US House Floor Proceedings (Thursday, July 16, 2026)

[8:01] The house will be in order. The prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, [8:04] Reverend John Thomas, the Diocese of Camden, Camden, New Jersey. [8:11] Let us pray. [8:13] O God of all the nations, today in this house, we ask that you shed your grace on the United [8:22] States of America. We are grateful for our semi-quincentennial. We are hopeful for our [8:29] future. We are grateful for our diversity. We are hopeful for unity. We are grateful for [8:38] pilgrim feet and heroes proved in liberating strife. We are hopeful for open hearts and [8:46] representatives proved in cooperation. In declaring independence from Great Britain 250 years ago, [8:55] the first prayer of the Continental Congress promised that we were desiring to be henceforth [9:01] dependent only on thee. If we turn to you as our Father, then crown our nation with brotherhood [9:10] and sisterhood. Give us unity from inspiration, not desperation. Unite us with a common dream, [9:19] not a common enemy. Unite us as a people striving for righteousness, [9:25] not a people merely arguing who is right. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. [9:32] The chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house [9:38] the approval thereof. Pursuant to clause one of rule one, the journal stands approved. [9:41] Pledge of Allegiance will be led by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Taylor. [9:54] Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross, is recognized for one minute. [10:14] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm honored to welcome guest chaplain Father John Thomas, [10:20] priest and vicar general of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden. Born and raised in South Jersey, [10:27] educated at Catholic University right here in DC. Father John was ordained in 2010 and since serves the [10:34] of parishes across South Jersey. As pastor in Atlantic City, he provided assistance and spiritual [10:40] guidance to the workers in the hospitality industry in Atlantic City. Since 2020, he served as pastor of [10:49] Christ the King in Haddonfield. That year, I met him. He was hosting a virtual mass for frontline workers [10:57] who were during the pandemic being challenged. Since 2022, he served as chaplain to the New Jersey AFL-CIO, [11:06] and in 2025, he was appointed Vicar General of the Diocese of Camden, serving roughly 475,000 Catholics across [11:15] South Jersey. Thank you, Father Thomas, for the prayer, the call for unity, and to our community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back. [11:25] The chair will entertain up to five further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. [11:33] For what purposes, the gentleman from North Carolina seat recognition? [11:35] Mr. Marr Marks. [11:39] Without objection, the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for one minute. [11:42] Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I rise today to honor the Rowan County Rescue Squad as we celebrate [11:49] its 75th anniversary of protecting and serving the community. Since 1951, the Rescue Squad has answered the [11:57] call for more than 140,000 residents who call Rowan County their home. While at its core, the Rescue [12:03] Squad is made up of brave volunteers, they also are joined by staff to help provide enhanced services of [12:10] the highest quality to everyone in Rowan County. Over its first 75 years, they have always been there [12:16] in times of emergency, ready to protect and respond. No matter where, whether on our waterways or in our [12:23] neighborhoods, they stand ready 24 hours a day. Their dedication reflects the very best of North [12:29] Carolina and the spirit of service that strengthens our communities. North Carolina's 6th District is [12:34] better because of their dedication and to the Rowan County Rescue Squad. Congratulations on 75 years, [12:41] and we thank you. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back. [12:44] The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania. For what purpose [12:52] does the gentleman from Pennsylvania see recognition? The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. [13:00] This month, as our country celebrated 250 years of American democracy, a moment for profound reflection [13:09] and unity. Instead, my Republican colleagues rejoiced in one year of the big, beautiful bill. Instead, [13:17] it was anything but beautiful. Snap cuts have literally taken food out of the mouths of babes, [13:23] kicking 1.5 million children from nutrition assistance, leaving families hungry and afraid [13:30] for tomorrow. Because of this now-law, Medicare cuts have left seniors facing life-threatening [13:36] barriers to health care. You know, Martin Luther King once said, of all forms of inequality, [13:41] injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane. And when you consider that this bill is on track to [13:47] cost our nation 3.4 trillion dollars, it becomes even more nonsensical, destabilizing, and cruel, [13:55] cruel. And that seems to be the point. Our founding fathers believed, in fact, [14:00] endangered their very lives on the unmovable belief of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for [14:05] those fortunate to call our nation home. Ripping health care coverage, nutrition, and security from [14:11] our most vulnerable is no way to honor our guiding principles. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back. [14:17] General Lady yields, for what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio seek recognition? [14:25] Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized for one minute. [14:28] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize a treasured member of our Buckeye community, [14:34] Jana Deddy, and celebrate her retirement after a storied career spanning 50 years. [14:39] While studying at Hocking Tech to pursue a career in medical records, Jana set out to look for a summer [14:44] job. At the time, she had no idea the great career it would launch for her. Her neighbor was the [14:49] manager at a local McDonald's on Western Avenue, so Jana threw her hat in the ring. [14:54] She nailed the interview and started her job as a crew member, quickly climbing through the ranks [14:58] and moving to shift manager, then assistant manager, general manager, supervisor, and finally human [15:04] resources manager in 2009. Jana is known for her kindness and commitment to excellence. She also [15:09] demonstrated her leadership by raising over half a million dollars for charity to provide a home away [15:14] from home for families of children undergoing serious medical treatments. Jana, Southern Ohio [15:20] is proud to call you one of our own. Thank you for your years of dedication to our community, [15:24] and congratulations on your retirement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back. [15:28] The gentleman kneels for what purpose does the gentleman from California seat recognition? [15:31] Without objection, the gentleman from California is recognized for one minute. [15:39] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my outrage about the recent FDA regulatory [15:46] actions on e-cigarettes. On April 30th, Reynolds American donated $5 million to MAGA Inc., [15:54] a Trump-backed super PAC. In the following eight days, the president dined with top tobacco executives, [16:00] and the FDA issued guidance making it easier for tobacco companies to sell flavored e-cigarettes. [16:07] In 2024, 1.63 million middle and high school students in America used e-cigarettes, [16:15] and nearly 90% of them used flavored products. The tobacco industry is openly paying to advance [16:23] policies that will addict the next generations of young people to nicotine. I urge my colleagues [16:30] to join me in condemning this blatant pay-for-play corruption and the harm it will afflict to generations [16:37] of young Americans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back. The gentleman kneels. For what purpose [16:43] does the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Boss, seek recognition? Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution [16:49] 1423, I call up H.R. 9237, the Take Care of Americans Veterans Act, and ask for its immediate [16:58] consideration in the House. The clerk reports the title of the bill. H.R. 9237, a bill to amend [17:05] Titles 10 and 38, United States Code, and other federal laws to improve benefits for veterans and the [17:11] administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Pursuant to House Resolution 1423, [17:18] the amendment printed in Part B of House Report 119-749 is adopted, and the bill as amended is [17:24] considered red. The bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled [17:29] by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veteran Affairs or their respective [17:33] designees. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Boss, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, [17:41] each will control 30 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Boss. Speaker, [17:46] I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend [17:51] their remarks and insert extenuous material in the record on H.R. 9237. Without objection. [17:58] Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, [18:03] Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 9237, the Take Care of Americans Veterans [18:12] Act, as a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. For me, this bill is personal. When a young man or a [18:22] woman raises their right hand and agrees to serve this country, America makes a promise. That promise [18:29] does not end when a service member is wounded. It is my goal and the goal of my friend, Senator Jerry [18:37] Moran, to deliver on that promise. This bill would be one of the most comprehensive veterans packages [18:45] considered by Congress in a decade. This bill includes more than 60 bipartisan provisions that would [18:55] improve health care, benefits, operations, and accountability across the VA. Speaker, I would like [19:03] to tell you more about some of the important provisions. One is the Major Richard Starr Act. For decades, [19:12] medically retired combat injured veterans have had their military retirement offset dollar for dollar [19:20] by their VA disability. While some disabled veterans who served 20 years received both their [19:29] both their are tens of thousands of combat injured veterans who currently do not. Many combat injured [19:39] veterans would have served longer if their injuries had not taken the opportunity for them. H.R. 9237 would [19:48] help end that injustice. It would end the offset for combat injured veterans, allowing them to receive [19:54] both benefits up to what a 20-year-old retiree with the same disability would receive. Members on both [20:03] sides of the aisle and veteran service organizations support this and have for years. But a press release, [20:09] a handshake, and a discharge position petition does not end the wounded warrior tax. This bill will. The [20:22] Love Lives On Act is another important provision included in this bill. Currently, surviving spouses lose [20:32] their benefit if they remarry before age 55. But those benefits were earned by their spouses sacrificing for [20:41] this country. The Love Lives On Act would allow surviving spouses to remarry at any age. Another important [20:49] provision in this bill is the Sherry Briley and Eric Edmondson Veterans Benefit Expansion Act. This bill [20:59] provides a long-awaited increase to catastrophically disabled veterans and surviving spouses. Eric was 25 years old [21:08] when the IED left him with a fractured spine and a traumatic brain injury. H.R. 9237 would increase his benefit for [21:19] catastrophic disabled veterans like Eric by $10,000 a year. It would also increase benefits for surviving [21:27] spouses. These American families have not seen a meaningful increase in decades. Speaker, this bill also [21:35] includes the Veterans Access Act. Veterans should be able to access health care in their own communities. [21:41] Too many veterans still facing delays, confusion, and barriers when trying to use VA community care. [21:48] This bill would also improve the mental health care and community-based suicide prevention. A [21:55] veteran's health care should be driven by the veterans' needs, not by government control. H.R. 9237 [22:05] would improve education benefits, vocational training, to help veterans transition into civilian life. It [22:12] would modernize the VA's claim and appeals process so veterans have a system that works for them. It would [22:19] streamline the way VA handles construction, leasing, contracting, IT, and finances. The Take Care [22:28] of American Veterans Act would expand benefits, push VA to do better. Speaker, I also want to address [22:36] how this bill is funded, as I have heard a lot of misinformation about this point. H.R. 9237 would [22:46] codify VA's own pending regulation on how to evaluate sleep apnea and tinnitus effect on a veteran's [22:56] workplace earnings. This regulation was proposed by the Biden-era VA in 2022, created by a VA team of [23:07] doctors and researchers. It was part of VA's efforts to modernize its disability rating schedule created in [23:15] the 1940s. President Biden's Under Secretary for Benefits, Josh Jacobs, testified in favor of these [23:23] changes at his confirmation hearing. Earlier this year, VA's Executive Director of Compensation confirmed [23:31] plans to finalize these changes this year. These are not new ideas, and there is nothing unprecedented [23:41] about this. This bill would not eliminate disability ratings for sleep apnea or tinnitus. It would not [23:50] automatically, in any veteran's current disability rating, be reduced. Future veterans with sleep apnea [23:59] will still get treatment through the VA health care. But if a CPAP eliminates your symptoms, VA would [24:11] compensate you less. Currently, the amount of compensation for sleep apnea is often more than the [24:19] amount that a veteran receives if they lose a limb. This change just is common sense. It's why VA has [24:29] worked hard to propose these changes like these that reflect modern medicine. For tinnitus, VA has found [24:37] it's best understood as a symptom of another condition, such as hearing loss or TBI. Under the proposed [24:45] change, tinnitus would still be rated