Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, Mr. Roy, for yielding 2 minutes to me.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this. This is really humorous to hear the machinations and the twisting and goings-on from our friends across the aisle. As they say, this is too much.

Mr. Schumer denigrated Black people and basically said they can't get the IDs. Kamala Harris said rural folks can't get IDs. It is just too hard. That is BS. They know it is BS. The American people know it is BS. It is exactly why 85 percent of Americans say we need to do this.

Let me just say that I come from a State that is the most unique State in the country because we have been, for years, requiring proof of citizenship when a person registers for a State ballot. We have to do that in Arizona, and we have had no suppression. We are the only State that does it because the Supreme Court ruled that way. Somehow, we can't do it for Federal ballots?

Mr. Speaker, think about that. For an alderman or legislator in Arizona, we have to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. We can't do it for the President, though. How absurd is that?

We have had no problems. There has been no voter suppression. They want to make it an issue because they don't want that proof, and we need to have that proof. Every rational American knows it is not suppression. It is common sense. That is why we need to show ID when we vote. It is popular in Arizona. It is popular across the country.

We need to show our citizenship when we register to vote. That is what has to happen in Arizona. It will work across the country. There is not a doubt in my mind, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Yvonne Fedderson, cofounder of Childhelp, a national organization dedicated to the prevention and treatment of child abuse.

Yvonne lived an amazing, divinely inspired life.

In 1959, Yvonne was in her mid-twenties and in the midst of a successful acting career. She and Sara O'Meara, who became a close friend and cofounder of Childhelp, were on a USO tour in Japan when they found 11 Japanese-American orphans kicked out of their orphanage. Yvonne and Sara responded, finding them shelter and long-term care.

What started as an effort to help these 11 children turned into a lifelong calling. Yvonne and Sara went on to open orphanages in Japan and Vietnam, saving tens of thousands of children.

In the mid-1970s, at the behest of Nancy Reagan, they opened their first iteration of Childhelp in California. They have since created a nationwide network of assistance, including a 24/7 hotline, treatment centers, abuse prevention programs, and awareness campaigns. We are honored that they chose to headquarter Childhelp in Arizona.

On January 23 of this year, at the age of 90, God called Yvonne home. I count it as a tremendous blessing to have known Yvonne and witnessed the profound impact she had on the lives of our most vulnerable, on our community, our State, and our Nation. Her legacy will endure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 43rd anniversary of the devastating Roe v. Wade decision. For nearly 50 years, Roe distorted our Constitution and did great harm to our Nation.

The decision was not rooted in the text of the Constitution. Instead, the Court invented a constitutional right grounded in a vague, undefined concept of privacy that the Court itself struggled to explain.

Roe silenced voters, sidelined legislatures, and eroded respect for the judiciary by turning judges into policymakers. Worst of all, it cost millions of innocent lives.

In overturning Roe, the Supreme Court rightly corrected a grave legal error and returned authority to the States where it belongs. That restoration of constitutional order was long overdue.

I also bid hello and welcome to my friends from the Center for Arizona Policy who are in the gallery today.

Mr. Chairman, nationwide injunctions are highly disfavored. There was a time that people across both sides of the aisle here recognized that.

A certain judge named Boasberg continually exercises those nationwide injunctions, and that wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except he has repeatedly displayed bias and partisanship.

For instance, without substance or evidence, he complained to Chief Justice Roberts that he didn't think President Trump would comply with judicial orders. That displayed his bias, Mr. Chairman. That displayed his partisanship.

Without legal authority and without precedent, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to turn around planes that were in international airspace, conducting a military operation. That is what he insisted upon.

The appellate court rejected Judge Boasberg's theories regarding that incident. Do you know what Judge Boasberg did? He didn't care what the appellate court said because he is biased. He is prejudiced. Judge Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to come in and explain further why they violated what he felt was his authority, which the appellate court said was not rational.

