Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule providing for consideration of a few measures.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for the flexibility to consider a rule related to reconciliation on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules in order to expeditiously consider such legislation if it is received from the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, passage of my resolution today allows us to take important action this week. My resolution allows us to consider legislation affecting veterans, military families, and future generations.

This week, the House has an opportunity to take action on behalf of those who answered our country's call to serve, the families who stand beside them, and the stories that help define who we are as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us also provides consideration of H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), my friend and colleague.

Chairman Bost has long been a strong advocate for veterans and military families. Yesterday, during discussion of this legislation, we spent time talking through the practical consequences of an issue affecting veterans across our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thought Chairman Bost helped paint an important picture, and I believe it is worth sharing with the House today, while certainly to address the 250,000 veterans who have been affected by this issue, but sometimes understanding legislation begins by thinking about just one person and sharing their story. Picture for a moment a veteran navigating the lasting effects of military service. Maybe they are balancing appointments, recovery, family responsibilities, and challenges associated with service-connected injuries. They are not a danger to themselves. They are not a danger to anyone else, but they simply reach a point where they recognize something many Americans recognize from time to time: I just need a little help. Maybe they speak with fellow veterans at The American Legion, a local VFW Post, or another veterans service association. Maybe they visit Veteran Affairs seeking support, and maybe they are having difficulty managing finances while focusing on their recovery.

The VA then determines a fiduciary may help manage their benefits. This isn't uncommon. A fiduciary is exactly that--someone assigned to help oversee financial matters.

Under the current framework, assignment of a fiduciary results in veterans being reported by VA bureaucrats to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, otherwise known as the NICS list, despite never being determined to be a danger to themselves or anyone else.

Once entered into that system, veterans can lose their Second Amendment constitutional rights, despite never receiving the same process or legal findings applied to nonveterans.

Mr. Speaker, that is the issue before us.

Earlier this year, President Trump's Department of Veterans Affairs, led by a great Georgian, the Secretary of Veteran Affairs, Doug Collins, took important steps to restore fairness for veterans. The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act builds on that progress by establishing lasting protections under law.

Simply put, this legislation ensures veterans seeking support through the VA are not subjected to different treatment solely because they sought assistance while navigating the lasting effects of military service.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act consists of several important provisions.

Section 2 restores due process protections and ensures that the assignment of a fiduciary alone cannot automatically result in placement onto the NICS list, which prohibits firearm access. If you are a veteran at home seeking assistance from the VA, this means asking for help no longer creates uncertainty surrounding your constitutional rights that you defended in uniform. You can seek support. You can focus on recovery. You can continue moving forward with the benefits the Constitution affords you.

Section 3 ensures that veterans previously affected have their records corrected and updated. It rights a wrong and corrects an injustice. If this issue affected you or your family, this legislation creates a path to address concerns that may have followed you for years.

Section 4 clarifies that assistance in managing financial matters alone cannot serve as the basis for different treatment. Seeking support should never result in different treatment.

I applaud the many organizations that have stepped up to help us consider this legislation and advocated for its passage, including the National Rifle Association, the Gun Owners of America, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Their leadership and partnership throughout the consideration of this legislation will yield success today. Their advocacy helped elevate this issue and move it forward, beyond just a concept and a debate, for families and military families across the country.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us also provides for consideration of H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026. While military service may come to an end, for many veterans and families, the responsibilities and challenges associated with that service can continue for years.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to think back to the veteran we were just discussing. Now, imagine that

same veteran returned home from catastrophic service-connected injuries. Recovery did not end after leaving the battlefield. Instead, recovery became a part of everyday life. Medical appointments became routine. In-home care became necessary. Family members stepped into caregiver roles, and financial responsibilities continued arriving every month.

For veterans and families, that reality continues for many years after military service ends. That is exactly why Congress must act.

Mr. Speaker, legislation receives a name for a reason. This legislation before us bears the names of Sharri Briley and Sergeant Eric Edmundson because their experiences help explain why stronger support matters.

After losing her husband, Army Chief Warrant Officer Donovan ``Bull'' Briley, during the battle of Mogadishu, Sharri Briley experienced responsibilities no military family should have to navigate alone. At just 24 years old, while serving our country near the Iraq-Syria border, Sergeant Edmundson's vehicle struck an improvised explosive device, an IED. The blast caused catastrophic injuries that fundamentally changed the course of his life. By the grace of God, Sergeant Edmundson survived.

Today, years later, Sergeant Edmundson and his family continue navigating the lasting effects of injuries sustained in service to our country. Their experiences remind us of an important reality: Military service often creates responsibilities carried not only by veterans but by entire families.

Simply put, H.R. 6047 strengthens support for catastrophically injured veterans, caregivers, surviving spouses, and military families. The Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act consists of several important provisions.

Section 2 increases compensation for catastrophically injured veterans requiring regular in-home care. If you are that veteran at home, navigating daily care, appointments, adaptive equipment, and financial strain associated with severe service-connected injuries, this legislation provides approximately $10,000 annually in additional support. That support helps offset costs that families experiencing such burdens carry every day.

Section 3 strengthens support available to caregivers and military families. If your spouse, parent, child, or loved one helps care for you each day, this legislation recognizes an important reality: Military service often affects entire families.

Section 4 ensures these reforms are implemented effectively.

Section 5 expands eligibility requirements for Guard and Reserve servicemembers by reducing qualifying Active-Duty requirements for VA home loan eligibility. If you are a Guard or Reserve servicemember at home, this legislation expands opportunities for homeownership and helps more military families achieve the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, finally, the rule before us provides consideration of the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, introduced by my colleague, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, one of the most respected members of the House Republican Conference.

The vision for the Smithsonian American women's history museum is straightforward but important: to preserve, research, and share the stories, experiences, and contributions of women whose leadership, sacrifice, and service built our country.

On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed legislation into law, taking an important step toward making that vision a reality. That reflected something many Americans already understand: The story of our country cannot be fully told without the stories of the women who shaped it.

While Congress and President Trump established a path forward for the museum, the project stalled because one important piece remained unfinished: The museum still does not have a permanent home on The National Mall because the original law prohibited it from being located within the Reserve. The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act helps complete that work.

Mr. Speaker, all of us can think of women whose strength, sacrifice, and example led us to who we are today: a mother, grandmother, teacher, mentor, leader, or someone whose example shaped our own story.

In many ways, these stories became part of our country's story, too. For generations, American women shaped our country through military service, public service, education, science, innovation, leadership, and sacrifice. That is why Congress must act.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act moves this project from authorization toward reality by providing a path for the museum to be built alongside other Smithsonian museums at a place of historic and national prominence.

The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act consists of several important provisions.

Section 2 removes restrictions preventing the museum from being located within the Reserve on The National Mall, designates the south monument site, and allows the Smithsonian to move forward with planning and construction.

Section 2 also facilitates transfer of the land to the Smithsonian Institution and establishes planning and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability as the project moves forward.

If your family visits our Nation's Capital years from now, a child walking through those exhibits may learn about a scientist, teacher, servicemember, entrepreneur, or national leader, and even be inspired to change our country, too.

I applaud Representative Malliotakis for her leadership on this effort.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House has an opportunity to act on behalf of veterans seeking fairness, military families carrying lasting responsibilities, and future generations who deserve to understand the stories that helped shape our country. These measures address different issues, but they are connected by a simple principle: We should honor service; we should support families; and we should preserve the stories and values that continue shaping our country.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my resolution, which is provided for consideration in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure everybody at home knows what is before us. I find it notable, and I am sure we will debate H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, but just to comment on H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act, this bill has meaningful, meaningful reform, and it enables veterans to live a much better life.

