Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Henry Eberle, better known as ``Mayor Hank,'' served as the mayor of Ridley Park for 28 years before his death last month at the age of 91.

From student council president at Sharon Hill High to a standout athlete at Franklin & Marshall College where he was inducted in the hall of fame, Hank was a born leader.

Hank raised a family in ``Delco,'' where he became an executive at Sun Company and was active with his church and local civic groups.

In retirement, he visited every national park in the continental U.S. during dozens of cross-country road trips. Hank will long be remembered as a quintessential small-town mayor. As mayor of Ridley Park, he showed up at every community event, emceeing the Fourth of July parade in his trademark top hat and striped socks, greeting neighbors at the farmers market and Victorian Fair, and officiating at over 100 weddings.

He was a tireless advocate for revitalization of Ridley Park's business district and rebuilding the Sellers Avenue bridge.

Mayor Hank's humor, humility, and purpose will be deeply missed across our community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.

Although Bitcoin has been around for over 15 years, cryptocurrencies and related decentralized financial products have exploded in the past few years. Many Americans now own cryptocurrencies, and the industry has seen significant growth.

At the same time, our laws have not kept up with these novel crypto products, and there is wide agreement that Congress must update our laws to appropriately account for crypto assets. However, today's bills are not the answer to that problem.

The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts are bad legislation. They are industry- written bills that give the crypto industry everything it wants at the expense of retail investors, consumers, and the overall health of our financial system. These bills are products of the D.C. swamp that so many of our colleagues usually condemn.

Mr. Speaker, every time our Republican colleagues write a finance bill, it leaves us less safe and more prone to financial crisis. We saw the very real consequences of this when Silicon Valley Bank failed in 2023. That failure was the direct result of Republican legislation that exempted Silicon Valley Bank from Dodd-Frank Act regulations.

GOP proponents of that bill had argued, without evidence, that Dodd- Frank was too onerous and that big banks needed regulatory relief, but it only took a couple of years for their disastrous deregulatory agenda to lead exactly where we all knew it would, with billions of dollars of customer deposits evaporating overnight and with the Federal Government bailing out the bank's uninsured depositors.

This time, Republicans are at it again with two bills that will create a weak and ineffective regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies and stablecoins,

allowing exchanges and insurers to continue risky, fraudulent, and illegal practices with limited oversight by the SEC or Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

These bills give the crypto industry exactly what it wants. They get the illusion of a real regulatory regime and the legitimacy that would bestow. They get weak rules that can be exploited and manipulated for financial gain, and they get enforcement mechanisms that are so meager and underfunded that they won't deter bad actors.

We have seen what deregulation gets us. It got us the 2008 financial crisis. It gets us bankruptcies and bailouts, and it ultimately leaves hardworking Americans holding the bag while CEOs get golden parachutes.

It is not like we are talking about deregulating some benign financial product. Crypto stands out as a uniquely risky asset. From the invention of bitcoin until now, the primary demonstrated uses for cryptocurrencies have been speculation, fraud, and money laundering.

You can't really use crypto to buy anything. The coins themselves aren't backed by any profits, assets, or other tangible property. While we have been hearing about all the wonders of the blockchain for over a decade, shockingly few companies actually use it in a way that is essential to their business.

In practice, the main real-life-use case for crypto is money laundering. Crypto is used by Mexican cartels to launder their proceeds from drugs trafficked into the United States. Terrorist organizations fund their operations with crypto, and countries like North Korea use cryptocurrencies to avoid U.S. sanctions and fund their nuclear weapons programs.

In fact, bitcoin and Tether are the payment methods of choice for the fentanyl manufacturers in China that supply the Mexican cartels, as well as other fentanyl traffickers inside the United States. These criminal organizations rely on crypto, and the legislation under consideration today will not disrupt that illegal commerce.

The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts will not do anything to prevent crypto from being used to break our laws or fund fentanyl deaths and senior fraud. These bills do not provide any meaningful regulations to ensure that issuers and exchanges fully comply with anti-money laundering laws. Add to this that cryptocurrencies are used to facilitate billions of dollars' worth of fraud against Americans each year. This fraud comes in the form of scams, especially those targeting seniors, where fraudsters trick people into purchasing fake crypto products and then run off with the money, leaving the seniors with no recourse.

Then there is the institutional fraud, the fraud that comes from the crypto companies themselves. Here we also have a long list of examples, the most notable being the fall and bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which incorporated itself in The Bahamas to avoid American regulatory scrutiny, gambled with customer funds, and ultimately left its customers penniless because of fraudulent business practices.

There is no other way around it. The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts will not stop these types of fraud from happening, and they will leave regular investors on the hook if they are victims of fraud.

The other glaring omission in these bills is they do nothing to stop the abuse of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins as tools for bribery and influence peddling. As President Trump and his allies have demonstrated on a daily basis, any politician can issue a crypto asset, own the majority of tokens, and then anyone who wants to buy that politician's attention or votes can just invest in the asset. There is no oversight or disclosure requirement. There is deniability on both sides of the transaction. Any person, any foreign country can bribe and buy politicians through cryptocurrency like this. Those who have purchased such coins have been open about their motivations for doing so.

Right before his inauguration, President Trump issued his own coin, the Trump coin, for which he is the majority owner. Millions of dollars of questionable funds, including funds from foreigners and foreign governments, have flowed into this coin, as well as his companies, Trump Media and World Liberty Financial.

All in all, it is estimated that President Trump has netted $1 billion from those crypto schemes, taking advantage of the Office of the President to enrich him and his family.

During the 2024 election, crypto companies donated millions of dollars to elect the President. After he was elected, they donated millions more to his inaugural committee. It is notable that in his first 6 months in office, Trump has dismantled all the regulators that oversee the financial and crypto industries, dropped criminal charges and investigations against various crypto companies, pardoned a crypto exchange that pleaded guilty to abetting money laundering, and pardoned the former owner of the Silk Road who was responsible for selling hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of drugs on the deep web.

Apparently, anyone who seeks to buy influence in this White House simply has to find one of the President's companies or meme coins and make a sizable investment. Emiratis and Saudis are investing in Trump's crypto assets to curry favor. People looking for pardons, dismissals, or preferential regulatory treatment are taking advantage of the Trump crypto scheme. Lawyers and lobbyists are advertising to clients that they can buy a pardon for the right price. It is easily the biggest potential corruption scandal in our Nation's Presidential history.

If there is any crypto regulation we need right now, it is a bright- line prohibition on any elected official profiting off a crypto asset.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which paved the way for corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money in our elections. Because of this ruling, anyone, for the right price, can buy their preferred outcomes in our elections and in Congress. One need look no further than Elon Musk and the crypto bills that we are considering today to see the impact of the Citizens United decision.

