House of Representatives
Page H6081 · Official textThe House met at noon and was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse).
Monday, November 9, 2026
Vol. 172, No. 168 · 119th Congress, 2nd session
Designation of Speaker Pro Tempore
Page H6081 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Speaker:
Text printed in the Record (161 characters)
November 9, 2026.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Dan Newhouse to act as Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Morning-Hour Debate
Page H6081 · 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 1:50 p.m.
Recognizing National Bread Month
Pages H6081–H6082 · Official text(Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize November as National Bread Month and to honor the dedicated men and women of America's commercial baking industry who work tirelessly every day to feed our Nation.
As we enter the holiday season, families across Pennsylvania and throughout our country are turning their focus towards gathering around the table together, and America's baking industry helps make these celebrations so memorable.
The baking industry also strengthens our community, and Martin's Famous Potato Rolls is a shining example of that. Founded in Chambersburg, this family-owned business has grown its reach around the world while remaining true to its roots.
Under the leadership of president Tony Martin, executive vice president Joe Martin, guided by the legacy of their parents, Jim and Donna Martin, the company continues to invest in the people of central Pennsylvania.
As a doctor, I know that nutrition must be accessible and affordable. Bread is a vital, nutrient-dense staple that delivers nearly 40 percent of the dietary fiber in the American diet, along with essential vitamins and nutrients.
As co-chair of the Congressional Baking Caucus, my responsibility is to ensure that the voices of our bakers, our millers, and our farm families are heard here in the Halls of Congress.
Join me in recognizing November as National Bread Month.
Mr. Speaker, it is with respect that I stand to recognize Tom Caulfield for a truly inspiring personal and professional commitment to our Nation's veterans and to their families.
Tom has dedicated his career to serving veterans, individuals with disabilities, and their families through his workforce development and his mentorship.
A United States Army Vietnam-era veteran, Tom is the founder and CEO of Johnstown-based Veteran Community Initiatives, known as VCI. Under Tom's leadership, VCI has expanded its facility and its service offerings to create a centralized hub for veterans' assistance.
Tom's dedication and advocacy has shaped VCI into a leading resource for veterans and their families throughout the region, touching the lives of more than 15,000 veterans and family members since the organization's founding in 1993.
As Tom prepares for his retirement at the end of 2026, I express my personal appreciation for his remarkable legacy of commitment to strengthening our veteran community.
Mr. Speaker, during my time in the district throughout the month of October, I visited firefighters at multiple stations that serve the 13th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.
Repeatedly, firefighters at all volunteer stations have told me that their greatest challenges relate to recruitment and to funding.
According to FEMA, nearly 97 percent of the Commonwealth's 1,800 registered fire departments are staffed fully or partly by volunteers. This is the third highest percentage in the United States.
Since 2008, the number of volunteers nationwide has decreased by approximately 25 percent, while call volume at the same time has risen by 70 percent.
These statistics deepen the appreciation for volunteers like Brent Strasbaugh who serves as president and firefighter with the Cashtown Community Fire Department in Adams County. Over 30 years of volunteer service, Brent estimates that he has responded to more than 2,000 calls while serving in numerous frontline and administrative positions.
To all volunteer firefighters who dedicate their lives to the protection of life and the preservation of property throughout the 13th Congressional District, I express my heartfelt thanks.
Recognizing All Veterans on Veterans Day
Page H6082 · Official text(Mr. Courtney of Connecticut was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, in a couple of days, our country will pause on one of the 12 national public holidays, Veterans Day, to recognize the sacrifice and service of veterans, both living and deceased, which is the mandate of Veterans Day.
Veterans Day first appeared in this country on November 11, 1919, when Woodrow Wilson issued an executive order decreeing that Veterans Day would be celebrated on that day, and in 1938, Congress moved and actually made it a national holiday.
Again, there are a lot of ways people can participate in Veterans Day. They can attend veterans ceremonies. They can attend veterans parades. They can express vocally their support and appreciation for veterans in their communities.
But all of us have a duty to do more, particularly here in Congress, to provide support for veterans. As Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address said: We have a duty to care for the veteran that has borne the battle; in other words, provide real, tangible support, both in terms of healthcare and financial services.
In a couple of days, Congress is going to have an opportunity to follow through on that mission that Abraham Lincoln announced so many years ago when Congress finally takes up the Richard Star Act for passage here in the House of Representatives. Again, this is a bill which will end one of the gravest injustices in the Veterans Administration's system of benefits where veterans, who have earned a pension and have earned a disability benefit because of a service-connected injury, are no longer going to be subject to an offset which reduces those benefits which they earn.
Again, H.R. 2102 will be up for consideration because of a discharge petition to finally end this injustice, which veteran service organizations of every stripe have come to Washington year in and year out to point out the blatant unfairness to people, who have worn the uniform of our country and actually suffered combat-related injuries, being denied the full scope of retirement benefits that they have earned as well as the disability benefits.
Again, this is an issue that should unite both sides of the aisle when Congress takes it up pursuant to the discharge petition. Over 300 Members have cosponsored this bill here in the House of Representatives. There was an attempt to sort of tweak it and mangle it, which failed earlier in this Congress, and on Wednesday it will be time to finally pass a clean Richard Star Act, which veterans all over this country are going to be watching closely to make sure that their Members have listened to them and moved forward in terms of making sure those veterans get their full support and benefits, as Abraham Lincoln said, having borne the battle.
Again, I implore all of my colleagues on Wednesday when this measure comes up to vote "yes," send it to the Senate, get it to the White House, and end again this unjust concurrent benefit offset.
Recognizing the Public Timber Project
Pages H6082–H6084 · Official text(Mr. Hill of Arkansas was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Public Timber Project, a stewardship-rooted nonprofit dedicated to maintaining the public hunting lands across our Nation.
As an avid hunter and outdoorsman, I have spent many days enjoying my home State, The Natural State, and what it has to offer our hunters.
I have seen our beautiful lands flooded with trash and debris along the ramps, the lake banks, and more.
The Public Timber Project works alongside other nonprofits, like Delta Waterfowl and Ducks Unlimited, and they have drastically improved our Federal refuges and State-owned wildlife management areas through their advocacy campaign: Restoring Our Refuges.
Each year, more than 69 million Americans visit America's 573 national wildlife refuges. These visitors sustain waterfowl hunts like the White River National Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas.
The Public Timber Project didn't simply notice the deterioration of these areas. They took action and made a difference, devoting over 2,000 volunteer hours, completing 28 site cleanups, and over 100 boat ramp cleanups.
This is the kind of volunteerism that is recognized in the State of Arkansas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my good friend, Lowell Baier, who passed away last year at the age of 85.
Lowell lived what Theodore Roosevelt called the strenuous life, a life measured not by comfort but by effort, risk, and service.
His accomplishments outside conservation alone would fill most careers. He was an Eagle Scout at 14 and a page in the U.S. House at 16.
He became a successful attorney, real estate developer, an award-winning author of six books, and a great storyteller who loved talking about the night he slept on Johnny Cash's couch or the time he befriended a Texan named Willie in a bar, long before the red-headed stranger was a household name.
But Lowell's most enduring legacy is his love of America's natural heritage which he championed, the habitats he preserved, and the wildlife he protected.
Lowell grew up on a northern Indiana farm and on his grandfather's Montana ranch, and those early years in wild country never left him.
He spent decades active with the Boone and Crockett Club, eventually serving as its president.
He advised American Presidents on wildlife policy and wrote several books on conservation, including what was the definitive history of the Endangered Species Act.
He led the fight to save Theodore Roosevelt's Elkhorn Ranch, raising $6.5 million to protect the land that Roosevelt once called "the cradle of conservation."
Lowell was the man in the arena, whose face was marred by dust and sweat, who lived with enthusiasms and great devotions. He was a great friend and a great mentor. He will be missed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true Arkansas original, Dave Woodman, who for 56 years was one of Arkansas' most recognizable and trusted voices in Arkansas broadcasting.
He anchored the news at KARK, served as the voice of the Razorbacks, and was a longtime public address announcer at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Along the way, Dave was inducted into multiple halls of fame and earned recognition in the Emmy Gold Circle, an honor reserved for those who have dedicated 50 years or more to excellence in broadcasting.
I congratulate Dave. I wish him a great retirement, and I understand and have prayers for his service to care for his wife, Lydia, of 70 years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late Gus "Buddy" Blass II of Little Rock, a soldier, a Scout, a leader in the community, and an Arkansan through and through.
On the 50th anniversary of World War II, he wrote a memoir for his grandchildren to pass on his idealism and his love of country. It was his reminder to them to always cherish the freedoms that we enjoy and to never forget them.
Today, I have the distinct honor of entering his wartime memoir in our U.S. Congressional Record.
Gus was a recon trooper in World War II, a role that required him to slip behind enemy lines, gather intelligence, and find his way back.
In a daring act of valor, he and one other soldier took out a German Tiger tank while the enemy troops dined in a nearby restaurant, saving the entire town.
He was at the Battle of the Bulge and helped take the town and was the first to enter Cologne. He was awarded the Purple Heart for his wounds and brave service to our Nation.
After serving his country on the battlefields of Europe, Gus returned home and served the people of Arkansas.
He founded the Community Chest in Little Rock, which grew into the United Way. He served on the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees.
I include in the Record an excerpt of his memoir.
Text printed in the Record (11,942 characters)
It all started so innocently. I was 18 years old and a student at the University of Arkansas in the autumn of 1941. My buddies and I had driven home to Little Rock for the weekend. I tell the story that we came home in a third-hand car since no one in our group could afford a second hand car. This one was a Terraplane, which soon went the way of the Hudson, Hupmobile, DeSoto and Nash.
I had traveled home specifically for my grandmother's birthday party on December 6. She was Mrs. Gus Blass and I always felt I was her favorite grandson because I was named after her husband. Mrs. Gus Blass was a wonderful person, refined, ever smiling, gracious, a good cook who always had special lunches and dinners when someone came home on certain occasions, like a visit from college.
On December 7 we were returning to Fayetteville and stopped at Conway to call home to confirm news that the Japanese had just bombed Pearl Harbor. All of our big battleships had been repeatedly hit. The Arizona, Utah and Oklahoma on battleship row were lost, along with several others. We later learned that the Pennsylvania and West Virginia were sunk, but in shallow water and could likely be salvaged later. The Tennessee and Maryland were damaged. The Nevada was beached, but later salvaged. My father said that an announcement about a declaration of war was imminent.
We students got back in the old car and returned to Fayettevil]e. We were all in Reserve Officers Training Corp, known as ROTC. Being a land grant college, the University at that time required ROTC of all its young male students. There was a patriotic urge in us to rush right out and enlist in one of the services. But, after discussing it with my family and faculty advisor, I decided to remain at the University, finish the semester and complete the military training that I'd already started.
Suddenly, our nation was at war. I remember men appearing in uniforms, shipping out, draft boards being set up and draft numbers and classifications being assigned. Women went for the men in uniform. A man of military age and not in uniform was looked on as a 4F, or slacker. Those categorized 4F couldn't pass the physical and a slacker was regarded as someone pulling strings to stay out of the service.
The slogan to keep the world safe for democracy quickly caught on and was about all that was needed to arouse patriotism and idealism to the point that all Americans wanted to do something. The old World War I marching song, "Over There", stirred everyone's emotion, as did "God Bless America". No one could sing the latter with as much feeling as could Kate Smith.
Rationing was a big thing. Families got booklets of stamps, some for sugar, others for food, shoes, tires and gasoline. The more important a worker was to the war effort, the more gasoline ration stamps he received.
That spring people began planting victory gardens for additional foodstuffs. In what used to be a flowerbed in the back yard, now vegetables grew. The office of price controls (OPA) was on everyone's lips. Prices were frozen on about everything. Most boards were made up of women and older men. My mother was in charge of the Red Cross here in Little Rock. One group made and rolled bandages, another group knitted socks and scarves.
Everyone was war conscious. I remember the top radio program was Hit Parade, sponsored by Lucky Strike cigarettes. In those days the Lucky Strike package was predominately green. The green dye was needed for the war effort, so Luckies changed its package to red and white and used the motto, "Lucky Strike Green has gone to war."
I remember the number one song was "I'll be home for Christmas". Of course, I would later spend two Christmases in the army in Europe. For me, home seemed very far away both those yuletides.
After semester, we all were shipped to Camp Walters, Texas, about 140 miles from Dallas for 16 weeks of basic training, The barracks, hastily thrown up, were two stories with some 60 men to a floor. We had cots, footlockers and a few hangers each under a shelf. It didn't rain the entire 16 weeks that I was there. I remember we were listed alphabetically in the barracks, and I bunked next to Ed Bauer, who was later killed in the South Pacific. The food wasn't all that good, so we would volunteer for KP (kitchen police), because the mess sergeant fed his help well.
Basic training involved a lot of hard physical work. We drilled every day but Sunday. There were classes, films, guard duty, and the firing range. We marched everywhere we went. Don't let me forget the hikes with full field pack, rifle and equipment. The heat was always present, so we took salt tablets. After drilling or marching, we would be soaked in sweat. Our clothing would be streaked in salt when it dried.
We had to qualify with both rifle and pistol on the firing range. One group would be shooting, while another group marked targets in the pit. If your shot went outside the circle, the scorer would wave a flag, which we all called "Maggie's drawers."
Fall out, fall in, forward, about face, and halt. We marched and marched. Often, we sang out our cadence:
"I got a gal in San Antone, She doesn't like to be alone. Hippo, hoppo, Ring out the moppo Left oh right, or left."
We often marched and sang in cadence about Chicago:
I used to work in Chicago In a department store I did, but I don't anymore. A lady came in and asked for a cup I asked her what kind--at the door "Mug", she said. And mugger I did. I don't work there any more. Sound off!
Woe be to the foul-up. Embarrassment, extra detail, etc. (example):
Platoon halt! Private Jones, front and center! Following a snappy salute, "Private Jones reporting as
ordered sir." "Take hold of your ears, Private Jones." (The GI didn't seem to understand) "You dummy, get a tight hold. Now pull your head out of your
rear end!"
No basic training was complete without a 25 miles hike, full packs, a mortar barrel, or part of a machine gun. The hike had to be completed in eight hours. We marched 55 minutes with a five minutes break per hour. "Get it right the first time men," the sergeant would order. "Else, you will have to do it all over again."
And the pay! We received $21 a month and didn't have any time to spend it. When we did get a couple of hours off, we were too tired to go anywhere. The nearest town was Mineral Wells, but we had no transportation. A run to the Post Exchange (PX) was possible unless we were restricted to the company area. There was a little recreation area where we could get 3.2 (percentage of alcohol) beer. It took a lot of 3.2 to give one a buzz. We were called GI because we were "Government Issue".
Maggie's drawers, GI, PX and KP. The military has its own lingo. A "head", or latrine, was a toilet. When "the eagle flies" meant payday. The "old man" was your commanding officer. He might be no more than 21, but he was still the old man. The "C.O." also meant the commanding officer. The "top kick" was your first sergeant. Your bunk was called the "sack". The OD was the officer of the day. The term "gung-ho" was applied to an overly zealous person or outfit. Rumors, called "scuttlebutt," seemed to abound. From the first day in basic training and thereafter, scuttlebutt had us shipping to this place or that when the 16 weeks of training were over.
The phrase "Kilroy was here" had its birth during the war. Even civilians picked up on Kilroy. Snafu (situation normal--all fouled up) meant a mix-up, and was a much-used phrase. Brass, or wheels, meant officers.
At last, basic training ended. We had earlier thought that, since we'd been in ROTC, we would automatically progress to officer candidates' school, known in military jargon as "OCS". This wasn't the case. We first were selected for OCS. We had to be interviewed by a board of regular officers and there were written tests to be taken and passed. Most of us did pass. I recall that all from Arkansas did.
We were sent to OCS school at Fort Knox, Kentucky near Louisville for a 15 weeks course in armor. Not only were those of us from the University there, but I remember a number from Louisiana State University and Texas A&M.
Much of the course was math related to artillery. We learned to fire 75-millimeter guns, which were then on tanks, and we were taught to fire the 37-millimeter cannon. We learned the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), the M1 rifle, .30 caliber carbine, the rifle grenade launcher, the light and heavy machinegun, the 81 mm mortar and how to operate the SCR 536 radio.
We learned how to take weapons apart and put them together in the dark. This really helped us later on in Europe. Suppose you are crawling in the mud and suddenly have to fire your rifle and it jams. You can't use a light or you could give away your position. So you must clean the weapon and put it back together while lying there in the dark. We also learned map reading, fire direction and plotting coordinates for calling in fire.
I was happy to be near Louisville when the Kentucky Derby was run. Several of us made plans to attend the great race since we were scheduled to be off on Saturday and the Derby was to run the first Saturday in May. Would you believe that someone in our group fouled up and, for discipline, we had to drill that Saturday from about 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. at night. None of us got to see the Derby.
We graduated, but there were no commissions in armor, only infantry, cavalry, or field artillery. I was commissioned in the cavalry. At age 20, I felt a number of emotions that day. I felt proud, tough, confident, patriotic, carefree, scared, but glad to get OCS behind me and to pin the gold bar of a second lieutenant on my shoulder.
After graduating from OCS, I was assigned to a cavalry unit at Fort Riley, Kansas. At that time, Fort Riley was America's headquarters for cavalry and was one of the oldest posts in the country. Fort Riley, still active today, dates back to May 17, 1853. It was here that the storied 7th Cavalry was formed in 1867. George A. Custer was second in command of the fort.
Located near Junction City, the main fort is up a hill. We new officers were garrisoned down in a flat region known as Camp Funston. We were required to pay dues to the main officers' club even though we were not permitted to go there except at certain hours or for specific occasions.
We had to look like cavalry officers and were required to buy breeches, boots, hats, spurs and carry riding crops. I remember one night that there was a formal dinner at the main officers' club. That evening my friend Zeke had a date with the general's daughter. While dancing, Zeke caught his spurs in the hem of his date's long dress just as he twirled her. Off came her skirt, right there on the dance floor!
Zeke was a fun guy, tall, angular and witty. We had been at OCS together in Louisville, where a lot of whiskey is made. At that time, the distilleries were working around the clock. One afternoon when we were on leave in town I asked him,
"Zeke, are you are trying to drink up all the booze in town."
"No chance of that here, Blass," he answered, "because I got them working nights."
At Fort Riley, I was assigned to the firing line to train young soldiers to use the M1 rifle. One day a colonel drove up in his jeep to do an inspection. As he climbed from the jeep, he caught a spur and fell face first on the ground. I laughed aloud and promptly found myself assigned officer-of-the-day duties for the next three weekends.
I taught men to fire from various positions, such as prone, standing and kneeling. We had several trainees from the Appalachian region of Kentucky and Tennessee. One boy couldn't say fire, but instead pronounced the word "farr", as in "farrwood".
The instructor would say, "Ready on the left! Ready on the right! Ready on the firing line. Targets. . .Fire! You weren't permitted to shoot, until the command "FIRE" was given.
Text printed in the Record (198 characters)
One day this boy fired prematurely after I'd only said, "ready on the left!" I called out, "who fired that shot?" Rather sheepishly, he looked up from his prone position and answered: "I farred it."
To read his full memoir see the following link: https://hill.house.gov/uploadedfiles/gus_blass_ii_wwii_memoir.pdf.
Mr. Speaker, I honor Gus Blass today.
Honoring Constance "Connie" Young
Page H6084 · Official text(Ms. Mejia of New Jersey was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise this Veterans Day to honor Constance "Connie" Young of West Caldwell.
A proud World War II Navy veteran, Connie enlisted as a Woman Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, otherwise known as WAVES, in the United States Navy. She served our Nation well as both a captain's yeoman at Hunter College and on an antisubmarine missile project with the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance.
Following her service, Connie built a life rooted in family, education, and community. She earned her degree in economics from Saint Elizabeth University, raised four children with her husband, Roger, and devoted decades to advancing educational opportunities for women and serving her community.