Judge Boasberg is the one who issued surveillance subpoenas against Members of this body and the United States Senate, against Federal law, Mr. Chair. It was against Federal law.

Judge Boasberg issued nondisclosure orders.

Mr. Chair, when we see this pattern and we know that he has displayed and said that he has bias against President Trump, he no longer is a fair arbiter, and he must be reckoned with.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my friend, Representative Crane's, amendment.

I take umbrage with the last comments made. If this was such a doggone great program, then why has it been unauthorized by this body for more than 20 years? The reason is it has lost its moorings. It is wandering around. It hasn't complied with transparency requirements. It more closely resembles covert political operations designed to entangle the United States in foreign disputes and undermine diplomatic efforts than support them.

Their board and staff overwhelmingly donate to Democratic candidates. They even demanded the removal of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik from the board for defending President Trump, a clear sign of ideological capture, and that is the biggest problem. They have lost their way. They cannot be trusted. We should not give them another dime.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue. I thank all the members of our Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, both Republicans and Democrats, for working together on these very important issues.

Mr. Speaker, sextortion has become a devastating crisis. Predators threaten to release explicit images of minors to extort money, more content, or compliance, preying on shame and fear.

Protecting children from online sexual exploitation remains a top priority for our Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance in this Congress.

Offenders, often overseas or even juveniles, groom victims and then weaponize images or AI-generated deepfakes pulled from public photos to demand payment or further abuse. This drives severe trauma, self-harm, and suicide.

More than three dozen teens have taken their lives in recent cases, with boys aged 14 to 17 hit hardest. Reports of these horrible crimes are surging. NCMEC, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, reports that financial sextortion cases jumped from over 13,800 in early 2024 to nearly 24,000 in early 2025. The FBI logged nearly 55,000 sextortion reports in 2024 alone, with $33 million in losses.

I commend the FBI for its investigations and public alerts. Current law, 18 U.S.C. 2252 and 2252A, does not explicitly cover threats to distribute child

sexual abuse material or images believed to be of minors. That gap limits prosecution.

The Combating Online Predators Act closes that gap by criminalizing knowing threats to distribute these depictions with intent to coerce or extort. This is a targeted bipartisan fix that gives prosecutors the tools they need to stop these predators and protect our kids.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill. I hope that this bill passes out of the House today and swiftly passes out of the Senate to be signed by the President.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work on this bill and the bipartisan work from the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, which has worked on this, and I appreciate that very much.

The ranking member, the whole committee, and the entire Committee on the Judiciary has banded together, which if you ever watched the Judiciary Committee, you would know that this is a remarkable time.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support that we have here because anyone who exploits a child for sexual purposes must face full accountability and must face the full measure of the law.

There cannot be loopholes or technicalities that would let predators slip through the cracks, and when we find them, this body has to fix that. Protecting minors from sexual exploitation remains a core priority for our Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance.

A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Howard exposed a dangerous gap in current law. Both of the previous speakers have spoken to that, but that really is the crux of this. The court overturned a conviction for producing child sexual abuse material because the minor--a sleeping, clothed child--was merely present in the video, not touched, actively involved, or engaged.

In that case, the defendant filmed himself in sexual conduct near his 9-year-old niece. The court ruled that he did not use her under existing statute because she was passive. That interpretation is utterly unacceptable.

Predators should not evade justice simply because the child whom they exploit is unaware. The harm is real. The intent is clear. This loophole weakens 18 United States Code, section 2251(a), and related statutes, making it harder to prosecute offenders and easier for exploiters to walk free and then exploit others and create more victims.

The Child Predators Accountability Act of 2025 closes this gap by clarifying that a minor is engaged in sexually explicit conduct when the offender intentionally includes the child in the depiction, even passively. This is a straightforward, bipartisan fix that ensures that Federal law captures these heinous acts and imposes the penalties that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I commend law enforcement for their tireless work of protecting children, and I commend the work of this committee and the lead sponsor of this bill, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6715 so that every child predator is fully held to account. Let's do this today. Let's get it out of the Senate quickly and get it up to the President's desk to be signed and enacted immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6732) to prohibit unlawful coercion of a minor, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the horror of child abuse and exploitation online continues to remain a significant problem across the country.

The Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance made combating child exploitation a top priority in the 118th Congress, and we continue to do so in the 119th Congress.

Unfortunately, criminals are continuously finding new ways to force minors to commit sexual or violent acts against themselves or others.

Violent online networks are methodically targeting vulnerable underage populations across the United States. These violent groups, often known as gore groups, target children and force them into unthinkable acts of violence against themselves, against others, and even against animals.

These groups use social media or other popular platforms such as Roblox or Discord to elicit private information or sexual images from minors, and they use that information and that material to blackmail victims into mutilating themselves or taking other violent action against friends, family members, or pets.

Many of these networks rapidly emerge, create alliances, and then quickly dissolve, making it difficult to determine leadership structure. Many criminal actors are located overseas, and many of these offenders are also minors themselves.

The most prominent example is the online extremist network known as 764. Mr. Speaker, 764 is a decentralized online network that glorifies violence and encourages participation in criminal activities such as sextortion and doxing. A disturbed young man, who has since been arrested and jailed, started the 764 network in 2020.

While decentralized, the group has grown into a vast array of online predators seemingly in a dark competition of who can manipulate children to commit the most violent acts.

In 2024, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

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

Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Raskin for his helpful suggestions that will make this bill much better and has made it much better. I thank Ranking Member McBath for her support as well.

It is our desire to bring these malevolent-hearted people who are filled with evil and criminal intention to justice and to protect our children.

Madam Speaker, I urge the swift passage of this bill out of the House and the Senate and to get it signed and enacted, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Malliotakis.) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6732, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the life and legacy of my friend and colleague, Congressman Doug LaMalfa.

As you know, Doug was a happy warrior who cared immensely about his country, his State, and the people he served. A few years ago, he took time out of his busy schedule to travel with me to Arizona to better understand the border crisis and the serious impact it was having on my State as well as his own. Doug was always willing to listen, learn, and engage on the issues that matter most. He was the most curious man.

I thoroughly enjoyed working with him on a wide range of policies and challenges that uniquely affect the West and the hardworking communities we both represent.

Doug was a true friend. He will be deeply missed in this Congress and beyond. My team and I continue to pray for Doug, his family, and for all who loved him during this particularly difficult time.

May God bless Doug LaMalfa's memory and may he rest in peace.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this particular amendment is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It deals with ranching lands that have been used for more than 40 years. It gives the ranchers the flexibility they need without Washington bureaucrats second-guessing their operations.

In Arizona and, in fact, the entire Western United States, drought cycles can last decades. In fact, Arizona and much of the West have been in a 30-year drought. Under the current 5-year window, pauses that ranchers and farmers might take can often revert to wetlands, triggering EPA oversight that locks out grazing.

My amendment recognizes the reality of the West and protects these parcels so they can return to production when conditions improve without fear of Federal reclamation. During the Biden administration, expansive WOTUS interpretations treated dry washes and ephemeral streams as navigable waters, piling on permits that crippled ranchers and farmers in the West.

Without grazing, it triggers something more devastating in some respects, which is wildfires. We have had a bit of a wet year. We have grasslands in part of the West now that are 2 feet in height. When the summer comes and the heat comes and they dry up, this will trigger massive wildfires.

Ranchers in my own district have spent hundreds of thousands, even millions, on compliance costs, environmental assessments, and legal fees just to access lands they have stewarded for generations and, in some case, almost 100 years.

This overreach hurts family ranchers and contributes to a shrinking U.S. cattle herd, now at its lowest level since the 1950s, driving beef prices up more than 14 percent in the last year. By opening more land and cutting red tape, this amendment empowers ranchers to expand grazing, manage habitat, control wildfires, and meet market needs.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, what I would suggest is that folks come out West and take a look at the land. Take a look at land that has been determined to be wetlands, dry washes, and ephemeral streams. Then ask the question: Why is that a wetland?

