Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Sergeant Claude Rhea Walls of Wilson County, Tennessee, for his extraordinary heroism during the Korean war.

On May 18, 1951, while serving with Company C, 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea, Sergeant Walls defended his battalion's forward command post against numerically superior Chinese forces. He delivered devastating automatic rifle fire and grenades, then voluntarily stayed behind with another fellow soldier to cover his platoon's withdrawal.

After his brother-in-arms was severely wounded, Sergeant Walls rendered first aid and evacuated him, repeatedly stopping to suppress the Chinese forces. His selfless actions saved his fellow soldier and preserved his battalion's withdrawal. Walls' valor was

recognized with the Distinguished Service Cross.

As we mark the 75th anniversary of his actions, I would like to honor Sergeant Walls' legacy of courage, heroism, and unwavering devotion to our Nation's defense.

Mr. Speaker, too often Congress reflexively renews sprawling federal backstops that the market no longer needs--quietly gambling with taxpayers' exposure to potentially massive losses while ignoring the absence of any real market breakdown. This TRIA reauthorization fits the pattern perfectly: another automatic green light for an open-ended federal guarantee, despite no evidence of a genuine market failure.

I think it's important to recall exactly what Congress intended when it created the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA. The statute laid out that the program was established as ``. . . a temporary federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism, in order to (1) protect consumers by addressing market disruptions and ensure the continued widespread availability and affordability of property and casualty insurance for terrorism risk; and (2) allow for a transitional period for the private markets to stabilize, resume pricing of such insurance, and build capacity to absorb any future losses, while preserving State insurance regulation and consumer protections.''

That's the law's own language--and the key phrase here is ``temporary federal program.'' TRIA was never meant to be permanent. It was designed to give the private market time to adjust, mature, and ultimately take full responsibility for insuring against terrorism risk. Yet here we are, twenty plus years later, marking up another long-term reauthorization that continues to rely on federal involvement instead of meaningfully reducing it.

I have great respect for my colleagues who have worked hard on this proposal, but I believe that H.R. 7128 misses an opportunity. Rather than putting TRIA on a path toward less government exposure and greater private-sector responsibility, this bill extends the federal backstop until December 31, 2034--nearly nine years from now. That's hardly consistent with the statute's intent of providing a ``transitional'' program.

I also believe that H.R. 7128 violates the spirit--if not the letter--of the House Republican floor protocols for the 119th Congress, particularly the requirement that federal programs be subject to a sunset ``not later than seven years'' after spending is first authorized or continued. Under Section 2, H.R. 7128 does not merely ``add seven years'' to a distant end date; it strikes ``2027'' and inserts ``2034,'' making this authorization effective as soon as the bill is enacted and keeping TRIA in force through the end of 2034.

In my view, the proper way to apply our Conference's seven-year sunset standard is to measure from when the reauthorized program actually takes effect--namely, when this bill is signed into law and TRIA's federal backstop is once again authorized. In other words, the ``clock'' should start when we newly authorize or continue the program, not from the old termination date written in prior law. Viewed that way, characterizing H.R. 7128 as a simple seven-year extension obscures the reality that Congress would be reauthorizing a significant federal program for nearly a decade at once, in tension with our Conference's stated commitment to regular review and reconsideration of federal spending and backstop authorities.

This is especially concerning given that, to date, TRIA has never been activated. In the 20 plus years since TRIA was enacted, there has not been a single Treasury-certified act of terrorism that met the program's financial trigger. Not once has the federal government been required to step in under TRIA.

Meanwhile, the private insurance industry has not just done well in this space--it has thrived under the shelter of a taxpayer-funded guarantee. According to the Treasury Department, from 2003 to 2023 insurers collected roughly $56.7 billion in terrorism risk premiums.

That is not the profile of a fragile market in need of permanent federal protection; it is evidence that insurers have the experience, capital, and appetite to keep cashing premium checks while the public absorbs the worst-case downside risks. In effect, taxpayers provide free reinsurance so that insurance carriers can book steady revenue and protect record surpluses--a classic example of privatized gains and socialized risk. Given this track record, the question is no longer whether insurance companies can begin to shoulder more of the risk, but why they have been allowed to avoid doing so for this long.

