U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
Karoline Leavitt highlights Trump’s economic gains—gas prices at five-year lows (37 states below $3/gallon) and record tax refunds ($1,000 extra per filer)—while contrasting Biden’s inflation peak (9%) and border failures. House Republicans block Al Green’s impeachment resolution over Trump’s 2025 threats against Democratic lawmakers, but Senate debates National Guard deployments under Title 10, with critics like Tim Kaine citing unlawful orders and risks to troops amid rising urban crime (61% increase since 2019). Meanwhile, Trump extends national emergencies on corruption and fentanyl trafficking, while Leavitt deflects questions on Venezuela’s oil, China’s Okinawa actions, and CNN’s sale. The episode underscores partisan clashes over healthcare, military authority, and economic messaging as Trump reshapes policy and media narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
I would like to remind you and everybody at home why this is on the brink of happening.
Democrats wrote Obamacare.
They passed it without a single Republican vote and then they ballooned it with these expensive COVID subsidies that completely distorted the health insurance market.
And then they doubled down, extending those subsidies and setting their own expiration date right now in 2025, which the administration is obviously well aware of.
And we are working, the president is working with his health care policy team here at the White House, as well as Republicans on Capitol Hill to find a solution.
unidentified
You said he's working to find a solution.
He wants to see a solution to lower health care costs.
He does.
But these subsidies are expiring at the end of the year.
So what is the plan and what is he going to do to put this in place in the next two, three weeks?
Resolve that Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an abuser of presidential power who, if left in office, will continue to promote the incitement of violence, engender invidious hate, undermine our democracy, and dissolve our republic.
That he is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article 1, abuse of presidential power by calling for the execution of members of Congress and his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,
and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has unfaithfully, dangerously, and unconstitutionally abused his official position by threatening Democratic lawmakers in Congress with execution.
President Trump called for the execution of six Democratic lawmakers, all of whom are currently serving in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives who previously served in the U.S. military or in U.S. intelligence communities.
In response to a short video that they posted on November 18, 2025, in their video, the Democratic lawmakers appropriately urged current members of the military and intelligence communities to adhere to the Constitution and the laws of our country.
They specifically said, like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
Our laws are clear.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You must refuse illegal orders.
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
On November 20th, 2025, in response, President Trump called for their execution.
In one social media post, he wrote, It's called seditious behavior at the highest level.
Each one of these traitors to our country should be arrested and put on trial.
Their words cannot be allowed to stand.
We won't have a country anymore.
An example must be set.
President D.J.T. In another, he wrote of the lawmakers, seditious behavior, punishable by death.
Dangerously and unconstitutionally, he reposted a third party's post, hang them, George Washington would.
President Trump's call for the execution of lawmakers is a reckless and flagrant abuse of presidential power that promotes extrajudicial punishment and the assassination of members of Congress and warrants impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and trial by the Senate.
Article 2, abuse of presidential power to intimidate federal judges in violation of the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary.
In his conduct of the Office of President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has unfaithfully, dangerously, and unconstitutionally abused his official position by threatening federal judges.
President Trump has fostered a political climate in which lawmakers and judges face threats of political violence and physical assault.
And in this climate, has made threats and vituperatively comments against federal judges, putting at risk their safety and well-being and undermining the independence of our judiciary.
Case in point in response to a federal district court ruling with which President Trump disagreed, he posted, this radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator who sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama was not elected president.
This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear before, should be impeached.
Another U.S. District Chief Judge has reported receiving increased numbers of violent threats, particularly after he began hearing arguments in a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
In 2025, roughly a third of the federal judiciary has been flooded with threats, with data showing that these threats spike each time Trump uses abusive rhetoric against judges.
On May 2nd, 2025, Reuters reported that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson addressed President Donald Trump's attacks on the judiciary.
The relevant part of the article stated as follows.
One, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson said on Thursday, attacks by Republican President Donald Trump and his allies on judges were not random and seemed designed to intimidate the judiciary.
Two, specifically, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Jackson remarked that, the attacks are not random.
They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity.
Three, Justice Jackson added, the threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government, and they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.
The judiciary is afforded power over all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made, and to controversies to which the United States shall be made a party.
United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 2, intimidating judges and recklessly calling for impeachment and removal of judges who disagree with him, demonstrate a willingness by Trump to usurp authority afforded by our Constitution to the judiciary and demonstrate a disregard for the Constitution and the careful balance of powers that protects our country from abuses by any single branch.
President Trump's threats place the lives of federal judges, court officials, and innocent bystanders at risk, promote the incitement of violence, and undermine our democracy, which cannot survive where President Trump's incendiary comments endeavor infidious hate and where dissent is punishable by death.
In all of this, Donald John Trump has acted in a matter Contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Nano John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office.
Is the gentleman asking for the yays and the nays?
The yays and nays are requested.
Those favoring a vote by the yays and nays will rise.
A sufficient number having risen, the yays and nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic means.
Pursuant to clause 9 of Rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of H.R. 3628 and passage of H.R. 3638.
This is a 15-minute vote.
unidentified
And today, lawmakers working on several bills on the permitting process for infrastructure projects with several votes ahead this afternoon.
Right now, a vote to kill the resolution to impeach President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is the first of 10 expected votes in this round.
The resolution was brought to the floor by Representative Al Green.
Democratic leaders say they're focused on health care and intend to vote present on the impeachment resolution, saying the process is a sacred constitutional vehicle that traditionally requires comprehensive investigation and that none of that serious work has yet been done.
While lawmakers vote, we'll continue our live coverage.
Take you to the White House, where Press Secretary Caroline Levitt is speaking to reporters.
And the previous administration jacked it up to a record high, 9%.
So again, in 10 months, the president has clawed us out of this hole.