It significantly increases the monthly benefits rate for catastrophically, service-connected disabled veterans with a traumatic brain injury or other service disabilities that require regular, around-the-clock, in-home medical care, offering an additional $10,000 annually. It raises survivors' VA benefits by an extra 1.5 percent over 2 years, providing an extra couple hundred dollars to over 500,000 survivors.

Since 1993, Congress has not adjusted DIC aside from inflation. This is meaningful, and it has a great impact on veterans across the country, notwithstanding the fact that it also expands the eligibility requirement for National Guard and reservists from 90 days of Active Duty service to 14 days of Active Duty service with a 1 percent fee. This would allow more Members of the Guard and Reserves, generally younger members, to be able to live the American Dream by owning their first home.

Over 500,000 survivors, National Guard and reservists, and thousands of catastrophically disabled veterans and their families will be positively impacted by this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to list some of the organizations that stand with us, hoping this bill is considered for debate and final passage later today.

It is helpful for the Record to note that The American Legion endorses this legislation. The Wounded Warrior Project endorses this legislation. Paralyzed Veterans of America endorses the legislation. Vietnam Veterans of America endorses this legislation.

AMVETS, the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Gold Star Spouses of America, Inc., the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the USA, National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, The Independence Fund, Quality of Life Foundation, Veterans Multiple Sclerosis Alliance, and National Military Family Association all support this legislation, which to me illustrates why its passage is so important. Again, I stand with those groups, as do many of my colleagues.

I suspect this will receive wide bipartisan support. What we are doing today is debating the rule, the resolution that enables us to consider that legislation. We can have that debate, but we can't do it unless we pass the rule, which is why our side feels so fervently responsible for helping move this issue forward to solve these issues for veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Representative is referring to with respect to trans-obsessed bills. This resolution has nothing whatsoever regarding that legislation. That was passed 2 weeks ago. I assume the Representative is just 2 weeks too late.

That having been said, I do want to spend a little bit more time talking about H.R. 1041, Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. I think this is owed a lot of contemplation, deliberation by people watching at home. As I mentioned before, 250,000 veterans, a quarter of a million people, who served our country in uniform, have been subjected to an injustice. We have the ability to correct that today.

I walked you through, the viewer at home, but just picture a veteran who is navigating those lasting effects of military service, and they may be having a hard time trying to pay for their bills or trying to figure out a way to make ends meet. So they reach out to The American Legion, the VFW, many of the organizations, by the way, who endorse the other veterans legislation that we discussed and the other side so passionately opposes.

However, nonetheless, take yourself into this picture. The veteran is going into The American Legion hall, having a conversation, and they say: Hey, why don't you reach out to the VA?

They do so, and the VA says: Okay, let's see what we can do.

They end up appointing a fiduciary to help them manage their benefits. For over 30 years--I should say, 28 years, but nearly 30 years, that veteran has then been subjected to an unconstitutional process that we can correct today because when that happens and when someone is appointed a fiduciary to help them manage their benefits, they have been sent to the NICS list, which is administered by the Department of Justice, the FBI, which prohibits the owning and ownership of a firearm. To me, that is a grave injustice. The people who put on the uniform of our country and served our country to defend our constitutional rights should be afforded the exact same constitutional rights that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to encourage everyone to remember reading this resolution, there are three bills we are just looking to have a vote on today. The other side is trying to block consideration of this legislation. I hope some will cross the aisle and help us achieve this later. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to debate this resolution before us today, but I will comment briefly. With respect to President Trump, first and foremost, over the 4 years of his first Presidency, he was subjected to persecution unlike any President before, which probably led to the now at least three assassination attempts.

I welcome the other side joining us in not just condemning those but helping us ensure that he is not subjected to that type of threat going forward.

What I will say, with respect to the ballroom, is that there was a bipartisan group of individuals who came down and said this was necessary. Presidents from both parties have extolled the virtue of having a safe space not just to host functions but to ensure that the President and members of our country, who serve our country, are protected in those environments.

We saw that, unfortunately, on full display just a month ago when a shooter tried to rush a dinner, at which the President and many other Republicans and Democrats were congregating, with the explicit purpose of assassinating members of President Trump's administration. I welcome the calls of condemnation from the other side and look forward to hearing them in the gentlewoman's rebuttal.

What I would say is the issue before us today, just a good reminder, there are three bills on which we are seeking to have a vote. We are seeking to have a voice and an opportunity to vote on this legislation today. You can vote however you want. This rule allows us to have that opportunity.

As I mentioned before, this gives us a chance to help veterans who have suffered catastrophic injuries. That is one of the pieces of legislation we are voting on today. This has the ability to restore the constitutional rights of 250,000 veterans who have had their rights stripped from them because of legislation that was passed 28 years ago that has been interpreted in a certain way ever since. This legislation enables us to build a museum honoring America's women and all the contributions they have made to this incredible country that we all enjoy today.

I just remind folks that that is what we are debating, and that is what we are voting on. I welcome conversations about each, but that is the question before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Representative mentioned, or rather alleged, that the legislation before us this week is not an American priority, so I think we should just dissect the three bills under consideration.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, is it not a priority for us to ensure that the constitutional rights our veterans fought to defend are conferred on to them?

Is that not a priority for us to correct an injustice inflicted upon our veterans?

Is it not a priority for us to pass legislation that will help strengthen benefits and help catastrophically injured veterans that is broadly supported across the veterans community including veterans service organizations like The American Legion, Wounded Warrior Project, and Paralyzed Veterans of America?

Those groups and those associations support our legislation.

How is that not a priority?

Lastly, how is it not a priority to ensure that we honor America's women by building the museum that has rightly deserved to be built for many years?

We are going to take action to do that today.

I will just note, too, the Representative mentioned many things about President Trump. But, yet, I still wait to hear from the other side the broad condemnation of the relentless persecution that has led to attack after attack, after attack on President Trump and his family. It is unfair to him, and it is one of the reasons why, as the Representative noted, later this week we may be considering--we will see what happens in the Senate--but we may be considering legislation that is going to help pay our law enforcement officers in the Federal Government. That is a priority for us and always has been for us.

Again, Mr. Speaker, when you look at what we are debating this week, we are trying to help veterans get their constitutional rights back. We are trying to help veterans through bills that are endorsed by every veteran service organization that serves our Nation's veterans, and we are trying to build a museum that we have been trying to build for 6 years. I think all three are priorities for our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), who is one of the most respected voices in the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, first, I would say the colleague to whom my colleague from New Mexico referenced was speaking about a bill that already passed 2 weeks ago, so I think he was 2 weeks too late for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Mr. Speaker, again, that is one of the reasons why my colleague is one of the most respected voices in the House Republican Conference, one of the best debaters we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the rule I have presented today, House Resolution 1300, enables this House of Representatives to carry out its responsibilities and consider legislation affecting veterans, military families, and future generations.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to think one more time about that veteran we discussed today. Think about the veteran who walks into the VA simply looking for support. Think about that veteran navigating recovery, appointments, and the lasting effects of military service. Think about the spouse, the parent, or the loved one who quietly stepped forward and carried responsibilities that military service brought home. Think about the families who continue showing up every day with strength, perseverance, and grace because for many military families, service does not simply end when the uniform comes off.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, we discussed different bills addressing different issues, but each measure before us reflects a simple principle: When the brave men and women of our country answered the call to serve, they did so without hesitation. When they return home, they should know their country will stand beside them with that same commitment.