Yet instead of taking any meaningful steps to scale down taxpayer exposure or establish a serious glide path for an eventual federal exit, this bill simply extends the program nearly as-is. I find that deeply disappointing, because I do not believe the federal government should be in the business of permanently backstopping risks that the private sector is clearly capable of handling on its own.

It did not have to be this way. I offered an amendment that I believe would have greatly improved this bill by beginning the long-overdue process of shifting more terrorism risk off taxpayers and back onto the well-capitalized insurance industry where it belongs.

First, my amendment would have reduced the federal cost share. Under current law, the federal government covers 80 percent of covered losses above insurer deductibles. My amendment would have reset that share to 75 percent and then ratcheted it down by 1 percentage point a year until it reached 70 percent. This would have created a gradual, predictable glide path that would give insurers time to adjust while steadily reducing federal exposure and putting more responsibility back on the private market where it belongs.

Second, my amendment would have reduced the circumstances under which taxpayers are forced to step in. Under current law, the program trigger remains frozen at $200 million. My amendment would have raised that trigger by $10 million per year until it reached $250 million, and then indexed it to inflation using a benchmark selected by the Treasury Secretary through a rulemaking process. That approach would have kept the trigger aligned with economic reality instead of shrinking in real terms and quietly expanding the federal role, ensuring that more of the risk stays with insurers rather than being shifted to taxpayers.

Third, my amendment would have shortened the length of the reauthorization by changing the program termination date to five years after enactment. Five years provides ample certainty for markets, but it also respects the fact that TRIA was supposed to be temporary, and that Congress should regularly revisit the scope of federal involvement.

Fourth, my amendment would have forced Treasury to do the serious homework this bill avoids, laying out how, within a few years, we could dramatically reduce taxpayer risk and make the industry shoulder a larger share of the costs. It would have directed Treasury to study how an annual participation fee on insurers in TRIA could be structured, including options that generate substantial aggregate fees and deposit them into a dedicated fund at Treasury that can be used solely to cover future federal outlays or reimbursements under the program. The study would have been required to examine fee designs that are proportionate to insurer size and premiums, so that

large national carriers shoulder the largest share while small and regional insurers are not disproportionately burdened.

It also would have evaluated whether a carefully designed opt-out for small insurers from the mandatory availability requirement could work without undermining the long-term health of the program. Treasury would then have been required to report back to the Financial Services Committee with concrete findings and legislative options, giving us real data to build a system that shifts more risk off taxpayers and onto the well-capitalized insurance companies that benefit from TRIA.

My amendment would not have pulled the rug out from under anyone; it simply asked the insurance industry to start standing on its own two feet. It took modest, measured steps to ratchet down the federal share, raise and index the trigger, shorten a long-term reauthorization, and finally force a serious conversation about a participation fee and dedicated fund that would put taxpayers ahead of industry convenience.

When Congress tells the public a program will be temporary, we incur more than a procedural obligation--we make a promise. In TRIA's case, there is no ambiguity about that promise: the statute itself describes it as a temporary federal program. The Members of Congress considering this legislation have, in my view, a covenant with our predecessors who first authorized TRIA on that basis. To honor that covenant, we must either set this program on a genuine path of reform, as my amendment would have done, or have the courage to let it expire. A long-term extension with only minimal changes does not satisfy that obligation.

I want to thank Chairman Flood and Chairman Hill for their leadership and for their efforts to maintain stability in this space, and I appreciate their willingness to engage in this important discussion. But when we shrink from doing the difficult things; when we refuse to challenge an industry all too eager to cash terrorism insurance premium checks backed by taxpayers; when we cannot even agree on modest, common-sense reforms to a backstop that has never once been triggered, we miss a rare opportunity to leave the terrorism insurance marketplace stronger and more accountable than we found it. For all of these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 7128 in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act addressing the massive Janet Mello fraud scandal at Fort Sam Houston and the broader pattern of abuse it has exposed.

This amendment simply requires a public, comprehensive report on how more than $100 million meant for the 4-H Military Partnership Grant program was stolen over several years. What red flags were missed? What reforms will prevent this from ever happening again?

