H.Res. 879

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which repeals the police accountability and transparency law that the District of Columbia enacted in 2023.

Last year, violent crime in D.C. was down 35 percent, reaching an over 30-year low. This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 28 percent compared to the same period last year.

D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, among other things, gave the police chief more authority to discipline officers for serious misconduct and crimes; strengthened civilian oversight of the police department; improved public access to body-worn camera video; and imposed limitations on the purchase of military weapons and the use of force. D.C. police chiefs have requested more authority to discipline officers for at least 25 years before enactment of this law. This bill would take away this authority from the police chief.

The difficulty D.C. has had recruiting and retaining police officers is not unique. It is a nationwide issue that predates the police accountability and transparency laws enacted across the country after the murder of George Floyd. In 2019, before the murder of George Floyd, the International Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a survey that found ``The challenge of recruiting law enforcement is widespread and affects agencies of all types, sizes, and locations across the United States.''

``The difficulty of recruiting law enforcement officers and employees is not due to one particular cause. Rather, multiple social, political, and economic forces are all simultaneously at play.''

In 1973, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which established locally elected chief executive officer and legislature. The purpose of the Home Rule Act is to ``grant to inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local government'' and ``relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters,'' yet the House today is denying D.C. residents local self-government and spending its time on local D.C. matters.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my Republican colleagues what Republican President Richard Nixon said when he signed the Home Rule Act: ``One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively. The measure I sign today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs.

``As the Nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our Capital City rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.''

The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from the D.C. Mayor, from the D.C. Council, and the D.C. Attorney General, all of whom were elected by D.C. residents.

September 10, 2025.

Hon. James Comer,

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert Garcia,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and

Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am

proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our

people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime.

Building on this progress, my Administration established the

Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate

public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential

emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC

will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal

partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving

quality of life for every resident.

We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on

shared priorities, including public safety, the federal

Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix

(which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the

RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC

bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule:

Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule

Improvement Act, make the District less efficient,

competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex

unique local government that serves local, county and state

functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only

adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to

handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead.

Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail

Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective

pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent

offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail.

I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial

detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last

two years.

And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations

Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to

a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are

both less democratic and untenable for District operations.

The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members

appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, US District

Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last

month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial

nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate

pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining

local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney

General who represents the public interest. Changes to these

charter agencies would significantly undercut the already

thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides.

Finally, I urge you not to up end our three-pall education

funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand

opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always

been contingent on parity among all three education sectors--

public, private, and charter--and this approach is working.

We will not support changes that tip the scales away from

this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the

fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model

for urban education. We outpace the national average on all

tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day Pre-K access

serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which

supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the

nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice.

Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted

investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made

these remarkable achievements possible.

I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with

the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and

honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on

our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history

reflects, has made our city stronger.

Sincerely,

Muriel Bowser,

Mayor.

Mr. Speaker, D.C. residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying Federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with the Selective Service, yet Congress denies them full local self-government and voting representation in Congress.

The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood.

I include in the Record a letter from leading constitutional scholars explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional.

May 22, 2021.

Re Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51 and S. 51 (the

``D.C. Admission Act'').

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressional Leaders: As scholars of the United

States Constitution, we write to correct claims that the D.C.

Admission Act is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge in

the courts. For the reasons set forth below, there is no

constitutional barrier to the State of Washington, Douglass

Commonwealth (the ``Commonwealth'') entering the Union

through a congressional joint resolution, pursuant to the

Constitution's Admissions Clause, just like the 37 other

states that have been admitted since the Constitution was

adopted. Furthermore, Congress's exercise of its express

constitutional authority to decide to admit a new state is a

classic political question, which courts are highly unlikely

to interfere with, let alone attempt to bar.

The D.C. Admission Act. The House passed the Act, as H.R.

51, on April 22, 2021, and as of this writing, the

substantively identical companion bill (S. 51) is under

consideration by the Senate. The Act provides for the

issuance of a congressional joint resolution declaring the

admittance as a State of most of the territory currently

comprising the District of Columbia, while the seat of

government (defined as the ``Capital'') will fall

outside of the boundaries of the new State and remain under

federal jurisdiction. The Act also repeals the provision of

federal law that establishes the current mechanism for

District residents to participate in presidential elections,

pursuant to Congress's authority under the Twenty-Third

Amendment; and provides for expedited consideration of the

repeal of that Amendment.

The Admissions Clause grants Congress constitutional

authority to admit the Commonwealth into the Union. The

starting point for a constitutional analysis of the Act is

the Constitution's Admissions Clause (Art. IV, Sect. 3),

which provides that ``New States may be admitted by the

Congress into this Union.'' The Clause ``vests in Congress

the essential and discretionary authority to admit new states

into the Union by whatever means it considers appropriate as

long as such means are framed within its vested powers.''

Every State admitted into the Union since the Constitution

was adopted has been admitted by congressional action

pursuant to this Clause; no State has been admitted pursuant

to a constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court has broadly construed Congress's assigned

power to admit new states and has never interfered with

Congress's admission of a state, even when potentially

legitimate constitutional objections existed. For example, in

1863, Congress admitted into the Union West Virginia, which

had been part of the State of Virginia, in potential

violation of a provision of the Admissions Clause that bars

the formation of a new State out of a portion of the

territory of another State without the consent of the ceding

State. The Supreme Court, however, did not bar West

Virginia's admission; to the contrary, it later tacitly

approved of it.

Some critics of the D.C. Admission Act have suggested that

Maryland's consent might be required under the foregoing

provision of the Admissions Clause. This objection mistakenly

presupposes that Maryland retains a reversionary interest in

the territory currently composing the District of Columbia,

which Maryland ceded to the federal government when the

District was established in 1791. In fact, Maryland expressly

relinquished all sovereign authority over the territory at

issue when the federal government accepted it. The express

terms of the cession state that the territory was ``for ever

ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the

United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive

jurisdiction . . . .'' As Viet D. Dinh, who served as an

Assistant Attorney General during the presidency of George W.

Bush, has explained, because Maryland's cession of the

territory now constituting the District was full and

complete, it severed D.C. residents' now far distant

``political link with'' Maryland. The current District is not

part of Maryland, and Maryland has no claim on any portion of

the District's territory. There is accordingly no basis to

require Maryland's consent for the establishment of the new

State.