At 105, Connie continues to inspire those around her. Her curiosity, creativity, and unwavering commitment defines a woman who is no stranger to sacrifice, service, and commitment to others. On Veterans Day, it is my privilege to honor her and the extraordinary example she sets.
I wish Connie a happy 105th birthday and thank her for her service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Miriam Rosenstein, a beloved member of the Maplewood community, as she celebrates her 102nd birthday on Veterans Day.
Born on Armistice Day in 1924, Miriam spent more than a century demonstrating what it means to stand for peace, justice, and dignity for all people. For nearly 60 years, she has called Maplewood home, deeply committed to the community she loves.
Miriam has never sat on the sidelines. Even at 101 years old, she walked up and down her neighborhood collecting signatures and encouraging her neighbors to make their voices heard. Her commitment to civic engagement and strengthening our democracy is an example for us all.
Miriam's commitment to these values extends across generations. She continues to inspire her family, including her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, to stand up for their communities and work toward a more just future.
Miriam Rosenstein is a testament to a life lived with purpose and the power that ordinary people have to make a difference in this world. I wish Miriam a happy 102nd birthday.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for National Family Caregivers Month, honoring the millions of family members, friends, and neighbors who provide hours of unpaid care and labor.
As a caregiver and a member of the sandwich generation myself, I know the challenges of balancing family, career, and caring for loved ones.
The cost of caregiving goes far beyond time and energy. It is the time off from work, often unpaid, to ensure that loved ones attend doctors' appointments, apply for services, or simply make it through the day. It is in the countless hours struggling with health insurance companies that second guess doctors and question care when it is needed most, and it is in the emotional cost of worrying about what will happen to children, parents, and our other loved ones when we are gone.
Caregivers deserve the same care that they offer our communities, and it is on those within this Chamber to make it so. While billionaires receive permanent tax breaks from Republicans' big, ugly bill, caregivers spend an average of over $11,000 a year to support a family member or friend.
This silent struggle deserves a voice and a champion. I stand here more than willing to be exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put all of their effort into expanding housing, healthcare, and respite services, as well as enacting a caregiver tax credit and expanding paid family leave. If we are lucky, we will all reach a stage in which this care truly matters personally.
Celebrating United States Marine Corps Reserve Association's Centennial
Pages H6084–H6085 · Official text(Mr. Bergman of Michigan was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the National Veterans Parade.
In fact, two of the three Vietnam veterans still remaining in Congress were there. My colleague sitting right in front of me, Jim Baird from Indiana, rode in the parade aboard one of his weapons trucks, if you will, with some of his colleagues.
It was a beautiful parade on a beautiful day across the street from the National Archives, but the real stars of the parade, I believe, were all of the young groups of marching bands, twirlers, Junior ROTC groups, and the organizations that support veterans and their families in so many ways.
It was just a great day to be out there on The Mall yesterday, and I would suggest putting it on our calendars for next year because it will be that same Sunday here in D.C. prior to the celebration of Veterans Day.
Veterans Day is November 11. Remember that Veterans Day is a celebration. We celebrate those who served. We celebrate who we are and how we remain a country because of our veterans' service.
November 10, tomorrow, for those of you in the Marine Corps, is the Marine Corps' 251st birthday. We have a lot of things going on here.
Mr. Speaker, this tie happens to be the colors of the Marine Corps, in case anybody knows, but the idea is to celebrate all of the veterans and their families who have served over time.
It is my honor, though, today specifically, to honor an organization that I have been a part of for a long time, since I was still in uniform. I am honoring the 100th anniversary of the United States Marine Corps Reserve Association.
Mr. Speaker, I will read the following commendation:
"In the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty Six.
"United States Marine Corps Reserve Association 100th Anniversary.
"Whereas, President Woodrow Wilson signed the naval appropriations act on August 29, 1916, officially establishing the Marine Corps Reserve; and
"Whereas, Major General Melvin Maas, United States Marine Corps Reserve, later founded the United States Marine Corps Reserve Association to foster readiness, professional development, and advocacy for the Reserve Force; and
"Whereas, Major General Maas, while serving in the United States House of Representatives, became a leading voice in Congress for national defense and the strategic importance of a Ready Reserve Corps; and
"Whereas, for a century, the Marine Corps Reserve Association has promoted the interests of the United States Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Reserve, helping to advance and preserve the security and defense of our Nation; and
"Whereas, today, the association represents Active, Reserve, and veteran members, tirelessly advocating for servicemembers, veterans, and their families on Capitol Hill and within local communities; and
"Whereas, in keeping with its foundational vision, the Marine Corps Reserve Association continues to champion legislative initiatives, partner with organizations like the Semper Fi & America's Fund, and support charitable and relief efforts across the country;
"Now, therefore, I, Congressman Jack Bergman, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, do hereby commend the United States Marine Corps Reserve Association and join in celebrating their landmark 100th anniversary.
"In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States House of Representatives to be affixed this 9th day of November 2026."
Honoring the Life and Legacy of Michael George Burke Kirby
Page H6085 · Official text(Mr. Beyer of Virginia was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of the late Michael George Burke Kirby of Falls Church, Virginia, who passed away in September at the age of 81.
Mike dedicated over 50 years of his life to public service, politics, and the arts, leaving a lasting mark on his community and the many people he mentored throughout his career.
Mike spent nearly 20 years on Capitol Hill, serving the office of my predecessor, Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, as well as Representatives Bob Matsui and Glenn Anderson of California. His work spanned transportation, military logistics, energy, and environmental policy. He later served for more than 25 years as the congressional liaison for the National Endowment for the Arts, bringing his deep love for the arts to his work in public service.
Beyond his professional career, Mike was a fixture in local politics here in Northern Virginia. He served as chair of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee and remained active in local political organizing for decades. Whether helping guide the committee's work, supporting fellow members, or encouraging young people pursuing careers in public service, Mike was committed to uplifting his community and making sure that those around him succeeded.
Though Mike spent nearly five decades in Northern Virginia, Mike never lost his connection to his hometown of Chicago. A proud Irish American and a devoted Chicago Cubs fan, he cherished folk and traditional arts, particularly Irish music and dance. He shared his experiences, travels, and lifelong engagement in politics with friends and colleagues throughout his life.
Mike will be remembered for his dedication to public service, his enthusiasm for the arts, and his generosity toward those of us who were fortunate enough to know him.
Mr. Speaker, I extend my deep condolences to his wife, Anne, and his many friends and colleagues. While Mike will be deeply missed, his contributions to Northern Virginia and the impact he made as a colleague, friend, mentor, and family member will never be forgotten.
Honoring America's Veterans
Pages H6085–H6086 · Official text(Mr. Baird of Indiana was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague General Bergman mentioned, it was a pleasure to be in the parade yesterday and to have a parade marshal who was a former Vietnam helicopter pilot, as was General Bergman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our veterans, especially those who served in Vietnam.
Yesterday, I rode down Constitution Avenue in the National Veterans Parade aboard a replica of the Vietnam-era gun truck, Brutus.
Roger Blink, a driver of the original Brutus, built the replica that participated in yesterday's parade. This work preserves the stories of the men who defended our convoys and honors those who never returned.
For me, riding in the parade carried a deep personal meaning. In Vietnam, I served with the 523rd Transportation Company. Our convoys carried vital supplies along roads prone to ambush. Soldiers transformed ordinary Army trucks into gun trucks, adding machine guns, scrounged-up armor, and layers of sandbags, and we made do with what we had.
The men operating those trucks saved countless lives, including my own.
I was aboard the Proud American, formerly the Ace of Spades, that was made by Sammy Seay. It was driven by Robert Thorne when two rockets struck in the rear of the truck. Robert steered us into a mountain rather than over the embankment.
In saving others' lives, Robert lost his own. Other gun truck crews who had already reached safety turned around, risking their lives to come back to save us. Those trucks were Satan's Lil' Angel, NCOIC Chester Israel, and King Kong, NCOIC Danny Cochran. You never forget courage like that.
Mr. Speaker, as we mark Veterans Day during America's 250th anniversary, I ask Americans to remember all of our veterans who have given so much for this country. Those who I served alongside and all of the veterans deserve sincere gratitude when they return home. They deserve it today and every day.
Mr. Speaker, I thank every veteran and servicemember for defending our freedoms. Honoring our service remains one of the greatest privileges of my life.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Robert T. Coffin.
Born in Marion County, Indiana, Roger devoted his life to helping others. As a young lifeguard, he saved numerous lives during the 1963 Indianapolis Coliseum explosion.
Saving people was something Roger would continue to do throughout his life. Following his parents' footsteps, Roger completed ROTC at Indiana University and volunteered for military service in Vietnam, where he managed the field hospital as an Army second lieutenant.
After returning home, Roger married his wife, Patricia, and graduated from IU Law School. He served as Morgan County deputy prosecutor, city attorney, and later as commander of the American Legion Post 230.
Roger's greatest pride throughout his life was his family--his wife, two daughters, and a grandson--who he loved with unwavering devotion.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Roger for a life honorably lived.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rhonda Beck of Hendricks County for her dedication to honoring America's veterans and preserving their stories.
Through her leadership in the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Indiana POW/MIA Council, Rhonda has ensured that those who served our country are remembered honorably.
Rhonda established a military banner program with more than 2,000 banners seen across 15 Indiana communities, featuring pictures of local veterans. She also led efforts to honor Indiana's missing servicemembers with memorial bricks on Monument Circle in Indianapolis.
These are but a few of Rhonda Beck's accomplishments in serving Hoosier veterans. From organizing veteran breakfasts to displaying photographs of Hendricks County's fallen heroes, Rhonda brings neighbors together in gratitude and remembrance.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, Indiana's Fourth Congressional District, and all of the veterans she served, I thank Rhonda for keeping the faith with our veterans and our families.
Commending Jose R. Sanchez
Page H6086 · Official text(Mrs. Ramirez of Illinois was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, in honor of Latino heritage, I rise today to recognize my constituent, Jose R. Sanchez, for his inspiring dedication and his work ethic that reminds us that when Latinos set a goal, we make it happen.
Jose Sanchez is a licensed clinical social worker with over 30 years of experience as a healthcare executive. In 2010, Sanchez became the only Latino hospital CEO in Illinois, managing what was known as the Norwegian American Hospital, which faced strong financial hardship and needed to rebuild the trust within the community.
After seeing declining health in the community of Humboldt Park, he knew that, in his own words, "the hospital had to be proactive, embrace the community, and form relationships" and "partnerships" within the community.
Under his leadership and vision, the Norwegian American Hospital, today known as Humboldt Park Health, has realized financial stability, extending care in our community; driven employment and economic development; enhanced the quality of care through partnerships; modernized systems; and helped address prominent health needs in Illinois' Third Congressional District.
In 2024, Humboldt Park Health became the very first hospital in the Midwest and the 13th in the Nation to achieve health equity certification from the Joint Commission. In 2025, Mr. Sanchez helped open Humboldt Park Health's new wellness center, the first phase of a broader community health campus focused on wellness, accessibility, and empowerment.
For Jose Sanchez, healthcare and managing a hospital is more than just treating patients. For him, for Jose, it is about building a healthier, more prosperous community.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my honor to commend Jose R. Sanchez for his lifetime of leadership, vision, and a commitment to health equity and wellness. It is why, today, it is my honor to enter Jose Sanchez' name permanently into the Congressional Record. "Congratulations"; "Felicitaciones," Jose.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marien Casillas Pabellon, a proud Puerto Rican and organizer for our shared dignity and worker solidarity who reminds us to always put our faith into action.
Born in Puerto Rico to a working class, politically engaged Baptist reverend and a librarian, Marien began her life as an organizer early on. At 21, she started working for the Seafarers International Union of Puerto Rico, where she led bargaining fights, handled grievances and mediation, developed workshops, and ran successful campaigns for workers' rights.
In 2005, Marien moved to New Jersey to pursue a master's degree in labor and employment relations. During this time, she continued fighting for worker rights. In 2009, she became the executive director of New Labor, where she led efforts to offer Latino immigrants a voice in their workplace and community. Under Marien's leadership, New Labor became a leader in organizing, mobilizing thousands of immigrants to fight for workplace rights and healthcare in one of New Jersey's largest and most successful Workers Memorial Day actions.
Marien now serves as the executive director of the West Suburban Action Project, also known as PASO, where she leads initiatives, advocating for immigrant communities, focusing on healthcare access, tenant rights, and addressing labor injustices. As we confronted Operation Midway Blitz over a year ago, Marien lent her voice and her organizing background to protect our neighbors from the Department of Homeland Security's terror and demand justice for Silverio Villegas Gonzalez, who was killed by ICE agents last September.
Throughout her career, she has dedicated herself to community and labor organizing and coauthored: "The Worker Center Handbook: A Practical Guide to Starting and Building the New Labor Movement."
It is my honor, on behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, to honor Marien Casillas Pabellon for her commitment to worker rights, including the rights of immigrant workers, and a reminder that worker solidarity will, in fact, protect us from fascist attacks.
I thank Marien for embodying the values of community, compassion, and service. It is my honor to commend her and to permanently enter her name into the Congressional Record.
Remembering William L. Megathlin
Pages H6086–H6087 · Official text(Mr. Carter of Georgia was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Bill Megathlin, a respected educator and college administrator, who passed away on September 7, 2026, at the age of 83.
Bill dedicated his life to education, public service, and strengthening the communities he called home.
During his distinguished career at Armstrong State College in Savannah, Bill served as a professor, a department chairman, and dean, helping guide the institution through a period of tremendous growth. His leadership was instrumental in expanding academic opportunities, strengthening enrollment, and securing support for new campus facilities.
Beyond the classroom, Bill was a dedicated advocate for the preservation of Ossabaw Island and spent 40 years teaching Sunday school at Isle of Hope Methodist Church. Above all, Bill was a devoted husband to his wife of 58 years, Carol, and a loving father to their son, William Jr.
My prayers are with Carol, William Jr., and the entire Megathlin family as they mourn the passing and celebrate a life dedicated to serving others. May Bill's legacy live on through the countless students, colleagues, and communities whose lives he touched.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize downtown Brunswick, Georgia, on being named the Downtown of the Year by the Georgia Downtown Association.
This grand achievement was presented at the GDA annual conference in Rome. The award celebrates communities that demonstrate outstanding achievement in planning, historic preservation, economic development, placemaking, organization, and community engagement.
Over the past two decades, downtown Brunswick has transformed into one of Georgia's premier downtown destinations by restoring historic buildings, opening thriving businesses, and welcoming more than 1.3 million visitors annually.
Brunswick exemplifies the very best of downtown revitalization, having created a downtown atmosphere that is economically resilient, culturally vibrant, and has been positioned for future success. Its achievements serve as an inspiration for communities across Georgia.
It is a great honor to represent the city of Brunswick, Georgia, and I could not be more proud of the economic growth we have had in this part of the district.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Leopold's Ice Cream and congratulate them on their 107th birthday.
Leopold's Ice Cream was founded in Savannah, Georgia, in 1919 by three Greek immigrant brothers.
The famous local ice cream spot threw quite the birthday party, consisting of $2 ice cream scoops, live music, face painting, and a special presentation of a restored World War I 48-star American flag belonging to the owner Stratton Leopold's family.
Whether it is a hot August day or a cold February evening, you can always expect Leopold's to have the longest line in town. The incredible ice cream is not only favorites to its residents but a must-have to the millions of tourists who visit the city every year.
As part of a longstanding tradition, children 12 and under who recite the Pledge of Allegiance receive a free child's scoop of ice cream.
We thank Leopold's for always having the best ice cream around, especially on the hot summer days when we need it the most.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tricia Pridemore, who resigned on September 4 from the Public Service Commission.
Pridemore was appointed to the commission in February 2018 to fulfill the remainder of Commissioner Stan Wise's term. She then won an election later that year to serve a 6-year term.
Tricia opted not to run for reelection, as she launched a run for U.S. Congress out of the 11th District. On the commission, she represented District 5, which covers a large portion of west Georgia, from the Tennessee border down to LaGrange and Thomaston.
Pridemore has expressed how much of an honor it has been to serve Georgia in her position. I thank Tricia for her service to the great State of Georgia, and we wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Hinson Mosley, who passed away on September 1, 2026.
The Jeff Davis native was the youngest of five children born to Nan Lou Mosley and Robert Mosley. Mr. Mosley was married to his wife, Linda Lawson Mosley, for 51 years and leaves behind a large family of siblings, children, and grandchildren that will continue to honor his legacy.
In his early life, he worked 3 years with Atlantic Coast Railroad, and then he served 4 years in the United States Air Force during the Korean conflict. Upon returning from the military, he went to work with Rayonier, where he worked for 37 years and retired in 1994.
Mr. Mosley was an active member of Odum Baptist Church and a devout member of his church.
In 1992, he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives and served for 14 years on several committees, but primarily the Appropriations Committee, where he chaired the Game, Fish, and Parks Committee and the Transportation Committee, where he was vice chairman. I had the honor and privilege of serving with Mr. Mosley. He was a fine representative.
In referring to Mr. Mosley's time in State government, a friend once called him, truly, the people's representative.
Honoring Lives of Three Dedicated Law Enforcement Officers
Page H6087 · Official text(Mr. Baumgartner of Washington was recognized to address the House for 5 minutes.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the lives and legacies of three heroes of public service from eastern Washington who made our community better and safer, three tremendous heroes who we have lost: Spokane County Deputy Mason Acheson, Spokane County Deputy Parker Perry, and Whitman County Sheriff Brett Myers.
On November 3, Deputies Acheson and Perry lost their lives after responding to a domestic violence call in Spangle, Washington. Both men put themselves in harm's way to protect others, making the ultimate sacrifice in service to our community.
I had the privilege of knowing Mason personally. We lifted weights together at our local CrossFit gym. He was wonderful. His wife is also wonderful and was even my children's first piano teacher. This loss hits especially close to home. Similarly, Deputy Parker Perry was known as a wonderful individual.
We also remember Sheriff Brett Myers, who passed away on October 7 at just 56 years old, following a battle with a rare neurological disease. After 24 years as Whitman County Sheriff, Brett leaves behind an extraordinary legacy of leadership, integrity, and service. My own parents knew Brett as a friend, as did many families across our region.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to join me in extending our deepest condolences, love, and prayers to the families of these three men in the Spokane and Whitman County Sheriff's offices. It has been a very, very tough time for law enforcement in our area.
I ask everyone in eastern Washington to please reach out to all law enforcement and let them know how appreciated they are. These men's colleagues and brothers do not get the opportunity to stand down from a line of protection to grieve as they should be able to, and the least that all of us can do is to reach out and make sure they know they are appreciated.
Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life, service, and legacy of Deer Park Mayor Tim Verzal, a beloved public servant and community leader who passed away peacefully in mid-September at the age of 73 following a battle with pancreatic cancer.
Tim's journey in public service was built on a foundation of hard work, dedication, and a deep love for his community. After a successful career in local construction, where he developed an extensive, practical knowledge of roads, water, and sewer systems, he channeled his skills into local government. He served 4 years on the Deer Park City Council before being elected mayor in 2017, earning the trust of his community and going on to win reelection twice more.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in sending our deepest condolences to Mayor Verzal's family and the entire community of Deer Park. May we honor his years of selfless dedication, hold his legacy close, and remember the incredible impact he made on eastern Washington.
Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate former Spokane County Commissioner Mary Brooks on her recent retirement and to honor her 9 years of exceptional service on the Board of Commissioners.
Since joining the board in 2017, Mary has been a steadfast champion for the people of Spokane County. Serving as chair of the board for 5 consecutive years and as president of the Washington State Association of Counties, she led with courage, vision, and, most of all, a collaborative spirit, particularly during the very, very difficult times of COVID.
During her tenure, Mary prioritized fiscal responsibility while delivering critical investments in public safety, local infrastructure, vibrant parks, and nationally recognized health programs.
Mary's leadership has left an indelible mark on Spokane County, leaving behind safer streets, stronger families, and a higher quality of life for her residents and beyond.
I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Mary for her nearly decade of exemplary leadership. As she prepares for her next chapter, Spokane County is undeniably stronger for her service. On behalf of the United States Congress, I congratulate Mary and wish her nothing but the best.