We all know about the millions that Musk poured into the Trump campaign and the White House access he was granted before their abrupt split recently, but the crypto industry also spent a lot of money. It spent money to make these bills happen.

Over the past few years, the crypto industry has emerged as one of the biggest and most aggressive political spenders in American politics. In the 2024 election, crypto emerged as the biggest corporate spender, accounting for nearly half of all the corporate money spent. Crypto outspent every other business lobby by tens of millions of dollars.

While the crypto industry's political spending is enormous, what really sets it apart is the brazenness with which the industry buys influence in Washington. Usually, it is hard to exactly pinpoint a direct relationship between political spending and outcomes, but crypto spending is so in your face that we can actually put a price on these bills.

All in all, the CLARITY and GENIUS Acts cost the crypto industry about $245 million, and that is a conservative figure. That is just the money spent on 2024 campaigns. If you count money spent to hire expensive lobbyists to come to Congress and ply Representatives with industry talking points, the number is even higher.

Crypto's $245 million was spent supporting candidates who backed the industry and defeating candidates who did not. Crypto got a good return on its investment. In the overwhelming majority of races that crypto principals invested in, they got their preferred candidate. Now crypto companies have been able to write their own regulations to ensure they won't face serious scrutiny or oversight, meaning that fraud and money laundering will continue unabated, and investors will be on the hook when the next crypto crisis happens.

Fifteen years after the Citizens United decision, these bills are the direct result. Crypto is a textbook example of the consequences of that decision. The question before us today is, how should cryptocurrencies be regulated? The answer we are getting is with regulations provided by the crypto industry itself.

Fifteen years later, Citizens United has been an unmitigated disaster for

our country. Unlimited spending in politics has corroded our democracy. It has bred cynicism and nihilism in the political process. It has made Americans feel disenfranchised and powerless. It says to every American, your voice doesn't count unless you can pay to play.

Mr. Speaker, we have a political system where any company or any rich person can pay for advertisements, pay for lobbyists, donate to campaigns and PACs and super-PACs, all to buy influence and get their desired outcomes from Congress or the White House.

Time and time again, in every sector of our economy, corporations and the rich have won in Congress, in the courts, in the rulemaking process, and even in decisionmaking by enforcement agencies.

We see the consequences of Citizens United everywhere we turn. It is the reason corporations can screw over workers and consumers with no penalty.

It is why every part of the economy is monopolized by two or three companies that sell poor products and give bad service. It is why we are diving headfirst into a global climate crisis and doing nothing about it.

It is why every time someone runs for office on a platform of putting people over profits, they have to endure attacks from super-PACs supported by billionaires or business interests. Our democracy will remain imperiled so long as the mega-rich can buy influence, votes, and elections.

If anyone was unsure of the consequences posed by Citizens United in 2010, it is now clear, beyond any doubt, that the decision was an abject failure for the country. We have to overturn Citizens United, get dark money out of politics, and make sure our government is accountable to voters and not donors.

To my colleagues here in the House, we don't need to end campaign spending for Members of Congress to do the right thing. Integrity doesn't require authorizing legislation. We cannot allow big money donors to buy or bully Congress. We need to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule also provides for consideration of the fiscal year 2026 Defense appropriations bill. Since taking the majority in the House, Republicans have unfortunately abandoned any pretense of bipartisan compromise to promote our national security by loading every defense bill with radical, rightwing policy riders. These riders have turned what was once a rare area of bipartisan consensus into yet another partisan divide.

This time around, Republicans have loaded the national defense bill with provisions to prevent female servicemembers from accessing reproductive healthcare. They have given a green light to discrimination against LGBTQ servicemembers.

This bill does nothing to address the gross mismanagement of the Pentagon by Pete Hegseth, a man who has leaked classified intelligence, who spends more time in front of his Pentagon makeup mirror and doing press stunts than effectively managing the Armed Forces, and who has prioritized support for bigotry and weird cultural war obsessions like changing the pictures on the Pentagon's website and renaming military bases after Confederate icons.

When this bill is combined with the money spent by Republicans in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the United States is on track to spend over $1 trillion on defense. Every year, we spend more and more on defense. It is not clear that taxpayers are getting a good deal.

After years of consolidation and lax antitrust enforcement, the defense industry has ossified around five major prime contractors, each with a degree of specialization. That means only two or three companies ever compete for major contracts.

The consequences of this consolidation can be found across the defense industrial base. We don't make enough of the weapons and platforms that we need. Production for major platforms is often beset by delays and cost overruns. We spend billions on studies and research programs that don't lead anywhere. Production timelines are always being extended. Delivery times are delayed, and per-unit costs are increased.

In the face of these glaring business inefficiencies, Congress and the Pentagon always give the contractors what they ask for and ask for very little in return.

We need to replenish our weapons stockpiles. We need to quickly field next-generation military assets like the Columbia submarine and the B- 21 Raider. We need to bolster supply chains that support this production. We need to ensure that the Nation has the industrial capacity to respond to a sustained major conflict anywhere in the world.

In order for us to achieve these goals, meet our national security needs, and support our servicemembers, Congress needs to perform real oversight over the Pentagon and defense contractors.

In my time in Congress, I have supported multiple efforts to require the Pentagon to perform a clean audit with tangible enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. In each case, these efforts haven't garnered the votes for passage because at the end of the day, this body has not been willing to hold the Pentagon and defense industry's feet to the fire.

The Pentagon has failed to complete seven audits in a row. That is seven. Until the Pentagon faces real consequences for being unable to account for the billions of taxpayer dollars it spends every year and failing to comply with congressional oversight, we will never have accountability.

At a time when our Republicans' quest to root out waste, fraud, and abuse has led them to slash funding for American's healthcare and hunger relief, it is astonishing they are willing to write yet another blank check to the Department of Defense with no questions asked, despite growing evidence of cost overruns, mismanagement, and more.

At the end of the day, I want our servicemembers to have every single advantage over our adversaries. I want them to have all the tools, platforms, resources, and weapons systems we can provide. I don't want taxpayers to get a bad deal. I don't want to waste money on overpriced defense contracts that overpromise and underdeliver.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order amendment No. 50 to H.R. 3633, offered by Representative Khanna, which requires the Attorney General to preserve and release any records related to Jeffrey Epstein.

I applaud my colleagues, Representative Veasey and Khanna, for their work to release the Epstein files. I strongly support these efforts and the release of the files.

Last night, at the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected an amendment that would have required the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files, multiple criminal investigations which allegedly documented trafficking of young women and girls by Jeffrey Epstein, a sex offender and financier with whom the President often socialized.

