Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize someone whose leadership, service, and friendship have meant so much to me, Team Scalise, and the people of southeast Louisiana. I am talking about my chief of staff and senior leadership adviser, Megan Bel Miller.

Megan has been part of my team from the very beginning. In fact, when I was first elected to Congress, she was the very first person that I hired.

As my then-legislative director and longtime Energy and Commerce Committee staffer, Megan helped lead our work on some of the biggest issues facing not only our district but the Nation, including energy and healthcare.

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, she played a critical role in drafting and passing the RESTORE Act to help Louisiana communities recover and rebuild.

When Megan first left our office in 2013, I stood right here on this House floor to recognize her service and said she was leaving for ``bigger and better things.''

Luckily for me, those bigger and better things eventually led Megan back to Capitol Hill, this time as the chief of staff for my personal office in 2017.

Just months later, when I was shot, I came to rely on Megan in ways that none of us could have imagined.

Through it all, Megan's leadership and friendship never wavered, and Jennifer and I will always be grateful for the way she helped my family and our team make it through that challenging time.

Over the years, Megan has also been someone I have relied on for her expertise on policy and knowledge of this institution. She has become known for her deep knowledge of policy and process, her strong relationships on both sides of the aisle, and her ability to bring people together.

She played a key role in helping secure a provision in the working families tax cut that increases the amount of revenue-sharing dollars that Louisiana and other Gulf Coast States receive each year from offshore drilling.

Megan has always been someone I could count on for good advice, sound judgment, and an unwavering commitment to the people we serve.

I call her the ``Geaux Getter'' because no matter what the problem is that we have to solve, Megan just finds a way to get it done. Her impact can be seen not only in the policies that she shaped, but in the countless constituents she helped and staff members that she mentored along the way.

Mr. Speaker, I can't thank Megan enough for everything she has done for me, our office, and the American people.

Thirteen years ago, I stood on this floor, and I said I would miss her, as she went on to bigger and better things. Today, I find myself saying it again. It has been a privilege to work alongside her all of these years and an even greater privilege to call her a friend.

Jennifer and I wish Megan, Joel, Parker, and Caroline all the best in this next chapter. Best of luck to Megan and all of her friends and family in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Guthrie) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this really important bill by my friend Mr.

Evans from Colorado who led on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the latest advancement in technology. If you think about the history of this great Nation as we celebrate 250 years of America, one of the things that America has been so successful at has been always being on the frontier of new innovations. In fact, in the last 150 years, America has led the world in advancements in technology.

Today is no different. In fact, today, America is at the heart of the domination of technology all around the world. If you think about some of the simplest things we are able to do in our lives, that give us the ability to have more free time, or the things you can do on a cell phone that would have taken a supercomputer 30 years ago to do, that is because of advancements in technology.

Artificial intelligence and data centers are no different. It is another advancement in technology. As we are advancing in technology, we have to do it the right way, Mr. Speaker, in a smart and thoughtful way. If you look at communities that have embraced data centers, some communities said it is not for me, and that is a choice communities make.

The Federal Government is not the one making that decision. What we have always said, and what President Trump took the leadership in doing, is meeting with all of the Big Tech companies building these massive data centers and said just make sure as you are making these big investments in communities, you won't add to the cost of a local community's ratepayer electricity rates.

The President got a commitment to do that. We are not fully codifying that. It is, in essence, a step in that direction what this bill is doing. But as the President did that, you saw companies going and making massive multibillion-dollar investments in some of our communities and helping those communities along the way, Mr. Speaker.

That story does not get told. Frankly, I think that story needs to get told more. I have seen massive data centers in my home State of Louisiana. In fact, if you go to little Richland Parish, a rural part of north Louisiana that not a lot of people live in, not a lot of opportunities for wealth in that parish, Mr. Speaker, but then Meta decided to build a data center, and that data center grew and grew as the community embraced it.

They worked with the community. They are building their own natural gas facilities. It is actually going to help the grid in that community because they are going to be paying their own way and anything extra they have is going to be off-loaded to the grid so the neighbors in that community will actually get lower utility rates.

Do you know what else happened, Mr. Speaker? This is another part of the story that is not getting told enough, but the data center is still being built. It is up to about $50 billion in private funding that is being built in little Richland Parish.

As they are building that data center, because of all of the increased sales tax collections to Richland Parish, they were able to give a bonus. I am not talking about the base salary of their schoolteachers. They gave a bonus to every schoolteacher in Richland Parish because of the building of that data center.

Mr. Speaker, do you know how much every schoolteacher in Richland Parish received a few months ago because of the data center? They received a bonus of $50,000 per teacher because of the data center.

Those are the stories that you are seeing in communities that have embraced it, where they worked with the local community. It is not a burden on that community. It is actually a tremendous benefit. Not only teachers will benefit, but small businesses are cropping up.

Loudoun County in Virginia, Mr. Speaker, is another community that made the decision for themselves. It is not a Washington choice. It is a local community choice, and I think everybody would agree with that. If there are local communities that don't want it, believe me there are other communities that will take those benefits.

Loudoun County in Virginia got the benefits of their data centers to the tune of a 30 percent reduction in property taxes for every homeowner in Loudoun County, Virginia. They are benefiting from that still to this day, as well as the jobs that come along with it. They are benefiting from the investment, the buildings that come along, and the small business growth that we are seeing.