The Constitution's District Clause poses no barrier to

admitting the Commonwealth into the Union. The Constitution's

District Clause grants Congress power to ``exercise exclusive

Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not

exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular

States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of

the Government of the United States.'' Based on this Clause,

Congress established the current District of Columbia, which

(as explained) was taken from territory ceded by Maryland, as

well as Virginia.

The D.C. Admission Act complies with the District Clause

because it provides that the Capital--which is defined in the

Act to include (among other things) the White House, the

Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building,

and the Federal executive, legislative, and judicial office

buildings located adjacent to the Mall--will not become part

of the new State and will remain under the sovereignty of the

federal government.

Some critics have argued that the District Clause somehow

mandates that the District of Columbia permanently retain all

of its current territory, and that its size may neither be

increased or reduced by Congress. The plain language of the

District Clause says no such thing; it does not mandate that

the District be any size or shape, except it limits the

maximum size of the federal enclave to ten square miles.

Historical practice confirms that Congress can change the

size of the District. In 1791, Congress altered the

District's southern boundary to encompass portions of what

are now Alexandria, Virginia and Anacostia. Then, in 1846,

Congress retroceded Alexandria and its environs back to

Virginia. As a result, the territory composing the District

was reduced by a third.

At the time of the 1846 retrocession, the House's Committee

on the District of Columbia considered, and rejected, the

very argument that critics of the D.C. Admission Act are

raising today, reasoning that the ``true construction of [the

District Clause] would seem to be solely that Congress retain

and exercise exclusive jurisdiction'' over territory

comprising the ``seat of government.'' The language of the

District Clause, the legislators observed, places no mandate

on the size, or even the location, of that seat of

government, other than preventing the government from

``hold[ing] more than ten miles for this purpose.'' The

House's judgment was correct in 1846, and remains so today.

The Twenty-Third Amendment does not prevent Congress from

granting the Commonwealth statehood. Opponents of statehood

have suggested that the Twenty-Third Amendment bars Congress

from exercising its constitutionally enumerated authority to

grant statehood to the Commonwealth. In fact, the Amendment

poses no barrier to the admission of the Commonwealth into

the Union through an act of Congress, in accordance with the

plain language of the Admissions Clause, just as Congress has

done in connection with the admission of several other

States, including most recently Alaska and Hawaii.

Section 1 of the Twenty-Third Amendment, which was ratified

in 1961, provides:

The District constituting the seat of Government of the

United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress

may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice

President equal to the whole number of Senators and

Representatives in Congress to which the District would be

entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the

least populous State; they shall be in addition to those

appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for

the purposes of the election of President and Vice President,

to be electors appointed by a State.

By its plain terms, the Amendment poses no barrier to

Congress's admission of the Commonwealth into the Union.

Indeed, it is entirely silent on the matter.

The only question raised by the existence of the Twenty-

Third Amendment is a practical, not a constitutional one: How

best to address the Twenty-Third Amendment's provision for

the assignment of presidential electors to what will become a

vestigial seat of government, with virtually no residents?

The Act satisfactorily addresses this question by providing

for the repeal of the provision of federal law that

establishes the current mechanism for District residents to

participate in presidential elections, pursuant to Congress's

authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment, as well as by

commencing the process for repealing the Amendment itself.

Initially, the Act provides for an expedited process for

repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment, a process that should

move forward to ratification swiftly and successfully once

the Commonwealth is admitted as a State. None of the other 50

States has reason to seek to retain three electors for a

largely unoccupied seat of government.

But the Act also addresses the possibility that the Twenty-

Third Amendment is not promptly repealed by mandating the

immediate repeal of the provision of federal law that

provides the current mechanism for District residents to

participate in federal elections.

In 1961, following the adoption of the Twenty-Third

Amendment, Congress exercised its enforcement authority by

enacting legislation (codified at 3 U.S.C. Sec. 21),

providing that the District residents may select presidential

electors; the votes of the electors are currently awarded to

the ticket prevailing in the District's presidential

election.

The existing statutes fall within the broad authority

granted to Congress by the Twenty-Third Amendment to define

the terms of, and effectuate, the District's participation in

presidential elections. The Amendment allows for the

appointment of a number of Electors ``in such manner as the

Congress may direct.'' The Amendment also allows Congress to

select the number of Electors the District may receive,

subject only to a maximum: The District may participate in

the presidential Electoral College through the appointment of

no more electors than those of the smallest State, i.e.,

three. And section 2 of the Amendment grants Congress the

power to ``enforce'' the provision ``by appropriate

legislation,'' as it did in 1961.

But once Congress acts again, pursuant to its express grant

of constitutional authority, and repeals the legislation that

creates the existing procedure for District residents to

select presidential electors, that will remove the

legislative provision providing for the District's

participation in presidential elections. Without such a

provision, there is no mechanism for identifying the Capital

area's electors or allocating their votes.

Some scholars have questioned whether that approach is

satisfactory. They contend that the Twenty-Third Amendment is

self-enforcing, and effectively mandates the appointment of

electors on behalf of the District of Columbia, regardless of

whether such appointment is called for under a federal

statute. Some of us disagree; indeed, the very existence of

Section 2 of the Amendment makes clear that enabling

legislation is required to effectuate the District's

participation in the presidential election process. And

Congress's 1961 enforcement legislation supports this

interpretation.

Even if this self-enforcement argument were to be accepted,

however, Congress could easily address it by replacing the

current law mandating that the Capital area's electors vote

in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in the

District with a new legislative mandate that the Capital

area's electors vote in other ways. For example, Congress

could require District electors to vote in favor of the

presidential ticket that receives the most Electoral College

votes (of the remaining 538 electors). Or, alternatively,

Congress could require that District electors vote for the

winner of the national popular vote winner.

A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that a legislative

directive to the Capital

area's electors would be enforceable. The Twenty-Third

Amendment provides that the District ``shall appoint''

electors ``in such manner as Congress may direct''; this

language is a direct parallel to the Constitution's grant of

broad authority to each of the States to appoint and instruct

their respective electors. In its recent decision in Chiafalo

v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that electors do not

have discretion to decide how to cast their Electoral College

votes, but rather are legally bound to follow the

instructions given by their respective states.

As Columbia Law School Professors Jessica Bulman-Pozen and

Olatunde Johnson have observed, it follows from the Court's

holding in Chiafalo that Congress could legally bind any

electors to vote in accordance with the overall vote of the

Electoral College or the national popular vote, just as the

existing enabling statute currently binds them to vote in the

Electoral College in accordance with the outcome of the

popular vote in the District.

