Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, during rollcall Vote No. 669 on H.R. 5894, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Cynthia Vernon Warren.

Cynthia came to New Mexico in 1958 and fell in love with our beautiful State. While she lived in Albuquerque for over 50 years, Cynthia had a soft spot for the village of Truchas, frequently visiting the awe-inspiring Sangre de Cristo Mountains. It is also where many of her dearest lifelong friends lived.

Cynthia was an educator. She worked hard to support communities in the South Valley. She taught English and reading, and started the English as a second language program at Rio Grande High School. She was a leader and served our kids as the chair of the reading and languages department.

Cynthia also had a passion for politics, especially social and environmental justice issues and civil rights. Along with her husband, Bill, who served in the State legislature, Cynthia believed that she was here on this Earth and in our communities to work for a better future.

When Cynthia passed away last July, we lost a beloved wife, mother, aunt, and member of the community. Today, it is an honor to pay tribute to a woman who touched so many lives and so many New Mexicans with love, care, and a passion for service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because labor is in the House, the people's House, as we stand with workers all across America who are on strike, especially our United Auto Workers, who are on the front lines right now.

As a daughter of labor, this is a powerful moment in history. Across the Nation, across sectors, American workers are tired of giving their lives for their jobs every single day and getting less in return. They are standing up, organizing, and demanding better pay, better conditions, and better benefits.

This movement is about people, about writers, actors, postal workers, and autoworkers who are paving the path for future generations and receiving just compensation.

This is the moment. I am proud to stand in solidarity with our United Auto Workers and every worker across America who is collectively bargaining for the pay, benefits, and conditions that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends to stay strong and keep up the fight.

Mr. Speaker, as the people of New Mexico and the world are grieving Governor Richardson, I rise today here in the House, where he served, to honor his life and legacy.

Governor Richardson has left an indelible mark on New Mexico politics and public service. Throughout his career as a Governor, Member of Congress, U.N. Ambassador, Secretary of Energy, and working in international diplomacy, anyone who knew Governor Richardson knows that he lived big, he laughed big, and he loved big.

He mentored a generation of leaders in New Mexico and served our great State and Nation to the very end. I personally met Governor Richardson as a young person when he was my Congressman and, like so many others, was catalyzed onto a path of public service on behalf of our State and our communities.

Governor Richardson's loss will be felt deeply across our State and across the planet, and today, my prayers go to his family and to everyone in New Mexico who is remembering and grieving his loss and the loss of this giant in New Mexico politics.

Rest in peace, Governor. Today, we honor your legacy here in your home in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to this rule. What we should be focusing on is actually funding the government, which is our constitutional duty. Instead, we are here debating a ridiculous rule on the eve of a Republican shutdown manufactured by extremists in the GOP. I remind everyone that the last time the government was shut down, it cost the American people $11 billion.

Now, the very same people who tried to tank our economy just months ago over the debt ceiling are threatening a government shutdown that would cost our country billions of dollars and threaten the economies, the livelihoods, and the people of my State, in New Mexico, with far- reaching consequences.

Mr. Speaker, thousands of New Mexicans, Federal employees, Active- Duty military, and others would go unpaid, and it is shameful. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the amazing Mr. Ian Fluellen, a dedicated member of my team over the last 2 years.

Since June of 2021, Ian has fiercely and loyally served the people of New Mexico's First Congressional District. He has served as a dedicated legislative staffer for nearly a decade, serving in the offices of Congressmen Jim Costa, G.K. Butterfield, Mark DeSaulnier, and myself.

He was raised in Las Vegas and received his bachelor's degree in political science and government at the University of Nevada, Reno. His love for government and making the world a better place is what propelled him into a career in public service.

During Ian's time in my office, he has proven to be a talented, brilliant, and truly extraordinary staffer. He has been instrumental in guiding my office, leading our legislative team, serving the constituents of our State, managing our D.C. office, mentoring young staffers, and helping them to thrive.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New Mexico's First Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and thanking Ian for his nearly 9 years of service on Capitol Hill.

His quick wit and constant support will be missed every single day in our office. I wish him all the best. We will miss him very much.

Madam Speaker, I stand before you today reporting for duty to our country, to our communities, to our Constitution, and most importantly, for New Mexico.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I can't say the same for my Republican colleagues right here, who hightailed it out of town because they decided that their weekend plans were more important than showing up for the American people.

It is reckless. It is disturbing. It is fundamentally irresponsible.

