Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, March is National Kidney Month--a fitting time to pay tribute to an organization that has not only changed lives but saved them by expanding access to kidney transplants from living donors: Kidneys for Communities. With a special focus on aiding first responders, children, and people in agricultural communities, Kidneys for Communities developed the first-ever national community-directed donation program. It helps educate and connect donors and recipients by leveraging its massive network of communities, employers, municipalities, and first responder organizations. At a time when we face a national kidney shortage, with some 100,000 Americans needing a kidney at any given moment but only an average of 6,500 living kidney donations made each year, this type or proactive outreach has never been more important.

As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am particularly grateful for the organization's Kidneys for First Responders initiative. I thank the entire team at Kidneys for Communities for their work not only this month but year-round. They have done a terrific job supporting this effort to ensure our firefighters and other first responders receive the support they need.

Kidney disease affects tens of millions of Americans in every neighborhood, town, city, district, and state in the Nation. It demands the attention of every Member of this Congress.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Kidneys for Communities for making America a healthier, stronger Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to say that the chairman, who is on the floor, is a good friend of mine and one of, I think, our best leaders in the Congress. I thank him for his continuing efforts and his willing to work together across the aisle.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to address the American public, of course, through the Speaker. We are at war, Mr. Speaker. When I rise in support of this bill,

which is a bill on which we all agree, I want to suggest that we also, at this time of crisis, pass something that we all agree on, that we have already voted on, that passed the House. It is legislation which funds Homeland Security.

Within that bill are things critically important to the security of our country, particularly at a time like this. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, has a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that funds all the items on which we agree. That ought to be easy. It particularly ought to be easy at a time of crisis when we are at war and homeland security is so important.

The bill that Ms. DeLauro has put on the floor would fund the Office of the Secretary and the executive management. It would fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It would fund the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It would fund the Coast Guard of the United States. It would fund the Secret Service, charged with the responsibility of defending the President of the United States and other officials. It would fund the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, as it is called. It would fund the Transportation Security Administration. It would fund the Science and Technology Directorate.

It would not fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor Customs and Border Protection.

Now, they are tied in one bill, but surely, I hoped, Mr. Speaker, my remarks would be compelling without us being at war, which we have been now for, I suppose, almost 96 hours. However, certainly at this point in time, we ought to come together at a time when we are at war on things on which we agree.

All of the ones I listed we have already voted for. They need to be funded. They are critical to our national security, and surely men and women of goodwill and patriotism should stand for funding things on which we agree.

Now, there are two things on which we do not agree, and, frankly, our disagreement is not relevant to our national security today or tomorrow or perhaps for at least 24 months.

Why?

It is because ICE and CBP, the Border Patrol, were funded in another bill that has already passed and been signed by the President, and approximately $74.8 billion has been set aside for those two agencies already, so they are operating. Presumably their people are getting paid because we have already appropriated money for those two.

However, we have a substantial disagreement on the operations and activities being conducted by those two agencies, and therefore we don't have agreement on that. It is irrelevant to their present operations because we have already appropriated money which, by the way, none of us voted for on this side of the aisle. We have a very substantial difference, based upon our constitutional concerns, that those two agencies are not acting within the strictures of the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, or the norms of police activity in the United States of America. That is a legitimate and honest difference of opinion, and we ought not to hoist on the petard of the differences we have on these two agencies to preclude funding the Office of the Secretary, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Secret Service, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Transportation Security Agency, and the Science and Technology Directorate.

What person of common sense sitting around their kitchen table would say: Yes, we agree on those, but at a time of war, we will not give unanimous consent to fund all of these agencies I just mentioned.

Why?

It is because we have a legitimate difference. By the way, that legitimate difference is supported by more than 50 percent of the American people. As a matter of fact, it is somewhere in the sixties.

I rise on this bill which is not about this because I would not get time to speak about it otherwise, and I think it ought to be compelling to each one of us in this body and every American citizen to be concerned at a time of war when we are allowing a difference on one segment of a bill to preclude us from agreeing to the segment so critical to our domestic and international security.

I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues, and as I said, Mr. Westerman is not involved in this other than I am speaking on his bill, but I hope the logic of what I am saying appeals to the patriotism in every one of us that we ought not to allow these agencies I have read and on which we have already voted, on which we already agree, and which the President ought to sign, because we are holding hostage all of them to the legitimate disagreement that we have on two of the agencies within this bill.

Surely, I don't believe the American citizens would say that that is a commonsense thing to do, nor do I think they would say that it was within the best interests of this country to do.

Surely, as a democracy, we should not take the position that if we can't agree on one of the issues, then we won't agree on any of the issues. I suggest that would be irrational.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the DeLauro bill, of which I am a cosponsor, and there are some 50 others of us who are cosponsors, to ask that the Republicans who are in charge, who are in the majority, and who can make this decision, I ask them to give consent, unanimous consent, to the passage of the DeLauro bill so that, and I will mention once again, we can fund within the Department of Homeland Security a Secretary in the executive management of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and we have big snows, big winds, big storms, and crises around this country that require action for domestic security as we require international security.

There is not one of us who wants to defund the Coast Guard. There is not one of us who wants Coast Guard personnel going to work and not getting paid. There is not one of us who wants the U.S. Secret Service to be working and not getting paid. They have got to work because we deem them essential employees, as the Coast Guard are essential employees.

Under the present circumstances, where we can't get unanimous consent, and I hope we can, I urge that we do, I urge my Republican colleagues to say: On this we agree, and, therefore, we will move it forward. We will send it to the President for signature, and we will pay the members of the Coast Guard, we will pay the members of the U.S. Secret Service, we will give emergency relief around this country from FEMA, we will pay those who are working in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and we will pay the people at TSA whom all of us rely on to make sure that skies are safe.

I don't think there is a Member among us who wants to say: I don't want to pay them. I don't want that agency to be operating.

Now they are operating because they are essential, but we are not paying them. That is not right. In any event, we all know we are going to pay them at some point in time when, hopefully sooner rather than later, we open up the authority and the funding for those agencies.