In sum, none of the critics' constitutional objections to

the D.C. Admission Act are meritorious; and the contention

that a constitutional amendment is required to admit the

Commonwealth into the Union is incorrect. The D.C. Admission

Act calls for a proper exercise of Congress' express

authority under the Constitution to admit new states, a power

that it has exercised 37 other times since the Constitution

was adopted.

Courts are unlikely to second-guess Congress's exercise of

its constitutional authority to admit the Commonwealth into

the Union. Apart from the fact that the legal objections to

admission of the Commonwealth as a State are without merit,

it is also unlikely that the courts will ever consider those

objections. As Mr. Dinh has observed, the decision whether to

admit a state into the Union is a paradigmatic political

question that the Constitution expressly and exclusively

assigns to Congress. The Supreme Court has long, and

strenuously, avoided adjudicating disputes respecting matters

that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the

coordinate, elected branches.

The remaining objections to Statehood do not concern

applicable constitutional law, but rather matters of policy.

For example, some have argued that the District should not

be admitted to the Union because it is a single city and have

instead proposed that most of the District's territory be

retrocessioned to Maryland. There is, however, no

constitutional barrier to a large, diverse city, with a

population comparable to that of several existing States,

joining the Union. Furthermore, the Maryland retrocession

proposal is subject to many of the same supposed

constitutional objections raised by those who object to

statehood for the District. For example, retroceding the

District to Maryland would decrease the size of the remaining

federal enclave, which objectors to District Statehood have

claimed is constitutionally impermissible. A forced merger of

the District and Maryland would also do nothing to address

the purported constitutional objection to leaving the

residual seat of government with three potential electors,

pursuant to the turns of the Twenty-Third Amendment, prior to

the Amendment's repeal.

Opponents also argue that Congress should not grant the

District statehood because it will lead to a lawsuit. But any

court challenge will be without merit, and indeed likely will

be dismissed as presenting a political question. We

respectfully submit that Congress should not avoid exercising

its express constitutional authority to admit the

Commonwealth into the Union because of meritless threats of

litigation.

Sincerely yours,

Caroline Fredrickson, Georgetown University Law Center;

Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley School

of Law; Stephen I. Vladeck, University of Texas Law School;

Franita Tolson, University of Southern California, Gould

School of Law; Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Columbia Law School;

Leah Litman, University of Michigan Law School; Laurence H.

Tribe, Harvard Law School; Paul Smith, Georgetown University

Law Center; Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Law

School; Peter Edelman, Georgetown University Law Center;

Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law

School; Eric Segall, Georgia State College of Law; Trevor

Potter, Campaign Legal Center; Gregory P. Downs, University

of California, Davis; Larry Sabato, University of Virginia;

Aziz Huq, University of Chicago Law School; Jennifer

Hochschild, Harvard University; Neil S. Siegel, Duke

University School of Law; Beau Breslin, Skidmore College.

David C. Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center; Sanford

Levinson, University of Texas at Austin School of Law; Ira C.

Lupu, George Washington University Law School; Peter M.

Shane, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Ira P.

Robbins, American University Washington College of Law;

Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland Francis King

Carey School of Law; David Pozen, Columbia Law School; Mark

Tushnet, Harvard Law School; Michael C. Dorf, Cornell Law

School; Miguel Schor, Drake University School of Law; David

S. Schwartz, University of Wisconsin Law School; Caroline

Mala Corbin, University of Miami School of Law; Jonathan

Askin, Brooklyn Law School; Aziz Rana, Cornell Law School;

John Mikhail, Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Ford,

Stanford Law School; Richard Primus, University of Michigan

Law School; Joseph Fishkin, University of Texas Law School;

Kate Masur, Northwestern University; Chris Edelson, American

University.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5107, an undemocratic and paternalistic bill. Free D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for doing such an extraordinary job on all of this.

Mr. Speaker, for 43 long days, the Democrats held this House and the entire country hostage. Finally, with the lights back on, this body is returning to our regular legislative session. We have a lot of work to do.

My colleagues on this side of the Chamber are ready and eager to get back to our urgent legislative work we promised the American people we would do.

Just to name a few of those priorities, we have to continue lowering the cost of healthcare. We have to bring down prices for American families. We have to finish the regular appropriations process.

I wish I could say that our first order of business would be to get to those urgent priorities. However, of course, we are spending time on the floor about something else. This is something we could have resolved last week when we brought a unanimous consent to pass this discharge with the full support of the body.

Mr. Speaker, our friends over here, who are arguing today, stalled that. They objected to it. They wanted to have this exercise instead. That is why we say that this is a ``show'' vote. That is what this is. They are making a show of it, and it really is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, we have some heroic women in the Chamber today. I met with many of them a while back. They are here in the gallery. They have come forward. They have shown their faces. They have used their names to share the unspeakable tragedies that many of them were subjected to, some of them when they were very young. It is a heroic service to the country.

They are seeking justice, and justice has been delayed for too long. The Department of Justice many years ago should have brought these charges. It took too long to do it.

Now we are in this process of making sure all the American people get the information, but we have to do it in the right way.

After 4 years of Democratic control under President Biden, they were not truthful with us about a lot of things. The Democrats insisted the border was secure. We knew it wasn't. They insisted that inflation was transitory. We knew it wouldn't be. They misled the American people about the obvious mental and physical decline of the previous Commander in Chief. Now those same Democrats are demanding transparency. Suddenly transparency is their new word.

Out of nowhere, they have taken a curious concern in the Epstein investigation, all in the name of transparency.

However, the question has been asked here many times during the debate on the floor and everybody is questioning why it is that the Democrats have done this right now. We have to look at the obvious facts.

The Democrats had all the Epstein files in their possession for 4 long years under the Biden Presidency. The Biden Department of Justice had these files, and no one on this side, who is breathless today about the urgency of this release, ever said a word about it. It was the Democrats who could have urged President Biden's Department of Justice to go beyond prosecuting just Epstein and Gislaine Maxwell, but they didn't do it. It is a fair question to ask today: Why now? Why the sudden urgent interest in Jeffrey Epstein?

We know why. It is because the Democrats were never interested in transparency or executing justice or protecting the victims of this unspeakable tragedy before. The simple truth is obvious for everybody to see. This is a political exercise for Democrats. It pains me to say it. I wish that was not the truth, but it is, and it is undeniable. This is as deceitful and dishonest as their pointless stunt was to shut the government down.

Democrats are using the Epstein tragedy, the unspeakable evils that this guy committed with his trafficking ring and all of the abuses that they made these young women go through, they are using that as a political weapon to try to distract from their failures as a party and to try their best to try to tie President Trump somehow into this wretched scandal.

