refineries.
My district is home to the last two oil refineries in Colorado. Both of them are small refineries. Under this bill, their definition would change. They would no longer be small refineries, which means they would no longer be able to obtain relief from the RFS compliance costs. My two refineries alone would face an impact of over $100 million a year.
To be clear, this is a disproportionate impact on small refineries and is something that the GAO has found in a 2022 study. After years of attacks and overregulation from ruling Democrats in Denver, we can't afford to lose essential energy infrastructure, like the two refineries in my district.
Beyond just energy security, this is a matter of affordability for Coloradans. In fact, the last time my two refineries had to temporarily shut down, gas prices spiked by $1.40 a gallon for my constituents in Colorado.
If my refineries have to eat a $100-plus million annual increase in their compliance costs and/or they potentially shut down, that $1.40 a gallon becomes permanent for my constituents in Colorado. That is something that they cannot afford in perpetuity.
While I would support a clean year-round E15 authorization, that is not what this does. It has other definitions in it. I urge my colleagues to join me in "no."
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Finstad).
Brad Finstad (R-MN)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Guthrie for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1346, delivering on year-round, nationwide sales of E15.
As a fourth-generation corn and soybean farmer from southern Minnesota raising that fifth generation and representing 21 counties in southern Minnesota, a very strong egg-producing district, I have had many conversations with my neighbor farmers. I know by hearing what they are telling me and firsthand in my own experience as a farmer that we are facing uncertainty in our input costs and uncertainty in the global markets. We need a new domestic opportunity for our corn. E15 delivers on that.
Throughout the past several years, farm country has been forced to rely on D.C. bureaucrats granting emergency waivers to sell E15 during summer driving season.
E15 is a commonsense, win-win solution to strengthen demand for farmers, support rural economies, and provide consumers with more affordable fuel options.
Food and fuel security is also critical to our national security. I will choose reliance on my neighbors in southern Minnesota over our foreign adversaries to produce our domestic fuel supply every day of the week.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time for Congress to act. It is high time that Congress provides much-needed certainty to our fuel supply chain. I urge a "yes" vote.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Chip Roy (R-TX)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his time.
I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of this debate and where they are coming from. I understand my friends who come from States that want support for farming. We all want to make sure that we are figuring that out. We worked through the farm bill. I just think we ought to be going about this a different way.
If we need to do something to support farmers, let's have a direct conversation about it. Expanding E15 is just the wrong direction to go. It is going to harm refiners. It is going to drive up the cost of gas. I think it is going to drive up the price of energy, generally. It is, in fact, a mandate. It is an expansion of the mandate. That is what the practical effects of it will be.
Truthfully, I have no problem if you want to pull back on the Clean Air Act in terms of what it does with respect to the E15 requirement in the summer, but then let's modify the Renewable Fuel Standard.
We have created this botched system. We are making it massively difficult for refining capacity to grow in the United States. We are not actually solving the problem here. What we are doing instead is trying to put a Band-Aid on it, which expands the mandate. It doesn't fix the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is the core of the problem. It is trying to backdoor into farm subsidies while doing it on the back of our energy and gas policy.
Mr. Speaker, this bill should go to committee. This bill should be amended and debated. We shouldn't be putting it on the floor right now. It is not ready for prime time. I am going to oppose the legislation, and I hope my colleagues will, too.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).
Mr. VAN ORDEN4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the only committee I asked to be on when I got elected to Congress was the Agriculture Committee. I came here to fight for my farmers, and that is exactly what we are doing here today.
For the last 5 years in a row, the EPA issued an emergency waiver for E15 year-round. I would argue that if you do the exact same thing 5 years in a row, it is no longer an emergency.
For the people who claim to be all-of-the-above for energy, well, guess what. E15 is a source of energy. It is domestically produced. For the people who bemoan the accountability, it is rightfully so. This is a way to save up to 30 cents a gallon of gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, this is critically important for farmers. It is critically important for consumers. I stand in very strong support of this legislation.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer), my good friend.
Mark B. Messmer (R-IN)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that farmers are facing high input costs and that commodity prices are too low. Today, I stand here in support of a policy that will bring about a sustainable solution.
The Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act is not an agriculture assistance package. It is not a mandate. Retailers have a choice. It is not an emergency payment.
This bill delivers cost savings at the pump for U.S. consumers with a promise of stability for small refiners and guaranteed profitability for the next generation of American farmers.
Don't just take it from me. Consider the appeal from hundreds of companies, manufacturers, and producer cooperatives that are pleading for this program.
The hardworking American farmer deserves certainty, and this bill delivers just that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in investing in America's farm families, in agricultural businesses, and in our beloved rural communities by supporting this important legislation.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).
Zachary Nunn (R-IA)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have the opportunity to save every American at the pump up to 50 cents per gallon. We know because we have proved it right in my home State of Iowa. The value of yearlong, nationwide E15 is real money in the pockets of families, communities, and our supply chain nationwide.
Today, we get to choose if we save every American family those dollars and put it back in their pockets to reinvest in their families when they fill up, or if we are going to continue to allow energy prices to strain families' budgets.
Today, we get to choose between a fuel that is grown literally right here in the United States for energy independence, or if we continue to be reliant on foreign powers and adversaries, subsidizing their ability to get fuel to the rest of the world while America does the heavy lifting.
Today, we get the chance to deliver for producers, family farmers like the 87,000 small family farmers that are building that next generation of not only feeding our country but also fueling it.
Our farmers work hard for our families. Today, we get to work hard for both families and farmers by putting this bill on the floor, the first time E15 has ever been voted on.
We defeated backroom deals in D.C. to secure this vote that will bring down costs for American families. Now, we have the chance today to finish that job.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle--this is an opportunity for affordability for families, certainty for producers, and American energy that grows right here in America. I ask for their support.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my support for the Renewable Fuel Standard, including allowing the voluntary year-round sale of gasoline with 15 percent ethanol, known as E15, because it lowers prices for American drivers, supports farmers, and fosters investment in cleaner transportation fuel.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)4:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on H.R. 1346, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Messmer)4:50 p.m.
All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1224, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:50 p.m.
The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Scott Perry (R-PA)4:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:50 p.m.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Text printed in the Record (105 characters)
Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 1346) to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:50 p.m.
Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Scott Perry (R-PA)4:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:50 p.m.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.
Expressing Support for Law Enforcement Officers
Pages H3428–H3434 · Official textMr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) expressing support for law enforcement officers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to House Resolution 1275, the concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (2,470 characters)
Whereas the brave men and women in law enforcement work tirelessly and relentlessly to safeguard the communities they are sworn to protect, serving as the backbone of public safety across our Nation;
Whereas law enforcement officers bear the critical responsibility of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the safety, stability, and public order upon which our communities depend;
Whereas law enforcement officers routinely and selflessly risk their own lives and safety to combat crime, remove dangerous and lethal drugs from our streets, and stand in defense of the most vulnerable among us;
Whereas law enforcement officers strengthen our communities through outreach, mentorship, crisis response, and countless daily acts of service that frequently go unrecognized;
Whereas, from resolving neighborhood disputes to checking in on elderly residents and guiding youth programs, officers provide a quiet and steady presence that extends far beyond traditional law enforcement duties;
Whereas rhetoric and policies from leftist activists and progressive politicians seek to defund or dismantle local police departments undermine public safety and place both officers and the communities they serve at greater risk;
Whereas sanctuary city policies that restrict cooperation with Federal immigration authorities can compel local law enforcement agencies to divert already limited resources and actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement;
Whereas the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates, with levels reaching among the lowest recorded in over a century;
Whereas drug overdose deaths in the United States have declined significantly, reaching their lowest levels since 2019;
Whereas violent crime rates have declined significantly in major cities across the United States; and
Whereas law enforcement officers deserve our deepest respect, unwavering support, and profound gratitude: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) appreciates and values the indispensable contributions that law enforcement provides to our communities and our country each and every day;
(2) recognizes the extraordinary sacrifice that law enforcement officers make to protect and serve their communities and their country; and
(3) expresses its profound and wholehearted support for the men and women of law enforcement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
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 insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 96.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we owe a great deal of gratitude to the men and women in law enforcement who make sacrifices every day. They miss dinners, holidays, parent-teacher conferences, sports games, performances, and celebrations with their families so that the rest of us can live safely. These brave officers are the thin blue line that stand between our communities and chaos.
For years, radical Democrats championed the defund the police movement, slashed police budgets, and demonized entire police departments while crimes skyrocketed. Murders, carjackings, and retail thefts surged. We also saw leftist rogue prosecutors utterly fail to enforce the laws and uphold their oath of office. They refused to prosecute entire categories of crime, implemented cashless bail, released violent offenders back into society, and the list goes on and on.
We have seen Democrats support sanctuary city policies and openly side with illegal immigrants over American citizens. Sanctuary jurisdictions proudly shield criminal aliens from Federal immigration authorities, regardless of the cost to the residents. Officials from these jurisdictions tie the hands of their very own police departments. We have seen time and again how these jurisdictions refuse to honor an ICE detainer, release a criminal alien back onto the streets, and then that alien commits another heinous crime. Almost one-third of the country lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction. That is roughly 100 million Americans.
Where these failed policies took hold, chaos followed. Thankfully, the Trump administration has restored law and order. Because of President Trump, the border is secure.
Because of President Trump, the homicide rate has declined an average of 21 percent in 35 major U.S. cities, reaching the lowest level recorded in over a century.
Because of President Trump, we have seen the lowest number of drug overdoses since 2019.
These historic results prove that when we enforce the law and prioritize prosecuting violent crime, American communities become safer for everyone. When law enforcement officers are empowered to do their jobs, American communities become safer for everyone. When politicians support the police instead of siding with radical activists, American communities become safer for everyone.
To every police officer watching today, America sees you. We thank you. We stand with you.
I urge my colleagues to support our brave men and women in law enforcement, reject policies that make Americans less safe, and support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose and to deplore this partisan resolution. As you just heard, H. Con. Res. 96 is another tiresome and loathsome exercise in partisan MAGA polemics.
Unlike H. Res. 1252, which was honestly written to honor law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, and which received an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House just a few hours ago, this nonbinding rhetorical resolution desecrates the solemnity and abandons the nonpartisanship of Police Week by scrawling a bunch of false and inflammatory anti-Democratic and pro-Trump graffiti on what has always been, until now, a simple nonpartisan resolution expressing the national consensus supporting law enforcement.
It is not difficult to write these resolutions in a way that garners widespread bipartisan support. Last year, Congress passed H. Con. Res. 30, a bipartisan resolution expressing our mutual common support for local law enforcement. The year before that, together we passed H. Res. 1213, condemning calls to defund the police and violence against law enforcement officers.
We have always strived for bipartisanship in these resolutions on Police Week to show that the whole community is together. But just as 21 Republicans voted against the Congressional Gold Medal for officers who defended this Capitol and this Chamber against rioters and insurrectionists on January 6, 2021, now, the Republicans bring forward a resolution designed not to unify but to divide.
The resolution before us invites us to endorse a tired, false, cliche-ridden partisan claim about defunding the police when, in fact, it is Democrats who have repeatedly promoted robust funding for law enforcement, while congressional Republicans, the Trump administration, and Elon Musk have cut funding for law enforcement and public safety programs that actually work as they slashed $500 million from State and local crime-fighting and victim assistance grants and programs under the DOGE and Elon Musk's crusade against the Federal Government.
The resolution also invites us to sign on to the demonstrably false claim that the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates. The significant decline in violent crime in major cities over the past couple of years has nothing to do with the Trump Presidency as the resolution asserts and everything to do with the Democrats they denounce and the Biden Presidency's investment in State and local law enforcement.
In fact, homicides skyrocketed during the first Trump administration, and the historic nationwide decrease in violent crime began during the Biden administration and was the result of Democratic-led investments in public safety through both the American Rescue Plan, which House Republicans unanimously opposed, and the historic Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
Thanks to these sweeping investments in public safety and our common security, cities leveraged Federal funds and innovation to pursue a variety of effective programs to combat violent crime, with some cities recording the lowest murder rate since the 1960s, or even before that.
Madam Speaker, instead of restoring law and order, as the resolution claims, the current administration has systematically undermined law enforcement and jeopardized public safety without any objections from the party that claims to back the blue. The administration canceled millions in critical grant funding that supported State and local law enforcement. It reassigned more than 25,000 Federal agents tasked with fighting organized crime, terrorism, and human trafficking away from their missions in order to do immigration roundups.
The administration invaded American cities with a lawless paramilitary force, unleashing chaos and deadly violence on U.S. citizens, like Renee Good and Alex Pretti, under the pretense of fighting the worst of the worst. The administration stopped enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, announced that in its first week in office.
It fired dozens of experienced Justice Department lawyers and FBI agents just because they participated in the largest criminal investigation and prosecution in American history against the people who attacked this Chamber and the Capitol and the Congress and the Vice President on January 6, 2021.
This administration has also pardoned dozens of white-collar criminals and fraudsters, including the former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, an international narcotrafficker who brought 800,000 pounds of cocaine into America, saying he would shove it up the noses of the gringos, and he was going off to jail for decades when President Trump decided to pardon him for reasons unknown.
He has released people from prison from January 6 who went on to commit serious new crimes against our people, such as Mr. Johnson who got out because of his Trump pardon and went on and sexually assaulted two 12-year-old children and now has been sentenced to life in prison because of that. Those kids' lives have been irrevocably altered by the mass pardon of all of these people that included armed robbers, violent felons, domestic abusers, you name it, and a lot of them are back at it right now.
Madam Speaker, the administration has repeatedly threatened to cut off funding for State and local law enforcement in numerous jurisdictions and attempted to commandeer State and local police officers and resources to do the Federal Government's job at State and local expense. All of this compromises public safety and is an insult to the officers who work to keep us safe.
Republicans in Congress have done nothing to put the brakes on Donald Trump's weak-on-crime agenda, and we were going to give him a chance. The fact that he has 34 Federal criminal counts that he is convicted of himself doesn't mean he had to be soft on crime, but he is soft on crime, and we are not going to help the Republicans pull the wool over America's eyes. We are not going to do that to salvage their leader who is sinking like a stone in public opinion polls for his illegal tariffs, his unconstitutional war, his soaring inflation, and runaway corruption throughout the government.
Donald Trump has a staph infection, and America can see it every day. House Republican appropriators recently rejected the Trump administration's proposal to increase ATF's budget by 4 percent and agent head count from 2,400 to 3,000 agents in the coming fiscal year. Instead, they want to cut ATF's budget by $285 million, which would leave ATF with even fewer resources to support State and local police as they work to prevent and investigate and prosecute gun crimes.
Meaningless polemics against leftist activists and progressive politicians have no place in a resolution purportedly meant to honor law enforcement. This is the first time that any majority has fallen into the political trap, but they can't help themselves because they are so desperate because of the plummeting poll numbers of Donald Trump and his administration.
Now that you raise it, it is worth noting that Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have actually voted to defund the police in the 119th Congress. H.R. 7640, the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026, would strip Federal funding from jurisdictions that have laws placing any limits on State and local law enforcement officers' involvement in Federal immigration matters despite the fact that immigration enforcement is the job of the Federal Government and not an unfunded mandate that can be put on the States and cities and localities.
All of this undermines public safety. I cannot support this resolution, which lies about Republicans and this administration's real record on crime and public safety. The observance of National Police Week and Peace Officers Memorial Day marks a time of solemn remembrance when our Nation should come together to honor the courage, sacrifice, and dedication of our law enforcement officers and personnel, and promote awareness of their service to our communities.
Let's stand united and reject this shameful effort to inject divisive partisan politics into this resolution and this week.
If you want something that can bring us together, please support the bill that I introduced today to create a fund to compensate the law enforcement officers who defended the Republic, this Capitol, the Congress, the Vice President against that violent attack on January 6, 2021. They continue to suffer the physical, medical, psychological effects of that atrocious attack.
The Trump administration wrote a check for nearly $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt despite the fact that there were two different investigations which determined that the police had acted reasonably, lawfully, and honorably. Yet, they just gave them a check for $5 million.
What do the families of the officers who defended our lives get? So far they have done nothing. We are introducing legislation to make that happen, and I hope everybody in this body who really believes that law enforcement should be stood by and should be defended in their work will get with us on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina)5:00 p.m.
Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:00 p.m.
Madam Speaker, you know, when I hear the term "national consensus," what seems to be national consensus is that the Democrats were the ones that promoted defund the police. I have here a list of cities who cut a total of $1.71 billion to promote police. They did that because they wanted to defund the police.
I hear that there is a consensus bill. The Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote on the bill we just voted on just an hour or so ago. I mean, it is just hokum. It is just flat out hokum.
Well, the national consensus is that Democrats are well-known to have supported the defund the police movement.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), the sponsor of the bill.
Zachary Nunn (R-IA)5:00 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Biggs for helping us bring this resolution forward.
Today, I rise for National Police Week where thousands of officers and their families are in Washington, D.C., right now for memorial services, honoring the men and women who have given everything in the line of duty.
I will start by honoring one of those Iowans, our own, who lost his life while serving in my community. Officer Phoukham Tran was with the Des Moines Police Department, and he lost his life when he was hit while serving in the line of duty by a drunk driver outside of the Iowa State Fair. He served for more than three decades with the Des Moines Police Department. And while he succumbed to his injuries, his legacy of service for our community made us all recognize how much safer we are based on what he did for all of us.
He is only 1 of 198 officers honored at the Iowa Peace Officers Memorial in downtown Des Moines, sacrificing their lives for a safer community, and this week we honor all of those losses, and we remember each of those families, and our communities are better because of what they did for us.
These are the heroes that we recognize this week. This is their resolution, and that is what this is about. The officers who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty are the loved ones who have served, as well as the loved ones who are left behind, and the officers who continue serving our communities every day despite the loss of a friend, a comrade, and a wingman.
Unfortunately, there is a reality, as Mr. Biggs has stated, that some elected officials, including some here in Congress and across this country, have refused to honor or even recognize their sacrifice and service by standing with our law enforcement.