We are considering suspension bills now. We expect them to get over 290 votes, and I will be one of those 290 votes on suspension bills.

Why?

It is because we agree, and it makes sense.

I welcome anybody who wants to come to the floor and say: I don't think the Coast Guard ought to be paid. I don't think FEMA ought to be paid, and I don't think Secret Service ought to be paid.

I welcome them to come to the floor. I don't think they are there. I think they do agree.

Mr. Speaker, do not take hostage those employees because we have a fundamental constitutional difference.

Now, by the way, you may think that, oh, well, we don't have a difference. Yes, we do. We don't believe that the two agencies we want to exempt are following the law.

Now, let me quote the border czar. His name is Tom Homan. The President of the United States sent him to Minneapolis to work at bringing the

confrontation in Minneapolis to a close. They knew the public was for that.

However, when a court ruled that what Border Patrol was doing was inconsistent with law and the Constitution, what was his response? Tom Homan said: I don't care what the judges think. I don't care.

I tell my friends in the House--through you, Mr. Speaker, of course-- that we all ought to care that we have a law enforcement officer, the czar of our border, who says: I don't care what the judges say.

Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation of laws, and the laws are determined, finally, by the courts of our Nation and ultimately by the Supreme Court.

That is why we are not prepared to vote for a bill that includes those two agencies. Why opposition to that is so hard to believe is because they are already funded, notwithstanding our disagreement.

We are going to continue to make the point, unlike the Vice President of the United States who said the officers who killed two people in Minneapolis had total immunity. The Vice President of the United States said that. We don't agree with that. We want to debate that, and we want to change that. We want to offer amendments. We want to have the House consider it because I would be appalled if the whole House on either side of the aisle wants to have law enforcement officers who say: I don't care what the judges say.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends: When Ms. DeLauro asks for unanimous consent to fund the agencies--I will not read them again, but they are critical--I will ask them to give their consent and pass those bills for which we have agreement.

America deserves that. Frankly, our men and women in uniform in the Middle East deserve that. Our men and women in uniform who are here and who may be deployed deserve that. More importantly, every citizen in this country and every person who is in this country deserves to know that we follow our Constitution and laws of our Nation. We take an oath to that. Our citizens expect us to do that.

I hope that as of no later than tomorrow we will pass a unanimous consent request to fund the personnel who are protecting this country in a way on which we all agree and then move at some point in time to a legitimate discussion in this body about what CBP and ICE are doing within or without the law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I adopt the comments of my distinguished colleague from Florida.

I also wish to speak on behalf of the unanimous consent that we will request.

The President last night spoke to the Nation. One of the things he said was that TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA are not operating. That is accurate. They are not operating because we have a disagreement in this House between Republicans and Democrats on whether those agencies ought to be funded. We do have a deep and severe disagreement with the administration with respect to how ICE and CBP are operating, contrary to the Constitution, contrary to the laws of our country, and contrary to the norms of police departments all over this country, which have resulted in the deaths of a number of American citizens egregiously and, in my view, illegally.

That unanimous consent request will simply say that we will fund all of those agencies that are within the Department of Homeland Security that are not controversial, not because we absolutely agree with every expenditure, but we have come together on a consensus. The American people, Mr. Speaker, ought to know that Democrats are prepared to vote for the funding of TSA, of FEMA, of the Secret Service, of the Coast Guard, and every other agency that is acting within the bounds of the Constitution and acting legally within the bounds of the Constitution.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this hand-wringing about TSA perhaps shutting down or employees of TSA working without pay, they should not be doing that. We ought to open up TSA. We ought to open up the

Coast Guard. They are critical employees, so they are working but without pay. We ought to pay them. We ought to have FEMA open, as the President said last night, so that it can serve the American people, particularly at a time when we just had a gargantuan storm in the northeast.

I rise in strong support of a unanimous consent that the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations (Ms. DeLauro) will be asking for. This is a unanimous consent that makes sense. It makes common sense and on which we have agreement.

What we disagree with is the unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and death-causing activities of an out-of-control agency at the instance of the President of the United States.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's make sense. Let's say yes to what we agree on.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the leader on our side of the aisle on the Committee on Appropriations, for initiating this effort. I took this time because I am not sure we are going to have time on the other bill. I urge Members on the Republican side of the aisle, do not object to this unanimous consent because it does what Republicans say we ought to be doing: Funding those agencies, those operations, those very critical activities for the American people on which we agree.

What the American people are so frustrated about is we seem to not even be able to move on that on which we agree. Let's show them that yes, we can agree. And let's also recognize and admit that we have a difference of opinion on a very critical issue, an issue at the heart of our Constitution of how we treat individuals in this country: that we don't go around arresting people with masks on and putting them in unmarked cars and disappearing them, that we don't have heavily armed troops coming out of cars into the streets of our cities to confront a woman who is driving her car alongside and heckling the police. We may not agree with that, but it is certainly within the bounds of our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason that we ought to have TSA shut down, FEMA shut down, the Coast Guard shut down, and the Secret Service shut down. They are really not shut down because we are making them work, but we are saying, by the way, we can't pay you.

If Republicans get up and say Democrats are shutting down those agencies, they are not telling the truth because Democrats are prepared right now to pass legislation which will be offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to fund everything but that on which we disagree. Isn't that reasonable? Isn't that what we ought to be doing as legislators, as Americans, as people who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of this country?

I urge my colleagues, particularly my Republican colleagues, do not object because your objection will be to continue to hamper the agencies on which we agree that are serving the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, am I to take from the definition that you gave as to why you could not accept the gentlewoman's unanimous-consent request that the majority has not agreed to funding the balance of the DHS bill other than CBP and ICE?

I thank the gentleman, and we are not objecting.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for yielding.

Madam Speaker, there are five of these bills which are not controversial. I urge my colleagues to vote for them to keep the government operating, to make sure that our Federal employees come to work and do their job for the American people and get paid for it.