The President had nothing to do with it. He has been very clear. He has nothing to hide. That is why he endorsed the vote today. I suspect this vote will be probably unanimous.

Here is the important point that everybody needs to understand: We have been advocates of maximum transparency, but we have also insisted that the victims be carefully protected. The Oversight Committee has been doing extraordinary work. We have got some of the most vigorous advocates on the Republican and Democrat side on the Oversight Committee. They have been working in earnest to deliver transparency for the American people and to do it in a responsible manner.

What do we mean by that?

The bipartisan effort over there is already producing all the results that the discharge petition seeks and much, much more. Chairman Comer and all of these advocates over there have been releasing thousands of documents, for example, from the Epstein estate. By the way, in my view, that has been the greatest treasure trove of information because it has yielded for us Epstein's own personal flight logs, his financial records, his daily calendars, and so much more.

Importantly, none of that was addressed or is addressed in the legislation that is being voted on today. The estate files wouldn't even have been encompassed in that. It goes to show that the Oversight Committee is doing it in the right way.

From the very beginning, we have been insistent that this matter be handled carefully and with the utmost caution and care for the people who have been harmed. They should not be made to suffer any longer.

We are talking about real people's lives at stake here and young victims who don't want to be dragged into this political game who could get hurt further. However, the Democrats are rushing to release the thousands of unsubstantiated documents that may be included in this that may be in the public domain with the passage of this bill.

There are serious deficiencies in the legislation that I have noted at length,

and Republicans have to work to address those deficiencies in the Senate if and when this legislation is advanced.

I stood before the American public today at our press conference, and I explained in detail the dangers of the discharge petition. We have posted it at my website, speaker.gov, a summary that the legal counsel, a small army of lawyers, have put together. I used to be a Federal Court litigator. Many of my colleagues who have spoken today were. We understand the dangers of how this was haphazardly drawn up.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document titled ``How the Flaws of H.R. 4405 Could Revictimize Epstein's Victims, Create New Victims, and Damage the Judicial System''.

November 18, 2025.

How the Flaws of H.R. 4405 Could Revictimize Epstein's Victims, Create

New Victims, and Damage the Judicial System

BACKGROUND. On November 12, 2025, a motion to discharge in

relation to H. Res. 581 was filed and assigned to the

Discharge Calendar. Accordingly, the House is poised to

consider H.R. 4405, compelling the Department of Justice

(DOJ) to release its files related to Jeffrey Epstein and

Ghislaine Maxwell. While Republicans fully support

transparency and the release of the names of those who

conspired with and aided Epstein and Maxwell, the bill the

House will consider is flawed.

ANALYSIS. The flaws in H.R. 4405 include the following.

1. Fails to Fully Protect Victim Privacy. While H.R. 4405

permits the Attorney General to withhold ``personally

identifiable information of [Epstein's] victims'' and

``personal and medical files and similar files,'' this

authority is limited to disclosures that ``constitute a

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.''

Protections for Epstein's victims should go further. Congress

should give the Attorney General broader authority to redact

all victim information. This would prevent the release of

information that could be used to unmask victims who have

chosen to remain anonymous. Anything less risks revictimizing

those who were trafficked and exploited. The courts have

recognized this concern. On August 20, 2025, Judge Richard

Berman (SDNY) issued an order denying DOJ's request to

release Epstein grand jury materials, noting ``names and

identifying information [of victims] appear in the subject

materials.'' Judge Berman quoted a letter related to victims'

concerns, which stated: ``[T]ransparency cannot come at the

expense of the very people whom the justice system is sworn

to protect . . .'' and he quoted a letter from a victim, Jane

Doe 2, which stated: ``I beg the court to make sure it is the

upmost [sic] priority that in any sort of release ALL and

EVERY detail that could possibly reveal our identities be

redacted.''

2. Could Create New Victims. H.R. 4405 requires DOJ to

release information, even in cases where DOJ or the FBI has

determined it was false. Congress should avoid mandating this

kind of release. Doing so could ruin the reputations of

innocent persons, such as those who may have known Epstein

but knew nothing of his crimes, or whose names Epstein

exploited and used in order to get close to his intended

victims. Releasing information containing the names of

innocent people would subject the innocents to a guilt by

association, creating a new group of victims who have no

means to clear their names. To avoid this, the Attorney

General should be given additional authority to redact

information the FBI has previously deemed was false or not

credible.

3. Potentially Jeopardizes Grand Jury Secrecy. Rule 6(e) of

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits the release

of grand jury materials. An unauthorized release can be

prosecuted as a criminal offense, including obstruction of

justice. This secrecy exists to protect the individual. Grand

juries are not adversarial. There is no opportunity for the

subject of a grand jury inquiry to cross-examine, disprove

testimony, or challenge the evidence. If Congress compels

release of grand jury materials, it raises a risk that the

grand jury process will become politicized in the future.

Imagine how a malicious prosecutor could abuse and weaponize

the grand jury process by inducing testimony about a

political adversary, testimony the prosecutor knows is false

and which could not be contested, with the hopes a future

Congress would later compel disclosure. H.R. 4405 is

ambiguous as to whether it requires DOJ to release grand jury

materials from the Maxwell and Epstein cases. As such, as

written, the current text of H.R. 4405 creates a conflict of

laws. Congress can clear up any ambiguity by requiring the

Attorney General to redact grand jury materials.

4. Fails to Prohibit Release of Child Sexual Abuse

Materials. H.R. 4405 allows the Attorney General to redact

portions of records that ``depicts or contains child sexual

abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 . . .

.'' It necessarily follows that the redaction authority is

limited by whatever CSAM definition is found in 18 U.S.C.

2256. Unfortunately, Sec. 2256 does not contain any CSAM

definition, which means that H.R. 4405 bestows no real legal

authority on the Attorney General to redact those materials.

The bill should be amended to clearly prohibit release of any

It is dated today.

It summarizes just five or six of the major concerns.

Among them, it fails to fully protect victim privacy. It could create new categories of victims. It potentially jeopardizes grand jury secrecy.

It fails to prohibit release of child sexual abuse materials that are not appropriately defined in the legislation. It jeopardizes future Federal investigations. Moreover, we have national security concerns regarding classified information.

We will put this in the Record because we need the legislative Record to reflect what is the legislative intent behind this vote. I used to litigate cases. We used to litigate Federal statutes and whether or not they could survive, and legislative intent is important.