Whether it is the radical idea of defunding the police or the self-described sanctuary cities, these policies are a choice, a choice that undermines the very communities they are serving, a choice that puts officer safety at risk every single day.
I am proud to say that my State of Iowa has resoundingly rejected these policies. In Iowa, we led the Back the Blue Act that increased penalties for violent crimes, particularly those against officers, and increased law enforcement pay. That is truly how you stand with law enforcement.
We also banned sanctuary policies back in 2018.
Just last year, Iowa increased penalties for assaulting a law enforcement officer, including a mandatory minimum for a violent offense.
These policies in Iowa have led to a historic decline in crime. As noted, we now have the lowest homicide rate in over 125 years. Fewer murders are good for every American.
Iowa has made its position clear, and now Congress has the opportunity to do the same. The good work being done on the Judiciary Committee is executing on exactly that.
Last year alone, sanctuary city jurisdictions declined almost 18,000 ICE detainer requests, many against violent offenders and habitual offenders who were turned back onto the streets. Nearly 18,000 times, local officials chose not to allow the police to cooperate with Federal law enforcement and released these individuals back into the communities, making not only local officers' jobs harder but those at the Federal level, as well.
I know this much is true: When we support local law enforcement, it works, and we have proven it. Homicide rates are the lowest in over a century. Drug overdose deaths are at their lowest in over a decade. Federal law enforcement is working alongside departments in States like Iowa and so many others to remove real public safety threats.
That happens when we stand with law enforcement. That is what this week is about: honoring those who have fallen, those who continue to serve, and the communities that stand with our men and women on that thin blue line.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:10 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is the ranking member of the Crime and Federal Government Surveillance Subcommittee.
Lucy McBath (D-GA)5:10 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for giving me time to speak on the floor today.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 96, which does a disservice to our law enforcement officers by using them simply in a political ploy.
This resolution takes cheap shots and spreads misinformation while not doing a single thing to help law enforcement or improve public safety, which should be our goal this and every National Police Week.
I will not repeat the misleading statements and half-truths in this resolution, but I will actually present some facts today.
It is a fact that it was the first Trump administration when our country experienced the largest increase in homicides ever recorded in a single year.
It is a fact that violent crimes, especially homicides, have been declining for nearly 4 years, beginning under the Biden administration, long before this administration took office.
It is a fact that this historic, yearslong effort to decrease crime began under a Democratic President and Democratic control of Congress, which allowed us to pass unprecedented investments in law enforcement and public safety through the American Rescue Plan Act and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
It is a fact that cities and States across the country, many of them led by Democratic mayors and Democratic Governors, used that funding to strengthen their approach to public safety by investing in their local law enforcement, but also in education, community centers, community violence intervention, social workers, mental health and substance abuse services, and more.
It is a fact that these efforts to improve public safety have allowed many cities to achieve the fewest murders since the 1960s or even earlier.
It is a fact that the Trump administration has repeatedly eliminated funding for public safety programs that we know work, including clawing back $500 million in public safety grants that were already awarded.
On top of that, the Trump administration has diverted more than 25,000 law enforcement officers to immigration enforcement and away from their jobs of investigating gun violence, drug trafficking, sex crimes, and other major offenses, leading criminal prosecutions to fall to their lowest points in decades.
This resolution does not invest a single dollar in effective policing. It does not equip police with modern technology to help them simply solve a crime. It does not invest in innovative, collaborative approaches to public safety. It does not provide assistance to help law enforcement agencies address the continuing crisis that they are facing in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers. It does not do anything to make our police officers safer on the job and more likely to return home to their families safe and sound at the end of their shifts.
That is what we should be doing here in the House during National Police Week. When Democrats controlled the House, that is exactly what we did. We passed bipartisan bills that were signed into law and are still improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness, and strengthening public safety. These bills include the Protecting America's First Responders Act, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, the COPS Counseling Act, and the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act.
Make no mistake, my opposition to this resolution is not opposition to the statements in this resolution that we can all agree on, such as that our law enforcement officers work tirelessly to protect our communities. Indeed, I was proud to vote in favor of the bipartisan resolution that we actually passed today in support of law enforcement and honoring those who died while serving their communities, including my own.
Yet, I must oppose this legislation that seeks to score political points instead of investing in law enforcement and in our communities.
Madam Speaker, as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, I urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposing this resolution and to instead work with me on bills that will actually support law enforcement and improve public safety.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:10 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to think back on 2020 as being the measuring line that you are coming from because, when you remember, that is the year of George Floyd. That is the year of CHAZ, CHOP, and rioting, wholesale violence, the Portland courthouse under siege, and the defund police movement, even by some across the aisle in Congress.
What has happened since President Trump has come in? Violent crime rates have declined significantly in major cities across the United States. That is what this resolution says at one point. Let's get here.
Do they deny the drop? No, they don't deny the drop. They just don't like the fact that Donald Trump gets some credit for it. The TDS has been on display.
The numbers are clear. Why does falling crime under renewed law and order priorities threaten the worldview of Democrats? It shouldn't.
In Chicago, for instance, in 2025, homicides plunged 29 percent after Donald Trump was elected, from 587 in 2024 to 417 last year.
In Columbus, Ohio, in the same period, rapes dropped 39 percent, from 1,116 down to 678.
In Houston, ag assaults fell 17 percent, from 18,590 to 15,378.
Robberies in L.A. dropped 15.3 percent, from 8,593 to 7,278.
New York City recorded the fewest shooting victims and shooting incidents in its entire recorded history in 2025.
Democrats spent years telling us that backing the police, enforcing laws, and rejecting soft-on-crime nonsense wouldn't work, that it was racist, outdated, or somehow made things worse. Yet, the American people can see the results with their own eyes--safer streets, fewer victims. That is what is specifically stated in this resolution.
What don't they like about it? It mentions Donald J. Trump. It is that simple. They should be coming along with us.
Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The worst Congress in modern American history cannot even write a resolution praising law enforcement that maintains bipartisan support--something that every other Congress, Democratic or Republican, has been able to do--because they are so desperate to cover up their miserable record.
The Trump administration has done nothing more to improve public safety than it has done to lower the ruinous inflation they unleashed on us with their illegal tariffs or to open up the Strait of Hormuz, which was closed only because of the illegal war Trump has already spent $29 billion of our money on.
Well, our colleagues have some very fine rhetoric about how much they love public safety. So why don't we look at their fiscal year 2027 budget proposal. They won't fess up to the fact that they just slashed $500 million out of local and State crime fighting and victim assistance grants, but let's talk about the future.
Well, what does their fiscal year 2027 budget proposal say? It proposes significant funding cuts for grant programs under the Office on Violence Against Women, including a $14 million cut to transitional housing grants and a $15 million cut to legal assistance grants to help survivors and their children.
They want to cut 62.1 percent, nearly a half a billion dollars from the discretionary budget request for COPS, which would translate into complete elimination of the anti-methamphetamine task forces, the anti-heroin task forces, the Community Policing Development Project, de-escalation training, and the dramatic reduction in STOP School Violence, and other crime-fighting projects.
So you are talking about defunding the police and defunding criminal justice. That is what their proposal is for next year.
They want to cut millions of dollars from successful programs to fund the Office on Violence Against Women, of course. For example, they want to cut millions from the Financial Assistance to Victims Program. They want to cut from consolidated youth-oriented programming, access to sexual assault nurse exams $12 million and on and on.
That is their budget.
They want to cut $538 million from the Byrne Discretionary Community Project Grants in the Department of Justice budget. They want to eliminate the Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative whose great successes they want to take credit for. They want to cut $50 million from that.
They want to cut $17 million in grants from the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes community policing program. And it goes on and on. You don't have to go and make up a bunch of mirages and ghosts about defunding the police. That is in their budget for next year. They want to dismantle one criminal justice program after another.
But of course, they want to increase the military budget to $1.5 trillion, which they all leapt up to support even before hearing about what specific military projects and arms projects were contained in it. They want $1.5 trillion for that budget as they continue to drive our budget deficit up to the heavens. They have added already more than $3.5 trillion to the debt. So it is fiscally irresponsible, and it is irresponsible from the standpoint of public safety.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I said last time I was prepared to close. I assumed that was his closing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:20 p.m.
Does the gentleman reserve?
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I reserved the balance of my time.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. Is the gentleman prepared to close?
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I am prepared to keep going. I am not afraid to keep the debate going. Whatever the gentleman pleases.
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:20 p.m.
Does the gentleman from Arizona reserve?
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which they propose to slash and essentially dismantle, is responsible for advancing the practice of community policing at the State, local, territorial, and Tribal levels. The COPS Office awards grants to hire community policing professionals, that is something that they propose to gut.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. He seems to be in a hurry.
Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:20 p.m.
The gentleman from Maryland has 11 minutes remaining.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Look, it is unfortunate that we have reached this place, Madam Speaker. Every prior Congress has been able to honor the police on Law Enforcement Week. Yet, they insisted on scribbling polemical, partisan graffiti, attacking Democrats and Progressives and so on, using a nonbinding ceremonial resolution to try to pick a political fight, which is not very wise given their miserable record in terms of crime fighting.
One of the first things they did was they said they were no longer going to enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Then they gutted anti-terrorism and counterintelligence programs in the Department of Justice. They pardoned 1,600 or 1,500 Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Klan members, violent rioters, and insurrectionists from January 6. Even his own Vice President urged him--or said he supposed the President was not going to pardon those who had committed violence, but he pardoned everybody.
Prior to Donald Trump, you know, the way the Presidents did it was there was a pardon office in the Department of Justice, and they would look at very specific requests and applications that came in for a pardon, and they would try to judge whether the person was truly reformed, truly rehabilitated.
Every President up until Trump insisted that they actually pay off their fines and pay restitution to their victims. But no, not President Trump. He said: I am going to take all of them together. I am going to pardon them en masse, 1,600 of them. Some of them were armed robbers, domestic felons, violent assaulters. Some maybe it was a first offense, but they were all mixed in together, and then they got their pardon, and they were forgiven for all of their fines and all of the restitution that they owed to their victims.
Then the President continued that rampage with all of the white-collar criminals and fraudsters and drug dealers he pardoned. Some of them owed tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. It was all forgiven. That money was, therefore, transferred from the victims of these crimes right back to the criminals. This is the person that they want to praise as being tough on crime and such a great law-and-order President.
We were willing to look--aside from the fact that he had 34 criminal convictions of his own and was an adjudicated sexual assailant under the civil law of New York--and say maybe he will actually invest in fighting crime. But no, it has been quite the opposite. He has been doing everything in his power to undermine criminal law enforcement. Now they want to take credit for what the mayors and Governors have been doing for several years now, which is causing a dramatic decrease in crime by investing in all of the programs that they have pulled the plug on.
They just slashed more than $500 million from Department of Justice grants going out to the States and the cities. You want to look for weak on crime? You want to look for defunding the police? Look no further. You found it in the Trump administration. Elon Musk and DOGE came right over to the Department of Justice and slashed $500 million from program moneys that were appropriated by Congress and programmed by the Department of Justice, and they said: Stop the delivery of this money. We are going to cut off these grants.
The reason they don't say anything about it is because they know it is true. We heard all about it in the Judiciary Committee. That is the real track record.
Now we see in their budget request for next year they want to continue to ravage the crime-fighting budget of the country.
Why did President Trump pardon the former President of Honduras who brought 400 tons of cocaine into America? Why? He brought in 800,000 pounds of cocaine. He said: We are going to shove it up the nostrils of the gringos. That is what he said. And Donald Trump pardoned him, saving him from decades in Federal prison.
How come they are not talking about that?
We wouldn't have brought any of it up if they had just come forward with the same consensus, bipartisan resolution that we have always had. But no, they wanted to pick a partisan fight.
Well, they picked the wrong people, because we know what has actually been happening. We know who is standing strong for law and order and who is bringing us down into the mud of lawlessness and authoritarianism in the country.
Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:30 p.m.
The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes remaining.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to my colleague for a moment if he wants to respond about the pardon of the former President of Honduras, whether that is something that our colleagues on that side of the aisle support or not. I don't know if he is interested in responding to that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:30 p.m.
The gentleman from Maryland yields.
Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I was just offering to yield if he wanted to respond to that question, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:30 p.m.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time.
We consider the safety of the people to be the highest law that there is, along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, this administration has been trampling all of it. We saw what happened in Minneapolis where we had U.S. citizens shot down at pointblank range in broad daylight for exercising their First Amendment rights, the rights contained in the First Amendment of our Constitution, shot down in cold blood.
Then we saw their then-Attorney General, Ms. Bondi, come out and say that these people were engaged in acts of terror and had been threatening people, which was a lie, and she refused the opportunity to apologize for what she had done.
There will be a real investigation. There will be a real investigation of those homicides. There were only, up to that point, three homicides, three murders that took place in Minneapolis, in Minnesota, up until that point of the year, and two of them were committed by Federal agents, two of the three. Well, that is a pretty powerful statement about the law-and-order administration that they want to praise in this completely partisan resolution that they want to push through the House of Representatives today.
So the Constitution is under attack, right? They promulgate executive orders telling thousands of lawyers at different law firms they cannot enter Federal buildings, including Federal courthouses, which makes it difficult to practice law. They have used their power of the Federal Communications Commission to force them to settle completely bogus, frivolous lawsuits that the President has brought against media companies. Then they have installed their minders, their little spies, into TV networks, like something out of Putin's Russia or Orban's Hungary. They have been systematically undermining the free press in the country. They are attacking the Constitution, and they are attacking the Bill of Rights. It is so bad that even their stacked-and-packed, gerrymandered Supreme Court has had to strike them down for things like their illegal, unconstitutional tariffs, their global trade war against the world, which has been ruinous for our economy, compounded only by his illegal, constitutional war on Iran where he usurped the power of Congress to declare war. James Madison said it had to be the Representatives of the people to declare war, not a President, not a Vice President, not Tulsi Gabbard or their leaky chat group. No, it has got to be the Representatives of the people, because the kings were constantly plunging their people into wars of conceit and vanity and imperial plunder. They have created lawlessness from the highest levels of the government all the way down to the streets, where they are pulling the plug on Federal grants to help State and local governments fight crime, while they pardon narcotraffickers, white-collar fraudsters, people scamming American citizens. So we are going to have to try to restore real law and order in the country, and that begins at the top. That begins with the Presidency, and it begins with everybody who is in government. I wish that we could just go ahead and honor law enforcement without all of the partisan graffiti they have scrawled all over the resolution. We would show just as before, you have an overwhelming vote when you do it the right way, and we honor the people who have served us. I invite our friends to join us in honoring and standing by the men and women who defended us on January 6. One hundred fifty of them were wounded, injured, hospitalized, disfigured, and disabled. Some of them were disabled and forced out of police work because of the injuries inflicted by the mob that came here. They have given nearly $5 million to Ashley Babbitt's family, despite the fact that two different investigations showed that the police had acted reasonably and lawfully in what they did. How about millions of dollars to the families of the police officers who lost their lives as a result of that violence? Let's show for real that we are committed to law enforcement by standing by the police officers who defend us every single day. I yield back the balance of my time.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost)5:30 p.m.
The gentleman from Arizona has 20 minutes remaining.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We heard a lot about pardons. It is not mentioned at all in this resolution.
But it is real fun, you know, when you think about pardons, and I have got article after article here. There is a whole stack of them right here of the more than 3,000 people that President Biden pardoned, some massive fraudsters who never paid their restitution. Odd, isn't it?
Quite frankly, Joe Biden was going on a pardon-issuing spree to such an extent he even pardoned a few Members of Congress. How about that. That is pretty interesting to me.
Let's see. If you didn't know what was in this resolution, as most Americans don't and anybody watching, you would think this is all about how heinous of an individual Donald J. Trump, our President, is. You saw that TDS on display.
But I am going to do a favor for everybody. I am going to go over the 11 clauses in this resolution that honor police officers.
By the way, Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote when the resolution we just voted on listed fallen officers. They think we are creating partisanship with this. That is not the case.
Facts are stubborn things. They don't want to honor police. They were the party of defund the police.
Let's take a look at the clauses.
Number one: "Whereas the brave men and women in law enforcement work tirelessly and relentlessly to safeguard the communities they are sworn to protect, serving as the backbone of public safety across our Nation."
What do my colleagues on the other side find controversial here? What is it? Do they deny that officers work tirelessly? Do they deny that communities depend on them? Because if you can't even affirm this, your problem isn't with the resolution. It is with reality.
Number two: "Whereas law enforcement officers bear the critical responsibility of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the safety, stability, and public order upon which our communities depend."
What offends them, the rule of law part or the idea that safety and stability actually matter? They never touched on this.
Number three: "Whereas law enforcement officers routinely and selflessly risk their own lives and safety to combat crime, remove dangerous and lethal drugs from our streets, and stand in defense of the most vulnerable among us."
What is their objection? What is their objection? Do they think law enforcement don't risk their lives, that drugs aren't lethal or that the vulnerable don't deserve that shield? They should tell the widows and orphans of fallen officers why this fact bothers them.
Number four: "Whereas law enforcement officers strengthen our communities through outreach, mentorship, crisis response, and countless daily acts of service that frequently go unrecognized."
Which of these acts of service do they reject? The mentorship? The crisis intervention?
Number five: "Whereas from resolving neighborhood disputes to checking in on elderly residents and guiding youth programs, officers provide a quiet and steady presence that extends far beyond traditional law enforcement duties."
Is it the neighborhood dispute resolution that you oppose or the very idea of a steady, positive police presence?
What is it that you oppose?
Number six: "Whereas rhetoric and policies from leftist activists and progressive politicians seek to defund or dismantle local police departments, undermine public safety, and place both officers and the communities they serve at greater risk."
I thought this was your goal. For years many of you and your allies championed it in the streets. You posted on official social media accounts. You introduced legislation and redirected budgets away from law enforcement. The defund the police movement wasn't some fever dream. It was your rallying cry.
Do you deny now that that rhetoric ever existed?
Do you deny that progressive politicians and leftist activists aggressively pushed these policies in cities across the country?
Do you deny the explosion in violent crime?