Recess
Page H6087 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess until 2 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess.
After Recess
Page H6087 · Official textThe recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker at 2 p.m.
Prayer
Pages H6087–H6088 · Official textThe Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Receive us, O Most Holy God, into Your presence. Embrace us in Your welcome as we return to You. Having endured challenges that have tested our spirits, some of us enjoying victories and others enduring disheartening defeats, we turn to You that You would lay Your hand on our lives. May we emerge from the fire of trial as refined silver. May we yield ourselves to the demands before us that we would be tested as gold is tested. May each of us call upon Your name and may we listen for Your Word. Remind us that the opinions of our dissenters and the accolades of our supporters are only noise. Answer us clearly with Your voice, that we would understand above all else that You have called us to be Your people in this place. And may we, in response, before any word we speak or task we undertake, acknowledge that You, O Lord, are our God. Into Your care we commend the work that lies before us. And in the power of Your name, we entrust our hopes and our prayers for these days. Amen.
The Journal
Page H6088 · 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 H6088 · Official textThe SPEAKER
Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. TAYLOR 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 H6088 · Official textThe SPEAKER
The Chair would now entertain requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
Notice of Intention to Offer Motion to Discharge Committee on Rules from Further Consideration of H. Res. 1247
Page H6088 · Official textNOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER MOTION TO DISCHARGE COMMITTEE ON RULES FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1247
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, I rise to provide notice of my intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of H. Res. 1247.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor)
Did the gentleman sign the petition?
I did, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, a motion to discharge is privileged only at a time designated by the Speaker within 2 legislative days after the intent to offer such motion is offered.
The Chair will entertain the gentleman's motion at that time.
Notice of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising a Question of the Privileges of the House
Pages H6088–H6096 · Official textNOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:
Impeaching Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, that Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, also referred to as "Secretary of War" by the administration, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I: Waging War in Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 2(c): The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that:
The Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution--Article I, Section 8, Clause 11--vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the military, administrative, and clemency clause of the United States Constitution--Article II, Section 2, Clause 1--establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress.
In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.
Peter Brian Hegseth, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense, has executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code.
Section 2(c) provides that "the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to one, a declaration of war; two, specific statutory authorization; or three, a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution further expressly provides that nothing contained therein shall be construed as granting any authority to the President or to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities which the President would not otherwise possess in the absence of the resolution.
Accordingly, the reporting and termination procedures subsequently established by the resolution do not themselves constitute affirmative statutory authorization to commence hostilities. Rather, the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities must rest upon one of the authorities or circumstances identified in section 2(c) in order for a conflict to be considered lawful.
With respect to the United States Armed Forces being introduced into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026, Secretary Hegseth directed and caused United States Armed Forces to be introduced into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that: Congress had not declared war against the Islamic Republic of Iran; Congress had not enacted any specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran; and no national emergency had been created by an attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.
Furthermore, no imminent attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces existed, as affirmed in the March 17, 2026, resignation letter of Joe Kent, then-Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in which he stated: "I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our Nation."
The introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran, therefore, satisfied none of the circumstances expressly identified in section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution and was undertaken, from its inception, without congressional authorization or independent Article II authority, thereby rendering both the initial introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities, and all subsequent actions taken thereafter, unlawful.
Secretary Hegseth, nevertheless, knowingly executed and implemented the order to commence such hostilities, employing the powers, personnel, weapons, and resources of the Department of Defense to initiate military action against another sovereign nation in violation of section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code.
Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means:
Executing an unlawful order to commence hostilities, despite the absence of a declaration of war; specific statutory authorization; or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces; and
Continuing to employ the personnel and resources of the Department of Defense in those hostilities after their unlawful initiation and in the continued absence of any subsequent declaration of war or specific statutory authorization by Congress.
Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and implemented unlawful orders to initiate war against a foreign nation, notwithstanding the absence of congressional authorization, an attack upon the United States giving rise to the national emergency contemplated by law, or an imminent threat requiring immediate defensive action, thereby substituting unlawful executive action for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress.
In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America.
Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the law. Peter Brian Hegseth, thus, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Article II, waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 5(c). The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that:
The Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the Military, Administrative, and Clemency Clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress.
In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93th Congress of the United States of America enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.
Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders and continues to do so in contravention of section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1544(c) of title 50, United States Code.
Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that, at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions, and territories, without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
With respect to the United States Armed Forces being engaged in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, pursuant to section 5(c), the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed, by the yeas and nays, to a concurrent resolution directing the President to remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran, H. Con. Res. 86 of the 119th Congress. The House agreed to this concurrent resolution on June 3, 2026, and the Senate agreed to it on June 23, 2026, marking the first successful passage of such a legislative vehicle by both Chambers of Congress in the history of the United States of America.
In response, and without lawful cause or excuse, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct United States Armed Forces into hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran on June 26, 2026, and continues to do so in violation of section 1544(c) of title 50, United States Code.
Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his office through the following means:
Directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after both Chambers of Congress agreed to H. Con. Res.
86, thereby disregarding Congress' express and lawful direction that the United States Armed Forces be removed from such hostilities; and
Failing and refusing to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to withdraw United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Iran; and
Directing the Department of Defense to ignore the duly agreed concurrent resolution, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying Congress' exercise of its war powers.
Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that treated the executive branch as possessing authority to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, and whether Congress' direction to terminate hostilities must be obeyed.
By implementing those orders, he effectuated, in practice, the unilateral continuation of military operations against Iran, despite Congress' exclusive constitutional authority to declare war and despite Congress' formal action directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities.
This abuse of office frustrated Congress' ability to exercise its most solemn constitutional responsibility, enabled the continuation of an unlawful war, and ignored and, thus, nullified the fundamental safeguard designed to prevent United States Armed Forces from being used at the will of the executive alone.
In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth, thus, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Article III, waging war in contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 5(b): The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that the Declare War Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, vests in Congress the exclusive initiatory powers of war, while the Military, Administrative, and Clemency Clause of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and vests in him operational control over wars lawfully authorized by Congress.
In an effort to statutorily delineate the circumstances under which the President may introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities absent congressional authorization, the 93rd Congress of the United States enacted into law H.J. Res. 542, the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Public Law 93-148, by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon.
Secretary Hegseth carried out unlawful orders, and continues to do so, in contravention of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1544(b) of title 50, United States Code.
Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides that, within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted or required to be submitted to Congress by the President of the United States upon the Executive introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, whichever is earlier, the Executive shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces unless Congress has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of the United States Armed Forces, has extended by law such 60-day period, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.
Section 5(b) further provides that, absent a formal congressional declaration of war, specific statutory Authorization for the Use of Military Force or an extension of the 60-day period enacted into law during that period, "such 60-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional 30 days if the President determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such Armed Forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces."
With respect to the United States Armed Forces being entered into hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and indicating reliance on and fealty to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 as legal justification for entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities with Iran without the initiatory authority of Congress, President Donald J. Trump transmitted on March 2, 2026, a letter informing Congress of action taken consistent with the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1543(a)(3); Public Law 93-148, section 4(a); 87 statute 555 and 50 U.S.C. 1543(b); Public Law 93-148, section 4(b); 87 statute 555, concerning hostilities that had commenced in Iran on February 28, 2026.
In the 60-day period following said transmission, Congress did not enact, and still has not enacted, any declaration or specific statutory authorization for the use of the United States Armed Forces in hostilities against Iran or extended the applicable 60-day period by law, despite remaining physically capable of meeting and carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.
Moreover, President Donald J. Trump did not submit the written certification required to invoke the additional 30-day withdrawal period by May 1, 2026. Even assuming the President had validly invoked that separate and limited 30-day extension, it would likewise have expired on June 1, 2026.
Without lawful cause or excuse, and despite the Executive's initial observance of the reporting requirements under section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution, section 1543(a)(3) of title 50 United States Code through the President's transmission to Congress of a letter acknowledging the commencement of the statutory timeline, Secretary Hegseth continued to direct, authorize, and sustain the use of United States Armed Forces in hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran after the expiration of every potential applicable statutory period. Secretary Hegseth continued such hostilities after the 60-day period expired on May 1, 2026, and after June 1, 2026, the date on which even the maximum possible additional 30-day withdrawal period would have expired despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization or extension enacted by Congress.
Secretary Hegseth further contravened the limited purpose of any such additional 30-day withdrawal period by directing the United States Armed Forces to continue engaging in hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner calculated not to terminate the unauthorized use of such forces and bring about their prompt removal but, rather, to continue prosecuting the war to pursue additional military objectives not authorized by Congress and has therefore directed the Department of Defense in violation of section 1544(b) of title 50, United States Code.
Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of his high office through the following means:
Directing, authorizing, and sustaining hostile United States military actions in Iran after the expiration of the 60-day period established under section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, despite the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or an extension enacted by Congress.
Continuing to direct and sustain hostilities in Iran in pursuit of additional military objectives during and after the expiration of any potentially applicable additional 30-day period, notwithstanding that such 30-day period could be used only when required by unavoidable military necessity, respecting the safety of the United States Armed Forces in the course of bringing about their prompt removal, as certified as necessary by the President of the United States, a certification never transmitted to Congress by President Donald J. Trump pursuant to section 1544(b) of title 50 United States Code.
And failing to refuse to take all necessary steps within his authority as Secretary of Defense to terminate the unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces and promptly withdraw such forces from hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
And directing the Department of Defense to treat the mandatory termination requirement as discretionary, thereby substituting the judgment of the executive branch for the Constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress and nullifying the express command that the unauthorized use of United States Armed Forces shall be terminated.
Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly executed and sustained unlawful orders that in practice displaced the constitutional and statutory judgment of Congress by permitting the executive branch to determine when war may be commenced, how long it may be sustained, and whether statutory deadlines governing unauthorized hostilities must be obeyed and whether a war may continue after the expiration of every period permitted by law.
In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of Constitutional Government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law, Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Article IV: ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties.
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct as Secretary of Defense and in violation of his Constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of Defense and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his Constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the death or injury of more than 200 civilians at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Hormozgan Province, Iran.
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that affected the systemic deterioration and removal of Department of Defense infrastructure that Congress has mandated by law to limit collateral damage to civilians and nonmilitary objects during military operations.
While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also cultivated a warmaking culture at the Department of Defense which he boasts as being dismissive of "stupid rules of engagement," with preference for "maximum lethality, not tepid legality."
Such combination chilled and rendered ineffective components of the Department of Defense responsible for preventing, mitigating, and responding to civilian harm.
By directing the Department of Defense in a manner that foreseeably dismantled the safeguards necessary to distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, Secretary Hegseth thereby effectuated the murder of civilians and abused the trust of the men and women under his command by requiring them to conduct military operations within a targeting and legal-review system that he had deliberately degraded. This undermined the integrity and diplomacy of the United States and its Armed Forces. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.
Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:
Secretary Hegseth willfully disregarded and acted to defeat the requirements of section 184 of title 10 United States Code by systematically dismantling civilian-protection infrastructure in that:
Secretary Hegseth submitted a legislative proposal to Congress on May 29, 2025, requesting a repeal of section 184 of title 10 United States Code, the statutory requirement for civilian-protection systems at the Department of Defense, even as Congress had fully funded such systems for fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026. After Congress did not enact the requested repeal, Army officials nevertheless confirmed that such civilian harm mitigation activities had been halted.
Secretary Hegseth intentionally stalled and reversed implementation of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, CHMR-AP, and rendered ineffective the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, CP CoE, despite it being congressionally mandated by section 1082 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 117-263, and section 936 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 115-232.
Secretary Hegseth eliminated funding for the Army's casualty tracking database--the institutional system for recording and verifying civilian harm reports--so that should civilians be harmed as a result of the United States military action, there would be no functioning system within the Department of Defense to review, verify, and report on such harm.
Secretary Hegseth willfully refused to ensure that DOD components receive adequate resources to satisfy CHMR requirements, including by removing more than 90 percent of civilian harm mitigation and response staff assigned to combatant commands.
Secretary Hegseth failed by the end of fiscal year 2025 to satisfy any of the 11 objectives or complete 133 actions mandated by Congress for the prevention and mitigation of civilian harm during armed conflict, thereby rendering every such component of the Department of Defense's civilian harm prevention apparatus partially or totally ineffective by the time the United States military combat operations against Iran began in early 2026.
Secretary Hegseth removed, without reason or cause, the senior-most judge advocate generals of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, thereby undermining independent legal oversight of combat operations and legal advice to commanders on the law of armed conflict.
Secretary Hegseth promulgated the 2026 National Defense Strategy with all references to civilian protection omitted, marking a deliberate and unprecedented departure from prior defense policy that had recognized, in accordance with law, civilian harm mitigation as a strategic priority.
Secretary Hegseth, from the outset of his tenure, instigated a Department culture hostile to the law of armed conflict and the protection of civilians through his public and repeated denigration of rules of engagement as "stupid," "politically incorrect," and "overbearing" in that:
On September 30, 2025, while addressing the largest assembled gathering of United States generals and admirals in American history, Secretary Hegseth boasted that we, the United States military, "don't fight with stupid rules of engagement."
Upon unlawfully renaming the Department of Defense, the Department of War on September 5, 2025, he poetically proclaimed: "Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct."
During his confirmation hearing, on January 14, 2025, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he had "thought very deeply about the balance between legality and lethality, ensuring that the men and women on the front lines have the opportunity to destroy with and close the enemy and that lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way."
Secretary Hegseth undermined effective journalistic oversight by expelling the traditional Pentagon press corps and imposing credentialing rules that restricted journalists from soliciting or publishing unapproved materials, thereby weakening independent reporting on civilian harm and on matters affecting the welfare and safety of the United States servicemembers by journalists most familiar with the Department of Defense.
These actions were not isolated, administrative, or rhetorical choices. Taken together, they degraded the personnel, institutional systems, independent legal review, and civilian protection safeguards upon which the Department of Defense relies to verify the current status of proposed targets, distinguish civilian objects from military objectives, reassess targets as circumstances change, and prevent or mitigate civilian harm.
The foreseeable consequences of Secretary Hegseth's scheme manifested in the United States strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School which killed and injured more than 200 civilians and exposed systemic failures in the Department of Defense targeting process. The events of that strike and the reported events leading to it are as follows:
On the morning of February 28, 2026, at approximately 9:45 a.m. local time, the United States, in partnership with Israel, launched Operation Epic Fury commencing the 2026 Iran war. Within the first hour of the U.S.-Israeli offensive into southern Iran, three BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from United States Navy warships impacted the elementary school between 10:23 and 10:45 a.m. local time.
Because the war was commenced midmorning on a Saturday, the first day of the Iranian workweek, students were in attendance at the school. Despite an attempted evacuation of the school, at the time of the first cruise missile's impact, between 170 and 264 students were present in the facility, most of whom were girls between the ages of 7 and 12.
Whereas it is unclear how many casualties were inflicted by the first impact, which caused a partial destruction of the structure and the collapse of its roof, it is reported that students were then sheltered in a prayer room deeper in the facility waiting for rescuers, when a second and a third missile in rapid succession, impacted the building.
Reported death tolls from the strikes on the elementary school indicate that at least 156 civilians were killed, with some reports suggesting the civilian death toll surpassed 170. Those killed include at least 120 schoolchildren, 26 teachers, and 7 parents attempting to evacuate their children, a schoolbus driver, a pharmacy technician from a nearby clinic, and the 6-month-old unborn child of one of the teachers also killed in the attack. An estimated 95 other individuals were wounded.
Under United States military doctrine and the law of armed conflict, which Secretary Hegseth is obligated to uphold, the lawfulness of an attack does not depend solely upon whether civilians were deliberately selected for the purpose of harming them. The obligations of distinction, target verification, and feasible precaution require military decisionmakers to determine, in good faith, that an object is a lawful military objective on the basis of information reasonably available at the time. A failure to undertake the verification and review required by those obligations may render an attack unlawful, a failure directly caused by Secretary Hegseth's dismantling of key infrastructure designed to prevent such errors. With respect to the strike on the elementary school, those institutional failures manifested in systemic noncompliance with Department of Defense targeting and doctrine and legal guidance.
The strike on the elementary school was not an isolated targeting failure divorced from the conduct of the Secretary of Defense, nor can Secretary Hegseth's conduct be dismissed as a single targeting error or an isolated failure in the fog of war.
The elementary school was struck after Secretary Hegseth sought to repeal congressionally mandated civilian-protection requirements, dismantled the Department's civilian-harm mitigation infrastructure, removed the senior-most judge advocate generals responsible for independent legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the National Defense Strategy, and publicly denigrated legal restraints on military force as obstacles to maximum lethality. He thereby weakened nearly every institutional safeguard designed to minimize civilian casualties inflicted by the United States military and then presided over a targeting process in which a functioning elementary school was struck three times, killing and wounding more than 200 civilians, mostly children.
Such conduct reflects not merely a failure of judgment but an extraordinary abuse of the powers entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and a profound disregard for the civilians his Department was obligated to protect and the servicemembers he was entrusted to lead.
In all of this, Secretary Hegseth willfully and systemically refused to comply with laws and directives mandated for the protection of civilians during the commission of armed conflict, chilled and rendered ineffective such components to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians, and, therefore, foreseeably effected the death and injury of over 200 civilians, to the manifest injury of the United States.
Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of the United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States Armed Forces, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law.
Peter Brian Hegseth, thus, warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold an enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Article V, Extrajudicial Killings: The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct as Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--especially with regard to the commission of war--has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that:
Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner that resulted in the extrajudicial killings of at least 243 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that chilled independent legal review within the Department of Defense; constructed a purported legal basis for the use of military force without constitutional or statutory authorization; and displaced longstanding precedent and codified maritime law enforcement practices that are jurisdictionally assigned to the Coast Guard and law enforcement agencies by substituting in such place the use of summary lethal force by Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps elements. While doing so, Secretary Hegseth also oversaw orders denying quarter and failing to provide rescue, including secondary strikes against shipwrecked survivors who were hors de combat, and the abandonment of shipwrecked survivors at sea, thereby endangering members of our own Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject American servicemembers to the same treatment.
By subjecting persons merely suspected of criminal conduct to lethal military force without judicial process, without congressional authorization, and without establishing a lawful basis for treating such persons or vessels as military targets, Secretary Hegseth arrogated to himself and the executive branch the roles of judge, jury, and executioner and asserted a unilateral power to determine who may live and who may die. Such a power is foreign to the rule of law, repugnant to the legal traditions and fundamental values of the United States and the Western world, and contrary to United States law and customary international law. This conduct undermined the integrity and credibility of the United States and its Armed Forces, damaged the diplomatic standing of the United States, and injured the interests of this Nation.
Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:
Secretary Hegseth authorized strikes beginning on September 2, 2025, without authorization from Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, and in the absence of a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization for the use of military force, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, as provided in chapter 33, title 50, United States Code.
Secretary Hegseth ordered and oversaw the strike campaign against seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in international waters, comprising at least 69 separate attack events--46 in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 21 in the Caribbean Sea, and 2 in unspecified locations--which at least struck 73 vessels and killed at least 243 individuals.
In doing so, Secretary Hegseth displaced the statutory framework established by sections 70503 and 70504 of title 46, United States Code, under which Congress expressly treated maritime narcotics offenses, including conduct occurring on the high seas, as Federal crimes subject to apprehension, prosecution, and trial in an appropriate United States district court and, instead, treated such offenses as predicates for lethal military targeting.
Secretary Hegseth disregarded the statutory restrictions in sections 274 and 275 of title 10, United States Code, governing direct participation by members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in civilian law enforcement activities, including Federal narcotics enforcement, by employing lethal military force against persons suspected of drug trafficking absent any congressionally enacted authorization for the use of military force or other statutory authorize for such direct military action.
Secretary Hegseth disregarded the maritime law enforcement framework established by sections 102 and 522 of title 14, United States Code, as well as section 279 of title 10, United States Code, under which only the Coast Guard is authorized to conduct interdiction, search, seizure, and arrest, and he did so by directing members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps to employ lethal military force in place of the law enforcement process.