That means protecting constitutional freedoms. That means strengthening support for veterans and military families, and that means preserving the stories and experiences that help tell the story of our country.

To the veterans and military families watching today, these issues are not abstract. They are your lives. These are your experiences, and these are the responsibilities Congress has an obligation to take seriously.

Mr. Speaker, this rule allows this House of Representatives to move forward and continue delivering on those responsibilities. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment To H. Res. 1300 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

In section 2, insert ``and the amendment specified in

section 5 of this resolution'' after ``accompanying this

resolution''.

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

``Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 2 of this

resolution is as follows:

Page 5, strike line 20 and all that follows through page 6,

line 10 and insert the following: (and redesignate

accordingly):

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before, and I will say it again: The Smithsonian American Women's History Museum is long overdue, and it deserves a place on The National Mall, period, end of sentence.

The National Mall is America's front yard. It is the place we welcome visitors from all over the world. The Smithsonian is where we gather the stories, ideas, inventions, and memories that make us who we are. It is where we keep what matters to our large and, yes, very diverse American family. It is where our Nation tells its story, and American women have shaped every chapter of that story.

This is why I enthusiastically supported the bipartisan version of H.R. 1329, produced by my Republican colleague and friend from New York, Representative Nicole Malliotakis, along with her companion bill, H.R. 1330, related to the National Museum of the American Latino.

Together, those bills would resolve a statutory anomaly that has stalled both museums and allow them to move

forward on The Mall as Congress intended.

The bipartisan legislation is a simple, straightforward fix with 231 cosponsors in this House, including over 100 Members from each side of the aisle.

For some reason, that is not the bill we are debating. I am saddened and disappointed that the Republican majority has needlessly politicized what has for years been a bipartisan priority.

The hyperpartisan museum bill we are debating right now differs from the original legislation in four primary and important ways.

First, it omits the National Museum of the American Latino, which has been paired with the women's history museum since they were both authorized together in 2020.

Second, for reasons that pass all understanding, it grants the President of the United States unprecedented, unilateral, and unchecked authority to disregard the Smithsonian's recommended site and the Congress' recommended site for any reason, or for no reason at all, and pick his own.

Third, it hands control over design and construction to boards stacked with political loyalists who have already shown they will rubberstamp whatever the President wants. To see evidence of that, look no further than the pile of rubble that used to be the White House East Wing.

Fourth, it inserts an ideological poison pill intended to dictate what the museum can and cannot say about women's history.

Mr. Speaker, we deal with a lot of complicated issues around here that require complex solutions. This is not one of them. There is a Republican-led bipartisan bill just sitting here with 231 cosponsors, including 104 Republican Members. We could pass that bill on suspension right now.

The American people will be baffled, as I am, that my Republican colleagues have chosen this route instead, especially since, in 2019, Democrats accepted a Republican amendment requiring the museum to reflect ``the diversity of the political viewpoints held by women of the United States.''

Virtually identical language appears in this bill--ironically, right next to the provision that explicitly excludes political viewpoints held by women of the United States. I guess it should have explicitly read: the diversity of political viewpoints held by Republicans alone.

If the goal were actually to move this museum forward, we would not be abandoning the yearslong bipartisan process that has brought us to the brink of construction. We would not be considering a bill with a cynical, ideological poison pill. We would not exclude the Latino museum. We would not allow boards filled with Trump loyalists to have final say on the museum's design and construction. We would certainly not be giving President Donald Trump, of all people, unchecked authority to pick a location for the women's history museum. We would not be spending time debating a bill destined to fail.

Ask yourselves: Who should decide what appears in a Smithsonian museum, where it goes, and what it looks like? Should it be historians, scholars, and curators who, for 180 years, have made the Smithsonian the premier museum complex in the world, hosting 15 million visitors per year? Is that who it should be? Or a politician who complains publicly that the Smithsonian focuses too much on ``how bad slavery was'' and who has taken a literal wrecking ball to some of our most dignified and important landmarks in this country, a politician who uses our cultural institutions to rewrite history and hand out no-bid government contracts to his friends? That is the question before us.

If House Republicans want the museum to succeed, the path ahead is straightforward and easy. Bring the clean bipartisan fix with its 231 cosponsors to the floor, pair it with the Latino museum as we have done for years, and let the historians and experts do the work of telling the full and complex story of American women.

This legislation does the exact opposite. It takes a bill, the narrow purpose of which is to specify a museum location, and throws even more uncertainty into that very question. It makes literally no sense.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude where I began: The National Mall is where we welcome visitors from around the world, of all types. Everyone comes here. The Smithsonian is where we mark what makes us who we are. They belong to the American people, and the American people deserve both the women's history museum and the National Museum of the American Latino on The National Mall that tells their stories without political interference.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I urge the majority to bring the bipartisan bill that 104 Members of their Conference have cosponsored to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my colleague and friend, Ms. Malliotakis, and her comments.

But the truth is, I don't, first of all, think anyone who lives in Rochester, New York, the home of Susan B. Anthony, just to the west of Seneca Falls, needs to be told about the history of the women's suffrage movement in the United States or the fact that Susan B. Anthony was arrested in 1872 for voting in a Presidential election.

We are well-steeped in it, and we think this ought to be a museum that is curated by scholars and by women and those groups.

The location of this, which was identified in a bipartisan bill--and the suggestion that somehow we now are not supporting or withholding our support for a bipartisan bill is simply wrong.

Actually, that would be the simple thing to do, to put the bipartisan bill on the floor. I don't know what the objection to it is, except that it doesn't have the following language, and this is really what it is all about, and I will read from the bill:

``The site for the Museum is hereby designated as the South Monument site, located on The National Mall, bordered by 14th Street Southwest, Jefferson Drive, Southwest, Raoul Wallenberg Place Southwest, and Independence Avenue Southwest, except that the President may designate an alternative site for the Museum within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection.''

The extraneous portion that was added basically takes away everything the previous sentence said. Everything the bipartisan bill was intended to do is identify this location. But for reasons, as I said earlier, that surpass all understanding, we are now going to give the President of the United States complete, unilateral, unchecked power to make this decision.

It makes no sense. It is not a bipartisan bill. In fact, if you want to have this resolved, you could eliminate that portion of the bill, and we could just do the simple sentence under the bipartisan bill, which has 104 Republican sponsors of it. We could do that. We could do that right now.

That bill is already in print. Ms. Malliotakis is actually the sponsor of that bill, so I would be happy to support that bill of hers. But don't suggest for a minute that this is a bipartisan bill because it is not. It is actually the most hyperpartisan of bills, all intended to make sure that the President is happy with the location of the museum and give him the complete power over Congress to make that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will say I find it rather astonishing that we feel the need here to give a lot of advice and counsel

to the Smithsonian Institution about how to appropriately build and operate a museum, to curate a museum--I don't know if anybody has been--and, by the way, they do museums really well. We are supposed to pass legislation, which we don't even do that well, and now we are going to tell them how to run museums.

I would just encourage my friends, if you haven't, the Smithsonian runs a number of museums in town--one on American history, one on African Americans, one on American Indians, one on natural history, one on air and space. Fifteen million people come to them.

In the 8 years I have been privileged to be a Member of Congress, I have never once had a constituent or anybody else stop me and say, you know, I really have some advice to give to the Smithsonian Institution about how to run museums. I think they do it exceptionally well.