There has been this assertion, Mr. Speaker, some of it funded by China, that data centers are driving up utility prices. There was a study done. In fact, the Institute for Energy Research did a State-by- State study in all 50 States of this country and they looked at energy costs, the kilowatt-per-hour cost in every State.

Some States have data centers. Some States don't. The study is titled: ``Have Data Centers Driven Up Electricity Prices?''

Their conclusion was clearly no, they do not. There was no disparity in kilowatt hours per customer in States that have data centers and States that don't.

Again, a lot of that is because President Trump made all of the data centers, the companies that build them, give those pledges that they will not have a negative impact on the ratepayers.

What they did find, Mr. Speaker, was quite interesting, and that was a disparity that does exist in electricity prices between States. It is not all States.

What they ultimately looked at is States that have a unified government, all one party, either Republican or either Democrat. The States that have all unified Democratic Party control in those States actually have higher electricity costs than States that have all Republican.

The Institute for Energy Research did the study. You can go find it online. It shows you State by State the kilowatt-per-hour cost. The reason it is rising is because a lot of those States that have unified Democratic government are also States that are losing population. Some hundreds of thousands to nearly millions of people have fled those States. As those States lose population because of bad policies, Mr. Speaker, their baseload capacity is the same. The cost to run their grid is the same. It is spread amongst fewer people because their bad policies are running hundreds of thousands or a million-plus people out of the State.

The States that are growing, that have good government policies, and that are attracting people and jobs, those States have lower kilowatt- per-hour costs for their consumers because the same grid has the same fixed costs, but there is more people to spread the cost around so those people pay less.

That is what actually is happening in this country. Look at all the States. Go look at the Institute for Energy Research study, Mr. Speaker, because it shows you what is really happening out there.

There is a revolution happening. China is competing, and America is competing. We surely do not want China to win this war. America is staying at the forefront. I want us to stay at the forefront. Let locals make the choice and let consumers reap the benefits. That is what is happening right now, and this bill, by my friend Congressman Evans, ensures that we continue to see that growth continue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize someone whose leadership, service, and friendship have meant so much to me, Team Scalise, and the people of southeast Louisiana. I am talking about my chief of staff and senior leadership adviser, Megan Bel Miller.

Megan has been part of my team from the very beginning. In fact, when I was first elected to Congress, she was the very first person that I hired.

As my then-legislative director and longtime Energy and Commerce Committee staffer, Megan helped lead our work on some of the biggest issues facing not only our district but the Nation, including energy and healthcare.

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, she played a critical role in drafting and passing the RESTORE Act to help Louisiana communities recover and rebuild.

When Megan first left our office in 2013, I stood right here on this House floor to recognize her service and said she was leaving for ``bigger and better things.''

Luckily for me, those bigger and better things eventually led Megan back to Capitol Hill, this time as the chief of staff for my personal office in 2017.

Just months later, when I was shot, I came to rely on Megan in ways that none of us could have imagined.

Through it all, Megan's leadership and friendship never wavered, and Jennifer and I will always be grateful for the way she helped my family and our team make it through that challenging time.

Over the years, Megan has also been someone I have relied on for her expertise on policy and knowledge of this institution. She has become known for her deep knowledge of policy and process, her strong relationships on both sides of the aisle, and her ability to bring people together.

She played a key role in helping secure a provision in the working families tax cut that increases the amount of revenue-sharing dollars that Louisiana and other Gulf Coast States receive each year from offshore drilling.

Megan has always been someone I could count on for good advice, sound judgment, and an unwavering commitment to the people we serve.

I call her the ``Geaux Getter'' because no matter what the problem is that we have to solve, Megan just finds a way to get it done. Her impact can be seen not only in the policies that she shaped, but in the countless constituents she helped and staff members that she mentored along the way.

Mr. Speaker, I can't thank Megan enough for everything she has done for me, our office, and the American people.

Thirteen years ago, I stood on this floor, and I said I would miss her, as she went on to bigger and better things. Today, I find myself saying it again. It has been a privilege to work alongside her all of these years and an even greater privilege to call her a friend.

Jennifer and I wish Megan, Joel, Parker, and Caroline all the best in this next chapter. Best of luck to Megan and all of her friends and family in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (Mr. Guthrie) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this really important bill by my friend Mr. Evans from Colorado who led on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the latest advancement in technology. If you think about the history of this great Nation as we celebrate 250 years of America, one of the things that America has been so successful at has been always being on the frontier of new innovations. In fact, in the last 150 years, America has led the world in advancements in technology.

Today is no different. In fact, today, America is at the heart of the domination of technology all around the world. If you think about some of the simplest things we are able to do in our lives, that give us the ability to have more free time, or the things you can do on a cell phone that would have taken a supercomputer 30 years ago to do, that is because of advancements in technology.

Artificial intelligence and data centers are no different. It is another advancement in technology. As we are advancing in technology, we have to do it the right way, Mr. Speaker, in a smart and thoughtful way. If you look at communities that have embraced data centers, some communities said it is not for me, and that is a choice communities make.

The Federal Government is not the one making that decision. What we have always said, and what President Trump took the leadership in doing, is meeting with all of the Big Tech companies building these massive data centers and said just make sure as you are making these big investments in communities, you won't add to the cost of a local community's ratepayer electricity rates.

