Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a profound sense of pride and a touch of sadness. After 13 years of service to this body as a chief of staff, Richard Kirk McPike is leaving my office.

Kirk has been the leader of my team since 2012, setting up the office, building LGBTQI+ political infrastructure, helping me earn the Veterans' Affairs' Committee gavel and so much more.

Kirk's proudest accomplishments are not counted in the bills passed or titles held. They are measured in the many people he has led and mentored, from interns to senior staffers. One of his greatest talents is knowing when to let go of great staff, understanding they sometimes need to grow beyond my office. Today, it is my time to do the same.

I will miss my friend Kirk. I will miss his counsel, but I know he will serve the Commonwealth of Virginia as a delegate with the same intelligence and decency he brought to this House. I wish him Godspeed and good luck.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Congressman Espaillat, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, people across the country and in the Inland Empire are scared that they could join the roughly 50 individuals who have died under Donald Trump's and Kristi Noem's brutal immigration crackdown, such as Renee Good, Silverio Villegas Gonzalez, Alex Pretti, and many more.

Just north of my district sits the Adelanto ICE processing facility, which has seen multiple people die while in custody. The conditions at Adelanto have long been deplorable, which is why I have long called for it to be shut down.

Yet, we must look for ways to press our case even more forcefully. Just yesterday, I voted against more blank-check funding for ICE and CBP. No accountability and no reform equals no taxpayer money.

I call on every Member of this body to hear the cries of communities from coast to coast: Impeach Kristi Noem, end open-ended DHS funding, and stop the killing of our neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, our country's history is complicated. Our country's history is at times uncomfortable to confront. That does not make it divisive or offensive to preserve and to learn from.

Japanese incarceration during World War II stands as one of those uncomfortable chapters that Trump and his administration are attempting to erase. More than 125,000 Japanese Americans, including my parents and grandparents, were rounded up and placed in desolate camps at the hands of their own government.

There are dozens of these camps memorialized around the country for people to visit and honor these experiences. At the Manzanar National Historic Site in California, content is now being censored because the words on the plaque there make this administration uncomfortable.

As the saying goes, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

This administration wants us to forget that our government is capable of rounding up entire families and upending their lives, as they did to my family, without any due process. They want us to forget the past while they perpetuate yet another legacy-defining human and civil rights abuse on a national scale.

Will Americans generations from now visit alligator Alcatraz and think to themselves: How could our government do this? How could our leaders do this?

Will students on school trips one day walk through cages behind razor wire, trying to comprehend the brutality that took place there?

More importantly, these future generations of Americans will look to us, the Congress, to see what we did to try to stop it.

We cannot stop it alone. We need Republicans like you, Mr. Speaker, to join us. Think of our future. Think of how history will remember this government you are a part of: executions of Americans on our streets, demanding

papers from Americans to prove that they belong, and mass Federal agents acting with impunity.

One day, everyone will say that we were against this. One day, they will say that you should have been against this, that we should have been against this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 980, the Veterans Readiness and Employment Improvement Act of 2025, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will remove the requirement that Veteran Readiness and Employment, or VR&E, counselors staff the VetSuccess on Campus, or VSOC, program. This change will put counselors back into the severely understaffed VR&E program and will also allow the future expansion of the VSOC program, which has been limited by the availability of VR&E counselors.

Mr. Speaker, many colleges and universities and Members of Congress are asking for VSOC staff on their campuses and in their district because they have seen firsthand the impact a VSOC can have. By expanding who can fill that role, we will give more student veterans access to the program and help enable them to access their earned benefits.

While I do have concerns that section 4 of the bill requires VA to adjudicate extension requests within 30 days without addressing the underlying issue of

staffing, I support the intent of timely decisions for our student veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I do encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the House is moving this bill forward today, and I hope for speedy passage through the Senate and to the President to be signed into law.

I look at the many other good bills languishing in committee waiting for us to take them up and move them to the floor like this one. If we are to believe our own rhetoric, it shouldn't matter if a good idea is from a Republican Member or a Democratic Member. If it helps veterans, we should get it done.

I hope to see the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs move bills other than the ones sponsored by his members expected to be in tight reelection races. I hope he returns to the traditional practice of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs moving both Republican and Democratic bills in great numbers. I see the smile across his nice countenance, which to me is a sign of his assent and his geniality.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 980, the Veterans Readiness and Employment Improvement Act of 2025, as amended, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. I hope very much that my chairman will move other bills, as well.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 3123, the Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans Benefits Act, as amended.