It has already passed the House twice, most recently by a vote of 430-3, only to be stripped out by the Senate in their infinite wisdom for reasons known only to the Almighty. Meanwhile, yet another Fort Sam Houston

official has been charged with stealing over $500,000 from Army family programs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Rules Committee to make my amendment in order for the third year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Smith County High School Owls of Carthage, Tennessee, Class 2A semifinalists in the 2025 TSSAA State basketball championships, and to honor their remarkable journey representing Smith County and Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District.

These young men embodied everything we admire in our communities: grit, teamwork, and unshakable belief in one another.

From the hills of Smith County, they competed on the biggest stage in Tennessee high school basketball, and they did it with pride, dedication, and heart.

To Head Coach Layne Bussell, the coaching staff, the families, and the entire Carthage community, this team made you proud. A semifinal finish in Class 2A is no small feat, and these Owls proved that Smith County competes with anyone in the great State of Tennessee.

Honoring Upperman High School Bees

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable achievement from the young men of Upperman High School in Baxter, Tennessee, right in the heart of Putnam County in Tennessee's Sixth District.

The Upperman Bees have made their community proud, competing as semifinalists in the 2026 TSSAA Class 3A boys' basketball State championship. These student athletes displayed the grit, discipline, and teamwork that define the character of our communities in middle Tennessee.

From the opening tip to the final buzzer, the Baxter Bees represented Putnam County with class and heart. Their coaches, including Head Coach Bobby McWilliams, families, and the entire Upperman community have every reason to stand tall today.

Mr. Speaker, we celebrate these young men, not just for the games they won, but for the example they set.

Celebrating White County High School Sparta Warriors

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a remarkable achievement by the Sparta Warrior girls' basketball team from White County High School in Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District.

This season, the Warriors advanced all the way to the 2026 TSSAA Class 3A girls' basketball State championship game, finishing as proud runner-up.

In doing so, they earned their second consecutive trip to the State tournament, a feat that speaks volumes about their talent, discipline, and unrelenting work ethic.

From the opening tip to the final buzzer, these young women represented White County with discipline and dedication. Their coaches and families poured countless hours into developing not just great athletes but great leaders.

In a district that values hard work and perseverance, the Sparta Warriors have given us all something to celebrate and a standard of excellence to follow.

I congratulate every player, coach, and supporter of this outstanding season. Tennessee's Sixth District is stronger because of these young women.

Congratulating York Institute Dragons

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary achievement by the York Institute Dragons of Jamestown, Tennessee, in Fentress County.

This year, the Dragons captured the hearts of their community with a remarkable run to the TSSAA Class 2A girls' basketball State championship, finishing as runner-up.

This marks their fifth consecutive State tournament appearance, a testament to their discipline, hard work, and unwavering commitment to excellence.

In a county of modest means and mighty pride, their journey to the State championship game reflects what is possible when a community rallies behind its young people.

The banner that will hang in the gym at Alvin C. York Institute stands as a symbol of that shared effort and belief.

The legacy of Sergeant Alvin C. York, a man who embodied grit, humility, and perseverance himself, lives on in every player who wore the Dragons' colors this season.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the York Institute Dragons on an outstanding season.

Not Just About Dollars and Cents

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about money or, more specifically, cash.

As many of you know, I, alongside my Democrat colleague Congressman Donald Norcross, have introduced the bipartisan Payment Choice Act of 2025, H.R. 1138.

The bill is straightforward in its intent: to protect the right of Americans to use cash for retail purchases up to $500.

This legislation is not just about dollars and cents. It is about preserving the freedoms, privacy, and practicalities that cash affords every American.

I hold in my hand a $20 bill. As probably most of you who have looked closely at our American currency know, inscribed on the face of this bill, alongside the portrait of Andrew Jackson, is the inscription that ``this note is legal tender for all debts''--for all debts--``public and private.''

Late Congressman Donald Payne, Jr., who was deeply passionate about this issue, captured it best when he said: ``Cash is the only option available for millions of Americans to pay for food, housing, and other essentials. In addition, there are major security concerns with digital payments that do not occur with cash payments. Companies cannot misuse your data after a cash payment. Besides, there are few things more American than cash.''

Cash should continue to be the one form of payment that is truly universal, accepted everywhere by everyone, regardless of age, income, or background. Yet, an alarming number of businesses, large and small, around the Nation are refusing to accept cash, despite its status as legal tender for all debts, public and private.