Secretary Hegseth established targeting guidelines for such strikes on August 5, 2025, by issuing an execute order directing the use of United States military force against persons alleged to be members or affiliates of certain designated terrorist organizations as follows:
Secretary Hegseth established guidelines that:
Used designated terrorist organizations as a targeting category, notwithstanding that term is not a congressionally created designation conferring authority to use military force;
Did not require positive identification of any targeted person, but instead required only reasonable certainty that such person was a member or an affiliate of a designated terrorist organization, a threshold lower than the near certainty standard established for drone strikes on suspected al-Qaida militants during the congressionally authorized global war on terror; and
Did not require the presence of weapons or narcotics on targeted vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in association with the designated terrorist organization.
Secretary Hegseth, in the course of such strikes, oversaw orders resulting in the denial of quarter and the failure to provide timely rescue for shipwrecked survivors of initial strikes, including, on September 2, 2025, during the first strike of the campaign, the United States Navy attacked a seagoing vessel carrying 11 persons between the coast of Venezuela and the nearby Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago. The strike destroyed and capsized the vessel.
Approximately 45 minutes later, while two survivors clung to the wreckage, a secondary strike was ordered, killing both survivors.
In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our Armed Forces in future military engagement by encouraging adversaries to subject our American servicemembers to the same treatment.
On December 30, 2025, United States Southern Command attacked three vessels, approximately 400 nautical miles southwest of Ocos, Guatemala, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three persons and leaving eight others shipwrecked. Although the campaign had been underway for approximately 4 months, no recovery assets had been prepositioned to rescue survivors. Rescue assets did not arrive until approximately 45 hours after the strikes, by which time all eight shipwrecked survivors had died at sea.
In doing so, Secretary Hegseth has endangered members of our own Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging our adversaries to subject our American servicemembers to the same treatment.
Secretary Hegseth took actions to preempt, constrain, and overcome independent legal objections within the Department of Defense concerning the lawfulness of such strikes, including: Secretary Hegseth removed the senior-most judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force without stating a reason or cause, thereby foreseeably chilling the exercise of independent legal judgment by judge advocates tasked with advising military commanders on the lawfulness of combat operations and subsequently stating at a Pentagon press conference on February 25, 2025, that he did not want military lawyers to serve as "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief."
Secretary Hegseth employed an interagency group of lawyers comprising four career officials and four political appointees from the Department of Defense, the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the White House, and the Office of Legal Counsel to develop a classified memorandum purporting to establish a legal basis for such strikes and to address anticipated objections to their execution, falsely asserting the following: that the United States is engaged in noninternational armed conflict with 24 Latin American designated terrorist organizations, thereby attempting to displace the governing law enforcement framework, as established in paragraph 2, and substitute an armed conflict framework for the conduct of military operations against such organizations, despite the absence of congressional authorization for such military action, notwithstanding that, pursuant to Little v. Barreme, 1804, and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 2014, an executive branch legal memorandum cannot enlarge authority conferred by Congress or legalize conduct otherwise unauthorized by statute; that the strikes do not constitute hostilities within the meaning of chapter 33 of title 50, United States Code, because they do not place United States personnel in danger, presumptively on the basis that such vessels are incapable of self-defense, a predicate that would likewise mean that any military action conducted by drone, or any airstrike against a target lacking air defense capabilities, could also not constitute hostilities; that the designated terrorist organizations are engaged in armed violence against the security forces of allied nations, including Mexico, and such violence is financed through cocaine trafficking, such that the strikes may be characterized as attacks against cocaine shipments and the deaths of persons aboard targeted vessels as collateral damage, a rationale inconsistent with the execute order targeting guidelines described in paragraph 3, which did not require narcotics to be present aboard a targeted vessel and instead authorized targeting based on alleged designated terrorist organization membership or affiliation.
Secretary Hegseth abused the authority and trust vested in him as Secretary of Defense not only by directing the unlawful use of lethal military force resulting in the summary execution of at least 243 persons in international waters but also by using his office to compel members of the Armed Forces to carry out such operations under false legal authorities that he caused to be constructed and imposed upon the chain of command.
In denying quarter and refusing rescue, Secretary Hegseth endangered members of our United States Armed Forces in future military engagements by encouraging adversaries to subject our American servicemembers to such treatment.
Secretary Hegseth further endangered United States law enforcement personnel by substituting lethal military targeting for the established maritime law enforcement practices of interdiction, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution.
By demonstrating that vessels merely suspected of narcotics trafficking may be destroyed and their occupants killed, rather than interdicted and arrested, Secretary Hegseth foreseeably increased the likelihood that persons aboard such vessels will perceive future encounters with United States authorities as threats to their lives and respond with lethal force rather than surrender.
In this manner, his conduct not only endangered the persons unlawfully targeted by the strike campaign but also made lawful enforcement of the United States narcotics laws at seas more dangerous for the Coast Guard and other Federal personnel charged with carrying them out.
In all of this, Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America.
Wherefore, Secretary Hegseth, by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of the United States diplomacy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Article VI: Suppressing free speech: The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to faithfully discharge the duties of his office, abused the powers entrusted to him by retaliating against a Member of Congress for constitutionally protected speech and attempting to subject a Member of a coordinate branch of government to executive branch punishment for the exercise of his legislative and oversight responsibilities, in that: On November 18, 2025, Senator Mark Kelly, a retired United States Navy captain, a National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronaut, who flew 39 combat missions during the first Gulf War, and who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared in his official capacity as a Senator in a video addressed to members of the United States Armed Forces stating: "Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders."
Despite such a statement being consistent with decisions in United States v. Keenan, 1969, and United States v. Calley, 1973, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to retaliate against Mark Kelly for such a statement. Secretary Hegseth did so despite the fact that Senator Kelly is a sitting United States Senator who cannot fulfill his role in representative government if he fears executive branch reprisals for expressing his views.
As the Supreme Court held in Bond v. Floyd, 1966, "representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy."
Members of Congress, moreover, enjoy Speech or Debate immunity under Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the United States Constitution, and Senator Kelly, as a retired servicemember, is entitled to the full breadth of First Amendment protection.
Using the powers of his office, Secretary Hegseth retaliated against, and sought to intimidate United States Senator Mark Kelly for his statement through a scheme or course of conduct intended to interfere with Congress' constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch, grossly expand Article II powers at the expense of both the legislative and judicial branches of government, and establish a precedent that would chill the protected speech of millions of retired United States servicemembers and inflict irreparable harm on their First Amendment freedoms.
Secretary Hegseth engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:
On November 24, 2025, the Department of Defense, through a social media post on X, threatened that Senator Mark Kelly could be recalled to Active Duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures for his statement.
On November 25, 2025, Secretary Hegseth directed the Secretary of the Navy to review Senator Kelly.
On January 5, 2026, Secretary Hegseth issued a Secretarial Letter of Censure against Senator Kelly for: A, saying, you can refuse illegal orders; B, saying he would "always defend the Constitution"; C, questioning the legality of military operations as a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees; D, criticizing military leadership, Hegseth, for surrounding themselves, himself, with "yes men"; and, E, allegedly accusing Secretary Hegseth of war crimes.
In the letter of censure, Secretary Hegseth also threatened Senator Kelly with criminal prosecution or further administrative action, including the reduction of Senator Kelly's retired military grade should the Senator continue to question the legality of military operations or criticize Secretary Hegseth.
In response to a January 12, 2026, complaint filed by Senator Mark Kelly against Secretary Hegseth for retaliating against and intimidating the Senator for his First Amendment protected speech, Secretary Hegseth filed a memorandum of opposition to Senator Kelly's motion for a preliminary injunction, egregiously asserting that: A, Senator Kelly, as a retired Naval officer, has diminished First Amendment protections; B, Department of Defense actions against Senator Kelly's constitutional rights due to his statements relating to military affairs, and his being a retired Naval officer, constitute nonjusticiable military personnel decisions; C, Secretary Hegseth's opinions supersede the court's jurisdiction to determine whether the government could censure, threaten, and financially punish Senator Kelly because of his speech; and, D, Senator Kelly is required to exhaust military administrative remedies before seeking relief in an Article III court, thereby seeking to place the adjudication of Senator Kelly's constitutional rights within military processes controlled by the executive branch.
Thus, in addition to abusing the powers of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for politically motivated reprisal against Senator Kelly for the Senator's criticism of conduct implicating potential war crimes, Secretary Hegseth grossly violated or sought to violate the separation of powers by attempting to subordinate both the legislative and judicial branches in matters concerning constitutional rights, to the authority of the Department of Defense. In the same effort, Secretary Hegseth sought, without precedent, to extend to retired servicemembers the diminished First Amendment protections applicable to Active Duty servicemembers under Parker v. Levy, 1974, including retired servicemembers serving in Congress and exercising constitutional oversight over the military.
He further asserted, in substance, that the military, rather than Article III courts, possesses supremacy to determine the constitutional rights of civilians and to adjudicate whether its own actions conform to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, at a minimum with respect to the speech of retired servicemembers, despite such position being in flagrant conflict with Marbury v. Madison, 1803, which holds that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, not the military.
The result of such effort, had Secretary Hegseth been successful, would have subjected the speech and congressional oversight activities of nearly 20 percent of the current Congress, and whatever proportion of future Congresses may consist of retired servicemembers, as well as the speech of millions of other retired servicemembers, to the will and discretion of the Department of Defense, without any immediate avenue of recourse outside the Department to vindicate their constitutional rights. Such a result would constitute one of the most extraordinary expansions of executive branch power in the history of the United States.
In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense by retaliating against and attempting to intimidate a sitting United States Senator through threats of punishment for speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in an effort to deter that Senator from fulfilling his constitutional role in overseeing the executive branch.
In doing so, Secretary Hegseth weaponized the Department of Defense to chill a core function of the legislative branch, encroach upon the constitutional role of the judicial branch by seeking to insulate such retaliation from meaningful judicial review, and, through the precedent he sought to establish, placed the First Amendment rights of millions of United States veterans at risk of irreparable harm.
Wherefore, Secretary of Defense, Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and the separation of powers if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties, the rule of law, and the constitutional liberties entrusted to his protection.
Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Article VII: Kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader: The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of Secretary of Defense and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially during the commission of war, Peter Brian Hegseth has abused the powers of the Department of Defense, in that:
Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense to carry out an unprecedented military operation--code-named Absolute Resolve--to capture and kidnap President Nicolas Maduro, the leader of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuela, an act of war against a sovereign country executed under the guise of narcotics law enforcement, though in actuality intended to assert U.S. control over Venezuela's oil reserves. In doing so, he gambled the lives of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel in order to facilitate the illegal taking of national oil.
To wit, immediately following such attack, Secretary Hegseth appeared alongside President Donald J. Trump, during which the President announced, in reference to Venezuela, we are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition. So we don't want to be involved with having somebody else get in, and we have the same situation that we had. We are going to run it essentially, and "we are going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in . . . and start making money. . . .
and we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so." Thus, revealing the motives behind the forcible removal of President Maduro, which extended far beyond the narcotics law enforcement rationale on which the operation was falsely predicated.
On January 3, 2026, Secretary Hegseth directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities in and around Caracas, Venezuela, employing more than 200 United States Special Operations personnel on the ground and more than 150 aircraft and drones including fighter aircraft, bombers, armed helicopters, and electronic warfare aircraft, supported by substantial naval force that included the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group and the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, which together, penetrated Venezuelan territory, suppressed and destroyed Venezuelan air defenses, struck multiple targets in the Caracas area, inserted an armed ground force into Caracas to seize Maduro, successfully kidnapped Maduro, killed at least 83 people, including several civilians, and caused 7 American casualties.
In doing so, Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders effecting the removal of the President of a sovereign nation, placed boots on the ground, conducted preparatory bombardments, inflicted substantial casualties, and subsequently caused regime change, each of which constitutes acts of war.
Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders, violating Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, of the United States Constitution, by ordering United States Armed Forces to commit an act of war against Venezuela without a declaration of war by Congress against such a nation, and by making rules concerning captures on land, a power specifically vested in Congress, where Congress made no rules authorizing or otherwise applicable to such operation.
Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code, by entering United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Venezuela on January 3, 2026, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.
Through these actions, Secretary Hegseth knowingly directed United States Armed Forces into hostilities against a sovereign foreign nation without clear constitutional or specific statutory authority, employing military force of a nature and magnitude rising to the level of constitutional war. In doing so, Secretary Hegseth usurped Congress' constitutional authority over war and transformed the Department of Defense into an instrument for objectives extending far beyond the apprehension of Nicolas Maduro for purposes of narcotics law enforcement, including regime change and the acquisition of foreign oil.
In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers of the Department of Defense, violated the laws and treaty obligations of the United States, and subordinated the constitutional allocation of war powers to executive objectives neither authorized nor approved by Congress.
Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution and to the well-being of the United States military personnel if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Article VIII: Unlawful war in Yemen. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that civil officers of the United States, including the Secretary of Defense, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In his conduct while Secretary of Defense, Peter Brian Hegseth, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, especially with regard to the commission of war, has abused the powers of the Department of Defense in that:
Using the powers of his office, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth directed the Department of Defense in a manner leading to the deaths of an estimated 224 civilians, as well as approximately 500 to 600 Houthi fighters, through the initiation and direction of Operation Rough Rider. The operation comprised more than 1,100 strikes against targets in Yemen over approximately 52 days. In less than 8 weeks, there were nearly as many civilian deaths in Yemen as the United States' military actions had caused in that country during the preceding 23 years. Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed these hostilities in the absence of any of the predicates required in section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for the President to introduce United States military Armed Forces into hostilities. Moreover, Secretary Hegseth acknowledged the absence of any imminent threat to the United States, further undermining any assertion of Article II authority to initiate such hostilities without congressional authorization.
Secretary Hegseth initiated and directed Operation Rough Rider without congressional approval pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution or statutory authorization in that:
Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1541(c) of title 50, United States Code, by entering and sustaining United States Navy and Air Force personnel into hostilities in Yemen between March 15 and May 6, 2025, without a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.
Secretary Hegseth executed unlawful orders in contravention of section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, section 1543(a) of title 50, United States Code, by continuing to direct the United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen after March 17, 2025, despite the President of the United States having failed to notify Congress of such hostilities within 48 hours of their commencement, as required by section 4(a), and notwithstanding that the President did not transmit such report to Congress until March 28, 2025, thereby further undermining any possible Article II authority for the continued hostilities, especially during such 13-day period.
Outside of the requirements to engage in hostilities pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Secretary Hegseth directed Operation Rough Rider in the absence of any imminent threat requiring military action without prior congressional authorization, as evidenced by a leaked Signal chat involving Secretary Hegseth concerning the potential execution of Operation Rough Rider, in which several senior United States Government officials, including Secretary Hegseth, each possessing unfettered access to military and intelligence information, advised that there was no immediate need to enter United States Armed Forces into hostilities in Yemen, thereby asserting there was no imminent threat to the United States, its possessions or territories, or its Armed Forces, as indicated through the following communications:
Vice President JD Vance stating: "There is a strong argument for delaying a month."
Then-Acting Chief of Staff to the National Security Advisor Joe Kent stating: "There is nothing time sensitive driving this timeline. We'll have the exact same options in a month."
Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe stating: " . . . a delay would not negatively impact us, and additional time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership."
Addressing the timing of Operation Rough Rider, Secretary Hegseth himself stated: "We can easily pause."
Addressing the Vice President's concerns regarding Operation Rough Rider's immediate commencement, Secretary Hegseth stated: "VP: I understand your concerns."
"Two immediate risks of waiting: One, this leaks, and we look indecisive. Two, Israel takes action first--or Gaza cease-fire falls apart--and we don't get to start this on our own terms."
"This is not about the Houthis . . . [reestablishing] deterrence, which Biden cratered."
Thus, Secretary Hegseth knew there was no imminent threat to the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, as had such a threat existed, there would have been no basis for him to state that we can easily pause. Moreover, the only immediate risks identified by Secretary Hegseth concerned media optics and Israeli affairs rather than the direct affairs of the United States of America, the Nation to which his oath is sworn.
In all of this, Secretary Hegseth abused the powers entrusted to him as Secretary of Defense by subordinating the constitutional limits on the use of military force and the laws governing the conduct of hostilities to his own policy objectives, notwithstanding his knowledge that no imminent threat to the United States existed, and demonstrated a profound disregard for civilian life, the rule of law, the constitutional authority of Congress, and his duty to ensure the lawful conduct of the United States Armed Forces.
Wherefore, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to civilians, the lawful conduct of the United States military operations, the integrity and credibility of the United States Armed Forces, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law. Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stutzman)3:20 p.m.
Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from Kentucky will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Page H6096 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time.
Nuclear Refuel (Recycling Efficient Fuels Utilizing Expedited Licensing) Act
Pages H6096–H6097 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3978) to amend the definition of "production facility" in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to exclude an equipment or device capable of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in a manner that does not separate plutonium from other transuranic elements, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (724 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Nuclear REFUEL (Recycling Efficient Fuels Utilizing Expedited Licensing) Act".
SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM DEFINITION OF PRODUCTION FACILITY.
Section 11 v. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(v)) is amended--
(1) by inserting "or reprocessing" after "uranium enrichment"; and
(2) by striking "separating the isotopes of uranium or enriching uranium in the isotope 235" and inserting "(A) separating isotopes of uranium or enriching uranium in the isotope 235; or (B) reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in a manner that does not isolate plutonium".
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3978.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 3978, the Nuclear REFUEL Act, which I introduced with the gentleman from California's 50th Congressional District.
A strong, robust, domestic nuclear fuel cycle is essential for maintaining growing nuclear capacity in this country. The deployment of advanced reactors and the operation of our existing fleet cannot be accomplished without access to an abundant secure fuel supply.
To assist this important goal, H.R. 3978 advances a policy to maximize access to the additional energy available in spent nuclear fuel, which retains up to 90 percent of potential energy for future use.
This legislation does this by clarifying that spent fuel reprocessing facilities would be licensed under the same one-step framework as other fuel cycle facilities rather than the longer two-step process more appropriate for nuclear reactors and facilities that produce special nuclear material for national security purposes.
This bill was thoroughly vetted in the legislative process in the Energy and Commerce Committee and was reported, as amended, by unanimous bipartisan recorded vote.
Allowing for a more efficient and predictable licensing pathway for reprocessing facilities supports the pursuit of this promising technology.
H.R. 3978 maintains nonproliferation protection and all necessary requirements to assure adequate protection of the public. It also creates a more efficient path for extraction of certain important isotopes from spent fuel, which are critical to American space exploration and national security missions.
If our Nation is going to maintain its lead on nuclear technologies, we must make maximum use of our nuclear fuel resources and provide an efficient path to license promising reprocessing technologies.
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 3978, the Nuclear REFUEL Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3978, the Nuclear REFUEL Act, will potentially help us get more energy out of the spent nuclear fuel piled up at reactor sites across the Nation.
The bill makes a simple tweak to the Atomic Energy Act, ensuring that future proposals to develop facilities to recycle or reprocess spent nuclear fuel are licensed similarly to other fuel cycle facilities.
This is not a shortcut for reprocessing facilities. It just puts them on a level playing field with typical uranium enrichment facilities, mirroring an amendment Congress made to the Atomic Energy Act back in 1990. These facilities would still go through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process and would be subject to NRC scrutiny.
I also want to note two important features of this bill. The first is that the changes here do not apply to any facility that would isolate plutonium nor do they apply to export controls on reprocessing technologies.
These important safeguards ensure that our current nonproliferation regime is kept safe and intact. I thank Representative Peters and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Latta for their bipartisan work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I have no additional speakers. This is an important bill, and I would urge support on a bipartisan basis. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I also would request the Members to pass H.R. 3978, as amended, as this is very important for our nuclear technology that we are advancing in this country. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3978, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, 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 motion will be postponed.
Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act
Pages H6097–H6099 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5549) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for more efficient hearings on nuclear facility construction applications, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,225 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act".