For years, the President and those in his orbit, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, alleged that prior administrations had covered up the identities of the rich and powerful people to whom Epstein had trafficked the girls and the facts surrounding his allegedly suspicious death.

They came into office pledging to seek accountability for the horrific crimes by revealing Epstein's client list and other information, but recently backtracked and refused to release any further information.

There appear to be only two explanations for this about-face. Either the Epstein files did not contain the explosive information that Trump and his allies claimed during his campaign, or this administration is the one covering up what is in the files.

Last night, all the Republicans on the Rules Committee except one voted against releasing the files.

Why would they try to prevent the truth about Epstein's abuse and those he enabled from coming out? That is anybody's guess.

With this previous question, the entire Republican Conference has the opportunity to correct that mistake. They can vote today to release the Epstein files.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), who is the sponsor of the resolution directing the Trump administration to release the Epstein files to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about what Congress should be considering, and my amendment would simply allow Congress to express its will with respect to the release of the Epstein files. This is something our Republican colleagues and certainly key members of the Trump administration have been talking about for years until their recent about-face.

Congress can express its will. We would like to have it put up for a vote. It doesn't block any votes on the crypto bills or the Defense Department funding.

We think that the administration should release these files. It really is a little confusing, I think, why suddenly our Republican colleagues are blocking this, but perhaps it was a mistake. At least one Republican voted with Democrats last night to release the files, so this would just give all of our colleagues the opportunity to say what they have been saying for so many years, that the Epstein files should be released.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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

I am not sure what the gentleman from Georgia is talking about when he says that my amendment is offered as a product of radical leftists. I know that it is rare in D.C., but this amendment actually has broad bipartisan support, from the far right, from the far left, and from the middle.

We just want to release the Epstein files. That is why we have offered the amendment, and this body has the opportunity to vote on it.

I don't understand why my Republican colleagues are suddenly so adamant about throwing up procedural hurdles to have the Epstein files released.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules, my Democratic colleagues and I offered multiple amendments to try to improve the crypto bills.

We offered amendments to prevent the President and his closest relatives from profiting off of crypto while he is in office. We offered amendments to protect investors and consumers and allow the kind of government oversight that is needed to protect our economy.

All of these amendments were rejected by committee Republicans.

Last night, as we discussed the Defense spending bill, we also pressed Republicans on how military families will be impacted by the Medicaid cuts in Republicans' big, ugly bill.

About 850,000 military families on TRICARE also receive healthcare through Medicaid, particularly children with special needs. Those families may now see their health benefits cut or taken away as a result of the big, ugly bill. That issue was not addressed in the Defense spending bill.

Our Republican colleagues didn't want to hear it, and I doubt we will be able to prevent them from proceeding with this misguided crypto legislation today.

Yet, I will say this: If these bills become law, we can predict many more crypto scandals and crises and money laundering. A lot of people will lose a lot of money, and no one will face accountability for taking advantage of retail investors. I hope that day doesn't come, but it is bills like this that will determine the future of our financial system.

Do we want a system that promotes speculation, bubbles, Ponzi schemes, and frauds or one that promotes investment in innovative and productive businesses that grow the real economy in ways that benefit all Americans?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PQ and rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, as much as it pains me to say this, we are here on the House floor today because the House Republican majority has chosen to prioritize debate and passage of a bill to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. That is not what my constituents think is the most important thing Congress should tackle this week or this year, and I bet it is not what your constituents think either.

It is easy to mock this legislation because it is so inane and embarrassing, and we have, but its very existence and the fact that House Republicans have chosen to waste time and taxpayer dollars to bring it up for a vote, is worth considering.

Let's talk about the real gulf of America--the gulf in America--the gulf between the ambitions and priorities of this White House, aided and abetted by the House majority, and the needs of the American people.

That is the gulf that makes Republicans think that it is more important to give tax cuts to billionaires than to make sure that America's children, veterans, and seniors have food, housing, and medical services, and that we protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.

It is the gulf that causes the Speaker to bring ridiculous legislation to the floor to flatter the President and appease his base rather than meet the needs of the American people.

Americans want a Congress and a White House that solves problems rather than creates them. Americans aren't asking to rename the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, public polling, including on FOX, says that nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose that executive order and this legislation to rename the Gulf of Mexico.

Like many Americans, I follow the news each day with trepidation. Many folks tell me that the chaos and missteps of this administration are too painful or upsetting to follow. They have tuned it out because the only guarantee we have is that every day the President or his administration will have done something dumber or more dangerous than the day before.

Each day brings its own self-inflicted crisis with this White House, and millions of Americans are exhausted by it. They are pleading with their elected officials to act, to do something, anything, to bring normalcy back to this country, to bring decency back to this country.

There was a time when American public life was guided by a genuine sense of duty and a converse fear of shame, but today neither appear to hold much sway.

Instead, we have a White House filled with charlatans, con men, snake oil salesmen, grifters, billionaires, and criminals, all using the power of the Federal Government to enrich themselves at the expense of the American

people and to punish their political opponents.

Last week was President Trump's 100th day in office, a customary benchmark by which we measure the successes and failures of a new President's term. I think it is safe to say that Trump's first 100 days have been a disaster. His tariff policies are likely to cause a recession. Millions of people have seen their retirement savings evaporate. Families don't know if they are going to be able to afford basic goods, much less Christmas dolls. Businesses, big and small, are paralyzed by uncertainty and reducing their spending, and many small businesses may not survive.

To add insult to injury, when faced with these facts, the President says: Deal with it. Those are the President's own words. The tariffs will be painful, but it is a price that must be paid; but paid by whom? It won't be Trump or the billionaires in his Cabinet or at his golf clubs. No, it is going to be real people, people who work for a living, who will have to pay the price for his ill-conceived trade war. It is not going to be guys like Bessent and Lutnick, who have multimillion- dollar mansions and fly on private planes. They will be just fine.

However, for working parents, according to Trump, maybe the kids will have 2 dolls instead of 30. I don't know who has 30 dolls. Maybe the moms who live in my district will have to pay more for the stroller they use to transport their kids to daycare and doctors and the grocery store. So much for the guy who said he was going to bring down prices on day one.

It is worth noting that just yesterday in our Rules markup, our Republican colleagues voted, once again, to keep the Trump tariffs in place. Over a month ago, they rigged the rules of the House to prevent Congress from voting to end the Trump tariffs. They literally voted to stop time, to say that for the purposes of protecting the Trump tariffs, there is only one day between now and the end of September in order to prevent anyone from being able to force a vote on whether to end Trump's tariffs. They are dragging down our economy and American families with it.