Many of our national parks are also taking part in this unfortunate trend. Imagine being denied access to a Federal park as an American taxpayer who has cash in hand. It is unreasonable, and we cannot let this continue.

The shift toward a cashless society may be convenient for all of us, but it will leave behind millions of Americans. Nearly one in five U.S. households relies exclusively on cash or has no access to alternative means of payment beyond the physical dollars.

Cash isn't just a preference to many folks; it is a necessity. That includes seniors, the unbanked, those on fixed incomes, and privacy- conscious American citizens.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testified before the House Financial Services Committee, which I serve on, that cash is ``absolutely critical because there are people who don't have credit cards,'' and that ``when stores are not dealing with people who don't have cash, it is a serious problem.'' He is right.

Not only are digital payments not accessible to everybody, but they also come with real concerns about privacy, data security, and the risk of identity theft.

The Payment Choice Act is rooted in fundamental American values: the freedom to choose, fairness, and privacy.

By giving consumers the right to pay with cash, we uphold their ability to participate fully in our economy, while also safeguarding their personal privacy.

Paying with cash means you leave no digital bread crumbs, and your personal information belongs to you.

At the same time, America is embracing new financial innovations, and I understand that. Last July, I joined President Trump at the White House for the signing of the GENIUS Act into law. The law reinforces the United States' leadership in digital currencies by securing dollar- pegged stablecoins as the dominant digital currency in the world.

This is an important step forward, but even as we welcome these advances, we must never lose sight of a simple truth: Cash remains vital to our Nation's economic stability, our individual freedoms, and national security. In times of crisis, whether it is a natural disaster or a cyberattack, digital payment systems can fail.

Just look around the world, Mr. Speaker, and the case for cash is clear. Sweden, for example, is now backpedaling on its decades-long push to go cashless. Sweden's cashless U-turn was driven by security concerns after witnessing attacks on energy grids and communications networks in Ukraine.

Back home, we have seen a disturbing rise in the number of cyberattacks targeting our grid and our telecommunications networks, and if that grid goes down and if those networks are compromised, then you will be glad that you have cash, Mr. Speaker, and not just a cash app.

I want to address the ``let the market decide'' argument.

Some say we should let the market decide whether a business accepts cash, but the reality is far more complicated. Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, San Francisco, and other States have passed their own State or local regulations. That is not letting the market decide, and with no Federal law requiring cash acceptance, this inconsistent patchwork of regulations creates headaches for retailers and consumers alike.

That is not truly a market decision but rather a fragmented regulation. Establishing a national standard would not only streamline operations for businesses but also ensure that every American retains the freedom to use cash, a public good and legal tender.

The case of Toby Stover v. United States National Park Service recently underscored the importance of this fight. The case involves a woman who attempted to pay her entrance fee at the historic home of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in Hyde Park, New York, using U.S. currency clearly marked as legal tender.

Park officials refused, turning her away despite Federal law stating that U.S. coins and currency are, again, legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

Think about that: A Federal agency declined to accept the very currency issued by the U.S. Treasury, at the home of the President who, in 1935, ordered the Great Seal of the United States printed on every dollar bill to instill public confidence during the Great Depression.

That is not just an ironic, hypothetical scenario. It is a glaring contradiction in our payment systems.

Our legislation is carefully crafted. It requires brick-and-mortar businesses that accept in-person payments to accept cash for purchases up to $500. It prohibits charging cash customers more than those paying by credit card, and it includes reasonable exceptions for temporary cash shortages or system failures. We have also built in consumer protections and clear enforcement mechanisms so that the right to pay with cash is not just theoretical but real and enforceable.

As I have said before, cash is and always will be king. As a growing number of businesses across the country refuse to accept cash, it is important for Congress to publicly recognize its importance.

Mr. Speaker, I call on Americans to encourage their Representatives and Senators in Congress to support the Payment Choice Act, and I call on all my colleagues in the House and Senate to join me in affirming that cash should be universally accepted across this great country.

Together we can ensure that payment choice remains a cornerstone of American commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable achievement in Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District. Pope Saint John Paul II Preparatory School--the Knights of Hendersonville--have earned the title of runner-up in the 2026 TSSAA Division II Class AA Boys Basketball State Championship.