SEC. 2. UPDATING HEARING PROCEDURES.
(a) Hearings and Judicial Review.--Section 189 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2239(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking "In any proceeding under this Act" and inserting the following:
"(i) In any proceeding under this Act"; and
(B) in clause (i) (as so designated), by striking "The Commission shall hold a hearing" and all that follows through "upon a determination by the Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration." and inserting the following:
"(ii) The Commission may, in the absence of a request for a hearing by any person whose interest may be affected, issue a construction permit, an operating license, a combined construction permit and operating license, an amendment to a construction permit, an amendment to an operating license, or an amendment to a combined construction permit and operating license under section 103, 104 b., 104 c., or 185 b. for a facility or a testing facility, without a hearing, but upon thirty days notice and publication once in the Federal Register of its intent to do so. The Commission may dispense with such thirty days notice and publication with respect to any application for an amendment to a construction permit, an amendment to an operating license, or an amendment to a combined construction permit and operating license upon a determination by the Commission that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
"(iii) The Commission shall use informal adjudicatory procedures for any hearing held by the Commission pursuant to this subparagraph.";
(2) in paragraph (1)(B)(iv)--
(A) by inserting "informal" before "hearing procedures"; and
(B) by striking ", whether informal or formal adjudicatory,"; and
(3) in the second sentence of paragraph (2)(A), by striking "required hearing" and inserting "hearing held by the Commission under this section".
(b) Construction Permits and Operating Licenses.--Section 185 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2235(b)) is amended by striking "After holding a public hearing under section 189 a. (1)(A)," and inserting "After the thirty days notice and publication period or holding a hearing, as applicable, under section 189 a. (1)(A),".
(c) Licensing of Uranium Enrichment Facilities.--Section 193(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2243(b)) is amended by--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking "on the record"; and
(B) by inserting "if a person whose interest may be affected by such construction and operation has requested a hearing regarding the licensing of the construction and operation of the facility" after "and 63"; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking "Such hearing" and inserting "If a hearing is held under paragraph (1), the hearing".
(d) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to all applications and proceedings pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on or after the date of enactment of this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5549.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)3:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5549, the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Virginia's Ninth Congressional District, the gentlewoman from Washington's Eighth Congressional District, and the gentleman from Texas' 33rd Congressional District.
This bipartisan legislation advanced out of the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously. Since Congress enacted the ADVANCE Act 2 years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, has been hard at work to ensure an efficient, timely, and predictable licensing process.
H.R. 5549 builds on this effort by repealing a 70-year-old provision of the Atomic Energy Act that is no longer necessary. This provision requires the NRC to hold a hearing on licensing applications, regardless of whether a person requests a hearing in the first place. This original requirement forces NRC and its staff to spend time and resources preparing for and conducting uncontested hearings on applications, basically hearings that nobody requests.
The provision made sense when the nuclear industry was in its infancy and the licensing processes were not as transparent as today. Under current practice, there are numerous opportunities to participate in the licensing process and to request hearings.
The NRC staff and commissioners have for over a decade called for elimination of this provision. By removing this requirement for an uncontested hearing, this bill significantly reduces the time and cost to deploy nuclear energy without impacting safety or public engagement.
Importantly, the bill preserves the right of any person whose interest may be affected by a license proceeding to a hearing.
This legislation, in combination with the suite of nuclear bills being considered today, will help enable the efficient and safe deployment of nuclear energy to benefit our society.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5549, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)3:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5549, the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act, would cut down on red tape by eliminating the need for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hold a hearing on an application for a license when no one asked for one, and these so-called mandatory hearings often cost applicants up to $4 million, costs that are often eventually passed on to American families across the Nation in their electric bills.
Mandatory hearings, Mr. Speaker, date back to an era when we had not separated out the safety regulation responsibilities that now belong to the NRC from the policy of promoting nuclear energy that now belongs to the Department of Energy, and the mandatory hearing, was a tool that Congress thought necessary to maintain public confidence and trust in nuclear safety regulations, especially in an era before the Sunshine Act and environmental reviews.
Thankfully, we live in a very different and much more transparent world today, so these mandatory hearings are not hearings in the sense that you might think, Mr. Speaker. Instead, they are purely paper proceedings that take months to complete happening between NRC staff and reactor developers, not the public. No public scrutiny or transparency is lost by getting rid of them. Instead, the NRC and its staff can focus on the issues in an application that really matters.
The NRC recognized this and endorsed the idea 18 years ago. Importantly, this bill does not really touch another type of hearing at the NRC, contested hearings, where someone demands that the NRC investigate a specific component of a license application, and communities retain their rights to demand hearings and community meetings as part of the environmental and safety review processes, and that is completely untouched.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Schrier, the coauthor of this bill and the lead Democrat, for her work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)3:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Ninth Congressional District of Virginia (Mr. Griffith), who is one of the bill's sponsors.
H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)3:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairman Latta, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of this bill, H.R. 5549, the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act.
I am proud to see this bipartisan bill that I introduced along with Congresswoman Schrier and Congressman Veasey make its way to the House floor.
H.R. 5549 would amend the Atomic Energy Act to repeal the requirement for a public nuclear reactor licensing hearing even when no one in the public or an affected party requests a hearing.
Essentially, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is required by law to contest the license in an adversarial, court-like hearing, even if no member of the public has any objections to the license. In most cases, these mandatory hearings for operating licenses only occur because they are required by law, not because they are essential evidence gathering exercises for the NRC. They really are hearings that no one asked for or wants.
Uncontested hearings are rarely necessary these days. Mandatory hearings are relics of the 1950s when the nuclear licensing processes were created and every reactor design was novel or different. These hearings were intended to stress test each reactor design and have technical experts debate the merits of each project.
When the mandatory hearing was adopted in 1957, there were no civil nuclear energy reactors operating in the United States. Today there are 94.
The original nuclear regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission, was abolished in 1974, yet the mandatory hearings remain.
Uncontested mandatory hearings are an archaic section of the statute that was put in because of the newness of nuclear energy and because of the then-prevalent procedure-based regulatory structure that emphasized contested hearings, such as those used in electric rate cases.
Today, the need for uncontested hearings is not evident and the hearings are simply a waste of resources. We actually heard testimony at Energy and Commerce that witnesses said that the nuclear license applicant pays a fee over $300 an hour for each NRC staff member to prepare for the hearing. One witness said that there could be up to 12 NRC staff at each hearing. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, that could add up fairly quickly.
According to one NRC study, on average, a mandatory hearing takes up to 1,000 hours, which is charged to the applicant, and, as my colleague said, could be $4 million pretty easily.
Each perfunctory hearing costs a licensing applicant that money. Numerous current and former NRC commissioners nominated by Presidents of both political parties have all agreed that mandatory hearings are not necessary. The staff have also expressed support for repealing the requirement, saying it is unnecessary. Eliminating the uncontested hearing requirement would in no way affect public scoping or siting meetings.
Over the years, the NRC statutorily authorized Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has taken on more reactor safety review responsibilities.
Additionally, NRC staff independently assess technical data and publish voluminous safety and environment data on its public database. Repealing these hearings would not affect the right of any affected party to request a hearing on specific matters.
My bill includes language that specifically leaves open the possibility of the affected party requesting an uncontested hearing. The bill also codifies current NRC practices that use informal, nonadversarial hearing procedures.
Finally, the bill requires the NRC to publish a notice of its intent to issue a construction or operating license in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the license takes effect.
Over the past two Congresses, the Energy and Commerce Committee has received testimony showing that repealing this hearing requirement will not jeopardize public safety.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Schrier and Congressman Veasey for leading this bill with me, I thank Chairman Latta for his leadership, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the passage of this bill.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)3:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier), who is the lead Democrat on this legislation.
Kim Schrier (D-WA)3:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because Washingtonians, along with all Americans, are just fed up with high energy costs.
We need to expand and accelerate our Nation's build-out of clean energy to lower prices, curb carbon emissions, and protect our environment.
Nuclear power is essential to this energy mix. To bolster access to nuclear energy, regulations need to be modernized to bring power online safely and lower costs.
These two bipartisan bills will do just that. My bill with Congressmen Griffith and Veasey, the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act, would eliminate red tape that drives up costs and wastes thousands of agency staff hours.
Right now, nuclear regulators are required to hold hearings even on uncontested nuclear reactor projects, wasting time that could easily be spent on critical environmental or contested reviews.
Our bill solves this issue by only requiring a hearing when the issue is contested so that our regulators are most effectively serving their mission to protect public health and safety.
I am also joining my colleague, Representative Fry, on the American Enrichment Deployment Act, a bipartisan bill that will bolster our domestic production of nuclear fuel.
Russia owns half of the world's uranium enrichment capabilities, while the U.S. only has one operating enrichment plant.
This is a national security issue. We need to secure our nuclear supply chain.
The licensing process can take years, and any delays in licensing or construction leave us just further behind in building our enrichment capacity and bringing nuclear energy to market. This bill streamlines the regulatory process while maintaining environmental reviews.
It is time to lower costs and build out more energy resources while lowering emissions. Our constituents are demanding it, and our country needs it. It is a national security issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass both of these bills.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)3:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for bipartisan support for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)3:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, again, I encourage an "aye" vote on this legislation, H.R. 5549, which will help make sure that we keep advancing nuclear power, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:40 p.m.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5549.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:40 p.m.
In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)3:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:40 p.m.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act
Pages H6099–H6100 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9084) to increase transparency relating to the Department of Energy's authorizations of certain nuclear facilities, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,402 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act".
SEC. 2. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY ACTIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN NUCLEAR
FACILITIES.
(a) Alterations to Directives and Safety Standards.--
(1) Public announcement.--Not later than 72 hours after altering a directive or safety standard relating to covered DOE nuclear facilities, the Secretary of Energy shall post, on a publicly accessible website of the Department of Energy, an announcement regarding such alteration.
(2) Inclusion.--Each announcement under paragraph (1) shall include a summary of how the relevant directive or safety standard was altered.
(b) Documented Safety Analysis.--
(1) Public announcement.--Not later than 72 hours after issuing any preliminary documented safety analysis or documented safety analysis with respect to a covered DOE nuclear facility, the Secretary of Energy shall post, on a publicly accessible website of the Department of Energy, an announcement regarding the issuance of such preliminary documented safety analysis or documented safety analysis.
(2) Inclusion.--
(A) Analysis.--Subject to subparagraph (B), each announcement under paragraph (1) shall include the relevant preliminary documented safety analysis or documented safety analysis.
(B) Commercially sensitive or controlled information.--The Secretary of Energy may modify a preliminary documented safety analysis or documented safety analysis included in an announcement under paragraph (1) only to ensure that such preliminary documented safety analysis or documented safety analysis does not include any commercially sensitive information, classified information, unclassified controlled nuclear information, or controlled unclassified information.
(c) Authorizations.--Not later than 72 hours after entering into an agreement to authorize a covered DOE nuclear facility, the Secretary of Energy shall post, on a publicly accessible website of the Department of Energy, an announcement regarding such agreement, including information regarding any conditions applying to such agreement.
(d) Report.--Not later than January 31 of each year, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report detailing any activities the Secretary of Energy took to authorize covered DOE nuclear facilities during the previous calendar year.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered doe nuclear facility.--The term "covered DOE nuclear facility" means any of the Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 DOE nuclear facilities (as such term is defined in section 830.3(a) of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this section)) that the Secretary of Energy holds authority over pursuant to section 110 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2140(a)).
(2) Documented safety analysis; preliminary documented safety analysis.--The terms "documented safety analysis" and "preliminary documented safety analysis" have the meanings given such terms, respectively, in section 830.3(a) of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this section).
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 9084.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9084, the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act, as sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida's 14th Congressional District and the gentlewoman from Iowa's First Congressional District.
The legislation is a product of bipartisan deliberations by the Energy and Commerce Committee that resulted in a unanimous recorded vote.
H.R. 9084 directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to publicly disclose actions and decisions involving authorization of nuclear facilities regulated by the Department. These actions would include changes to safety directives, standards, analyses, and any license or authorization to construct and operate a nuclear reactor under DOE jurisdiction.
Transparency is important for public trust and nuclear safety regulation. The NRC currently exercises a high degree of transparency in its regulatory work, safety regulations, and license decisions, which are consistent with its statutory obligations.
As DOE increases its regulatory activity over certain nuclear reactors and facilities, we should expect similar levels of public information, which is essential to public support and confidence.
While the Department has been taking steps to show its work, H.R. 9084 represents practical requirements to guide the Department as it advances its nuclear program.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of nuclear reactors built in the United States are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and that has been the case for over 50 years, ever since Congress decided that it was vital for transparency and public confidence in the nuclear industry that we separate the government agency responsible for regulating the safety of our Nation's nuclear fleet, the NRC, from the part of the government responsible for promoting nuclear energy, and that is the Department of Energy.
Both of these agencies have a vital role to play. The Department of Energy is making investments in the reactor designs of the future and helping the fundamental basic research that will be vital for our Nation to stay competitive in the coming decades. Meanwhile, the NRC is responsible for ensuring that our Nation's operating reactors are safe and secure.
As a part of DOE's mission to promote nuclear energy, Congress granted it a very limited authority to permit its own nuclear reactors. These reactors cannot be commercial reactors that sell electricity. They are typically novel reactor designs that are thousands of times smaller than the NRC's regulated reactors that power our communities and our homes.
Unfortunately, while NRC has taken a very robust stance toward transparency around the licenses it issues and its rules, DOE has doubled down on secrecy. It changed its nuclear safety rules without alerting Congress, and it took far too long to be transparent about the reactor pilot program, which kicked off last year.
The only way to build public confidence and trust that these DOE-authorized reactors are safe is through transparency, making authorizations, safety documents, and alterations to safety rules public.
This bill, H.R. 9084, the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act, brings a reasonable solution to the table. It would require DOE to make public announcements every time it changes its nuclear safety rules, issues a safety analysis for a proposed nuclear facility, or grants a proposed nuclear facility a formal authorization. It would also require the DOE to develop a public report detailing all of its authorization activities each year.
These are vital transparency guardrails that can help ensure the success of DOE's nuclear programs, including its new Launch Pad initiative. However, if the Department and the national laboratories running the program are not fully dedicated to transparency, then their efforts are doomed to fail.
This is a commonsense bill that we should all support. Mr. Speaker, I thank our Energy Subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Castor, for her leadership on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill from the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The Department of Energy is increasingly authorizing test and demonstration reactors, and that is a good way to speed up innovation. Public confidence matters, and it depends on the public being able to see how those decisions get made.
That is why I rise to speak in favor of Representative Castor's bill, the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act. This bill promotes accountability without comprising classified information or sensitive national security interests by establishing four major transparency requirements. These include requiring the Department of Energy to publish public announcements of changes to nuclear safety standards, preliminary or final documented safety analyses, and information regarding agreements authorizing covered DOE nuclear facilities. Additionally, the bill requires annual reporting to Congress.
We can advance American nuclear energy while maintaining public trust, protecting our communities, and ensuring responsible stewardship of these critical facilities.
This bill does not add approval steps, and it does not change the DOE's authority. It simply increases transparency without turning it into a second licensing process.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support Representative Castor's bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time, and I thank Chairman Latta, my good friend, the chair of the Energy Subcommittee, for supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act, H.R. 9084.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill to ensure that Congress can provide critical oversight over the Department of Energy's nuclear programs and ensure that DOE maintains the highest safety standards for nuclear power.
Nuclear energy provides reliable, clean power across America. For example, in the State of Florida, my home State, nuclear energy provides 10 percent of our electricity generation.
The Department of Energy plays a crucial role in safeguarding nuclear power as directed by Congress, and in the Atomic Energy Act, Congress specifically gave DOE the authority to conduct research and development of nuclear reactors.
The development of nuclear reactors for research purposes at DOE is separate and apart from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approval process for new reactors for commercial use. The DOE's R&D programs do not in any way replace the NRC's approval processes.
Recently, the Department of Energy has undertaken new efforts to research and fast-track advanced nuclear test reactors.
Done right, the research could spur a nuclear renaissance. Done wrong, it could be dangerous and shatter public confidence in nuclear power for a generation.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress, through the Energy and Commerce Committee, sought information from the Department of Energy on their new fast-tracking process, and despite repeated requests for information and clarity on DOE's fast-tracked nuclear reactor efforts, the Department provided Congress with very little information about how the Department will preserve safety and transparency. This is of concern to all Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, Congress and the public needs greater transparency on DOE nuclear reactor research and fast-tracking, particularly as DOE has lost a lot of professional staff and technical expertise over the past year.
Nuclear energy cannot succeed in the United States without public trust in the industry.
My bill, the Department of Energy Nuclear Transparency Act, would introduce transparency requirements for DOE's nuclear programs, ensuring that its safety decisions can withstand public, industry, and congressional scrutiny.
With responsible leadership and the right policy support, nuclear energy can safely power the U.S. economy with clean, reliable energy. I appreciate my Republican colleagues for working with me on this bill to advance it in a bipartisan manner. I urge everyone, all of my colleagues, to support this bipartisan bill.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)3:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)3:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for bipartisan support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)3:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9084, as amended, again, is another piece of legislation that advances our nuclear energy program in the United States. I urge a "yes" vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:50 p.m.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 9084, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:50 p.m.
In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)3:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore3:50 p.m.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
American Enrichment Deployment Act
Pages H6100–H6102 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9612) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to update the licensing procedures for uranium enrichment facilities to enable the timely, safe deployment of such facilities, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (2,026 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "American Enrichment Deployment Act".
SEC. 2. LICENSING OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 193 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2243) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) through (c) and inserting the following:
"(a) At-risk Construction.--
"(1) In general.--Construction of a uranium enrichment facility prior to the issuance of a license under sections 53 and 63 for that facility shall be permitted under the same terms and conditions applicable to other fuel cycle facilities licensed under such sections.
"(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) may not be construed to modify the licensing and regulatory authority of the Commission to issue a license under sections 53 and 63 for a uranium enrichment facility, including the authority to deny an application for such a license for the failure of an applicant to meet regulatory requirements."; and
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) through (f) as subsections (b) through (d), respectively.
(b) Regulations Required.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall issue or revise regulations to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(c) Rule of Construction.--None of the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to affect--
(1) the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to the issuance of a license under section 53 or 63 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2073 or 2093) for a uranium enrichment facility;
(2) the right of any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) to a hearing under section 189 of such Act; or
(3) the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct inspections of uranium enrichment facilities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and include extraneous material on H.R. 9612.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 9612, the American Enrichment Deployment Act, which is led by the gentleman from South Carolina's Seventh District and the gentlewoman from Washington's Eighth Congressional District.
This legislation was reported favorably by the Energy and Commerce Committee on a unanimous bipartisan vote following a legislative hearing and markup.
The deployment of advanced reactors and the operation of our existing nuclear fleet cannot be done without an abundant, secure fuel supply. Increasing this fuel supply requires expanding the Nation's capacity for licensing enrichment of nuclear fuels. Licensing more enrichment is critical for that expansion, especially as we have banned access to Russian fuels.
H.R. 9612 amends the Atomic Energy Act to ensure the licensing for nuclear fuel enrichment facilities aligns with the more efficient one-step licensing process for similar-risk uranium conversion and fuel fabrication facilities.
Testimony from industry experts before the Energy and Commerce Committee indicated these provisions could reduce over a year from the licensing process. The bill will eliminate unnecessary licensing steps and allow for licensees to construct facilities prior to licensing under the same terms and conditions already applicable to the other types of fuel cycle facilities.
Under this legislation, there would be no impact on safety assessments or inspections, no impact on environmental assessments required under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, nor on any other of the requirements for safeguards and security to meet the relevant provisions of the Atomic Energy Act.
This is just a more efficient process. If we are going to build out our nuclear industry, we need nuclear fuel. Further, we need a secure, abundant supply of domestically produced fuel.
The American Enrichment Deployment Act helps make a more efficient path to safe, secure, and more abundant enrichment in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 9612, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a renewed interest in nuclear power that could lead to a new generation of clean American nuclear energy. Unfortunately, there is a large barrier in the way, and that is we simply do not have enough fuel for the hypothetical reactors.