It is no secret that our offices get a lot of calls about casework on veterans' benefits. Sometimes these calls are a simple matter of getting people the right point of contact in the right office. Sometimes it is an ask to wake a sleepy bureaucracy to move faster on behalf of a constituent. Sometimes these calls highlight a loophole or a blind spot in the law that has been discovered because deserving beneficiaries have been wronged or overlooked.

It is imperative in those instances that we as Members of Congress work to fix those problems on behalf of those who elected us to this body.

That is the case with the Peltz family. Upon the death of Mr. Ernest Peltz, VA failed to pay the benefits he earned when his death occurred shortly after the benefits were awarded. This resulted in his family having to navigate grief, the cost of his care, and additional challenges posed by the bureaucracy simply because of the timing of his passing.

We have already asked so much of our veterans and their families. It is entirely unconscionable that while in the fog of grief, we ask them to navigate paperwork and uncertainty regarding benefits that were rightly earned just because the day their loved one died doesn't align well with VA's direct deposit schedule.

The Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans Benefits Act will relieve families of that unnecessary burden during a complicated time. This bill states that if a veteran dies before they are awarded their pension benefit and they pass away before the benefit has been paid out, that the pension benefit is awarded to the veteran's living spouse, living children, dependent parents, or the estate of that veteran.

H.R. 3123 closes an opening that families have unfortunately been slipping through.

We know of one family that this has affected, but we don't know how many other families have been touched by a bureaucratic system that felt cold and uncaring.

I thank Representative Stefanik for her work in addressing this oversight. Much of the work we do on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is centered on the promises that we make to veterans and their loved ones. This bill is just that, honoring not only a promise to our veterans, but also their families.

This pension benefit is not, nor was it ever, a handout. It was an earned benefit that Mr. Peltz secured through his service in World War II. I will continue to fight until every beneficiary gets the benefits that they earned, no matter how long that takes. We must continue to expand veterans' benefits for all those who have worn the uniform of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation and urge all my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

I encourage my fellow colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3123, the Ernest Peltz Accrued Veterans Benefits Act, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 658, legislation introduced by my colleague Representative Julia Brownley of California. This legislation would establish qualifications for the appointment of marriage and family therapists to provide clinical supervision in the Veterans Health Administration.

Licensed marriage and family therapists provide critical therapy and support to address the unique challenges that military veterans and their families face.

Veterans and their families are no strangers to facing life challenges when transitioning from Active Duty, whether that is adjusting to life as a civilian, navigating new family dynamics, or even dealing with medical needs or big moves.

Licensed marriage and family therapists help individuals and couples develop coping strategies and mechanisms to face these challenges head- on, and help ensure those who serve our Nation have the resources they need to support themselves and their families.

Licensed marriage and family therapists have provided care to countless veterans since 2010 when VA first established qualification standards for the profession and began hiring licensed marriage and family therapists.

However, in 2018, the VA amended its qualification standards and created a new requirement that licensed marriage and family therapists who want to serve as supervisors or managers must obtain the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy's ``approved supervisor'' designation.

Currently, the VA does not require licensed professional mental health counselors, social workers, or other mental health providers to obtain a designation from a private organization in order to serve as clinical supervisors.

Additionally, the VA's current qualification standards are not in alignment with State law. All 50 States and the District of Columbia license or certify licensed marriage and family therapists and have requirements for individuals who want to provide clinical supervision. However, only two States, North Carolina and Tennessee, require that clinical supervisors hold a private association's ``approved supervisor'' designation.

The VA's current qualification standards place licensed marriage and family therapists at a disadvantage when it comes to retention and promotion. There are thousands of licensed marriage and family therapists who are

recognized as State-approved supervisors, yet they are not eligible to supervise within the VA because they do not have the ``approved supervisor'' designation. Some licensed family and marriage therapists have left VA employment because of this restriction which contributes to vacancies among mental health providers within the Department.

H.R. 658 would help expand veterans' access to mental health care by expanding the pool of eligible licensed marriage and family therapist applicants for both rank and file and supervisory positions.

We must ensure that dedicated mental health professionals are able to fully support our veterans. That is why I support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and the author of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in passing H.R. 658, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my qualified support for H.R. 1458, the VETS Opportunity Act of 2025, as amended. I support the improvements made by most of the bill, but I have concerns about some of the provisions within this legislation.