In fact, I would argue that the Smithsonian Institution is the greatest museum complex anywhere in the world. It is an extraordinary place, free to Americans and others who come from other places to see the American experience. I don't think they need, really, a whole lot of help from Members of the United States House of Representatives on how to run museums. Let's let them do that. Let's let academicians, scholars, historians, and museum curators do that.

All we are supposed to do here is say where the location of the museum is to be located. That is the one issue in front of us. Talk about making complex a simple issue. People will be baffled and scratching their heads to watch this debate should they ever watch this debate because this is a simple, simple matter, and we should not complicate this. Let's identify the location, and let's let the Smithsonian Institution do what they do better than any other organization in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall), my dear friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To quote Mrs. Cammack, whom I have great respect for, women's history ``is American history, full stop.'' I completely agree, and I am delighted to see her and her daughter in her maiden speech in front of the House talk about the importance of women in American history. I completely agree with that, as well.

What I find perplexing is that the construction of this museum has been held up now for several years since its authorization, because Congress could not reconcile the fact that we hadn't fully identified a location for the museum. That is the only thing that prevents the construction of this museum from moving forward. We have a bipartisan solution to address just that, the exact location of where this museum should be built.

I think the question that needs to be answered in this moment is why we are not doing that bill. It has 231 cosponsors, a majority of this House, and over 100 Members on both sides of the aisle. It is simple and straightforward.

Why aren't we doing that? Why are we here? Why do we have to debate for the balance of an hour a bill that is so simple to pass and has broad support?

It is because this bill was rewritten by the White House. This bill was rewritten so that not a woman but a man, and, frankly, a man with something of a questionable history toward women, would have the final say.

By the way, if he didn't like the location that we have identified in this bill, he has a way to raise his objections called veto the bill. He could veto it if he didn't like the location, and then we would negotiate.

The Article I prerogative of the Congress is to pass laws. That is what we should be doing, but what we have done is, we have managed to twist ourselves into a pretzel just to satisfy the President so that the President can look at the location that Congress by, law would, like to make clear and say: I don't like that after all. Sorry, Congress. Thank you for your input, but go away. I, Donald Trump, will decide unilaterally where the women's history museum will go. Forget about the 435 Members of the House. Forget about the 100 Members of the Senate. We appreciate your input, like little children. Now, go away. I will make the decision.

That is what is going to happen. That is what this bill is. If that is not the case, I would love to hear a single word of explanation about why we are not doing the bill that has broad bipartisan support that specifically says where this museum will be located on The National Mall, on America's front yard.

Why is that not the case? Why are we here? We can dance around it. We can talk about the contributions of women. Certainly, no one on this side of the aisle would ever, ever spend any time disputing that. We are in complete agreement, which is why we have over 100 sponsors for the bill on our side of the aisle, as well.

The question is, and the question that people watching will want answered, is: Why aren't you doing that bill?

I will be eagerly listening for an explanation as to why the bipartisan bill with 231 cosponsors, which specifically says where this museum should be, the exact location, and why we are not doing that bill.

I will sit quietly and listen. Maybe not so quietly, but I will sit and listen. I am looking for one word of explanation about why that is not the case. Until that time, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. It is interesting she began her comments by citing the bipartisan bill that isn't before the House, the bipartisan bill that I am urging us to pass, the bipartisan bill that has over 100 sponsors on the Republican side of the aisle and over 100 sponsors on the Democratic side of the aisle.

She used that frame even though that is not the bill before the House. Of course, she could not offer an explanation as to why the bill that she cited actually isn't before the House, and instead, we have a hyperpartisan bill that gives Donald Trump unilateral power to decide where this museum is going.

I would also note that among the rights that she talked about for women, the right to vote, et cetera, she didn't mention the right to control their own bodies. You know why? Because we have taken that away from women. This Supreme Court and this President have taken away the right of women so that my grandchildren, my granddaughters, have fewer rights than my mother did, than their grandmother and their great- grandmother had. We didn't talk about that if we are going to talk about the rights of women and how important it is to support women in this country. We didn't talk about why this bill is going to end up with no museum being built because we insist on giving unilateral power to Donald Trump to decide all things that the Congress should be deciding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we could do this bill, get this done, and make clear where this museum is supposed to be. All we have to do is pass the bipartisan bill.

If we want to amend it with this exact location, if that is what Ms. Malliotakis is suggesting, then I am happy to do that, but there are so many things that she said that I have to respond to.

First of all, President Biden couldn't do this because Congress has created in the authorizing legislation this anomaly, so we need Congress to be able to specify the location, which is the point of the bipartisan bill, which has over 230 sponsors on both sides of the aisle. We could do that. This is simple, but that is not what is here.

By the way, just to remind the gentlewoman in case she is not clear, the chairperson of the NCPC, which has responsibility here, the chair of that is the current White House staff secretary, William Scharf. It is the President's employee who runs it.

By the way, anyone who believes that the President has much regard for the law or how these things should go should just look at the pile of rubble that is the East Wing of the White House, where the President defied tradition, common sense, and appropriateness and just knocked down one of the most historic sections of the most historic building in the world and is building it without anyone's contributions, without any appropriate guardrails, and without any appropriate oversight. That is because, let's face it, that is what this President does.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to go back. I am sorry. I thought I read this into the Record, but just to be clear, if people think this is an exact location, then they should read it to the end. After we identify the site, it says: ``except that the President may designate an alternative site for the museum within 180 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection.''

That is a little like when I was in high school, saying to my father: Can I stay out late? He would say: Yes, unless I say you can't. Does that mean I can stay out late? It only means I can stay out late if he gives me permission.

We are going to put it at this site. We have it specifically here. Ms.

Malliotakis is right. There is an exact location, unless the President says that is not where he wants it.

This is the Congress. Article I--when I first came to Washington, Article I, it must have been said 1,000 times in my first few weeks-- Article I prerogatives, the Congress, Article I, the first section of the Constitution, the legislative responsibilities herein lie with the Congress of the United States.

Yet, what are we doing, Mr. Speaker? We are passing legislation, which the President does have the right to sign or veto, in which case, if he vetoes, it comes back here for further action by the Houses. He gets one bite at the apple, but we are not content with that. We have to then give him unilateral power over what we have just passed to do whatever he wants. It is insanity.

There is no explanation for why we are not doing the original bill-- None. I am still listening, and I still haven't heard it.

I will continue to listen for the explanation. Perhaps in the close by my colleagues and friends, we will hear why, finally, there is something wrong with passing the original bill.

By the way, this isn't going to clear it up because this bill is not going to become law. I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker, in a new Congress, when there is a new majority, we will put the actual location. We will put it in law. We will send it to the President, and we will see whether or not he insists on not only a bill that has a location, but insists more on the power to unilaterally do whatever he wants.

The only way this majority is willing to do anything in this House seems to be to ultimately give the power, complete power, to the President to do what he chooses to do without our input.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, do you want to know why I think so many Americans have given up on this institution? Think about what we are doing right now. Think about this debate. I hope people see it.

We were handed something extremely rare in this building nowadays, a finished, bipartisan bill sponsored by more than half the Members with over 100 Members on both sides agreeing to it, and we lit it on fire. We have basically thrown it out and put it in a dumpster.

And for what: to stroke the President's ego, to bully a vulnerable group of people who make up less than 1 percent of the population?

The worst part is that we are doing it at a museum that is intended to honor women and the enormous contributions of women to this country who succeeded despite a government that failed them at times. They overcame great obstacles. We manufactured ours. They had every excuse to fail and made history anyway. They overcame those obstacles. We have no excuses. Yet, here we are on the verge of failing them, once again.

They deserved better then and they deserve better now.

Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues one last time: Stop with the games. Bring the bipartisan version of this bill to the floor, along with the Latino museum build so we can finally get shovels in the ground on The National Mall for these critically important museums and honor the amazing people in this country who have written the chapter of American history that we all stand on the shoulders of and whose legacy we enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this bill. Bring back the bipartisan bill. We will enthusiastically build it. We will put shovels in the ground and we will build these national museums as they should be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

President Trump has not used his first 18 months in office to reduce costs or end foreign wars like he promised--quite the opposite. Last week, he said he doesn't ``think about Americans' financial situation.''

His priorities have never been the American people. His administration's priorities are the Trump name, his wealth, his war, and his profits. Everything he does costs Americans more money and more pain.

Let's recap the administration's actions in just the last few days. They created a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay off January 6 insurrectionists, who beat law enforcement officers in this very building. Taxpayers will foot that bill. Trump toured his dream ballroom that will cost taxpayers at least $1 billion. He traded stocks worth up to $750 million and then promoted the companies he bought.

We are in the 82nd day of Trump's war that is costing Americans over a billion dollars a day. Because of his war, gas prices have skyrocketed to $4.55 a gallon. Farmers are going bankrupt, and Americans can't afford groceries.

Trump gets away with all of this because House Republicans stand hip to hip with him. House Republicans' bills this week are proof, once again, that Trump calls the shots in this House.

Some of these bills had bipartisan promise, but Republicans poisoned them. For instance, for more than a decade, a bipartisan group of our colleagues fought to establish the women's history museum and put it on The National Mall. Women led this fight. We worked across the aisle because of our shared belief that women's history is integral to our Nation's story. Then, after decades of working together on building both a women's history museum and a Latino history museum on The National Mall, Republicans suddenly changed the bill.

The White House directed Republicans to amend the bill, so Trump and

his ballroom committee could determine what the museum looks like, where it should be placed, and even what we can talk about in the women's museum.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, I asked the Republican chair of the House Administration Committee why he gave Trump this control. He refused to answer my questions because there is no good reason.

Before they hijacked the museum, 127 Democrats proudly cosponsored that bill. Now 146 Members of Congress have signed a letter opposing it until it is restored to its original version. These Members--these Members want us to tell a story of how women marched, protested, and were jailed so that they could vote and the story of women who fought in our Revolutionary War and continue to defend our country today.

Women deserve to be the ones to tell our story, not Trump and his ballroom buddies.

My colleagues should reject this partisan bill and return to the original, bipartisan version that honors the diverse contributions that women made to this country. One man should not dictate what women's history looks like.

This rule also makes in order two bills from the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Democrats and Republicans agree that we should increase benefits for disabled veterans and their surviving family members. These soldiers gave their limbs, vision, and mobility for our Nation. We owe veterans the benefits that truly reflect their sacrifice. But we should reject Republicans' choice to pay for those benefits by making it more expensive for veterans to stay in their homes.

That is what the Republicans' Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act does. It pays for the needed increases in disability benefits by making housing more expensive for veterans. Republicans' choices are all wrong.

Now is not the time to make housing harder to get when, thanks to Trump's war, tariffs and inflation, mortgage rates are averaging at 6.75 percent, the highest rate since last July; when gas and utility bills are skyrocketing; and when more than 10,000 veterans have lost their homes since Trump's administration shut down a VA program that helped veterans avoid foreclosure. There are another 90,000 veterans currently behind on their mortgages or in the foreclosure process who, thanks to Trump's administration, won't be able to use that program.

Now more than ever, we should make it easier for veterans to keep their homes. Yet, instead of pushing back against Trump's attacks on veterans' housing, Republicans chose to make housing more expensive.

Republicans have the money for tax breaks for billionaires but not veterans' housing, money for a White House ballroom but not veterans' housing, money for a $1.8 billion slush fund but not veterans' housing. Those are Republicans' priorities, and they are all wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we think that we should do all of these. We think we should increase the disability benefits for veterans. We agree on that.

Yet, what we are taking issue with is just the additional disability compensation, if you look at the score, what do they cost? It is $1 billion.

What else costs $1 billion? It is that ballroom. What else costs $1 billion? Actually, more than $1 billion--$1.8 billion. It is their slush fund. That is where we have a disagreement. We think we should do this, but we don't think we should cut veterans' housing to pay for it.

They are willing to pay for ballrooms and slush funds, but they want to cut veterans' housing in order to provide these needed benefits. We agree that these are needed increases in benefits.

Mr. Speaker, to address this issue more fully, I suggest that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt an amendment to H.R. 6047, authored by Ranking Member Takano, which would strike the sections of the bill that would raise fees on veterans who want to refinance their homes and replace these fees with a reduction in the estate tax exemption from $15 million to $14.5 million.

There is an easy question: How do we pay for this? How about asking the millionaires to help out a teeny bit for our veterans. Yet, under this Republican-controlled government, there is always money for the tax cuts to the rich, funding illegal wars, forking over $1 billion for Trump's ballroom, or the latest insanity of creating that $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out to January 6 insurrections and other Trump allies.

Yet, none of that spending by Republicans is paid for. It is on the backs of American taxpayers. It is on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Yet, when it comes to veterans, Republicans say that we have to offset the bill's cost by jacking up their home loan fees.

Scaling back the estate tax exemption by $500,000 after Republicans tripled it in their big, ugly bill isn't going to make a big difference to the heirs of all of those wealthy parents, but that alone would fund the benefit increases for disabled veterans and survivors in this bill without penalizing veterans who are just trying to stay in their homes and afford their mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the sponsor of this important amendment and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the April 6, 2026, NPR article, ``Trump's VA killed a home loan program. Vets are now losing their homes because of it.''

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the issue we have. We are supportive of increasing disability benefits. We started out with that. We believe this is long overdue. Our problems are with the choices Republicans make. Now, at a time when veterans are losing their homes--90,000 veterans are headed toward foreclosure--is not when you should actually make it more expensive for them. This comes after a yearlong debacle inside the Department of Veterans Affairs has whiplashed thousands of vets between various enacted and canceled programs.

Trump's VA is really beating up our veterans as they have tried to stay in their homes. These are the choices they are making: Let's make it harder on them. We shouldn't be doing that. We should make it easier on our veterans to stay in their homes. What happens? Are we going to kick them out? Are they going to be shivering? Are they going to have to be moving in with others? That is not the answer.

The answer is what we propose. There are other ways to pay for this, but Republicans won't go there because they are always protecting the wealthy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, Republicans voted down Ranking Member McGovern's amendment, which was intended to stop what might be the most dangerous corruption scheme in modern American politics, the abuse of the Judgment Fund, the little known government account that is now being turned into a political slush fund.

Yes, I am talking about the $1.8 billion, you know, almost twice as much as we need to pay for the disability benefits. It is a $1.8 billion slush fund.

Before yesterday, most Americans might never have heard of the judgment fund. It is something that was created that is funded by the taxpayer, so I want Americans to know a little bit more about this.

It is intended to fund legitimate legal settlements, but Republicans are now blessing a system where a President and his own Justice Department, his Attorney General, his private lawyer, can create a law, make a deal, settle that lawsuit, and then send Americans' money wherever they want without congressional oversight.

That is what we were saying yesterday. It is like, no, Congress, under our Constitution, controls the purse. We are the ones who decide where America's money goes because we have to stand up in front of them every 2 years and explain ourselves. Well, Republicans never have townhalls, so they never stand in front of their constituents, but we do.