Since the 1990s, we have seen a reduction in American enrichment capacity as we spent decades importing enriched uranium that had formerly resided in Soviet nuclear warheads. In the intervening years, Russia expanded its enrichment capabilities far beyond its domestic needs and eventually came to dominate the global enriched uranium market, including for American reactors.
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we realized how vulnerable our supply chains were. I am proud the Energy and Commerce Committee led the way on getting several vital pieces of legislation signed into law.
One law bans the importation of Russian uranium, providing certainty to the American domestic enrichment industry. Another authorized programs at the Department of Energy that are designed to inject funding into this sector and quickly enable expansion of domestic enrichment facilities.
Barriers still remain to a healthy domestic enrichment industry, especially slowdowns to licensing enrichment facilities.
This bill, H.R. 9612, the American Enrichment Deployment Act, addresses those licensing barriers in a few ways.
First, it makes the process to license an enrichment facility identical to the process to license other fuel cycle facilities, like uranium conversion or fuel fabrication facilities.
Second, the bill explicitly allows any developer of an enrichment facility to start constructing their facility before receiving an NRC license.
Uranium enrichment facilities are essentially large warehouses for centrifuges, and developers need plenty of time to construct all the nonnuclear components of the facility. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to start construction just like any other building or project could.
We amended the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I think it is very important to highlight a few of the changes that were made that are included in the version of the bill that we are going to be voting on today.
The bill is now crystal clear. The National Environmental Policy Act, better known as NEPA, still applies to enrichment facilities; anyone has the right to request a hearing on a facility; and the NRC still has all its normal rights to conduct inspections.
All the safeguards we rely on to keep our homes and communities safe still apply. Any developer's decision to start construction before they receive a license is truly at their own risk.
The NRC is forbidden from considering whether or not a developer has started construction when making a decision about whether to approve or deny a license. A developer cannot complain that they have spent millions of dollars if their license is denied. After all, it is their choice alone to spend money on early construction.
This last change was made in response to concerns expressed by a former Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy during a hearing we held on the bill in June. I am grateful for Chairman Guthrie's willingness to work together on this bill to make sure that we got it right.
The Senate, Mr. Speaker, has unanimously passed their own version of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both Chambers to find a path forward so a version of it that works for everyone can make its way to the President's desk.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Schrier for her work as a co-lead of H.R. 9612. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), the bill's sponsor.
Russell Fry (R-SC)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9612, the American Enrichment Deployment Act, legislation I introduced to modernize the outdated licensing process for uranium enrichment facilities and to help restore America's nuclear energy leadership.
This bill allows energy companies to begin at-risk construction of uranium enrichment facilities before receiving their final license, under the same terms and conditions that apply to other fuel cycle facilities.
This simple change brings greater consistency to our nuclear regulatory framework. Uranium enrichment facilities should not be subjected to unnecessary procedural barriers that do little to improve safety but can add significant time, expense, and uncertainty to the development process. By putting these facilities on more equal footing with other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, we can create a clearer and more predictable pathway for new projects to move forward.
The bill eliminates unnecessary regulatory sequencing and allows energy companies to move projects forward at their own risk. This legislation will help reduce delays, encourage private investment, and accelerate the deployment of domestic fuel infrastructure our nuclear industry desperately needs.
More importantly, companies choosing to begin construction under this legislation do so at their own risk. The Federal Government is not guaranteeing approval of a project, and beginning construction does not predetermine the NRC's licensing decision. Instead, this bill gives companies greater flexibility that they need to invest their own resources while the regulatory process continues.
This is commonsense deregulation that cuts red tape without compromising safety. The NRC retains its full authority to approve or deny licenses, conduct inspections, and enforce regulatory requirements, while existing environmental reviews and public hearing rights remain intact. This legislation does not weaken the NRC's responsibility to protect public health and safety. It simply removes the unnecessary barrier of this licensing process.
At a time when our country is working to strengthen our nuclear energy capability, we should ensure that outdated regulations do not stand in the way of private sector investment and innovation. A strong domestic nuclear industry requires a regulatory system that is rigorous, efficient, and capable of keeping pace with new investment.
Just as importantly, this effort has brought Republicans and Democrats together around a shared goal of strengthening America's nuclear energy future.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have introduced this legislation with my colleagues, and I urge the House to support the American Enrichment Deployment Act so we can remove these unnecessary barriers, strengthen our domestic supply of nuclear energy, and ensure that the United States leads the next generation of that nuclear energy.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:00 p.m.
I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
Gary J. Palmer (R-AL)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9612, the American Enrichment Deployment Act, and I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) for its introduction.
Advanced reactors can't run without enriched fuel, and enrichment is where our supply chain depends most on foreign suppliers, including Russia. In 2024, Congress passed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, with the dual focus of eliminating our reliance on Russian uranium while leveling the playing field for domestic uranium producers to be economically competitive and revitalizing domestic uranium production. Since that time, however, Russian uranium has still been flowing into the United States under a waiver process, and there has been a concerning uptick in Chinese uranium exports to the United States. We can pass all the reactor bills we want, but without domestic enrichment capacity, they won't help.
Under current practice, a company waits for the final license before breaking ground, so any given project may sit idle for years. This bill lets developers begin limited construction before the license is final and at their own financial risk. If the NRC says no, the company loses its money--the taxpayer doesn't.
Environmental review, hearing rights, and NRC's power to deny the license all stay in place. Some may call this a shortcut, but it works the other way around. By having industry take on all the risk, it incentivizes high-quality projects and a reason to meet standards.
America must take control of its nuclear fuel supply chain and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of uranium enrichment. Nuclear energy is essential to meeting our growing energy demands, strengthening our national security, and maintaining our competitive edge.
This legislation takes an important step toward those goals by allowing uranium enrichment facilities to begin construction while their Federal licensing process is underway. It will help reduce unnecessary delays, encourage private investment, and accelerate the development of critical domestic infrastructure. We cannot afford to outsource our energy security or allow unnecessary regulatory delays to stand in the way of American innovation.
I am proud to support Congressman Fry's American Enrichment Deployment Act, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, all of these bills presented for suspension today are about one question: Can we build the nuclear infrastructure that we need and do it in years instead of decades and can we do in a commercially scaleable, affordable, and transparent way?
These bills fix part of that process and cut down on unnecessary red tape. They don't lower a single safety standard. They remove steps that add delay while maintaining high safety standards with increased transparency.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support each of these bills.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation on a bipartisan basis, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9612, as amended, is another piece of legislation that advances our nuclear energy program in the United States. I urge a "yes" vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:00 p.m.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 9612, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:00 p.m.
In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:00 p.m.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act
Pages H6102–H6104 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9613) to update the role of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in the licensing and oversight of nuclear reactor facilities, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (4,466 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act".
SEC. 2. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS.
(a) In General.--Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2039) is amended--
(1) by striking "There is" and inserting the following:
"(a) Establishment.--There is";
(2) by inserting "(referred to in this section as the `Committee')." after "Reactor Safeguards";
(3) by striking "consisting of" and all that follows; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
"(b) Membership.--The Committee shall consist of a maximum of 15 members, to be appointed by the Commission, who shall represent a diverse background of technical expertise relevant to the mission of the Commission.
"(c) Terms.--
"(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Commission may appoint a member of the Committee for not more than 2 terms of 4 years each.
"(2) Exception.--The Commission may appoint a member of the Committee for more than 2 terms if the Commission determines that there is a compelling need for the member's continued service.
"(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply with respect to members appointed after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act.
"(d) Committee Actions.--The Committee shall--
"(1) review safety studies and facility license applications referred to it and make reports thereon;
"(2) advise the Commission with regard to--
"(A) the hazards of proposed or existing reactor facilities; and
"(B) the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards; and
"(3) perform such other duties as the Commission may request.
"(e) Focus of Committee.--In taking an action pursuant to paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (d), the Committee shall, to the extent practicable, focus on issues that--
"(1) directly relate to facility design;
"(2) are safety significant;
"(3) are unique, novel, or noteworthy; and
"(4) have not been previously acted on by the Committee.
"(f) Policies for Efficient and Timely Action.--The Commission shall maintain and, if necessary, modify policies to ensure efficient and timely action by the Committee, including efficient and timely coordination between the Committee and staff of the Commission.
"(g) Chairperson.--The Commission shall designate 1 member of the Committee as the Chairperson of the Committee.
"(h) Per Diem.--The members of the Committee shall receive--
"(1) a per diem compensation for each day spent in meetings, conferences, or other work of the Committee; and
"(2) compensation for necessary traveling or other expenses while engaged in the work of the Committee.
"(i) Applicability.--Section 163 shall apply to the Committee.".
(b) License Application Review.--Section 182 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2232(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking "The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards" and inserting "(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards"; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
"(2) The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards may decline to review an application referenced in paragraph (1) if it determines that such application does not--
"(A) contain issues that are unique, novel, or noteworthy; or
"(B) raise issues that warrant review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.".
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Advisory committees.--Section 163 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2203) is amended--
(A) by striking "members of the General Advisory committee established pursuant to section 26 and the"; and
(B) by striking "sections 281, 283, or 284" and inserting "sections 203, 205, or 207".
(2) Temporary operating license.--Section 192 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2242(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking "Safeguards required by section 182 b.;" and inserting "Safeguards submitted under section 182 b. (if applicable);"; and
(B) by striking "and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's first supplement to the report prepared in response to the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for the facility" and inserting ", and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's first supplement to the report prepared in response to the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards for the facility (if applicable)".
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 9613.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9613, the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Tennessee's First Congressional District and the gentleman from Texas' 12th Congressional District.
This legislation reflects constructive, bipartisan collaboration through the Energy and Commerce legislative process and was reported favorably as amended by unanimous vote.
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or ACRS, serves as an important independent adviser to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, for reactor licensing. The committee assists NRC decisions on unique and important safety and technical issues, issues that arise and particularly with new designs and technologies. Congress established ACRS in the 1950s when the commission was licensing the first generation of nuclear reactors.
Today, NRC staff are well-equipped to deal with licensing issues from many well-characterized and understood reactors and technologies. However, a new wave of technologies, expected to enter the license process, would very much benefit from the Advisory Committee's independent review and advice.
H.R. 9613 serves to update membership requirements in terms of service and to focus the important work of ACRS where it will provide greatest value to the NRC and the public.
The bill directs ACRS to focus on issues that directly relate to reactor facility design or safety significant or noteworthy or novel and have not been previously acted upon by the committee.
The bill also provides ACRS flexibility to decline and review issues in applications that do not merit attention, allowing ACRS to follow a more efficient risk-informed approach to work.
H.R. 9613 will help ACRS to more efficiently and effectively serve the commission as it reviews nuclear license applications.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation to advance our work to ensure the benefits of nuclear energy for our society.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9613, the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act, alters the scope and organization of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, the body that provides independent technical expertise on nuclear licensing.
Now, 73 years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission created the ACRS, an expert body meant to enhance the quality of safety and environmental reviews of applications for nuclear licenses. Soon after its establishment, Congress passed a law enshrining the ACRS in statute and requiring that it review all applications for commercial nuclear power plants to ensure the safety of what was at the time a completely new technology.
Seven decades later, the landscape has significantly changed. Nuclear energy is no longer novel. More importantly, there have been generations of nuclear experts that now staff the NRC, in contrast to the small handful of experts who could inform the work of the old Atomic Energy Commission in the aftermath of World War II. But the requirement that the ACRS review every single reactor has remained the same.
But at the same time, getting rid of the ACRS altogether, as some have suggested, would be wildly irresponsible. We are seeing a new generation of nuclear reactors, many with new design elements or aspects that have never been tested. Independent technical review is vital for public confidence in the safety of these reactors, and that is increasingly important at a time when the NRC itself is under attack and becoming more political.
Any alterations to the ACRS must balance a need for efficiency with a need not to disrupt an organization that has helped keep us safe for nearly 75 years. I think this version of H.R. 9613 before us strikes that balance. It removes the requirement that the ACRS review each application, while requiring that the ACRS review the subset of applications that raise unique, novel, or noteworthy issues. Critically, it keeps the ACRS itself in charge of making the decision about what is unique, novel, or noteworthy, not the NRC. The ACRS retains its ability to investigate issues other than reactor applications that deserve its attention as well.
So the idea is to focus the ACRS on what matters most--issues that have not come up before that are tricky and can benefit from a unique technical viewpoint, and this viewpoint has been useful in the recent past. The ACRS has contributed to recent reviews of the first-ever small modular reactor and the first-ever restart of a nuclear power plant. This bill will help the ACRS continue its important work into a new generation of reactors, letting its experts focus on the highest important issues and ensuring that those experts are heard in the licensing process. So I thank Chairman Guthrie and Representative Harshbarger for their willingness to compromise and find a path forward for the ACRS that works for everyone. I intend to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the bill's sponsor, the gentlewoman from Tennessee's First District.
Diana Harshbarger (R-TN)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Nuclear Advisory Committee Reform Act, legislation that I introduced with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Goldman.
The next generation of American nuclear energy is here, with advanced reactors entering the pipeline amid skyrocketing demand for reliable, affordable energy. That is why preparing a regulatory framework to meet the moment is more important than ever.
When it comes to nuclear energy, safety must always come first.
My bill ensures our Federal nuclear regulatory system prioritizes its time and resources where they are needed most, and that is for novel reactor designs that warrant additional scrutiny.
Since 1957, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, ACRS, has provided an additional layer of review for nuclear license applications, supplementing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own work.
This was critical when nuclear energy was untested and Federal regulators had limited in-house technical expertise.
However, today, the engineers and regulatory experts at the NRC possess the highest levels of institutional knowledge and technical capabilities worldwide.
Yet the ACRS is often tasked with reviews that duplicate the NRC's existing work, creating unnecessary delays in the licensing process.
Without a change to current law, novel reactor technologies that warrant additional scrutiny will continue competing for ACRS resources with conventional reactor designs that may not require the same level of additional review.
More repetitious procedures do not automatically guarantee greater safety.
My bill, which I am proud to have deployed through bipartisan collaboration, puts ACRS in the driver's seat when determining where its expertise provides the greatest value.
Additionally, it directs ACRS to focus its reviews on aspects of reactor designs that are safety significant or novel and that the committee has not previously evaluated.
So, Mr. Speaker, my bill ensures safety is never compromised and makes certain that the advanced reactors of tomorrow receive the appropriate level of oversight.
This is how we strengthen our energy grid while maintaining the high standards of nuclear safety.
I thank Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone for their leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on the bill if the gentleman is ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge support for this bill on a bipartisan basis, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I also urge support of H.R. 9613, as amended. And, again, this piece of legislation also advances our nuclear energy policy in the United States, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:10 p.m.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 9613, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Nrc Staff Pay Alignment Act
Pages H6104–H6105 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9614) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide compensation authority for certain career appointees, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (2,970 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act".
SEC. 2. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY FOR CAREER APPOINTEES.
(a) In General.--Section 161B of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201b) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (h) as subsections (e) through (i), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
"(d) Compensation Authority for Career Appointees.--
"(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Chairman may fix the compensation of a career appointee at an annual rate of basic pay that is not greater than 110 percent of the maximum annual rate of basic pay for Senior Executive Service positions within the Commission established under section 5382 of title 5, United States Code.
"(2) Applicability.--The authority to fix the compensation of a career appointee under paragraph (1) shall apply regardless of when the career appointee was appointed.
"(3) Effect on certain certification.--The exercise of the authority to fix the compensation of a career appointee under paragraph (1) may not affect the certification of any performance appraisal system of the Commission under section 5307(d) of title 5, United States Code.
"(4) Career appointee defined.--In this subsection, the term `career appointee' has the meaning given such term in section 3132(a) of title 5, United States Code.";
(3) in subsection (g) (as so redesignated), in paragraph (2)(C)--
(A) in clause (ii)--
(i) in each of subclauses (I) and (III), by striking "subsection (g)(1)" each place it appears and inserting "subsection (h)(1)"; and
(ii) in each of subclauses (II) and (IV), by striking "subsection (g)(2)" each place it appears and inserting "subsection (h)(2)";
(B) in clause (iv), by striking "and" at the end;
(C) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vi); and
(D) by inserting after clause (iv) the following:
"(v) the total number of career appointees that have their compensation fixed pursuant to subsection (d); and"; and
(4) in subsection (i) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) and (3), by striking "subsections (a) and (b)" each place it appears and inserting "subsections (a), (b), and (d)";
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking "or both subsections" and inserting "subsection (d), or any combination of those subsections"; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ", or a career appointee," after "compensation of an employee or other personnel serving in a covered position"; and
(ii) by striking "subsection (a) or (b)" and inserting "subsection (a), (b), or (d)".
(b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Government Accountability Office Report.--Section 502(b) of the ADVANCE Act of 2024 is amended by striking "subsections (a), (b), and (c)" each place it appears and inserting "subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d)".
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous materials on H.R. 9614.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 9614, the NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act, sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey's Eighth Congressional District.
This legislation was developed through bipartisan committee work, examined in legislative hearings, and reported favorably by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in a unanimous recorded vote.
The level of expertise demanded by the positions at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, requires highly qualified candidates, candidates which are also desirable for the private sector, creating retention pressures.
The special workforce and pay authority Congress established for the NRC in the bipartisan ADVANCE Act just over 2 years ago sought to help attract and preserve exceptional employees at the NRC.
H.R. 9614 fixes an issue which was inadvertently created with those incentive pay provisions in the ADVANCE Act. Those provisions left out career Senior Executive Service, or SES, employees, who typically are managers. This created potential issues of pay alignment for exceptional managers that may undermine effective management and retention.
It is important for quality personnel at the NRC to ensure efficient licensing and oversight, especially during this time of industry growth. This requires good management.
H.R. 9614 authorizes the Chairman of the NRC to modestly increase the compensation rate of selected Senior Executive Service employees at the NRC. This authority to increase the rate of compensation by not more than 10 percent for certain employees will help the NRC maintain a strong, specialized workforce, as well as the quality management necessary to carry out the NRC's mission.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, nuclear energy plays a vital role in delivering carbon-free power to our Nation's growing power grid. In an era of increasing demand for electricity, new nuclear reactors can provide clean energy around the clock, but only if they are safe.
The guarantee of safety comes from the hardworking employees at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, our Nation's nuclear safety regulator. They ensure that new proposed reactors will be safe, while also confirming that existing reactors are abiding by safety standards and not taking shortcuts. They are the safety cops on the beat, and they are extremely important.
Unfortunately, the NRC's workforce has dwindled over the past few years. Attacks by DOGE and the rest of the Trump administration, combined with the reorganization of the Commission, have resulted in the NRC losing over 10 percent of its workforce, many from senior roles. That is on top of an agency workforce that was already shrinking, despite a growing need.
The reality is if the Trump administration wants to accomplish its goal of moving nuclear power forward, it is going to need more safety regulators, not fewer. In a new wave of reactor or fuel cycle facility application, if that occurs in the future, the NRC will need more staff to analyze those applications and to ensure that those facilities stay safe once they are built.
Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, when we passed the ADVANCE Act into law, we recognized this problem. Then-Ranking Member DeGette of the Energy Subcommittee authored language that would give the NRC immense flexibility in its hiring and compensation authorities to attract and retain staff.
Unfortunately, the NRC has been slow to implement the new authority. Furthermore, the attacks on the Commission over the past 2 years have disproportionately impacted the most senior civil servants who were excluded from the ADVANCE Act's reforms.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9614 fixes this problem. It enhances the ADVANCE Act's hiring authorities by allowing the NRC to grant a 10-percent pay increase to Senior Executive Service employees. Those are the highest ranking, nonpolitical civil servants. These are the employees whose expertise and leadership will be the most important if the NRC sees an uptick in applications and facilities that it oversees.