Specifically, I worry that section 3 of the bill, which would authorize the use of post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for independent study programs taught at non-degree-granting, for-profit institutions, might be used by predatory operators to target veterans with subpar programs and rob them of the benefits they have so rightfully earned.

While I believe that student veterans should have the freedom to pursue higher education in the manner that is most effective for them, H.R. 1458 risks unnecessarily exposing student veterans to bad actors and scams. With the U.S. Department of Education's ability to provide oversight in jeopardy, expanding program approvals for new programs now is misguided.

The GI Bill is one of the most important tools we have to support the long-term success and economic mobility of veterans. With that comes a responsibility to ensure that the programs we approve for GI Bill funding are high quality and accountable and lead to meaningful employment.

H.R. 1458, while well intentioned, opens the door for a surge in non- degree-granting, for-profit providers seeking to enroll veterans in high-cost, low-quality programs that, in a troubling number of cases, fail to deliver on their promises.

The lack of minimal quality assurance mechanisms for non-degree programs is what led to congressional action to exclude them from eligibility for the Department of Defense Tuition Assistance Program in 2013.

While I strongly support expanding educational access for our Nation's veterans, H.R. 1458, as it is currently

drafted, may have unintended consequences. Veterans deserve the widest possible array of educational opportunities, but not at the cost of diminished quality, oversight, or value.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, I do want to point out that the chairman was referring to hybrid programs. Our concern is not about the hybrid programs, but independent study, and that independent study loophole for for-profit, private educational providers may allow for some abuse and targeting of veterans in unintended ways. I do hope that our colleagues in the Senate will give this a second look and possibly return this legislation for final passage here.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Davis), my good friend.

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

Madam Speaker, I again express my qualified support for H.R. 1458, the VETS Opportunity Act of 2025, as amended. I can't express that enough.

I urge my colleagues to work with the Senate to improve this bill and ensure that it is veterans who benefit from this legislation and not bad actors.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize United States Air Force veteran, public servant, and champion for equitable and humane urban planning, Professor Edward James Blakely, who passed away last year at the age of 87.

Dr. Blakely was called to serve his community, state, and country after receiving bachelor of arts at the University of California, Riverside, where he excelled both in the classroom and as a four-sport athlete. He served in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, in Oakland after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, and around the world following some of the most devastating natural disasters of our lifetime.

In addition to his service on the ground when communities needed him most, he shared his time, talent, and energy with students in the classroom and in the hallways of higher learning. He served as a professor of Urban Planning at the University of California, Berkely, as Dean of the School of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and as the Dean of the Milano Graduate School of Public Policy at the New School in New York.

Later in life, Dr. Blakely's passion for public service called him to Australia, where he served as the District Commissioner for the Greater Sydney Commission and an Acting Commissioner on the New South Wales Land and Environment Court.

His multiple books on urban planning, the students he impacted, and the communities he touched serve as a living legacy to his commitment to making our society more equitable for the benefit of humanity.

He, nor his deeds of good work, will not soon be forgotten from this earthly plane.

My prayers are with Dr. Blakely's family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in vehement opposition to giving one more red cent to ICE and CBP until we see accountability and reforms in this DHS funding bill. Under Secretary Noem's and President Trump's action, ICE and CBP have turned from law enforcement agencies into something much more dark and much more sinister.

Americans are scared by masked agents roaming our streets arresting anyone in eyesight whom they deem to be a threat, not a court of law. They are terrified that they could be the next Renee Good or one of the many who have died in for-profit detention camps. They worry about sending their kids to school or doing right by the law and attending routine immigration hearings.

It cannot continue. Today, Congress has a chance to act.

Now, I understand that there are some decent parts to this bill unrelated to ICE or the CBP. However, giving more taxpayer dollars to fund this wave of violence without accountability for past abuses and reforms to prevent more tragedies is not just a mistake, it is complicity.

Instead, we need courage, courage to demand guardrails that every single America can support. When there is a shooting or another abuse, an independent investigation should be standard.

Mr. Speaker, when ICE kicks down your door, a warrant signed by a judge must be present. If you are speaking Spanish, Mr. Speaker, or have skin color that is other than white, you should not be detained just because of how you look or the language you speak.

Mr. Speaker, should you encounter an immigration officer, they should no longer be able to shield themselves from accountability behind a face mask.