There is one bill in this package that is very controversial. There is one bill in this package that the overwhelming majority of our side thinks should not be in the bill, but I remind my colleagues that bill is funded for the next 10 days or 6 legislative days. During that period of time, we intend to raise very substantial concerns about the operations that are being carried out not only in Minneapolis but in other parts

of our country by the Immigration Customs and Border Patrol agents.

The Constitution calls upon us to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. Many of my colleagues I know believe that voting against this bill will make a strong statement about the conduct that we see being carried out by the agencies I just mentioned.

Let me suggest to them, we need to focus on that issue because the other five issues that we face, the five appropriations bills that have yet to have been signed by the President of the United States and will fund about 76 percent of the government, are things that we have agreed upon.

After they pass, after they are signed by the President, there will be a lot of time to debate the operations of Homeland Security and, in my view, the laws that they are breaking, the Constitution that they are not respecting, and the human rights that they are undermining. There will be time for that debate. There will be time for that action. Today, is a time to fund the majority of government for the American people.

Minneapolis has shocked the conscience of America. We ought to be shocked, angry, and disgusted by the taking of life of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. We the people want to end this violent occupation of our cities. We the people deserve answers. The Congress needs to rein in the Department of Homeland Security.

That is why I and so many of my colleagues voted against funding the Department of Homeland Security--not because we don't need Homeland Security; we do--but we need it done within the context of the Constitution and the laws of this country and of our States.

This Congress needs to ensure the Federal Government can continue to provide vital services to the American people.

Voting for this bill does that, and voting for this bill also gives us the opportunity to constrain 6 days, essentially, of funding with the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, out of the regular order, they are funded for the balance of the year in many respects.

This compromise bill serves the interest of funding our government for the American people and giving us the opportunity to constrain and to ensure that there are meaningful, substantive, substantial reforms and restraints placed upon the operations of the Department of Homeland Security as it must be.

It is essential that we unmask Trump's Federal immigration agents, force them to abide by the local law enforcement standards for use of force and use warrants.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this year's appropriations process, we have seen Donald Trump and Russell Vought trample on this Congress' power of the purse. Some will admit that. Some will say it silently.

If there were ever a time for this Congress to exercise that power, it is now. Let us pass five bills on which we have agreement and substantially restrain and stop the funding of DHS a week from this Friday. Then, let us come to an agreement on honoring the Constitution, the laws of this country, and the conduct of law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill and then focus on that which the country wants us to focus on, like a laser, for them, for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the founders of the Tobacco Barn Distillery in my district: Dan Dawson, Sean Coogan, and Scott Sanders. Their Maryland Bourbon Cream recently placed first in the Nation in the American Craft Spirits Association's 2025 ``Beyond Bourbon'' category.

Since its founding as the first licensed distillery in St. Mary's County back in 2014, the Tobacco Barn Distillery has been an institution in our community. Dan, Sean, and Scott transformed their former tobacco farm into a true ``dirt to bottle'' distillery, growing the corn that goes into their bourbons themselves. From the start, three principles have guided their enterprise. First, they maintain a high standard of excellence for their product, ensuring that every bottle of their spirits exceeds expectations. Second, they are committed to caring for the land and the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Accordingly, they practice ``no till'' farming, applying minimal fertilizer, and recycle 100 percent of their cooling water. They are even members of the Maryland Green Registry. Third, they pride themselves on being community oriented and community driven, believing that their success is linked to the success of the people and local businesses around them. I also ought to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Tobacco Barn Distillery is a Veteran-owned business and a strong supporter of numerous charities benefiting our Veterans.

I don't drink, but I'm told their product is as good as their values. No wonder the Tobacco Barn Distillery has earned national recognition. In addition to its recent award, it was named America's number 1 ``Farmer-Distiller'' by the American Craft Spirits Association in 2023 and 2024.

Mr. Speaker, I have long championed my Make It In America agenda. The only thing better than making it in America is making it in Maryland. The Tobacco Barn Distillery is a paragon of that principle. Dan, Sean, and Scott continue a rich, centuries-old tradition of distilling in our state. They carry on the legacy of Hayden, Willett, Mattingly, Dant, and Wathen, who all got their start in Maryland before building up the bourbon industry in Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, Dan, Sean, and Scott do our county and our state proud. I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking them for giving back to their community and in congratulating them on this recent, well- deserved award.

Mr. Speaker, Mac Alsobrooks is one of this region's most legendary pool players and hand dancers. As talented as he has proven to be there, he has had even more of an impact as a mentor to generations of young men and women.

As one of the founders of the Alliance of Concerned Men, and a dedicated participant in the Beyond the Walls Ministry at Ebenezer AME Church in Fort Washington, Maryland, Mac has reached many lives and instilled wisdom in so many the way that only he can.

In fact, ``beyond the walls'' describes how he sees education, as he's been known to use any possible environment and platform to teach. So many lessons were learned at Dog's Pool Hall over the years, where he would regularly take his elementary school-aged daughters, Angela and Kim, to play pinball while he honed his skills at the pool table. It was at that pool hall that he taught them a lot about people, and a lot more about life.

He showed them and many others what it means to be politically active, to be civically engaged, and to be spiritually connected-- lessons that still resonate to this day, even on the floor of the United States Senate, where his daughter Angela represents the great State of Maryland. And even today, he's an example of how to be an uplifting part of the community, and how to have fun while doing it. The hundreds that have been blessed by his mentorship over the years will agree.

I ask that you join me, and the residents of Maryland, in offering well wishes and a happy 78th birthday to James McAurthur Alsobrooks--a billiards legend, a renowned hand dancer, and a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. We're grateful for all he's done for Maryland and for the Capital region.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her support of my amendment. I regret that my amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee, but that is not uncommon. An overwhelming majority of Democratic amendments are rejected, irrespective of merit.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this amendment comports with the debate that I heard in the Rules Committee yesterday. The substance of that debate was that we need oversight. We need to make sure that we know what we are doing. We need to make sure that what the administration or any administration is asking for comports with the policies of the Congress of the United States.