That fixes one-half of the problem, but the other issue is that the NRC has been slow to implement the ADVANCE Act's existing authorities due to some questions around congressional intent. We can't legislate that problem away, but I note for the record that it was never Congress' intention that the ADVANCE Act authorities could only be applied to a broad class of employee or to every single employee in a specific role. Those authorities and the authorities in this bill were designed to give the NRC maximum flexibility and not simply act as a blunt tool.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Menendez for his work in authoring this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the sponsor of the bill.
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Ranking Member Pallone, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 9614, the NRC Staff Pay Alignment Act.
This legislation would help the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recruit and retain experienced subject matter professionals by giving the agency greater flexibility to offer competitive pay. I especially thank Congresswoman DeGette, whose work on the ADVANCE Act laid the groundwork for this legislation.
As our Nation's energy needs grow, nuclear power can deliver the reliable, clean electricity our communities need. In my home State of New Jersey, we are removing longstanding barriers to new nuclear development as part of our effort to expand energy supply and address rising utility bills.
Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure there is a strong, independent nuclear regulator keeping our communities safe. The communities that host nuclear facilities deserve to know that decisions affecting their safety are guided by science, rigorous review, and independent judgment. That confidence depends on the people doing the work: the engineers, scientists, inspectors, and career leaders whose expertise protects the public every day.
We cannot expect the NRC to take on greater responsibilities while losing the experienced professionals it needs to fulfill them. Yet, hundreds of employees have left the NRC since January 2025, raising serious concerns about its ability to sustain effective safety oversight.
At the same time, reports of political interference have threatened public confidence in the Commission's independence. We have heard reports that a DOGE employee leading the charge at NRC said that the goal was to make the agency a "rubberstamp" for the Trump administration and dismiss safety concerns raised by NRC staff.
We have seen career lawyers leave the Commission while working on consequential cases, and Commissioners have told Congress that they fear being fired for refusing to approve a reactor design favored by this administration.
These concerns go directly to whether the NRC's experts can do their jobs and whether the public can trust that safety does, in fact, come first.
The Commission must have the staff, resources, and independence to make decisions based on the evidence free from political pressure. My bill addresses one important part of that responsibility.
Building on the ADVANCE Act, it would give the NRC additional pay authority for career Senior Executive Service employees, helping the Commission compete for experienced leaders and retain their expertise.
Competitive compensation alone will not resolve every challenge facing the NRC, but it is a practical step Congress can take now to strengthen its workforce.
If we want nuclear energy to help power our future, we must invest in the people responsible for keeping it safe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9614.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no further speakers and am prepared to close if the ranking member is prepared. I reserve the balance of my time.
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for Mr. Menendez' bill on a bipartisan basis, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Robert E. Latta (R-OH)4:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support and a "yea" vote on H.R. 9614. Again, this is another piece of legislation that advances our nuclear policy in the United States, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore4:20 p.m.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 9614.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Veterans' Compensation Cost-Of-Living Adjustment Act of 2026
Pages H6105–H6107 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8552) to increase, effective as of December 1, 2026, the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
Text printed in the Record (2,496 characters)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2026".
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND
DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.
(a) Rate Adjustment.--Effective on December 1, 2026, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase, in accordance with subsection (c), the dollar amounts in effect on November 30, 2026, for the payment of disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation under the provisions specified in subsection (b).
(b) Amounts To Be Increased.--The dollar amounts to be increased pursuant to subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Wartime disability compensation.--Each of the dollar amounts under section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
(2) Additional compensation for dependents.--Each of the dollar amounts under section 1115(1) of such title.
(3) Clothing allowance.--The dollar amount under section 1162 of such title.
(4) Dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving spouse.--Each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a) through (d) of section 1311 of such title.
(5) Dependency and indemnity compensation to children.--Each of the dollar amounts under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of such title.
(c) Determination of Increase.--Each dollar amount described in subsection (b) shall be increased by the same percentage as the percentage by which benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 2026, as a result of a determination under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
(d) Special Rule.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may adjust administratively, consistent with the increases made under subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation payable to persons under section 10 of Public Law 85-857 (72 Stat. 1263) who have not received compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code.
SEC. 3. PUBLICATION OF ADJUSTED RATES.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall publish in the Federal Register the amounts specified in section 2(b), as increased under that section, not later than the date on which the matters specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to be published by reason of a determination made under section 215(i) of such Act during fiscal year 2027.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hamadeh) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 8552.
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, I rise today in support of H.R. 8552.
Each year, Congress passes the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act. This legislation ensures veterans VA benefits keep pace with inflation. Millions of veterans and their loved ones depend on these benefits to pay for daily living expenses.
This bill would help them meet that need by increasing certain VA compensation at the same rate as the annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustment.
I thank my colleagues, especially Representatives Luttrell and McGarvey, for their bipartisan leadership and hard work on this important legislation to ensure our veterans receive the benefits they have earned and deserve.
I also thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Luttrell, for his years of dedicated service to our great country, both in the United States Navy and here in Congress, as he prepares to retire from the House at the end of this year. I have had the pleasure of serving with him on both the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee, and he is a class act.
As the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee chairman for the past 4 years, my colleague, Representative Morgan Luttrell, has done important work ensuring our veterans, their families, and their survivors are cared for on behalf of a grateful nation.
It has been a true pleasure and honor to serve alongside Morgan on the committee. I am grateful for his friendship, leadership, and unwavering dedication to those who have served our country.
I have no doubt that wherever Representative Luttrell's next mission takes him, he will continue to do good work for the country and his proud home State of Texas. Veterans and their families are better off today because of his bipartisan work.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 8552, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8552, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2026. I am proud to be the Democratic lead on this bill along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Luttrell), my good friend from the great State of Texas. This is a commonsense bill. It is a commonsense bill that will ensure veterans' compensation keeps pace with the rising costs of everyday needs.
Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves today here less than 1 week from an election in which people from all across this country, literally from Maine to Alaska, from Texas to Montana, told us that things cost too much. The rising cost of the things we need and use every day, from gas to groceries, are just taking too much of the budget here at home. They are not leaving enough left over for the things we need. The gap between the ultrawealthy and the working class just continues to grow wider and wider.
However, we can do a little something about that here today, and I am pleased that we are able to address the affordability crisis at least in part for our Nation's veterans.
I don't think enough people know that our veterans don't get an automatic cost-of-living adjustment for their pay like somebody on Social Security. Congress must proactively pass this legislation each year to make it happen, and it is important to note we have never failed to do so. We have done it every year on a bipartisan, bicameral basis.
This year, we are cutting it awfully close to the deadline to get this passed through the House, through the Senate, and on to the President for his signature. I hope for the sake of our veterans there are no further delays. This annual cost-of-living adjustment is the very least we can do to deliver relief for our veterans on a meaningful basis.
I am not naive to think that there is not more work that needs to be done. We must do more to lift our veterans out of poverty, off the streets, and into a VA system where they can receive the care and the benefits not just that they deserve, but they have earned.
Our veterans put on the uniform and put that flag on their shoulder. They are willing to serve and sacrifice everything for our freedom. In exchange for that, we make them a promise--it is both a legal and a moral promise--that we will be there for them after the uniform comes off.
They held up their end of the deal. Today, we must hold up ours. Our veterans deserve it. Americans demand it, and we are the fortunate few who have the honor to pass the legislation that ensures it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Luttrell).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8552, the Veterans' Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2026, and I thank the DAMA Subcommittee ranking member and my good friend, Morgan McGarvey. It has been a pleasure working with my friend.
I also thank Senator Moran for leading the Senate companion to this bill and the work that he has done to support America's veterans. Veterans dealing with service-connected disabilities need this must-pass legislation to ensure their earned benefits ease their financial needs.
Many disabled veterans rely on their benefits to help keep their personal finances in order, such as paying for necessities like mortgages and groceries.
Reducing the financial burden too many veterans, survivors, and their families face helps alleviate some of the stress and anxiety within the veteran community, and passing this cost-of-living adjustment provides veterans with the peace of mind they deserve and access to the benefits they are owed.
With Veterans Day this Wednesday, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill honoring our commitment to serving those who served us.
I thank my colleagues for the compliments and kind words. I have to tell Mr. McGarvey, if nobody was paying attention, he and I absolutely proved that if you sit down and take the time to learn each other, you can absolutely work hand in hand to get things accomplished in this amazing place that we sit in today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway), my good friend who serves on our Health Subcommittee and our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
Herbert C. Conaway, Jr. (D-NJ)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act.
Our veterans answered the call to serve our country. They put their lives on the line, made extraordinary sacrifices, and stood up to defend the freedoms we hold dear. At the very least, we should do all that we can to ensure that they and their families receive the benefits they have earned and deserve.
As the cost of groceries, housing, utilities, and everyday necessities continues to rise, we must make sure that the benefits we provide veterans keep pace with the cost of living.
This legislation does exactly that. It aligns increases in veterans' disability compensation, dependent benefits, clothing allowances, and survivor benefits with the annual cost-of-living adjustment provided to Social Security recipients. That means that veterans and their families will not be left behind as the cost of supporting a household continues to increase.
It is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of economic security. It is a matter of keeping faith with those who have kept their promises to our Nation.
Our commitment to veterans cannot end when they take off the uniform. We must continue to stand with them, support their families, and ensure they have the resources and benefits they deserve.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I encourage all Members to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would actually like to say a few words about my good friend, Morgan Luttrell from Texas. All you need to know about Morgan Luttrell, he is such a good guy that this is going to embarrass him, and he is like, please stop talking about me right now.
I have had the privilege of serving for the last 4 years alongside the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Luttrell). We came in the same class together. Then we got on the same committee together, the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Then we were on the same subcommittee together, where he is the chairman of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, and I have served as the ranking member.
Morgan Luttrell, as I have learned, is one of those guys who always does what he thinks is right, and it doesn't matter who is watching. He has run this committee for one reason and one reason only: to make life better for the men and women who put on the uniform of the United States military.
He has called hearings to a close and pulled people into the back room. He has chastised people. If somebody didn't give me an answer, he told them to give me a straight answer. It didn't matter that I was his Democratic counterpart. Everything was about taking care of other people.
That is the kind of guy he is, someone who honestly, every day, has been a leader but has been a servant, not forgetting that idea of servant leadership, that idea from the book of Matthew that the greatest leaders among you are, in fact, servants. It has been a pleasure to work alongside of him.
A lot of people up here say things, but when he chose not to run for reelection, he did it, and he did it because he lives his values. His faith, his family, and his friends come first.
Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor serving with Mr. Luttrell. We are going to miss him on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, but I hope that with Leslie and the boys and with the friends back in Texas, he has nothing but fair winds and following seas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hamadeh) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 8552.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. =========================== NOTE =========================== On November 9, 2026, page H6107 in the second column, the following appeared: The question was taken. The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it. Mr. HAMADEH of Arizona. 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 motion will be post-poned. The online version has been corrected to read: The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ========================= END NOTE =========================
After Recess
Page H6107 · Official textThe recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas) at 6 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Page H6107 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order:
H.R. 3978; and
H.R. 9612.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
Nuclear Refuel (Recycling Efficient Fuels Utilizing Expedited Licensing) Act
Pages H6107–H6108 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3978) to amend the definition of "production facility" in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to exclude an equipment or device capable of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in a manner that does not separate plutonium from other transuranic elements, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397, nays 2, not voting 34, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,746 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 Blair Boebert Bonamici Bost Boyle (PA) Brecheen Brown Brownley Budzinski Burchett Burlison Bynum Calvert Cammack Carbajal Carson Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Casar Case Casten Castro (TX) Chu Ciscomani Cisneros Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Cline Cloud Clyburn Clyde Cohen Cole Collins Comer Conaway Costa Courtney Craig Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (NC) De La Cruz Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier DesJarlais Dexter Diaz-Balart Dingell Downing Edwards Elfreth Ellzey Emmer Escobar Espaillat Evans (CO) Evans (PA) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fields Figures Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fletcher Flood Foster Foushee Foxx Frankel, Lois Franklin, Scott Friedman Frost Fry Fulcher Fuller Gallagher Garamendi Garbarino Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gill (TX) Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Goldman (TX) 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 Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Kean Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (NY) Kennedy (UT) Khanna Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Krishnamoorthi LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Letlow Levin
Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Loudermilk Lucas Luttrell Lynch Mace Mackenzie Magaziner Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mannion Massie Mast Matsui McBath McBride 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-Meeks Min Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Moran Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Murphy Nadler Neal Neguse Newhouse Norcross Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ocasio-Cortez Ogles Olszewski Omar Onder Pallone Palmer Panetta Pappas Patronis Pelosi Perez Perry Peters Pettersen Pfluger Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Randall Raskin Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rivas Rogers (KY) Rose Ross Rouzer Roy Ruiz Rulli Rutherford Salinas Sanchez Scalise Scanlon Schmidt Schneider Scholten Schrier Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Self Sewell Sherman Shreve Simon Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spartz Stansbury Stanton Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Stevens Strickland Strong Stutzman Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Timmons Titus Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Turner (OH) Underwood Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Vindman Wagner Wahab 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
Bresnahan Buchanan Carey Castor (FL) Correa Crockett Davis (IL) Doggett Donalds Dunn (FL) Estes Fong Gillen Gomez Gonzalez, V. James Keating Kiggans (VA) Kustoff Luna McCaul Miller (WV) Mills Nehls Norman Owens Rogers (AL) Ryan Salazar Schakowsky Sessions Tiffany Van Orden Wilson (FL)
Mr. MIN changed his vote from "nay" to "yea." So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
American Enrichment Deployment Act
Pages H6108–H6109 · Official textThe SPEAKER pro tempore
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9612) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to update the licensing procedures for uranium enrichment facilities to enable the timely, safe deployment of such facilities, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 394, nays 3, not voting 36, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (3,745 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 Blair Boebert Bonamici Bost Boyle (PA) Brecheen Brown Brownley Budzinski Burchett Burlison Bynum Calvert Cammack Carbajal 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 Costa Courtney Craig Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (NC) De La Cruz Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier DesJarlais Dexter Diaz-Balart Dingell Downing Edwards Elfreth Ellzey Emmer Escobar Espaillat Evans (CO) Evans (PA) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fields Figures Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fletcher Flood Foster Foushee Foxx Frankel, Lois Franklin, Scott Friedman Frost Fry Fulcher Fuller Gallagher Garamendi Garbarino Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gill (TX) Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Goldman (TX) 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 Huizenga Hunt Hurd (CO) Issa Ivey Jack Jackson (IL) Jackson (TX) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Kean Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (NY) Kennedy (UT) Khanna Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Krishnamoorthi LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Letlow Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Loudermilk Lucas Luttrell Lynch Mace Mackenzie Magaziner Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mannion Massie Mast Matsui McBath McBride 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-Meeks Min Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Moore (WV) Moran Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Murphy Nadler Neal Neguse Newhouse Norcross Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ocasio-Cortez Ogles Olszewski Omar Onder Pallone Palmer Panetta Pappas Patronis Pelosi Perez Perry Peters Pettersen Pfluger Pingree Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Randall Raskin Reschenthaler Riley (NY) Rivas Rogers (KY) Rose Ross Rouzer Roy Ruiz Rulli Rutherford Salinas Sanchez Scalise Scanlon Schmidt Schneider Scholten Schrier Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Self Sewell Sherman Shreve Simon Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spartz Stansbury Stanton Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Stevens Strickland Strong Stutzman Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Timmons Titus Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Tran Turner (OH) Underwood Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Vargas Vasquez Veasey Vindman Wagner Wahab Walberg Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Watson Coleman Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Whitesides Wied Williams (GA) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke
Leger Fernandez Ramirez Tlaib
Bresnahan Buchanan Carey Correa Crockett Davis (IL) Doggett Donalds Dunn (FL) Estes Fong Gillen Gomez Gonzalez, V. Huffman James Keating Kiggans (VA) Kustoff Luna McCaul Miller (WV) Mills Nehls Norman Owens Rogers (AL) Ryan Salazar Schakowsky Sessions Tiffany Van Orden Velazquez Waters 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 bill, as amended, was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
J. Luis Correa (D-CA)7:07 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent and missed the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 315, H.R. 3978; and YEA on Roll Call No. 316, H.R. 9612.
Laura Gillen (D-NY)7:07 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 315 and YEA on Roll Call No. 316.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On November 9, 2026, page H6108 in the third column, the following appeared: A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The online version has been corrected to read: A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Personal Explanation Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I was necessarily absent and missed the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 315, H.R. 3978; and YEA on Roll Call No. 316, H.R. 9612. Personal Explanation Ms. GILLEN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 315 and YEA on Roll Call No. 316.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Recognizing Jeff Tech Training Program
Page H6109 · 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. THOMPSON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the new Jeff Tech Farm to Refrigerator Training Program which was launched earlier this year.
This innovative curriculum provides educational opportunities for students who are committed to strengthening our country's agriculture industry.
The program is a solution to the current shortage of meat processing professionals, and it will provide students with hands-on experience and a strong foundation in the science of meat cutting.
As the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I am pleased to see the advancements Jeff Tech is making to ensure Pennsylvania producers have access to dependable meat processors.
These students will support our supply chains and will keep beef and pork upon our dinner tables. I commend the school and all those who were involved with planning this new curriculum. This program is another example of how Jeff Tech prepares its students for high-demand jobs.
Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, I am confident this curriculum will strengthen our workforce and local communities for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Jeff Tech.
Recognizing Veterans
Page H6109 · Official text(Mr. LATIMER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday, on Veterans Day, we join together to honor the service and the sacrifice of over 17.6 million American veterans living in the United States.
Answering the call to service requires a profound sense of sacrifice, duty, and enduring commitment, and we are grateful.
Our Nation must honor these servicemembers with that same commitment, not only with praise and proclamations, but by caring for them when they return and in the years that follow.
I hear from veterans in New York who are struggling to keep food on the table, find stable housing, or receive timely, effective healthcare from the VA. That is why I implore this body to ensure that those who served our country are provided with the care they earned and those that made the ultimate sacrifice are returned home to be honored with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, from the floor of the House of Representatives, I thank all the servicemen and -women for keeping our country safe.
Recognizing Henley Jernigan
Page H6109 · Official text(Mr. CARTER of Georgia 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 Henley Jernigan for her great accomplishment in winning the Miss Elementary America Kindergarten title.
The competition took place in Little Rock, Arkansas, where Henley competed against competitors from all around the country. It is the first major scholarship pageant she has ever entered.
Winning the crown means Henley will spend the year traveling across the United States promoting the pageant system and her personal platform, Henley's Kindness Club.
Little Henley is already quite proud of her Georgia roots and wanted to make sure she shared credit with the people who got her to the national stage, saying a big thank you to all her family and friends back home in Vidalia, Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Henley on her great victory and hope that she continues to make Georgia proud.
Recognizing Women in Congress
Page H6109 · Official text(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and celebrate the women who have fought tirelessly to make their voices heard in this very Chamber.
When I first arrived in Congress, there were only 24 women. Today, there are 150 women serving across the House and Senate. Now, I look forward to serving as one of at least 115 record-breaking members, and counting, of the Democratic Women's Caucus.
For over a century, women have pushed against the economic and social barriers that once kept them out of the halls of power. Since Jeannette Rankin became the first woman elected to Congress in 1916, women have championed human rights, civil rights, expanded economic opportunity, strengthened national security, and led critical committees that shape the education, healthcare, and future of our Nation.
After last week's historic election, it is evident that our progress is undeniable. However, it is also unfinished. To young women watching today: Your place is here. Your voice matters. The road ahead may not always be easy. Know that generations of women before us have paved the way.
America will not stop. We are a nation of progress. Let us continue to fight for equal representation, for policies that uplift working women and families, and for a future where no one questions whether a woman belongs in the highest office. Together, we all strive for generations to come, never constrained by a glass ceiling.
South Carolina Winning Under Republicans
Page H6109 · 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, under the progrowth agenda of President Trump Donald Trump and Republicans, Governor Henry McMaster, Speaker Murrell Smith, and President Thomas Alexander, South Carolina is one of the fastetst growing States in America.
South Carolinians are achieving bigger paychecks, opportunity, and creating jobs. The Working Families Tax Cut Act keeps money in the pockets of families.
Workers no longer pay taxes on qualifying overtime.