You can't spend years trying to kneecap, starve, and demonize the police and then act outraged when a resolution dares to call it what it was: a dangerous failure that hurt people.
Number seven: "Whereas sanctuary city policies that restrict cooperation with Federal immigration authorities can compel local law enforcement agencies to divert already limited resources and actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement."
Again, I thought this was your goal. We have heard it loud and clear from dozens of your own politicians from Minnesota to Boston, California and beyond, people proudly declaring they will not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement. They will shield the illegal aliens, even the worst of the worst: murderers, rapists, and gang members. They will keep them out on the streets rather than let ICE do its job.
Do they deny these sanctuary policies exist and deliberately restrict cooperation with Federal authorities?
Almost one-third of Americans live in sanctuary jurisdictions. You can't champion policies that protect criminals over cops and then act shocked when the resolution says sanctuary policies sabotage law enforcement at every level.
"Whereas the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates, with levels reaching among the lowest recorded in over a century."
Data is data, and facts are facts. A report by the Council on Criminal Justice says this: Homicides in 35 major cities declined by 21 percent from 2024 to 2025. Just in Washington, D.C., President Trump is protecting our citizens from failed progressive governance. We have seen incredible drops in violence. Homicides are down 52 percent. Sex abuse is down 48 percent, robbery is down 23 percent, and vehicle theft is down 56 percent. All crime overall is down 25 percent, and Washington, D.C., is on pace for roughly 42 murders this year, the lowest rates since at least 1930. Compare that to the 274 murders in 2023.
Number nine: "Whereas drug overdose deaths in the United States have declined significantly, reaching their lowest levels since 2019."
Which part of that is fake news to you? The decline? The significance? Or is it the timing as enforcement and border focus tighten?
Under Biden administration's catastrophic open-border policies, fentanyl poured across the southern border like never before, over 100,000 deaths, killing tens of thousands. That wasn't an accident. It was a predictable deadly result in prioritizing illegal immigration over American lives.
Now with the Trump administration's renewed focus on securing the border, cracking down on traffickers and backing law enforcement, the body count is falling. Lives are being saved. We are reversing that damage.
They should own their failure or at least get out of the way while we clean it up.
Number 11: "Whereas law enforcement officers deserve our deepest respect, unwavering support, and profound gratitude."
Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you vote against this resolution, are you voting against gratitude for these men and women who deserve our grateful attitudes and thankfulness?
Explain it.
Mr. Speaker, he is out of order. He knows he is getting whipped, and that is why he is out of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:40 p.m.
The gentleman is out of order. The gentleman from Maryland has not been recognized.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
Andy Biggs (R-AZ)5:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect example of what happens when the Democrats cannot answer for their policies that have wrecked cities and demeaned police officers. They have to be rude and interrupt. They can't sit silent because they know that they are profoundly responsible for the results of their policies.
I want them to explain to every officer watching right now, explain to their families, and explain to their spouses who lost a partner and the parentless children and tell them why basic appreciation for the people who risk their lives is somehow too much to ask.
Tell them why they don't deserve respect. Tell them why they don't deserve support.
After everything, after your defund movement, you cheered. After the sanctuary policies you defended and you continue to defend, after the crime waves your ideology unleashed, and after watching this country bleed for years under your failed experiments of policies, you can't bring yourself to say a simple thank you.
Enough. The American people are done with your excuses. They are done watching you demonize the only people standing between them and anarchy.
We support our police. We will back the blue, and we will pass this resolution to send one unmistakable message: In America, law enforcement officers have friends, they have allies, and they have the unwavering gratitude of a grateful nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:40 p.m.
All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1275, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution and the preamble.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD)5:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore5:40 p.m.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Pages H3434–H3435 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order:
The motion to recommit H.R. 1346;
Passage of H.R. 1346, if ordered;
Adoption of H. Con. Res. 96; and
Motions to suspend the rules and agree to:
H. Res. 1251; and
H. Res. 1259.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025
Pages H3435–H3436 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 1346) to amend the Clean Air Act with respect to the ethanol waiver for Reid Vapor Pressure under that Act, and for other purposes, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 112, nays 309, not voting 9, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,723 characters)
Ansari Balint Beyer Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Boebert Brecheen Burchett Burlison Cammack Casar Castro (TX) Cisneros Clarke (NY) Cline Cloud Clyde Conaway Courtney Crane Crow DeGette DeLauro Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Donalds Downing Elfreth Espaillat Fields Fine Fletcher Friedman Frost Fry Fulcher Garamendi Garcia (CA) Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gosar Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Hageman Harder (CA) Harris (MD) Higgins (LA) Himes Hoyle (OR) Huffman Jackson (IL) Jayapal Johnson (GA) Kamlager-Dove Larsen (WA) Latimer Lee (PA) Liccardo Luna Mace Massie Matsui McBride McGovern Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Mills Min Morelle Moskowitz Mullin Nadler Neguse Nehls Norcross Norman Ocasio-Cortez Ogles Olszewski Pallone Palmer Perez Perry Peters Pingree Pou Pressley Raskin Ross Roy Scanlon Schrier Self Sewell Simon Steube Subramanyam Sykes Tiffany Tlaib Torres (NY) Van Duyne Vargas Veasey Velazquez Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz
Adams Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen Amo Amodei (NV) Arrington Auchincloss Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barragan Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Beatty Begich Bell Bentz Bera Bergman Bice Bilirakis Bishop Bonamici Bost Boyle (PA) Bresnahan Brown Brownley Buchanan Budzinski Bynum Calvert Carbajal Carey Carson Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Case Casten Castor (FL) Chu Ciscomani Clark (MA) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Cole Collins Comer Correa Costa Craig Crank Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (IL) Davis (NC) De La Cruz Dean (PA) DelBene DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Edwards Ellzey Emmer Escobar Estes Evans (CO) Evans (PA) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Figures Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foster Foushee Foxx Frankel, Lois Franklin, Scott Fuller Garbarino Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gill (TX) Gillen Gimenez Goldman (TX) Gonzalez, V. Gooden Goodlander Gottheimer Graves Gray Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hayes Hern (OK) Hill (AR) Hinson Horsford Houchin Houlahan Hoyer Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Ivey Jack Jackson (TX) Jacobs James Jeffries Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (NY) Kennedy (UT) Khanna Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Krishnamoorthi Kustoff LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Larson (CT) Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Levin Lieu Lofgren Loudermilk Lucas Luttrell Lynch Mackenzie Magaziner Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mannion Mast McBath McCaul McClain McClain Delaney McClellan McClintock McCollum McCormick McDonald Rivet McDowell McGarvey McGuire McIver Meeks Mejia Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Moran Morrison Mrvan Murphy Neal Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Omar Onder Owens Panetta Pappas Patronis Pelosi Pettersen Pfluger Pocan Quigley Ramirez Randall Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rivas Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Ruiz Rulli Rutherford Ryan Salazar Salinas Sanchez Scalise Schakowsky Schmidt Schneider Scholten Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Sessions Sherman Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spartz Stansbury Stanton Stauber Steil Stevens Strickland Strong Stutzman Suozzi Takano Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Timmons Titus Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Trahan Tran Turner (OH) Underwood Valadao Van Drew Van Epps Van Orden Vasquez Vindman Wagner Walberg Waters Watson Coleman Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Whitesides Wied Williams (GA) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Crockett Dunn (FL) Gomez Kean Leger Fernandez Letlow Moulton Stefanik Wilson (FL)
Messrs. JEFFRIES, AMO, Ms. GILLEN, Messrs. BAUMGARTNER, CARTER of Louisiana, Mrs. McIVER, Ms. SALAZAR, Mmes. RAMIREZ, HAYES, Messrs. BENTZ, FIGURES, WITTMAN, WIED, SMITH of Washington, Ms. PETTERSEN, Messrs. JAMES, PANETTA, Mses. LOFGREN, GOODLANDER, Messrs. RILEY of New York, McCLINTOCK, Ms. SCHOLTEN, Mr. LEVIN, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from "yea" to "nay." Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE, Messrs. CROW, STEUBE, MASSIE, Mrs. LUNA, Mses. SIMON, CLARKE of New York, Messrs. MULLIN, CISNEROS, MILLS, Ms. MATSUI, Messrs. GOSAR, and WALKINSHAW changed their vote from "nay" to "yea." So the motion to recommit was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore6:18 p.m.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)6:18 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore6:18 p.m.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, nays 203, not voting 9, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,724 characters)
Aguilar Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Auchincloss Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barragan Barrett Baumgartner Beatty Begich Bell Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Bishop Boebert Bost Boyle (PA) Brown Buchanan Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carey Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Casten Castor (FL) Clark (MA) Cleaver Clyburn Collins Comer Correa Craig Crenshaw Cuellar Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (IL) Davis (NC) De La Cruz Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Figures Finstad Fischbach Fletcher Flood Foster Franklin, Scott Garbarino Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Gimenez Gonzalez, V. Gooden Goodlander Gottheimer Graves Grothman Guest Guthrie Haridopolos Harris (NC) Hayes Hinson Horsford Houchin Hoyer Hudson Huizenga Jack Jackson (IL) James Jeffries Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kaptur Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Krishnamoorthi LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Levin Lieu Lucas Mackenzie Magaziner Malliotakis Mann Mannion Massie Mast McBath McClain McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McDonald Rivet McDowell McGarvey Meeks Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Moore (NC) Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Morrison Mrvan Murphy Newhouse Nunn (IA) Obernolte Omar Owens Pallone Panetta Pappas Pelosi Pfluger Pocan Quigley Ramirez Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Ruiz Ryan Salazar Salinas Schakowsky Schmidt Schneider Scholten Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Sessions Sewell Shreve Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spartz Stanton Stauber Steil Stevens Strong Stutzman Suozzi Sykes Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA)
Tiffany Timmons Titus Tonko Torres (CA) Trahan Tran Turner (OH) Underwood Van Epps Van Orden Vasquez Veasey Vindman Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Wied Williams (GA) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Yakym
Adams Aderholt Amo Ansari Arrington Babin Balint Bean (FL) Bera Beyer Biggs (AZ) Bonamici Brecheen Bresnahan Brownley Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carson Carter (TX) Casar Case Castro (TX) Chu Ciscomani Cisneros Clarke (NY) Cline Cloud Clyde Cohen Cole Conaway Costa Courtney Crane Crank Crawford Crockett Crow Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier DesJarlais Dexter Diaz-Balart Dingell Doggett Donalds Downing Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (CO) Evans (PA) Fields Fine Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fong Foushee Foxx Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Fry Fulcher Fuller Garamendi Garcia (CA) Gill (TX) Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Goldman (TX) Gosar Gray Green, Al (TX) Griffith Grijalva Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Harder (CA) Harrigan Harris (MD) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Himes Houlahan Hoyle (OR) Huffman Hurd (CO) Issa Ivey Jackson (TX) Jacobs Jayapal Johnson (GA) Johnson (LA) Kamlager-Dove Keating Kennedy (UT) Kim Knott Kustoff Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (PA) Liccardo Lofgren Loudermilk Luna Luttrell Lynch Mace Maloy Matsui McBride McCaul McClintock McCormick McGovern McGuire McIver Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Mills Min Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Moran Morelle Moskowitz Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Nehls Norcross Norman Ocasio-Cortez Ogles Olszewski Onder Palmer Patronis Perez Perry Peters Pettersen Pingree Pou Pressley Randall Raskin Rivas Ross Roy Rulli Rutherford Sanchez Scalise Scanlon Schrier Schweikert Self Sherman Simon Simpson Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Stansbury Steube Strickland Subramanyam Takano Tlaib Tokuda Torres (NY) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Vargas Velazquez Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Webster (FL) Westerman Whitesides Womack Zinke
Dunn (FL) Gomez Hunt Kean Leger Fernandez Letlow Moulton Stefanik Wilson (FL)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Expressing Support for Law Enforcement Officers
Pages H3436–H3437 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) expressing support for law enforcement officers, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, nays 173, answered "present" 3, not voting 11, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,724 characters)
Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Bishop Boebert Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Case Castor (FL) Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyburn Clyde Cohen Cole Collins Comer Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (NC) De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Fuller Garbarino Gill (TX) Gillen Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (TX) Gonzalez, V. Gooden Gosar Gottheimer Graves Gray Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Horsford Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (GA) Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kaptur Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Latimer Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Mace Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDonald Rivet McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Moskowitz Mrvan Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Pappas Patronis Perez Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Schneider Scholten Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Soto Spartz Stauber Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Suozzi Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bell Bera Beyer Bonamici Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Carter (LA) Casar Casten Castro (TX) Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Conaway Correa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Davis (IL) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Dingell Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Goldman (NY) Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (PA) Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Norcross Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pelosi Peters Pettersen Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schrier Scott (VA) Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA)
Goodlander Houlahan Olszewski
Boyle (PA) Costa Dunn (FL) Gomez Kean Leger Fernandez Letlow Magaziner Moulton Stefanik Wilson (FL)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. So the concurrent resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Calling on Elected Officials and Civil Society Leaders to Counter Antisemitism and Educate the Public on the Contributions of the Jewish- American Community
Page H3437 · Official textCALLING ON ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CIVIL SOCIETY LEADERS TO COUNTER ANTISEMITISM AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE JEWISH-AMERICAN COMMUNITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1251) calling on elected officials and civil society leaders to counter antisemitism and educate the public on the contributions of the Jewish-American community on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Knott) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 419, nays 0, not voting 11, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,722 characters)
Adams Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen Amo Amodei (NV) Ansari Arrington Auchincloss Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Balint Barr Barragan Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Beatty Begich Bell Bentz Bera Bergman Beyer Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Bishop Boebert Bonamici Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Brown Brownley Buchanan Budzinski Burchett Burlison Bynum Calvert Cammack Carbajal Carey Carson Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Ciscomani Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Cline Cloud Clyburn Clyde Cohen Cole Collins Comer Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (IL) Davis (NC) De La Cruz Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier DesJarlais Dexter Diaz-Balart Dingell Doggett Donalds Downing Edwards Elfreth Ellzey Emmer Escobar Espaillat Estes Evans (CO) Evans (PA) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fields Figures Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fletcher Flood Fong Foster Foushee Foxx Frankel, Lois Franklin, Scott Friedman Frost Fry Fulcher Fuller Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gill (TX) Gillen Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Goldman (TX) Gonzalez, V. Gooden Goodlander Gosar Gottheimer Graves Gray Green, Al (TX) Griffith Grijalva Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Harder (CA) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hayes Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Himes Hinson Horsford Houchin Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Hudson Huffman Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Ivey Jack Jackson (IL) Jackson (TX) Jacobs James Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (NY) Kennedy (UT) Khanna Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Krishnamoorthi Kustoff LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Lynch Mace Mackenzie Magaziner Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mannion Massie Mast Matsui McBath McBride McCaul McClain McClain Delaney McClellan McClintock McCollum McCormick McDonald Rivet McDowell McGarvey McGovern McGuire McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Messmer Meuser Mfume Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Min Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Moran Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Murphy Nadler Neal Neguse Nehls Newhouse Norcross Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ocasio-Cortez Ogles Olszewski Omar Onder Owens Pallone Palmer Panetta Pappas Patronis Pelosi Perez Perry Peters Pettersen Pfluger Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rivas Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Ross Rouzer Roy Ruiz Rulli Rutherford Ryan Salazar Salinas Sanchez Scalise Scanlon Schakowsky Schmidt Schneider Scholten Schrier Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Self Sessions Sewell Sherman Shreve Simon Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spartz Stansbury Stanton Stauber Steil Steube Stevens Strickland Strong Stutzman Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Turner (OH) Underwood Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Wagner Walberg Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Whitesides Wied Williams (GA) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Boyle (PA) Dunn (FL) Garbarino Gomez Kean Leger Fernandez Letlow Moulton Stefanik Van Orden Wilson (FL)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives That the President Should Prioritize Securing the Release of Pastor Jin Mingri, Pastor Gao Quanfu and His Wife Pang Yu, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, And...
Pages H3437–H3438 · Official textBY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA DURING FUTURE ENGAGEMENTS WITH CHINESE PRESIDENT XI JINPING
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1259) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should prioritize securing the release of Pastor Jin Mingri, Pastor Gao Quanfu and his wife Pang Yu, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, and Jimmy Lai detained by the People's Republic of China during future engagements with Chinese President Xi Jinping, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414, nays 0, not voting 16, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,723 characters)
Adams Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen Amo Amodei (NV) Ansari Arrington Auchincloss Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Balint Barr Barragan Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Beatty Begich Bell Bentz Bera Bergman Beyer Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Bishop Boebert Bonamici Bost Brecheen Bresnahan Brown Brownley Buchanan Budzinski Burchett Burlison Bynum Calvert Cammack Carbajal Carey Carson Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Casar Case Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Ciscomani Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Cline Cloud Clyburn Clyde Cohen Cole Collins Comer Conaway Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (IL) Davis (NC) De La Cruz Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier DesJarlais Dexter Diaz-Balart Dingell Doggett Donalds Downing Edwards Elfreth Ellzey Emmer Escobar Espaillat Estes Evans (CO) Evans (PA) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fields Figures Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fletcher Flood Fong Foster Foushee
Foxx Frankel, Lois Franklin, Scott Friedman Frost Fry Fulcher Fuller Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gill (TX) Gillen Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Goldman (TX) Gonzalez, V. Gooden Goodlander Gosar Gottheimer Graves Gray Green, Al (TX) Griffith Grijalva Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Harder (CA) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hayes Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Himes Hinson Horsford Houchin Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Hudson Huffman Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Ivey Jack Jackson (IL) Jackson (TX) Jacobs James Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (NY) Kennedy (UT) Khanna Kiggans (VA) Kim Knott Krishnamoorthi Kustoff LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Loudermilk Lucas Luna Luttrell Lynch Mace Mackenzie Magaziner Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mannion Massie Mast Matsui McBath McBride McCaul McClain McClain Delaney McClellan McClintock McCollum McCormick McDonald Rivet McDowell McGarvey McGovern McGuire McIver Meeks Mejia Menefee Menendez Meng Messmer Meuser Mfume Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Min Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Moran Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Murphy Nadler Neal Neguse Nehls Newhouse Norcross Norman Obernolte Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Onder Owens Pallone Palmer Panetta Pappas Patronis Pelosi Perez Perry Peters Pettersen Pfluger Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rivas Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Ross Rouzer Roy Ruiz Rulli Rutherford Ryan Salazar Salinas Sanchez Scalise Scanlon Schakowsky Schmidt Schneider Scholten Schrier Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Self Sessions Sewell Sherman Shreve Simon Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spartz Stansbury Stanton Stauber Steil Steube Stevens Strickland Strong Stutzman Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Timmons Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Turner (OH) Underwood Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Wagner Walberg Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Whitesides Wied Williams (GA) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Boyle (PA) Casten Dunn (FL) Garbarino Gomez Kean Kiley (CA) Leger Fernandez Letlow Moulton Nunn (IA) Ogles Stefanik Tiffany Van Orden Wilson (FL)
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Moment of Silence Honoring Former Representative Bill Posey
Pages H3438–H3439 · Official text(Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, our State, our country, and this institution lost a dedicated public servant, a friend of all of us, and a former colleague, Congressman Bill Posey.