The President got a commitment to do that. We are not fully codifying that. It is, in essence, a step in that direction what this bill is doing. But as the President did that, you saw companies going and making massive multibillion-dollar investments in some of our communities and helping those communities along the way, Mr. Speaker.

That story does not get told. Frankly, I think that story needs to get told more. I have seen massive data centers in my home State of Louisiana. In fact, if you go to little Richland Parish, a rural part of north Louisiana that not a lot of people live in, not a lot of opportunities for wealth in that parish, Mr. Speaker, but then Meta decided to build a data center, and that data center grew and grew as the community embraced it.

They worked with the community. They are building their own natural gas facilities. It is actually going to help the grid in that community because they are going to be paying their own way and anything extra they have is going to be off-loaded to the grid so the neighbors in that community will actually get lower utility rates.

Do you know what else happened, Mr. Speaker? This is another part of the story that is not getting told enough, but the data center is still being built. It is up to about $50 billion in private funding that is being built in little Richland Parish.

As they are building that data center, because of all of the increased sales tax collections to Richland Parish, they were able to give a bonus. I am not talking about the base salary of their schoolteachers. They gave a bonus to every schoolteacher in Richland Parish because of the building of that data center.

Mr. Speaker, do you know how much every schoolteacher in Richland Parish received a few months ago because of the data center? They received a bonus of $50,000 per teacher because of the data center.

Those are the stories that you are seeing in communities that have embraced it, where they worked with the local community. It is not a burden on that community. It is actually a tremendous benefit. Not only teachers will benefit, but small businesses are cropping up.

Loudoun County in Virginia, Mr. Speaker, is another community that made the decision for themselves. It is not a Washington choice. It is a local community choice, and I think everybody would agree with that. If there are local communities that don't want it, believe me there are other communities that will take those benefits.

Loudoun County in Virginia got the benefits of their data centers to the tune of a 30 percent reduction in property taxes for every homeowner in Loudoun County, Virginia. They are benefiting from that still to this day, as well as the jobs that come along with it. They are benefiting from the investment, the buildings that come along, and the small business growth that we are seeing.

There has been this assertion, Mr. Speaker, some of it funded by China, that data centers are driving up utility prices. There was a study done. In fact, the Institute for Energy Research did a State-by- State study in all 50 States of this country and they looked at energy costs, the kilowatt-per-hour cost in every State.

Some States have data centers. Some States don't. The study is titled: ``Have Data Centers Driven Up Electricity Prices?''

Their conclusion was clearly no, they do not. There was no disparity in kilowatt hours per customer in States that have data centers and States that don't.

Again, a lot of that is because President Trump made all of the data centers, the companies that build them, give those pledges that they will not have a negative impact on the ratepayers.

What they did find, Mr. Speaker, was quite interesting, and that was a disparity that does exist in electricity prices between States. It is not all States.

What they ultimately looked at is States that have a unified government, all one party, either Republican or either Democrat. The States that have all unified Democratic Party control in those States actually have higher electricity costs than States that have all Republican.

The Institute for Energy Research did the study. You can go find it online. It shows you State by State the kilowatt-per-hour cost. The reason it is rising is because a lot of those States that have unified Democratic government are also States that are losing population. Some hundreds of thousands to nearly millions of people have fled those States. As those States lose population because of bad policies, Mr. Speaker, their baseload capacity is the same. The cost to run their grid is the same. It is spread amongst fewer people because their bad policies are running hundreds of thousands or a million-plus people out of the State.

The States that are growing, that have good government policies, and that are attracting people and jobs, those States have lower kilowatt- per-hour costs for their consumers because the same grid has the same fixed costs, but there is more people to spread the cost around so those people pay less.

That is what actually is happening in this country. Look at all the States. Go look at the Institute for Energy Research study, Mr. Speaker, because it shows you what is really happening out there.

There is a revolution happening. China is competing, and America is competing. We surely do not want China to win this war. America is staying at the forefront. I want us to stay at the forefront. Let locals make the choice and let consumers reap the benefits. That is what is happening right now, and this bill, by my friend Congressman Evans, ensures that we continue to see that growth continue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear colleague from Texas for yielding.

I am truly going to miss him, but he has got a lot of great work left to do as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, not the least of which is this important resolution, which is being brought forward, Mr. Chairman, a resolution that is critical to ensuring the hallmark of democracy, and that is the right to vote: one person, one vote.

If we look at all of the things that we have been working with President Trump to do to make life more affordable for working families, over and over again, we see nothing but obstruction from Democrats. It is sad to say. It is sad to see.

The American people are watching a party that has become a rudderless ship running off the left edge, socialists taking over. Watching what is going on to that other party, look at some of the things we have been able to do, even with their obstruction: working to produce more energy in America so we can lower costs for American families, while every Democrat voted no, and working to lower tax rates for working families. Yes, no tax on overtime is a benefit that has helped over 30 million Americans. These aren't the millionaires and the billionaires that Democrats go fight for every day. These are hardworking families making under $100,000 a year, many of them shift workers and law enforcement officers.