We need to state clearly for the record, and as Speaker of the House, I am saying to you this legislation that will pass today is flawed, and it must be amended.

The question is: Why didn't we amend it here before we passed it?

It is because the authors won't allow it.

It is because under the rules of the House under a discharge petition, they have to agree to consent for the legislation to be amended, and they are not doing that. Now we rely on our partners in the other Chamber to get that done, and they need to do that.

The victims deserve our utmost respect. In fact, they should be saluted for their courage. The young women who have not come forward, and some of them are middle-aged women who have not come forward, also deserve our respect, and they deserve to be protected.

Republicans support transparency. We want maximum transparency, especially when it comes to disclosing the names of anybody who had anything to do with these evils, anybody who conspired with or aided in any way Jeffrey Epstein must be brought to justice.

We want the bill to be amended so it doesn't at the same time violate victim privacy, create new victims, disclose the names of any whistleblower or informant, cause the release of grand jury materials or child sexual abuse materials, or undermine our national security. If and when the Senate takes this up, we will work with our colleagues over there to make sure that these things are corrected.

I will just close with this simple thought.

We have been at this a while, and it has dragged on for a while, but it is time for this to come to light.

I expect that this will be a unanimous vote, and it will reflect what I think every Member in this Chamber--

and I will say this--now, at least in recent days, every Member of the Chamber, on the Democrat side, didn't say anything for 4 years, but they are for maximum transparency now, and so is this side. But we want to do it in a respectful and careful manner so that we don't subject innocent people to further harm. That has been the whole thing.

I told all my Members today I will be voting ``yes'' on this, and I suspect almost everyone will. We will send it to the Senate, and I hope it is corrected.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up

House Resolution 879 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 879, providing for the House's consideration of eight separate measures.

The rule provides closed rules for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective designees, for each joint resolution. The rule provides each such joint resolution one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides closed rules for the consideration of H.R. 1949 and H.R. 3109 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees, for each bill. The rule provides each bill with a motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 58 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their respective designees.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107 under closed rules with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their respective designees, on each bill. The rule provides for one motion to recommit for each bill.

Finally, the rule tables H. Res. 581 upon the transmission of a message to the Senate that the House has passed H.R. 4405.

Mr. Speaker, after over 40 days of the Democrat government shutdown, the House has returned to regular order, and this majority is continuing to push forward with the America First agenda, the American people's agenda.

All of these pieces of legislation we are considering today are in alignment with the American people's demand and President Trump's executive orders that we maintain a robust posture of American energy dominance.

You know, Mr. Speaker, our Democrat colleagues have developed a strong proclivity to thumb their noses at the development of energy that comes from American soil. One must wonder why they choose to do that. They pay lipservice to environmental protections and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is just a fact that American oil and American natural gas are cleaner and more environmentally friendly than any from our global competitors.

Why would they cede our dominance on the global stage in favor of hostile actors who lack even the most basic environmental protections?

We are blessed as a nation to have vast repositories of natural resources that we can draw from and utilize accordingly. When we ignore the opportunities to harness these resources for our benefit, we deny ourselves the opportunity to grow more self-sufficient.

H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107, two measures reported from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, focus on restoring law and order in our Nation's Capital City, a city that ought to be a model for the rest of the Nation to follow.

H.R. 5214 would revoke cashless bail in the District of Columbia and would require mandatory pretrial and postconviction detention for crimes of violence and other dangerous crimes.

H.R. 5107 would repeal the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 enacted by the District of Columbia Council. This act targeted police officers in D.C. for simply doing their duties, and it led to over 1,600 officers being removed from the city's force.

Thanks to President Trump's efforts, the streets in D.C. are safer, and we have the opportunity through these two measures to add to that progress.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H. Con. Res. 58, a resolution denouncing the horrors of socialism. Most of us here in this body recognize how dangerous the plague of socialism really is. We understand its history of failure and oppression. Throughout history, this ideology has collapsed into the most brutal of dictatorships, communist regimes, and outright totalitarian rule.

Many are quick to avert their eyes and cover their ears when presented with facts about the horrors of socialism, how many individuals across the world have suffered and died because of it. This resolution will put everyone in this body on record. The American people will see who espouses this caustic ideology and those who reject it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while it is true there have been 80 closed measures, this number needs context. Twelve of the closed rules were in the rules package, which passed 2 weeks before the 119th Rules Committee even organized to begin meeting. Additionally, 25 measures were CRAs. They don't allow for an amendment. Sixteen were bills that received no amendments, meaning 41 measures were closed by definition. It is also important that four of the closed rules are duplicates from a previous failed rule. In reality, only 27 measures have been closed by discretion of the Committee.

Additionally, the Rules Committee under Republican control has simply been more productive, producing more total rules than our colleagues ever did. For example, during the most recent Democratic-controlled Congresses, the Rules Committee produced 127 total rules in the 116th Congress and 163 in the 117th Congress. Contrast this to the 200 total rules in the Republican-led 118th Congress. For the 119th, we are on pace to once again produce nearly 200 rules for the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing our job. We are not closing out debate. We are having plenty of debate. There are plenty of opportunities for our colleagues to offer amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans don't oppose the full transparency of the Epstein files. We embrace the Oversight Committee's task of doing just that. We embrace Representative Massie's legislation here today by putting it up for a vote under suspension. I will be voting for it.

We already have a House investigation that carries the full force of law, and there is no opposition to respecting the majority's wishes to get this codified into law. Let's get to it. Let's get to the vote and end these false debates, straw man arguments, and non sequiturs.

We tried to pass this bill last week, but Democrats wouldn't agree to doing so. Let's vote now. Democrats should stop, listen, and take yes for an answer.

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

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

At the top of this page, I have written: ``Democrat hypocrisy on Epstein.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what we are hearing today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I am proud to have supported the full investigation into the Epstein files on that committee.

Furthermore, I am proud to have supported formalizing that investigation by taking the decisive step in directing that investigation by a special rule provided by the Rules Committee. This gave the Oversight Committee's investigation the full weight of the House of Representatives behind the committee's existing subpoena power. It is very important in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, let's get things straight here. In just a matter of hours, we will vote on the Massie bill. That won't preclude the existing House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation in any way. That is a great thing because that investigation is yielding results.

We now know that one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest confidantes was apparently Larry Summers, a Cabinet member in the Clinton administration. We now know that a Democrat Member in this body, Stacey Plaskett, was colluding with Jeffrey Epstein in real time during a hearing. The subject matter was how to take down President Trump. We can't make this stuff up.