What they have just done is say: No, we are going to bypass that, and we are going to send $1.8 billion to Trump's allies. We control the money. You don't have a say, and we are going to make all of those men and a couple of women who came in here, who beat our law enforcement officers, the same people you walk before every day--those Capitol Police were beaten, and 140 of them

went to the hospital. Now, we are giving them money because we created the system.

I think it is important that Americans know what they are blessing. They are blessing a slush fund that any President can just make up a lawsuit, enter a settlement, and have collusion. This is how the Mafia works. You hand out money. The problem is that the Mafia, in this sense, is getting their money from your taxpayer dollars.

Let's sound the alarm. This is corruption of the most egregious manner. We should not operate like a Mafia in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are debating today what Republicans' priorities are and what we are going to be voting on this week in the House.

That is the question I ask: Where are Republicans' priorities? Their bills highlight where their priorities are, and what is coming up this week highlights where their priorities are.

We have already talked about how they are going to be taking from Peter to pay Paul, except Peter and Paul are veterans who deserve both their housing and their disability benefits.

They are also going to be bringing to the House floor this week--not through this rule, but probably another one--maybe $72 billion worth of spending that is not paid for.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's May 5, 2026, article: ``CBO Scores FY 2026 Reconciliation at $72 Billion.''

Mr. Speaker, the article details that the Congressional Budget Office--they are the ones that tell us how much everything costs--estimates the bill would add $72 billion to the deficit over the next decade--actually, about $94 billion with interest.

Part of that is the ballroom, so I think it is important to say where they are willing to spend the money. Are they willing to spend the money on disability benefits or on a ballroom? They have just told us they are willing to spend money on a ballroom, with interest, that is not paid for, but not on disability benefits.

These are where we get to where the issues are that we are addressing and what we are going to take up on the House floor. They are not taking up the issues that Americans are facing, which are the economic failures of this administration and of these Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a May 17 Time magazine article titled: ``Americans Sour on Trump Over Inflation and the Iran War.''

Mr. Speaker, the new polling data and the story show that Americans have caught on. Republicans promised to lower costs on day one. Where are costs? Up.

Gas is up. Groceries are up. Inflation is up. Look at the numbers. America is hungrier and sicker, deeper in debt, and deeper in war than the day Donald Trump took office.

The nationwide average for gas is $4.55 a gallon. That is $1.35 higher than last year. For families in Santa Fe, Farmington, or Roswell, in my district, that means filling up your pickup truck costs $147.

Do you know how many times we have to fill up our trucks to be able to get around our district to check on the cattle, to deliver feed, to actually just maybe even take the trash to the dump? We use our trucks, and they are costing us so much money just to fill up, let alone how much it takes when we get to that grocery store and buy those groceries that cost so much. From meat to poultry to everything else in between, it is more expensive because of the policies of the Trump administration.

Are we addressing that? No.

I think I can quote Donald Trump. His quote was: ``I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.''

Clearly. The 57 percent of the people who now say his economic policies have made their families worse off, who is thinking about them?

Millions of American families have been kicked off their health plans. Healthcare premiums have risen constantly because of decisions that Republicans have made that have been signed into law by President Trump that he trumpeted.

Mr. Speaker, 88 percent of the largest corporations, including Tesla, paid zero, nada, in Federal income tax last year, thanks to Trump and Republicans' tax giveaway in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Their billionaire-first policies are driving up costs for American families at the fastest rate in years, and it is affecting everybody, including our veterans.

Republicans said they would lower costs. Instead, they raised them through the roof. Now, our families are paying for their incompetence and greed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let's go through sort of where we have Trump's name.

Trump's name is now on the Kennedy Center without congressional approval. Trump's name is now on the United States Institute of Peace, and Trump has destroyed part of the White House without congressional approval, and he is putting up his ballroom.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

These places don't belong to Trump or any President. They belong to the American people. As Judge Leon said when he ruled against the White House ballroom construction: ``The White House does not belong to any one man--not even a President.''

I think that the women's history museum does not belong to Trump. It belongs to the American people and the women whose blood, sweat, and tears paint the picture of America, and to the Haudenosaunee Clan mothers who controlled decisions over war and the economy.

Mr. Speaker, for those of you who don't know who those are, that was the Iroquois Federation. They were the inspiration for our Constitution. The only thing that was different was our Constitution didn't include and recognize women the way that the Haudenosaunee Clan mothers were recognized.

I want to have a museum where Deborah Sampson, a woman who disguised herself as a man to fight in the Revolutionary War, is discussed, not divided, but discussed about this was the fervor of those women during the Revolution who served as spies, who served as soldiers, and who served to actually win our Revolutionary War.

I want to honor Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman to serve in Congress who served before women were even allowed to vote.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

She was a Republican. Let's honor her.

Their stories deserve to be told, but they deserve to be told in a museum that is designed, that is built, that is located, and that talks about issues that the women of America have decided, not any one President.

That is why we are rejecting their partisan proposal and we are urging a return to the original bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning we heard my colleague talk about the fact that Republicans seem to be trans-obsessed. He said they had 126 bills, trans-obsessed bills, and this is one of them.

The women's history museum bill was a simple bill that said: Let's make sure that the museum is placed on The Mall. You all amended it, not just to address your trans-obsession, but then to also give the authority to President Trump's committee to decide where it should go and what it should look like. We do not agree with that. We do not agree with that, which is why you have 146 Members who have signed a letter in opposition to the amendment.

It was a simple bill. You kind of ruined it with your trans-obsession and your culture wars.

Why don't we go back to the simplicity of what the bill was: Put the women's museum on The Mall, and let's move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week has been about what Republicans value and who they are willing to hurt to give Trump more power and more money.

In July, Republicans found money for billionaire tax breaks when they passed the big, beautiful bill. They found money for another war in the Middle East. Now, they want us to vote for a billion dollars for Trump's ballroom and more money for ICE's terror campaign, but when we need to increase benefits for disabled veterans, Republicans say veterans have to pay for it themselves.

When women want a museum that tells their own story, Republicans hand control to Donald Trump. When families struggle with groceries, rent, gas, and utility bills, Trump says he doesn't even think about their financial situation.

That is the Republican agenda: everything for Trump, everybody else on their own.

Republicans in Congress refuse to stand up to Trump. They refuse to stand up for their constituents. They have no courage.

Now, Republicans want to give Donald Trump power over where the Women's History Museum should be located, what it looks like, and what we talk about.

A museum dedicated to the story of American women should not be controlled by a man who is mentioned more than 38,000 times in the Epstein files. It should not be controlled by a man who was found guilty of sexual abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 116: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 154: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 158: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 220: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 251: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 253: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 282: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 349: Mr. Min and Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 397: Mr. Jeffries.

H.R. 429: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 438: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 485: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 488: Ms. McDonald Rivet and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 498: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 516: Mr. Norman.

H.R. 520: Mr. Min.

H.R. 539: Mrs. Trahan.

H.R. 585: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 718: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 821: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 865: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 869: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 879: Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 921: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 945: Ms. Bynum, Ms. McDonald Rivet, and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 953: Mr. Min.

H.R. 1027: Mr. Subramanyam.

H.R. 1054: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1055: Mr. Subramanyam.

H.R. 1078: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 1110: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 1162: Mr. Gill of Texas.

H.R. 1175: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1181: Mr. Nunn of Iowa and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 1241: Mr. Jack and Ms. Mace.

H.R. 1246: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1254: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 1277: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1285: Mr. Wied.

H.R. 1329: Ms. Strickland, Ms. McBride, Mrs. Hayes, Ms.