Maybe they voted against that bill because they want to defund the police, not help police officers and firefighters have a little bit more money in their pockets. With no tax on overtime, no tax on tips, somebody making $32,000 a year on average has thousands more in their pocket now because of the work Republicans did.

How did Republicans pay for it, Mr. Chairman? It was paid for by putting antifraud measures in that bill--yes, going after theft of American taxpayer dollars and not just small-time folks.

There are foreign countries operating with criminal organizations in States like Minnesota. We saw it. We documented it. It couldn't be stopped because we needed the measures. We tried to work with Democrats on it, but for whatever reason, every step of the way they blocked it. They blocked it until we put it in the reconciliation bill. Then when the tools were in place, President Trump was able to go out and recoup not millions but billions and tens of billions of dollars that we were able to take out of the hands of people stealing your money, and we put it in the pockets of hardworking families.

Overtime workers, waiters, waitresses, senior citizens who now have a tax credit, all of that we paid for with money that was being stolen. Every step of the way, Democrats opposed it. They would rather the theft of your tax dollars go to fraudsters than hardworking families have their money back. Their obstruction is nothing new, Mr. Chairman.

Then we get to today, where we say: Shouldn't we make sure our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to do their job safely? Shouldn't we make sure that our farmers get the relief they need so we can keep working to lower food costs? Oh, by the way, can't we ensure the integrity of the American vote?

These are basic things that most Americans understand. Democrats in Washington don't. They go back home and give Fourth of July speeches. Then they get on an airplane, and a transformation happens. They get up here, and they start voting against the wishes of the American people over and over again. Why? Not just to defend fraudsters.

If we know that requiring a picture ID, just something so basic that every American understands--which, by the way, those same Democrats have to show that picture ID to get on the airplane to come up here and vote for socialist policies. But they don't want that to be the case when you vote. They would say: Don't worry. There is no fraud. There is no fraud.

Well, why is it just that today's New York Post uncovered yet again what we have known all along? In New Jersey, they just admitted 6,600 noncitizens are on their rolls, many of them voting, voting in elections, illegals on their rolls voting. They document in this article many elections that were decided by just a small number of votes. In fact, the margin of the theft, the stolen votes are that margin. This can be stopped just by requiring a picture ID.

Then some would say, well, then, why would anybody be against that? They will hide behind all of these other ruses, but they will vote ``no.''

We have got a bill later today to say: Well, let's ban Members of Congress from trading stocks, and people are going to watch the board on an issue that every American understands. Almost every Democrat is going to vote ``no.'' People will say why is that? Because it requires a photo ID.

What is so harmful about that? A person can't go get an unlimited bowl of pasta at Olive Garden without showing a photo ID. Can we at least have the Olive Garden standard when we protect democracy and the franchise that we have to keep this great democracy? That is just requiring that you prove you are who you say you are.

This, Mr. Chairman, is such a fundamental principle. It is not hard to explain to the American people, but it is actively opposed by Democrats in Congress.

It just begs the question: Why? Who are they protecting? Who are they protecting with the ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman? If they know illegals are voting in many of these States where they don't require photo ID, then why would they vote against the requirement? Why?

It is a great question. Every American, Mr. Chairman, is going to be able to watch this vote and know where their Member of Congress is.

It is critically important for accountability that we all stand up and be counted. I am strongly for this. I think it is critical we protect the sanctity of every American's right to vote. If somebody else is stealing your vote because they are voting illegally-- thousands in New Jersey--then it takes away your right to vote, Mr. Chairman. We ought to be protecting everybody's right to vote, especially those people who are legally allowed to vote, not people who shouldn't be allowed by law to vote.

Let's pass this important resolution and get it over to the Senate so they can do their job and get this to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my colleague and friend from Texas, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, we should all be here today to express our strong support for this important piece of legislation to properly and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, including, yes, the people who actually are tasked with carrying out our immigration laws. That is the job of ICE and CBP. These are the laws that we all pass.

I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would love to go back to open borders, but they are not, fortunately, going to go back to open borders because we won't let them.

Madam Speaker, we worked with President Trump to secure the border. In fact, it was the number one issue in the 2024 election. The American people spoke loud and clear, and, yes, that was on the ballot. Everybody knew where each side was.

You would think, now that that issue is resolved, that we could be here in Congress to work together to properly make sure that we fund the Department of Homeland Security. Sadly, that is not what has happened.

You have seen the Democrats, time and time again, shut this Department down, the Department of Homeland Security, formed out of September 11. You would think some people on the other side of the aisle are acting like it is still September 10, like we don't have threats on our homeland.

Yet, we have threats coming from more places than ever because the other side let millions of people into our country. Millions of people illegally come into our country, including many violent criminals. They want you to think, Madam Speaker, that it is just everybody coming in to seek the American Dream.

We have a legal method for that to happen. Every country does, by the way. The United States is the most generous nation in the world in terms of our legal process to come to America--yes, legal. That means you have to follow the rules to be a part of this great American Dream.

If somebody doesn't want to follow those rules, including the prior President, then what it does is wreak havoc. What kind of havoc? I know the other side just likes to attack law enforcement every single day, the party that tried to defund the police. Yes, they are still at it. This vote today, make no mistake, if you are voting ``yes,'' you are not only voting to secure America's border. You are voting to fund law enforcement. If you vote ``no,'' you are voting to defund the police.