In the United States of America, nobody should feel like they have to carry a passport in their own country to prove that they are a citizen or a legal permanent resident. No American should be made, Mr. Speaker, to carry a passport in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a friend and a pillar of Riverside: Roger Ransom, who died on December 28, 2025, at the age of 87.

I knew Roger for many decades. He was smart, funny, and unfailingly insightful. It was deeply fortunate for all of us that he should have spent so long at University of California Riverside as a distinguished professor of history and economics.

His brilliance shone through in the wide range of books, articles, and papers he published across his storied academic career. Beyond his ability to write and to do research, he also showed a special ability to teach and mentor students.

It is a testament to Roger that he never let his curiosity abate, writing his final book even in his final months of his life.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to his extraordinary wife, Connie, his entire family, and all of the innumerable lives he touched along the way. Rest easy, Roger. You have earned it.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 659, the Veterans Law Judge Experience Act of 2025.

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the American public often thinks, sometimes in this body we actually do things that make sense.

That is very much the case with H.R. 659, the Veterans Law Judge Experience Act introduced by my friend and colleague, Representative Julia Brownley.

This bill is simple and straightforward.

It states that when recommending individuals to serve on the Board of Veterans' Appeals, priority should be given to those who have 3 or more years of experience in practicing veterans law.

The Veterans' Affairs Committee hears often about the complex nature of the disability compensation system at the Department of Veterans Affairs. That complexity, unfortunately, leads to mistakes and errors that cause our veterans' disability claims to be denied prematurely. Especially now at a time when we have seen that Secretary Collins has shifted the Department's focus from getting claims right to simply getting them fast, we are seeing higher rates of processing errors, higher denial rates, and consequently higher rates of appeals to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, the BVA.

In that context, it is imperative that the BVA has the staffing levels and experience levels to get things right for our veterans. I, along with everyone else, support efforts to ensure that veterans and beneficiaries are being served at every point of contact in VA by the best talent we can muster.

One way we can do that is by ensuring we have the right folks in the right roles. This legislation seeks to help that at BVA by focusing on hiring those with sufficient experience to best serve our veterans.

We can and should look to staff the Board of Veterans' Appeals with attorneys that have demonstrated expertise in this area, attorneys who are experienced and who can see beyond quotas and metrics to apply the law to the maximum benefit of veterans at the heart of the process.

So, Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 659 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I also want to mention another bill that the House should take up which would further improve the BVA. H.R. 2303, introduced by Representative Morgan McGarvey, increases the promotion potential for attorneys at the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle balk at anything that might result in civil servants receiving more compensation, but if we agree that we need to hire board attorneys with greater experience, and we are asking them to do more work and more complex work at that, we ought to see fit to pay them what they are worth. I hope that my colleagues see fit to advance that bill very soon, as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I actually yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), I want to--in recognition of her announced retirement, though she is going to be with us for the rest of the year, but I don't know if I will ever have this chance of a moment on the floor with her again--point out that she was the leader of the very first Women Veterans Task Force that resulted in the Deborah Sampson Act, which unfortunately, is really substantively the bill that she put forward and is really the real author of, but it carries somebody else's name. It is the same with the Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act. It is an amazing piece of legislation and amazingly substantive. The Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act has laid the groundwork for our senior veterans who want to age in place at home. Congresswoman Brownley has worked on that and many other pieces of legislation as the chair and then ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health.

It is with a heavy heart that I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley), my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, and the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 659, the Veterans Law Judge Experience Act of 2025. It is clear to me from the words on the floor from the ranking member of the House subcommittee, Julia Brownley, that this bill is wise, it is warranted, and it is well-thought-out.

The arguments for it are about helping our veterans receive their claims and get their claims approved in a timely manner. Again, I repeat my sentiment that we appreciate her service to this body. She has left an indelible mark on veterans' policy, on veterans' affairs, and I look forward to serving the balance of this year with my colleague and congratulate her on a brilliant career in the House of Representatives.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in hesitant support of H.R. 1663, the Veterans Scam And Fraud Evasion, or VSAFE, Act, as amended.

I fully support the intention of this bill and strongly encourage the Department to fully resource the VSAFE program established under President Biden. However, the actions taken by the Trump administration over the last year will significantly hinder the great work that has been accomplished by the VSAFE Task Force, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is, unfortunately, more pressing than ever.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, veterans reported some of the highest numbers of fraud complaints and greatest total losses in 2024, amounting to nearly $600 million. Veterans also continually face higher losses than their civilian counterparts, with median losses reported around $700, which is over $200 higher than the general population.