We now know that Epstein himself hated President Trump. It is in black and white. We now know that one of the chief Epstein victims stated that President Trump never acted inappropriately.

Don't forget that oversight investigations specifically subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton for their ties to Jeffrey Epstein. They haven't been quick to step into the breach and exonerate themselves, have they?

The truth will continue to come out, as it has, because of Republicans and a current Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation, one that already carries the full force of law. Let's see where that leads.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to get facts straight here. President Trump's Department of Justice in his first term arrested and prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein. We, on our side, want justice to prevail in this case and in every case.

Speaker Johnson has always been clear that if the discharge petition reached the necessary signatures, then the House would consider the legislation, and that is what we are providing for in our rule today.

In fact, as soon as the petition hit 218 votes last Wednesday, House Republicans offered a unanimous consent request to pass the legislation then.

However, the Democratic leader would not give consent to do that last week.

Why?

It is because they are not really interested in this. They are interested in some other things.

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the Record.

Mr. Massie did not request time from me. I am the person who controls the time on the Republican side. He did not request time from me. I would have given him time.

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

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

Our colleagues want Americans to believe that this discharge petition and underlying legislation are the be-all and end-all in this investigation. However, it is House Republicans who have worked tirelessly to achieve true justice for victims.

To date, the significant information that has come out has come from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as a result of it issuing 13 subpoenas. We have released 65,000 pages of documents from the Department of Justice; the Epstein estate, which was not mentioned in the underlying legislation; the former U.S. attorney; and others.

Let me say it again. The unanimous-consent request to pass the legislation immediately last week was blocked by the minority leader, full stop. If Democrats truly cared about finding justice immediately for victims, this legislation would have been passed last week. Instead, they want political theater to capitalize on.

House Republicans, on the other hand, remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein's victims, not political points.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, those of us who did not sign the discharge petition are just as concerned about the victims or, as some are calling them, survivors as our colleagues who signed the discharge petition.

We share contempt for anyone who abused anyone else. I have stood on this floor many times, Mr. Speaker, to speak out for victims and survivors of people who have been abused and against anyone who breaks the law or takes advantage of an innocent person.

We will not be characterized as insensitive to that, but House Republicans

who didn't sign the discharge petition remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein victims.

Again, I will point out that it was under President Trump's Department of Justice that Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and tried. We have not tried to avoid this situation. We want things done the right way. We want maximum justice for these victims and survivors.

Our rule today simply expedites consideration of the Massie-Khanna legislation. As I said, we would have liked to have seen it pass last week when we gave an opportunity for it, but it was blocked by the Democratic minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support for this rule and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 80) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 80.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 80, which repeals the Biden administration's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan, or IAP, for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, also known as the NPR-A.

Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, the approximately 23-million-acre NPR-A was designated by Congress due to its vast energy resources. In 1980, Congress amended the act and directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct ``an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.''

In 2020, in President Trump's first administration, the Bureau of Land Management released its IAP for the NPR-A. The 2020 IAP listened to local voices and opened up access to over 18.5 million acres of the NPR-A for oil and gas leasing. Over 13 million acres were made available for new infrastructure development.

Nagruk Harcharek, president of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, stated in a September 2023 Natural Resources Committee hearing that: ``We also felt heard when BLM released an NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) in June 2020 that considered the interests of our communities, including future community infrastructure needs.''

The IAP outlining management activities for natural resources throughout the NPR-A was thoughtfully crafted by the first Trump administration, taking into account the voices of local indigenous Tribal communities.

Regrettably, in 2022, the Biden administration replaced the 2020 IAP with a new one, reducing the available acreage for oil and gas leasing by 37 percent and reducing areas available to new infrastructure by over 2.3 million acres.

In November 2023, during another hearing on the matter, we heard from Commissioner John Boyle of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, who expressed concerns about the Biden administration's NPR-A rulemaking process. ``The process to date has been confusingly deficient as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has scheduled and canceled public meetings on short notice, avoided consultation obligations, and attempted to avoid procedural safeguards that are meant to keep rulemakings of enormous public cost and consequence from being hastily and arbitrarily implemented. Neither comprehensive environmental nor economic reviews have been completed for a proposal that will dramatically change environmental and economic management in what may be the largest Federal petroleum asset in the country.''

In that same hearing, Mr. Harcharek shared:

``This decision, coupled with further `protections' for NPR-A, will undoubtedly shrink the economic opportunities available to the North Slope. It virtually guarantees to set us back on our journey toward self-determination by requiring further reliance on the Federal and State government to provide for the basic needs of the people on the North Slope.''

Ultimately, the Biden administration stymied energy production within the NPR-A and failed to offer leases in a manner that would boost revenue and provide economic stability to the region and the State.

The most recent lease sale in the NPR-A took place in 2019, when the BLM leased over 1 million acres, generating more than $11 million, including roughly $5.6 million for the State of Alaska.

Revenue from developing these resources is essential to the livelihoods of all Alaskans. For example, in fiscal year 2022, Alaskan oil and natural gas production, largely driven by the consequences of the pro-energy policies of the first Trump administration, generated $4.5 billion in State and local revenue and supported over 69,250 direct and indirect jobs.

Alaska's role as a leader in unleashing American energy dominance will continue. In the Working Families Tax Cut Act, Congress highlighted the importance of the NPR-A and required five lease sales to be held in the area over the next 10 years.

To ensure our energy independence, we must unleash American energy and ensure access to our own resources here at home. This legislation is an important step in doing just that.

I thank Representative Begich and Senator Sullivan for their work to bring S.J. Res. 80 to the House floor so that we can nullify yet another misguided Biden-era action and take another step to put our Nation's energy policy back on the right track.

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

Mr. Speaker, I point out that, while the current administration did recently rescind the 2024 rule this month, passage of a CRA is still necessary to prevent a future administration from, again, weaponizing IAPs similar to this one that ignore congressional intent. By replacing the 2022 IAP, BLM wouldn't be left in limbo. They would revert back to the initial IAP finalized under the first Trump administration, which did take into account Native Tribal voices, and it is consistent with the requirements included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the lead sponsor of the House companion to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, ICAS, the North Slope Borough, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, ASRC, that specifically states BLM failed to engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation with ASRC, the Borough, and ICAS.

This admission contradicts Federal consultation requirements and disregards the voices of the very communities most affected. Our leadership has consistently raised concerns about this process and its outcome, yet those concerns were ignored.

October 3, 2025.