If we defeat the previous question, we will offer an amendment to the rule that allows the House to simply consider my amendment concerning the FBI headquarters.

I will speak more on that matter later, but I am deeply concerned that moving the FBI to the Reagan Building, as this administration plans to do, would greatly undermine the FBI's security.

This is a picture of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma. In 1995, a guy named McVeigh drove a step van up to the street of the Murrah Building and blew it up, killing 168 people and injuring over 800 people. That is a major artery in front of the Murrah Building.

The Reagan Building was designed as an open and public-private building with public access, public accommodations, and the public coming into the building for eating. It has a big cafeteria. It has a big parking lot that the public uses and is used by city hall, which is located right in the middle--or not in the middle, but surrounded by the Reagan Building.

The amendment that I have simply says: Let's not spend any money on moving the FBI to this building, which the Murrah Building makes very clear, and is why the FBI Director came to me in 2009 to have this facility, the FBI building, moved to a place where you can have security.

We have some number of security organizations. They are all located either in the suburbs or at Boeing Air Force base. Boeing Air Force base is a secured piece of much acreage, so they are not subject to that risk.

All of these agencies, including the CIA at Langley and other agencies, four of which are in Virginia, are so that those agencies can be as secure as we can possibly make them, so that we will not lose people, FBI agents, CIA agents, NSA agents, or whoever, and that we will have those facilities in a secure place. All this amendment says is: Show us the plan to keep our people secure.

The gentlewoman, my friend from North Carolina, said, and I believe she is accurate, that we are all concerned about the lives of people, be they government employees or not. This amendment says: Present us the information, GSA and FBI, that shows us that, in fact, you can make the Reagan Building safe for a security agency.

If the motion is defeated for the previous question, we will offer that simple amendment and give everybody in this Congress the ability to stand up and say, yes, we want to know information before we make this critical decision.

It is not partisan. It is not ideological. It is simply doing what the Congress is responsible to do, and that is have oversight and make judgments based upon the best information they can receive.

In closing, let me emphasize that this is consistent with what all of us say and was said in the committee yesterday. Mrs. Houchin said it particularly well, and others on the committee, when saying that they want the information necessary to make solid decisions. If we adopt my amendment, that will accomplish that objective.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and for the Hoyer amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the former chair and ranking member for yielding. I thank her for her work. I thank Mr. Cole for his work.

Anybody who knows me knows that I am opposed to CRs, but I am for keeping the government open, if those are the only alternatives.

Mr. Chair, this would not be my bill, but I think probably most of the Members on this floor can say that. It is a bill that cooperatively has been made better, I think, as it has passed through the House and Senate in conference.

It provides increases for several key programs for the American people.

That includes a $13 million increase over the fiscal year 2025 enacted level for entrepreneurial development programs at the Small Business Administration. The ranking member mentioned that program, but it is critically important to our communities and to the small business community.

This bill also increases funding for election security grants by $30 million. I created that program, along with Bob Ney from Ohio, when we passed the Help America Vote Act. We all want to make sure our elections are run well. At that point in time, we distributed to the States over $3 billion. This is $45 million for 50 States, not a lot of money, but it is proper for the Federal Government to help pay for the elections that are run by the locals that include United States Senators and Members of Congress.

The judiciary, Mr. Chairman, receives $584 million or a 6.2 percent increase over the 2025 enacted, which is what they asked for. The reason we wanted to do that is to make sure that the courts can act efficiently, effectively, and justly. We also included $142 million or a 19 percent increase for court security. Unfortunately, as we see on our streets today, we are living in an era in which violence is too often repaired to.

Crucially, the bill fixes the funding hole for Federal Public Defender services, which are constitutionally required, providing an increase of $315 million or 22 percent over the 2025 enacted level to meet constitutional responsibilities.

Other programs for the Department of the Treasury, including the community development financial institutions, so critical for small communities and communities of little means, were flat funded in the fiscal year 2025 enacted level, instead of being eliminated. While it is not everything we would want, it is a vast improvement over what was requested.

Even still, Mr. Chair, some of my colleagues may notice my lack of enthusiasm for this final bill.

This bill's $1 billion or 9 percent cut to the Internal Revenue Service below the fiscal year 2025 enacted is particularly concerning to me. I have made this point I think every time we have considered this bill. I might say that we tried to overcome this deficiency and have not yet done that.

It includes a $438 million or an 8 percent cut to IRS enforcement. Now, what does cutting enforcement mean? It means that we have gone from 9 percent in looking at tax returns over a million dollars to 0.6 percent. What incentive is that to people who make a lot of money and who try to avoid taxation? The little guy has to pick up the tab. Mr. Chair, that cut will cost the American people dearly by making it easier for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations to avoid paying the taxes they owe under existing law.

Nevertheless, this bill is better than it would have otherwise been. IRS data indicates that every $1 produces $7. A Harvard study shows that for the top 10 percent, every dollar invested in enforcement brings us $12 in additional revenue in taxes owed but not paid. Who will have to pick up the tab? As I said, hardworking Americans who dutifully pay their taxes.

If you are serious about fiscal responsibility, as I am and as I think many are----

If you are serious, you have to be serious about collecting revenue that is due and owing. That means funding the IRS, which has been understaffed and underresourced far too long.

Now, I am concerned not only by the IRS but also the FBI. For two decades, I have worked to help the FBI move out of the crumbling, unhealthy J. Edgar Hoover Building and into a new consolidated headquarters that meets its security and operational needs. The administration has decided to move the FBI from an inadequate 51-year- old building to an inadequate 28-year-old building, the Reagan Building. Its exposed location and its design as an accessible public- private facility would greatly undermine the FBI security.

I will continue to work on that throughout the year that I have remaining to me.

There was language in the CJS bill that I wanted the Rules Committee to include the same exact language, saying simply that we would oversee the plans of the GSA and the FBI before we spend money. That was the responsible thing to do. I am sorry, Mr. Chair, that we did not do it, but I am going to support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Mr. Chair, I presume this is a message amendment. I presume that because I know that the gentleman who offered it is bright, knowledgeable, and knows this amendment is clearly unconstitutional.