That is just the terrible Trump tariffs. In these first 100 days, the administration has cut services at Social Security, fired medical staff at VA hospitals, and withheld aid to food banks, children's health programs, and community violence prevention efforts. They have waged a political war against universities and scientific research, and illegally froze over $400 billion in congressionally appropriated funds, including billions of dollars to FEMA, to everyone from local firefighters to States that have been affected by natural disasters.

This White House has issued hundreds of controversial executive orders, many of which courts have deemed illegal or unconstitutional. Every day this administration is disappearing hundreds of people, sending them to faraway detention centers without any due process, due process that would expose mistakes and lies about some people who are not criminals and, in some cases, are even citizens and, therefore, should not be deported.

The damage that is being caused right now by this administration to our communities, to our international standing, to our national security and national fabric, will take years to unwind. Eager to do their part and contribute to the chaos, House Republicans continue to find novel ways to bring this Chamber to new lows.

This week, Republicans are putting forward two bills, one that is pretty much a redundant effort to counter Confucius Institutes and another to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

The second bill may be the dumbest bill brought to the floor during the 6 years I have served in Congress. With all of the important work this Congress should be tackling, the Speaker and House Republicans have chosen to indulge the President in a whim that the American public does not support.

Frankly, if I had to vote on a bill like this, I would find it deeply embarrassing. I know my Republican colleagues are smart people. They are not dumb, so I have to think that they share this embarrassment, unless they are members of a cult, a cult of personality based around a dear leader who they are required to obey or risk retribution, and upon whom they bestow endless compliments and praise in order to seek personal favors.

It doesn't matter how much damage he causes, how much money he wastes, how many lives and families he hurts. It doesn't matter if he causes a recession. It doesn't matter if he encourages influence peddling and grift with a Trump coin, or his Gulf of America merch, or if he gives insider stock tips before taking executive action. House Republicans seem to always do what Trump says.

If he wants to do something as dumb as rename the Gulf of Mexico, Republicans apparently will fall in line. We will watch them twist themselves into pretzels to come up with increasingly convoluted rationales for the President's actions. Today will surely be a master class in delusion.

Further adding to the chaos, this month, House Republicans are expected to finish drafting the text of the reconciliation bill through which they are planning to cut healthcare benefits to seniors, children, and people with disabilities and cut nutrition assistance to the poor in order to pay for a huge tax giveaway to billionaires and big business.

Despite more than 40 years of empirical evidence showing that Republican trickle-down economics are a resounding failure, Republicans are nonetheless pushing ahead with their party orthodoxy. We have more than enough evidence that trickle-down economics does not work. It doesn't help the middle class. It doesn't create jobs. It doesn't increase business investment, and it doesn't grow the economy.

What these policies actually do is allow companies and their shareholders to pocket more profits at the expense of everyone else. It is because of trickle-down economics that we now have some of the most extreme income inequality in this country in our Nation's history.

To pay for this giveaway to the rich, Republicans are going to take away healthcare benefits and food assistance and cut critical Federal investments in our local communities, our democracy, the environment, and our national security, all so millionaires and billionaires can get an extra buck. It is horrifying, immoral, and un-American.

Unlike many of my Republican colleagues, I have participated in multiple townhalls this year to hear from my constituents. One message that I hear consistently is that people are scared. These are good, honest, hardworking Americans who in one way or another have been forced to rely on Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, WIC, Head Start, Social Security, or LIHEAP in order to make ends meet for their families, and they are rightfully scared that Republicans are planning to gut those programs.

We will surely hear all kinds of mental gymnastics from our colleagues about how millionaires really need that extra tax cut or how cutting Medicaid won't really lead to a loss of coverage or service. We will hear tortured arguments from Republicans to hide what they are really doing.

When you take a step back and look at everything that is happening, this White House, in concert with Elon Musk and congressional Republicans, have put the country on a dark and troubling path, a fear- based path. It is leading us to a place that has more in common with Stalin's Russia than the free society envisioned by our Founding Fathers. It is heartbreaking to see the lengths to which some people will go to destroy the ideas and institutions that for decades have made this country great.

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).

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

In January when House and Senate Republicans punted once again on passing a budget and instead passed a continuing resolution, they forgot to include the funding to operate the District of Columbia.

The Senate moved to rectify that mistake and has passed a bill to fix it, and the President has said that he will sign that bill. The Mayor of D.C. has repeatedly spoken to House Republicans about the urgency of fixing the city's budget. The clock is ticking, and if the fix isn't passed, D.C. will have to lay off hundreds of teachers and police officers and curtail critical services in the District.

While this is going on, House Republicans are instead using floor time to prioritize removing the longfin smelt from the endangered species list, to rename the Gulf of Mexico, and to do other, frankly, stupid messaging bills like those we are considering today.

The Speaker may claim that it is just a matter of schedule, but once again, clearly, the gulf in America is between what Americans--the people who live in D.C. and most of the country--think is important and what House Republicans are willing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which will prevent the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this week the House is voting to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. I am not joking. This is what House Republicans are spending their time doing publicly. However, privately, behind closed doors, according to reports, Republican leadership is meeting with vulnerable, moderate Republicans to try to sell them on trading devastating cuts to Medicaid for tax cuts for billionaires.

Under their plan, they have to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion from food assistance just to make the math work for their disastrous reconciliation bill. Mr. Speaker, what is worse is they continue to argue that they aren't doing that, but the math doesn't lie. They can't reach the levels of billionaire tax cuts they want without gutting vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP, programs that the most vulnerable in our country rely upon.

Republicans are publicly claiming that they won't make those cuts, so today I will give them a chance to prove that to the American people by putting their money where their mouths are and voting to ensure those devastating cuts can't move forward in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. The country deserves better leadership, leadership focused on the common good and public service rather than culture wars and private profit.

The United States faces enormous challenges, and the American people want Congress to act on their behalf. They want us to lower the cost of groceries, rent, and healthcare. They don't want Congress wasting time on performance, on pointless legislation like the bills we are debating today.

The American people want real solutions. They want their elected officials to collaborate, to govern with decency and discipline in ways that benefit the American people, not deep-pocketed donors. They don't want politicians who chase headlines or who try to flatter the whims of erratic leaders with insane ideas like renaming the Gulf of Mexico, invading Greenland, annexing Canada, or reinstituting Alcatraz.

While many Americans are struggling just to get by, the last thing they want is a Republican tax bill that guts their healthcare and denies food and housing to children and seniors so that millionaires can pay less in taxes. It is obscene.

If Republicans carry out their stated plans, it will be one of the largest government handouts in American history, paid for by those who can least afford it and delivered to those who need it least. Talk about corporate welfare.