Both the FTC and CFPB have done important work in identifying the most pressing scams and fraudulent activities that target veterans and their families. These include scams like credit card fraud, investment schemes, and imposter scams, which seek to impersonate government officials, technology support, or even love interests to collect money or gain access to veterans' personal systems.

They have also identified the threat of multilevel marketing schemes and other ``business opportunities,'' like Amway, Mary Kay, and Herbalife, who regularly target veterans, servicemembers, and their families under the guise of patriotism, flexible hours, and financial independence.

I applaud my colleague, Representative Delia Ramirez, for offering an amendment to require specific trainings on these tactics to provide veterans and their families with clear, actionable guidance to protect their hard-earned benefits. It is unfortunate that this commonsense amendment was voted down by the Republican members of our committee.

Lastly, I find it ironic that these same Republican colleagues want to advance this legislation while our President actively dismantles the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the only agencies set up to protect military and veteran consumers. This is ironic.

Since its inception in 2008, the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion--that is billion with a b--back to consumers, which includes hundreds of millions of dollars to servicemembers and veterans impacted by violations of the Military Lending Act. Unfortunately, President Trump has determined that those who served our Nation no longer deserve protections against bad actors who seek to profit off their benefits.

As fraudsters' ability to create more complex scams and become more convincing in their deceit thanks to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, the time to create informed and resourced tools is now.

H.R. 1663 marks a step in the right direction, but I urge my congressional colleagues to do more to help protect our Nation's veterans against these scams.

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

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

In response to the chairman, let me just say that I did say that this bill was a step in the right direction, a step that could be a big leap if we all got behind bigger initiatives and called upon this administration to stop diminishing and diluting the power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The results of protecting military servicemembers and veterans by that particular agency are undisputed, and it became particularly impactful when it was in full force. The philosophy of this administration has been to diminish the authority and reach of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as the Federal Trade Commission, and our veterans are suffering.

In spite of this very small step we are taking with this bill, it is insufficient to take on the enormous challenge of fighting fraudsters in this country who will take advantage of those who have laid their lives on the line for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I intend to vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, Dr. Foster, for yielding, for organizing and hosting this Special Order hour, and for his leadership on nuclear nonproliferation issues.

In my many years as a Member of Congress, I have watched many a fiery floor speech filled with overstatement and hyperbole, grandiose pronouncements laced with exaggeration and puffery, but it is entirely right and proper to say that the expiration of the New START treaty will make the world and every inhabitant blessed to live on it less safe.

Formally, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, otherwise known as New START, caps U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals and underpins onsite inspections.

It is the latest in a series of treaties that have reduced the global nuclear warhead stockpile from a high of 70,000 in the mid-1980s to roughly 12,000 today.

Now that is meaningful, serious progress, but instead of building on that progress, we are weeks away from reversing those hard-earned gains.

On February 5, New START is slated to expire. That expiration will mean the end to limits or verification of the still-formidable nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia.

New START is by no means perfect, but removing these safeguards will create a vacuum, and we all know nature abhors a vacuum. Without these limitations, there are fewer constraints, fewer eyes, and fewer brakes on how Vladimir Putin expands and modernizes Russia's nuclear forces. In this wilderness, we would see a broader breakdown of norms on nuclear weapons.

Both the United States and Russia have openly mused about potentially restarting nuclear weapons testing. After we have worked so hard to bring some clarity to nuclear weapons regimes, we risk the steady erosion of the few safeguards against these terrible and awesome weapons, but the U.S. is not without options or agency.

If this expiration comes to pass, it is because we have allowed it to happen. Russia has offered to voluntarily maintain the New START limits for 1 year. We should take that deal not because we trust Vladimir Putin but because inspections and limits protect us, not him.

Arms control is neither an act of faith nor of naivety. It is an act of cold logic and discipline, a process that reduces the risk of miscalculation, escalation, and catastrophic error. The year will not only keep America and the world safer, but it will also give time to hammer out a new accord.

As the U.S. sits across the negotiation table, there should be no illusion. We know that Putin and his cronies in the Kremlin are adversaries of the United States. They would like nothing more for our Nation to falter, but they are also self-interested.