Re Support for S.J. Res. 80 and H.J. Res. 124--Congressional

Review Act Disapproval of the BLM NPR-A Integrated

Activity Plan (IAP) Record of Decision (ROD).

Hon. Lisa Murkowski,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dan Sullivan,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nicholas Begich III,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Murkowski, Sullivan, and Representative

Begich: On behalf of the North Slope Inupiaq leadership--

including Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), the North

Slope Borough (Borough), and the Inupiat Community of the

Arctic Slope (ICAS)--we write in strong support of S.J. Res.

80, introduced by Senators Sullivan and Murkowski, and H.J.

Res. 124 in the House, each providing for congressional

disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,

of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management

relating to the ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska

Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision.''

Background

The North Slope Inupiat have called the Arctic home for

over 10,000 years. We are proud of our self-determination

efforts to ensure future generations of Inupiat continue to

reside in our communities and have access to essential

services. Without a stable economy, our communities will

suffer, along with our ability to fully engage in and sustain

our Inupiaq cultural traditions, including our vital

subsistence way of life.

The North Slope of Alaska spans an area nearly the size of

the state of Minnesota and, within that expansive area, there

are eight Inupiaq communities--Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk,

Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point Lay, Utqiagvik, and

Wainwright. None of our communities are connected by a

permanent road system; all supplies must be flown or barged

in, making the cost of living extremely high and economic

opportunities generally low.

Over fifty years ago, the Federal Government directed

Alaska Native people to organize into a new structure of

indigenous representation. The Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) was a dramatically different

and transformative approach by the Federal Government to

federal Indian policy. The fact that our ancestral lands were

claimed by the Federal Government before our people had a

right to settle aboriginal land claims should inform every

decision the Federal Government makes in managing those

lands.

Unlike the Lower 48 model of indigenous representation

where tribal governments typically administer the delivery of

services such as healthcare, public safety, education, land

management, and economic development, the passage of ANCSA

created a shared system of Alaska Native representation and

delivery of services. Our region has a multitude of Alaska

Native entities that work together to effectively serve,

provide for, and enrich the lives of the North Slope Inupiat

we represent. Our three regional entities, the ICAS, the

Borough, and ASRC are three of those entities. While our

roles differ, our constituencies overlap, which is why we

work closely together to protect the cultural and economic

interests of the North Slope Inupiat.

While our leaders over fifty years ago were initially wary

of any development on our lands, our Inupiaq leaders have

spent decades prioritizing open communication and

transparency in planning with industry. We have exercised

true self-determination through a unique framework of Alaska

Native governance--a framework that relies on our tribal

governments, municipal governments, and Alaska Native

corporations established by Congress to serve our indigenous

constituents. For millennia, Inupiaq ingenuity has

transformed our relationship with industry into a partnership

that has both protected our environment and our way of life

and has brought significant economic benefits to the region

that would have otherwise been absent. Our North Slope

residents are keenly aware that advances in our communities--

running water, local schools, health care, public safety,

electricity, and more--have come because of the coordination

and cooperation of Alaska Native leaders and entities across

the region.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that a recipe for disaster is when an administration goes out on their own, goes around the laws that Congress passed, and implements bad rules on their way out the door and expects no repercussions from that.

I would say a recipe for good governance is when Congress acts within their power to disapprove of these rules, and that is exactly what we are doing with the CRA to make sure that these rules are followed.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated that gas and energy prices won't be reduced by passing this CRA, and I contend that they will because overturning these rules would incentivize much-needed investment throughout the State or the entire North Slope.

The regional impacts of increased energy production in Alaska cannot be overstated. Refineries in the region, including California and Washington, are equipped to handle Alaskan oil, and the refinery in Kenai produces most of the State of Alaska's gasoline. The North Pole refinery provides jet fuel for our military, amongst other aviation fuels. Two other refineries located in Valdez and near Fairbanks also produce diesel and heating fuels.

Let me point out that 3 out of 10 State households in Alaska rely on fuel oil, kerosene, or propane for home heating. You may ask why they would rely on these fuels that are traditionally more expensive when Alaska has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. That is because that natural gas is on the North Slope, and even in the city of Anchorage, they are running out of natural gas because they can't move the gas from the North Slope and can't develop infrastructure. Not only can they not meet their own needs with that gas, they certainly can't export it to our allies.

As many have shared, the NPR-A is essential to unleashing American energy dominance and sustaining economies throughout Alaska.

Congress must also act to undo the harm that the previous administration imposed, and we must work to unlock the estimated 8.7 billion barrels of oil and 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas the NPR-A holds.

By repealing this decision, we can help uphold Tribal voices and revert to the 2020 IAP that considered their meaningful input.

Letting these plans to shut down energy production in the NPR-A linger would be devastating to Alaskans, especially the Native communities on the North Slope. Without jobs, people may leave these communities, jeopardizing the culture and social fabric of the region. We cannot afford to let this happen. We must pass S.J. Res. 80.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up the bill (H.R. 3109) to require the Secretary of Energy to direct the National Petroleum Council to issue a report with respect to petrochemical refineries in the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3109.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American economy is fueled by petrochemical refineries

providing affordable diesel and gasoline to families, critical inputs for our manufacturers, and products imperative for the maintenance of our defense systems.

The national security component of a viable refining industry cannot be overstated, and we must not forfeit these essential supply chains.

Under the previous administration, we saw the impact of an energy retreat: higher prices for families and businesses, emboldened adversaries, sluggish economies, and increasing reliance on other nations.

Unfortunately, this is still the case in States like California, where a hostile regulatory environment has forced refineries to reduce operations. In fact, the Golden State is expected to lose 17 percent of its capacity in the next year. This has led to an average gasoline price of nearly $5 per gallon, an increased fuel dependence on Asian producers, and jeopardizing the fuel supply chain of military installations in their State.

We must not let this become status quo across the country. H.R. 3109 requires the National Petroleum Council to collect and examine information regarding the role of petrochemical refineries in the United States and their contributions to affordability, security, and reliability. The report will assess opportunities to expand capacity as well as current risks to refineries.

H.R. 3109 will provide the Committee on Energy and Commerce the information we need to enact policies to deliver affordable, reliable, and clean energy to all Americans.

I thank Representative Latta, the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, for his leadership on this issue.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 3109, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

When I was a young man in the 1970s--when I was a kid, I guess, in the 1970s--I remember gas lines and having to push my father's car to get gasoline. At the time, everybody said we were going to run out of crude oil. That was the thing, running out of crude oil.