I am sure he has read the Constitution. He talks about it from time to time. Of course, the language of the Constitution is very clear for exactly the reason that the Founders did not want us to be able to monetarily penalize them for judgments with which we disagreed.

They wanted an independent judiciary. They wanted a Nation of laws and not of men. They wanted a nation of laws that are not compromised by threats of cutting salaries and changing lifestyles so that the judiciary would be, unlike England, who had a king who made the laws. It would be the parliament and the courts.

Mr. Chair, I suggest we withdraw this amendment, with all due respect to my friend from Texas, because surely he would not want to go against the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Chair, I also want to say that I am honored to serve as the ranking member. I would rather be chairman. I am honored to serve as the ranking member with the distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Joyce.

If he would like me to yield to him now, I will. If not, I want to thank him for his leadership of our committee, which has been collegial and positive. I think it has led to this resolution today.

Mr. Chair, I urge strenuously and by the way, let me mention to the gentleman from Texas he is protected by the Constitution of the United States from having exactly the same thing done to him.

Mr. Chair, I thank the Chairman, Mr. Sessions, from the great State of Texas for his remarks. I want to tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) that the gentleman who offered this amendment is protected by that same Constitution of the United States from having this done to him. Surely he would want to do unto others as he would want done unto him.

Mr. Chair, I urge strenuously the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised a point. He has carefully drafted this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, his rhetoric, however, and the other gentleman who spoke has been about an individual, about a judge. Their effort is to indirectly do what the Constitution says they cannot do directly.

This Congress ought to recognize that the Constitution clearly had in mind that you cannot do this, directly or indirectly, when the expressed intent of the outcome of the adoption of this amendment is to cut the salaries of judges with whom they disagree.

That would not be a nation of laws. It would be a nation of men. That, we should hold askew, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I again urge the rejection of this amendment. It is clearly designed to alter opinions based upon the threat of being reduced in monetary ability to proceed.

They disagree with the judge. There is a way to go about that. It is to appeal, not to threaten financial retribution.

Mr. Chair, for the sake of our democracy and the sanctity of something that makes America special, which is a justice system that works unrelated to threats of retribution, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. Scalise: Where is my 1 minute when I need it?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear and close friends, Steve Womack and Madam Speaker, for being here. I also thank my colleagues and my dear friends, Majority Leader Scalise and Majority Whip Emmer, for being here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with, obviously, mixed emotions and reluctant conviction. There is a true story I have told many times over the past 60 years. It is about a young man--myself--who was a student at the University of Maryland, College Park, just a few miles from this place.

As a freshman, like many young people, I lacked a vision for my future. I nearly flunked out of college and didn't enroll in the 1958 fall semester. Fortunately for me, I reenrolled the following spring.

It was the spring convocation of April 27, 1959. Classes were canceled from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. so that we could all go hear the guest speaker. Frankly, I had not planned to attend. However, I was walking up the hill near Cole Field House where the event was located. I saw our guest drive up in a 1958 Pontiac convertible. That, Mr. Speaker, was a cool car. It was so cool that I decided to go to this convocation.

That walk was my road to Damascus. It changed my life. The speaker was John F. Kennedy. In his remarks, he urged us to do our duty in those days of world chaos. In particular, he charged us students to become more active in our communities. Nancy heard those same words.

Like many hundreds of thousands of young people, I was deeply inspired by Senator Kennedy and his words. Jack Kemp, who was my colleague when I first came here, had a similar story. A week later, I changed my major from business to political science.

Mr. Speaker, 7 years later, in 1966, 5 months out of Georgetown Law School, I was elected to the Maryland State Senate. Mr. Speaker, 15 years after that, in 1981, the voters of the Fifth District elected me to the United States House of Representatives.

I stand here now, after some 60 years in public service, including nearly 45 years as a Member of this House. I have won elections and lost a couple. I celebrated triumphs and suffered setbacks. I enjoyed friendships and endured hardships.

As the song says: ``Some days are diamonds. Some days are stone.'' Happily, I have experienced more diamonds than stone.

Shakespeare advised us all: ``This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.''

In that vein, Mr. Speaker, I have decided not to seek another term in the people's House. I make this decision with sadness, for I love this House, an institution the Framers designed to reflect the will of the American people and to serve as the guardian of their liberty and their democracy.

Through the past 45 years, I have come to know many good, decent, and patriotic Members chosen by their neighbors to represent them. They come from both parties and all parts of the ideological spectrum.

The Congress I entered in 1981 was somewhat different. Most Republicans and Democrats worked together in a collegial and productive way. The leaders of the House, Tip O'Neill and Bob Michael, fostered that environment. It was, of course, not a Congress without conflict.

In the year to come, I will have much more to say about the issues we have grappled with and the ways this House has changed during my time. At the outset, I have said that I spoke with reluctant conviction. That reluctance is because I am deeply concerned that this House is not living up to the Founders' goals.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to examine their conscience, renew their courage, and carry out the responsibilities that the first Article of the Constitution demands. Only in that way can we ensure that our 250 years will be a preface to a stronger and brighter beacon in a free and principled democracy. It will be a nation of laws, not of men. It will be a nation respected around the world for its strength, certainly, but even more for the ideals it represents and the justice with which it acts.

That effort must extend beyond this House. I fear that America is heading not toward greatness but toward smallness, pettiness, divisiveness, lawlessness, and disdainfulness.

We must respect and love one another. We must remember that we are not great or unique because we say we are great but because we are just, generous, and fair.

I hope that spirit can guide us the rest of this Congress because I still have much I want to do in the coming year, not least of which is keeping the government open. To do that, we must send all our appropriations bills to the President in a bipartisan and timely fashion.

There are many people I intend to thank in the coming months, but here are a few I will recognize now:

First, my family, who has borne much of the burden of my service. I ask them to stand.

To my late wife, Judy, who died too young and gave so much.

To my beloved daughters, Susan, Stefany, and Anne, who paid a price for Dad's absences.