Both the United States and Russia benefit from a stable, controlled nuclear regime. That mutual self-interest lies at the heart of why New START was signed in the first place. To throw it all away would be a mistake of immense proportions.

While time is short, we can step away from the edge. I add my voice to a host of others calling on, pleading for, demanding action from the Trump administration.

I know the threat of nuclear weapons can often seem so large and abstract, so unimaginable that it becomes easier just to ignore it all, but to say nothing is not an option, especially for someone like me.

Many of my family, my distant family, were in Hiroshima on the day the atom bomb fell. That memory is not just historical. It is personal for me and my family.

Mr. Speaker, the atomic bombs of 1945 caused unimaginable horror. Some died instantly, many over subsequent days and months. Others suffered for the rest of their lives, afflicted with burns, radiation, and cancer.

The modern nuclear weapons of today are orders of magnitude more horrifying. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that these weapons are never used again.

New START is a concrete step toward ensuring that future. It is one where no person--no man, woman, or child--lives under constant threat from nuclear annihilation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another effort to chip away at the protections guaranteed at the Federal level and take money out of the American worker's pocket.

The concept of overtime is very simple. If you work more than your traditional 40 hours a week, then you make more money, and you get to take home what you earn.

Now, instead of protecting that very basic principle, my Republican colleagues are trying to make it easier for employers to pay their workers less for working more. They want to pay workers less for working more. This bill would exclude child and dependent care from the rate of pay used to calculate a worker's overtime pay. In other words, this bill makes it permissible to pay workers less than their regular rate if they picked up an extra shift.

Taking on extra work doesn't mean you don't need someone to watch your kids, and it shouldn't cost you a benefit that you are entitled to.

Despite the misleading title, this bill cheapens the value of an employee's overtime labor. The overtime salary threshold is already far too low. When the first Trump administration set the current threshold, 8.2 million Americans saw their overtime protections just vanish, and even those eligible employees earning $36,000 a year were making too much money to qualify for overtime pay.

Mr. Speaker, imagine making $36,000 a year and that would disqualify you from being able to get overtime pay. You have no right to it.

Childcare and dependent care assistance should be more accessible and far more affordable for working families, but this Republican proposal merely incentivizing employers to provide assistance will not solve that issue and cutting down already low levels of overtime pay will not do that either.

Right now, working families are watching their access to basic support services shrink before their eyes. Head Start has seen five of their regional offices across the country abruptly closed. Medicaid could face over $800 billion in cuts over the next 10 years. These lifelines that working families depend on for affordable support services are rapidly diminishing, largely due to this administration and this majority's attack on these lifelines as ``waste.''

The resources that working families need are not waste. The tools for economic survival are not waste. Americans deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues are selling Americans on a bill with a flashy title and hoping that they don't read the fine print.

The so-called Tipped Employee Protection Act implies that something in this bill might actually benefit workers who work for tips. In reality, this bill manipulates labor law to decrease employees' earning power and allow employers to skirt minimum wage requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I was a high school English teacher, and I taught my students about irony. This bill is more aptly titled the Republican invent new ways to pay workers less bill.

Here is a closer look at the bill. For jobs like waiting tables, which regularly generate a large proportion of pay from tips, employers may pay their employees a small portion of the minimum wage, a mere $2.13 an hour, as long as what they normally make in tips makes up the rest.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, however, opens the opportunity for employers to manipulate FLSA definitions and classify other workers who receive tips only sometimes to also be paid a subminimum wage.

Under this bill, hotel housekeepers, valets, manicurists, and other workers could see their tips used to offset what their employers owe them, rather than serving as an occasional boost in take-home pay for a job well done.

In short, it expands the subminimum wage and offers more opportunities to pay workers less. As I said, we should really call this bill the Republican invent new ways to pay workers less bill.

No responsible policymaker should be arguing that Americans should be making less. People in this country are feeling serious financial strain as the cost of living soars and wages remain stagnant.

Everything is more expensive, and here we are, debating a proposal that would allow employers to pay people less than what they earned so employers can save a few dollars on the hour. Shame on this majority.

Once again, this Republican proposal to stimulate the economy relies on Americans in the lowest income brackets getting squeezed the most.

Mr. Speaker, we need to eliminate the subminimum wage entirely and make sure that Americans make enough money to live with dignity and not invent new ways to pay Americans less. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.