Ansari, Mr. Crow, Ms. Gillen, Mr. Landsman, and Mr. McDowell.

H.R. 1361: Mr. Tran.

H.R. 1369: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1394: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 1398: Mrs. Kim.

H.R. 1404: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 1412: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1421: Mr. Tran.

H.R. 1464: Mr. Thompson of California.

H.R. 1475: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 1492: Mr. Smith of Nebraska.

H.R. 1502: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1522: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 1529: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1546: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1564: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 1576: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 1628: Ms. Salazar, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr.

Brecheen, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Norcross.

H.R. 1659: Mr. Riley of New York and Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 1661: Ms. Balint and Mr. Keating.

H.R. 1695: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 1775: Mr. Moran.

H.R. 1810: Mr. Morelle.

H.R. 1960: Mr. Min.

H.R. 1983: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 1986: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1991: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 1993: Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Hinson, and Ms. Davids of

Kansas.

H.R. 2028: Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 2036: Mr. Kean and Mr. Casten.

H.R. 2055: Ms. Morrison.

H.R. 2062: Mr. Moore of North Carolina.

H.R. 2068: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 2094: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 2141: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2152: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2154: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 2165: Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 2192: Mr. Nadler and Mr. Bera.

H.R. 2199: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 2232: Mr. Riley of New York.

H.R. 2244: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 2253: Ms. Kamlager-Dove.

H.R. 2257: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2315: Mr. Jack.

H.R. 2370: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 2402: Mr. Cisneros and Ms. Sewell.

H.R. 2467: Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 2496: Mr. Messmer.

H.R. 2531: Mr. Casar.

H.R. 2672: Mr. Min.

H.R. 2678: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Ms. Ross, and Mr.

McGovern.

H.R. 2680: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 2703: Mr. Quigley.

H.R. 2705: Mr. Jack and Ms. Mace.

H.R. 2716: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 2718: Mrs. Foushee.

H.R. 2727: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 2728: Mr. Fields.

H.R. 2731: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2736: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 2799: Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 2829: Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 2878: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 2902: Mrs. Hayes.

H.R. 2941: Mr. Sorensen.

H.R. 2947: Ms. Simon.

H.R. 2986: Mr. Quigley.

H.R. 3028: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 3184: Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Turner of Ohio.

H.R. 3206: Mr. Reschenthaler.

H.R. 3246: Mr. Min.

H.R. 3261: Mr. Casar.

H.R. 3277: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 3316: Mr. Carson.

H.R. 3333: Mr. Thanedar.

H.R. 3337: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 3350: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 3367: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 3447: Mr. Cline and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3497: Mr. Correa, Ms. Salazar, Ms. Lois Frankel of

Florida, Ms. Lee of Florida, Mr. Schmidt, and Mr.

Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3513: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.

H.R. 3514: Mr. Menendez.

H.R. 3526: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 3534: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3565: Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 3604: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3629: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 3694: Mr. Case.

H.R. 3699: Mr. Huizenga.

H.R. 3740: Ms. Balint and Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 3791: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 3793: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3858: Mr. Hunt.

H.R. 3867: Mr. Rutherford.

H.R. 3868: Mr. Neal.

H.R. 3885: Ms. Lee of Nevada.

H.R. 3931: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 3959: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 4083: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4130: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 4141: Mr. Min.

H.R. 4151: Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H.R. 4164: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4167: Mr. Mackenzie.

H.R. 4169: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 4176: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4194: Mr. Williams of Texas.

H.R. 4206: Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rutherford, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 4231: Mr. Smith of Washington.

H.R. 4242: Mr. Murphy.

H.R. 4291: Mr. Self.

H.R. 4299: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 4317: Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Babin, and Mr.

Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 4464: Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 4521: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4582: Mr. Levin, Mr. Thompson of California, and Ms.

Escobar.

H.R. 4583: Mr. Levin, Mr. Thompson of California, and Ms.

Escobar.

H.R. 4585: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 4606: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 4611: Ms. Friedman.

H.R. 4640: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 4646: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4660: Mr. Harder of California and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4662: Mr. Takano, Mr. Whitesides, Mr. Vargas, Mr.

Lieu, Mr. Levin, Ms. Lofgren, and Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4677: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4710: Mr. Moran.

H.R. 4721: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 4810: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 4821: Mr. Neal.

H.R. 4921: Mr. Cisneros.

H.R. 4945: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4950: Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 4982: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 4989: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 5068: Ms. Johnson of Texas.

H.R. 5106: Mr. Langworthy.

H.R. 5235: Ms. Perez.

H.R. 5263: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 5269: Ms. Pou and Mr. Edwards.

H.R. 5271: Ms. Ross, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Swalwell, and Mr.

Beyer.

H.R. 5282: Mr. Neguse and Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5309: Ms. Pressley, Ms. McDonald Rivet, Ms. Pingree,

and Ms. Rivas.

H.R. 5387: Mr. Min.

H.R. 5390: Ms. Pou and Mr. Meeks.

H.R. 5415: Mr. Harrigan, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Ms.

Ross, and Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 5434: Ms. Meng, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Soto, and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 5438: Mrs. Harshbarger and Mr. Perry.

H.R. 5461: Ms. Friedman.

H.R. 5469: Ms. McDonald Rivet and Mr. Conaway.

H.R. 5509: Ms. Gillen, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Davis of

North Carolina, Mr. Correa, and Mrs. Luna.

H.R. 5521: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5543: Mr. Whitesides.

H.R. 5638: Mr. Begich.

H.R. 5641: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5767: Mr. Williams of Texas and Mr. Babin.

H.R. 5791: Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 5835: Ms. Randall.

H.R. 5861: Mrs. Dingell.

H.R. 5867: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 5870: Mr. Obernolte.

H.R. 5910: Ms. Ansari.

H.R. 5934: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5939: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 5940: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 5951: Mr. Thompson of California.

H.R. 5972: Mr. Cleaver.

H.R. 5983: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5993: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6006: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6020: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 6056: Mr. Crow, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Sewell, and Mr.

Morelle.

H.R. 6093: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 6099: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6108: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6109: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6110: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6111: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 6119: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6121: Mr. Owens and Ms. Norton.

H.R. 6123: Ms. King-Hinds.

H.R. 6126: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6128: Mr. Soto.

H.R. 6130: Mr. Soto, Mr. Neguse, and Mrs. Hayes.

H.R. 6152: Mr. Min.

H.R. 6164: Mr. Aguilar.

H.R. 6170: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6181: Mr. Bera, Ms. Balint, Mr. Torres of New York,

and Mr. Aguilar.

H.R. 6182: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 6213: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 6219: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H.R. 6228: Mr. Garcia of California.

H.R. 6231: Mr. Murphy and Ms. Brownley.

H.R. 6245: Ms. Escobar.

H.R. 6259: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6261: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6268: Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

H.R. 6293: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6366: Mr. Obernolte and Ms. Ross.

H.R. 6422: Mr. LaLota.

H.R. 6425: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6432: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6434: Ms. McBride and Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 6436: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6440: Mr. Garcia of Illinois and Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 6444: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6448: Ms. Plaskett.

H.R. 6449: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

H.R. 6450: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6468: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6475: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6498: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6501: Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 6521: Mr. Vargas.

H.R. 6529: Mr. Thanedar.

H.R. 6541: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6543: Mr. Vindman.

H.R. 6546: Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6547: Mr. Foster and Mr. Rose.

H.R. 6550: Mr. Rose, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6551: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6552: Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Davidson.

H.R. 6553: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Nunn of Iowa.

H.R. 6554: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Nunn of Iowa.