Those are the people, the law enforcement officers, who are risking their lives to keep our communities safe. I think, Madam Speaker, that it is important to ask safe from whom? Let's walk a little bit down memory lane and talk about some of the American citizens who are no longer with us today because of people who came into this country illegally because of Joe Biden's open border, because of the policies that the Democratic Party on the other side, Madam Speaker, wants us to go back to.

They want open borders. That is why they are voting ``no.'' Make no mistake about it, this vote is about opening the border again. This vote is about defunding the police. We cannot let that happen.

Why? Let's remember Laken Riley. Did some on the other side already forget who Laken Riley is? She was a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed while jogging near the University of Georgia campus in February 2024. The man convicted of her murder was, yes, a man from Venezuela who entered into the United States illegally.

Let's talk about Sheridan Gorman, Madam Speaker. She was an 18-year- old Loyola University Chicago freshman who was shot and killed in March 2026. The suspect: Jose Medina-Medina, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela.

Stephanie Minter, a Virginia mother, was fatally stabbed at a Fairfax County bus stop in February of this year.

Yes, anybody who votes ``no'' is voting against the people who are stopping criminal illegals who are murdering American citizens still to this day. Yet, they are going to cast that ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker.

Stephanie Minter, who was murdered, her suspect, Abdul Jalloh, came here illegally, an immigrant from Sierra Leone with over 30 police arrests, 30 times arrested, over and over again, until finally he murdered somebody.

Look at these sanctuary cities. By the way, go look at who is running these sanctuary cities.

When these Democrats are coming up here, saying that they want to grab more power, asking you to give them power again, look at what they do with power. They install sanctuary city policies. They let murderers get out of prison over and over again until they murder innocent citizens. You can just go look at the leadership of every Democratic- run city in America right now. Most of the States have major losses of population because of their policies.

Now, where are they going? Mostly to red States, States that are run by Republicans who want to lower taxes, who want to have commonsense policy, to get away from the crazy policies that we are seeing over and over again in these Democrat-run States.

In fact, the policies are so bad that you can look at the city of Chicago and know you will no longer be able to go to the city of Chicago to see the Chicago Bears play football. Illinois ran the Chicago Bears out of the State of Illinois, out of the city of Chicago over to Indiana because they are so antibusiness. Because they are so antiworker, and because they won't stand up and protect their own citizens.

Mr. Speaker, you listen to the people that get up here, day in and day out, and attack President Trump over and over again. What they don't tell you is that because President Trump focused on border security and protecting the American citizens, we now have the lowest murder rate in the United States in over 100 years because President Trump cares about people and their communities.

Look at some of these Democrat-run cities where they let illegals out over and over again. Go back to the suspect who murdered Stephanie Minter in Virginia. He was in prison and let out over 30 times.

Let's talk about Kayla Hamilton, a 20-year-old Maryland woman strangled to death in 2022 by a known MS-13 gang member from El Salvador.

Rachel Morin, a Maryland mother of five, was murdered while exercising on a hiking trail in 2023. Yes, it was someone who came here illegally, who murdered her, who was finally later convicted of that crime.

Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old Houston girl, was sexually assaulted and then murdered in June of 2024, Mr. Speaker. Two Venezuelans who entered the United States illegally were charged in that case.

Keep in mind, every one of these I am reading, we are about to have a vote to say: Should we have people working for ICE, working for CBP, protecting us from these violent criminals, who are coming into our country illegally to kill our citizens? And you are going to be able to vote yes or no.

And if you vote no, you are saying you want these people to keep coming in. Mr. Speaker, you are voting to defund the law enforcement officers who are going to stop these criminals from coming into our communities.

It is not like some hypothetical. It has happened over and over and over again. Sadly, there are more.

Luis Jocsan Nanez Lopez, a 15-year-old, was shot and killed while trying to protect his mother from an attempted rape by an illegal in Kentucky. The killer was a Mexican national.

Hallie Helgeson and Brady Heiling, 18- and 19-year-olds, were killed in a car crash by a Honduran national who was driving intoxicated in the wrong direction on a highway. This took place in a sanctuary jurisdiction in Wisconsin. They act like they are doing you a favor by looking the other way and not at the laws, except their own citizens are dying.

Megan Bos was killed by a Mexican in Illinois in 2025. After the killer's court appearance, a sanctuary city judge freed him onto the streets of Chicago. There that is again. Fortunately, it was ICE who rearrested that murderer.

And they want to make ICE out to be the enemy? They are defending the murderers. Over and over again they want to defund law enforcement, to stand up for criminals who are wreaking havoc in our communities all across this country.

Thank God, we have a President in Donald Trump who is willing to stand up for the American people and protect us, to keep us safe in our homeland. That is the whole purpose of the Department of Homeland Security. It is why it needs to be fully funded. We need to pass this bill. It should have been done months ago. And it should not be partisan. Everybody should vote for it.

But when that board lights up, you are going to see who is standing with the American people to keep us safe in our home and who is going to defend the criminals.

Mr. Speaker, I stand with the American people and say, let's keep our communities safe. Let's pass this bill. Let's fund this department.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), the chairman of the committee and my friend, for yielding. I thank him for the hard work he has put in to first passing an important bill over to the Senate, and now seeing this bill come back to address an important issue, and that is to make sure that we give the Capitol Police Board the flexibility so that we don't have to lose more good officers on the Capitol Police force.