Congressman Posey served for 16 years first in the Florida Legislature. He did so honorably and with passion. Then he served here in the people's House for 16 years as well, representing both the 15th and the Eighth Congressional Districts of Florida. He served on various committees, including Financial Services and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Mr. Posey had a deep, unwavering love and passion for our great country. He had a strong commitment to his beliefs, but he always was respectful to his colleagues. Again, his deep passion and love for the United States was evident to all of us who knew him, or who dealt with him. We respected him. He was a devoted public servant.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I learned so much from him just having lunch with him, because he was also somebody who was a fountain of knowledge, of wisdom, and of experience, but always with humility, with passion, with joy, and with love.
Our condolences to his devoted, wonderful life partner, his wife, Katie; his daughters, Cathi and Pam, and the entire Posey family.
It is with deep sorrow that we are here recognizing this great friend and colleague who we have lost.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I really want to note what a decent human being and individual, with the wryest of senses of humor, that Bill Posey was.
I had the privilege of knowing Congressman Posey for my entire career. We were elected together in the class of 1992 in the Florida House of Representatives, and just like my friend, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, I, too, served with Bill in the Florida House of Representatives and Florida Senate, along with here in the United States House of Representatives.
Bill Posey and I entered the Florida House together, and the passion he had to serve his constituents on the Treasure Coast and the Space Coast was the same all the way through to his final day serving in this body.
During his time in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C., Congressman Posey was dedicated to fighting for funding for NASA. He was NASA's champion and securing Florida's role as the leader in space launches and operations.
He fought for robust funding to protect our irreplaceable environment in the State of Florida, including his yearslong work to reauthorize and prioritize funding to clean up our Nation's estuaries.
There was no issue too big or small, and Bill was never afraid to stand up for what he believed in, even if his own party wasn't going in the same direction.
We worked together to pass drowning prevention legislation, to prevent children in Florida from drowning in residential swimming pools when his party went the other way on that, passing the first swimming pool safety legislation in the State of Florida together. He worked with me to try and make condo buildings safer following the horrific collapse and tragedy of Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida, which I represented at the time.
My heart goes out to Katie, his life partner. There were no spouses that I remember more than Bill and Katie, who were inseparable.
To their family, may the memory of Bill Posey be for a blessing. I appreciate the opportunity to mourn his passing.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Haridopolos was President of the Florida Senate and served with Bill Posey in the State legislature and then again as the person who succeeded our wonderful friend, Bill Posey.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos).
Mr. Speaker, our country lost a true patriot on Saturday night. He loved this country like no other and taught all of us here so much about our country and about what love is all about.
His wife, Katie, his high school sweetheart, was always there by his side. He loved his daughters, Pam and Cathi.
He was just a remarkable guy who really never "went Washington." His heart was always in Brevard County. As Mr. Diaz-Balart and Ms. Wasserman Schultz said as well, he had a passion for the space industry.
Before he was ever elected, he served at Kennedy Space Center. He was a part of those amazing rockets that led us during the Cold War.
He served his community with honor. He was always the guy showing up at every meeting. After the 2000 election, was the one who fixed our election system in the State of Florida and became a national model.
But I knew Bill best as a friend. He was a person who always took the time with all of us who wanted to understand the intricacies of how legislation was passed and how to really get things done.
If you had a problem to solve back in the State Legislature, you went to Bill. Here in Congress, he served so ably for 16 years.
Most importantly, as I mentioned before, his heart was always in Brevard County. But his heart was closest with his wife, Katie. As was said so well, and I want to say it again, they were inseparable.
It was such a thrill to always see them because they were on a mission to make sure that the values and principles that founded this Nation were always pushed forward.
Mr. Speaker, I request a moment of silence to remember our good friend and an American patriot, former Congressman Bill Posey.
Honoring Former Senator Don Riegle
Page H3439 · Official text(Ms. McDONALD RIVET asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Ms. McDONALD RIVET
Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues to honor a true champion for the city of Flint and the great State of Michigan: former Congressman and former Senator Don Riegle.
For 28 years, under seven Presidents, Don Riegle stood tall as a principled leader, always fighting to give families a fair shot.
He led efforts to make it easier for working people to buy a home, bring more investments to the communities that needed them the most, stand up for Gulf war veterans exposed to toxic chemicals, and rally against bad trade deals like NAFTA.
He made Washington a better place, and he always put our constituents first.
There are many in this Chamber today who were lucky enough to consider Don not just a colleague but a mentor and a friend. I got to know Don better in recent years, and I will never forget the lessons he shared with me about what it means to be a true servant leader for the communities we both love.
Our hearts go up to Lori, his wife of 48 years; as well as his children; grandchildren; and all his family and friends.
Our country joins them in mourning one of the greatest public servants Michigan has ever known: Don Riegle.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague to join me in a moment of silence.
Directing the President, Pursuant to Section 5(C) of the War Powers Resolution, to Remove the United States Armed Forces from Hostilities Against the Islamic Republic of Iran
Pages H3439–H3446 · Official textDIRECTING THE PRESIDENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5(C) OF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, TO REMOVE THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of April 27, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 75) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of Utah)
Pursuant to the order of the House of April 27, 2026, the concurrent resolution is considered as read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,184 characters)
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and an adversary of the United States.
(2) The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to pose a threat to the United States, its Armed Forces, and allies through its ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorist proxy forces, and pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
(3) The Islamic Republic of Iran engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East and the world which have resulted in scores of American deaths since 1979.
(4) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
(5) Congress has not declared war with respect to, or provided any specific statutory authorization for, hostilities involving United States Armed Forces against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
(6) United States Armed Forces were introduced into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026.
(7) The President is mandated to brief Congress on the deployment of United States forces, included their estimated scope and duration of their continued use, under the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF USE OF FORCE.
(a) Termination.--Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress hereby directs the President to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, including potential ground forces in a combat role or used for occupation, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date described in section 1(6), unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed to--
(1) prevent the United States from defending itself, its Armed Forces, its diplomatic facilities, or allied states from imminent attack;
(2) prevent the United States Armed Forces from maintaining a troop presence in the region for defensive purposes; or
(3) force the removal of United States Armed Forces in the region who are not engaged in hostilities against Iran.
SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO INTELLIGENCE
SHARING.
Nothing in this resolution may be construed to influence or disrupt any intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative activities relating to threats in or emanating from Iran or surrounding countries conducted by, or in conjunction with, the United States Government involving--
(1) the collection of intelligence;
(2) the analysis of intelligence; or
(3) the sharing of intelligence between the United States and any coalition partner, if the President determines such sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests of the United States.
SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO NONAUTHORIZATION OF
THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), nothing in this concurrent resolution may be construed as authorizing the use of military force.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 75. I thank Mr. Gottheimer for this resolution.
We are here for a third time--a third time--because congressional inaction has cost Americans paying a lot and suffering a lot.
Most Americans oppose this war. Now, this is not my opinion. It is a fact. It is not unpatriotic to say so. It is honest, which is what Americans want and what Americans deserve from their government.
The opposition to this war has just continued to grow. As we stand here today, CBS News found 60 percent of Americans oppose the war. RMG Research, a Republican-leaning firm, has the most recent survey on RealClear Politics. It finds the war is opposed by 59 percent of Americans with only roughly one-third in support.
A recent PBS News poll shows that 81 percent of Americans are feeling the strain of increased gas prices on their families.
My colleagues across the aisle are defending a war that their own voters really oppose. They can and will, I am sure, deflect, but you cannot escape the facts.
The American people are tired of costly misadventures in the Middle East, and they are right to be tired. They are tired of wars. They thought this President said he would not get them into a war, but, as he wanted to change the Defense Department, he basically said he was going to get into wars because they want to call it the Department of War.
Let's look at the full cost of this war, not cherry-picked facts that some prefer.
The Israelis did strike and kill Supreme Leader Khamenei. We still have a Supreme Leader Khamenei. This new Supreme Leader is 30 years younger and widely considered more extreme, less practical, and more hostile to the United States than his father. We removed a devil we knew and replaced him with one that we don't.
It is a fact that U.S. strikes against Iran have depleted Iran's stock of missiles and drones. The New York Times reported just yesterday that Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, and there is evidence Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran still has a significant drone capacity. Shahed drone manufacturing is low cost, quick to produce, and easier to conceal than missile production.
Here is what my colleagues do not want to talk about. Per public reporting--this is in the public sphere--we have used 20 percent of our long-range joint air-to-surface missiles and 30 percent of our Tomahawks. We have expended 45 percent of our Precision Strike Missiles, half of our THAAD interceptors, and 50 percent of our Patriot missile interceptors.
These are incredible military capabilities. We are burning through them at an unsustainable rate in a theater that is not our most urgent strategic priority.
Our allies are seeing yearslong delays on the purchases of U.S. arms into the 2030s, undermining their own strategic posture.
My colleagues on the other side who profess to be China hawks should be sounding the alarm right now about the impacts of this war on our Indo-Pacific readiness.
Before the first strike, there was no serious diplomatic off-ramp used. This was and this is a war of choice. It was from the start, and it is now. The American people are paying the price.
This war has also demonstrated to Iran the effectiveness of weaponizing the Strait of Hormuz. Oil prices have skyrocketed. Americans are paying more to take their kids to school and to drive to work. It seems as though, unless you are Secretary Duffy, family vacations are out of reach because of skyrocketing fuel prices. Rising fertilizer and gasoline costs are making it more difficult to put food on the table.
Just recently, President Trump, when asked by a reporter--I believe it was yesterday--if he is considering America's financial situation when it comes to making a deal to end his war of choice, what was his response? Was he considerate? What did he say? "Not even a little bit." He went on to say: "I don't think about Americans' financial situation." Maybe he is telling the truth, I guess, but the American people need to know that he doesn't think about it. He says: "I don't think about anybody." I think that sentiment couldn't be clearer.
We still don't have the exact figures on the cost of this war. The Trump administration's latest estimate is $29 billion, which is an enormous figure for an unnecessary and failing war and is far below other reasonable estimates, which suggest the war costs more than a billion dollars a day.
Of course, the highest costs to our country have been to the more than 400 soldiers who have been wounded in the conflict and the 14 who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We honor them. The best way to honor them is to end a war that was never in America's national interests.
The record speaks for itself. Most Americans--yes, most Americans, and that is Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, and Independents--oppose this war.
Iranian leadership remains a deadly and motivated enemy. They have weaponized the Strait of Hormuz against the world. Our stock of crucial weapon systems has been depleted to shocking levels.
This war is reaching right into the wallets of hardworking Americans every single day, every single hour, and every single minute that it continues.
This debate, for me, isn't about politics. This debate isn't about theatrics. This debate is about reality. The reality is that this war of choice was never in America's national interests.
To my colleagues who believe the administration's claims that Iran posed an imminent threat, a claim that, actually, they have never been able to support with any evidence, the War Powers Act is clear. We are well past 60 days now into this war.
Without congressional approval and without an Authorization for Use of Military Force, the administration must begin to draw down forces to end hostilities. That is not something that I am saying; that is what the law says.
Nothing in the statute says anything about a cease-fire, which is what they are trying to come up with. Even if we were in one, U.S. strikes on Iranian targets continue, as does the U.S. blockade itself, an act of war.
Let's not pretend that renaming the operation weeks later makes this a new conflict. The American people are smarter than that. They can see through that. It is clear that the administration is concerned about the legality of this war, and it should be. This is a war of choice.
Congress must make clear to the Trump administration that it cannot continue, not without an AUMF passed by this Congress.
We are representatives of the people. We have a responsibility, and the President has a responsibility, and at this moment his responsibility is to come back to Congress, not SCOTUS, not to make up some reason not to come to get an AUMF or this War Powers Act.
I am going to urge the Republican majority not to join Democrats to support the Gottheimer resolution--and I know that is what it is--but really to join the American people.
Join the American people. I gave you the numbers. Join them to send a message that this time of which we are in is the time to end the war and for us to return to a more sane and sustainable path.
Join the American people to secure our interests in the Middle East, yes, and to ensure Americans are safe and prosperous in the process.
Join the American people. They want the executive branch to come to the people. It is clear this is the time. This is the third time that we have been here. We may have to come back, I know, again and again, and there have been all kinds of things to prevent folks from having the vote, but join the American people. It is time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a smile on my face. I am laughing because in the whole 10 minutes that I just listened to my colleague speak, there was not one mention of what this bill actually does or says. It is probably really convenient to not reference anything that this bill says.
I will tell you why it is really convenient for my colleague across the aisle. He said: We could never show any evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat. He said it numerous times and said it other days that we were going through the same song and dance. So why does he not want to mention the bill? It is because him voting for this bill that he is going to vote for--he is going to vote "yes" on this bill--what does the bill say right in its text? It outlines the imminent threat that Iran is. Thank you to the author of this bill for the bill that you are going to vote for. Let me quote the bill since maybe you didn't read it. "The Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and an adversary of the United States." That is one of many.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to pose a threat to the United States, its Armed Forces, and allies through its ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorist proxy forces, and pursuit of a nuclear weapon." There are many more whereas clauses in this.
It literally states the imminent threat that they are. So I look forward to you voting "yes" on the imminent threat that Iran is, my colleagues over there, and just proving to yourselves and proving to everybody just how wrong you are, how you probably didn't read this bill, and how you have no interest in actually speaking the truth about what it says.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kennedy of Utah)7:10 p.m.
Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
The gentleman is recognized.
Eric A. "Rick" Crawford (R-AR)7:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for the time. I appreciate his leadership on highlighting the error of removing the United States Armed Forces from an action that will bring an end to a 47-year conflict.
Mr. Speaker, introducing this provision at this point in time reeks of political gamesmanship when President Trump and his administration are actively engaged in negotiations to bring the tyrannical reign of Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, which the text indicates is the case, to an end.
Placing restrictions on the President both undercuts the ongoing U.S. negotiations and supports the Iranian regime in their 47-year journey to hold the world hostage with a nuclear weapon and approves of the reprehensible slaughter of reportedly more than 30,000 Iranians. To make matters worse, Iran is attempting to use their illegal attempt to close an international strait as leverage in the negotiations.
I am not sure if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle missed the media reporting, but the United States is not engaged in military operations in Iran right now. President Trump's position is consistent with past practices of both Republican and Democratic administrations.
In 1993, a Democrat administration's position was that the War Powers Act clock actually stops when hostilities ceased.
Due to the great success of Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. is currently positioned with the upper hand, and this resolution would completely turn the power over to the tyrannical Iranian regime.
The Iranian regime is the most weakened it has been in the past half-decade. This is a historic opportunity. Their air force has been dismantled. Their navy is currently at the bottom of the ocean. Their command and control structure no longer exists, and their weapons supplies are depleted. They are out of options. They have come to the end of their rope. This is evident by Iran's continued posturing.
Congress should be on the side of the United States in a conflict with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. It baffles me why our Democratic colleagues would be so determined to weaken the United States' negotiating position.
President Trump has been very clear on the goals of this mission: to ensure that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon.
I, for one, am very appreciative of President Trump's courage and willingness to do what numerous leaders before him were unable to accomplish for 47 years.
This resolution will hinder efforts to bring a threat of a possible Iranian nuclear weapon to an end and support the illegal Iranian claim over the Strait of Hormuz.
This politically-charged resolution divides the U.S. in a way that will have Iranian leadership cheering in favor of its passage. Bringing this resolution to the floor undercuts the primary American objective to eliminate the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and supports Iran's illegal claims on an international strait that is directly affecting Americans' daily lives. Is this what is intended by the sponsors? I hope not.
It seems that our Democrat colleagues only ever come to the table to push a political point versus bringing real solutions that advance American interests.
Diplomacy must be backed by strength, and considering this resolution signals that some congressional Members lack the political resolve to do the right thing. We should support measures that ensure that all tools of national power are available to be used to end the Iranian terror regime. Democrats have overwhelmingly agreed Iran is an existential threat to the United States and its allies. Supporting the President at this point in time will help to achieve America's strategic objectives and ensure the U.S. and our allies are operating with the full support of this body.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Mast for his partnership and his leadership.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know about the gentleman, but I encourage him to read the resolution again because the words "imminent threat" to the United States of America are not in there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), who is also the Democratic whip.
Katherine M. Clark (D-MA)7:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have been at war with Iran for 2\1/2\ months. What do we have to show for it? There is no victory. There is no strategy. We still don't have an objective. In fact, the President keeps saying this war is over, but we have 50,000 troops deployed to the region. The strait is still closed. Shipping is still blockaded, and negotiations that should be about making sure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon are completely stalled out.
Meanwhile, every single day, working Americans are paying the price. Gas prices have spiked. They have skyrocketed through the roof. Utility bills are going up. Because of increased shipping costs, we are seeing further increases in the price of food, clothes, toys, car parts, everything that you can imagine a family needs.
There is still no end in sight, and there won't be an end in sight unless Republicans decide to work for the American people and do their job.
The single fastest way to bring down costs is to end this war. Once again, Republicans are going to have an opportunity to do just that.
Once again, they have a chance to bring our servicemembers home and end this chaos.
Once again, they have a chance to side with working families and our troops.
The American people deserve better than they are getting from the GOP. Vote "yes." Show the American people you are on their side.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), my friend and the sponsor of this important resolution.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be standing here today introducing this resolution, but I feel, Mr. President, you have left me no choice. It has been 74 days since the start of the conflict in Iran, and Congress still hasn't been formally briefed on the objectives, our progress, or what success looks like.