Here we are, on the verge of an economic crisis, and they are demanding that we cut programs for housing, food, and our veterans.

Let me say this to my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you are so concerned about people getting to work, how about you show up to do your own job?

How about you show up for the American people?

How about you show up and do the job you were elected to do?

Let's pass a clean debt ceiling and ensure that we save our economy and serve our communities.

Madam Speaker, I stand before you today to defend the very survival of New Mexicans; families like my own, working families, who work hard every single day and still struggle to make ends meet, who still struggle to put food on the table, and who still struggle to put a roof over their head. These are families who depend on vital services and programs like mine that enabled me not only to survive but to go to school and to stand here today as your Congresswoman.

These programs save lives, and yet the GOP is attempting to hold the entire country, New Mexico, our families, and our economy hostage if we do not gut these vital, lifesaving programs or they will tank the economy to achieve their political ends.

In return for upholding the full faith and credit of the United States and paying our bills as a Nation, right now Republicans are demanding that we cut funding for food, for housing, for Tribal programs, for education, and for countless other lifesaving programs that our families depend on.

I am here today with my colleagues from the Progressive Caucus to say that we will stand and we will defend these programs because our families' lives are not bargaining chips in this crusade to cut government programs and services. Their lives and dignity matter.

Just 2 weeks ago, I was home in our community and stood with members of our community at the Albuquerque Healthcare for the Homeless memorial wall. This wall is covered with tiles with names of members of our community who have been lost to homelessness: mothers, grandmothers, fathers, children, aunties, and uncles. These are people who were loved and people who were lost. They are people whose lives mattered in our community and were lost to the senseless impact of homelessness.

Make no mistake, Madam Speaker. The programs that the GOP is currently proposing to slash will impact thousands of New Mexicans who are currently facing housing insecurity and millions of lives across this country, gutting programs around housing and food insecurity.

These are families who could face eviction from their homes because they no longer have support. This includes families with children, our elders, veterans, and those with disabilities. This is not only wrong, it is immoral because housing is not a luxury. Housing is a fundamental human right.

I also cannot believe that I am standing here today in defense of veterans' programs as well because the GOP is currently proposing to cut our veterans' programs by double digits. These are programs that serve our heroes who have dedicated their lives and put their lives on the front line in the defense of our country, our national security, and the freedoms that all of us enjoy.

We not only have a sacred obligation to help and preserve those programs, but to ensure that the countless veterans who have already served our country can access the care that they deserve.

These cuts could impact 81,000 healthcare professionals within the VA system. That means putting our Nation's heroes' lives at risk and creating even longer lines to see healthcare professionals. That is 30 million less visits affecting over 60,000 veterans in New Mexico alone.

Our veterans bravely served our Nation, and it is our responsibility to defend these programs because their care is not up for debate.

Republicans are not only proposing to slash these programs, they are also proposing to cut other healthcare programs. In fact, more than 60 percent of New Mexicans depend on the lifesaving care that they receive through Medicaid and Medicare or both. If the GOP were successful in putting through these draconian cuts in the default for America act, more than 280,000 New Mexicans would be at risk of losing their health insurance, and more than 21 million Americans would be without access to care.

This won't just affect healthcare. It will affect the ability of our elders to get access to their Social Security.

For all of you out there who are listening, you know how vital those Social Security payments are to making sure that our elders can eat and put a roof over their head and also because you paid into that system, and it is yours.

Growing up, my family experienced many of the same challenges that so many countless New Mexicans and Americans struggle with today. The programs that we are talking about that would be gutted through these heartless cuts would not only have affected families like mine and my ability to survive and stand here today, they will affect millions of Americans. So this is very personal to me.

Lifting the debt ceiling should not be a crisis. It has been routine for decades. In fact, under both Republicans and Democrats, we have raised the debt ceiling, we have paid our bills, and we have made good on our responsibility and our fiscal responsibilities as a country.

It is dangerous to play games with the full faith and credit of our Nation and our economy, but it is heartless to propose to gut these programs.

As the Congresswoman for New Mexico's First Congressional District, I ask my Republican colleagues to consider what these programs mean, the millions of lives that are standing at risk, the millions who will be impacted, those who could lose their housing, and the children whose mouths will not be fed.

This is what is at stake in this hostage situation, and we will not stand idly by because we are fighting. We are fighting not only for the full faith and credit of the United States and our economy, but for the working families of this country to ensure that we do not balance the budget and make good on our fiscal responsibilities on the backs of working people because we

were elected to serve our communities and to serve our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a fierce defender from New Mexico to support this amendment to defend our Social Security and our Medicare.