I know personally the heroism and bravery of the great men and women in the United States Capitol Police. I would not be here without their heroism and bravery. We have some of them who are in the prime of their career who would be forced to retire if we don't pass this legislation.

At a time, as was brought up, where we have shortages, we need to make sure that we not only can keep attracting new officers to the force, but when you have officers in the prime of their career that everybody agrees are worthy of keeping on, that they have that flexibility. That is what this bill does, gives the Capitol Police Board that flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of the legislation and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Minnesota for yielding and all the applause coming from the other side.

Look, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important bill to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. You know, we have done this time and time again at least in the House. This will mark tonight the fourth time that the House has voted to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I know there has been a lot of back and forth in the Senate, and then at 3 in the morning Senators just decided, well, throw in the towel and maybe see what they can cobble together to get out of town.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have got a job to do. Our job is to protect the American people to do our job to keep them safe, and that is why we created this Department, not some of the Department, not just pieces of the Department, but the entire Department of Homeland Security.

I know the other side over and over again has wanted to go back to open borders. We are not going to go back to open borders. The American people don't want us to go back to open borders. They have seen the peril of that.

We also, Mr. Speaker, cannot go back to a September 10 mentality, a pre-September 11 mentality where you just ignore the signs of the bad things that are happening in this country. We changed that after September 11, and we vowed: ``Never forget,'' never let it happen again, yet here we are.

Some Members want to get in the time machine, and they want to go back to another day where maybe America didn't have any attacks. Well, how about we go back in a time machine and listen to the Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries. I will read a quote from Hakeem Jeffries. ``We are here today to do a single job, and that should be to fund fully the Department of Homeland Security. Anything else is an abdication of our responsibility. Anything else is an act of legislative malpractice. We are playing political games at a time when the safety and the security of the American people is being threatened.'' That was said in 2015 by Hakeem Jeffries.

Now, what has happened between now and then? Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is not your father's Democratic Party anymore. You have seen how far the radical crazy elements of the party have taken over and tried to bring it to this socialist mentality, this open borders mentality, this defund the police mentality. And, yes, this bill absolutely defunds the police.

You have got under this bill that came over from the Senate, even when

you count in the working families tax cut that every Democrat voted against, even when you count that in, 6,700 people at the Department of Homeland Security will be defunded. That is right. They will be defunded.

The American people rejected the defund the police movement. Just because it happened in the Senate at 3 in the morning doesn't mean nobody heard it. We did. We didn't just hear it, we read the bill, and we said, no, Mr. Speaker, that is not the responsible thing to do for this country.

This country is counting on us. And by the way, it is at a time when we are at a heightened level of threats. If you are wondering what that heightened level is--I know there are some people that just want to go after police all the time. Why don't we just read a couple of the names that the other side doesn't want to read.

Richard Williams, Mr. Speaker, was an 83-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran who was randomly shoved into the subway tracks by an illegal alien from Honduras. He just died this week.

We have all heard of Sheridan Gorman. Maybe not enough people, Mr. Speaker, have heard of Sheridan Gorman, but we are going to say her name again. She was a beautiful 18-year-old young girl from Loyola University in Chicago, a student who had the world before her. She was shot to death by, yes, an illegal alien from Venezuela who came over here under President Biden's open borders that the other side wants to take us back to. We are not going to do that. That surely is not the responsible thing to do.

Stephanie Minter, a 41-year-old mother from Virginia, was randomly stabbed to death by an illegal, yes, with a lengthy rap sheet with more than 30 prior charges.

How many more of these do we have to have before some people will say, okay, maybe we need to fund this Department? I don't think there is an endless list before--they just don't want to offend their radical base, Mr. Speaker. That is really who they are afraid of.

Obviously, if they were concerned about all these Americans--over and over and over again. This is just in the last month who has been killed by people here illegally, and they are going to go and defund almost 7,000 people at the Department? That is insane.

And, oh, by the way, have we talked about the multiple terrorist attacks that have happened, yes, here on our homeland, not on foreign soil, here on our homeland just in the last month, and they want to partially defund this agency with this bill and the working families tax cut. Still over 10 percent of the whole agency will be defunded at a time when we are at a heightened terrorist threat.

Could you imagine if you had a terrorist outside of your house, and somebody said, well, we will let you lock the front door, but we don't have time to lock the back door? You would think that was crazy. You would lock the front door, the back door, the windows, and everything else, and you would go get your shotgun.

But yet, they want to defund this agency and make our country vulnerable, make Americans less safe? I am not going to have anything to do with that, Mr. Speaker. I want to fund the whole Department. That is what this bill does. It pays everybody. It pays the TSA agents as they should be, as Democrats have voted time and time again to not pay. We pay them. And it is not long-term. I wish it was. We have sent them a long-term bill. This is for a few months. We at least have time to keep negotiating our differences.