While the rich will get their tax cut, working families will be stuck footing the bill for Trump's tariffs. It is not too late for Republicans to change course. I pray that enough of them find the courage to push back against this plan, to listen to their constituents, and to do the right thing.

We don't need to slash Medicaid and SNAP, and we can move forward with a sensible tax bill that invests in families and the middle class, not just billionaires and the Fortune 500. I urge my colleagues to vote down this resolution, reject these unserious bills, and join us in the business of governing for the public good, the common good.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I spent the weekend listening to my constituents, and it damn near broke me.

I heard from seniors worried about Musk's attacks on Social Security and Medicaid, small businesses confronting bankruptcy from Trump's tariffs, and parents seeing their college and retirement savings wiped out.

I met with teachers worried about students who don't have the resources to weather the hardships so casually inflicted by this White House.

I heard from Federal employees who lost their jobs but were more concerned about the veterans and seniors and kids with disabilities they could no

longer serve. I met with medical researchers whose work fighting cancer and pandemics had been abandoned by this White House.

I heard from veterans stunned that they had been fired for no reason and volunteer firefighters who had lost FEMA funding. I heard from a dry cleaner terrified that her family would be deported, even though they have no criminal records and are legally in this country.

I also heard from mental health specialists fighting opioid and fentanyl addiction, whose funding was canceled.

My question for House Republicans is: What does it take to get them to stand up for Americans?

Mr. Speaker, I yield my time but not my outrage.

Mr. Speaker, today House Republicans are trying to avert a funding crisis of their own making by passing a partisan Republican spending bill they drafted behind closed doors. It cuts $13 billion from programs like low-income housing, agricultural inspections, and election security.

This bill would allow President Trump and Elon Musk to supercharge their attacks on essential Federal programs and workers, including Social Security and the FAA, with no input from Congress.

I will highlight how this bill impacts our Nation's veterans, particularly in light of the administration's recent actions.

Due to the success of the PACT Act, more veterans than ever before have enrolled in VA care, and we should celebrate that success. Instead, this bill reneges on a commitment of $23 billion in healthcare funding for veterans who were exposed to burn pits and Agent Orange.

It also fails to guarantee essential programs within the Veterans Health Administration. Programs like homelessness assistance, mental health care, rural health initiatives, opioid and substance abuse treatment, oncology services, and caregiver support are left undefined and, therefore, subject to cuts or elimination by DOGE and Trump.

This is not an oversight. Our Republican colleagues are supporting this bill because it allows Musk to eliminate more programs without congressional approval.

Mr. Speaker, in just 6 weeks, over 6,000 veterans have been fired from the VA and other Federal programs. Veterans comprise 30 percent of our Federal workforce. They are among the hardest working and most patriotic employees in our country. Nonetheless, Trump has allowed Elon Musk and DOGE to fire thousands of them without cause, and more jobs are on the chopping block; 80,000 at the VA, tens of thousands at the IRS, and 7,000 at Social Security. When DOGE destroys Federal programs, it is not just cutting essential services for American families. It is also firing veterans.

Between deep VA cuts, eliminating funding for veterans' healthcare, and job cuts that disproportionately hit veterans, it appears that the Trump White House has declared war on veterans. Our veterans and their families deserve better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this travesty of a bill and instead pass the clean CR offered by the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the White House's pet project, the department of government inefficiency, otherwise known as DOGI.

For the past month, our Federal workers and agencies have been assaulted by a dilettante billionaire empowered by President Trump to muck about in Americans' lives and Federal agencies.

Americans are justifiably concerned that these unelected intruders are acting as judge and jury on people's lives and livelihoods as they gleefully and illegally feed tens of thousands of jobs and vital programs into a woodchipper.

This billionaire and his tech bros claim to have found billions in fraud, waste, and inefficiency, but their methods and results are shrouded in secrecy. When they hype their claim on Twitter or the White House press room, independent review has shown that their claims are false or riddled with errors.

Buying condoms for Gaza?

It didn't happen.

Social Security payments to people who are 150 years old?

Nope.

Mr. Speaker, $800 billion in savings on one contract?

Oops. Maybe $800 million, they are not really sure.

Absolutely nothing adds up.

These DOGI efforts have introduced fraud, waste, and inefficiency into every agency they have touched with their invasions, freezes, and suspensions.

Federal workers have been fired then rehired as their functions were quickly proven to be indispensable rather than nonessential. Employees have been bombarded with weird emails that threaten them with termination if they don't accept a sketchy buyout or snitch on their colleagues and with demands that they interrupt their real work to do make-work for review by people who have no understanding or interest in public service or government functions.

Elon Musk's DOGI efforts are disrupting critical medical research and treatments, foreign aid, veterans' care, criminal investigations, and health, housing and human services across the Nation and beyond.

It takes a remarkable combination of arrogance and stupidity to think that this is the best use of time for our intelligence officers, VA workers, air

traffic controllers, FBI agents, and everyone else upon whom our Nation depends to do their jobs well.

If this is what bringing business acumen to government function looks like, then it is pretty clear we need to prevent our government from becoming a dumpster fire like X or one of Trump's corrupt corporations.

We can't afford it, and the American people can't afford it.

Mr. Speaker, it is well past time that Congress removed Mr. Musk and his DOGI minions from our government and get down to doing the peoples' business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to urge Federal workers in Pennsylvania and across the Nation to exercise extreme caution as they consider the bogus buyout plan that the White House is pressuring them to accept.

In a memo to Federal workers last week, Trump's Office of Personnel Management notified Federal workers across the country that they had just over a week, until tomorrow, February 6, to voluntarily quit their jobs in exchange for keeping pay and benefits for 8 months. The memo threatened that if they refused the offer, their jobs might no longer exist.

Tens of thousands of Federal workers in the Philadelphia region received that email and were rightly concerned. The workers impacted by the memo include those who care for our veterans, protect our ports and airports, fight corruption and drug traffickers, and make sure that our food is safe to eat, that our air is clean, and that our water is safe to drink.

The OPM memo is one in a series of directives by the Trump White House aimed at gutting the Federal Government and the critical services it provides to Americans in order to justify massive tax cuts for billionaires and wealthy corporations. We have already seen illegal firings of hundreds of career civil servants and unconstitutional attempts to shutter entire agencies.

Union leaders immediately began raising the alarm that the buyout offer could be a scam. Congress has not authorized or funded these radical cuts to the government workforce and services, and employees could be left without the pay, benefits, and protections to which they are entitled by law.

The proposed workforce reductions would make it impossible for the Federal Government to deliver the services that Congress has authorized and Americans deserve. They would, however, make it easier for large corporations to take advantage of consumers and employees and to pollute the environment.