As our colleagues across the aisle are trying to gut Social Security and Medicare, Democrats are looking for long-term solutions not only to expand these lifesaving programs but to ensure that they are solvent for generations to come.

These programs are lifelines for people in New Mexico. In fact, in New Mexico, we have the highest share of individuals who are on Medicaid by population in the country. That is 873,000 New Mexicans who depend on Medicaid. Our children in New Mexico depend on Medicaid. Over half of our children are on Medicaid.

These programs save lives.

I ask my colleagues: What kind of cruel ransom note are they putting forward that would gut these programs, that would gut programs that feed our children, and that would gut our environmental programs in the name of raising our debt ceiling?

Mr. Speaker, I ask: What is it that we are actually trying to do here today?

That is why I oppose the underlying bill that we are debating today and why I support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to return to the work of the people who elected us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand with our trans kids and their freedom to be who they are. To all of our trans and LGBTQ+ kids who are watching today, let me just say that we see you, that we love you, and that you belong.

Now, let's be clear about what this bill actually is: It is about legislating hate in the name of advancing a political agenda. Now, our colleagues are trying to claim that they are out here defending the rights of women as they are waging a campaign to take away our reproductive freedoms, to ban books, and now to bully our kids. It is disgusting.

I am proud to be a New Mexican, and I am proud to be from a State that is defending the rights of our children, of our LGBTQ+ community, and our reproductive rights, because in New Mexico, we stand with trans kids, and we stand in the fiercest opposition to this bill.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ensure that the American people and every single New Mexican back home in my home State knows exactly what this bill is all about.

H.R. 1 is not a bill to cut costs and unlock American energy. H.R. 1 is a blatant giveaway of public lands, public waters, and public minerals to the highest bidder.

It guts environmental laws, it opens oil and gas leasing to mining and multinational companies, and it will send our communities and our laws back to the 19th century--the 19th century--to 1847 specifically, when we opened the West through the hardrock mining law to minerals claims and multinational corporations, who took advantage of our communities, who dumped tailings piles into our rivers and our streams, and who strip-mined sacred and ancestral lands of our indigenous communities.

That is right. This bill would take us back before the automobile was invented, before we had electricity, before women had the right to vote in this country, and before New Mexico even became a territory of the United States when our communities, lands, and waters were stripped away from them and given to the highest bidder.

So let me be clear: This legislation is not about lowering costs. It is not about lessening the burden at the pump. It is not about lowering costs for our families.

These are just talking points that have been provided by fossil fuel and mining companies and by their allies across the aisle who see the opportunity to strip away environmental regulations and vast amounts of public resources, lands, and waters for private profit.

In fact, this bill will increase the deficit, robbing our communities of more than a century of hard-fought environmental wins to protect our lands and waters.

That is why House Democrats have a clear message today: Not on our watch.

Let's be clear and talk exactly about what this bill is and does. My friends, Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the aisle want to claim that this bill will create jobs, that more drilling and mining will lower costs, and that it is going to somehow magically solve our global critical mineral shortage.

Let me be clear, as somebody whose parents worked in the energy industry. My father was a welder in the oil and gas fields; my mother, a crane mechanic at a coal-fired power plant.

As somebody who spent over two decades of my career working on natural resources issues, let me say it loud and clear: We cannot mine and drill our way to solve these problems.

In fact, this bill not only does not help our communities but puts our Nation and our planet at risk. Scientists from across the world released a report just last week that made clear that if we do not take significant action right now to curb global emissions, we will cross a global tipping point and catastrophic global climate change.

This bill would threaten our global planetary health. In fact, this legislation, which the President has already said he would veto, would open vast swaths of our land and our water to oil and gas drilling, to mining, not to lower costs, but to line the pockets of wealthy oil companies.

In the name of streamlining, it would gut environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, a piece of bipartisan legislation that Richard Nixon signed; the Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act.

It would gut protections for our communities to be able to actually have a say in what happens in their own lands and waters. It would make it easier for large corporations to pollute and dump toxins without consequence.

Finally, this legislation not only does not lower costs but raises the deficit by billions of dollars.

So I ask the American people and I ask New Mexicans: Is this what you want Congress working on, a 175-page bill filled with thinly veiled corporate giveaways that gut our environmental laws, that cut our communities out, and that would line the pockets of private corporations?