Our Nation's Founders were very clear about this. Congress has a constitutional responsibility under Article I to provide oversight. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to declare war, raise and support armies, maintain a navy, and make rules for the military.
We may have one commander in chief at a time, which I agree with, but the United States Congress has a specific constitutional responsibility. The American people sent us to Washington to be their voice, their eyes, and to hold the government accountable. That is not a partisan position. That is our job, our job as Democrats and Republicans.
The War Powers Act of 1973 only affirms that responsibility, clearly laying out, in furtherance of the Constitution, that the President has 60 days after formally informing the Congress to either come to Congress for declaration of war or an Authorization For Use of Military Force. Unfortunately, the President has done neither.
That is what this resolution means to me. It is a call to action to the President of the United States to do what the Constitution requires and to brief the Congress and the country on the state of the conflict, the objectives, the progress we have made, and what lies ahead.
Let me be very clear on what this resolution doesn't mean to me. I believe the Iranian regime must be crushed. They are the world's leading state sponsor of terror, a tyrannical government that chants "The great Satan" and "death to America," bankrolls Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis who have attacked our bases and have killed scores of Americans.
The ayatollah has killed tens of thousands of their own citizens in Iran, brutally so, just for seeking freedom. They are an enemy of the United States of America and work closely with our other adversaries, including Russia, North Korea, and China.
Unlike some of my colleagues who oppose taking on this regime, I believe--no, I actually know, that the world is a safer and more secure place if the Iranian regime were destroyed. They have attacked Americans and done everything to undermine our freedom and our democracy since the 1970s.
I support the administration crushing the Iranian regime. I want to ensure we destroy their nuclear programs, their ballistic missile program, their drone programs, and their terrorist proxy programs. But that said, you cannot leave the United States Congress in the dark any longer. You can't leave the American people in the dark, and that is what this resolution means to me.
Oversight is a key constitutional responsibility of Congress, and moments like this are exactly why the Founders crafted a government with separation of powers. In other words, it wasn't by accident. In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison made the Founders' intentions unmistakable. Papers 23, 41, 69, and 74 deliberately entrust Congress the power to provide for the common defense.
Hamilton said: "The declaring of war would appertain to the legislature," and yet here we are with no formal briefings, no formal hearings, no plans presented on the conflict.
The Founders weren't naive. They anticipated this very moment. That is why we, ultimately, had the War Powers Act of 1973, so the President couldn't go it alone. Article I says he must come here to authorize or declare war. Under the War Powers Act, he is prohibited from keeping armed forces engaged in a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional approval.
But this administration has not given real briefings on the Iran conflict to the Intelligence Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Armed Services Committee, formal briefings related to this conflict.
Unfortunately, it is often that I have gotten more information, like a lot of my colleagues have, from papers like The New York Times. That is absurd. Yesterday alone, I learned from The New York Times that Iran maintained 70 percent of its pre-war missile stockpile despite our military actions. I learned or read, at least, in The New York Times that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz.
The SPEAKER pro tempore7:20 p.m.
The time of the gentleman has expired.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if any of that is true or false, but Congress isn't getting briefed, so I wouldn't know if that is true or false. That is not acceptable to me. That is not how this is supposed to work.
It stands in direct contrast to our constitutional obligations and to the precedent for how other administrations have treated Congress during a military campaign of this size and duration. And if some haven't, then, by the way, we shouldn't have accepted that either.
Previous administrations, some, have come to Congress within 60 days to make the case for their actions. After strikes against Iranian-backed militia groups in Iraq and Syria in 2021, the Biden administration notified Congress and sent a formal letter explaining their legal justifications under an existing Congressional authority.
In 2003, the Bush administration conducted extensive briefings to Congress and was granted congressional authorization months before the invasion. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, George H.W. Bush's administration regularly briefed Congress. Before U.S. combat began, the administration consulted Congress extensively and sought authorization to use military force.
Again, I didn't want to have to bring this resolution to the floor. I had hoped the administration would have changed their course after I introduced it and properly briefed the Congress and the country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore7:20 p.m.
The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, people have lots of questions about the goals, about the Strait of Hormuz, about $5 gas, about what a win looks like for America. Make no mistake, my resolution explicitly grants us the ability to maintain a presence in the region, to respond to any Iranian aggression that places Americans or our allies in danger, and to safely remove our troops. If the President comes to seek authorization with a proper briefing, I would do my job and consider it, like we all should.
This vote isn't whether or not we should crush the Iranian regime. It is a message to the President and his administration to brief the Congress and the country. The people elected us to do this job, Mr. President. Come to us. Make your case. Lay out your plan. Let us do our job as a co-equal branch of government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore7:20 p.m.
The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:20 p.m.
My ask, Mr. President, is brief the appropriate committees and do so regularly. Lay out the plan. Let us do our job as a co-equal branch of the government. This is too important not to.
Again, as I said, I believe the Iranian regime should be crushed. It is not a question of that. It is a question about making sure we can do what we must do as elected officials of this branch of government.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) for the purpose of a colloquy to tell us if Iran is an imminent threat.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if they are able to develop a nuclear program and they continue to have their ballistic missile program and their drone program, then I am deeply concerned about the threat they present to the United States and our allies in the region.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) more time.
Is that an imminent threat?
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:20 p.m.
It depends how you define that.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) again for the purpose of a colloquy.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:20 p.m.
I am just saying, Mr. Mast, that if they, right now, are able to--and these are kind of questions I have that I am not getting briefed on. These are the questions I have in terms of where they are in some of their program capabilities to be able to right now threaten our country. That is part of the question that I have. But I think you and I are in agreement, sir, that they are clearly a threat to the United States of America.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:20 p.m.
Absolutely. I am happy to let you continue the dialogue if you want. I am not going to cut you off.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:20 p.m.
No, thank you. I thank the gentleman for the colloquy.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman say that because Iran is an imminent threat against us.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Representative Gottheimer dialoguing with me for a moment. I will give another quote that he offered. "Iran's sole objective is to wreak havoc, create violence, cause instability, and cowardly murder U.S. servicemen and -women protecting our way of life." That is a quote from my colleague over there. I agree with everything that he said.
That is an outline of an imminent threat, as well as the "whereas" things that were added into this bill. It is an outline, an indictment of an imminent threat. Iran is an imminent threat against us. Iran is an imminent threat.
The imminent threat that has been going on against us, I will outline some more of it. And this relates to the Strait of Hormuz, not because of the combat actions that have taken place, but just because Iran is an imminent threat in what they have been doing. They captured sailors and two boats. Four patrol boats from Iran's IRGC attacked the USS Nitze, and the USNS Invincible was forced to change course because IRGC fast-attack crafts tried to run into it.
These are all separate incidents.
IRGC vessel attacks USS Thunderbolt in Persian Gulf.
Unarmed Iranian drone flies to USS Nimitz as fighter jets landing at night.
IRGC naval personnel place and detonate limpet mines on two Saudi, one UAE, one Norwegian-registered ship, all harbored in UAE. These are going back years.
IRGC naval personnel place and detonate limpet mines on Japanese ship and Norwegian-owned ships transiting the Gulf of Oman. This is, again, just going back in history.
IRGC personnel deploy surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. unmanned aircraft operating over international waters.
IRGC Navy seize British-flagged and Swedish-owned Stena Impero tanker while it was transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran attempts to stop British tanker British Heritage, and six U.S. Navy ships attacked by Iranian ships.
IRGC Navy forcibly board and detain Hong Kong-flagged SC Taipei, an oil tanker, in international waters.
Eleven IRGC Navy small boats attack five U.S. Navy vessels conducting routine exercises.
I have pages of these--I can go on--year after year after year.
I have at least one colleague over here who is willing to acknowledge the imminent threat that they are, what it is that they have been doing, longstanding, with the Strait of Hormuz.
Did the gentleman want to continue the conversation?
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:30 p.m.
Sure.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:30 p.m.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:30 p.m.
By the way, I completely agree with your outline of the threats that Iran poses, and I want to be very clear about that. I think they present a clear and present danger to our country, their regime there, which is why they need to be crushed.
My broader point and the question, I guess, I would have for you is: Do you believe that we, Congress, are being appropriately briefed and kept up to speed? That is really, fundamentally, my challenge right now, that I don't feel like we are getting the information.
I am on the Intelligence Committee. I don't think we are getting the information that we should be getting as a coequal branch to make sure that we can do our jobs.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:30 p.m.
I am glad you asked.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:30 p.m.
Thanks.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:30 p.m.
My opinion is that, yes, both by the content of what it is that the administration has told me in whether it is full House classified briefings with the Secretary of War, the Secretary of State, General Caine, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe; whether it is in expanded Gang of Eight meetings that Ranking Member Meeks and myself have been a part of, numerous of those; or other briefings that we have had.
I don't know how many briefings it is that you have had as a part of the Intelligence Committee, but I am tracking at least 30 separate briefings, and absolutely, I am satisfied with the content of which I am given.
On any given day, would I love to have more information that they have within a tactical operations center--a TOC, as we call it in the military--of what is going on? I would love to still be an operator inside of a TOC, watching ISR footage of exactly everything that is going on, but that is not the latitude that we have, to sit inside of those TOCs and observe everything that is going on, but I am satisfied.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:30 p.m.
No, listen, I am glad that you are briefed, because I think you have--
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:30 p.m.
We all are, 30--at least 30 separate briefs.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:30 p.m.
If the gentleman will yield, I think you have incredible experience, and I am grateful for your service to our country.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:30 p.m.
Thank you.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:30 p.m.
I am glad you are getting those briefings. The challenge is, at least from my colleagues' perspective and me, who sits on the committee, we have not been getting those sort of briefings that you have been getting. That is part of what we are raising a flag about.
I would ask Chairman Meeks the same question, but that has been, just so you understand, the real frustration, because I am with you that we should crush Iran.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:30 p.m.
I heard you say it.
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)7:30 p.m.
I am with you, and I just want to make sure--I want to understand where we are in that process and actually get appropriate updates on what is going on so that I can do my job. That is really what this is about for me.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:30 p.m.
I appreciate the colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the ranking member is ready to close.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).
Christian D. Menefee (D-TX)7:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution to bring an end to the President's war in Iran.
This administration started a war that the American people never asked for. A majority of Americans oppose it, and every single day, Americans are paying for it.
Before this war started, gas in Houston cost about $3 a gallon. Today, it costs over $4 a gallon. That is the largest 2-month gas price spike in the recorded history of Houston, which is the energy capital of the world.
The average Houston family is paying $100 more every single month just to fill their tanks. This administration told us that they would put America first. Instead, they have put Americans, our servicepersons, and our wallets last.
This administration has blown up the global markets. People are paying more for groceries. Businesses are paying more for supplies. People are struggling to get by that much more because of this President's actions. The experts say prices will fall slower than they rose, even if this war ends today.
The American people did not ask for this war. It was forced upon them, and Congress must force it to end. I urge my colleagues to support this War Powers Resolution.
We have heard a lot of conversation about imminence here tonight, but that is not the question before us. The question before us is: Who has the power to declare war? That is the United States Congress.
We have seen this President haphazardly bring us into a dispute overseas, resulting in the deaths of 13 U.S. servicepersons, while at the same time conducting foreign policy over Truth Social, saying that he is going to annihilate an entire civilization.
I don't care what your feelings are about any nation. This country operates by a Constitution, and the President must follow it the same way as anybody else.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this War Powers Resolution.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
Mr. Speaker, first, based upon the argument, I heard the President say just a few months prior that he obliterated all of Iran's nuclear capabilities. That is what he said, so come back to the United States Congress to tell us that you did not, and here are the reasons why they still have what they have, and it is imminent, from my definition of "imminent," that they will utilize it against us soon.
From all the evidence that I have seen, they have not done so.
I don't know what 30 meetings or classified hearings the chairman has had. I have had two--two, one with the full Congress, and one with the gang of 16 or 18, or whatever we are called.
I do know that it is clear by today's debate that my Republican colleagues simply cannot defend this costly and massively unpopular war. I have not heard one time anyone talk about how much this war is costing us, how much it is costing the American people.
What I have heard--and we do know what the President thinks because we heard him. The President says that he doesn't care. He doesn't even think a little bit about what it costs Americans. He said that he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation and that he doesn't think about anybody. That is probably including Congress. We are somebody, too. He doesn't think about us.
My colleagues have not been able to make a case that Americans are better off now than we were before this reckless war. We are worse off now. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. We are losing allies.
My colleagues cannot demonstrate that this war has neutralized Iran's most significant threats. Clearly, that is what they are saying. That is what I am hearing. Nor have they put us in a position to guarantee a better nuclear deal than we had before, which Donald J. Trump ripped up.
That is because this is an unauthorized war, and this war has, instead, ushered in a new, younger, and more extreme Ayatollah. That is a fact.
It has weaponized the Strait of Hormuz, severely damaging the global economy as well as everyday American checkbooks. That is a fact. If you deny that, say that to the American people. Ask them when you go home.
As this war grinds on at the cost of $1 billion a day, the United States must face numerous global challenges with significantly depleted munition stockpiles and setbacks to our military readiness.
The fact is, this war has been a mistake from the start.
The American people ended one forever war in the Middle East. They don't want another. In fact, many of President Trump's MAGA friends, the reason why they voted for him was because he said he would not get into another war. That is why you hear that some of his friends and many Republicans are now angry with him.
What do the American people want? Do you know what they want? They want the affordability crisis addressed. They want good jobs. They want good healthcare. Instead, this administration has started a war that has skyrocketed everything from gasoline to groceries with little to show for it.
So to my colleagues across the aisle, it is past time that we do our job. That is all Mr. Gottheimer was saying: Do our job. We declare war, not the executive branch. It is time for the President to come to us, and it is time for us, I believe, to end this war.
Everyone is asking me: How is it going to end? We are going to have to negotiate our way out of this because clearly we are not going to be able to bomb our way out of this. It is not going to make us safe as we see what is taking place right now.
It is time for Members of Congress, Republicans, Democrats, and those who are Independent, to say, okay, Mr. President, if you have proof of something, come to us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore7:40 p.m.
The time of the gentleman has expired.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:40 p.m.
Come to us, and we will then decide. That is what the Constitution allows.
The SPEAKER pro tempore7:40 p.m.
The time of the gentleman has expired.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I am going to respond to the trove of ridiculous things that I have heard said on this floor.
Speaking generally about life, I know that there are people out there that when they get hit, they curl up, they cry, and they don't deal with the situation. That is how some people deal with conflict.
I can't personally say that I have known people that get hit, and they deny that it happened at all. That is literally what we have going on here.
As my colleague says over and over, there is no imminent threat that is going on. The author of this bill acknowledged the imminent threat, wrote word after word, paragraph after paragraph in the very thing that my colleagues over there will vote "yes" on to outline specifically the imminent threat that Iran is. He wanted it to be known the imminent threat that Iran is, but my colleagues are denying the imminent threat. They are denying that we have got hit.
They say we started this war. To quote my colleague right now, Ranking Member Meeks, he said we started this war. That is a denial of every single time the United States of America has been hit. It is a denial of the times that they fired at us at Tower 22 and killed three Americans. It is a denial of the times that they fired at us in Iraq and Syria. It is a denial of the times that they fired at our ships that were passing through the straits and other places causing some of our jets to fall off the decks of our carriers. It is a denial to say we started this war, not all of those things that Iran did started this war.
I literally just read off a laundry list of things that Iran has done to us and to our allies over the years, attack after attack after attack, but according to my colleague, we started this war. Again, it is like getting hit in the face, and it is like no, no, that didn't happen, nobody hit me in the face. Black eye? No black eye. It didn't happen to me. I ran into a wall. That is like what we are living through right now.
I am going to give you some more of the things that they have done, and it is important because my colleague for the first time I have heard him define what "imminent" actually means to him. He said this is what imminent means to me, that they will utilize against us soon, was what was said--utilize against us soon.
So I just listed off a whole bunch of things, a whole bunch of attacks that were done to us immediately preceding our combat operations in Iran. That to me equals imminent. If they just did it, that means they would continue to do it soon.
But if we go back even further than that, we will list some more. MV Asphalt Princess, another ship, a tanker traveling from UAE to Oman, was attacked by Iran. They are our allies. An Iranian-flagged tanker seized two Greek tankers, Delta Poseidon and Prudent Warrior, in the Persian Gulf. The tanker Pacific Zircon was hit by an Iranian drone off the coast. Iran's navy captured a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker, Advantage Sweet. Iran's IRGC seized the Panamanian-flagged Niovi oil tanker.
The list goes on and on just year after year. I can list off dozens of these imminent what they have been doing in the Strait of Hormuz going on year after year, imminent. But, again my colleagues across the aisle, it is like they are getting hit in the face, and they are saying: No, nobody hit me. They are saying that because they want to talk a big game, but they are too scared to actually deal with somebody hitting them in the face. That is true about life.
Some people don't have the stomach to be soldiers. Some people have the stomach, but they are just not capable of doing it. Not everybody is built to do the same things.
I want to cover some of the other things that were said. My colleague, Ranking Member Meeks, said numerous times that the new leader of Iran is more extreme. That is certainly an acknowledgment of the extremist nature of the previous leader of Iran. Very extreme.
Having done all of those things that I just listed off to our allies and to the United States of America, that is how extreme the previous leader was, now the new one is more extreme. The previous one was absolutely an imminent threat, absolutely making this a legal military operation, though they continue to say it wasn't some legal operation, that it was a war of choice.
My colleague said it was a war of choice--I counted at least three times--in his remarks. Absolutely, it is a choice. If somebody hits me in the face like my colleagues are denying is happening to America, it is a choice whether we hit them back. My colleagues over there would prefer to choose that, when somebody hits America in the face, we say: No, nothing happened. I walked into a wall. Nothing to see here--and not hit them back.
That is not the United States of America.
It is a choice whether we hit back. Strong people choose to hit back. Strong countries choose to hit back. Weak people, weak countries, they don't hit back.