The unions have filed suit to protect their employees, and yesterday, 12 State attorneys general, including those in New Jersey and Delaware, issued a warning to Federal employees across the country that the buyout offer was misleading and should be viewed with caution.

Amidst the concern about the legality and impact of this unauthorized buyout, our colleagues from across the aisle, at both the State and Federal levels, have gone missing in action. Republicans control both the House and Senate in Washington, and we would welcome their help to stand up for the Constitution, for our constituents, and for Federal workers.

We will continue to raise the alarm and do everything possible to protect Americans and our Constitution from the worst abuses of this administration and its billionaire buddies because construction workers and contractors in our area know that the Trump corporation never kept its promises with respect to pay and meeting its obligations.

Mr. Speaker, the whole world knows that Twitter became a dumpster fire after Elon Musk tried to impact the exact types of reductions that we are seeing here, so I am issuing this warning to our constituents across the Delaware Valley.

Madam Speaker, we are here again because Republicans have prioritized a bill designed to make headlines, not good law.

H.R. 21 is designed to mislead the public about those who need abortion care and the doctors who provide that care.

Let's be clear. As stated, the law of the land is that doctors have an obligation to provide appropriate medical care to their patients, including infants, and no one here is advocating for infanticide.

This bill goes further than restating the current law, and it is our job here to read the fine print. This bill would create harsh criminal and financial penalties for doctors and clinicians providing medically necessary and appropriate care to their patients.

As Representative Kennedy's heartbreaking testimony just made clear, every pregnancy is different. Patients and providers have to be able to make the healthcare decisions that are right for their families without politicians mandating a one-size-fits-all approach and threatening healthcare providers who disagree.

Republican extremists can continue attacking healthcare providers and women's fundamental freedoms, but we are going to keep fighting to ensure that women can make their own healthcare decisions.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing but unsurprising that House Republicans have made it their top priority in their new Congress to pass a bill, H.R. 28, designed to generate headlines rather than solve actual problems.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the serious flaws in this bill several times, including last night in the Rules Committee, but it is worth noting that since the House last considered this bill, it has been altered with an increasingly ironic amendment.

The amendment added mandatory imprisonment for people accused of assaulting a law enforcement officer. I say this amendment is ironic because yesterday, just hours after taking the oath of office, President Trump granted mass pardons for over 1,200 January 6 MAGA rioters who had been convicted. President Trump also ordered the dismissal of cases of hundreds more, including hundreds who assaulted police officers with bats, poles,

bear spray, explosives, and other weapons.

Over 140 officers were hurt that day, with injuries including crushed spinal disks, traumatic brain injuries, heart attacks, and strokes, while they bravely defended the Capitol and those who work here. Some lost their lives or became permanently disabled after sustaining injuries and horrific trauma at the hands of fellow citizens during the MAGA attack on January 6, 2021.

In issuing those pardons, President Trump put the Presidential seal of approval on political violence, so long as it supports him, and even if it is directed against law enforcement.

Just to be clear, there was no case-by-case review of these convictions. This is a blanket pardon. We are already seeing the fruits of that incredibly dangerous act of pardoning the people who attacked the Constitution, this Capitol, and the police officers and people within it.

Among those attackers are dangerous felons who are not chastened or remorseful or reformed. They feel emboldened. One of them, Daniel Charles Ball, has just been rearrested, one day after his January 6 case was dismissed, on new weapons charges.

Another, the infamous MAGA supporter known as the QAnon Shaman, tweeted Monday: I got a pardon baby. Thank you, President Trump. Now I am going to buy some motha f'ing guns.

These pardons show an utter disrespect for law enforcement, our criminal justice system, and the rule of law. They have been rightly condemned by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Fraternal Order of Police, among other police organizations, but virtually every House Republican has turned their backs on our police and cowered in silence rather than denounce the shameful decision to put those criminals back on our streets.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to oppose this rule and this bill.

I seek unanimous consent to include in the Record the Joint International Association of Chiefs of Police and The Fraternal Order of Police Statement on the Recent Presidential Pardons dated January 21, 2025.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 4610, a bill that would amend chapter III of title 36 of the United States Code, which codifies various national symbols to designate the bald eagle as our national bird.

The bald eagle, native to North America, is a longstanding and cherished symbol, as well as one for whom football fans in my district share a special affection. However, it may surprise people to know that the law does not already designate the bald eagle as our national bird.

In 1782, the bald eagle was adopted as part of the Coat of Arms for the Great Seal of the United States. It has been incorporated into the Seals of the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the President and Vice President of the United States, and various government departments and agencies.

It is also deeply embedded into our culture as a symbol of patriotism, reflecting the strength, majesty, and grace of our great Nation.

However, by the 1960s, this powerful symbol of American freedom was on its way to extinction due to the combined impact of environmental hazards and habitat laws.

In the late 1970s, the bald eagle was designated as endangered in many of the lower 48 States. Today, its population has recovered significantly, thanks to targeted conservation measures spearheaded by the Federal Government and private individuals. These included habitat protection, the banning of certain poisons and pesticides, and captive breeding programs, all of which led to the bald eagle being removed from the endangered species list and to its becoming a symbol of how the Endangered Species Act can save wildlife from extinction.

The bald eagle population in the lower 48 States has increased from 417 nesting pairs in 1963 to more than 71,400 nesting pairs and 316,700 individual birds today. In bringing this bill to the floor, we applaud the efforts of Senators Amy Klobuchar, Cynthia Lummis, Markwayne Mullin, and Tina Smith, as well as Brad Finstad and Angie Craig.

I urge the House to pass this legislation to designate the bald eagle as the national bird, or as we say in Philadelphia, Go Birds.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, I urge all Members to pass it, and send it to the President's desk.

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 today in strong support of S. 3998, the Federal Judiciary Stabilization Act of 2024, a bill to convert 10 temporary Federal judgeships to permanent seats.

Our country is facing a serious judicial shortage and has for some time. The last bill creating Federal district court judgeships was passed into law over 30 years ago.

Since that time, the Federal caseload has ballooned, and it has become increasingly difficult to ensure that Americans are able to have their day in court. This need spurred Republicans and Democrats to seek passage of the JUDGES Act earlier this year before the November election.

That bill was predicated on an agreement to give 25 judicial appointments to the unknown at that time next President. I was disappointed that Republican leadership held the bill until after the election in order to ensure that their candidate controlled the appointments.

It was very disappointing to have politics introduced on what should have been a bipartisan bill. We can't go back in time and pass the JUDGES Act before the election, but we can pass this legislation on a bipartisan basis to prevent the loss of 10 Federal judgeships when the current temporary judgeships expire.