To my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, for giving me great joy.

To my mother, who thankfully lived to see her son become the president of the Maryland State Senate.

To my staff, for serving me and their Nation with great loyalty and ability.

To my colleagues, for trusting me with leadership.

To the people of Prince George's County, particularly the African- American community, without whom I would not have won my elections.

To the people of Maryland's Fifth District, who gave me a majority of their votes 23 times.

To my wife, Dr. Elaine Kamarck, who has made my life whole and happy. Thank you, Babe.

And to God, for sending me down this road so many years ago that I call the ``Road to Damascus.''

I thank all of my colleagues--extraordinary people, decent people, people whom their neighbors respect and sent here. The only way they got here was through their neighbors saying that they wanted them to represent them.

I thank you all.

Mr. Speaker, with tremendous gratitude, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. He and I have known each other for some 60 years. We have served in this body for a very long time.

I can remember two events. One was on September 11, 2001, and we were, as the gentleman observed, attacked by an enemy from without. That was horrific. America lost thousands of lives that day. We stood on the steps of the United States Senate that evening and sang ``God Bless America.''

On January 6, I was sitting where the gentleman from South Carolina now stands. I saw an officer, a detail officer from the Capitol Police, come in and take Speaker Pelosi from the rostrum. Then, the Capitol Policeman assigned to my detail, as we call it, came up to me, took me by the arm, and said: We have to get out of here.

I got to that door. We went through that door, and I said to him: What has happened?

The stunning words of his reply were: The Capitol has been breached.

Mr. Speaker, I observed, and I don't know whether the cameras are panning this House, but the other side of the aisle is empty, failing to recognize one of the most grievous, criminal, treasonous events that has happened during the 44-plus years that I have been in this House.

It is as if it were not a historic event, where every Member of this House, 435 of us, ought to be rising today and saying that, America, we will not survive that kind of conduct; that is not America; and urging every one of our constituents, as I am going to quote George Washington in just a minute, to honor democracy in victory and in defeat.

Al Gore lost a Presidential election 5-4. When the Supreme Court said that the election was over, by a vote of 5-4, Al Gore did what real patriots do. He said that the Court has declared the election ended, and because of his love of America and democracy, and because that is how our system works, as a nation of laws, not of men and women.

Mr. Speaker, my favorite painting in the Capitol hangs in the rotunda. It was painted by John Trumbull. It depicts George Washington in the Maryland State Senate Chamber as he resigns his commission as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army at the end of the Revolutionary War.

That painting, Mr. Speaker, is a testament to a man who so eagerly relinquished his power and who only reluctantly reclaimed it when the American people called him to serve as their first President.

It is a symbol of the peaceful transition of power upon which our democracy depends.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago today, that painting towered over the swarm of insurrectionists Donald Trump sent to this Capitol. That is why he was deemed to be, as the whip said, the most culpable of the figures involved in this insurrection.

What did he say? He told the mob to ``stop the steal'' and to ``fight like hell.'' Then, he deployed them to the Capitol of the United States of America, the beacon of democracy, freedom, and liberty for all the world, and the Capitol was breached.

There, of course, was no steal, and the courts said so in court after court after court after court. However, unlike Al Gore, President Trump did not honor the courts. Rather, he deployed an army to come to the Capitol, breach it, and stop democratic proceedings.

The army he deployed maimed some 140 of our brave U.S. Capitol Police officers, several of whom lost their lives. They paraded Confederate and Nazi symbols through these Halls, as the whip observed as well. They erected gallows. They erected gallows on the Capitol lawn to hang the Republican Vice President of the United States, and so stated.

Unlike the past few months, the National Guard was nowhere to be found. Donald Trump had every opportunity to restore order. The Republican leader of this House, Mr. McCarthy, called the White House and said: Mr. President, you need to stop this violence.

Nothing happened. Instead, the President played the figurative fiddle as the Capitol was sieged and our Constitution was challenged.

The same man responsible for the violence that day is now trying to distort it and erase it. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that is why there is no other Republican on the floor, to try to forget what happened, erase it from the minds of Americans, and erase it from the history books. It was just a group of tourists taking an amble through the Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States inexplicably has described January 6 as ``a day of love.'' Mr. Speaker, I call it what it was: a day of violence, sedition, and treason.

Trump has called those who stormed the Capitol ``unbelievable patriots.'' Mr. Speaker, 435 of us ought to be on this floor saying: No, sir. It was unbelievable violence and sedition.

I call those unbelievable patriots what they are: criminals convicted of such, insurrectionists, cop killers, cop beaters, and democracy destroyers.

In one of the first actions in his second term--the whip has mentioned this, and others will mention it. I use the word ``inexplicable.'' In his first days in office, some 1,600 insurrectionists who stormed this Capitol, who breached this Capitol, and who tried to stop democracy from working were pardoned by the President of the United States, Mr. Donald J. Trump.

David Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years. He viciously assaulted and injured police officers defending the lower west terrace, at the lower west terrace tunnel, using weapons made from broken furniture, pepper spray, and flagpoles.

Daniel Joseph Rodriguez was sentenced to 12\1/2\ years after being found guilty. He was filmed deploying fire extinguishers and dragging Metropolitan

Police Officer Michael Fanone and repeatedly shocked Fanone in the neck with a taser. He was pardoned.

The chief of the Capitol Police, when asked about those pardons, said that it was deeply troubling to the Capitol Police, as well it should be.

Patrick McCaughey, sentenced to 7\1/2\ years, used a stolen riot shield to pin Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges to a metal door frame while another assailant beat Hodges in the face with a stolen baton. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden described McCaughey as the poster child of all that was dangerous and appalling about January 6.

Peter Francis Stager, sentenced to 4 years and 4 months, wielded a flagpole and repeatedly struck a defenseless officer who was lying face down.

I would ask any member of the President's party or our party to come to this floor and defend pardoning somebody who perpetrated a crime on a police officer.