Let's go over some of the other things that were said. They regained access to missile sites. It was reported that Iran regained access to missile sites. Absolutely. You know what, they regained access probably 10 minutes after those sites were hit. That doesn't mean that they are operational. That doesn't mean that they can go into a cache where they held weapons and pull the weapons out of that cache and start using them. It doesn't mean that they can take a mobile platform that they could access before we hit it and then go access it again 10 minutes later and utilize it. Sure, they have access to it. That doesn't mean that it is something that can be used.
Our colleagues want you to believe that they had this access and nothing is being done. That is absolutely irresponsible.
I went over how my colleagues talked about how this war caused the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. No, Iran has been closing the Strait of Hormuz year after year, decade after decade, and I have far more pages of what I could go over of all the attacks that they have been conducting through the strait and other places.
It was said numerous times--again, I counted at least three times--"never in America's national interest." That is the colleague of Ranking Member Meeks over there, "never in America's national interest."
If it was never in America's national interest, why did my colleague literally vote to say the United States of America should "use any and all means"--that is a quote, direct quote, from the bill--to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? That is what President Trump is doing, using any and all means to make sure that that doesn't happen.
In this breath, he says it was never in America's national interest, but before, I guess it was. I am not sure how before it was okay, but now it is never. It doesn't quite add up to me.
He said it is not about theatrics. If you voted previously to say use any and all means necessary against Iran, but now you say it is never in America's national interest, it is 100 percent about theatrics. That is what it is.
That is what this whole show is about for my colleagues over there. It is theatrics because you can't say it was never in America's national interest and just before that say, yes, I voted to say use any and all means necessary. They don't add up. One thing doesn't equal the other. It is all about theatrics.
On the words "imminent threat," he said the words "imminent threat" are not in there. Yes, the words "imminent threat" are not directly in there. That is correct, but again, my colleague did state the ways that Iran is an imminent threat, my colleague who authored the legislation that they intend to vote "yes" on. They intend to vote "yes" outlining the ways that Iran was an imminent threat, even though they say it is not in our interests and all of these other things.
My colleague over there said that the sole objective of Iran is to wreak havoc--that equals imminent threat; create violence--equals imminent threat to me; cause instability; and cowardly murder U.S. servicemen and -women protecting our way of life. That sounds like a pretty damn big imminent threat to me.
It went on to say in the legislation: "The Islamic Republic of Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and an adversary of the United States." That sounds like an imminent threat. I know he didn't use the exact words, but sometimes you have to read between the lines, read between those lines.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to pose a threat to the United States, its Armed Forces, and allies through its ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorist proxy forces, and continued pursuit of a nuclear weapon." That is an imminent threat.
Again, I would say read between the lines. If you can't read between those lines, you probably don't have business working in the national security sphere.
Let's go over some other quotes that were said here.
They said that we have troops there. We have troops there, so the war is not over. The combat is not over.
Guess what, Ms. Clark. We have troops in Germany, but I can tell you that World War II--not World War 11, according to Ms. Omar--World War II is over, but we still have troops in Germany and still have troops in Europe. We had, previous to these operations against Iran, troops throughout the Middle East.
Just because we have troops there doesn't mean that this hasn't ended. It has ended since April 7, and I applaud President Trump for the cease-fire that he has negotiated and the peace that he continues to work toward.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore7:50 p.m.
The gentleman from Florida has 7 minutes remaining.
Brian J. Mast (R-FL)7:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have more to talk about and go over more quotes here.
Ms. Clark said there is no strategy. I will tell you, she has been briefed numerous times, probably about 30 times, if she chose to attend all the classified briefings or was invited to all of them. I don't know which ones she was entirely invited to.
To say that there is no strategy is absolutely a direct insult to our United States Armed Forces, all of our generals, all of our colonels, all of our majors, all of our leaders working in tactical operations centers, the Pentagon, crunching data day in and day out, doing everything that they do to plan every single part of these operations: every time an aircraft takes off of a carrier; the targets that they are looking at; everything that they are looking to hit, when and in what order; what they have to hit before they go hit something further in the interior of Iran.
It is an insult to our military to say that there is no strategy. It takes away from every bit of strategy that is going on.
Let's keep going on.
My colleague Mr. Gottheimer, to quote him, said: I believe that we--that they must be "crushed." I agree with my colleague that they must be crushed. They have to be crushed. He wrote this legislation because of the imminent threat that Iran is. My colleague agreed with that.
Though my colleague, the ranking member over there, said that nobody could agree that it was an imminent threat, that Republicans couldn't prove it, there is at least one Democrat who agrees and was willing to see that through.
It is theatrics. It is theatrics that hurt our servicemembers.
There is probably only one thank-you that should be given, and that would be a thank-you from the IRGC to my colleagues over there for giving them hope. Without my colleagues over there, the IRGC would have zero hope.
Because they keep bringing forward ridiculous pieces of legislation like this, where they are unwilling to acknowledge the imminent threat that Iran is, all the attacks that have taken place against the United States of America, against our servicemembers, against our tankers, against our Navy vessels, against those of all of our allies, it continues to be theatrics because they won't see this. They are going to get hit in the face and deny that they ever got touched.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield the balance of my time in just one moment and simply say I urge a "no" vote on this because it is ridiculous and dangerous to say, especially in the midst of this cease-fire, of the negotiations for long-term peace, to prevent Iran from seeking a nuclear weapon in the future or seeking to continue their ballistic missile program or their drone program or their terror proxy programs or what they have been doing in the strait, that we even whisper the idea of pulling our servicemembers out of that area. It could not be more irresponsible of my colleagues to suggest that that take place.
They say they want negotiations. Those are taking place, but they want negotiations without the United States military protecting ships, knocking ordnance out of the sky, and being the very credible threat that the United States military is? That makes absolutely no sense.
Again, people that assess that way I do not want in the United States of America's national security decisionmaking tree.
I will say that I look forward to seeing that my colleagues over there vote "yes," even though I recommend a "no" vote. Why? Because their "yes" vote literally shows just how much they agree that Iran is an imminent threat, even though they keep saying they are not, which directly leads to the legal justification for every operation that is taking place or has taken place against Iran.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore7:50 p.m.
All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of April 27, 2026, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY)7:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore7:50 p.m.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Recognizing Martin County Wright Flight Fly Day
Page H3446 · Official text(Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, dreams are taking flight in Martin County, North Carolina.
The Wright Flight Fly Day rewards sixth graders from across the county for academic success, leadership, and positive choices by giving them an opportunity to see their home community in an airplane from the skies above.
Through a powerful partnership between the local schools, sheriff's office, and airport commission, students are connected to real-world opportunities in aviation, engineering, science, technology, and public service.
We are working to keep the American Dream within reach.
Wright Flight reminds young people across eastern North Carolina that their hopes and dreams are achievable and their future can soar even higher.
National Police Week
Pages H3446–H3447 · Official text(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Moore of Utah was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.)
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be joined by my colleagues for this Police Week Special Order.
Law enforcement across this country is putting their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, and 1 week per year honoring them will never be enough. I want to respect the time of our colleagues so I will turn the time over to them before I give my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs).
Mr. Speaker, during National Police Week, we honor the brave men and women in law enforcement who put on the badge each day, knowing the risks that come with serving others.
Today, I rise to remember Greenwood Police Officer Don "DJ" Keller who passed away earlier this week while faithfully serving his community.
Officer Keller was only 31 years old. He was a fellow National Guardsman, a husband, and a father. He represented the very best of law enforcement.
The Greenwood community, the Third District, and the entire State of South Carolina mourn his loss. We also lift up his family, his fellow officers, and all who knew and loved him.
Scripture tells us in Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."
Officer Keller lived as a peacemaker. His service, sacrifice, and example will not be forgotten. May God bless Officer Keller, his family, and every law enforcement officer serving our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from South Carolina for her great message, and I appreciate her attending this Special Order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the great State of Utah for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this week, during National Police Week, we honor the brave men and women in law enforcement who put on the badge every single day and run toward danger while others are running away.
These officers respond to violent crimes, overdoses, domestic disputes, natural disasters, and unimaginable tragedies. They carry burdens that most Americans will never fully understand. As the wife of a first responder, I have seen firsthand the mental and emotional toll, as well as the physical toll, that this job can take on not just the individual wearing the uniform but all their families, as well. The stress, the trauma, and the weight of responsibility do not disappear when a shift ends.
Too often, when our first responders need help themselves, the system is not prepared to answer their call. That is why I have introduced the Answering the Call Act of 2026, legislation to strengthen the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline and ensure it effectively serves first responders. That is because I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't.
Our law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs corrections officers, and public safety telecommunicators face disproportionately high rates of depression, PTSD, substance abuse, and suicide because of the traumatic situations they encounter on the job. Yet many do not seek help because of the stigma or concerns about confidentiality. In fact, over the last 5 years, over 850 law enforcement officers have taken their own lives, and we know that number is underreported.
This bill will take practical steps to address this crisis. It promotes targeted outreach to first responders, improves trauma-informed training for 988 counselors, strengthens accountability and establishes a pilot program to improve support services nationwide for our LEOs.
First responders answer the call at our most critical moments. That is why this legislation will ensure that when they need help, the system is ready to answer theirs.
To every law enforcement officer serving across Florida's Third District, across the Sunshine State, and across this country, I thank them for their courage, their sacrifice, and their service.
May God bless our law enforcement officers and their families who stand beside them every single day.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her inspiring message. It is so personal as well, and I appreciate her willingness to share.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. Speaker, National Police Week serves as an important reminder of the brave law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities.
During this week, we honor the officers who answer the call knowing that they may face dangerous and unpredictable situations in service to our community. Their courage, sacrifice, and dedication deserve not only our gratitude, but our continued support.
This week, two Wisconsin officers are being honored during National Police Week and will have their names added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.
The first is Racine County Deputy Joshua LaForge. Deputy LaForge knew from an early age that he wanted to serve others through law enforcement. That commitment guided his life and career.
He served both with the Racine Police Department for 18 years and then joined the Racine County Sheriff's Department. Throughout his career, he took on many responsibilities within the department, participated in charitable efforts throughout the community, and dedicated himself to helping those around him.
Tragically, Deputy LaForge passed away on July 4, 2023.
The second is Milwaukee Police Officer Kendall Corder. Officer Corder served with the Milwaukee Police Department for more than 6 years. On June 26, 2025, Officer Corder and his partner responded to a domestic violence call involving an armed suspect. While en route, the call was upgraded to shots fired. When they arrived on the scene, Officer Corder and his partner were ambushed by a suspect hiding in nearby bushes. Officer Corder later succumbed to his injuries on June 29, 2025.
Their service and sacrifice serve as a powerful reminder of the risks law enforcement officers face every day and of the countless families and communities forever changed by their loss.
As we remember those who make the ultimate sacrifice, I would also like to make specific mention from Wisconsin's Sixth District, State Trooper Trevor Casper. Back home, he is remembered as a shining example of service, courage, and selflessness.
Trevor's dream was to become a Wisconsin State trooper, and in December of 2014, he graduated from the State Patrol Academy and was stationed in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
Tragically, just months later, on March 24, 2015, during his first solo assignment, Trevor Casper was shot while apprehending a bank robbery and murder suspect.
Though mortally wounded, Trevor returned fire and stopped the suspect, protecting innocent lives and preventing further harm to the community.
Just think about that. You have been shot and are in the process of dying, but still you return fire, stop the suspect, and save members of the community.
He was just 21 years old--so tragic. Trooper Casper's bravery in the face of danger and his commitment to protecting others will never be forgotten.
Trevor is also a reminder that there are countless law enforcement officers across this country who quietly make extraordinary sacrifices in service of their communities. Many have given their lives in the line of duty, and each one deserves our respect, gratitude, and remembrance.
During National Police Week and throughout the year, we must continue standing with law enforcement officers and honor the memory of those who gave their lives in service.
I would suggest to those in the Chamber who are hearing our remarks, I think one of the things that you can really do that will drive home to any individual here what a great job our law enforcement officers are doing is to do a drive-along with them. I try to do one of these at least once every 2 years. It really brings home the situations that our law enforcement officers face, the possibility of harm. Nevertheless, again and again and again, they go out, go into unknown circumstances, risking huge physical harm to themselves, to apprehend dangerous members of our community.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah for organizing this Special Order.
Blake D. Moore (R-UT)8:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for his message, and I appreciate him for sharing the two incredible, brave individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).
Derek Schmidt (R-KS)8:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the brave men and women in law enforcement who put on the badge every day and stand between safety and danger.
Across Kansas and across our Nation, law enforcement officers answer the calls most of us hope we will never have to make. They run toward danger when others are running away. They work long nights, miss holidays, and experience difficult moments that often go unseen or unrecognized.
Their service demands courage, sacrifice, and an unwavering commitment to protecting their communities.
This week, we especially remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Sadly, last year, we lost four heroes from the State of Kansas.
We honor Officer Scott Heimann of the Hays Police Department in Hays, Kansas. Officer Heimann was a devoted public servant who faithfully protected his community with professionalism and integrity.
We remember Officer Hunter Simoncic of the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department. Officer Simoncic dedicated his life to serving others, and his courage and commitment will not be forgotten.
We recognize Deputy Brandon Gaede of the Phillips County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Gaede answered the call to serve rural Kansans with dedication and selflessness, and we remain grateful for his service and sacrifice.
We remember Deputy Elijah Ming of the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Ming's commitment to duty and to protecting others reflected the very best of Kansas law enforcement.
These officers were sons, friends, colleagues, neighbors, and public servants. Behind every badge is a human being who chose a life of sacrifice. Behind every fallen officer is a family whose sacrifice continues long after the headlines have faded.
During National Police Week, we honor not only those we have lost but also every officer who continues to serve. We thank them for their courage, their professionalism, and their steadfast commitment to keeping our communities safe.
To the families of our fallen officers, your loved ones will not be forgotten. Their legacy lives on in the communities they protected, in the officers they served with, and in the grateful hearts of the people of Kansas and of our great country.
May God bless the memory of these fallen heroes and protect all who wear the badge, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.
Blake D. Moore (R-UT)8:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his heartwarming and thoughtful remarks on a very important week. I know that the families of those officers will appreciate the focus, attention, and prayers.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their comments. National Police Week is about brave, sacrificial people. It is about families. It is about heroes, Mr. Speaker, like Sergeant Lee Sorensen and Officer Eric Estrada, whose service and dedication to public safety left a lasting impact on northern Utah.
Sergeant Sorenson and Officer Estrada faithfully served their communities for many years before tragically being killed in the line of duty. While there are no words to ease the pain of their passing, it has been incredible to see the Tremonton, Garland, and greater Utah communities rally in support and appreciation for their families and our first responders.
This National Police Week, we are backing the blue and standing up for those who risk their lives to protect us.
I am proud to see Sergeant Sorenson and Officer Estrada's names being added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial wall here in D.C. Of course, we wish that were not the case, but it is an honor to be able to see them listed among the brave. Their service, like that of many others who have died on the job, is simply not forgotten.
This National Police Week is dedicated to the brave men and women of law enforcement who make it so we can leave with peace of mind and so we can feel confident that our families are safe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who joined me tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.
Highlighting Women's Health
Pages H3447–H3450 · Official text(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Ms. Morrison of Minnesota was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.)
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the courtesy. Today, I rise sincerely to thank 218 House bipartisan colleagues for signing Discharge Petition No. 8 in order to force a vote here on the floor for a long-overdue vote on the Ukraine Support Act.
Liberty for Ukraine and for NATO hangs in the balance. For 12 years, Ukraine's people have valiantly endured Russia's savage war to eradicate Ukraine, its children, and Ukraine's very identity.
As today's forces continue liberating stolen territory, our bipartisan petition represents strong support for Ukraine's defense of liberty.
Vladimir Putin must stop and end his horrific invasion of a free nation. I am confident that this bill will pass this House.
Let me thank especially Congressmen Steny Hoyer, Don Bacon, Brian Fitzpatrick, Kevin Kiley, Mike Quigley, and all those in the Ukraine Caucus who have fought so long and hard in our bipartisan support for Ukraine that transcends party lines.
All 218 signatories have the gratitude of the American people, the whole of the Ukrainian nation, and freedom lovers around the world. Let us now pass this bill with dispatch before the end of next week.
Mr. Speaker, I include a summary of H.R. 2913.
Text printed in the Record (1,937 characters)
This bipartisan legislation enhances security assistance to Ukraine while placing long overdue sanctions on Russia to force Vladimir Putin to end the war on Ukraine.
Extends Lend-Lease authority through 2028.
Authorizes up to $8 Billion in Foreign Military Financing loans.
Extends Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
Supports Baltic Allies.
Establishes new mechanisms to support Ukraine's recovery.
Supports intelligence cooperation.
If Russia continues waging war against Ukraine or refusing
to negotiate a peace agreement in good faith, requires the
President to sanction:
Russin financial institutions;
Russia's energy industry;
Constructors and maintainers of the Kerch Strait Bridge;
Russia's Shadow Fleet;
Facilitators of North Korea's participation in the invasion
of Ukraine;
All foreign persons involved in the kidnapping of Ukranian
children;
Imposes export licensing requirements on foreign-produced
items known to be destined for Russian military or industrial
activities, and to prevent US-origin drone technology from
being shared with Iran.
500 percent tariffs on Russia.
Vote yes on the Ukraine Support Act to pressure Russia to
end its invasion of Ukraine.
Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, millions celebrated the work, love, and support mothers give to their children and families across the country.
There are so many ways, seen and unseen, that mothers show up for their families and care for their communities.
I know that I am incredibly grateful to my beloved mother and for the privilege of getting to be the mother to my three wonderful children.
Appropriately, Mother's Day also marked the beginning of National Women's Health Week. This provides the opportunity to highlight women's health, reflect on the progress we have made and the ongoing research we need, and to commit to the continued advancement of access, quality, and affordability in women's healthcare.
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)8:20 p.m.
Advancing women's health and delivering the best possible care requires a strong collaboration between the many caregivers and entities that have built and continue the work of advancing women's healthcare.