When we get great rains, what, once every 3 years, that wash gets filled. When we do not allow grazing, what happens is there is time for wildfires. The habitat is endangered, and things aren't better; they are worse. This amendment helps cure that.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of any time.

Mr. Chair, I think we have made the case here. We

are not abandoning lands. We are taking lands that have been in production for over 40 years. They have to let it lie fallow and let it grow.

My colleagues across the aisle are saying: We don't care if they have to let it lie fallow. We don't care what the reality is in the West. All we care about is protecting the bureaucratic rule.

Mr. Chair, that is a doggone shame because beef production is incredibly low right now. Beef consumption is projected to be 28.6 billion pounds this year. It is falling because of high prices.

What are we doing? We are saying we are going to import it from Argentina. When a county in my State normally has 60,000 head, and over the last 10 years that has gone down to 25,000 head, that is because of this rule that needs to be changed.

Mr. Chair, I urge passage of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I want to give context to folks about the West, but, particularly, my own home State. In my State, which is the sixth largest geographically in the Nation, only 18 percent of the land is privately owned. All of the rest, 82 percent, is controlled by a government entity, State, Federal, or reservation.

My amendment is common sense and targeted. It directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to review lands under their jurisdiction within 1 year and identify parcels suitable for water recharge projects like aquifer recharge and surface infiltration.

That is a very limited scope of the federally controlled land in Arizona. It streamlines permitting under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and it minimizes red tape through categorical exclusions in collaboration with State agencies.

This ensures Federal lands become partners in water management, not barriers, allowing Arizona communities to secure the water they need.

In Arizona, water is life, yet over 95 percent of rainfall evaporates before it can even recharge aquifers. Even a small increase in recharge could substantially boost underground water supplies in Arizona.

Drought cycles and Federal restrictions have idled vast areas and threatened water security. My amendment promotes recharge efforts on Federal lands, giving States the tools to capture and store water before it is lost.

Mr. Chair, I want you to know, in the 18 percent of land, we lead the world in recharge. We lead the world in recharge, and when you can recharge underground aquifers, Mr. Chair, you save lives and you promote good environmental quality. Under the Biden administration, routine water projects became regulatory nightmares with EPA restrictions untailored to Arizona's desert reality.

Securing permits often means chaotic delays from Federal bureaucracies, even to access water on lands the Federal Government controls, which is over 80 percent of Arizona. With only 18 percent of Arizona privately owned, streamlined Federal permitting is essential.

My amendment delivers by identifying hydrologically suitable Federal land and cutting bureaucracy.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment empowers local entities to expand recharge efforts keeping aquifers full and communities strong in Arizona and the West. Arizona's rural economy depends on agriculture and ranching. We cannot allow water shortages to slow growth or drive up food costs nationwide.

By investing in groundwater and stormwater recharge, this amendment increases supplies, lowers costs for farmers, and strengthens the domestic food chain. It removes red tape so Arizona can secure water for future generations.

Identifying Federal lands for recharge is simple, it is necessary, and it is appropriate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

This bill would nullify President Trump's Executive Order No. 14251, which rightly excluded 40 national security agencies from collective bargaining.

Agencies like FEMA, the Coast Guard, the CDC, and the VA cannot afford to be paralyzed by union red tape when lives are on the line.

I want to emphasize that this is going to nullify an executive order. It is going to attack his agenda, the America First agenda, that he was overwhelmingly elected to enact.

These unions are not neutral actors. The word ``billionaires'' was mentioned by my colleague from California. I am glad he mentioned the term ``billion,'' because that is what the partisan machine government union spent in the last election, just under $1 billion, $980 million of it going to Democrats, which explains in no small measure the rationale for the movement of this bill to negate President Trump's executive order.

In its final days, the Biden administration rushed to lock in long- term union contracts designed to tie President Trump's hands for a second term.