Stewart Rhodes, sentenced to 18 years, said this: ``Patriots,'' using Donald Trump's word for them, ``it was a long day but a day when patriots began to stand. Stand now or kneel forever. Honor your oaths. Remember your legacy.'' That is what he said.

It is pride in assaulting the officers, pride in assaulting democracy, pride in driving the Congress, thankfully for just hours, out of this Capitol so they could not proceed in doing their constitutional duty.

That pardon list included 600 who were charged with assaulting or obstructing law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, so much for supporting the thin blue line, so much for supporting the brave men and women of law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to forget January 6. We cannot afford to be absent, Mr. Speaker, to take a walk, to turn our backs on what happened on January 6. To do so is to risk its repeated actions.

It did not end when a bipartisan majority in this House impeached Trump the following week, and it still has not ended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this House now, as I did on January 6, standing where the gentleman from South Carolina is standing now: Do we have the courage to stand up to a President who violates our Constitution, our laws, and our norms?

Will enough of my colleagues across the aisle find that courage? Liz Cheney found that courage. Liz Cheney--the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, Liz Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Cheney--found that courage to recognize that day for the tragedy it was. I pray others will do the same.

General Washington, whom I mentioned earlier, would do the same. He would tell them what he told his own officers when he learned they were conspiring to overthrow the Continental Congress just a few months before he resigned his commission.

He said this: Express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretenses, to overturn the liberties of our country and who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord and deluge our rising Nation in blood.

That is what happened on January 6. On January 6, we saw the floodgates of insurrection open. If we forget that, if we gloss over that fact of history, if we ignore it, if we diminish its venality or glorify the actions of the mob as Trump does, we risk letting that dream of liberty for which our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor be swept away.

Let us remember January 6, lest it be repeated.

Mr. Speaker, I won't take 3 minutes. This Chamber should be full. I said that earlier because this was not an attack on Democrats. It is not an attack on Republicans. It was an attack on our country, on our democracy, and on our Constitution. That is why every Member of this House ought to be on this floor, urging Americans to do what democracy demands, solving our differences peacefully through elections, through debate, through votes on this floor.

We have as a centralized premise that might does not make right. The people who stormed up Constitution Avenue coming straight from in front of the White House and a speech by the President of the United States have said they were doing what they thought the President wanted them to do. We ask God to bless America. If we do not speak, we ask God to save America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman who heads the Ukrainian Caucus and has ties to Ukraine. She is deeply tied to America, to democracy, liberty, and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I adopt her remarks as my own. I will add to that, but it will be surplusage because we could repeat

everything she said and all the dangers she referred to and all the atrocities of the Russians.

As I was sitting here, with the exception of Mr. Vindman, who is a young man, it occurred to me that the speakers who have spoken so far are of a generation who were children at the time of the Soviet Union. They understood the viciousness of the bear, and they understood the enslavement of the Russian people and the captive nations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the people of Ukraine, for the people of America, for the people of Europe, for the people of Asia and Africa, South America, and Australia because all of us are at risk if dictators like Putin prevail.

For Ukraine, the question is: Will America and this Congress allow it to become a nation betrayed? I have said it before, and I will say it again. President Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, Negotiator Witkoff, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and others have done everything to express support for Vladimir Putin's and Russia's position and to exonerate them from the aggression and from their war crimes.

Earlier this year, Trump said that the Russians have all the cards. Mr. Speaker, someone ought to remind our President--and I do so tonight--that NATO has a combined defense expenditure of $1.58 trillion. Together, we field 3.5 million troops. Our combined GDP is 25 times more than Russia's. Europe holds some $246 billion in frozen Russian assets.

I suggest to all of us, to the President, and to the world at large: Those are a lot of cards, but we need to play them.

As long as they are in the deck, they won't make a difference. Every day we do not, we look weaker in the eyes of the world. That is a danger for us and a danger for the international community.

Every day, Russia slaughters more Ukrainians. At least 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already given their lives in defense of democracy, and many more have been wounded.

The Ukrainians will continue to fight valiantly, as the gentlewoman pointed out, with or without our support. However, our decision will determine whether their fight is in vain or will prevail.

The other day, a Ukrainian soldier on the front lines told a reporter: ``They kept withholding military aid, couldn't agree on how to respond, and we keep paying for their indecisiveness with our blood, the blood of our children.''

He was referring, of course, not just to the United States but to the world at large. Ukraine may be paying the price for our negligence today, but we, the free world, will ultimately bear the cost if we let Putin prevail.

When we fail to show our strength, our adversaries doubt our resolve. When our adversaries doubt our resolve, they are assuredly more likely to test our might.

That is the mistake that Neville Chamberlain made. That is the mistake that America and the United Kingdom made when we did not honor the Budapest Memorandum when Putin annexed Crimea.

In my view, Crimea is the mother of this war. The failure to act decisively in the face of that war crime, of that theft, and of that international law that was broken led Putin to believe that he could do this, the invasion of Ukraine, with impunity.

That is a mistake that Donald Trump is making now. This Congress must not do the same, and the good news is that this Congress has not done the same. There were 12 votes between 2022 and July of 2025.

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that, on both sides of the aisle, the overwhelming majority of Members voted to support Ukraine. Mostly, it was unanimous on this side, but it was also unanimous on the Republican side, save 1 vote, and then it was 110 to 117, just a small minority.

Those votes average 80 percent of the Members of Congress voting to support Ukraine. It is not as if there is division in this House. As the gentlewoman said, there is a discharge petition, which lays in that desk behind me.

Mr. Speaker, 214 Democrats have signed it, and 2 Republicans have signed it. There are 216 signatures in all now. We need 2 more to say to Ukraine, to say to the world, and to say ``yes'' to our administration that we are in support of liberty over tyranny; we are in support of a people who have shown extraordinary courage.

Fortunately, we have a winning card to play. Ranking Member Meeks and I have that bipartisan discharge petition to force on the Ukraine support, and two Republicans have signed that. That means there are another 100 who support Ukraine, and all they need to do is sign that petition, and we will vote in January on that bill that says that we are going to support Ukraine, freedom, democracy, liberty, and international law.