I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the crude oil issue. It is actually because of the ingenuity of the American people that we have an abundance of crude oil. The issue isn't crude oil. It is the refining capacity.

Since I was a kid, we found this abundance of crude oil in the Permian Basin, North Dakota, and all the places I can name. We have more oil than they have in the Middle East, which, when I was a kid, a lot of it was coming from the Middle East.

Then, you have this chokepoint of refining capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in the United States since I was a kid, so that is the thing that we want to address. That is the issue we want to address. We do want prices to go down. We don't want it to be $5 a gallon.

I was putting gas in a rental car in California, and I looked over at the guy next to me. I paid probably $2.60 a gallon in Kentucky, and I think it was $4.80 there. I said: Do you guys have any idea what the rest of America is paying for gasoline?

We are here to address it, and we are addressing it by a bill authored by my good friend, the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a leader in this arena.

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

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

It is frustrating that we lost 42 days because our side of the aisle wanted to open the government and wanted to have the government operating. We

wanted to sit down and work through the issues before us, not choosing to not fund the government.

I was always embarrassed to even look in the eye--I voted for all of it--to go see a TSA agent at the airport in Nashville in my home State of Tennessee where I fly out of, the FAA people going to work at the airport. I was embarrassed coming here and seeing the people sitting in front of us here, the people guarding the doors of the Capitol building, with no respect, having them come to work without respect and paying them. That was extremely frustrating to me. It is just beyond pale that that happened.

On the Epstein files, the Speaker tried to come and unanimous consent the Epstein files. Remember, last week he came down and said let's pass the Epstein files, and the other side of the aisle objected to it. I don't know why they would object to passing the files.

They held it up for several days. I know there were a few rallies that happened, and then we all voted. It was 427-1. Were they trying to get the Epstein files out, or were they trying to make sure people got in town for their rallies? That is what I would like to know.

The National Petroleum Council that we are referring to in this bill is a part of the Department of Energy. All through government, we have councils of people that are experts in their fields who come to D.C. The Department of Labor has them. People from the labor community come and have councils to give advice on bills.

We know we have ample crude. We know the ingenuity of the American people to have ample crude. What we are talking about today is where 40 refineries in California have gone to 14. If you want affordability, not only do you have to be able to get the crude out of the ground, you have to refine it to where we can use it.

As we are shrinking refining capacity in this country and increasing demand, if we don't increase supply, we are not going to have affordability. You can talk about affordability all you want, but you have got to have the supply to address it. That is what we are focused on doing today.

We want the experts to give us their information. We don't have to do what they say. We want to take their information, take the good ideas and try to implement them into where we can provide lower prices.

If you think this doesn't work, come buy gas in Kentucky. Then go to my good friends who are sitting here from California and buy gas in their State, then tell us what does efficient energy policy do for affordability. I will challenge them to do that. I will say you can buy the most expensive gas in Kentucky, and we will compare that to what is going on in California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend and very important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from California, and I actually do love going to California. I haven't been in the bay area in a couple of years, and we will figure out an opportunity to come there. My family tries to go to California as much as we can. I know he is from the beautiful bay area. Actually, when I was talking about the high price of gas, it was down in southern California, which has its own beauty, as well.

I am a fan of California. Other than Kentucky, I think California is one of the prettiest States we have in the Union. From the redwoods to the Yosemite Valley, it is absolutely stunning. I absolutely would love to come back out to the bay area because it is beautiful, as well.

In this bill, we are talking about electricity prices. China is building the electric car industry, but they are also building the power generation, like a coal plant a week, I think, to provide the energy for that.

This bill we are talking about is on gasoline and diesel. Remember, everything that arrives to a store comes on a truck. Sometimes they come on a train, but the last mile is almost always or is always a truck. Diesel prices, fuel prices, matter in terms of food prices and about everything else that we consume.

This is important to do. Electric affordability is also important to do, and we are committed. We will work together to get our prices down, but we have to produce more.

That is what we are wondering. How do we efficiently, effectively, safely, and cleanly produce more gasoline and diesel? You can't do it without more refining capacity unless you decrease demand for it. That is not the avenue we have to go, either.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my good friend and the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, other than the Commonwealth of Kentucky, California is one of those beautiful States in our--they are all beautiful, actually. We live in a wonderful country. There is nothing prettier than the tunnel view from Yosemite Valley.

I don't know, with your lines changing so much, but I know my good friend from California used to represent our beautiful natural resources in the National Park of Yosemite Valley. He still does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my good friend and a classmate elected the same year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fong), who is from Bakersfield, California, and was elected just recently to Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about rising prices. My friend from New Jersey talked about since 2022, and he said the emphasis is on what has happened in the first few months of this year.

The decisions were made prior to the present Trump administration to take power offline. I know in my community down in Bowling Green, Kentucky, a few years ago with the polar vortex, we actually had blackouts, we had to have rolling blackouts because of taking power offline.

We all want to address it. The way we address this is not taking power offline, not building new, safer--my good friend from California talked about what they are doing in California to make refineries cleaner and safer, and that is what we want. We want refineries to refine in a safe, responsible, and sustainable way. We can work together to do that.

On the LNG we are going to talk about in just a few minutes, we do have the gas in our country. We have people who can develop, particularly in your home State, Mr. Speaker. The problem is, can we move it to where it needs to go. We know the challenge isn't the access to gas, it is actually moving it to where it needs to be.

We need to work together. I think Natural Resources today had a markup, T&I is working on a markup, and we hopefully can work together as Members across the aisle in the Energy and Commerce Committee to do our share to make sure this explosive growth of energy is not just in gas and diesel but also in electricity. We need every electron we can produce to beat China.

Talking about China, China is struggling and working as hard as they can to beat us to control the data that flows around the world through AI. It

is our job on this committee to see that that doesn't happen for this country, and that is because we have to have enough energy.

Again, this is a Department of Energy council, made up of people in the industry, to give us a report to see where we should go in making sure that America has proper refining. It is not a report that is going to produce what we do. It is the kind of report that informs us in what we do. I know on our side of the aisle--I think on both sides of the aisle--we try to take as much information as we can to make a reasonable decision to make sure we have clean, sustainable, but ample and safe fuel for this country in order to get groceries to the grocery store, either through diesel or gasoline.

Prices matter. It hurts families when their electric bills are high and when their grocery bills are high because people have to eat and they have to have a safe and clean place to live. This is what this is about. This is what our struggle is over, and this is what we are going to accomplish as a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3109, and I yield back the balance of my time.