H.R. 2550 preserves those deals signed after President Trump was reelected but before Inauguration Day. That undermines the will of the voters and the authority of the Commander in Chief. It is legislative sabotage, and we shouldn't give in to that.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 explicitly gives the President authority to exclude agencies from collective bargaining when national security is at stake. This would undo that.

Presidents from Carter to Reagan to Trump have exercised this authority. Courts have already sided with President Trump, affirming that in matters of national security, the President enjoys ``unique responsibility.''

Arizona knows too well the cost of bureaucratic failure. The Phoenix VA scandal shows what happens when accountability is lost. Veterans died waiting for care.

We must not allow unions to dictate policy if it is going to impact national security, if it is going to affect our borders, if it is going to affect our energy, and if it is going to affect protecting Americans during pandemics.

In a State where public safety and national defense are daily realities, my State, this bill would put union bosses ahead of the American people and in front of Arizonans.

In 2024 alone, the political arm of the Democratic Party, the four largest public-sector unions, spent $900 million-plus on progressive politics, and 86 percent of it came from their member dues. They are using taxpayer-backed salaries to fund partisan activism, not to serve the American people.

H.R. 2550 strips the President of his constitutional authority, undermines national security, and rewards partisan obstruction. President Trump is trying to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. Congress should not stand in his way.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the President, put America's security ahead of union politics, and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has turned the criminal code into a labyrinth, a maze so bloated and disorganized that not even the DOJ can tell you how many Federal crimes exist.

That is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 2159, the Count the Crimes to Cut Act, led by my friend, Chip Roy from Texas, Representative McBath, who is the ranking member on our Subcommittee of Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, and supported by Members of both parties who understand that freedom collapses when the law becomes unknowable.

This bill is co-led by staunch conservatives like Representative Roy and myself and our colleagues, who occasionally think differently than us, Mrs. McBath and Mr. Cohen. We disagree on a lot in this Chamber, but we should all agree that Americans should know what conduct is criminal before they are punished for it.

The Count the Crimes to Cut Act forces the DOJ to produce a complete list of every Federal criminal statute with the specific legal elements, the authorized penalties, and the number of prosecutions for each offense over the last 15 years.

Right now, we literally cannot tell the American people how many Federal crimes exist. I called the Congressional Research Service several years ago because I was interested in this. They said we have no idea.

Estimates range from 4,000 statutes to hundreds of thousands of criminalized regulations, but no one actually knows because Washington has never bothered to count them. This is the very definition of overcriminalization: vague laws, hidden laws, duplicative laws, and regulatory crimes that nobody could reasonably expect an ordinary citizen to find or understand.

The Federal code has grown so bloated that a person can unknowingly violate a regulation they have never heard of and the government can still throw the book at them.

Even former Harvard University Professor Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average American commits three felonies a day without even knowing it.

Dr. Silverglate clearly wasn't referring to violent felonies like murder or felonies like money laundering or fraud, but instead to those vague, hidden, duplicative and sometimes downright silly laws.

I have other pending legislation; the End Endless Criminal Statutes Act to repeal 10 unnecessary criminal offenses such as selling or possessing colored oleomargarine or colored margarine unless they are packaged and labeled or served in a triangular shape. That is far from the only silly law still on the books.

It is illegal to use a falconry bird in a movie that isn't about falconry, to sell runny ketchup, or to leave the country with too many nickels in your pockets.

Here is the deal: We just have too many laws and too many crimes. When the Federal Criminal Code becomes a weapon instead of a guide, it is always the most vulnerable, the poor, the small business owners, the persons who don't have a legal team on retainer who gets crushed first.

Overcriminalization is one of the most destructive features of the modern Federal leviathan. We cannot restore liberty, shrink government, or protect due process unless we first expose the scope of the problem and that is what this bill attempts to do.

I am so pleased to be a sponsor, but I am proud to associate with my cosponsors, Mr. Roy, Mrs. McBath, Mr. Cohen, and others.