No. The American people want clean air. They want clean water. They want climate action. They want a planet that they can leave to their children.

That is why Democrats and the President fought to pass the Inflation Reduction Act just a few months ago in this Chamber.

That bill makes the largest investment in climate action ever in the history of this country and ever in the history of this planet.

Our bill, the bill we passed to address the global climate crisis, will create millions of jobs. It will rebuild our infrastructure and our local economies.

It will invest in our communities and the resilience of our ecosystems. It will reduce household costs like our friends across the aisle are trying to claim with this giveaway bill.

Guess what? It reduces the deficit, all while putting us on a path to cutting carbon emissions in this country by 40 percent by 2030.

Guess what else happened? Not a single Republican in this Chamber voted for that bill. Not one. Not one Member on the other side of the aisle voted to lower costs, voted for a clean energy future, voted to protect the environment, voted to protect our communities.

We cannot drill and mine our way to a clean energy and climate secure future.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to pass H.R. 1.

We cannot afford to send our communities back to the 19th century. We cannot afford to let private companies deforest and strip-mine our lands.

We cannot afford to go back to a time when rivers were on fire, and companies dumped toxins into our groundwater with impunity.

That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation because the path is clear. We must take climate action now and build a clean energy economy and leave a livable planet for our communities, for the future, and for our Nation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which is, as the gentleman has described, a simple training requirement to ensure that this act is implemented correctly. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing in and of itself; that is, it would be if the actual underlying bill that it seeks to modify was reasonable and not some sort of bizarre, Orwellian doublespeak designed to mislead the American people about what this bill is actually about.

Nothing about this bill is reasonable. Nothing about this bill, the process of how it has been brought to the floor, and how it has misled the people of our country about what is happening is normal. It does not secure the freedom of speech or any other freedoms of the American people. It actually endangers them.

In fact, it imperils our democracy by handcuffing the ability of law enforcement, national security, and intelligence officials to provide factual, critical information to social media companies and the public in order to prevent crimes or to ensure that election fraud tampering does not occur and that there is no foreign interference with our elections.

This is not some unintended consequence of the bill; rather, it is the entire point of this bill, as my Republican colleagues have conceded.

When we marked up this bill in the Oversight Committee, Chairman Comer produced two emails from a single FBI agent to Twitter that he said were ``the purpose of the bill.'' You might be asking, what terrible censorship was the FBI trying to achieve in those emails? When Democrats were finally provided with the email content, it was an email to Twitter from the FBI identifying fraudulent election tweets. In fact, the content identified that there were multiple tweets that were misleading about the time, place, or manner of voting in the upcoming election.

This is the smoking gun that they are claiming is taking away our freedoms--that is right--election misinformation that was meant to deceive American voters, which the FBI flagged as part of their course of business. They would like to hamper the ability of our FBI and our law enforcement to be able to do their jobs.

This is, of course, the same party that has engaged in voter suppression for countless decades, so we probably shouldn't be surprised.

We know that the American people not only want us to protect their voting rights and their basic rights to express themselves, their freedoms as protected by the Bill of Rights and our Constitution, but we also want our public servants to be able to do their jobs and to do their jobs with integrity and ensure the integrity of our election system.

Democrats sought to try to address some of the grave flaws in this bill and address the supposed intent of the bill by submitting 43 separate amendments for floor consideration. In fact, only one was made in order.

Republicans, on the other hand, submitted 20 amendments, many like this one, ignoring the dangers of the underlying bill and not wanting to improve it to protect American freedoms but simply tinker around the edges to make it more enforceable.

My question is, why are we voting on this amendment and not Congressman Torres' amendment to ensure the bill does not prohibit Federal officials from preventing and addressing cyberattacks?

Why are we voting on this amendment and not Congressman Lynch's amendment to ensure the bill does not prohibit Federal officials from protecting our national security?

Why are we voting on this amendment and not Congressman Goldman's amendment to ensure that the bill does not prohibit Federal officials from fighting foreign election interference, as occurred in the 2016 election?

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and oppose this bill. It does nothing to improve a deeply dangerous bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I will take a moment to reiterate that this bill is not as it appears or the majority is proposing it appears to the American public.

This bill is not about defending the basic right to free speech and our constitutional rights. This bill is about hamstringing the ability of Federal law enforcement, our national security staff, and others in the Federal Government from protecting our country from election interference.