These young men from Sumner County stepped onto the biggest stage in Tennessee high school basketball and competed with grit, discipline, and extraordinary skill.

They represented not only their school and coaches but their families and the entire Hendersonville community with tremendous pride and class.

Mr. Speaker, reaching the State championship game requires talent, sacrifice, and relentless determination. These Knights demonstrated all of it. Their achievement inspires every student and athlete in our State to pursue excellence, and we are immensely proud of them.

Mr. Chair, as an eighth-generation Tennessee farmer, I rise in strong support of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.

With input costs at record highs and commodity prices at painful lows, Congress must provide the legislative certainty of a long-overdue farm bill.

This bill keeps America fed, secure, and strong by standing with the men and women who feed and fuel this country. With support from over 500 stakeholder organizations, this bill builds upon the major victories secured in H.R. 1 by strengthening the farm safety net, conservation programs, and regulatory certainty; enhancing rural hospitals, businesses, water, and broadband; and improving agricultural research, trade programs, and access to capital. Additionally, it combats fraud, safeguards SNAP integrity, and remains budget-neutral, all while lowering costs for families.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand with America's farmers and rural communities and vote ``yes'' on the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the remarkable achievement in Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District: The Jackson County High School Blue Devils have claimed the TSSAA Class 1A State championship in boys' basketball.

The Blue Devils of Jackson County did not just win a title, they earned it. Game by game, practice by practice, through early mornings and late nights in the gym, these young men from our corner of Tennessee rose above every opponent to stand atop the entire State.

To the coaches and the staff: Your belief in these young men made champions out of them.

To the parents and families who traveled every mile and cheered every possession, this title belongs to you, as well.

To the community of Jackson County, you have every reason to be proud.

Class 1A is where heart beats talent and where small towns prove that greatness has no ZIP Code. The Blue Devils proved that in dramatic fashion this season, and the Sixth District is better for it.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Jackson County Blue Devils, State champions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate White County, Tennessee, one of 19 counties I am proud to represent in Congress. Their county fair was recently named the 2025 Champion of Champions by the Tennessee Association of Fairs. It is a designation earned by showcasing excellence in agriculture, education, and community participation.

In a rare dual honor, White County is also home to TAF's Fairest of the Fair, Hannah Haley. This is a statewide title earned from weeks of practice. It requires talent, discipline, and a lot of time. I congratulate Hannah on the fruits of her dedication. I have no doubt that she will continue to be a great ambassador for White County and for all of Tennessee.

I am proud to support Tennessee's many agricultural fairs, including the White County Fair. They bring together the best of our communities from every corner of Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the SAVE America Act because nothing matters more than securing our elections. Our Republic depends on it.

Free, fair, and honest elections unmoored by fraud or suspicion are fundamental to our constitutional Republic. The right of citizens to have their votes properly counted without illegal dilution is vital to determining the rightful winner.

This legislation is straightforward. It requires proof of citizenship for voter registration and voter ID for Federal elections. It ensures only American citizens participate in American elections and provides States with tools to determine and verify the citizenship and maintain accurate voter rolls.

There is only one reason not to pass this, and we all know what that is. Some in this Chamber oppose anything that interferes with their effort to control elections and consolidate power.

Congressional Democrats sat silent as the Biden administration allowed millions of illegal immigrants into the United States. I fear the intention was to garner votes. However, my colleagues across the aisle now have an opportunity to prove me wrong by supporting this widely popular legislation.

The SAVE America Act reinforces that voting is a right only of citizens, not just anyone within our borders. Opposition to this act makes sense in that context, but that is precisely why we must pass it.

We have a duty to the American people to preserve their voice, protect their vote, and secure their sovereignty, and we must save the Republic from forces that would undermine our most sacred democratic institution. I urge my colleagues to pass the SAVE America Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend from Arkansas, for yielding me time today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Housing for the 21st Century Act.

This legislation will lower housing costs for millions of Americans, including tens of thousands of Tennessee families whom I represent.

I am proud that my bipartisan bill, the Housing Supply Expansion Act of 2025, was included in the Housing for the 21st Century Act. My bill removes an outdated Federal chassis requirement that has stifled manufactured housing construction for decades.