This is very simple, Mr. Speaker: If you believe in liberty, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. If you believe the government should be accountable to the people, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. If you believe that Americans deserve to know the laws that can put them behind bars, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. It is bipartisan, common sense, and long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Count the Crimes to Cut Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Norman for raising this issue.

To me, this is an interesting issue because I am hearing the argument that is coming at us, and it says, well, there is no due process.

Well, debate is a part of due process. A part of due process is to have this debate. You get to stand up and defend, and you get to raise your issues. The Democrats chose to take it back to committee, which as Mr. Roy said, that kind of indicates that maybe you know that there is something that is not great about this.

I am looking at this, and here is at least one of the exchanges that seems to have taken place. Maybe we will hear some comment about it. That would be good. They can make some comment about it.

In this exchange, Mr. Epstein sent a text message to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands. This is the quote: He brings up Rhona, keeper of the secrets.

Who is he referring to? Rhona Graff. That is a Trump assistant.

Plaskett responds: Rhona? Quick, I am up next. Is that an acronym?

She wants to know what Mr. Epstein wants her to talk about. Don't you find that interesting? I find that really intriguing, especially since we know what Mr. Epstein was.

Mr. Epstein responds: That is his assistant.

He doesn't really say much more than that.

Then Plaskett starts questioning Mr. Cohen and asks about Graff. Not only was she texting, having this communication with Mr. Epstein, she is asking Mr. Cohen what Mr. Epstein wants her to ask.

Another text from Epstein says: Good work.

That is after she wraps it up.

All of this seems to be very interesting. I am sorry that I don't breathe the rarefied air of the Intelligence Committee. I don't. I am just a regular guy and a Member of the House, that is all, so I don't know about that rarefied air.

I guess I am part of the sewage that Mr. Himes said. Yeah. Thanks for agreeing with me, Ms. Plaskett. She has got us down. Unless you are in the Intelligence Committee, you are crap. That is what the Intel Committee says.

But here is the deal: When you are sitting there in a sitting committee, and you are having communications with a convicted sex offender, and you are taking their advice on how to ask questions, maybe you have a problem. Maybe your problem is that you brought disrepute on the House.

This isn't from the articles. This is from the 10,000 pages or so released last week from the Oversight Committee that they received from the Epstein estate. This isn't fishing around. This is coming from real evidence.

Mr. Speaker, I sit here, and I listen: Oh, she is the finest Member that ever walked the planet.

That is what we heard. The bottom line is she is sitting there, seeking advice and counsel on how to ask questions from Jeffrey Epstein, who this entire body, save one, just condemned. We want all of the evidence. It is a shame to be here but for one thing, which is: She made the choice.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone in this body to support Mr. Norman's resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 722, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 719) honoring the life and legacy of Charles ``Charlie'' James Kirk, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 719, a resolution honoring the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk.

Just last week, on September 10, we tragically lost a tremendous leader and friend. A cowardly, deranged, and unstable assassin, who was radicalized by leftwing ideology, murdered a conservative icon over political disagreements.

Charlie Kirk was an inspiration to an entire generation and will be remembered as someone who changed the very course of our country.

However, his most important role was as a loving husband, father, and devout Christian who shared his faith unapologetically. My thoughts and prayers are with Erika and Charlie's two young children.

We know and appreciate that Charlie Kirk was a man committed to his faith, his family, and this Nation. He dedicated his life to protecting and defending the God-given rights enshrined in our founding documents.

He worked tirelessly to demonstrate how to engage in peaceful and meaningful political dialogue. The life of our Republic depends on resolving political differences through spirited debate, the ballot box, and embracing the rule of law. Political violence has no place in this country.

Violent rhetoric, such as describing political opponents as fascists or Nazis, is unacceptable.

Charlie's assassination was a deliberate, targeted attack. It was meant to silence a conservative voice. This assassination was meant to instill fear and chill debate, but we have responded and will continue to respond with courage. We will double down on the work Charlie dedicated his life to.

