Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we are at a precipice as we face a debt ceiling crisis coming down in a few short days. The President doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency in the negotiations that is required to meet the moment.

Over the past 2 years, costs have gone up over 15 percent. Inflation is eating away at American paychecks. American families are finding it harder to get by. Our Nation's debt now surpasses $31 trillion, and Washington continues to spend more. It is time to get our spending under control.

This House passed a reasonable, sensible bill to raise the debt ceiling. The Limit, Save, Grow Act moves our debt ceiling up by eliminating the growth of government, saving taxpayers' money, and growing the economy. The plan will claw back unspent COVID funds, making sure we are protecting taxpayers. It calls for able-bodied, childless adults to work a minimum of 20 hours a week in order to receive benefits. Bringing people back into the workforce will actually grow our economy and help address poverty.

We can limit government growth and spending, we can save taxpayers' money, and we can grow the economy all at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful the President of the United States understands the urgency of the moment and comes together to save taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on

House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 435, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 35, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 328, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 321, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

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

Every year, the United States joins the world in observing days of remembrance in connection with victims of the Holocaust.

The United States Holocaust Museum has organized and led the national Days of Remembrance ceremony in the United States Capitol since 1982. This event brings together Holocaust survivors, liberators, Members of Congress, White House officials, and community leaders.

As with previous years, the Museum is again requesting access to utilize the House's Emancipation Hall.

Today, the House will consider a resolution led by my colleague, Congressman David Kustoff, that authorizes the use of Emancipation Hall for a ceremony on April 20.

As part of the Days of Remembrance of victims of the Holocaust, their planned programming in our Halls will be dedicated to the millions of voices, hopes, and dreams that were silenced by Nazi Germany.

Their programming will reflect the struggle to retain dignity and humanity in the face of unimaginable terror and violence. It will also highlight their stories of defiance, resistance, resilience, that remind us of what is possible in moments of unfathomable crisis.

I hope that today we can unanimously pass this legislation and approve their use of the Emancipation Hall.

I commend the continuous efforts of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and I can think of no better space to honor the lives lost and the battles fought than here in the people's House. We must never forget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note to my colleague and the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, Mr. Morelle, I appreciate his work on this.

In regards to the question why we are bringing this to the floor for a vote, I think it is just a moment in time to reflect on the importance of the issue at hand and to really appreciate and understand the horrors that occurred during the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague, the ranking member. As we see a rise in anti-Semitism, now is the time to remember how that can take us in this world down a dark path, and no darker path than the Holocaust.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong bipartisan and unanimous support for H. Con. Res. 25 today on the House floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Tuesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the resolution (H. Res. 197) providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 194, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 67, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the great State of Illinois for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access Program Inclusion Act, which makes a simple technical fix. It would now include, as noted, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium as eligible recipients of funding that would help improve voting access for people with disabilities.

Originally, this bill was to be paired with the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act on the suspension calendar, and I must note that I am pretty disappointed we are not also moving forward with the Congressional Observer Access Act.

I introduced this bill with the support of Ranking Member Davis in July, and I believe that it is a missed opportunity to increase Americans' public trust in our elections.

The Congressional Observer Access Act would simply have clarified that designated congressional election observers--that is, individuals who have been designated in writing by Congress--would have the access they need to observe the administration of Federal elections.

This is not a partisan bill. In fact, Congress already has this authorization under the Constitution. This straightforward bill would have provided clarity, which our State and local election officials requested in order to provide observer access more readily.

I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle walked away from doing these bills on suspension, and I encourage them to work with Ranking Member Davis and myself to get this passed as soon as possible. We must work together to take commonsense steps that promote election integrity.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 6889, the Credit Union Board Modernization Act.

I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Vargas) for introducing this legislation, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez) for cosponsoring.

The commonsense bill will modernize credit union practices while ensuring the safety and soundness of Federal credit unions.

H.R. 6889 would amend the Federal Credit Union Act to revise the frequency of meetings that a Federal credit union's board of directors is required to hold.

Specifically, the bill requires monthly meetings for de novo Federal credit unions during the first 5 years of existence. Highly rated credit unions, 1 or 2 CAMELS rating, with high management ratings, must hold at least six meetings annually, with at least one meeting held during each fiscal quarter. Lower rated credit unions, 3, 4 or 5 CAMELS, must continue meeting once a month.

This is a change from current law, which requires all Federal credit union boards to meet at least once a month. This meeting requirement can be burdensome for credit union staff and their volunteer board members. This is especially true for smaller credit unions and for those with few employees or those located in rural areas.

The resources needed to run monthly board meetings shift valuable employee and board member time and focus away from services that credit unions provide to their consumers.