This amendment would make the enforcement of that bill stronger by requiring training to further censor and allow for interference in our elections.

I am opposed to this amendment, and I rise in opposition to the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, our inspectors general conduct vital work on behalf of the American people. They help to safeguard taxpayer dollars and government operations from waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and they investigate what occurs inside our Federal agencies. To ask them to waste their finite resources and staffing on an annual reporting requirement for a bill that actually threatens the freedom of the American people and the American public and electoral system is gravely antithetical to their missions and their purpose and is, itself, an act of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Nobody could act in good conscience to support this amendment.

One of the most concerning aspects of this bill is that it creates a waiting period of at least 72 hours before law enforcement officials can take action to prevent or respond to most crimes or threats they identify, either on or involving social media platforms.

Let's imagine that you are a Federal official, an FBI investigator, and you see information being shared online that indicates that a sexual assault is imminent, some sort of violence is about to occur, there is some sort of election fraud about to occur. Under this bill, you would have a decision to make. Do you write and file a lengthy report to Congress and then wait 72 hours until it is too late, or do you act immediately, knowing that you might be subject to a $50,000 fine or might be barred from Federal service for 10 years because you reported something that has been tagged as censored speech under this bill and amendment?

Thanks to the excellent bipartisan work of Congresswoman Houlahan and Congresswoman Mace, we could have been considering a very different kind of amendment here on the floor today, one that would have made sure that this bill still allowed enforcement officials to act immediately in this exact case.

My Republican colleagues would not allow this amendment to come to the floor today, choosing, instead, to waste our time and the time and resources of our Federal agencies on this amendment. They choose a do- nothing, wasteful reporting requirement over a bipartisan amendment that would protect the safety, in many instances, even the lives, of women and Americans across the country. It is outrageous.

I believe that this bill and this amendment are dangerous, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, in closing, I will note one final time that this bill and its proposition are deeply dangerous. It proposes to actually address

free speech and censorship when, in fact, it would hamstring our Federal officials.

This amendment adds dangerous changes to the bill that would make it even more difficult for our Federal officials to do their job.

I am opposed to the amendment, and I am strongly opposed to the bill itself.

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

Mr. Chair, I think we have well established that not only the premise of this bill, but many of the requirements in it, are dangerous for our Federal law enforcement, dangerous to our constitutional rights, dangerous to the American people, and dangerous to our national security and our electoral system.

Yet, the way it is being proposed to the American people is that it will defend their rights and their rights to speak freely under the First Amendment.

During our markup of this bill, we talked about gaslighting. Gaslighting is the act of when somebody in authority actually makes you believe you are crazy because the truth of what is occurring is actually the opposite.

This bill is a dangerous gaslighting of the American people. We will not stand for it. It is dangerous to our democracy. It is dangerous to our elections, and it is dangerous for the people of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud daughter of New Mexico, as a water resources professional, and as a defender of the most basic element that we need to survive, which is water.

In New Mexico, water is life, water is sacred, water is culture, and water is fundamental to everything that we do and everything that we are.

For years, our State and our country and our communities have ridden the roller coaster of regulatory rollbacks on the Clean Water Act, but I never could have imagined that in the year 2023, we would be voting on a bill to gut the rule that protects our streams and rivers and our right to have clean water.

In 2023, just weeks ago, a train derailment in East Palestine sent toxic smoke into the atmosphere, and people were afraid to turn on their taps and drink the water. The American people want clean water. Yet, here we are, weeks later, being forced to take a vote on a bill that would gut a fundamental rule in how the Clean Water Act actually saves our lives.

Water is the most basic element for how we survive as a species. The Clean Water Act was passed because rivers were on fire. In fact, in some of the districts of our Members--who are actually sponsoring this bill--toxic waste and sewage was filling the waterways of these very districts, where children were being poisoned by toxins that were being put in the rivers. Yet, here we are voting for a measure that would leave massive swaths of our waterways exposed, particularly in New Mexico. We are talking about raw sewage, farm waste, and chemicals being dumped in our arroyos and our wetlands.

Let me ask the American people: Is this what you want this body to be working on, gutting the most basic foundation of the protection of our public health and our environment? No, the American people want clean water. They want us to protect our streams and rivers. They want us to protect our farmers and ranchers. They want us to protect their families and their children.

We cannot go back decades, as this measure would take us back, and we cannot gut this fundamental, underlying environmental law that protects the health and safety of our communities.