With this resolution today, we firmly condemn the attack that cut his life short. I thank Speaker Johnson for leading this effort to honor Charlie Kirk. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

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

Mr. Speaker, what did Charlie do that was so unique? Charlie invited people to come up to meet and debate him openly and without hostility or ridicule.

He would go to college campuses. They would do a popup tent. He would sit there, and there would invariably be a large crowd. He would say, if you disagree with me, we want you to come up first, come to the front of the line. Then, he would have that debate, and invariably, he would win. Why would he win? Because Charlie was a smart guy. Charlie was prepared. Charlie knew the answers.

The other incredible thing, if you ever wanted to see a good set of debates, was when Charlie was at Oxford University debating. That was absolutely phenomenal, and I encourage all to watch that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), the Honorable Speaker of the House and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority leader and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

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

We have heard a lot about Charlie Kirk and rightfully so. We have heard this important resolution today. I mentioned our love and prayers to Charlie's wonderful wife, Erika, and their children. The other day when she was speaking, Erika said that this mission, this program that Charlie was undertaking, was not going to be stopped because of his assassination, that it was going to grow bigger and stronger, and that it would be unleashed even more.

I will just point out that what has happened in the last few days, as I have been in contact with my other friends at Turning Point, is that more than 50,000 new chapters have been applied for all over the country. I know that there was one, I will just describe it as a Mid- Atlantic University, that had their initial interest meeting and had more than 100 students show up at that.

That is what is happening around this country. Out of tragedy has been born a hope and an understanding, not just for the theological or religiosity that Charlie brought forward, but also for the hope of American renewal and recognition of the greatness of this Nation.

That is important.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my condolences and my friendship also to the Turning Point USA family. I know many of them and his team, those who were closest to Charlie, some who were there when he was assassinated. I give them my heartfelt love and wish them strength as they go through and try to cope with this new dynamic in their lives.

However, Mr. Speaker, the mission goes on. You saw the outpouring from around the world, from Tokyo and Seoul to Spain and to London. Literally hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of people are coming out to recognize what Charlie was. What he was was someone who had conviction in what he believed as far as his faith and his belief in family.

He used to advocate for families. He said that the greatest thing you could do, and he would tell young people this: Get married and have children.

He encouraged people to have a good life, and that was important, but he also believed in this country and that this country allows more people to do more like that than anywhere else.

That is why we remember him so today. It is my hope, and I join my hope with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, that this resolution passes in a unanimous fashion.

God bless you, Charlie.

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

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, our brave servicemen and servicewomen stand ready to defend this Nation against any threat; but they cannot prepare for tomorrow's battles if today's training grounds are shackled by outdated and overreaching regulations.

The Endangered Species Act, once intended as a shield for vulnerable wildlife, has morphed into a weapon wielded by radical activists and unelected bureaucrats that cripple our military's readiness and drain billions from our defense budget.

Madam Chair, consider this. The War Department manages nearly 27 million acres of land, waters, and airspace, which are vital for testing cutting-edge technologies, honing combat skills, and ensuring our Forces remain the world's finest.

Yet as many as 550 threatened or endangered species call these areas home, which triggers endless ESA restrictions that hamstring essential training and operations.

At Fort Huachuca in Arizona, for example, the Sonoran tiger salamanders' designated critical wetland habitat requires strict protection measures. That means environmental reviews and limits on land use, construction, and water management. All those delay vital infrastructure projects and constrain training exercises during breeding seasons.

On top of that, Fort Huachuca must carry out ongoing monitoring, predator control, and habitat management, all under ESA guidelines, which impose onerous constraints on our ability to train and be ready for our warriors. The same could be said about the Barry M. Goldwater Range, also in Arizona.

It is not just Arizona. This happens to Guam, as well, for instance. Guam's military installations face extreme challenges related to ESA from the invasive brown tree snake, which has devastated native wildlife and forced costly and elaborate mitigation programs.