One organization that has been an indispensable partner to all obstetrician/gynecologists in their quest to provide the best evidence-based care to their patients over the past 75 years is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Over its 75-year legacy, ACOG has never wavered from its foundational mission of advancing the quality and consistency of care for women through guidance, education, and professional collaboration.
In the early years of its existence, ACOG set out to create evidence-based standards and develop opportunities for clinicians to continue their education.
Growing scientific progress and an expanding focus on women's health opened doors for the organization to serve as a leading voice as the Nation experienced historic advances, like the FDA's approval of the birth control pill and the Griswold v. Connecticut decision that established the right to privacy and, therefore, the right to use contraception, which had been illegal in Connecticut and many other States prior to this decision in 1965.
As these events established the policy landscape for women's health, ACOG continued its work standardizing prenatal and cancer screenings, introducing its own academic journal, and establishing the requirements to achieve high honors in the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
The landmark Roe v. Wade decision, as well as the establishment of the Title X program, which was the first Federal grant program in the United States dedicated to providing family planning and other preventive health services to low-income families, both elevated women's health further and supported ACOG's efforts to expand access to reproductive healthcare to all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay. They also amplified the importance of understanding the causes of maternal mortality and working to decrease it.
During this time, ACOG was at the forefront of building reliable, trusted programs that helped standardize evidence-based medicine, integrate cultural competency, and strengthen policy partnerships.
ACOG's role in women's health was also extended to helping protect the patient-physician relationship.
From the critical influence of the Doe v. Bolton decision, which was the companion case to Roe v. Wade in which the Supreme Court struck down burdensome procedural requirements that effectively made abortion completely inaccessible in Georgia, even if the patient's life or health were threatened, to the mobilization needed in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision in 2022, which overturned Roe.
ACOG serves as a trusted source for evidence-based guidance for care across the lifespan for patients and providers alike. Both turn to ACOG for information about critical topics, ranging from contraception, cancer screening, STI screening and treatment, obstetric care, best surgical practices and advances, nutrition, abortion care, vaccines, menopause care, and everything in between.
In its continued pursuit of advancing women's healthcare, ACOG has championed work to understand and address the systemic issues vulnerable women and populations face.
Through pioneering initiatives like the Committee on Healthcare for Underserved Women and the recognition that health is deeply impacted by factors beyond biology and clinical care, ACOG was an early leader in establishing opportunities for communities' lived experiences to be heard and incorporated into our understanding of disparities and how to address them.
As ACOG expanded its focus on reviewing and understanding the impact of systemic inequities and disproportionate burdens of maternal mortality in minority communities, ACOG continued its work of building robust and responsive clinical guidance and programming that centers respectful care and quality improvements.
During times of transformational advancements like the development and approval of the HPV vaccine, the Affordable Care Act, and historic investments in maternal death prevention efforts, ACOG has led and helped expand key collaborations and partnerships.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen).
Brittany Pettersen (D-CO)8:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Women's Health Week and the catastrophic impact Trump and Republicans have had on women's health in this country.
This week, the Trump administration launched moms.gov, another performative political stunt pretending to support moms, but the health and well-being of women and families has never been under greater threat than under this administration.
Our access to healthcare is being decimated with cuts to Medicaid and the ACA, while women are also dealing with the ongoing consequences of the Dobbs decision across this country and, somehow, it might even get worse.
Republicans are working on a backend national abortion ban by trying to eliminate access to mifepristone, an abortion pill that is utilized for 63 percent of abortions in the United States. This move will disproportionately impact women in poverty and women in rural communities who face significant barriers to being able to see a doctor.
Despite their lies, we know that mifepristone is a safe, effective medication, but access to this lifesaving drug now hangs in the balance before the Supreme Court. Any restrictions of this medication for miscarriages and abortions will be another devastating attack on our ability to make our own decisions about our health, our bodies, and our futures.
Let's be clear that this has nothing to do with science. It is about controlling women and taking away our access to reproductive healthcare and our ability to make our own decisions.
During Women's Health Week, let's remember that Donald Trump has consistently put us last. As a woman, as a mom, and as an American, I am horrified. We cannot stand on the sidelines.
Kelly Morrison (D-MN)8:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway).
Herbert C. Conaway, Jr. (D-NJ)8:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague (Ms. Morrison) for coordinating this Special Order hour.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, better known as ACOG.
For three-quarters of a century, ACOG has been at the forefront of improving the health and well-being of women, mothers, and families across the United States.
Since its founding in 1951, ACOG has helped to shape the standard of care in obstetrics and gynecology, advancing research, physician education, and evidence-based medicine.
Every day, OB/GYNs across our country provide compassionate care through every stage of life--from birth to infancy, then to adolescence and adulthood, from pregnancy to menopause, and beyond.
As a physician myself, I know firsthand the critical role that trusted medical professionals play in keeping our communities healthy and informed. That role is certainly critical today as we see from this administration so many attacks, I would say, on the ability of families to have the information and to gain the information that they need to protect their health, the health of their families and communities at large.
We have moved away from science as the foundation for decisionmaking in healthcare, and that terrible trend, that tragic trend needs to end.
ACOG has consistently worked to ensure that physicians have the tools, training, and guidance necessary to deliver the highest quality care to patients. Their work has helped to reduce maternal and infant mortality, improve prenatal care, expand access to preventive screenings, and advance women's health outcomes nationwide.
At a time when maternal health disparities continue to impact far too many families, particularly Black mothers and their children and others who live in underserved communities, organizations like ACOG remain essential partners in the effort to build a healthier and more equitable future.
Now, I mentioned I am a practicing physician. I have had to call on members of ACOG to help me provide help to women. Certainly, as a legislator at the State level for 26 years, I worked closely with ACOG on everything from medical malpractice reform to obviously dealing with the tragedy of the disparities in Black infant mortality and for Black mothers who are pregnant and delivering children.
Their work to provide standards of care, to guide decisionmakers, not only in the healthcare arena, but in the legislative arena, to improve outcomes for all people, and particularly those who suffer from disparities in our healthcare system, we owe to ACOG a tremendous debt of gratitude.
Mr. Speaker, we owe a gratitude to the doctors, the nurses, the researchers, the educators, and advocates who have dedicated themselves to this mission for the past 75 years. I will stand and commend ACOG for its decades of leadership, service, and advocacy on behalf of patients and physicians alike.
Congratulations to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on this important milestone, and I wish the organization continued success in the years ahead.
Kelly Morrison (D-MN)8:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, the last few years have brought unprecedented challenges and rapid change. During the COVID-19 pandemic and in the wake of the Dobbs decision, ACOG held strong to the foundational mission that has driven its work for decades, strengthening equitable, accessible obstetric and gynecologic care.
ACOG's presence and leadership during these pivotal moments for women's health and the profession they have represented over the last 75 years has helped translate the lifesaving scientific advances and give evidence-based guidance and stability to a profession that has, is, and will continue to be monumentally consequential to families across the country and in every congressional district.
Reflecting on the incredible progress of the last 75 years also brings to the forefront the importance of the work still left to build and expand.
Despite the incredible advances in women's health, challenges and obstacles to fully achieving the mission of equitable, accessible care remain.
An estimated 36 percent of counties in the United States are maternity care deserts, meaning they do not have a hospital or birth center offering obstetric care or any obstetric providers.
Two-thirds of these maternity care deserts are in rural areas that are also the most vulnerable to disruptions in services and hospital closures. Approximately 1.2 million women live in counties with only one OB/GYN.
By 2035, the estimates are that 44 U.S. States are projected to not have enough OB/GYNs to meet those States' needs with the most severe shortages being in rural areas.
Women in many communities are already traveling long distances to access prenatal care or to deliver safely in a hospital.
In the wealthiest country in the world, in a country built on the principles of human dignity and freedom, these alarming statistics can and should lead to a unified bipartisan effort to address them.
We have seen how the work and legacy of ACOG and its members have helped support historic achievements while upholding the core goals of access and quality of care.
Facing and overcoming persistent challenges demands a commitment to science and evidence-based practices for setting the standards for OB/ GYN care, for advocating for policies that advance the field, and empowering physicians to provide patients with the care they need all while building on each of these areas to inform continuing education opportunities, refine clinical guidelines, and continue the evolution of the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
Beyond navigating increasing administrative burdens, burnout, and workforce instability, OB/GYNs are having to deal with health and medical misinformation jeopardizing their work and their patients' well-being.
Patients are increasingly exposed to misinformation about contraception, fertility, pregnancy care, menopause, vaccines, and reproductive health.
This creates fear and confusion, undermines trust, delays treatment, imposes real risks to patients and families. That is why trusted scientific leadership matters.
ACOG and generations of physician-researchers have helped translate rigorous science into evidence-based care that improves outcomes for women across the lifespan. Throughout my career in medicine and public service, I have worked to support evidence-based approaches that deliver for families.
From championing expanding Medicaid coverage to 12-months postpartum in Minnesota to advocating for the reauthorization of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act in Congress, I have advocated for advancing early intervention and prevention to save lives.
Healthy mothers, healthy babies, and healthy families strengthen communities, reduce long-term healthcare expenditures, and improve the long-term resilience of our Nation.
I had the privilege of caring for patients as an OB/GYN for more than 20 years, so I have seen firsthand the challenges patients face to afford and get the care they need.
I have seen the impacts of some of the medical breakthroughs and improvements to care that have occurred over the decades, and I have seen how social determinants of health make it so difficult for many Americans to have good health.
As an OB/GYN, I have seen my patients directly benefit from practices that were built on decades of research, clinical trials, and the dedicated work of multiple generations of my fellow OB/GYNs.
These advances were the result of hard-fought advocacy and awareness campaigns, committed work from researchers and physicians, and patient voices being centered and truly heard.
One of the great privileges of my years in practice was caring for my patients across different stages of their life. OB/GYNs see patients from adolescence through adulthood to end of life.
I have cared for patients that I delivered through to their own pregnancies, and I have cared for many through early adulthood, through midlife, through perimenopause and menopause, and beyond.
ACOG has been there every step of the way to provide evidence-based recommendations to help guide my and my patients' decisionmaking.
In the decades I have spent in this remarkable profession, it has been my sincere honor and privilege to provide the care my patients needed, from prenatal care through labor and delivery, to contraception, to hormone replacement therapy, from the exam room to the operating room, helping patients through important life stage transitions, creating care plans through shared decisionmaking, always working to meet patients where they are to meet their unique needs. ACOG has been a critical partner throughout my career and the careers of many thousands of OB/GYNs across the country.
In a rapidly changing world that is marked by advances in technology and access to an avalanche of information, not all of which is accurate, it is difficult for many of us to fully understand how drastically circumstances have changed for women and how transformational historic moments were to women's health and safety.
Younger generations of Americans and even some older Americans may not be able to recall a United States without protected access to birth control or an HPV vaccine.
My career as an obstetrician-gynecologist began at a time when foundational concepts in public health and clinical practice were better defined and elements critical to progress, like the right to privacy and the ability of women to make their own independent healthcare decisions, were protected.
In the last decade as women's health rights and protections have been threatened and eroded, I am thinking of my patients and of people across our country.
I am remembering my patients who disclosed, in some cases for the first time in their life, their traumatic experiences prior to the protections of Roe v. Wade.
I am thinking of my younger patients who worried about the possibility of losing protected access to abortion care as the Supreme Court ruled on the Dobbs case.
I am thinking about the babies I delivered protected by vaccines from preventable, life-threatening conditions and the mothers spared from complications because of comprehensive, evidence-based clinical guidelines and access to comprehensive care.
I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to remind everyone in this moment when access to mifepristone is threatened, the research on mifepristone has not changed. It has been an FDA approved medicine for a quarter of a century. It has been used safely and effectively by millions of women around the globe.
For my entire 20-year-plus career as an OB/GYN, mifepristone has been used to help women manage miscarriages and safely end pregnancy. Its safety record surpasses most over-the-counter medicines.
What has changed is the people in power. People with no medical training who want to undermine access to healthcare, control women's bodies, and ignore evidence-based science because of their own personal ideology.
Putting their desire to control and restrict women, women whose lives they know nothing about and who they will never meet, over facts and research and safety.
It sets a very dangerous precedent for us all.
As we celebrate the milestones of the last 75 years of ACOG, we also have a responsibility to face future challenges head-on, mindful of all that we have gained and conscious of what is being lost, unwaveringly committed to improving the lives of all people seeking care, their families, and their communities.
I offer a heartfelt thank-you to ACOG for 75 years of always standing with patients and physicians and for its ongoing work to improve healthcare and the health of our patients. Onward to the next 75.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Enrolled Bill Signed
Page H3450 · Official textKevin F. McCumber, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker:
Text printed in the Record (100 characters)
H.R. 3497. An act to establish a medal of service for law enforcement officers and first responders.
Bills Presented to the President
Page H3450 · Official textKevin F. McCumber, Clerk of the House, reported that on May 12, 2026, the following bills were presented to the President of the United States for approval:
Text printed in the Record (585 characters)
H.R. 2815. To provide equitable treatment for the people of the Village Corporation established for the Native Village of Saxman, Alaska, and for other purposes.
H.R. 972. To amend the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area Act to adjust the boundary of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2066. To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to exclude from the limit on leverage certain amounts invested in smaller enterprises located in rural or low-income areas and small businesses in critical technology areas, and for other purposes.
Adjournment
Page H3450 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 14, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
Executive Communications, Etc.
Page H3451 · Official textUnder clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
Text printed in the Record (4,615 characters)
EC-3513. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) (RIN: 0970-AD20) received May 12, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
EC-3514. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel, Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Reimagining and Improving Student Education--Federal Student Loan Program Final Regulations [Docket ID: ED-2025-OPE-0944] (RIN: 1840-AD98) received May 12, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
EC-3515. A letter from the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Promoting Fair and Open Competitive Bidding in the E-Rate Program [WC Docket No.: 21-455] Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism [CC Docket No.: 02-6] received May 12, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
EC-3516. A letter from the Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting a summary of actions taken by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to recommendations contained in various U.S. Government Accountability Office reports related to NRC activities for FY 2025; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
EC-3517. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Space Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's Major final rule -- Modernizing Spectrum Sharing for Satellite Broadband [SB Docket No.: 25-157] received May 13, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
EC-3518. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's report titled "Cuban Compliance with the Migration Accords" Department Report Number: 007137, pursuant to Public Law 105-277, Sec. 2245; (112 Stat. 2681-824); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-3519. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's report titled "Voting Practices of UN Members, Department Report Number: 007111; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-3520. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's report titled "Resolution of the Cyprus Dispute" Department Report Number: 007018; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-3521. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's report titled "Annual Report to Congress on the Interdiction of Aircraft Engaged in Illicit Drug Trafficking" Department Report Number: 007031, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2291-4(c)(1); Public Law 103-337, Sec. 1012 (as amended by Public Law 107-108, Sec. 503); (115 Stat. 1405); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-3522. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's Report Titled "PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989, as amended" Department Report Number: 007123; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-3523. A letter from the Biologist, Office of Protected Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the Gulf of America [Docket No.: 260414-0101] (RIN: 0648-BO19) received May 12, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
EC-3524. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major interim final rule --Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Applications of Recipients of Departmental Financial Assistance [Docket No.: HHS-OCR-2026-0133] (RIN: 0945-AA30) received May 12, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions
Page H3451 · Official textUnder clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. SCHWEIKERT: Joint Economic Committee. Report of the Joint Economic Committee on the 2026 Economic Report of the President (Rept. 119-649). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union Union. Mr. COMER: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H.R. 3766. A bill to prohibit the District of Columbia from requiring tribunals in court or administrative proceedings in the District of Columbia to defer to the Mayor of the District of Columbia's interpretation of statutes and regulations, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 119-650). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. WALBERG: Committee on Education and Workforce. H.R. 7082. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in order to provide for greater flexibility in the Federal programs supporting the planning and implementation of charter schools, with an amendment (Rept. 119-651). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Public Bills and Resolutions
Pages H3451–H3453 · Official textUnder clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (11,611 characters)
By Ms. GILLEN (for herself and Mr. Rutherford):
H.R. 8776. A bill to require a report by the Attorney General on effective strategies and best practices to reduce stigma related to mental health among law enforcement officers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. WATERS:
H.R. 8777. A bill to restore certain guidance and rules of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Ms. UNDERWOOD (for herself, Mr. Garcia of Illinois,
and Mr. Takano):
H.R. 8778. A bill to require the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to finalize a proposed rule relating to accessibility of electric vehicle charging stations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mrs. HARSHBARGER (for herself, Mr. Auchincloss, Mr.
Carter of Georgia, Mr. Landsman, Mr. Nehls, and Mr.
Nadler):
H.R. 8779. A bill to prohibit pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies from being under common ownership, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MOORE of Utah (for himself, Mr. Buchanan, Mr.
Carey, Mr. Miller of Ohio, and Mr. Bean of Florida):
H.R. 8780. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand and improve the advanced manufacturing production tax credit; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself, Mr. Downing, Mr.
McCormick, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr.
Bost, Ms. Tenney, Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina, Mr.
Moore of Alabama, Mr. Rulli, Mr. Steube, Mr. Pfluger,
Mr. Stauber, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Simpson, Mr.
Massie, Mr. Babin, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Moore of
West Virginia, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. McDowell,
Ms. Fedorchak, and Mr. Mann):
H.R. 8781. A bill to clarify that for purposes of Federal nondiscrimination requirements applicable to education programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance, discrimination prohibited under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is based on the biological reality of sex; to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
By Mr. BERGMAN (for himself, Mr. Wied, and Mr.
Stauber):
H.R. 8782. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to include dedicated-use municipal snow removal vehicles and machinery as examples of an emergency vehicle in the definition of covered fleet, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BEYER (for himself and Mr. Kelly of
Pennsylvania):
H.R. 8783. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income charitable distributions from certain employer-sponsored retirement plans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. CAMMACK (for herself, Ms. Tenney, and Mr.