These are big differences, but these are dangerous times in America. This is not the time to defund the police, to defund the Department of Homeland Security at any level. Mr. Speaker, I would urge everybody to vote for this bill. Let's do our job. We are here doing the right thing to keep America safe. I urge adoption.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma, the great chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Congressman Ciscomani's bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, this is a bill that should have passed weeks and weeks ago. In fact, today will mark the third time that this House has voted to fully fund the Department. In case you want to know how that vote went, Madam Speaker, there has been a record vote twice already in the House. You can see who is voting ``yes'' to fund TSA agents, to fund the people at the Department of Homeland Security who work every day to keep us safe here in America. All the Republicans, almost every Republican, voted ``yes.'' On March 5, almost every Democrat voted ``no,'' voted to shut the Department down. The Democrats shut this down, Madam Speaker.

Then, we brought another vote, Madam Speaker, and you can see January 22 was the first vote, almost a party-line vote, Republicans voting ``yes'' to fund the Department and Democrats voting ``no.''

March 5, same thing, Republicans voting ``yes'' to fund the Department and Democrats overwhelmingly voting ``no'' to shut it down.

Now, today is a day where they can seek redemption and stand up for those workers, the TSA agents, who are showing up for work and not getting paid.

Do you know that if you are a TSA agent in America this fiscal year, Madam Speaker, you have gone 49 percent of this year without a paycheck?

That is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that Democrats have voted time and time again to deny pay for those especially who are showing up to do this hard work.

You have Americans waiting in line for hours and hours, 3 hours, 4 hours. At my home airport in New Orleans, people were sleeping overnight there so they would have a chance to make their flight. There are people waiting over 3 hours and still missing a flight, Madam Speaker, to go maybe on a family vacation, maybe they have to go to a funeral or a wedding.

This is disrupting the lives of real people.

Let me tell you what the TSA chief testified to yesterday, just yesterday. The TSA chief told lawmakers that their agents ``have received eviction notices, lost their childcare, missed bill payments and been charged late fees, damaged their credit, defaulted on loans, and have been unable to even qualify for a loan to help ease the financial burden during the shutdown.'' That was testimony given yesterday, and it is totally avoidable.

That kind of pain should not be inflicted on our Federal workers, and yet you can see the party-line vote time and time again, like today when we bring a bill to say let's just give these people paychecks for the work that they are doing.

We can all have disagreements over how government operates. Go look at the changes President Trump has already made at the Department of Homeland Security. This week we got a new Secretary. There have been dramatic changes to the Department. In fact, changes both sides have made or have asked for have been made.

Yet, Democrats don't want to take ``yes'' for an answer, Madam Speaker, because they want chaos. Let's just call it for what it is. They want open borders. They want chaos. We are going to give them an opportunity to do the right thing because the American people are sick and tired of it, and they should be.

There is going to be a moment of accountability real soon. In about an hour, you will be able to see, America will be able to see who is voting ``yes'' to fund these people who are working so hard, and who is voting ``no'' to keep the chaos going, to keep the long lines going.

Now, I would like to say I am going to read you some good news. I want to read you a quote from Hakeem Jeffries, Madam Speaker. I think this is an important quote that everybody should listen to right now. This is Hakeem Jeffries: ``We are here today to do a single job, and that should be to fund fully the Department of Homeland Security. Anything else is an abdication of our responsibility. Anything else is an act of legislative malpractice. So we are playing political games at a time when the safety and the security of the American people is being threatened.''

That is Hakeem Jeffries, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, that was Hakeem Jeffries from February of 2015. What happened to that Hakeem Jeffries?

How will Hakeem Jeffries of 2026 vote? The previous two times we know, Madam Speaker, the vote was ``no.'' However, in 2015, he said it would be an act of malpractice to shut this Department down.

Let's talk about what times we are in. Some people want to think that we are at a September 10 mentality, a pre-September 11 mentality. We are at a heightened state of alert right now. We have actually had, Madam Speaker, four terrorist attacks on our American homeland in the last month.

This Department is more critical than ever, and this is when Democrats choose to shut it down, to put Americans at risk? It is dangerous.

It is not just cruel to these workers who are going without pay. They testified yesterday that there are some TSA agents sleeping in their cars because they can't afford rent. That is cruel, but it is also dangerous to this country to shut down this Department at a time like this.

Don't go back to a pre-September 11 mentality. This Department was created for a reason, to protect the homeland so we don't ever have a September 11 again.

``Never forget,'' remember that mantra? It seems like some people want to forget, have forgotten. Maybe they have amnesia. Maybe they need to remember that quote from the Democratic Leader back in 2015 who said it would be political malpractice to vote to shut this agency down.

Let's do the right thing. Let's everybody--not just Republicans today--let's have Republicans and Democrats join together and do what is needed to protect America's homeland. Vote ``yes'' on Congressman Ciscomani's bill to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, get this back open. Bring common sense back into this country.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 6 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 25, 2026, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, ``let the good times roll''; ``laissez les bons temps rouler.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding, and I thank Chip Roy for bringing the SAVE America Act to the House floor.

This is a bill that is critically important to one of the most precious franchises in America, and that is the sacred right to vote, the right that so many gave their lives to preserve, to allow to pass on to our next generation.

The importance of that vote is even more underscored when you recognize that, yes, there have been times where people have stolen your vote, Mr. Speaker. That veteran who was talked about deserves the right to vote. If somebody votes illegally, Mr. Speaker, they are stealing that veteran's vote. They are stealing your vote. They are stealing everybody's votes if we allow people who aren't legally eligible to vote to participate in elections.