Commonsense, regulatory right-sizing bills like this one help American families by reducing costs and the challenges associated with accessing financial services.

H.R. 6889 is a strong, bipartisan bill that protects the safety and soundness of credit unions. It also illustrates how Members can come together to create nonpartisan legislation, modernizing outdated practices and policies. I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to meaningfully support our community financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate to my colleagues that H.R. 6889 is commonsense legislation that will modernize credit unions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the Chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), for bringing the bill to the floor today.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 2710, the Banking Transparency for Sanctioned Persons Act. This bill that I authored represents an important step forward for oversight of the Treasury Department's sanctions program.

Under current law, Treasury may issue licenses through its Office of Foreign Assets Control, authorizing U.S. financial institutions to engage in transactions that would otherwise be prohibited. These licenses typically allow for the facilitation of trade in humanitarian and agricultural goods such as medicines and food.

H.R. 2710 requires the administration to inform Congress that certain financial services-related licenses have been improved when they involve state sponsors of terrorism or others sanctioned for human rights abuses.

While OFAC may have good reasons to issue a license, it is essential for Congress to be aware of bad actors' access to our financial system. Though some OFAC licenses are made public, others are not disclosed or even their existence may be unknown to Congress.

By requiring a semiannual report on these licenses, my bill would make the disclosure of OFAC's actions more consistent with congressional notification procedures for other sanctions waivers. Without this knowledge, Congress is limited in its ability to oversee the implementation of sanctions.

I am pleased to note that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have long supported this oversight, and they have provided helpful input as we have developed this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by noting that our majority support for this measure is reflective of a strong spirit of bipartisanship on the Committee on Financial Services when it comes to safeguarding our national security.

While we may not agree on everything, our Members have been extremely productive in advancing our national security interests while maintaining a vibrant financial system. It is important to have a government that is accountable, and this bill brings needed accountability to our sanctions enforcement efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2710, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I simply close by urging my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.

Madam Speaker, when I saw that there was going to be a bill rushed to the House floor with 5 days remaining in a legislative calendar without a committee hearing, I thought maybe the Democratic majority would be rushing to the floor a bill to address inflation that is clobbering the American people.

No.

I thought maybe they would be rushing to the floor a bill to address the crime crisis that is plaguing cities across the United States.

But no.

I thought maybe there would be a bill rushed to the House floor without a committee hearing 51 hours after the text was introduced to address the crisis taking place at our border and the millions of immigrants coming into the United States illegally and the fentanyl that is coming across our U.S.-Mexico border and killing thousands of Americans.

But no.

So what is so important that a bill needs to be rushed to the House floor without any committee hearing to review and analyze the bill?

And it is the Presidential Election Reform Act.

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Elections of the House Administration Committee, I have to admit I am disappointed we didn't have the opportunity to thoughtfully review the legislation before us.

In fact, we haven't had a hearing in the Subcommittee on Elections since July. So I think now is our moment, unfortunately, with only 30 minutes on the minority's side, to actually dive in and analyze the legislation before us.

With any important piece of legislation, in particular, one like this that impacts our national elections and the elections of our President, the first question I ask myself is: Will the bill before us boost people's confidence in our election process? The bill fails the test.

I would highlight, in particular, section 4 of this bill that gives candidates a loophole to define what a catastrophic event is, which might include a natural disaster or national health emergency like COVID. Why is this so important?

The candidate for President could--up to a full day following the election--request an extension for the election by up to 5 days if they feel there is a ``catastrophic event'' that was sufficient to prevent a substantial portion of a State's electorate from casting a ballot on election day.

The bill doesn't properly define catastrophic event. Often in this body, we take the time in committee in regular order to understand what the terms of the bill mean, to give an opportunity to improve the text to provide certainty and clarity to the American people going forward. We are let down by the fact that we are not following regular process in this case.

Instead of continuing to undermine faith in the elections process, we should instead pursue commonsense legislation that supports election integrity and respects the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, pursue legislation that respects the Constitution and Federalism, such as legislation like the American Confidence in Elections Act that Ranking Member Davis introduced back in July to enhance the integrity in our elections.

We heard earlier the majority leader mention that there is ambiguity in our election system and that is what this is about. If that is what this is about--if we are actually trying to remove the ambiguity in our election system, which is a very worthy cause, why not have a hearing on this bill?

I haven't yet heard one person from the majority's side explain why this bill is being rushed to the floor 51 hours after the text was introduced without using the consideration of the Senate bill as the basis of this legislative text. I think that question needs to be answered today.

We need to actually dive into what this bill does to actually allow the American people to have confidence in our election system. I remain disappointed the House did not take the thoughtful approach that the Senate takes, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.