When we hear the term ``manufactured home,'' many people still think ``mobile home.'' That is because Federal law has forced us to adhere to a permanent chassis requirement. Since 1974, manufactured homes have had to be built on a permanently installed steel chassis, even after the home is placed on a site, never to be moved again.

This bill will give millions of Americans a path to homeownership without going over budget. It will provide young and low-income families with the opportunity to build equity instead of being locked into rising rents year after year.

You don't have to be a trained economist to understand why home prices and rental rates have skyrocketed. Demand continues to outpace supply in our cities, suburbs, and even in many rural communities across this country.

The simple truth is that we need more homes. This bill takes meaningful steps toward making that happen. We are reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, removing financing roadblocks, and modernizing HUD programs.

Municipalities across the country have restricted or outright banned homes built on permanent steel chassis. The result has been less construction, higher costs, and fewer opportunities for working families to own where they live.

Yet, manufactured housing is one of the most effective ways to expand housing supply quickly and affordably. By removing this outdated Federal restriction, more homes will be built, and ultimately prices will come down for everyone.

The experts in the manufactured housing space tell us that allowing manufacturers to design a single-family home without a permanent chassis will bring about modern low-profile builds, multistory construction, and urban-friendly designs. It will also improve efficiency and eliminate unnecessary steel, waste, and cost.

We cannot sit by while 50-year-old policies prevent folks from signing on the dotted line. Imagine if the Federal Government had mandated that every vehicle coming off of Henry Ford's assembly line had to remain permanently attached to a trailer in order to be owned. We all know that didn't happen because the trailer was a means of transportation, not a permanent feature.

Housing should work the same way. There is a reason why this bill has so much bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, it includes commonsense solutions for building more homes, lowering costs, and giving more Americans dignity and stability.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump signed a funding bill into law yesterday that did more than just end a partial government shutdown. It corrected a serious wrong.

Buried deep inside the funding bill that the Senate passed and sent to us last November was a hidden provision that never should have seen the light of day. It was quietly inserted without transparency, without debate, and without notice to House leadership.

It allowed a handful of United States Senators to sue taxpayers for the rogue actions of the last administration. It enabled them to seek $500,000, per occurrence, for having their phone data seized by the Biden FBI.

This could have resulted in millions of tax dollars lining the pockets of a select group of United States Senators. It is no doubt that they were the architects of this provision. That is not accountability. That is corruption.

Nevertheless, Leader Thune and these Senators forced the House to swallow that provision in order to reopen the government after 43 long days. Families across the country were hurting. Pay for our troops was in jeopardy. Our airports were facing serious safety risks. In the meantime, congressional Democrats were referring to the shutdown as leverage.

Ultimately, House Republicans voted to fund the government and end the suffering. However, we never lost sight of undoing the self-serving money grab from taxpayers by a select group of Senators.

Hours before our vote, I introduced the first standalone bill to kill that provision. I also cosponsored Representative Austin Scott's legislation, which achieved the same outcome. It passed the House unanimously.

Yet, just like the SAVE Act, the bill sat on Leader Thune's desk week after week, month after month. I introduced a resolution that would have enabled Speaker Johnson to argue the unconstitutionality of the Senate payday

provision and to ask the courts to strike it down.

I even attempted to insert a repeal amendment into the National Defense Authorization Act. Yet, when we sent our funding bill to the Senate last week, we gave Senate leadership a taste of their own medicine and forced them to choose between the Senate payday or reopening the government.

Let me be very clear. I support real accountability. Last October, I signed onto a letter urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch a criminal investigation into the activities of Special Counsel Jack Smith and to consider possible Fourth Amendment violations during Operation Arctic Frost.

That deserved scrutiny. That deserves answers. It doesn't merit restitution paid for by hardworking waitresses, truck drivers, and small business owners. Hardworking taxpayers shouldn't be punished to put millions of dollars into the pockets of a select group of Senators.

The Tennesseans who I represent have suffered enough because of the many failed policies of the last administration, and they shouldn't be forced to pay more.

The House prevailed in putting a stop to this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Gill for yielding time today.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to vote in favor of the Working Families Tax Cut Act to deliver tax relief to millions of Americans that included no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and support for small businesses, so what does the D.C. Council do?