On Guam, the military must deploy snake-proof fencing, trap-and-bait programs, and train detection dogs to prevent brown tree snake incursions on military equipment and cargo, significantly complicating logistics, readiness, and training activities.

This forces the Department of War to divert funds to wildlife management, while mission-critical activities grind to a halt.

Activist groups exploit the ESA through relentless litigation and red tape, imposing critical habitat designations that do precious little to recover species but everything to block land use and weaken our defenses. They are a direct assault on our national security.

After more than 50 years since its enactment in 1973, the ESA's track record is abysmal. Fewer than 2 percent of listed species have been delisted. That isn't a success story. That is proof of a flawed perpetual regulatory machine that prioritizes special interest agendas over sound science and our soldiers' needs.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, let me reiterate: Activist groups exploit the ESA through relentless litigation and red tape, curtailing and preventing full training and preparation by our military.

This amendment is nonnegotiable. It draws a clear line: Military and National Guard lands cannot be arbitrarily designated as critical habitat if the Department of War deems them essential for national defense.

I want to take the same argument that was used on the last bill when Mr. Cisneros of California said, good grief, our adversaries don't care about this question of censorship. I am telling you, Madam Chair, our adversaries don't care about this question of the environment and the

Mr. Speaker, today we tragically lost a tremendous leader and a friend. We didn't lose him so much as he was taken from us.

Charlie Kirk was an inspiration to an entire generation, and I believe that his legacy will grow. He will be remembered as someone who changed the course of this Nation.

He was the founder of one of the most influential movements, political movements, of our time. We live in an interesting time. We see political movements. President Trump has fostered the MAGA movement, perhaps the most powerful in the history of the country.

However, let's just talk about what Charlie Kirk did in Arizona, and then we will talk about his most important contributions.

He founded an organization, Turning Point USA, and a whole group of related Turning Point affiliates. They are headquartered right there in Arizona. He was just absolutely remarkable.

Arizona is a battleground State. What did they do? In our State, Turning Point Action, together with other coalitions, actually turned out more than 300,000 low-propensity Republican voters, right? What is the difference? The difference was it made Donald Trump win Arizona. It helped Donald Trump win Arizona by the largest margin of any battleground State, 160,000 votes, a 5 percent, 5-point victory.

He fostered a movement. He fostered the movement because he was smart. He was erudite. He was passionate. He was generally calm, took on all comers, unafraid to talk with anyone about his message.

While we consider this movement, we know that people in his generation and younger are actually moving to the right. A lot of people say they are moving to the right because they have been disassociated by the left, they have been disillusioned by the left. I think there is probably some of that to it, but they don't move to the right unless there is an invitation. So he invited people to come and to share his love of freedom, family, faith, God, and country.

Charlie will be a historic figure. He really will be. He will be one more in a long line of those who are good whose lives are snuffed out by those who are evil, but his memory will remain strong.

I would suggest that the most important role that Charlie filled was as a loving husband, a father, a devout Christian who shared his faith unapologetically, without fear, with tremendous courage, charisma, and compassion.

My family invokes our thoughts and prayers on behalf of Erika and Erika and Charlie's two young children. We pray that God covers them with peace and gives them the comfort of the holy ghost.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just close with a couple things. We always say there is no place for political violence in this country, and there should not be. This assassination was meant to instill fear. It was an actual assassination, a political assassination.

What must we do? Well, we certainly speak peace, truth, and comfort, but we respond with courage because the message Charlie brought was there is a good way. This country has much to offer everyone, so we will double down. We will reinvigorate and restart our engine.

Those who want to destroy this country, whether it be because they want to destroy our faith in God, whether they want to destroy our freedom, whether they want to destroy our education--David mentioned that--we will persevere because there is much to be learned from this young man.

Mr. Speaker, my family and I say may God bless Charlie and his family; may God bless the entire TPUSA team, who are in mourning and grieving; and may God bless the message of freedom that America stands for.