Steube):
H.R. 8784. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require hospitals and freestanding birth centers to notify each mother of a miscarried fetus of her rights with respect to such fetus, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. CARBAJAL (for himself and Mr. Moore of Utah):
H.R. 8785. A bill to amend section 5336 of title 49, United States Code, to provide for certain apportionments to medium-sized transit intensive cities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Ms. Norton, Ms.
Kamlager-Dove, and Ms. Crockett):
H.R. 8786. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the work opportunity tax credit with respect to the hiring of veterans in the field of renewable energy; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLINE (for himself, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Moore of
Alabama, Mr. Crane, Mr. Self, and Mr. Fitzgerald):
H.R. 8787. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Defense from contracting with retailers who use covered payment processing equipment, systems, or services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. DELUZIO (for himself, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. Craig,
and Mr. Ryan):
H.R. 8788. A bill to prohibit vulture investors from investing in youth sports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. GARBARINO:
H.R. 8789. A bill to expand eligibility for certain housing programs for qualified volunteer first responders; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. HARRIGAN (for himself and Ms. Salinas):
H.R. 8790. A bill to amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to direct research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities in support of next-generation geothermal and closed-loop geothermal systems in various conditions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HILL of Arkansas (for himself, Ms. Adams, Mr.
Turner of Ohio, Ms. Sewell, Mr. McCormick, and Mr.
Figures):
H.R. 8791. A bill to provide for the long-term improvement of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
By Ms. HOULAHAN (for herself, Mr. Khanna, Mrs. Luna,
and Mr. Turner of Ohio):
H.R. 8792. A bill to require the collection of information on multigenerational caregiving in at least one major Federal population survey, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. HUIZENGA (for himself, Mr. Correa, Mr. Walberg,
Mr. Lawler, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey):
H.R. 8793. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a list of covered providers that complete annual training on the prevention of suicide among veterans and to make such list available to veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina, and Ms. McBride):
H.R. 8794. A bill to provide for increased research and initiatives related to bleeding disorders in underserved populations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mrs. LUNA:
H.R. 8795. A bill to provide a fuel tax holiday; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. MALLIOTAKIS (for herself, Mr. Ezell, and Mr.
McGuire):
H.R. 8796. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a safety buffer zone to protect certain Federal law enforcement officers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MORAN:
H.R. 8797. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize cooperative partnerships for mineral extraction activities at Army organic industrial base facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. OMAR (for herself, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Moore of
Wisconsin, Mr. Aguilar, Mr. Amo, Ms. Ansari, Mr.
Auchincloss, Ms. Balint, Ms. Barragan, Mrs. Beatty,
Mr. Bell, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Budzinski,
Mr. Carson, Mr. Carter of Louisiana, Mr. Casar, Mr.
Casten, Ms. Castor of Florida, Ms. Chu, Mr. Cohen,
Ms. Craig, Ms. DelBene, Mr. DeSaulnier, Ms. Dexter,
Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania, Ms.
Friedman, Mr. Frost, Mr. Garamendi, Ms. Garcia of
Texas, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Goldman of New
York, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Gottheimer, Mrs. Grijalva, Mr.
Huffman, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jacobs, Ms.
Jayapal, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Kamlager-Dove,
Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Khanna, Mr.
Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Lee of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Lieu, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lynch, Mr.
Magaziner, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. McBath, Ms. McCollum, Mr.
McGarvey, Mrs. McIver, Mr. Menefee, Ms. Meng, Mr.
Morelle, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Nadler, Mr.
Neal, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Norton, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez,
Mr. Pallone, Ms. Pettersen, Ms. Pingree, Ms.
Plaskett, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Pressley, Mr. Quigley, Mrs.
Ramirez, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Salinas, Ms. Sanchez, Ms.
Schakowsky, Ms. Simon, Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms.
Stansbury, Ms. Strickland, Mr. Thanedar, Ms. Tlaib,
Mr. Tonko, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Velazquez, Mrs. Watson
Coleman, and Ms. Wilson of Florida):
H.R. 8798. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to make breakfasts and lunches free for all children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. PEREZ (for herself and Mr. Taylor):
H.R. 8799. A bill to establish certain requirements for any communications by a private entity regarding United States Department of Transportation numbers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. ROGERS of Alabama (for himself and Mr. Smith of
Washington):
H.R. 8800. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. PERRY:
H.R. 8801. A bill to prohibit a congestion toll in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. RASKIN (for himself, Ms. Elfreth, Ms. Norton,
Ms. Chu, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Simon,
Mr. Cisneros, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Walkinshaw, Ms.
Pettersen, Mr. Correa, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Mrs.
McBath, Mr. Neal, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Carbajal,
Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Mannion, Mrs. Beatty,
Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Kennedy of New
York, Mr. Subramanyam, Mr. Goldman of New York, Mrs.
Fletcher, Mr. Carson, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms.
Scanlon, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Randall, Mr.
Morelle, Mrs. McClain Delaney, Ms. Salinas, Ms.
Pelosi, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Thanedar, Mr. Lieu, Ms.
Lofgren, Ms. Ross, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Aguilar, Mr.
Figures, Mr. Neguse, Ms. Balint, Mr. Olszewski, and
Ms. Escobar):
H.R. 8802. A bill to provide compensation to law enforcement officers who defended the United States Capitol during the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. SHERMAN:
H.R. 8803. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profits excise tax on crude oil and to rebate the tax collected back to individual taxpayers until the President declares that all hostilities with Iran have ceased, the Strait of Hormuz is fully reopened, and the price of oil drops below $75 per barrel; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. SMUCKER:
H.R. 8804.
Text printed in the Record (3,948 characters)
A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into contracts with recovery audit contractors to perform prepayment reviews under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. STEUBE:
H.R. 8805. A bill to provide supplemental payments to Federal personnel performing immigration enforcement operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. VALADAO (for himself, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Moore of
Utah, and Mrs. Dingell):
H.R. 8806. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish the newborn tax credit and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. LYNCH:
H.J. Res. 184. A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to "Fair Credit Reporting; File Disclosure"; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. VARGAS:
H.J. Res. 185. A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating to "Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-03: Unlawful and Unenforceable Contract Terms and Conditions"; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mrs. FOUSHEE:
H. Con. Res. 100. Concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Doggett,
Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Gottheimer, and Mr. Mackenzie):
H. Res. 1279. A resolution supporting the designation of the month of May as "Lyme and Tick-borne Disease Awareness Month"; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BERA (for himself, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Stanton, Mrs.
Kim, Ms. Norton, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Sherman, and Mr.
Walkinshaw):
H. Res. 1280. A resolution supporting the designation the week of May 10 through May 16, 2026, as "Taiwanese American Heritage Week"; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Ms. FOXX (for herself and Ms. Lee of Florida):
H. Res. 1281. A resolution recognizing the 175th anniversary of the founding of Alpha Delta Pi sorority; to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
By Ms. MORRISON (for herself, Ms. DelBene, Ms.
McCollum, Mr. Conaway, Ms. Simon, Ms. Ansari, Mr.
Moulton, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Elfreth, Ms. Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Kennedy of New York, Mrs. Fletcher, Ms.
Randall, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Ross, Ms.
Salinas, Mr. Veasey, Mrs. Grijalva, Mrs. Trahan, Mr.
Bera, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mrs. Beatty, Mrs.
McIver, and Ms. Scholten):
H. Res. 1282. A resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and its critical role in advancing the practice of obstetrics and gynecology and the health and well-being of patients through excellence in clinical practice, education, advocacy, and research; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. VEASEY (for himself, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Johnson
of Georgia, Ms. Norton, Ms. Sewell, and Mr. Bacon):
H. Res. 1283. A resolution expressing support for the designation of May 2026 as "National Physical Fitness and Sports Month"; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Page H3453 · Official textPursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution.
Additional Sponsors
Pages H3454–H3455 · Official textUnder clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (7,868 characters)
H.R. 7: Mr. Crank.
H.R. 220: Mr. Vindman.
H.R. 255: Mr. Menefee.
H.R. 378: Mr. Gottheimer.
H.R. 516: Mr. McDowell.
H.R. 588: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 642: Mrs. Cammack.
H.R. 685: Mr. Walberg.
H.R. 925: Mrs. Cammack.
H.R. 942: Mr. Moskowitz.
H.R. 959: Mr. Khanna.
H.R. 1027: Mr. Latimer.
H.R. 1046: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 1109: Mr. Harrigan.
H.R. 1189: Ms. Omar.
H.R. 1227: Mr. Menendez.
H.R. 1241: Mr. McDowell.
H.R. 1288: Mr. Vindman.
H.R. 1548: Mr. Figures.
H.R. 1551: Mr. Gray.
H.R. 1742: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 1810: Mr. Larsen of Washington.
H.R. 1987: Ms. Bonamici.
H.R. 1993: Mr. Auchincloss.
H.R. 2028: Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Garcia of Illinois.
H.R. 2048: Mr. Kean.
H.R. 2089: Mr. Bergman.
H.R. 2094: Mr. Vargas, Ms. Titus, Mr. Thanedar, and Mr. Gray.
H.R. 2095: Mr. Bergman.
H.R. 2120: Ms. Lee of Nevada.
H.R. 2242: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2314: Mr. Bean of Florida.
H.R. 2352: Ms. Randall and Ms. Ansari.
H.R. 2355: Mr. Rouzer.
H.R. 2359: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2512: Mr. Cleaver and Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 2540: Mr. Riley of New York and Mr. LaLota.
H.R. 2662: Mr. Harrigan.
H.R. 2671: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 2692: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 2757: Ms. Chu.
H.R. 2767: Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 2829: Mr. Thanedar.
H.R. 2878: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 2913: Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Costa.
H.R. 2978: Mr. Latimer.
H.R. 3045: Mr. Garcia of Illinois.
H.R. 3140: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 3178: Mrs. Hayes.
H.R. 3243: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 3248: Ms. McBride.
H.R. 3327: Mr. Mackenzie.
H.R. 3469: Mr. Westerman and Mr. Subramanyam.
H.R. 3513: Mr. Mrvan and Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
H.R. 3514: Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina and Mr. Babin.
H.R. 3527: Mrs. Fletcher, Ms. Chu, and Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 3544: Mr. McGovern, Ms. Meng, Ms. Castor of Florida, and Mr. Torres of New York.
H.R. 3597: Mr. Moylan.
H.R. 3747: Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania and Ms. Goodlander.
H.R. 3931: Mr. Pappas.
H.R. 4077: Mr. Downing and Ms. DelBene.
H.R. 4093: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 4109: Mrs. Trahan.
H.R. 4253: Mr. Veasey.
H.R. 4311: Mr. Fry.
H.R. 4332: Mr. Castro of Texas.
H.R. 4398: Ms. Davids of Kansas.
H.R. 4464: Mr. Onder.
H.R. 4664: Mr. Veasey.
H.R. 4718: Mr. Bergman and Mr. Donalds.
H.R. 4744: Ms. Craig.
H.R. 4763: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 4783: Mr. Norman and Mr. Fry.
H.R. 4797: Mr. Green of Texas.
H.R. 4966: Mr. Khanna.
H.R. 4972: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.
H.R. 5120: Ms. Schrier.
H.R. 5123: Mr. Stanton.
H.R. 5168: Ms. Tlaib.
H.R. 5258: Mr. Harrigan.
H.R. 5282: Mr. Gottheimer.
H.R. 5298: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 5309: Ms. Schrier.
H.R. 5355: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.
H.R. 5390: Mr. Gray.
H.R. 5408: Mr. Casar and Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 5437: Mr. Van Epps.
H.R. 5448: Ms. Davids of Kansas.
H.R. 5449: Mr. Walkinshaw.
H.R. 5490: Mr. Latimer and Mr. Davis of North Carolina.
H.R. 5506: Ms. Ansari and Mr. Garcia of California.
H.R. 5509: Mr. Crank, Mrs. Grijalva, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Guest, and Mr. Bera.
H.R. 5563: Mr. Mast.
H.R. 5621: Mr. Sorensen and Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 6056: Mr. Min.
H.R. 6086: Ms. Ansari and Mr. Fitzgerald.
H.R. 6128: Mr. Magaziner.
H.R. 6130: Ms. Goodlander and Mr. Grothman.
H.R. 6137: Mrs. Hayes.
H.R. 6149: Mr. Garcia of Illinois.
H.R. 6152: Mr. Latimer.
H.R. 6213: Mr. McDowell.
H.R. 6231: Mr. Davis of North Carolina and Mrs. Bice.
H.R. 6283: Mr. Pappas.
H.R. 6289: Mr. Castro of Texas.
H.R. 6425: Mr. Latimer.
H.R. 6468: Ms. Davids of Kansas.
H.R. 6527: Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona.
H.R. 6682: Mr. Vargas.
H.R. 6806: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 6809: Mr. Moore of Utah.
H.R. 6832: Mr. Carter of Georgia and Mr. Rulli.
H.R. 6856: Mr. Pallone, Mrs. Foushee, and Mr. Carbajal.
H.R. 6875: Mr. Dunn of Florida.
H.R. 6895: Mr. Case.
H.R. 6960: Mr. Shreve.
H.R. 7026: Mr. Mann.
H.R. 7037: Mr. Harrigan.
H.R. 7086: Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona, Mr. Hill of Arkansas, and Mr. Soto.
H.R. 7096: Ms. Bynum.
H.R. 7212: Mr. James.
H.R. 7223: Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida.
H.R. 7227: Mr. Moulton.
H.R. 7281: Ms. Simon.
H.R. 7335: Mr. Garcia of Illinois.
H.R. 7417: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 7441: Mrs. Hayes.
H.R. 7520: Mr. Murphy, Mr. Correa, Mr. Bean of Florida, and Mr. Davis of North Carolina.
H.R. 7540: Ms. Van Duyne.
H.R. 7548: Ms. Stansbury and Mr. Peters.
H.R. 7587: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.
H.R. 7598: Mr. Correa and Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona.
H.R. 7608: Mr. Garcia of Illinois.
H.R. 7622: Mr. Goldman of New York.
H.R. 7769: Ms. Salazar and Mrs. Beatty.
H.R. 7779: Ms. McClellan.
H.R. 7798: Ms. Escobar.
H.R. 7808: Mr. Case.
H.R. 7826: Mr. Gottheimer and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 7919: Mr. Landsman.
H.R. 7957: Ms. Randall, Mr. Neguse, Ms. Pingree, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Min.
H.R. 7961: Ms. Sanchez, Mrs. Torres of California, and Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 7965: Mr. Goldman of New York.
H.R. 7970: Mr. McDowell.
H.R. 7974: Mr. McDowell.
H.R. 7977: Mrs. Beatty.
H.R. 8019: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 8028: Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina and Mr. Loudermilk.
H.R. 8041: Mr. Pappas.
H.R. 8076: Mrs. Bice and Mr. Bera.
H.R. 8092: Mr. Timmons.
H.R. 8101: Ms. Van Duyne.
H.R. 8163: Mr. Green of Texas, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Miller of Ohio, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 8183: Mr. Moore of Utah.
H.R. 8205: Mrs. Bice and Ms. DelBene.
H.R. 8327: Mr. Latimer.
H.R. 8332: Mr. Kennedy of Utah.
H.R. 8414: Mr. Fitzgerald.
H.R. 8421: Mr. Latimer, Mr. Takano, Mrs. McIver, and Mr. Garcia of Illinois.
H.R. 8429: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 8430: Ms. DeLauro and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 8437: Ms. Maloy.
H.R. 8465: Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Scanlon.
H.R. 8474: Ms. Ross.
H.R. 8540: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 8541: Mr. Larson of Connecticut and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 8563: Mr. Goldman of New York.
H.R. 8582: Mr. Nadler and Ms. Ross.
H.R. 8586: Mr. Fuller.
H.R. 8592: Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Hernandez, Ms. Omar, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Neal, Mr. Courtney, and Mr. Lynch.
H.R. 8596: Mr. Mann and Mr. McGuire.
H.R. 8603: Mrs. Miller of Illinois.
H.R. 8611: Mr. Hunt.
H.R. 8612: Ms. Omar.
H.R. 8620: Mrs. Hayes.
H.R. 8630: Mr. Luttrell.
H.R. 8632: Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
H.R. 8648: Mrs. Kim and Mr. Harrigan.
H.R. 8654: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 8661: Mrs. Kim.
H.R. 8666: Mr. Latimer, Mrs. Hayes, and Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
H.R. 8667: Ms. Budzinski and Mr. Carson.
H.R. 8679: Mr. Harrigan.
H.R. 8680: Mr. Evans of Colorado.
H.R. 8690: Mrs. Beatty, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Titus, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Neguse, Mr. Menefee, and Mrs. Sykes.
H.R. 8699: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 8716: Ms. Tlaib.
H.R. 8730: Mr. Latta, Ms. Boebert, and Mr. Khanna.
H.R. 8736: Mr. Fitzgerald.
H.R. 8737: Mr. Mann and Mr. Baird.
H.R. 8743: Mr. Haridopolos.
H.R. 8756: Mr. Norman.
H.J. Res. 122: Ms. Williams of Georgia and Mr. Horsford.
H.J. Res. 152: Mr. Bacon.
H.J. Res. 154: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.J. Res. 155: Ms. Omar.
H. Con. Res. 41: Mrs. Kim and Mr. Riley of New York.
H. Con. Res. 96: Mr. Balderson, Ms. Maloy, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Rulli, and Mr. Baird.
H. Con. Res. 98: Mr. Shreve and Mr. Owens.
H. Res. 70: Mr. Alford.
H. Res. 948: Mr. Case.
H. Res. 1035: Mr. Latimer.
H. Res. 1164: Mrs. Hinson.
H. Res. 1179: Ms. Omar and Mr. Sherman.
H. Res. 1209: Ms. Scholten and Mr. Levin.
H. Res. 1248: Mrs. Torres of California and Ms. Davids of Kansas.
H. Res. 1251: Ms. Stansbury.
H. Res. 1252: Mr. Norman, Mr. Figures, and Mr. Fallon.
H. Res. 1253: Mr. Cisneros.
H. Res. 1268: Ms. Clarke of New York, Mrs. Hayes, and Mrs. Grijalva.
H. Res. 1273: Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina.
The amendment to be offered by Representative Alford, or a designee, to H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.