They voted to deny their own residents these benefits. This means a waitress working in a Washington, D.C., restaurant gets taxed on her tips on her D.C. tax return while her counterpart in Virginia doesn't get taxed on their Virginia tax return. For a construction worker putting in overtime, D.C. takes a cut.

This is the kind of move that makes people furious. Congress delivered tax relief for Americans and Washington, D.C., said: Not for our residents. The District claims they need the revenue.

By their own estimate, this revenue is .6 of 1 percent of their annual budget. They are squeezing every penny out of working families over less than 1 percent of their budget because they can't spend responsibly.

Let's think about what that means. D.C. would rather tax a single mother's tips and take money from overtime checks from hardworking residents than make responsible spending decisions. That is not governance. That is a shakedown.

This is D.C. politicians protecting their spending habits on the backs of waitresses and construction workers. This is the same broken government mentality we see time and time again.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution disapproving of D.C.'s tax grab.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding and for arranging this Special Order.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor my friend and colleague, Representative Doug LaMalfa. He was a true champion for rural America and a staunch supporter of our Nation's farmers.

I often describe Doug as a gentle giant. You will hear others say that. He was tall and broad enough for me to assume I better not mess with this guy. His impact on Washington is just as giant. However, I suspect many of us will remember his gentle side the most.

Members of this body, including myself, often counted on Doug's lighthearted comments, for his moments of levity. Doug always handled himself the way we would all aspire to. He spoke calmly, with conviction, and with his constituents top of mind.

Representative LaMalfa fought hard for the issues that mattered to California's First Congressional District and for farmers, broadly, across our country. As an eighth-generation Tennessee farmer, I found it easy to relate to Doug, a proud fourth-generation rice farmer.

Throughout our service on the House Ag Committee, I appreciated having a partner with similar perspective and values as we worked to set ag policy. I learned quickly to trust his instincts. I will miss that.

Doug and I were avid competitors. I will miss that as well. Long before I served with him on the Ag Committee, I came to consider him a very worthy opponent, and I will miss those days very dearly as I move forward.

I will close by extending my condolences to his family, including his wife and children. While Doug will be missed here, I can only imagine how he will be missed at home. We will be praying for them in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, do we rubberstamp fraudulent election results or stand for election integrity? That was the question before Congress 5 years ago today.

It was a sunny day in Washington. A largely peaceful protest was growing outside and, unfortunately, made its way into the Capitol. As a result, a joint session of Congress, originally set to be conducted in the afternoon, wasn't finished until midnight or after.

Yet, the events of that day didn't change the serious concerns raised about the ways six States conducted their elections. Members of Congress still had a constitutional duty to defend our Nation's election laws.

I was proud to object to the results in six States and vote not to certify the results of the two States that came to a vote in this room on that day. I was proud to stand for our election laws and to stand with President Trump.

The American people remember that election well, and they remember those Members of Congress who turned their backs on election integrity and principle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 58, titled: ``Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism.'' It is a shame that I have to defend the obvious, but it is necessary because, unfortunately, across the Nation, progressive Democrats are increasingly cozy with the failed, discredited ideology.

Socialism has time and again led to economic ruin, human deprivation, and mass suffering. From the breadlines of Eastern Europe to the failed Communist regimes of Cuba and Venezuela, socialism promises equality but delivers it selectively. It promises security but delivers surveillance. It promises fairness but delivers oppression and democide.

Yet, shockingly, socialism is making a comeback here in America, even in the world's greatest city. The newly elected, self-proclaimed democratic socialist mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, offers socialism. He is a mayor who champions radical economic overreach, a progressive ideology that can easily turn once-prosperous countries into wastelands.

Americans built New York City as a gateway for immigrants seeking a better life. We built it on freedom, self-reliance, and open markets, not on forced redistribution or centralized planning.

The situation now extends to Seattle, where the mayor-elect has chosen to boycott Starbucks, a company founded in her own city.

Is this what we want, a country where those who run our cities turn their backs on the very entrepreneurial spirit that made them thrive?

Meanwhile, I believe that we are still that shining city on the hill. We welcome more legal immigrants than any nation on Earth, more than the next four countries combined. They don't come because they crave government control, but because they flee it. They come for liberty. They come for freedom.