as part of another underlying condition. This is not about denying [24:54] these conditions exist. So let's be clear. This is not cutting benefits. No one will lose their benefits that [25:03] are receiving them. It is about making sure VA rating schedule follows modern science and using those [25:11] savings to fund the expansion of benefits and other VA programs. Mr. Speaker, if we don't pass HR 9237 today, [25:24] VA can make these rating changes as planned, but the savings would go back to one place, big government. [25:33] I want those savings instead to go to the pockets and the benefits for millions of veterans and their [25:41] family. Speaker, as a United States Marine veteran, you can bet your bottom dollar that I believe that [25:50] this bill would not harm a single veteran and I would not bring it forward to this floor if I thought it [25:56] would. Veterans do not need a bill that makes members feel good for a day and then dies in the Senate. [26:05] They need legislation that can pass. Speaker, veterans groups agree. I'd like to ask unanimous [26:13] consent to enter into the record a letter from 20 different veterans organizations in support of this [26:20] legislation. Without objection. Veterans groups from the American Legion to the Wounded Warrior Project [26:28] support this bill. Survivor groups like the Tragedy Assistant Program for Survivors support this bill. [26:35] Caregiver organizations like the Elizabeth Dole Foundation support this bill. They all want this [26:44] bill to pass. Chairman Moran and I have worked for months to try to enact a law that will help the [26:51] greatest number of veterans. I believe we have offered that kind of package today. I want to take a [26:59] moment to share what we've heard directly from veterans. Mission Roll Call, a national nonpartisan [27:06] organization dedicated to serving veterans and their families, recently conducted a survey on my bill. [27:13] They found 71 percent of veterans support the bill. I think that's a clear choice. Speaker, as our nation [27:20] observes its 250th birthday, HR 9237 asks a simple question. Do we have veterans back? Do we have the back of [27:33] fellow Americans who raised their right hand to serve in defense of this great country? The gold star families [27:41] who carry the cost of their loved one's sacrifice? Caregivers who every single day care for disabled [27:49] veteran family member? For me, the answer will always be yes, both during service and after. I urge all of my [27:59] colleagues to support the Take Care of American Vets Act, and I reserve the balance of my time. [28:05] The gentleman in reserves. The gentleman from California is recognized. [28:11] Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from California is recognized. [28:17] Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to HR 9237. It's a beautiful day here in Washington, [28:27] D.C., but Republicans are casting a dark cloud over all of us, and especially over America's veterans. [28:36] We have before us today a bill that, despite its name, does the exact opposite of taking care of veterans. [28:47] It enshrines into law the largest cut to veterans' benefits ever in the history of this nation. [28:56] The premise of this bill is that some veterans must be made worse off in order to make others better off. [29:04] Mr. Speaker, I reject that premise. I reject this bill, and I encourage others to do the same. [29:12] Here's the core issue. The majority treats veterans as a zero-sum game. Cut disability pay for some [29:21] to find benefits for others. That's not governing. That's rationing suffering among our nation's heroes. [29:30] With this bill, the majority would, for the first time ever, have Congress interfere in the scientific process [29:39] that determines veterans' disability ratings, overriding the expertise of medical professionals [29:46] at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Chairman Bost, I respect that you are a military veteran, [29:55] but you, sir, are not a medical professional. The majority, for the first time ever, would have us cut [30:04] tens of billions of dollars from veterans' disability compensation to pay for the Department of Defense [30:10] obligations. This is absolutely unconscionable. Consider the math. Republicans are discussing nearly 70 [30:20] billion dollars in new Pentagon spending without offsets. They vote enthusiastically for 1.5 trillion [30:28] dollars in annual defense budgets. Yet, they insist on paying for veterans' priorities by cutting benefits [30:37] with the two most common service-connected conditions. Apparently, there's no problem sending veterans [30:44] to the bill for the wars that Congress funds. A massive 600-page bill crafted behind closed doors [30:54] and brought to the floor without careful consideration, packed with harmful provisions designed to boost [31:01] a few vulnerable members' electoral prospects. For those reasons and many, many more, I cannot in good [31:08] conscience support this legislation. But more important than my opposition is the opposition of [31:15] the very people whom the majority claims to help veterans themselves. Over 30 veterans service [31:22] organizations and advocates oppose this legislation, including many of the largest, like the Veterans of [31:29] Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and numerous others. [31:36] They know that reaching into the pockets of one set of veterans to provide for another is morally wrong. [31:44] Creating tiers of veterans based on their period of service, treating tomorrow's veterans worse than today's [31:55] is morally wrong. They will not stand for it, and neither should we. In addition to the numerous [32:03] VSOs and over two dozen labor unions opposing this bill, including the Union Veterans Council, American [32:11] Federation of Government Employees and AFL-CIO, so do professional organizations like the American [32:17] Psychological Association and the Nurses Organization of VA. They all recognize the devastating effect this [32:25] legislation will have on VA's workforce and their ability to deliver high quality care. Now even the [32:34] Mortgage Bankers Association has expressed opposition to this bill. The majority has decided that during a [32:41] housing affordability crisis, it makes sense to raise costs on struggling veteran homeowners who are desperately [32:49] trying to avoid foreclosure. This package contains multiple harmful provisions. It would accelerate the [32:58] privatization of veterans' health care, creating new grant programs for private providers that divert resources [33:06] from VA mental health and PTSD programs and steer veterans into more expensive community-based care, even where VA [33:15] services remain available, and strip VA psychologists of collective bargaining rights. This bill also contains [33:23] numerous sections opposed by key stakeholders like Student Veterans of America, Veterans Education Success, and the [33:31] American Federation of Teachers that would direct GI Bill funding toward low-quality, for-profit, unaccredited online [33:40] programs. This bill contains provisions that would allow GI benefits to be used for online welding courses. Can you [33:50] believe it? Explain to me how you can teach someone online how to weld. Inexplicably, HR 9237 even includes a $500 million [34:03] IT slush fund that VA will use to enrich contractors and reward the president's cronies. And the list goes on and on. [34:13] We are going to hear arguments from the majority today about all the good things this bill attempts to do. [34:19] If we exist in a vacuum, I would say that I agree. There are parts of this bill with broad bipartisan support. [34:28] Long overdue increases to dependency and indemnity compensation and special monthly compensation, [34:35] for example. But we do not exist in isolation here, and we must take the bill as the total sum of its [34:43] parts, especially since the majority has blocked amendments to this bill, as they have done so often [34:50] in this Congress. And regrettably, we will also hear the chairman say that cutting veterans benefits is the [34:57] only way that we can get them done. This is patently false, and the chairman knows it. Everyone in this [35:05] chamber knows it, and everyone in America knows it as well. There are any number of other places we can [35:12] find money for these priorities. We don't lack money around here. What is in short supply is, at least on the [35:24] other side of the aisle, is the political will to use some of it on behalf of America's veterans. [35:31] $1.5 trillion for the Department of Defense, $70 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, [35:40] and hundreds of millions of dollars for permanent tax cuts for the wealthy. None of it offset, [35:47] all of which the chairman voted for enthusiastically. Just 10 days of President Trump's [35:55] folly in Iran would pay for 10 years of benefits under the Major Richard Starr Act. Let me say that [36:01] again. Just 10 days of President Trump's folly in Iran would pay for 10 years of benefits under the [36:10] Major Richard Starr Act. So the question we have before us today is this. Why do you insist on offsets [36:19] now? Why only now, when we are trying to do work on behalf of our nation's veterans, do you care about [36:25] the deficit? Why are Republicans holding veterans' priorities hostage, including the overwhelmingly [36:32] top priority of veterans, the Major Richard Starr Act, in exchange for multi-billion dollar cuts [36:39] to veterans' benefits? That's a mystery to me. And it's a question that Chairman Boss and Republicans [36:46] will struggle to answer as well. I want to point to this chart here. Mr. Speaker, let me finish with a quote [36:54] from just one veteran in opposition to this legislation. And I quote, I am a disabled Michigan [37:02] veteran and lifelong conservative. Please pass the Major Richard Starr Act as a standalone bill. [37:10] We do not support the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, H.R. 9237, and we will never elect [37:17] representatives who want to cut veterans' benefits. How could Republicans propose this? End quote. [37:26] Now, I couldn't have said it any better. And there are thousands more comments just like this, [37:32] as you can see here. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. [37:39] The gentleman reserved. Members are reminded to direct their remarks towards the chair. The chair [37:46] recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, the ranking member [37:50] knows VA has an obligation to update disability conditions based on the latest science and medicine. [37:57] And in his opening, he said that I am not a doctor. He's right. I'm a Marine. I'm a truck driver. [38:04] And somehow I've been blessed to serve our veterans as a chairman of the committee. He's not a doctor [38:10] either. Likewise, he's been blessed by his community to be here. But what I do want to do is, for the record, [38:18] the proposed changes for sleep apnea and tendinitis aren't developed by Congress. [38:26] They were developed by VA physicians. They are doctors. Medical experts. Doctors. And researchers [38:33] under the Biden administration as part of the ongoing disability rating modernization efforts. [38:40] In testimony before the House Veterans Affairs Committee in January of 2026, VA officials stated [38:50] that the department intended to continue moving forward with the respiratory ear body system rulemaking [38:58] and anticipating completing those efforts by the end of year 2026. That testimony was not given by career [39:08] staff acting alone. In fact, just this morning, VA officials confirmed that they are planning to move [39:16] forward with the proposed rule on sleep apnea and tendinitis. The testimony represents the official [39:24] position of the department at the time it was delivered to Congress. So the question before us is not [39:32] whether Congress created these proposed changes. We did not. VA's announcement makes their intention clear. [39:43] This is moving forward regardless. But Ranking Member Takano would rather play politics. [39:50] The question is whether the savings associated with the political deployment by the VA and changes by the VA [39:59] should remain in their control and the bureaucrats control or do we make it through our article one power [40:09] to reinvest into the veterans and their families. HR 9237 chooses veterans. Speaker, I would ask unanimous [40:19] consent the testimony of both Josh Jacobs, Biden Under Secretary of Benefits, and Nina Tan, Trump's [40:25] Executive Director of Compensation Service, be entered into the record. Without objection. [40:32] With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman and a good friend from [40:38] Ohio's second district, Representative Taylor. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. [40:43] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank Chairman Boss for yielding me the time. [40:47] Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. America's veterans [40:53] represent the best our country have to offer, and it is time for Congress to deliver meaningful reforms to [40:58] our veterans benefit programs that improve the quality of life for America's warfighters. That's [41:03] why I'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, which will [41:07] modernize and enhance the delivery of VA benefits for veterans across our country. As we continue to [41:13] celebrate America's 250th anniversary, it is important that we realize that freedom is not free, [41:19] and we wouldn't have this amazing country without the sacrifices of countless service members and their [41:24] families. Now is the time to reaffirm Congress's support of our veteran community and put veterans [41:29] first by passing this legislation. I'm particularly proud that this legislation includes the expansion [41:35] of GI Bill benefits, increases benefits for severely disabled veterans and their families, [41:41] and ends the wounded veterans tax thanks to the inclusion of the Major Richard Starr Act. [41:46] These reforms are long overdue, and I applaud Chairman Boss and the work of the House Veterans [41:50] Affairs Committee for their role in crafting this legislation. This bill upholds the promise we [41:55] made to our nation's veterans that upon completion of their service, we would take care of them and [41:59] their families. It is our duty as temporary caretakers of our republic to fight for those who keep us safe, [42:06] and veterans are at the top of that list. On behalf of Southern Ohio, I want to thank all our veterans and [42:11] their families for the countless sacrifices they have made to keep our nation safe. This vote is for them. [42:17] Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back my time. [42:22] Preserve. The gentleman in reserves. The gentleman from California is recognized. [42:30] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has said several times that disability ratings, [42:37] changes in this bill, that this bill makes, are coming anyway. That's simply not true. He's counting on [42:45] a golden egg that the department, that the VA has simply not laid yet. The first Trump administration [42:54] floated changes to conditions like sleep apnea and tinnitus beginning in 2019. And then four years ago, [43:06] when VA sought public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking, the 2022 changes that [43:15] during the Biden administration, VSOs and many members of this body spoke loudly and clearly [43:22] and unanimously in opposition to them. And what he doesn't mention is that the Biden administration [43:29] walked away from those proposed rule changes. VA listened to those voices in 2022. And as a result, [43:37] the proposed rule has been on a shelf since then. Just a few short weeks ago, VA clarified that it is not [43:45] planning to take any action on this proposed rule. That was from a VA spokesperson in public. [43:53] And so there's nothing inevitable about these rules changes, which are going to bring about [43:59] the golden egg of savings, the $57 billion that the chairman is counting on in order to pay for this bill. [44:09] The savings that will come from cuts to veterans disability benefits. A tweet that he's referring to this [44:18] morning, quoting their tweet, quoting an unnamed source is not the same as rulemaking. [44:27] This is simply the majority trying to find any excuse possible to cut benefits they view as overly [44:33] generous, which has long been their goal. And that's why Americans for Prosperity has endorsed this bill. [44:39] The architects of Project 2025 have been desperate to cut benefits for years, and they've been trying [44:46] to find a way to touch veterans benefits. I'm not going to let them do that. And even showing up [44:52] at the majority's press conference to cheer on their efforts just a few short days ago. And now they [44:58] finally have a majority who's willing to bow to their demands to harm veterans. Now, my majority [45:04] counterparts have picked an interesting time to care about science again. Their remarks today attempt [45:11] to demonstrate that they are working to align themselves with the best science to update and [45:17] modernize the disability ratings schedule. Yet my majority colleagues fail to see the irony in legislating [45:25] the way veterans benefits before VA completes a thorough review of the best science. They are substituting [45:34] their own judgment for that of VA clinicians and researchers who actually understand the medical [45:41] evidence related to these disabilities. If this bill is passed, the expertise of VA and the years of [45:48] work that goes into clinical determinations become moot. If you don't believe me, just listen to what [45:54] one of VA's top doctors, former VA Secretary and Under Secretary of Health David Shulkin stated regarding this [46:01] bill's proposed changes to disability ratings. And I quote, any modernization of the VA schedule for [46:09] rating disabilities should be instead conducted through an independent evidence-based medical [46:15] review led by the Department of Veterans Affairs with opportunities for public comment and congressional [46:22] oversight. And any savings resulting from that process should be reinvested on improving disability [46:29] evaluations, rehabilitation services, and veterans health care not used to finance unrelated provisions [46:38] of the legislation. If my colleagues are suddenly interested in in following that science, [46:44] they should let the experts continue their work independently without the political pressure that [46:51] that passage of this bill will inevitably create. And with that Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield [46:58] two minutes to my good friend, Representative Underwood. She's a former member of this committee [47:03] who currently serves on the House Appropriations Committee. The gentleman from Illinois, Ms. Underwood. [47:09] The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of my bill, [47:14] the Lactation Spaces for Veteran Moms Act. Serving veterans is one of the greatest privileges we have [47:19] as members of Congress. And we must do everything that we can to ensure not only that they receive the [47:25] benefits that they have earned through their service and sacrifice, but also that they can access those [47:31] benefits with dignity that they deserve. That's why I'm so proud to lead the bipartisan Lactation Spaces [47:38] for Veteran Moms Act with Congresswoman Ashley Henson. As a nurse, I have seen firsthand the benefits [47:45] of breastfeeding for moms and babies. My bill will ensure that every VA medical center contains a clean, [47:52] private space specifically designed for nursing and pumping. Our veterans and their families have [47:58] given so much in service to our country, and they deserve the same level of support and respect when [48:04] they seek care. For VA medical centers to meet the needs of young families, caregivers, and our hard [48:10] working VA employees, they need to be equipped with proper facilities. In the VA medical centers that lack a [48:17] dedicated lactation space, moms are forced to use unsanitary spaces like bathrooms or struggle to [48:24] find a private corner. That is unacceptable. Our veterans deserve better. That's why we must pass [48:31] the Lactation Spaces for Veteran Moms Act now. Thank you, and I yield back. [48:36] General Lady yields. I reserve this. The gentleman yields. Mr. Speaker. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. [48:42] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that the ranking member is caught up on current events. [48:47] It just recently, I mean, just to confirm what we already knew, the VA officials confirmed that they [48:56] are moving ahead with the changes on tinnitus, sleep apnea, and disability benefits. VA has made it no move [49:05] to withdraw the sleep apnea and or those from the changes that will then save the money that then the [49:16] bureaucrats will control. So as we're moving forward, I mean, you can, the ranking member can keep saying [49:22] things that aren't true, or you can admit this is an issue and that's where we're coming up with revenue. [49:28] That being said, I would like at this time, let me tell you that, that the next person I want to yield [49:33] time to has worked on the Major Richard Starr Act for years, years, as did his father before him. And with that, [49:43] I want to make sure that we give two minutes to Representative Bill Arrakas from Florida's 12th [49:49] district. The gentleman from Florida is recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank [49:54] the chairman for, for your leadership and, and thank you for this great package that will support our [49:59] veterans. I rise today in support, strong support of the Taking Care of America's Veterans Act. First and [50:07] foremost, this legislation delivers long overdue justice by including key provisions of my Richard [50:15] Starr Act. I promised Richard Starr that we would get this done and we're in the process of doing it. [50:22] And again, on behalf of our true American heroes. So, which I remain committed to achieving full concurrent [50:30] receipt. So we're going to still get, get anything that's not included in this bill, we're going to [50:36] pursue for on, to the, for the benefit of our veterans. This package takes a major step forward [50:44] by providing immediate relief to nearly 60,000 combat injured veterans, Mr. Speaker. For far too long, [50:51] medically retired service members wounded in combat have been forced to forfeit a portion of the [50:58] retirement pay they earned simply because they also receive VA disability compensation. And that's [51:05] wrong. That's the so-called wounded veterans tax. And it's fundamentally unjust. These men and women [51:16] sacrifice their health, health and defense of our nation. They earn both benefits and they deserve to [51:24] receive both. This legislation also strengthens veterans access to healthcare by expanding choice, [51:33] improves the VA claims and appeals process, and increases support for catastrophically disabled [51:40] veterans, caregivers, and surviving spouses. We've been working on these issues for many years, [51:47] Mr. Speaker. And it looks like it's going to come to fruition. So we appreciate it so very much. [51:53] And I want to thank the chairman for his leadership. It enhances mental health services, expands care in rural [52:01] communities, improves transition assistance for service members entering civilian life, [52:07] and modernizes VA facilities to better serve future generations. Most importantly, this bill honors the [52:15] legacy of Major Richard Starr, who fought tirelessly to correct this injustice before his passing. His [52:25] determination has brought us to this moment. And today, we have the opportunity to continue that fight on [52:33] behalf of thousands of deserving veterans. With that, I yield back. [52:37] The gentleman in reserves. The gentleman from California is recognized. [52:41] Mr. Speaker, I ask for your announcement to insert into the record a coalition letter from 10 [52:48] veteran service organizations, a resolution from the American Legion Department of Texas, [52:52] a statement from the American Legion Trujillo Sheets Post 28 in Durango, Colorado, and emails from Minnesota [53:01] Blue Earth Post 89 of the American Legion and American Legion Post 58 in Belleville, Illinois, all in [53:10] opposition to this bill. Without objection. Mr. Speaker, the chairman has made the claim that VA is going to move [53:19] forward with taking away sleep apnea and tinnitus as conditions that veterans may claim disability ratings for. [53:39] I would like to ask the chairman, who at VA has made that commitment? He has tweeted out this morning [53:46] that this is the case. I yield to him 15 seconds to tell me the name of the person at VA who has confirmed [53:53] that VA is moving forward with these changes to disability ratings. From the open statement that came [54:10] out of the VA from the leadership at VA and that was sent out this morning under the approval of the secretary. [54:21] So you are saying that a secretary who backed away, who backed away from changes to disability ratings [54:31] in terms of medication, the intent was to say that if veterans take medication or get some sort of [54:40] treatment, that if their conditions improve, that their disability ratings could then be lowered. [54:49] He backed away from that after immense protest and opposition from veterans and veterans organizations. [54:58] You're telling me this very same secretary is telling you that he's moving forward with a 57 billion [55:05] dollar cut to disability ratings. I yield for an answer. That is exactly the position of the VA and their [55:19] administration. That was said this morning. It was sent out this morning. It is now being reported in the news. [55:25] Mr. Secretary, I'm reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker. Reclaiming my time. [55:28] The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. Speaker, the time is mine. Reclaiming my time. [55:30] The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. Speaker, there's been no public statement by the secretary. [55:37] There's been no named official from VA today. I defy the chairman to produce such a name. He's making a claim. [55:47] He's making a claim. But again, I will contend that they're counting on a golden egg and disability cuts, [55:57] cuts, savings on the backs of veterans that has not been laid yet. And I contend will not be. [56:05] At this time, I'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend, a veteran of the U.S. Navy, a former member [56:11] of this committee who serves now on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation Committee, [56:16] Representative Deluzio from the state of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [56:19] is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the gentleman from California. [56:24] I rise in opposition to this bill and I rise in opposition to any effort to cut veterans benefits. [56:30] And let's be clear, this bill raises the cost of the VA home loan program during a housing crisis. [56:37] And this program and this bill cuts VA benefits for current veterans who don't have them and for troops [56:43] downrange right now for two of the most common conditions they may experience, sleep apnea and [56:48] tinnitus. This bill sells off more VA and veterans care to the private sector. It continues the [56:55] privatization push of the Trump administration and so many congressional Republicans. And I am not going [57:00] to take a lecture on fiscal responsibility or accept this argument from the Republicans and the Trump [57:06] administration that you have to fund veterans programs by cutting care or benefits for other [57:12] veterans. The same people who have funded an Iran war at the tune of billions and billions of dollars. [57:20] The same people who added nearly five trillion dollars to the debt through their one big beautiful [57:26] bill, which by the way has a new name now, I guess we've lost track of that. That bill, by the way, [57:30] would also add 19 trillion dollars over 30 years. So there's no problem on the Republican side with adding [57:37] to the debt when it comes time to give tax breaks and tax giveaways to the ultra rich and the corporations. [57:43] But when it comes time to care for veterans, now they're counting pennies. And let's be crystal [57:48] clear about what this bill does. It says to troops downrange right now who are in harm's way that they [57:54] have to have worse benefits than veterans have today to pay for benefits and care that other veterans [58:00] have earned. That's ridiculous. It's why groups like the VFW and the IAVA and others oppose this bill. [58:06] It's why I think Democrats and Republicans should oppose this bill on the floor today. [58:12] For this reason and many others, at the appropriate time, I'll offer a motion to recommit this bill [58:16] back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important [58:20] amendment to this bill. The amendment would change the offsets used in the bill. Instead of reducing the [58:26] VA home loan benefit and cutting disability benefits for sleep apnea and tinnitus, it takes [58:31] unobligated, appropriated, but not committed funding given to the DOD and the one big beautiful bill [58:37] and uses it at the pay for. I ask unanimous consent to insert the record, insert into the record the [58:43] text of this amendment. The gentleman's time has expired. Fifteen more seconds. Without objection. [58:48] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment. [58:53] And I hope my colleagues would join me in voting for the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, with that, [58:57] I'll yield back. With that objection. I reserve Mr. Speaker. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman [59:01] from Illinois is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I would like to yield [59:06] two minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan 7th District, Mr. Barrett. The gentleman [59:11] from Michigan is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I rise today in support of the Take Care of [59:16] Americans Veterans Act. This package includes more than 60 bipartisan bills that modernize, enhance, [59:24] and reform the delivery of health care and benefits for the entire veteran community. [59:29] It also delivers numerous bills that veterans and VSOs across America have been vocal about, [59:35] like the Major Richard Starr Act, the Love Lives On Act, the ACCESS Act, the TAP Promotion and Expansion [59:42] Act, and more. It also includes eight of my own specific bill priorities, including the ASSIST Act [59:50] and CRUISE Act, which will help disabled veterans and businesses make necessary and timely [59:55] modifications to vehicles, ensuring that veterans have accessibility to move about, the Sherri Briley [1:00:02] and Eric Edmondson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act to finally deliver the first notable increase in [1:00:09] over 30 years to our most severely disabled veterans and our Gold Star families who have sacrificed so much. [1:00:17] My clear communication for Veterans Claims Act and my delivering digitally to our Veterans Act, [1:00:23] which will ensure that every veteran can understand the messages and communications they receive from [1:00:28] the VA in a simplified manner and even opt in to get them electronically. My Veterans Care Community [1:00:35] Care Scheduling Improvement Act, which will make it easier for veterans to schedule medical appointments [1:00:41] closer to home and easier to access. The Acquisition Reform and Cost Assessment Act to strengthen oversight of [1:00:48] VA Acquisition with the ginormous contracts that they often enter into. And finally, my Home [1:00:55] Affordability for Garden Reserve Act to empower more of our National Guard and Reservists to take advantage [1:01:00] of the VA Home Loan Program. Today, they would wait six years to qualify for the VA Home Loan Program, [1:01:07] and under this bill, they will qualify once they return home from their training and are in good standing [1:01:11] with their unit. Worked hard on these bills for nearly two years, and they, and more than 50 other bipartisan [1:01:18] bills just like them are all major wins that will improve the lives of our nation's heroes. [1:01:23] Thank you to Chairman Bost, and I look forward to the passage of this bill, and I urge my colleagues [1:01:28] to vote yes, and I yield back. The German Reserves, the gentleman from California is recognized. [1:01:33] Mr. Speaker, there's overwhelming opposition to cutting veteran disability benefits to offset the [1:01:38] cost of this bill. Major VSOs like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, [1:01:43] and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, along with numerous others, all oppose this bill [1:01:48] due to the offset. But more importantly, veterans themselves are overwhelmingly opposed as well. [1:01:54] Check out any online veteran forum, and you will find thousands of comments from both veterans and [1:01:59] active duty service members decrying these proposed cuts. Veterans of all eras agree that their receipt [1:02:07] of benefits should not be predicated on cuts to benefits for another generation of veterans. [1:02:12] It's our job to listen to them. There are other ways to fund this bill's provisions. We just need to [1:02:18] have the political courage to stand up and do what is right for our veterans. And at this time, [1:02:23] I'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend, who serves on the House Committee on Science, [1:02:28] Space, and Technology, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Representative [1:02:32] Benefee from the state of Texas. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. [1:02:36] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to oppose H.R. 9237, which, if we are being clear, [1:02:43] cuts veterans' benefits. The presidents and my colleagues on the Republican side in Congress [1:02:47] have no problem sending our men and women off to war. But the real measure of a nation is not just [1:02:54] how it treats their service persons when they're in active duty. It's how it treats them when they're [1:03:00] no longer dodging the bombs, the bullets, and the storms at sea, when they're no longer serving in war. [1:03:07] As a Congress, we have to do right by our veterans, and this bill simply does not do it. [1:03:13] $57 billion in cuts for disability benefits for veterans. It raises fees, $4 billion on veteran [1:03:20] borrowers, home loan refinancing fees. I'm the son of two veterans, and we would have never purchased [1:03:27] our first home when I was in high school were it not for a VA home assistance loan. And that's the same, [1:03:34] not just for me, but for so many folks across the 18th Congressional District of Texas. I keep hearing [1:03:39] my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that we have to find money to offset to be able to [1:03:43] pay for some of the other benefits in this bill. But if we're pinching pennies, let's tell the [1:03:47] President to end his war in Iran, which has cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. It's time [1:03:53] for this Congress to do right by our veterans. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote [1:03:58] against H.R. 9237. I yield back. [1:04:01] I reserve. [1:04:02] The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. [1:04:04] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I'd like to yield two minutes to the [1:04:09] gentleman from Pennsylvania, 9th District, Representative Mauser. [1:04:12] The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized. [1:04:14] Thank you, Chairman, and thank you very much for your leadership, Chairman Bost. [1:04:19] Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. Our veterans [1:04:23] answered the call to serve, sacrifice on behalf of this country, and defended the freedoms every [1:04:27] American enjoys. They've earned a Department of Veterans Affairs that delivers the care, benefits, [1:04:33] and support that they were promised without unnecessary delays of bureaucratic obstacles. [1:04:37] And that includes community care, Mr. Speaker. That's that's one of the aversions [1:04:43] that that we and obstacles and reasons for opposition, because they want they're pretty much against [1:04:50] community care initiatives. This bipartisan package brings together more than 60 common sense proposals [1:04:56] that truly make this happen. And by the way, it's supported by the American Legion, Military Office [1:05:02] Association, Wounded Warriors, Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Korean War Veterans, Vietnam Veterans, [1:05:08] AMVETs, Gold Star Spouses, and the list goes on. Importantly, very importantly, it includes the Major [1:05:14] Richard Starr Act. Voting against this bill is voting against the Major Richard Starr Act, which ends the [1:05:21] unfair wounded veterans tax for eligible combat injured retirees. These veterans were medically retired [1:05:27] because their service was cut short by injuries sustained defending our country. They should not be [1:05:33] forced to give up a portion of their military retirement pay simply because they also receive [1:05:37] VA disability compensation. This bill corrects that injustice. It also strengthens access to community [1:05:44] care, as mentioned, mental health treatment. It allows military widows to remarry and maintain [1:05:50] their benefits, cuts through the VA red tape, strengthens claims appeals process. [1:05:59] This is not about cutting of benefits. It's about advancing services with some modernization [1:06:06] initiatives as well. We owe our veterans more than the words of gratitude. We owe them this action. We owe [1:06:13] them the Take Care of Americans Veterans Act. And I thank again the chairman I yield back. [1:06:18] The gentleman in reserves. The gentleman from California is recognized. [1:06:22] Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that yesterday, the House Republicans released [1:06:28] a $95 billion supplemental for the reconciliation bill they want to bring forward next week for [1:06:35] Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations, all without offsets. We're talking [1:06:42] $95 billion, none of them with an offset. Yet, we are asking our veterans to pay for this bill, [1:06:55] pay for the bill, only in the case of veterans is the chairman looking for an offset. I defy the chairman [1:07:02] to tell me whether he will ask for an offset for the $95 billion supplemental that goes to Pentagon spending, [1:07:09] farm assistance, and intelligence operations. I eagerly wait to hear his answer. And Mr. Speaker, [1:07:17] I reserve. The gentleman in reserves. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. [1:07:22] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I would like to yield to my good friend, Representative King Hines, [1:07:28] for two minutes. The general lady is recognized. [1:07:30] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise before you today to lend my voice and strong support of HR 9237, [1:07:36] the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. This comprehensive package is designed to address the [1:07:41] critical needs of our nation's veterans. The legislation represents a meaningful step forward, [1:07:46] closing resource gaps that have persisted for far too long. Amongst its provision are vital [1:07:51] improvements for veterans affected by traumatic brain injuries, expanded survivor benefits, and [1:07:56] increased access to medical care in the U.S. territories and the freely associated states. [1:08:01] I'm proud to know that two bills I authored are included in this package. First, the territorial [1:08:05] response and access to Veterans Essential Life Care or Travel Act. This provision, which already [1:08:10] passed in the House, establishes a VA program enabling physicians to travel to the U.S. territories [1:08:16] and deliver essential medical care directly to veterans. The second bill, the U.S. Vets of the [1:08:23] Freely Associated States Act, empowers the VA to provide telehealth services and mail prescriptions to [1:08:29] veterans residing in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. [1:08:35] These Pacific Island countries are among our closest allies whose citizens serve in our military at [1:08:39] exceptionally high rates, yet they lack access to basic care and benefits. This legislation will help [1:08:45] remedy that inequity. The Take Care of American Veterans Act is not just important, it is urgent. [1:08:52] Our veterans deserve the best we can offer, and this package delivers on that promise. I want to thank [1:08:56] Chairman Balls for his leadership and dedication to veterans everywhere. I urge my colleagues to join me in [1:09:01] supporting the passage of H.R. 9237. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back. [1:09:06] The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. Speaker, I continue to ask the Chairman, [1:09:14] in advance of a $95 billion supplemental for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operation, [1:09:25] none of this are the Republicans seeking an offset. Only the Chairman, in this particular case, [1:09:33] when it comes to our veterans, is demanding that veterans pay for veterans. We could pass this bill [1:09:42] without having to ask veterans to pay for veterans. Actually, for disabled veterans to pay for veterans. [1:09:51] So I ask the Chairman again, does he plan to seek an offset or demand an offset for the $95 billion supplemental [1:10:02] for Pentagon spending, farm assistance, and intelligence operations, none of which are the Republicans [1:10:08] intending to pay for, but their rules and their policy is to make veterans pay for veterans, and I reserve. [1:10:15] The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, [1:10:22] and I'm ready to close, and I reserve. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from California is recognized. [1:10:30] Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Chairman today, and at the Rules Committee several weeks ago, [1:10:37] it's clear to me that he's been picking his words very carefully. He's been very specific that this bill, [1:10:44] the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act, would not impair current veterans. And I am not sure [1:10:51] if the chairman fully understands how disability benefits, how the system works, but if he truly [1:10:57] believes what he is saying, or if he truly believes what he is saying, but what he isn't, what he is [1:11:03] saying isn't even remotely the full truth. The bill can and will lead to cuts for those who already have [1:11:10] service-connected disability ratings for sleep, apnea, and tinnitus. This is because any time a veteran [1:11:16] applies for a rating increase, or applies for a new rating for some other condition, VA can and does [1:11:22] review previous ratings, sometimes even lowering them. So it's foolish to think that VA won't apply [1:11:28] the new rules for sleep apnea and tinnitus when veterans have their ratings reviewed. Further, [1:11:34] his remarks fail to take into consideration two other critically important populations here. First, [1:11:39] these cuts would make service members currently serving, who may be incurring these injuries right now, [1:11:45] ineligible to receive compensation for service-connected tinnitus or sleep apnea. [1:11:50] So those service members, President Trump keeps sending into harm's way in this foolish war with [1:11:57] Iran, would be ineligible for these benefits. That should give us all pause. And let me just say, [1:12:03] a vote yes on this bill is a message that we're sending to the service members currently serving in and [1:12:12] around the waters of Iran and the Straits of Hormuz, and our service members that are stationed at bases, [1:12:19] who've already faced incoming missile fire and subjected to the blasts that have surely affected [1:12:26] their eardrums. We're saying to them that they will not be able to apply to make claims based on tinnitus, [1:12:36] much less sleep apnea. That is the message a yes vote will send to them. That is why I say vote no. [1:12:43] In addition, the chairman and his colleagues fail to acknowledge that the existing veterans who have [1:12:48] yet to file a claim for tinnitus or sleep apnea, those we, not, I'm talking about a group of people, [1:12:54] not of the current service members, but veterans who've yet to apply for a rating. These two groups of [1:13:01] veterans, that is current service members and veterans who've yet to file, will be treated worse [1:13:05] than those that came before them. This contract will unilaterally be changed on them, and for the [1:13:10] worse, how my republican colleagues are okay with treating two veterans with the same exact condition [1:13:15] differently is beyond me. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, this is the largest cut to veterans disability [1:13:24] benefits in history, and being used to pay for this bill. When we are not demanding, when you are not [1:13:34] demanding offsets for $95 billion next week, I don't know how you all can live with yourselves, [1:13:40] uh, and with that, uh, I, I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields, the gentleman from [1:13:46] Illinois is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I'm ready to, I'm ready to close and I reserve. [1:13:58] Does the gentleman from California yield or reserve? I reserve. The gentleman from California reserves, [1:14:04] the gentleman from Illinois is recognized. I'm ready to close and I reserve. The gentleman, the gentleman from [1:14:07] California is recognized. Mr. Speaker, throughout this process, I've tried to stay up to date on what [1:14:13] veterans are saying online about the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act. I found the [1:14:18] discussions to be enlightening, and before my colleagues say I've cherry-picked those comments, [1:14:23] I urge them to pull out their phones and take a look at the comment sections on any social media post [1:14:28] discussing this bill. It will become clear to you that opposition to this legislation is coming from [1:14:34] veterans on both sides of the aisle. And let's take a look. I quote, I'm quoting from the comments, [1:14:41] this creates two tiers of veterans, end quote. Quote, veterans should not have to take a reduced [1:14:47] amount to provide savings to pay for fellow veterans. The U.S. government should honor their [1:14:51] commitment to us, end quote. Quote, this is a false choice. Find the funds without making veterans [1:14:57] literally pay the cost, end quote. Quote, if they truly cared, they wouldn't rob all veterans to pay for [1:15:03] this as there are plenty of other ways to fund this act, end quote. Quote, pitting veterans against [1:15:10] veterans, end quote. Quote, you taught us to take care of each other. This bill contradicts that, end [1:15:16] quote. There are thousands more just like this from veterans in each of our districts, telling us to [1:15:21] vote no on this bad bill. And if my colleagues won't listen to my concerns here, I urge them to listen to [1:15:27] the veterans, dependents, caregivers, survivors, and advocates in their districts. We cannot today, [1:15:32] tomorrow, or ever balance budgets on the backs of veterans who have already sacrificed so much for [1:15:37] their country. Instead, we must honor the contract we made with our nation's veterans and reject the [1:15:43] false choice Chairman Bost has foisted upon us. I join the millions of veterans across the country [1:15:49] who vehemently oppose H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, and urge everyone to do the [1:15:56] same. Thank you, and I yield back. The gentleman yields. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. [1:16:01] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to respond to a few claims that the veterans do not want this package. [1:16:07] It's just not true. The ranking member can disagree on the bill. He can disagree on the offset. He can [1:16:14] argue that they would have written the package differently. But I do not think it is accurate [1:16:20] to suggest that veteran community as a whole somehow united against this legislative package. [1:16:26] The package has support for a wide range of organizations, including the American Legion, [1:16:32] the Vietnam Veterans of America, Mission Roll Call, Wounded Warriors Project, Military [1:16:39] Officers Association of America, AMVETS, Concerned Veterans of America, [1:16:44] Tragic Assistance Program for Survivors, Gold Star Spouses of America, [1:16:49] the Veterans Survivors Coalition, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans Justice Alliance, [1:16:55] the National Association of the State Approving Agencies, the ALS Association, Elizabeth Dole Foundation, [1:17:04] Air Force Sergeants Association, American Optical Association, Avalon Alliance Action, [1:17:11] Career Education Colleges and Universities, Commissioned Officers Association, the USPHS, [1:17:17] K-9s for Warriors, Korean War Veterans Association, Military Chaplains Association, National Defense [1:17:28] Committee, National Military Families Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, Americans for [1:17:35] Prosperity, National Federal Development Association, National Taxpayers Union, the Association of Mature [1:17:41] American Citizens. Those organizations represent veterans, survivors, gold star families, wounded [1:17:50] veterans, military families associated with professionals who work directly with the people, [1:17:55] this bill would help. When the ranking member claims that veterans do not want this package, [1:18:00] that ignores millions of voices in the veterans community who are asking Congress to act. This bill [1:18:07] includes long-standing priorities for veterans and importantly it does so in a way that is paid for [1:18:16] and capable of actually moving from here to the Senate and to the President's desk. At some point [1:18:23] we have to decide whether we're going to keep talking about these promises or actually move a package [1:18:29] that can become law. I believe that the package is a serious response to step forward and [1:18:38] reject the idea that veterans do not want this Congress to act on this bill. Also, whether they [1:18:46] want to admit it or not, the problem was with most of these organizations that were in opposition is [1:18:51] because they didn't want the offset. That offset, as I've told you this morning, as the VA has said exactly [1:18:59] what we said, they are going to implement it. Now the question for my colleagues is very simple. Do you want to [1:19:06] use your article one power and make decisions to make decisions as we should in Congress to direct [1:19:14] that money to our veterans and where they need it? We have set and looked at these over and over and [1:19:20] again. We've also passed some of these bills and sent them over to the Senate to die because they [1:19:25] don't have an offset. You know what? This isn't an easy game and it's not a game. If you don't believe this [1:19:33] Marine is serious about helping veterans and I'm telling you I took a lot of crap this week and I [1:19:40] can tell you this. I will stand and always stand for my veterans. I'm the son of a veteran. I'm a [1:19:47] grandson of a veteran. I'm a nephew of a veteran. I'm the father of a veteran and I'm a grandfather [1:19:53] of two of them. Ladies and gentlemen, I've heard a lot this week and I'm going to tell you we've worked [1:19:59] hard and did the best we can to put the best bill forward. It's the best bill that's been around in [1:20:05] decades. And do you do you want the bureaucrats to make the decision and not support those areas [1:20:10] where we are trying to help our veterans? You could love it. You can hate it. But I'm telling you [1:20:18] this is the best thing we can do for veterans right now. I would encourage all of my colleagues [1:20:23] to support this legislation and with that I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back. [1:20:29] All time for debate has now expired pursuant to House Resolution 1423. The previous question [1:20:35] is ordered on the bill as amended. The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. [1:20:41] Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Third reading. A bill to amend titles 10 [1:20:49] and 38 United States Code and other federal laws to improve benefits for veterans and the administration [1:20:55] of the Department of Veterans Affairs. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek [1:21:01] recognition? Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk. The clerk will report the motion. [1:21:05] Mr. Deluzio of Pennsylvania moves to recommit the bill, HR 9237, to the Committee on Veterans Affairs. [1:21:13] Pursuant to Clause 2B of Rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. [1:21:20] The question is on the motion. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The noes have it. The [1:21:27] motion is not agreed to. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the ayes and nays. For what the ayes and nays are requested. [1:21:33] Those in favor, those favoring a vote by the ayes and nays will rise. A sufficient number having risen, [1:21:38] the ayes and nays are ordered. Pursuant to Clause 8 of Rule 20, further proceedings on this question [1:21:43] will be postponed. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken [1:21:56] in the following order. The motion to suspend the rules and pass HR 5362 if ordered. The motion to recommit [1:22:04] HR 9237 and passage of HR 9237 if ordered. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute [1:22:14] vote. Pursuant to Clause 9 of Rule 20, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute [1:22:20] votes. Pursuant to Clause 8 of Rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules [1:22:29] and passing HR 5362, which the clerk will report by title. [1:22:34] H.R. 5362, a bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Multi-Specialty Clinic in Marietta, [1:22:41] Georgia as the Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multi-Specialty Clinic. [1:22:47] The question is, will the House suspend the rules and pass HR 5362? So many as are in favor say aye. [1:22:55] Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the rules are [1:23:01] suspended. The bill is passed. And without objection, the gentleman from Illinois seek recognition. [1:23:08] I request the yeas and nays. [1:23:09] The yeas and nays are requested. Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient [1:23:14] number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes by electric device. [1:23:20] This is a 15-minute vote. On this vote, the yeas are 418. The nays are zero. Two-thirds being in the [1:56:00] affirmative. The rules are suspended. The bill is passed. And without objection, the motion to [1:56:06] reconsider is laid on the table. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the [1:56:18] question on agreeing to the motion to recommit on HR 9237 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [1:56:26] Mr. Deluzio, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The clerk will redesignate the motion. [1:56:32] Motion to recommit HR 9237 offered by Mr. Deluzio of Pennsylvania. The question is on [1:56:41] agreeing to the motion to recommit. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a [1:56:46] five-minute vote. On this vote, the yeas are 210 and the nays are 211. The motion is not adopted. [2:21:34] Pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19, further consideration of HR 9237 is postponed. [2:21:45] For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition? [2:27:53] Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered the first sponsor of HR 1420 [2:28:00] and HR 4970 bills originally introduced by Representative LaMalfa of California for the [2:28:06] purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. [2:28:13] Without objection. The chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. [2:28:30] Mr. Speaker, the Senate is fiddling while America burns. And when I say burns, I mean it in the literal [2:28:50] sense. 18 months ago, we sent the hugely bipartisan Fix Our Forest Act to the Senate. It has passed the [2:28:57] Senate Ag Committee on a bipartisan vote. It's time for the Senate to send FOFA to the President's desk. [2:29:03] Nearly 50 uncontained fires are burning across the country and our prayers are with the firefighters [2:29:10] and the families whose lives have been taken by wildfire. We owe it to them to manage our forests [2:29:15] and provide the tools needed to suppress fires. FOFA does just that. It accelerates hazardous fuel [2:29:21] reduction in our highest risk forests. It strengthens state and local partnerships. It supports firefighters and [2:29:27] their families by establishing a new Casualty Assistance Program. It does all this and much more. It's time [2:29:34] to wake up and smell the smoke. Enact FOFA so we can begin the process of forest health restoration to [2:29:40] protect our communities, to protect our environment, and to protect against the loss of American lives. [2:29:46] I yield back. The gentleman yields. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition? [2:29:51] Without objection, the gentleman from New York is recognized for one minute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [2:30:02] Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have spoken about the affordability crisis, forcing families to figure [2:30:08] out how to make ends meet. But let's make something clear. The affordability crisis isn't just a political [2:30:14] buzzword like the President claims. This is a real crisis, and it's made worse by the President's [2:30:20] decisions. A war of choice in Iran, indiscriminate tariffs, and tax cuts for billionaires, just to name a few. [2:30:26] All while one month of groceries in my home district in New York now averages over a thousand two hundred [2:30:32] dollars a month. And since this President took office, the average additional cost of living for [2:30:38] basic essentials in New York has risen to four thousand dollars. These costs are more than just [2:30:44] numbers. They reflect sacrifices at the grocery store. An elderly couple without care or a young [2:30:50] person unable to put away savings. As some in public life line their own pockets by the billions, [2:30:56] my colleagues and I remain focused on the only thing that matters, making life more affordable [2:31:01] again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back. The gentleman yields. For what purpose does the [2:31:05] gentleman from Georgia seek recognition? Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. [2:31:19] Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the legacy of Matthew Ledbetter, a long-time [2:31:25] Foresight County Tax Commissioner who passed away unexpectedly on June 27th at the age of 59. [2:31:32] A lifelong Georgian and graduate of Foresight Central High School in the University of Georgia, [2:31:37] go Dawgs, Ledbetter dedicated nearly 21 years to public service, having taken office in 2005 [2:31:44] and most recently being re-elected to a sixth term in 2024. Matthew will be remembered as a tireless [2:31:51] advocate for the people of Foresight County, known for turning the tax commissioner's office into a [2:31:57] well-oiled machine and building a legendary reputation for customer service. Friends recall his [2:32:03] leadership, his wit, his personality as he never met a stranger. He was a devoted husband to his wife [2:32:09] Allison and father to his sons Evan and Ben. George is grateful for Matthew's years of dedicated service [2:32:15] and our thoughts remain with his family and the entire Foresight County community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back. [2:32:23] The gentleman yields. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Oregon seek recognition? [2:32:27] Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, [2:32:41] today I'm here to talk about student loans and to be honest with you, I don't know why I'm the only one. [2:32:48] I can't remember the last time I heard this body talking about financing higher education [2:32:53] and instead we've been voting on things like daylight savings time. Well, Americans are struggling, [2:32:59] Mr. Speaker, and our kids opportunities are being limited and this should be a top priority of every [2:33:04] member of Congress. First, we need to fix the raggedy monthly payment calculator that prevents [2:33:12] interest from going out of control and we need to make sure that borrowers have access to [2:33:17] repayment plans that don't take over 30 years to complete. Affordability shouldn't be a barrier, [2:33:23] Mr. Speaker. We need to be building the workforce of the future and Americans need student loan plans [2:33:29] that offer flexibility and real options. We should be making access to education easier, Mr. Speaker, [2:33:36] not harder for Americans. I yield back. The gentlewoman yields. For what purpose does [2:33:42] gentlemen from Pennsylvania seek recognition? Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [2:33:51] is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Lee Kump, who recently [2:33:57] completed an outstanding nine-year tenure as the Dean of the Penn State College of Earth and Mineral [2:34:02] Sciences. Since 1986, Dr. Kump has been an integral part of the Penn State community and has served as a [2:34:09] college as dean since 2017. Throughout his career, he has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in [2:34:17] geochemistry, astrobiology, and mathematical modeling, helping students understand our earth. Dr. Kump is a [2:34:25] true champion of science, research, and innovation. He has collaborated with NASA and the U.S. Environmental [2:34:31] Protection Agency, and his work has been featured by outlets like National Geographic and the Discovery Channel. [2:34:37] Under his leadership, the college has reached new heights. The establishment of the Center for [2:34:43] Critical Minerals and the Center for Energy Law and Policy has driven innovation across Pennsylvania. [2:34:51] Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Dr. Kump on his tenure as dean, and I wish him the best as he continues [2:34:56] teaching at Penn State. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back to the balance of my time. The gentleman yields. [2:35:01] For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Oregon seek recognition? Without objection, [2:35:10] the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark one year of the [2:35:17] Republicans' Big Ugly Bill, which has left our children, veterans, and seniors hungry. When [2:35:22] President Trump signed this bill, he promised to lower costs for everyday people. Instead, his bill cut [2:35:28] billions of dollars for SNAP across the nation, including 425 million in my home state of Oregon. [2:35:34] These cuts are taking food off families' tables. In Oregon, 70,000 people, parents, friends, and neighbors [2:35:42] have lost their food benefits. And why did Mr. Trump do this? To give tax cuts to his billionaire buddies. [2:35:49] While the cost of health care and groceries skyrocket, families are losing the support they need to put food [2:35:54] on the dinner table and pay their bills. Mr. Speaker, we must restore these devastating cuts to SNAP. [2:36:00] No child, veteran, or senior in the wealthiest nation on the planet should go hungry because [2:36:06] Republicans chose tax breaks for billionaires over food for families. Thank you, and I yield back. [2:36:12] The gentlewoman yields. For what purpose does the gentleman from Utah seek recognition? [2:36:16] Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. [2:36:23] Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my outgoing Chief of Staff, Mr. Lee Lonsford. [2:36:31] The love picture here on the Hill and one of Utah's most trusted voices. [2:36:35] The end of this week marks the conclusion of a decade of Lee's exemplary public service. [2:36:41] Before joining my office, Lee served as communication director for two distinguished members of the [2:36:46] delegations of Utah, both the House and the Senate. As my Chief of Staff, Lee revealed his greatest [2:36:51] gifts and talent, a style of leadership that's built a beautiful culture of service and family. [2:36:57] Lee has earned the respect and admiration of everyone who's had the privilege of working with him, [2:37:01] and we're excited to see him take those skills of service, patience, encouragement, and as a strategist, [2:37:06] into his next chapter. We know, as he has done in the last chapter, it will be a successful one. [2:37:11] Lee, thank you for your personal friendship, your leadership to our remarkable team, your faithful [2:37:17] service to the people of Utah, our country, and this institution. You will be missed. Well done, [2:37:22] my friend. Thank you, and I'll yield back. The gentleman yields. For what purpose does the [2:37:26] gentlewoman from Ohio seek recognition? Revise my remarks. Without objection, the gentlewoman is [2:37:34] recognized for one minute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, I rise to recognize Marcus [2:37:38] Christopher as Ohio's 13th Congressional District's Champion of the Week after capturing the gold medal [2:37:44] in BMX Park at the X Games in Chiba, Japan. After previously recognizing Marcus for representing the [2:37:50] United States at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, I am proud to once again celebrate his achievements and the [2:37:57] pride that he brings to our community. Marcus earned his second career X Games gold medal and seventh [2:38:03] X Games medal overall with a remarkable performance that showcased why he is one of the world's best BMX [2:38:09] riders. Marcus is a proud product of Stark County and a graduate of Lake High School. After turning [2:38:14] professional at just 13 years old, Marcus has continued to push the limits of BMX or bicycle motocross on [2:38:21] the world's biggest stages. Congratulations, Marcus, on this incredible achievement. Your talent, [2:38:26] determination, and dedication to your craft are exactly why Ohio's 13th Congressional District is [2:38:31] proudly known as the birthplace of champions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back. The gentlewoman yields. [2:38:36] For what purpose does a gentleman from Indiana seek recognition? Without objection, the gentleman is [2:38:45] recognized for one minute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The summer of soccer is alive and well in northeast [2:38:51] Indiana. Fort Wayne Football Club's new state-of-the-art stadium recently celebrated its grand opening. [2:38:58] Privately funded Ruoff Mortgage Stadium seats over 7,000 fans and has already become a hub for soccer [2:39:05] fans across Indiana. I had the pleasure of attending a game this past weekend and was honored to present [2:39:10] the match ball for the Fort Wayne Football Club's USL Cup match against Detroit City. The passion of the [2:39:17] fans and the quality of the players were a reminder of how far soccer has come in our community. With the [2:39:23] incredibly exciting World Cup wrapping up in just a few days, I encourage all Americans and all Hoosiers [2:39:29] to make their way to a match close to you and especially those in northeast Indiana to cheer on our [2:39:35] local club for a great family night out. Fort Wayne is proving that soccer's future in the United States [2:39:42] is bright and I look forward to attending more matches in the years to come to watch some exciting [2:39:47] soccer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield back. The gentleman yields. For what purposes, the [2:39:52] gentlewoman from Nevada seek recognition. Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one [2:40:01] minute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to congratulate Tammy Hans-Lehr, a pillar in Nevada's [2:40:10] nonprofit and education community and a dear friend of mine on her well-earned retirement. Tammy has [2:40:18] over three decades of leadership in the last nine years as president of Communities and Schools, [2:40:24] an organization that is near and dear to me. Communities and Schools of Nevada serves more than [2:40:29] 100,000 students in 117 high-need schools across our states, providing students with a one-on-one [2:40:37] relationship with the caring adults to remove barriers and help students stay in school. Under Tammy's [2:40:44] leadership, communities and schools experienced unprecedented growth. She expanded the reach of [2:40:51] CIS and made a lifelong impact on thousands of students across the state. Throughout her career, [2:40:59] Tammy has helped prove that when young people have the support they need, they can achieve anything. [2:41:06] Tammy, thank you for your dedication and belief in students and as you step into retirement, I know [2:41:13] that your passion for serving others will remain. Thank you and I yield back. The gentlewoman yields. [2:41:19] For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri seek recognition? Without objection, the gentleman is [2:41:29] recognized for one minute. Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true Kansas City legend, [2:41:39] John Wathen, whose lifelong dedication to the Kansas City Royals has now earned him a well-deserved place [2:41:45] in the Royals Hall of Fame. For more than five decades in baseball and an incredible 47 years with one [2:41:52] organization, John Wathen has done it all. Catcher, first baseman, outfielder, manager, coach, broadcaster, [2:41:59] scout, you name it, he's done it. His impact on the game and on Kansas City is simply unmatched. [2:42:05] He was there for some of the most defining moments in Royals history, including the club's first World [2:42:09] Series in 1985. And long after his playing days, he continued to shape generations of players and [2:42:16] strengthen the organization he proudly called home. They called him the Duke, but what truly set John Wathen [2:42:22] apart was not just his talent. It was his loyalty, his love, his humility. And the city of Kansas City [2:42:29] is 100% behind him. This honor is more than overdue. It's a testament to a lifelong commitment to the [2:42:35] game and to the city and to our community. Mr. Speaker, legends aren't just defined by what they achieve, [2:42:41] but how they are serving others. And John Wathen's legacy will continue to inspire generations to come. [2:42:48] We are so proud to congratulate the Duke and his family on this incredible honor. Thank you, [2:42:54] Mr. Speaker, and I yield back. The gentleman yields. For what purpose does the gentleman from [2:42:58] Virginia seek recognition? Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. [2:43:05] Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Ms. Beverly Wharton, my constituent of the week, for her more than 43 [2:43:13] years of service as a registered nurse at the UVA Health Center in Culpeper. Beverly Wharton is a critical [2:43:21] care nurse, and she has been doing that job since 1992. She served on the front lines caring for [2:43:27] patients and families during their most vulnerable moments. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she demonstrated [2:43:33] extraordinary courage and compassion and helped save countless lives. Her commitment to excellence, [2:43:40] her steady leadership, and her compassion for others have made a lasting impact on her colleagues, [2:43:47] patients, and the entire Culpeper community. Beverly embodies the very best of the nursing profession. [2:43:53] I thank her for her remarkable service and congratulate her on this milestone. Thank you, [2:43:59] and I yield back. The gentleman yields. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from New Mexico seek [2:44:04] recognition? I ask for unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my [2:44:13] remarks. Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. This week, the administration has [2:44:20] continued its assault on our public and sacred lands, repealing critical protections for Chaco Canyon and [2:44:27] and Bears Ears, two of our most sacred cultural landscapes. For New Mexico's tribes and Pueblos, [2:44:34] these are not relics of the past. They are living, sacred places where history, culture, religion, [2:44:42] and identity endure. They hold thousands of ancestral sites that are central to ceremonies, traditions, [2:44:49] the stories, the people who have cared for these lands since time immemorial. These repeals disregard years of tribal [2:44:57] consultation and open the door to oil, gas, and mining, threatening sacred sites that are irreplaceable. [2:45:04] But let me be clear, this fight is not over. We will stand with our tribal nations, our communities, [2:45:12] and everyone fighting on the front lines. We will fight back in the courts, in Congress, and alongside [2:45:19] our tribal nations and the American people because our sacred sites are not for sale. I yield back. [2:45:28] The gentlewoman yields. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio see question? I'm sorry, [2:45:35] the gentleman from Missouri. I missed you there, sir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that when [2:45:41] the House adjourns today, it adjourned to meet at 10 a.m. on Saturday, July 18, 2026. And further, [2:45:47] when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourned to meet on Monday, July 20, 2026, when it shall [2:45:52] convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Without objection. And for [2:46:03] what purpose does the gentleman from... For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio seek recognition? [2:46:12] Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, [2:46:24] justice delayed is justice denied. That couldn't be more true for the thousands of honest, hardworking [2:46:31] people and businesses I represent in Northwestern Ohio. They were wronged for decades by the largest [2:46:38] nuclear power corruption scandal in both American and Ohio history. First Energy took the public's money to [2:46:46] buy influence and bail out failing nuclear plants, costing the public over $1 billion and counting at [2:46:54] a minimum. That's money stripped from families and our local economy. Just weeks ago, First Energy [2:47:01] visited the Public Utility Commission of Ohio seeking to raise electricity bills again, this time for three [2:47:08] more years. And this follows a mistrial declared in the spring in the state in its ongoing corruption case [2:47:16] and federal litigation that is ongoing for conspiracy wire fraud and bribery. It's over time to recover [2:47:25] the money taken and return it to the ratepayers. Nuclear power executives must be held accountable. The [2:47:31] ratepayer justice act I just introduced yesterday would do just that and I call on Mr. Speaker, the [2:47:37] Energy and Commerce Committee to act with dispatch to schedule a hearing on this important bill. [2:47:43] Mr. Speaker, let's get to the bottom of this once and for all and return the public's money. I yield back. [2:47:52] Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3rd, 2025, the gentleman from Texas, [2:47:57] Mr. Green, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. [2:48:01] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise and still I rise and today in the name of we the [2:48:10] people. I rise censured, Mr. Speaker, but not silenced. I rise as a unbought, unbossed, liberated Democrat [2:48:23] and some would also add unelected liberated Democrat. My friends over on racist radio say that proudly and [2:48:32] they have a lot of alacrity when they say it and they seem to say it because they seem to think that [2:48:38] somehow they played a role in it happening. Well, be that as it may, I still rise in the name of we [2:48:44] the people. And I rise in the name of we the people today, Mr. Speaker, because of concern that I have [2:48:51] with the killing that took place in Houston, Texas. As a result of some other things that happened, [2:48:58] there was a killing in Maine. I sent out a tweet, as it were. I'm not sure that they're called tweet [2:49:07] anymore, but a message by way of the electronic media and social media. And I'd like to read this [2:49:15] message because it's the essence of my message today. It reads at real Donald Trump. I am told [2:49:24] that by saying at real Donald Trump in this message, the president should have an opportunity to hear [2:49:31] about it and possibly read it himself. At real Donald Trump, your ice force has killed a person in Maine. [2:49:43] After the killings of good and pretty and Araujo without accountability, we cannot trust your homeland [2:49:54] security or justice department to investigate ICE. Quote, we the people demand accountability and [2:50:06] congressional oversight. I rise in the name of we the people to demand accountability and oversight. [2:50:13] And I do so because, quite frankly, I'm concerned about the possibility of a cover-up. And I'm also [2:50:22] concerned about the possibility of a clean-up. Let's start with the clean-up and then I'll move into the [2:50:30] cover-up. The clean-up. You might recall, friends, that there was an assault on the Citadel of Democracy, [2:50:41] this Capitol. You might recall also that there were persons who engaged in this dastardly act of [2:50:49] cowardice. They were here to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. At the insistence of the president, [2:50:57] it seems, he delivered incitive commentary that caused much of what happened that day to take place. [2:51:06] So they were here and they did some things that were unlawful. They were unlawful and we know they [2:51:13] were unlawful because they were prosecuted. Many of them, not just five or ten, not just 20 or 30, not just [2:51:23] 100 or 200, hundreds of them prosecuted. And after they were prosecuted, convicted, convicted, sentenced. [2:51:36] And we also know that the president, upon being re-elected, upon being re-elected, one of his first [2:51:45] acts as a new president for a new term of office, this was not his first term, his second term, his first [2:51:55] act was to pardon the people who assaulted the Citadel of Democracy at a time when there was an attempt [2:52:04] to engage in a peaceful transfer of power, something that our country is known for far and wide, [2:52:11] peaceful transfer of power. After he pardoned them, after he pardoned them, they were able to walk freely. [2:52:20] They were pardoned. Now, let's bring that forward. Given what has happened to the persons who were [2:52:31] here to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, who were convicted and who were pardoned by the [2:52:37] president, the people who are a part of the ICE force, the ICE force, these people are very much [2:52:45] aware of what happened. And they know that the president who gave a pardon to those persons who [2:52:55] assaulted this, the Citadel of Democracy, they know that this president can provide them a pardon too, [2:53:04] if they're charged with a federal offense. They know, and because they know, it is my belief [2:53:13] that this somehow has caused some of them to believe that they have a license to exceed what [2:53:21] the law allows. Some of them, not all. This is not a condemnation of everybody. This is about the people [2:53:29] who have done things that are unlawful in my opinion. So they know this. And as a result of knowing it, [2:53:36] I think they take liberties that they should not because they know that the president, [2:53:45] to borrow a term that we use in my hood, will have their backs. They know. So let's now examine [2:53:54] a rationale for my being concerned about the possibility of a cover-up. That was the cleanup, [2:53:59] by the way. The cleanup occurred when the president had those persons released, after he pardoned them, [2:54:07] of course, released, who had been found guilty. They were released. They're walking freely. [2:54:14] By the way, that was lawful. The president has every right to pardon people, and he doesn't really [2:54:19] have to give a rationale for it. So that was a cleanup of what he started when he engaged in this [2:54:29] movement to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for the [2:54:36] country, it did not succeed. So now, back to where I was. After the cleanup having occurred, [2:54:43] and these officers now understanding that the president has this authority, then we have to [2:54:50] examine what happened next with Ms. Good. Let's talk about Ms. Good first. We, with our very own eyes, [2:55:02] saw most of what happened with Ms. Good. And we can say because of what we saw, if we want to believe our [2:55:11] eyes, that Ms. Good was not there to harm anyone. She was unarmed. She's an American citizen. She was [2:55:22] engaging in a peaceful protest. Unarmed, American citizen, engaging in peaceful protest when confronted [2:55:32] by officers who were making demands. And if you saw what happened, you know that it ended with her [2:55:40] losing her life, losing her life. And she said kind things, by the way, to the officers, kind things. [2:55:49] But she lost her life. And we saw this with our own eyes. We saw it. Well, let's move over to Mr. [2:55:58] Pretty. Mr. Pretty, we saw as he was prostrate, he was sprawled on the ground, and an officer removed [2:56:13] a weapon that he had. But it was after the removal of the weapon that he was shot. He lost his life. [2:56:21] American citizen, not armed at the time his life was taken. American citizen, engaging in peaceful [2:56:31] protest. These two cases are worthy of following because to this day, we don't have credible information [2:56:46] about what has happened. We don't really know when or if there will be charges that will be brought [2:56:54] before a court of law such that there will be a trial. These cases are evidence of the fact that [2:57:05] at least these investigators are taking an unusual amount of time to bring these cases to the attention [2:57:14] of the public in a fashion such that the public will understand that there will or will not be [2:57:20] prosecution. I happen to think there should be prosecution. But if there's not going to be [2:57:26] prosecution and they found some evidence beyond what we've been able to see and hear, then I think [2:57:34] they should bring this evidence forward and let us have an opportunity to review it so that we can again [2:57:40] have the transparency necessary for the public to have the knowledge that it is entitled to when an [2:57:46] American citizen has been killed at the hands of the constabulary. We should know. We should have [2:57:53] the opportunity to be told by credible sources what the final decision is, whether we are moving forward [2:58:01] with trials. With this happening, the way it's happening, and given that we were able to see in these two [2:58:13] cases most of what happened, didn't see all of it, but most of what happened. In fact, I would say we saw the [2:58:20] relevant portions, but there may be something else that's there that we need to see, but we saw relevant [2:58:26] portions. Having to see that and not seeing any action taken after all of these months have passed, [2:58:38] well, that causes me the consternation and concern that I placed in my message to the masses today, [2:58:46] indicating that I am concerned about and would be addressing a possible cover-up. Now, we live in a world [2:58:55] where it's not enough for things to be right. They must also look right. Doesn't look right for these [2:59:01] two cases to be pending. We have two additional cases now, and we also have very little evidence [2:59:11] of what actually occurred in one of these cases, and that would be the case with Mr. Araujo. We don't [2:59:18] have all of the evidence of what occurred. We saw enough to get some sense of what is likely to have [2:59:24] happened, but because we don't have enough evidence, we're told that there were no body cameras. There [2:59:30] were no vehicle cameras. We don't have any evidence from the side that should produce evidence because [2:59:37] they should have had their body cameras on. Twenty million dollars accorded to them for body cameras. [2:59:44] They should have had vehicle cameras. There should have been cameras, but they don't have the cameras. [2:59:50] They don't have the cameras. So now, why would I believe, as in the case with Mr. Araujo, why would I [3:00:01] believe the story that the person who is deceased, Mr. Araujo, tried to assault with a vehicle, assault [3:00:13] officers with a vehicle? Why would I believe that, given that we have seen stories manifest themselves [3:00:22] about the cases that we actually saw, wherein the original stories told were not in conformity with [3:00:31] what our eyes allowed us to see? Immediately after the shooting of pretty, immediately after the shooting [3:00:41] of good, there was a story put forth that was not in conformity with what we saw. So if we know that you [3:00:52] will send us a message, a false message, about things that we saw, you send a false message about [3:01:02] things that we saw, a prevarication about things that we saw, why should I believe that you are going [3:01:10] to do anything less in a case where we didn't see everything? I'm concerned about a cover-up. I'm [3:01:19] concerned about a cover-up because, as I've explained, these officers are aware that there'll be a clean-up [3:01:27] if the president is true to his words and he honors what he says he will do. He has given hints to [3:01:36] officers in his prior administration about how they should conduct themselves when arresting people, [3:01:42] told their officers, you don't have to be nice. Words from the president of the United States of [3:01:46] America about making an arrest, you don't have to be nice. Well, implying that he had their back, [3:01:55] implying that we're not as much concerned about law and order as we are about order and law. [3:02:02] Law and order means you're going to follow the law to bring about the order necessary. [3:02:09] Order and law means you restore order and I'll provide the law. This is the president, not Al Green. [3:02:17] I'll provide the law necessary to protect you. Why should I believe the stories that are being told [3:02:26] when we don't see evidence of the cars having collided? Why should I believe when the officers [3:02:34] who were engaged in this circumstance that cost the life of a human being in Houston, Texas, [3:02:45] they've been secreted away? Why should I believe when you have shut out the engagement of other members of [3:02:57] the constabulary of the Houston Police Department? You have said apparently based upon what I have [3:03:03] been told and heard that the Houston Police Department should not attempt to engage because [3:03:10] you were going to take care of this yourselves. The Houston Police Department investigates. [3:03:18] It doesn't prosecute, but it's got one of the finest homicide departments in the country. [3:03:23] It investigates homicides. The Houston Police Department has investigated police shootings in [3:03:31] the past. The Houston Police Department has investigated circumstances where officers who [3:03:37] were not in the Houston Police Department, but officers of the law, have been investigated. [3:03:43] The Houston Police Department is capable, competent, and qualified to have this investigation. [3:03:48] But you're shutting out the Houston Police Department wherein we could get some scintilla of transparency [3:03:55] by virtue of having another authority engaged in the process of investigation. You shut them out. [3:04:03] You've gone so far as to shut out the district attorney in Harris County. They can't get the information [3:04:11] that you have such that they can give an analysis. They haven't talked to the officers who were engaged in [3:04:19] the shooting. They haven't been able to assess the value that you place on what you now are saying [3:04:28] appears to be some sort of drugs that were in the vehicle, the vehicle that Mr. Araujo was driving. [3:04:37] Yes, for those who do not know, the allegation is being made now that there may have been drugs in [3:04:44] the vehicle. They saw this substance in there and they are contending that it might be some form of illegal drugs. [3:04:51] Why do we believe all of these things when we were told not to believe our eyes in the case of [3:05:03] pretty and good? Why would we not have some degree of suspicion? Why would we not think that you are, [3:05:14] Mr. President, in charge of this ICE force and you, Mr. President, after the person who is now heading [3:05:25] Homeland Security, Mr. Mullins, Mr. Mullins, excuse me, why would you countermand what he has done? [3:05:35] Mr. Mullins, as I understand it by way of news reports, was going to put a pause on stopping cars. [3:05:44] Mr. Mullins was going to give a moment of an opportunity to take a look at circumstances and see if [3:05:54] there's a better way to do what you're doing. But you, Mr. President, yourself countermanded [3:06:03] what came from your Homeland Security Department and you did it knowing that he had done this [3:06:13] because of the way your language was couched as you presented your command that the officers go back [3:06:21] to stopping cars. You made that very clear that they should do that, that this was something that [3:06:27] they should continue to do. Use the term weak. Don't, don't want them to look weak. [3:06:34] Mr. President, we have to ask, why would we the people believe that there will be justice served [3:06:45] given that we know that you tend to want to side without having the opportunity to see [3:06:54] what actually occurred. You tend to want to decide before seeing and making your decisions about what [3:07:00] the officers have done and then moving from there, it seems, buying through your agents in the [3:07:06] Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department, buying through what they say. [3:07:11] And they're at your command. We should make no mistake about it. You are in control. The Supreme [3:07:15] Court has given you the green light. You've taken advantage of it. That's why you sent out your message [3:07:22] by way of your truth social, indicating that you were countermanding the order from the [3:07:27] the person that you just instilled as your person who is in charge of Homeland Security. So why would [3:07:35] we believe? Why should we believe that you are going to do all that you can to assure transparency? [3:07:42] To the contrary, it would not be unreasonable for a person to believe that there may be a cover-up, [3:07:50] and if not a cover-up, if there is a conviction, that there will be a clean-up. You will try first [3:07:57] to do all that you can to exonerate the officers. Make sure that the investigation centers around [3:08:04] whether the person who is deceased, the victim, whether the victim was trying to harm the officers. [3:08:13] Now that's what's been said. Make sure the investigation is on whether the victim was trying [3:08:19] to harm the officers. I have not heard to date, and I know that initially it was not said, that there [3:08:26] would be an investigation as to whether the civil rights of the victim had been violated. No [3:08:31] investigation about the civil rights of the victim being violated. Whether the victim was making an [3:08:38] effort to assault the officers. The visceral reaction is let's protect the officers, not let's have a free, [3:08:46] open, fair investigation. When I say free, free for other persons to see and to be a part of. Have a [3:08:53] parallel investigation with the Houston Police Department. None of that. None of that. Just [3:08:59] immediately decide that you're going to investigate the person who has lost his life without some [3:09:07] indication that there will be an investigation as to whether or not the person who lost his life had [3:09:12] his civil rights violated, the right to life. Whether that has been taken away from him unlawfully. So here [3:09:20] we are now. We have Mr. Pretty in Houston. We have two other persons in Minnesota. We have a person in Maine. [3:09:33] And we have a president who has taken control himself, has a hands-on experience with what's happening in [3:09:42] these departments. Nobody can deny that he is without knowledge of what's going on. His latest messages [3:09:52] are indicative of his level of engagement and of the knowledge that he has as it relates to [3:09:59] these circumstances. He is in charge. This is his, his justice department. It is his office of homeland [3:10:11] security. And these people do believe that they work for him. How do you, what makes you say this? [3:10:19] That, that they, they believe they work for him. Well, just, just yesterday, Mr. Vogt, who is with the CFPB, [3:10:30] Mr. Vogt, indicated at a hearing that he works for the president. Just recently as yesterday or day [3:10:42] before, I believe it was yesterday, we had the person who is auditioning before the Senate for a position [3:10:51] with the justice department. Uh, this person, uh, made it very clear that, uh, he, uh, works for the [3:11:00] president, or at least he did. He said he was the president's lawyer. Maybe it was a fraudulent slip, [3:11:06] but he said he was the president's lawyer. Now, so you've got people who's, who tend to do whatever you [3:11:13] say. When, when your cabinet meets, there is an effort to see who can give you the most praise. [3:11:23] You have them all under your thumbnail. They're all under your control. They all bend the knee to [3:11:29] you. They all kiss the ring. They are your people who serve you, not the country. The country is not [3:11:38] primary. It may be secondary. It may be tertiary. It could even be quaternary, but it's not primary. [3:11:48] They believe in you and report to you. So given these circumstances, why should we believe [3:11:57] that you are going to cause the right thing to be done? Mr. President, others have said, [3:12:03] and I have said, and I say it now, the blood of the people that I have called to your attention today, [3:12:13] the blood of these persons is on your hands. It is. Other people are saying it. Other people are [3:12:20] linking you directly to what has happened. And, and I think they should, given that we know that you are [3:12:28] in control, in command, in authority, and that you have knowledge. You're not like a typical president [3:12:36] who leaves things to others to do and to decisions to be made. When there's a crucial decision to make, [3:12:45] make, you make it, as evidenced by what you've done with your Truth Social and the case of the gentleman [3:12:52] who was killed in Maine. You've made the crucial decision as to how the officers will behave when [3:12:59] they encounter the opportunity to observe, make an arrest at a later time, as opposed to rush in [3:13:08] with guns blazing. You've, you've, you've made the decision that they can continue to do what they [3:13:15] have been doing. But you do try to cover yourself by using the term judiciously, that they should [3:13:21] behave judiciously. Well, that, that's only to cover. We, we understand what's going on, Mr. President. [3:13:30] And so it seems to me that it would not be unreasonable for a person, a reasonable and prudent [3:13:37] person to conclude that there may be a cover up in this case. And if there is a conviction in the [3:13:44] federal court, there will be a cleanup, maybe a cover up and will be a cleanup. If you find that if [3:13:55] the courts find, I should say, I shouldn't say if you, you haven't taken complete control of the courts, [3:14:00] you do have an outsized amount of influence, it seems. But if the courts find that there's a federal [3:14:07] crime, I'm saying here and now, without question, reservation or hesitation, I believe that you, [3:14:18] Mr. President, will pardon the persons who've taken these lives. I believe that you want to send a [3:14:28] message to others, as you did on your first day in office, when you pardoned the persons for what [3:14:35] happened here on the Citadel of Democracy at the Citadel, when there was a peaceful transfer of power [3:14:41] taking place. You want to send a message and let officers know that you have their back. And you [3:14:49] do this because you want to complete your mission of removing persons from this country, many of whom [3:15:00] are not the worst of the worst. You want to send a message that you're going to remove and people [3:15:08] should be intimidated, they should be terrorized, and they should lead the country of their own volition [3:15:16] before you have the opportunity to send your agents out, your ICE agents, with masks, with no body [3:15:27] cameras, and with sometimes malice of forethought, in my opinion. Not all the time, but sometimes. [3:15:38] Mr. President, we the people are not going to allow you to continue with this this kind of behavior. We [3:15:49] the people are not going to allow you to continue to do this. While you are President of the United States [3:15:56] and the Supreme Court has given you a certain amount of immunity, allow me to place another [3:16:05] poster before you, Mr. President. This is real. This is real, Mr. President. There is a countdown to [3:16:19] impeachment. I have been very patient and waiting. I thought others might want to do what has to be [3:16:28] done. And I say it has to be done. People can differ with me. I say it has to be done. It is the only tool [3:16:37] that we have to bring you under control, to let the world know that we are opposed to what you're doing, [3:16:46] and we're willing to take action against you. This is it. This one word, impeachment. Mr. President, [3:16:57] I assure you, articles of impeachment are going to be filed, and they're going to be filed in the very [3:17:03] near future, because we cannot allow the world to believe that the Congress of the United States of [3:17:11] America will do nothing when people are being killed in the streets under circumstances that are [3:17:17] clearly questionable, clearly unlawful in the minds of many people. I'm one of them. Under these [3:17:25] circumstances, we have to take action, and the only action is impeachment. We in Congress can talk about [3:17:33] a lot of things that we'll do next year. And by the way, I marvel at people who will run for office on [3:17:41] what they're going to do. And then when they get here, they talk about what they'll do next year, [3:17:47] give people the impression that they're going to come here and change things, that they know things [3:17:51] that other people don't know about the process, that they they've got something called a strategic [3:17:56] approach. And this strategic approach, they never say what it's going to be. But this strategic approach [3:18:03] is supposed to make a difference that people who've been here for years and years and studied these [3:18:07] things haven't made. And then when you get here, you talk about, oh, next year, we're going to be [3:18:12] really tough. We're going to be really tough when we take back the House next year. Well, some of us [3:18:19] don't buy into waiting until next year. Some of us believe that the time is always right to do what is [3:18:27] right. And it is right to bring impeachment against this president of the United States of America. We don't [3:18:34] have to wait until next year. Do what you want next year when you have the power to invest [3:18:40] when you have subpoena power. But most of the public wants to know, what are you going to do right [3:18:44] now? Here's what will happen right now. And it's going to happen very soon. How soon? Within weeks, [3:18:55] within weeks, it's going to happen. There will be articles and they will be brought to a vote, [3:19:01] not just filed. We're going to vote. This is a question of conscience. I want to live with myself. [3:19:11] I want to be able to say to myself, to me, that on my watch, I did all that I could to stop a reckless, [3:19:20] ruthless, lawless president from taking the lives of the American people. I'm Al Green, a liberated [3:19:32] Democrat. Unbought, unbossed, unafraid, and unelected. I yield back the balance of my time. [3:19:44] Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president and to [3:19:49] direct the remarks of the chair and not to a perceived viewing audience. What purposes of [3:19:56] gentlemen from Texas seek recognition? Mr. Speaker, I rise now to ask that the house adjourn. [3:20:04] The question is on the motion to adjourn. Those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes [3:20:10] have it. The motion is adopted. Accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Saturday, July 18, [3:20:15] June 20, 26.