Temporary judgeships are designed to help district courts reduce unusually large backlogs. Short-term judgeships look very similar to permanent ones. They are created by Congress, and the judges are appointed by the President to a lifetime judgeship.

However, after a temporary judgeship expires, the next person to retire or otherwise leave the bench in that judicial district is simply not replaced. That is exactly what will happen if these 10 temporary judgeships are allowed to lapse.

When a judge retires, no new nominees will be sent to Congress. Those judicial districts will lose judgeships on which they have relied for at least two decades, and Americans living in those districts will have trouble accessing justice.

We may call these judgeships temporary, but it is clear they are needed on a permanent basis. The 10 at issue today on S. 3998 have been reauthorized again and again. Since they were first authorized over 20 years ago, our Nation has grown, and with it, the demands on our Federal judicial system have grown too.

Making these 10 temporary judgeships permanent will ensure that people living and working in those communities have a Federal court system that is more responsive to their needs.

The Federal Judiciary Stabilization Act is a product of bipartisan, bicameral work. I thank my colleagues in both Chambers, Senators Mazie Hirono and Ted Cruz along with Representatives Ted Lieu and Lance Gooden for their hard work on this bill.

The Senate passed this bill in April, so if the House passes it today, it will go directly to the President's desk. I am proud to support this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will strengthen the rule of law and access to justice, and provide stability to our judiciary by ensuring the number of Federal judges doesn't decrease when these temporary judgeships expire.

Each of these judicial districts has relied on these temporary judgeships for decades, and it is long past time that we make them permanent. This bill is a small, but meaningful step toward making our courthouse doors accessible to all Americans, regardless of where they live. I hope we can replicate this bipartisan work in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and send it to the President's desk, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a rule that demonstrates much of what is wrong with the 118th Congress under this Republican majority, primarily a failure to do the people's business in a timely and serious manner.

This rule has three bills. First, there is S. 4199, which addresses serious understaffing in our Federal courts, which impedes access to justice for all Americans. This carefully negotiated, bipartisan bill should have passed months ago, but it has been delayed in the House to seek partisan political advantage in the staffing of those new positions.

Next, we have the Liberty in Laundry Act, part of the House Republican spin cycle to undermine energy efficiency standards for common household appliances. Like the companion bills that have been offered throughout this term, it would hamper the process of setting energy efficiency standards upon which consumers rely to save money and operate their homes more efficiently.

Finally, and most distressingly, this rule puts forward a politicized version of the National Defense Authorization Act. For 60 years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to draft the NDAA, coming together to put our troops, veterans, and national security above political considerations. The FY25 NDAA breaks from this tradition.

I am deeply opposed to a provision in this NDAA that will prohibit the children of U.S. servicemembers from receiving medical treatment if they are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This provision has no business being in an NDAA. At a time when we are struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, ensuring access to medical care for servicemembers and their families is more important than ever, but this bill, as written, will take away medically necessary care.

The evidence is clear. Gender-affirming care of various types is life-changing and lifesaving for the children who need it. Our soldiers need to be able to focus on their missions, not worrying whether their children are able to get the medical treatment that they need.

In order to illustrate the impact of this political attack, I would like to share the following story from a military spouse whose family would be harmed by this provision of the NDAA. They write:

My spouse has proudly served in the U.S. Air Force for 22

years, dedicating their life to protecting our country. Over

the years, our family has moved across the Nation and the

world, embracing the challenges and opportunities that

military life brings.

One of the greatest blessings of this life has been the

assurance of quality healthcare for our family. It has been a

cornerstone of our stability and a key reason why my spouse

continues to serve. Knowing we could depend on the military

healthcare system gave us the peace of mind to focus on the

sacrifices required of us as a military family.

However, I am now writing to you with great concern and a

heavy heart. Recent legislative efforts to restrict or

eliminate access to gender-affirming care threaten not only

the well-being of my trans child but also the very values of

dignity and respect that our military stands for.

This care has been transformative for my child, giving them

confidence, joy, and a sense of self that we had only

glimpsed before. To have this vital care stripped away feels

cruel and unjust. For lawmakers to target military families,

families who already sacrifice so much for this Nation, only

compounds the pain.

My spouse has given 22 years to the service of this

country, and now it feels as though the country is turning

its back on us.

I am thankful to this military family for sharing their story.

The ability to obtain medical care for one's child, including gender- affirming care, should be between a parent, a child, and their doctor, and politicians should stay the hell out of it.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I oppose today's rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss Project 2025, the extremist playbook to impose a radical, rightwing agenda upon Americans. It is called Project 2025 because it is designed to be implemented by Trump and his allies if he returns to the White House next year.

The authors of Project 2025 have even begun recruiting people to apply for jobs to help implement this scheme because, as they detail in Project 2025, they plan to fire career civil servants and replace them with partisans who swear loyalty to Trump rather than to our country or our Constitution, a move, by the way, that the former President tried to implement by executive order before he left office.

When the authors of Project 2025 decided to publish their radical agenda, they must not have realized that their ideas are so extreme that Americans would reject them as being, frankly, un-American.

That is why the former President and many of those allies are now trying to distance themselves from Project 2025, but they can't because their fingerprints are all over Project 2025.

Nowhere is that clearer than in Project 2025's plan to ban abortion and restrict women's reproductive freedom. The truth is the extremists who plotted with Trump to overturn Roe v. Wade were never going to stop there.

Chapter 14 of Project 2025 outlines their plans. It was written by a member of the Trump administration, and you can read it yourself on pages 449 through 502.

Project 2025 would impose a nationwide ban on medication abortion by revoking FDA approval of that drug.

It would resurrect a 19th century law, the Comstock Act, to ban the mailing of abortion care materials and criminalize their use.

Project 2025 would rip away access to basic contraception. It would end emergency room reproductive healthcare for women whose health and lives are at risk.

Project 2025 would end IVF as it is currently practiced. It would require the government to monitor women's pregnancies and miscarriages.

Project 2025 is beyond extreme. It is dangerous. Democrats will continue to stand firm and united against this radical agenda and to stand up for Americans' reproductive freedom because we trust women to make decisions about their own bodies, not politicians.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think so. I mean, it doesn't matter what aspect of our Federal Government you are concerned about.

If you are concerned about clean air and clean water, the idea that they are just going to take out all the scientists and have political hacks deciding how many parts per million of poison can be in our water and air, that is just frightening.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, that is the whole purpose is to have experts making those decisions. I thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order.

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

Madam Speaker, today's rule is a tale of two Congresses.

On the one hand, we have the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which is a bipartisan bill, the result of good faith negotiations between Republicans and Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee to support our servicemembers and provide for our national defense. This NDAA accommodates the diverse interests of Members of the House in ways that, while inevitably not satisfying everyone on every point, represent compromises that ensure the bill can become law.