How can you best preserve that? One way is that, when you are registering to vote, you have to prove citizenship. It is in this bill. Another way is when you go to vote, you just have to show your ID.

This is not some convoluted idea, Mr. Speaker. You hear the other side talking about it as the end of the world.

Their own leaders have referred to it as ``Jim Crow.''

It is not the first time that they have used that phrase. They used that when the State of Georgia put an ID requirement on voting. They said it was going to be horrible and take away people's rights. It was going to disenfranchise minority voters, Mr. Speaker. That is what they said, but then what happened? We have actually got history to go look at.

After Georgia passed that law that was called every ridiculous name in the book, what we saw was record participation in elections. You actually had the University of Georgia that went and asked voters after that election, and a whopping zero percent, Mr. Speaker, of Black voters said they had a poor experience going to the ballot. Over 72 percent said they had an excellent experience at the ballot. Then, you could go further.

By the way, the American people get this. They understand that there are examples of voter fraud. I come from a State where our elections commissioner went to jail--yes, went to Federal prison--for stealing elections. We cleaned up our election system in our State. We have seen an increase in voter participation.

Why? Again, they would tell you if you actually increased the integrity of elections by requiring picture ID that somehow it is going to suppress votes, but the opposite happens, Mr. Speaker. What really does happen is that voters now have confidence in the sanctity of elections. More people will participate because they know that somebody is not going to be stealing their vote by showing up when they are not supposed to be there, just by requiring a picture ID.

Americans have been asked about this. An overwhelming 83 percent of Americans are in favor of requiring a photo ID to vote. That is not Republicans. That is all across the spectrum. Over 70 percent of Democrats support picture ID, 82 percent of Hispanic Americans support picture ID to vote, and 76 percent of Black Americans support a picture ID to vote.

If they still want to lie to people on the other side, Mr. Speaker, if they still want to try to scare people and talk about Jim Crow, then you might want to ask those same people why the Democratic Party at their convention just in 2024 required photo ID to get in. You couldn't get into the Democratic convention without showing a photo ID. If they want to call it Jim Crow, they need to look in the mirror, Mr. Speaker.

If you want to ensure the sanctity of the vote, the SAVE America Act does that. You will see higher participation because Americans across all spectrums--Black, White, Hispanic, Republican, Democrat, Independent--will know that there is a higher likelihood that nobody there is showing up illegally to steal your vote if you have the right to vote.

One person, one vote--that is the mantra that we all ought to embrace. The SAVE America Act gets us back to that great franchise of American democracy, and that is the right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to pass this bill over to the Senate and then the Senate to get it to President Trump's desk so we can strengthen American democracy.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the SPEED Act and the work that Chairman Westerman and a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress have done to bring a bill to the floor that actually focuses on letting us build things in America again, and, by the way, to lower the cost of those projects that we want to bring.

In the past, you would see years. Recently, it takes 10 years or longer to build things that used to take only 2 years. Why? Not because of trying to push things to the side.

This bill still requires, Mr. Chair, that we comply with all the State and local laws that are in place. We still would have to comply with Federal laws that are in place. But what it does is it finally brings common sense by cutting red tape, Mr. Chair, red tape that dramatically increases the costs and, in some cases, just makes it economically unfeasible to do projects, to build roads, to build bridges, to build pipelines to move energy, to lower costs for families, to build housing. This bill will allow us to bring more affordable housing to the marketplace in an environmentally protected way, by the way. Those laws are still in place, but they just can't be abused as has been the case over decades.

When the law was created in the 1960s, the intent was never that NEPA would be used to stop projects. It would be that you would review these projects like you review any other laws, like the Endangered Species Act, which unfortunately has been heavily abused, too--we are going to reform that as well--and all of the other laws that are so abused to stop projects from being built in America.

Some people say why can some of these other countries build a road or a bridge in 16 months and it takes us 10 years to do it in America? It is because we have allowed these laws like NEPA to become so heavily abused, where people who have no relation to the project can file lawsuit after lawsuit that have nothing to do with the project. They just want to slow down and stop the project. How about we bring common sense back into permitting. That is what the SPEED Act does.

Again, do these people not trust the States that still have to permit at the local and State level, along with all of the other Federal permits that need to take place?

We used to build things in America at rapid speed. We can do it again, and we will do it again with the SPEED Act. Let's allow America to do all the great innovative things it used to do.

Look at AI, what artificial intelligence is allowing us to bring. But we need to upgrade our electricity system. We need to build more power plants, not just for families but for innovation. It is almost impossible to do if we don't reform some of these outdated regulations that have been abused. Everybody knows they have been abused. Until we update our laws, we are not going to be able to build things again in America in a timely way.

Let's get things done in 2 years, not 10 years or never. Many of these projects get shelved, just never get built. Really, they do get built. They get built in other countries because our laws haven't been updated the way they need to be, to allow us to build things again in an economical way.

Lower the cost of building houses in America. Lower the cost of building roads and bridges in America. Lower the cost of building energy projects in America while still respecting environmental laws but just removing the red tape that is killing our ability to innovate.

This is a great bill that needs to happen. I am so glad Chairman Westerman did the work to build a bipartisan coalition to get things done in America again. Let's get the SPEED Act passed, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion desk.