Every House Democrat and two Republicans, I say, have signed. Our legislation includes both sanctions to undermine Russia's war economy and direct financial and military aid for Ukraine's defense and reconstruction.

There were 80 United States Senators who have signed onto a bill imposing sanctions on Russia some 6 months ago, and it has not moved. What do you think that does to the psychology of Ukraine, Ukrainians, and their soldiers?

If we report out this bill, in my view, it will change this war not only materially but psychologically. It doesn't matter how many concessions you give to Putin--and this administration has given him many--he will keep fighting this war so long as he thinks he can outlast the free world.

This is an issue of resolve. I mentioned how much superiority we have with respect to Russia in size, in money, and in resources.

Mr. Speaker, I know we can do this. Since the Russian invasion in 2022, the House has had at least 12 votes, and I mentioned them, and 80 percent of our people have supported them.

Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to fold. Now is the time to call. If we play our hand correctly, we can still ensure that Putin suffers a defeat that will make other dictators around the world think twice before violating international law and creating war crimes.

Mr. Speaker, we must because make no mistake: Vladimir Putin is playing for keeps and for empire. Our European allies know that to be the case because they have been at the point of the enemy's spear when Chamberlain said that we were buying peace in our time. We then had World War II.

Let us act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues and friends who have signed on and voted for supporting Ukraine to sign this discharge petition.

Mr. Speaker, this Chamber will soon be empty as Members leave for the holiday without having taken action to aid Ukraine, our friend, our ally, and a courageous people who want to be free.

The trenches in Donbas will not be empty, however. Ukrainian medic stations and hospitals will not be empty. The air-raid shelters beneath Kyiv, Odesa, and Kharkiv will not be empty.

Mr. Speaker, this administration is sleepwalking toward the edge of an abyss that will be difficult to escape. Neville Chamberlain once did the same. He returned from Munich and hoisted a piece of paper above his head that bore his signature and that of Adolf Hitler.

Without consulting Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain traded a fifth of its territory in exchange for Hitler's word that he would not invade. Chamberlain said that it would secure peace with honor, a peace for our time. Within 5 months, the Nazis occupied every square inch of Czechoslovakia. Within a year, they had added Poland. Within 2 years, German bombs were falling in London.

Just a few days after Chamberlain brandished Czechoslovakia's death warrant, Winston Churchill said: ``The German dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.''

Mr. Speaker, in that case, Hitler was the dictator. In our case, it is Putin.

Another dictator now hungers for his next course. Vladimir Putin did not stop with his invasion of Georgia or his campaign to separate Transnistria from Moldova. He did not stop with his 2014 annexation of Crimea, though perhaps he would have if America and the United Kingdom honored the Budapest Memorandum.

It is foolish and dangerous to think he will stop at the Donbas. The Russian bear is about to take its next bite, and Donald Trump is setting the table. Trump, Witkoff, Hegseth, Vance, and Rubio have done everything to appease Putin, short of putting on a Russian uniform.

Their 28-point peace plan last month was a Russian menu. What concessions did Trump demand from Ukraine? He demanded it forfeit a fifth of its territory--including the land that Russia does not occupy--to its invader; that it cap the size of its military; and that it forego its right to join NATO, which I believe is the only measure that can truly guarantee Ukraine's security.

What has he demanded from Russia in exchange? Nada, zip, nothing. He has demanded no economic reparations for Ukraine, no requirement that Russia return the Ukrainian children it abducted, and no accountability for the war crimes Putin has committed. He has asked for Putin's promise not to invade again, one he has yet to make and one he would never keep.

This administration acts as though we have no leverage in this situation, as though NATO's $1.8 trillion defense expenditures, 3.5 million troops, and combined GDP of $54 trillion mean nothing.

America is not impotent, nor is NATO, nor is the West in this fight against fascism, and neither is this Congress. Over 300 of us in every one of 12 votes has cast its vote for Ukraine; the majority of Republicans on all but one of those votes.

We only need three more Republicans to sign onto the bipartisan discharge petition Ranking Member Meeks and I put forward to bring the Ukraine Support Act to the floor for a vote. That legislation would undermine Russia's war machine and give Ukraine the support it needs to win this fight actually and psychologically.

Mr. Speaker, this House has taken twelve votes on past bills supporting Ukraine. An average of 80 percent of our Members have voted for every one of those. Yet we stand silent. We have not acted. We cannot build ``Peace with Honor'' on a promise from Putin. We can only achieve peace by awakening to our own power and to our own influence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, each of them who has supported Ukraine continuously in the past on almost every vote, to sign the discharge petition now. Let us not go home silent in the face of tyranny.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the extraordinary act of patriotism of one of our fellow citizens. I rise today to thank MacKenzie Scott, formerly the wife of Jeff Bezos, for donating $50 million to Bowie State University, the largest single contribution in the school's history.

Bowie State University is not only Maryland's oldest HBCU; it is one of our State's finest higher education institutions, period.

MacKenzie Scott's generous gift will help make Bowie State University even more affordable and support the

groundbreaking research its students produce every day.

With her historic donations to Bowie State University, Morgan State University, and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, MacKenzie has proven herself to be an honorary Marylander, an American who cares about investing in our future, an American who understands the critical importance of education in our State, in our Nation, and for our kids and for our future. I thank MacKenzie Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Marylander, a fellow University of Maryland Terrapin, and dear friend, Bob Mitchell, who passed away on November 12, just days shy of his 89th birthday.

Bob built our community, literally. An accomplished developer, he built more than 5,000 homes in roughly 40 communities throughout the capital region.

Bob was a leader in his industry, serving as president of the Maryland National Capital Building Industry Association, the Maryland State Builders Association, and the National Association of Home Builders.

His greatest pride, however, was his family.

My prayers are with his wife, Marlene; their four children; six grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren as they mourn this great loss. I mourn with them. He was a friend, a friend who I liked, who I respected, and who I learned from.

The House mourns with them. Maryland mourns with them. May God bless and keep Bob Mitchell.