H.R. 6555: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6556: Mr. Gottheimer.

H.R. 6574: Mr. Goldman of New York, Ms. DelBene, Mr.

Subramanyam, Ms. Meng, Ms. Plaskett, Mrs. Dingell, Ms.

Pingree, Ms. Titus, and Mr. Evans of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 6597: Mrs. McClain Delaney.

H.R. 6608: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 6624: Mr. Gill of Texas and Mrs. McClain Delaney.

H.R. 6670: Mr. Haridopolos and Mr. Goldman of New York.

H.R. 6675: Mr. Gill of Texas.

H.R. 6677: Mr. Case.

H.R. 6678: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 6707: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia.

H.R. 6724: Mr. Mannion.

H.J. Res. 13: Ms. Bonamici.

H. Con. Res. 12: Mr. Dunn of Florida and Mr. Tran.

H. Con. Res. 64: Ms. Goodlander, Mr. Espaillat, and Ms.

Hoyle of Oregon.

H. Res. 297: Ms. Budzinski.

H. Res. 381: Mr. Conaway.

H. Res. 704: Mr. Thanedar.

H. Res. 733: Mr. Conaway.

H. Res. 843: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H. Res. 931: Ms. McDonald Rivet.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Steil for helping us advance this bill to the floor. He knows very well the role that his State of Wisconsin played in being the first to ratify the 19th Amendment.

We are here today because we are voting on a very simple bill. It is a bill to transfer land on The National Mall for the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, which was already authorized by Congress, overwhelmingly bipartisan, in 2020, and signed by President Donald J. Trump.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, as my colleague has mentioned, had over 230 sponsors. It is very bipartisan, and I think we all agree that it is long past time that the women of this country, who make up more than half of the population, deserve to have a museum that tells their stories and shares their contributions to our great country.

Women like Rosie the Riveter and the millions of women who stepped onto our factory floors during World War II; the more than 10,000 code girls of Arlington Hall, who were secretly recruited by the U.S. Army and Navy during World War II to serve as code breakers; the 855 women of the Six Triple Eight, the only all-Black, all-female battalion deployed overseas during World War II; the Black Angels of my district, who were courageous nurses who, at the height of segregation, worked toward and did find the cure for tuberculosis; the first female Member of Congress, Jeannette Rankin; Susan B. Anthony and the suffragists, the great role that they played in our Nation's history, they are who we are here to honor today.

Yes, we have more than enough women to display in this museum that we shouldn't be fighting over the need to have nonbiological individuals in there.

I don't understand why we are pulling bipartisan support from legislation to establish this museum. As a matter of fact, let me read it so that everybody at home knows exactly what this debate is over. It is over one sentence: ``The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the United States.''

That is what the disagreement is about. That is what the big controversy is about.

I hate to alert my friends on the other side of the aisle, but a museum dedicated to women's history should have women in it. That is it. That is simple. That was just something that, through this process, regular order, going through the committee process, a Member put forward an amendment. It was adopted by the majority of the members on the committee, and it added that simple provision.

The idea that President Trump--by the way because Democrats are saying that the National Planning Commission is now a Trump commission. This is a commission that was established by Congress over 100 years ago. It is not a new commission. In fact, the President only has three appointees to that 12-person commission. To say that

he has complete control is just simply not true.

I really hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us on this because it would be sad to see that all of the Democrats would vote down this important bill.

Yet, I will say that it was a Republican Senator who introduced the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

It was a Republican Congress that passed the 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote.

It was a majority of GOP States that gave women the right to vote when they ratified that amendment.

It was a GOP President who gave us Title IX, which prohibited sex- based discrimination in the educational programs.

And, yes, it was President Donald Trump, a Republican, who authorized this museum in 2020.

If Republicans have to carry the water again to deliver for the women of America, we will do so, but I really hope that this can remain a bipartisan measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify some points and answer some of the questions of my colleague. This is like the good old times in the New York State Assembly. Mr. Morelle and I had fun debating there, as well.

First of all, let me say that this bill is actually site-specific. It does include the quadrants of the site that was selected by the American Women's History Museum Advisory Council. The original version, which we have introduced, did not have those specific quadrants. It did not specify a specific site. It just allowed for a future selected site to be transferred.

In that case, there was no clarity on what the site was, so we amended the bill to add the specific quadrants of the south Capitol site on The National Mall so it would be clear that it is the selected site of the museum's advisory council.

Yes, it does give 180 days for the President, if necessary, to alter. That is because if, for some reason, there is a problem with that site, and it turns out we can't build on it, if the engineers come back and say that there is a problem, that it can't be built on, then we don't want to have to go through this entire process and have to pass another piece of legislation. We would just all work together to select a site that would be suitable.

In terms of specificity, this bill actually gives more clarity on the location than the initial version.

That is the only thing that has changed, that provision, as well as adding the sentence about ensuring that it is biological women. That was amended in the committee process.

As I said, every piece of legislation is introduced here. We garnered 230 cosponsors. It went to the committee. The committee went through regular order. Somebody had an amendment, and the amendment passed. Therefore, it was added. That was added as a result to ensure that there is clarity that only biological women would be represented in a women's museum.

I also want to address this issue about the National Capital Planning Commission. This is not President Donald Trump's commission. This was a commission that was established over 100 years ago, in which the President gets only three appointees. The commission is a 12-member Federal body.

Obviously, anything that is built as a Capital project goes through this commission. It is not as if it is a new commission that was set up by this particular President. Both this commission and the Fine Arts Commission were established well over a century ago, and the 12-member makeup of this is 3 appointees only by the President. That is not a majority. That is not giving the President unanimous control.

The Mayor of Washington, D.C., gets an appointment. The chair of the D.C. Council gets an appointment. The House and Senate committee chairs with the D.C. jurisdiction, their committees get an appointment. The heads of the DOD, Interior, and GSA get an appointment. There are two mayoral appointees. That is the makeup of this.

I know sometimes my colleagues on the other side may have a little difficulty with math. We see that during the budgeting, where they want to spend more than we can afford. Three is not the majority in a commission of 12.

Please stop lying and saying that the commission is being controlled by one particular man. That is simply not the case.

I just wanted to give those clarifying points.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am very proud that it is the Republican Party that is putting forward this legislation. This was authorized, again, by President Trump in 2020. President Joe Biden had 4 years to move this ball forward and to designate the land. He did not do it, so we are here today with the same President who authorized the women's museum, President Donald J. Trump.

What I will say is that they claim, the other side, to be the party of women, yet it is the Republican Party that introduced the 19th Amendment and that passed the 19th Amendment. It was majority Republican-led States that ratified the 19th Amendment.

Title IX is so important to women in our colleges, female athletes, and all educational programs. That was signed into law by a Republican President.

Yes, it is a Republican President today who has authorized the women's history museum, and it will be a Republican majority in Congress that gets this done. That is because, for 4 years, the other side, when they had control, failed to do so.

I still hope that this will be a bipartisan vote. It really should be. There is no reason for this not to come out of this House today and to celebrate the women of America.

We can all be proud of women who have contributed from our respective States to the building of this Nation. As my colleague said, there have been so many struggles over the years, whether it be the right to vote or whether it be to apply for a credit card without needing a male cosigner. Women weren't allowed to be on a jury. They weren't allowed to attend a military academy. These are stories that need to be told.

Sadly, the current generation and future generations may take a lot for granted. We don't know the history of the struggles that women have endured.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can come out of this today with a bipartisan vote in support. Let's get this museum done, and let's do something that we can all be proud of as Americans.