So wherever you live, whoever you represent, whatever you fight for, know what this bill is actually about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote with clean water and vote against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today after a historic election in New Mexico and across the United States in which voters voted to not only uphold our democracy, our basic rights, but the continued fight to serve our communities. That includes the passage of

Constitutional Amendment 1 to invest in New Mexico's children and ensure that every single child across our State has access to early childhood education and care.

Last week, New Mexicans showed up across the State in every city, in every county, in every community. From Mescalero to Mountainair, from Albuquerque to Anton Chico, from Sandia Pueblo to Santa Rosa, and from Rio Rancho to Roswell and Ruidoso, over 70 percent of New Mexicans voted to invest in early childhood education and care.

New Mexicans believe in our people, they believe in our communities, and they believe that every single child should have what they need to thrive. But we have one more hurdle to cross to make this a reality, and that sits with our body here in Congress.

Because of antiquated laws that were put on the books over a century ago, we must provide concurrence so that our communities are able to tap these funds and make historic investments in our kids.

Today, I urge every single Member of this body to hear our voices, to hear the voices of New Mexicans and our children. New Mexicans want our kids to be able to access the resources they need. They are ready to lead the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to pass this concurring language now without delay and invest in New Mexico, our children, and our future.

{time} 1515

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Stephanie Sherrodd on her recent selection to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) while serving employees of Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico's First Congressional District.

Stephanie has an impressive 24 years of experience in the credit union industry, rising from her work as a marketing intern to the highest levels of credit unions. She has previously served as President/CEO for Texas Dow Employees Credit Union (TDECU) from 2012 to 2021, helping to grow the organization to assets of over $4 billion with 345,000 members. Prior to being named CEO at Texas Dow Employees Credit Union Stephanie served as Vice President of Retail Delivery, Vice President of Diversified Services and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Stephanie is also a proud graduate of her home state's University of Wyoming, receiving her Bachelor of Science in Marketing as well as an MBA.

Stephanie is currently serving as the President and CEO of Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union. She was recently named to the Credit Union Executive Society Hall of Fame and has also served as a board member of the Texas Bowl, National Association of Credit Union Service Organizations, University of Houston Board of Visitors, and as a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Community Depository Institution Advisory Council. She has been recognized by Texas Diversity Magazine with the Houston Power 50 Award and was named a Greater Houston Women's Chamber Breakthrough Woman.

Stephanie has been married to her husband Kevin for 28 years and is a mom to two sons, a Texas A&M Aggie, and a high school senior. She is an active cyclist, runner and outdoor enthusiast as well as a devoted friend who leads with her core values of courage and grace.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Stephanie Sherrodd and wishing her the best of luck in her new role on the NAFCU Board of Directors. I look forward to working with her in this regard.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act as wildfires have been burning across my home State of New Mexico and our life-giving Rio Grande has dried for the first time in decades in significant stretches of the river. This bill is vital to supporting our communities as they are responding to the impacts and working to build a more resilient future.

This year, communities across our State have been battling unprecedented wildfires that have devastated homes and livelihoods and taken the lives of four first responders just a couple of weeks ago from Bernalillo County in my home district, exacerbated by a millennial drought and the impacts of global climate change.

But we are New Mexicans, and we are resilient. This bill, which includes our wildfire legislation and three of my water bills, is crucial to the future of our State.

That is why I am so incredibly grateful for the leadership of this body, to Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, my good friend Representative Joe Neguse, and our amazing committee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, for their incredible leadership in meeting this moment and putting together a comprehensive package to address drought and wildfire across our country.

These bills will empower our communities, our Tribes, and our Pueblos, who have depended on these life-giving waters since time immemorial, our acequias and our land grants, who have depended on these lands and waters for generations, and empower our communities with the tools, resources, and science to meet the moment.

My bipartisan Water Data Act will help unlock the power of big data and science to help transform water management across the United States.

Our Rio Grande Water Security Act will help to create a framework for collaboration and innovation to keep water in our precious river.

The WaterSMART Access for Tribes Act will help to lower barriers so that our Tribes and Pueblos can access vital funding for water security projects.

Our Hermits Peak bill will help to make our communities that have been devastated by wildfires whole again.

Madam Chair, we must pass the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act, and we must pass it to prevent more devastating fires. We must pass it to ensure that our life-giving rivers do not continue to run dry. We must pass this legislation so that our communities have the tools and the resources that they need to remain resilient.

Madam Chair, the time to act is now, and the time to support our communities is now.