Attached to this rule are two nakedly partisan and groundless contempt resolutions based on manufactured allegations, conspiracy theories, and bad faith arguments designed solely to smear President Biden in the lead-up to the 2024 election.

In the first example, we see Congress at its best. In the second, we see Congress at its worst.

First, the NDAA: The fiscal year 2025 NDAA is a solid bipartisan package designed to support our servicemembers and provide for our national defense.

I applaud the work of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their evenhanded, bipartisan work to produce a bill that addresses priorities and concerns from all across the country. Like all negotiated bills, there are policies I agree with and disagree with, but that is how negotiation and compromise work.

Of particular note is that this year's NDAA would implement long- overdue reforms to improve military recruitment and retention, a growing concern as our armed services have struggled to meet recruiting targets over the past decade.

The reforms in this bill are the result of an in-depth, bipartisan study led by Representatives Don Bacon and Chrissy Houlahan into the factors impacting recruitment and retention. It should be no surprise that the main concerns facing our servicemembers are the same as those of many American families: wanting to earn enough to support a family and to afford good housing, childcare, and medical care.

This NDAA increases pay and benefits for junior servicemembers. It fixes dilapidated military housing. It increases military housing benefits. It fully funds childcare assistance programs so that all eligible military families can receive the benefits. It strengthens programs to support military spouses.

It is a disgrace that we have servicemembers living in poverty, servicemembers and member families who go hungry, and servicemembers who aren't able to take care of their children and families.

I am glad that the Armed Services Committee came together on these reforms. They will go a long way in fighting poverty and hunger and will encourage more people to enlist in military service.

This NDAA also makes significant investments in our national defense. The bill funds a range of programs to support our domestic defense industrial base. These programs will help maintain and create jobs throughout the country and ensure that we can meet the demand for munitions and weapons systems to support our own military needs and those of our allies.

Finally, this NDAA makes needed cuts to wasteful defense programs to keep the top-line spending in the bill at a flat 1 percent increase over last year's amount.

All in all, while there are plenty of policies that I disagree with, the overall bill is solid and should garner the support of a large majority of House Members.

However, despite the best efforts of our Armed Services colleagues, it looks like House Republican leadership has decided to politicize the NDAA, just as they did last year.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans made in order dozens of rightwing MAGA amendments that will poison the NDAA's bipartisan support. These amendments, many of which are likely to be adopted by the House's extremist Republican majority, would restrict access to abortion care for female servicemembers and block efforts to promote diversity and address discrimination in our armed services.

In doing so, House leadership is, once again, politicizing one of the few remaining areas of bipartisan agreement in the House, while ignoring the real needs of those who serve our country.

Last year, when House Republicans pulled this exact same stunt, it killed bipartisan support for the NDAA for the first time in decades. This week Republicans have decided to repeat that mistake.

Additionally, last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected multiple bipartisan amendments to the bill. Republicans rejected an amendment from a Member of their own party to add 4,000 special immigrant visas to resettle our Afghan allies who supported our troops throughout that conflict and who we promised to protect.

Republicans rejected another Republican amendment to adopt the Major Richard Star Act, which would fix a longstanding prohibition that prevents medically retired veterans from receiving their full earned benefits. That is a provision that has the support of over 300 Members of this House.

Republicans rejected a bipartisan amendment to provide cancer screenings for civilian DOD firefighters, who have been disproportionately exposed to cancer-causing PFAS forever chemicals. These screenings would help detect cancers early and save lives.

Lastly, Republicans rejected an amendment that would ensure that female servicemembers, who place their lives on the line for their country, would have the freedom to access reproductive healthcare when they need it.

Republicans rejected these sensible amendments, prioritizing over two dozen partisan culture war amendments, including amendments to relocate a Confederate monument back to Arlington National Cemetery and to defund DOD efforts to remove white nationalists from our military.

In rejecting other amendments, our Afghan allies, our veterans, our firefighters, and women servicemembers have to take a back seat to the

Madam Speaker, we are all very grateful to the House Armed Services Committee for the bipartisan product that they have put forward here, but as we said before, it is the inclusion of multiple poison pill amendments all put forward by extremists from the House Republican majority and the failure to include both bipartisan and Democratic amendments that are really empowering both this rule and this bill.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

Following the abhorrent Dobbs decision, which ended the protections for reproductive rights provided by Roe v. Wade, many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions, which Republicans have declared numerous times is their goal.

Reproductive healthcare is vital, and denying these rights to millions of women around the country and our servicemembers and their spouses is shameful and dangerous. That is why House Democrats are fighting to protect women, protect doctors, and protect patients who simply want to access and provide needed care.

H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act will prevent States from trampling on women's constitutional rights and keep fundamental healthcare services available across the country.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) to discuss this proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

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

Madam Speaker, I do agree with some of the gentleman's comments about the need to increase pay and benefits for our junior servicemembers and service families, but I have to strongly disagree with his attempts to turn this into an attack on the President.

We have seen multiple reports from experts talking about the challenges that our servicemembers face, and the challenges we see to recruitment are because our economy is so strong that people have other better-paid and better-resourced opportunities under the current economy than they have for years. That has been suppressing recruitment and retention, so I think his economic analysis is a little off.

I did think when he was getting up here, he might be here to speak about some of his amendments that were not being made in order. Last night, the majority of the Rules Committee, the Republican majority, voted unanimously to disallow amendments that would protect our Federal firefighters from cancer-causing PFAS chemicals.

These were bipartisan amendments, and the gentleman from Wisconsin was a cosponsor of them, so I assumed that when he was here today, he was here to speak against the rule. I think perhaps that is the best choice until we have a more bipartisan approach to the amendments that should be made in order.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

As you may have guessed, I strongly oppose this rule. The rule likely guarantees that there will not be bipartisan support for the NDAA, and like last year, this means that the House will get steamrolled by the Senate.

As we have discussed this morning, the two contempt resolutions included in this rule are not a serious legislative effort but a manufactured dispute between House Republicans and the Attorney General, which threatens to undermine rather than promote the rule of law.

We would be a lot better off with a clean rule for the NDAA, stripped of all the partisan nonsense, so we can focus on our core constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.

Conducting oversight over our Armed Forces and funding our national security are two of Congress' most important responsibilities, but the kind of politicization we see from the House Republicans is disrespectful to the American people, unbecoming to this Chamber, and signals to our servicemembers that we don't have their backs when they need it the most.

As the NDAA goes to the floor this week, I call on my colleagues to reject the poison pill amendments that have been presented and maintain the bill's bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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