There is no tax on Social Security for 1 million South Carolina seniors.
South Carolinians saw an average tax refund reach over $3,400.
The future of South Carolina is bright with the election of Alan Wilson as Governor with all constitutional offices being Republican.
In conclusion, God bless our troops. Trump is reinstating peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump with war criminal Putin providing intelligence and equipment to Iran to murder Americans.
Now Putinist leader Vucic of Serbia is removed by fair and free elections last week in Belgrade.
Now Serbia has a chance to be fair and free and part of the Western civilization.
Veterans Day
Pages H6109–H6110 · 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, I honor those who served our country in uniform.
Our freedom is protected by many ordinary citizens: our neighbors, our friends, and our families who have responded to our country's call.
Many of them left the comfort of home to stand guard throughout the world to protect us from harm.
Mr. Speaker, we celebrate Veterans Day not just as another holiday but as a time to recognize the incredible dedication and sacrifice made by those who have served.
Veterans are strong, resilient, and dedicated individuals even long after their service to our country. Veterans also make great contributions to our communities as leaders, mentors, and neighbors.
To all of our veterans who have served across generations, I thank you with all of my heart.
No Amnesty for Illegals
Page H6110 · Official text(Mr. GROTHMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot in the paper as we have over the last few years about immigration policy, and I was going to give a speech, but I thought I would refer to another gentleman, President Donald Trump, when he said speaking about those who want amnesty: Amnesty is suicide for Republicans. Not one of those 12 million who broke our laws will vote Republican. Obama is laughing at the GOP. That is what President Trump said prior to the time he was elected President largely on that issue.
We obviously should have some illegal immigrants take priority over others in removing them. For example, those who are on welfare should be removed first. But under no circumstances should the law become: You get in here, you hang around for a year and don't break another law, and we will allow you in. That would be suicide for the United States.
Already one-sixth of the people in this country are foreign born, something we haven't had since at least Civil War times. So I beg every decisionmaker in the District of Columbia to respect Mr. Trump's words and not grant any more amnesty to illegals.
Women in Congress
Page H6110 · Official text(Ms. STANSBURY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, we are back, and tonight we are here with huge news. Not only did we win back the House, we won it with women. We set as our goal this election to win back the House with at least 100 women. And as of tonight, we announce that we have won with 120 Democratic women taking seats in the House this next Congress.
These women are historymakers. They are blasting through barriers and glass ceilings, blowing through the roof of our goals, making history with their bodies and with their elections in the Senate, in the House, and in our Governor's houses.
Tonight we celebrate. Tonight we get back to work. Tonight we fight for the American people. Tonight we say to America: We are back, and we won back the House with women.
Are you guys ready for this? Let's do this.
Leave of Absence
Page H6110 · Official textBy unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to: Mr. Davis of Illinois (at the request of Mr. Jeffries) for today.
Bills Presented to the President
Page H6110 · Official textKevin F. McCumber, Clerk of the House, reported that on November 5, 2026, the following bills were presented to the President of the United States for approval
Text printed in the Record (245 characters)
H.R. 1945. To designate the America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark, and for other purposes.
H.R. 7730. To amend title 11, United States Code, to modify certain bankruptcy eligibility requirements, and for other purposes.
Adjournment
Page H6110 · Official textMr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, November 10, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
Executive Communications, Etc.
Pages H6110–H6111 · 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 (11,987 characters)
EC-5065. A letter from the Regulations Branch Lead, U.S. Forest Service Policy Office, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --Purchaser Credit on Timber Sale Contracts (RIN: 0596-AD78) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture.
EC-5066. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Fiscal Year 2025 Report to Congress on the Nurse Corps Loan Repayment and Scholarship Programs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 297n(h); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VIII, Sec. 846(h) (as amended by Public Law 107-205, Sec. 103(d)); (116 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
EC-5067. A letter from the Secretary of the Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Revision of the Negative Option Rule, Withdrawal of the CARS Rule, Removal of the Non-Compete Rule To Conform These Rules to Federal Court Decisions (RIN: 3084-AB60) (RIN: 3084-AB72) (RIN: 3084-AB74) received October 26, 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-5068. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs -- Office of the General Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NHTSA, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Departments final rule -- Eliminating Obsolete Regulations Related to the 911 Grant Program [Docket ID: 260108-0020] (RIN: 0660-AA40; 2127-AN06) received October 26, 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-5069. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to specified harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation that was declared in Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1628); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5070. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 26-078 pursuant to Section 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5071. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 26-071 pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5072. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 26-082 pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5073. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Report Number: 007669, Resolution of the Cyprus Dispute, 22 USC 2373(c): Eastern Mediterranean Policy Requirements Covering Period August 1, 2026, to September 31, 2026; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5074. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report titled "Expropriation of United States Property", Department Number: 007551, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2370a(f); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5075. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: RSAT 26-102, pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5076. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: RSAT 26-1M, pursuant to Section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5077. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: RSAT 0J-26, pursuant to Section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5078. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: RSAT 26-1K, pursuant to Section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5079. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: RSAT 26-1N, pursuant to Section 36(b)(5)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
EC-5080. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-459, "Strategic Parking Enforcement Enhancement Amendment Act of 2026", pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
EC-5081. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-452, "Broadband Price Transparency Regulation Temporary
Amendment Act of 2026", pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 813); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
EC-5082. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting D.C. Act 26-451, "Cybersecurity and Accountability Amendment Act of 2026"; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
EC-5083. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel for Operations, Department of housing and Urban Development, transmitting a notification of a nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
EC-5084. A letter from the Secretary of the Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final guideline -- Policy Statement Regarding Disparate Impact Claims and Unfair Discrimination Claims (RIN: 3084-ZA01) received October 26, 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.
EC-5085. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Ponce Harbor, Ponce, PR [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1221] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5086. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Lake Havasu, Lake Havasu City, AZ [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1210] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5087. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Culebra, Puerto Rico [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1276] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5088. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Lake Michigan, Chicago, IL [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1291] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5089. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; U.S. Coast Guard Base, Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel, Los Angeles, CA [Docket Number: USCG-2026-0763] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5090. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Luminsea Miami Shootout and Races, Miami Marine Stadium Harbor, Miami, FL [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1194] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5091. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Security Zone; Patapsco River, Baltimore, MD [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1287] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5092. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Illinois River, Morris, IL [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1135] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5093. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; St. Lawrence River, Massena, NY [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1271] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5094. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Allegheny River Mile Marker 20.5-21, Creighton, PA [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1260] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5095. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Bridge Demolition, Upper Mississippi River, Chester, IL [Docket Number: USCG-2026-0730] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5096. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Milwaukee River and Menomonee River, Milwaukee, WI [Docket Number: USCG-2026-1129] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
EC-5097. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Zach's Bay, Wantagh, NY [Docket Number: USCG-2026-0931] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received October 26, 2026, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
Text printed in the Record (115 characters)
801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions
Page H6111 · 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:
Text printed in the Record (246 characters)
Mr. GRIFFITH: Committee on Rules. H. Res. 1650. A resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1013) to amend the Federal securities laws to enhance 403(b) plans, and for other purposes (Rept. 119-878). Referred to the House Calendar.
Public Bills and Resolutions
Pages H6111–H6112 · 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 (5,819 characters)
By Mr. CARTER of Louisiana (for himself and Mr.
Luttrell):
H.R. 10961. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report on the Warrior Training Advancement Course of the Veterans Benefits Administration; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. CISNEROS:
H.R. 10962. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to require a justification for use of procedures other than competitive procedures in contracting, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. DAVIS of Illinois:
H.R. 10963. A bill to eliminate the statute of limitations for certain Federal perjury offenses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HARIDOPOLOS:
H.R. 10964. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2503 South Washington Avenue in Titusville, Florida, as the "Agent Kevin Morris Post Office"; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. IVEY (for himself, Ms. McBride, Mrs. Beatty, Ms.
Norton, Mr. Thanedar, Mr. Whitesides, Mrs. Grijalva,
Ms. Craig, and Mr. Gottheimer):
H.R. 10965. A bill to provide out-of-school time educators with professional development in STEM subjects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
By Ms. MACE:
H.R. 10966. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs maintain sufficient staffing levels of maternity care coordinators, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. MENG (for herself, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Bell, Mr.
Bera, Mr. Carson, Ms. Chu, Ms. DelBene, Mr.
Gottheimer, Mr. Kennedy of New York, Mr. Khanna, Mr.
Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ross, Ms. Simon, Mr.
Subramanyam, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Takano, Mr. Thanedar,
Ms. Tlaib, Mrs. Watson Coleman, and Ms. Jayapal):
H.R. 10967. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Diwali, also known as "Deepavali", as a Federal holiday, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Ms. PELOSI (for herself, Ms. Castor of Florida, and
Mr. Takano):
H.R. 10968. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a grant program to provide financial assistance to eligible entities to furnish supportive services to certain eligible veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. SCHRIER (for herself and Ms. Bonamici):
H.R. 10969. A bill to amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to establish a task force for the development of best practices for schools participating in the school lunch program relating to the time of day lunches are served, the time of day recess is offered, and the duration of lunch periods, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
By Mr. VINDMAN:
H.R. 10970. A bill to amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act and titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to require coverage of certain cardiovascular tests without cost sharing under group health plans, group and individual health insurance coverage, and the Medicare and Medicaid programs; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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. CROW (for himself, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Ellzey,
and Mr. Finstad):
H. Res. 1651. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Veterans Small Business Week"; to the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself, Ms. Chu, and Mr.
Panetta):
H. Res. 1652. A resolution expressing support for the designation of the week beginning on November 9, 2026, as "National School Psychology Week"; to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
By Mr. GUEST (for himself, Ms. Ansari, Mr. Carbajal,
Mr. Min, Mr. Levin, Ms. McBride, Mr. Moskowitz, Mr.
Case, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Carter of
Louisiana, Ms. Lee of Nevada, Ms. Goodlander, Mr.
Pappas, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Vasquez, Ms. Gillen, Mr.
Davis of North Carolina, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania,
Ms. Escobar, Ms. Strickland, Mr. Kennedy of New York,
Ms. Randall, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Correa,
Ms. Williams of Georgia, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms.
Brown, Mr. Riley of New York, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs.
McClain Delaney, Mr. Crow, Mr. Shreve, Mrs. Torres of
California, Mr. Sorensen, Ms. Mejia, Mr. Moore of
Alabama, Mr. Strong, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr.
Ciscomani, Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona, Mr. Hill of
Arkansas, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Gimenez,
Ms. Salazar, Mr. Mast, Mr. Fine, Mr. Mills, Mr.
Carter of Georgia, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr.
Moylan, Mr. Simpson, Mrs. Spartz, Mr. Higgins of
Louisiana, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Finstad, Mr. Stauber,
Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Bacon,
Mr. Garbarino, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Moore of North
Carolina, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mr. Rulli, Mr. Turner of
Ohio, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Bentz, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Fry,
Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Moran, Mr.
Weber of Texas, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Wittman, Mr.
Newhouse, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Mr. Fuller,
Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mrs.
Cammack, Mr. Baird, Mr. Cline, Mr. Taylor, Mr.
Mackenzie, Ms. Hageman, and Mr. Jackson of Texas):
H. Res. 1653. A resolution honoring the service and sacrifice of America's veterans on Veterans Day, 2026; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin (for herself, Mr. Pocan, Mr.
Grothman, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Tiffany, and Mr. Wied):
H. Res. 1654. A resolution congratulating the Milwaukee Brewers, and the fans of the Milwaukee Brewers, on winning Major League Baseball's 2026 World Championship Series; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Memorials
Page H6112 · Official textUnder clause 3 of rule XII,
Text printed in the Record (308 characters)
ML-139. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the State of Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 141, urging the Federal Government to report on the abduction of Ukrainian children by the Russian Federation and assist in their return; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Page H6112 · 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 H6112–H6113 · Official textUnder clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:
Text printed in the Record (5,860 characters)
H.R. 40: Mr. Morelle.
H.R. 563: Mr. Steube.
H.R. 685: Mr. Roy.
H.R. 924: Mr. Gottheimer.
H.R. 999: Mr. Blair.
H.R. 1189: Ms. Morrison.
H.R. 1317: Mr. Sorensen.
H.R. 1456: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 1502: Mr. Bishop, Mr. Barr, Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Larsen of Washington, and Mr. Tiffany.
H.R. 1521: Mr. Flood.
H.R. 1522: Ms. Goodlander.
H.R. 1685: Ms. Scholten.
H.R. 1845: Ms. Morrison.
H.R. 1918: Ms. Ross.
H.R. 2029: Mr. Mfume and Ms. Pressley.
H.R. 2048: Mr. Grothman.
H.R. 2064: Ms. Randall.
H.R. 2102: Mr. Huffman.
H.R. 2199: Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
H.R. 2368: Mr. Meeks.
H.R. 2467: Mr. Liccardo.
H.R. 2618: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 2662: Mr. Crawford.
H.R. 2743: Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida.
H.R. 2757: Mr. Meuser.
H.R. 2790: Mr. Blair.
H.R. 3104: Mr. Gottheimer.
H.R. 3112: Mr. Liccardo.
H.R. 3115: Mr. Blair.
H.R. 3139: Mr. Norcross.
H.R. 3178: Ms. Titus.
H.R. 3378: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.
H.R. 3449: Ms. Randall.
H.R. 3514: Ms. Williams of Georgia, Mrs. Torres of California, and Ms. Mejia.
H.R. 3674: Ms. Goodlander.
H.R. 3757: Mr. Vasquez.
H.R. 3887: Mr. McGuire.
H.R. 4029: Mrs. Foushee.
H.R. 4129: Mr. Fitzgerald.
H.R. 4140: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 4145: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 4227: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 4234: Mr. Gill of Texas.
H.R. 4251: Mr. Morelle.
H.R. 4253: Ms. Morrison and Mr. Menefee.
H.R. 4365: Ms. Hoyle of Oregon.
H.R. 4393: Mr. Gimenez.
H.R. 4464: Mr. Edwards.
H.R. 4466: Mr. Bell, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Horsford.
H.R. 4487: Ms. Titus, Mr. Costa, and Mr. Bell.
H.R. 4559: Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Gottheimer.
H.R. 4568: Mr. Magaziner.
H.R. 4602: Mr. Harris of North Carolina and Mr. Magaziner.
H.R. 4688: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 4806: Mr. Meuser, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Quigley.
H.R. 4831: Mr. Grothman.
H.R. 4837: Mr. Fleischmann.
H.R. 4852: Mr. Liccardo and Mr. Gallagher.
H.R. 5026: Mr. Gill of Texas.
H.R. 5221: Ms. Tenney.
H.R. 5271: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Garcia of California.
H.R. 5355: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 5511: Mr. Magaziner.
H.R. 5940: Ms. Bonamici and Mr. Casar.
H.R. 6057: Mr. Gill of Texas.
H.R. 6160: Mrs. Fletcher.
H.R. 6182: Mrs. Foushee.
H.R. 6199: Mr. Mannion.
H.R. 6470: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 6731: Mr. Fitzpatrick.
H.R. 6976: Mr. Morelle and Ms. Houlahan.
H.R. 7014: Mr. Walkinshaw and Ms. Morrison.
H.R. 7281: Mr. Beyer.
H.R. 7335: Mr. Gottheimer.
H.R. 7417: Ms. King-Hinds, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mrs. McIver, Mr. Moylan, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Cohen, and Ms. Randall.
H.R. 7531: Mr. Blair.
H.R. 7599: Ms. Bynum and Mr. Blair.
H.R. 7651: Mr. Jackson of Texas.
H.R. 7664: Mr. Gill of Texas.
H.R. 7805: Mr. Magaziner.
H.R. 7815: Mr. Hill of Arkansas, Mr. Sorensen, and Ms. Schrier.
H.R. 7827: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 7936: Mrs. McClain Delaney.
H.R. 8007: Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 8046: Mr. Suozzi.
H.R. 8271: Mr. Fong.
H.R. 8552: Ms. Gillen.
H.R. 8694: Mr. DeSaulnier.
H.R. 8730: Ms. Hageman.
H.R. 8908: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 9000: Mr. Meeks.
H.R. 9007: Mrs. Foushee.
H.R. 9110: Mr. Moulton, Mrs. Fletcher, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Mannion, Mr. Riley of New York, and Mr. Casar.
H.R. 9211: Mr. Jackson of Texas and Mr. Neguse.
H.R. 9289: Mr. Walkinshaw, Mr. McGarvey, and Ms. Ross.
H.R. 9458: Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 9509: Ms. Davids of Kansas.
H.R. 9567: Mr. Carter of Georgia.
H.R. 9638: Ms. Scholten.
H.R. 9641: Mr. Figures and Mr. Riley of New York.
H.R. 9656: Mr. Gill of Texas.
H.R. 9701: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia.
H.R. 9816: Mr. Torres of New York.
H.R. 9817: Mr. Torres of New York.
H.R. 9823: Mrs. Foushee.
H.R. 9846: Ms. Davids of Kansas.
H.R. 9970: Mr. Fong.
H.R. 10052: Mr. Bell and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 10126: Mr. Guest.
H.R. 10146: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 10173: Mr. Levin.
H.R. 10197: Mr. Vindman.
H.R. 10210: Mrs. Dingell.
H.R. 10223: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 10235: Mrs. Grijalva.
H.R. 10279: Mrs. Cammack, Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida, and Mr. Dunn of Florida.
H.R. 10398: Mr. Gooden.
H.R. 10410: Mr. Joyce of Ohio.
H.R. 10429: Mr. Foster.
H.R. 10476: Mr. Torres of New York.
H.R. 10504: Mr. Garcia of California.
H.R. 10534: Mr. Vindman.
H.R. 10545: Mr. Garcia of California and Ms. Norton.
H.R. 10554: Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Haridopolos.
H.R. 10568: Mrs. McClain Delaney.
H.R. 10569: Mrs. McClain Delaney.
H.R. 10574: Ms. Bonamici.
H.R. 10582: Mr. Calvert and Ms. DelBene.
H.R. 10628: Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Ms. Kelly of Illinois.
H.R. 10642: Ms. Crockett and Ms. Chu.
H.R. 10664: Mrs. Foushee.
H.R. 10665: Mrs. Foushee.
H.R. 10674: Mr. Case.
H.R. 10679: Ms. Davids of Kansas.
H.R. 10704: Mr. Amo.
H.R. 10734: Mrs. Foushee.
H.R. 10761: Mrs. Foushee.
H.R. 10770: Mrs. Trahan, Ms. Dexter, Mrs. Foushee, Mr. Riley of New York, Mr. Garbarino, Mr. Vasquez, Mr. Golden of Maine, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Smith of Washington, and Mr. Ruiz.
H.R. 10772: Mr. Gottheimer.
H.R. 10773: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.
H.R. 10774: Mr. Vindman.
H.R. 10779: Mr. Tonko.
H.R. 10828: Mr. Bell, Mr. Case, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Ms. Pettersen, and Mr. Vindman.
H.R. 10863: Ms. Clarke of New York.
H.R. 10866: Mr. Gottheimer.
H.R. 10873: Mr. McCormick.
H.R. 10877: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.
H.R. 10882: Mr. Vindman.
H.R. 10915: Mr. Harrigan.
H.R. 10946: Ms. Norton, Ms. Jacobs, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Lieu, Mr. Subramanyam, Mr. Carson, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Gottheimer, Ms. Chu, Mr. Vindman, and Ms. Davids of Kansas.
H.R. 10947: Ms. Bonamici.
H.R. 10951: Mr. Levin.
H.J. Res. 217: Mr. Amo.
H. Res. 69: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H. Res. 547: Mrs. Hayes.
H. Res. 824: Mr. Quigley and Mr. Bell.
H. Res. 925: Ms. Davids of Kansas and Ms. Salinas.
H. Res. 1427: Mr. Gottheimer.
H. Res. 1592: Mr. Carbajal.
H. Res. 1633: Mr. Guest.
H. Res. 1644: Mr. Carson.
H. Res. 1646: Mr. Correa, Ms. Morrison, and Mrs. Beatty.