He's kept it low at 2.5%.
And we believe that number is going to continue to decline, especially as energy and oil prices continue to decline as well.
Well, nobody reported on it being high under Biden.
My predecessor was standing at this podium, but now you want to ask me a lot of questions about it, which I'm happy to answer.
But I will just add, there's a lot more scrutiny on this issue from this press corps than there was.
Well, and the previous administration said that too.
My predecessor stood up at this podium and she said inflation doesn't exist.
She said the border was secure and people like you just took her at her word and those were two utter lies.
Everything I'm telling you is the truth backed by real factual data and you just don't want to report on it because you want to push untrue narratives about the president.
Well, I think the president's comments yesterday about the sale of CNN and new leadership is evidenced by my exchange with the CNN reporter in this room.
Their viewership has gone down, their ratings has declined, and I think the president rightfully believes that network would benefit from new ownership.
With respect to this deal, he has great respect for both companies who are bidding against one another, and I won't weigh in any further than that.
To your first question on South Korean beef or beef export to South Korea, I will check with our trade team and we will get you an answer on that.
To your second question with respect to Japan and China, the President has a phenomenal relationship with the new Prime Minister of Japan, as you know.
He was pleased to meet her when we went to Asia a couple of months ago, and they have spoken a few times since.
They continue to be engaged with one another, and Japan is a great ally of the United States, as evidenced by their personal relationship and our continued trade relations with Japan.
With respect to China, the President also has a good working relationship with President Xi, which he believes is a good thing for our country.
And he believes that the United States should be in a position to have a good working relationship with China while maintaining our very strong alliance with Japan.
unidentified
Yesterday, President Trump was speaking about drug production in Colombia.
He said that the president of Colombia better wise up or he's gonna be next.
What was he meaning exactly?
Yet the other thing is that President Gustavo Pedro of Colombia responded to that statement by issuing a formal invitation to President Trump to go to Colombia and to see firsthand how the authorities in Colombia are fighting against drugs.
Do you think that President Trump would consider that?
I will let the President speak directly to it on whether or not that's something he would entertain.
But as for his comments yesterday towards President Petro, he has been saying some very alarming and frankly insulting things towards the United States of America, and the President does it like it.
Yes, in the blue.
Caroline, yes, go ahead.
unidentified
Thank you.
The president's been spotted out and about a number of times with bandages on his hands.
Could you please explain what that is about?
Secondly, he noted on TrueSocial the other day that he had aced three cognitive tests.
Could you please clarify when those tests took place?
The president has spoken about that quite extensively throughout the years.
As for the bandages on the hand, we've also given you an explanation for that in the past.
The president is literally constantly shaking hands.
The Oval Office is like Grand Central Terminal.
He is meeting with more people than any of you even know about on a daily basis.
He's also on a daily aspirin regimen, which is something his physical examinations have said in the past as well, which can contribute to that bruising that we see.
I just want to know, is this a one-off or is it safe to say the administration is taking a more active look at the oil industry in Venezuela, whether targeting other oil ships or perhaps Venezuelan oil production facilities in Venezuela?
Well, I won't broadcast any future actions from the administration, but I will just reiterate that the Trump administration is executing on the President's sanction policies and the sanction policies of the United States, and we're not going to stand by and watch sanctioned vessels sail the seas with black market oil, the proceeds of which will fuel narco-terrorism of rogue and illegitimate regimes around the world.
unidentified
Andrews, Caroline, two for you.
First, when the president announced the farm relief program the other day, Secretary Rollins afterwards, right out there, told us that the program would be paid for by the Commodity Credit Corporation, an existing program.
The president keeps saying that it's being paid for by tariff revenue.
Why does he keep saying that if the secretary who's running the program says that's not the case?
And also about his doll comments from the other night.
The president's a billionaire.
He's probably the wealthiest person to ever serve as president.
Is it a good look for him to be telling parents, oh, you should only buy two or three dolls for your kids when he's one of the wealthiest people in the country running the government?
Do you think the people in that room in Pennsylvania who the president was speaking to don't know the president's a billionaire?
I think that's a very well-established fact.
And actually, I think it's one of the many reasons they re-elected him back to this office, because he's a businessman who understands the economy and knows how to fix it.
And he's doing it right now just like he did in his first term.
Sure, go ahead.
To the gentleman behind you, Andrew, yes, go ahead.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Thank you, Caroline.
On Gaza, we heard the President say yesterday that the Board of Peace members are going to be announced early next year.
What is the administration doing to move the parties in the region closer toward phase two of his peace plan for Gaza?
Well, first of all, I would be remiss if I didn't highlight what a success it is that 10 months into the president's administration, you're asking me about a peace plan in Gaza, because that's a legitimate reality on the ground right now in the region.
And it's only because of this president's leadership that that was able to take place, that all the living hostages were returned.
All but one body of the deceased hostages has been returned, and we're still, of course, working on the last one.
As for this next phase of the peace process, there is a lot of quiet planning that's going on behind the scenes right now for phase two of the peace deal.
And when the United States is ready to make those announcements public on the Board of Peace, the ISF, and the Palestinian technocratic government, we will be making those announcements at the appropriate time.
But the reason that the negotiators and the teams on the ground have been rather quiet about this is because I spoke with them this morning.
They are trying to be deliberate and thoughtful about this.
Peace in Gaza, in the Palestinian Strip, is something, the Gaza Strip rather, is something that people have been trying to accomplish for 70 years.
So this is a complex problem.
And this administration wants to be very thoughtful about it.
And we want to ensure an enduring and lasting peace.
And when those announcements are ready, they will be made.
unidentified
Thank you.
There have been reports that Vladimir Putin called Maduro today to reaffirm his support.
I wanted to ask if it's concerning to the president that Putin has given some warm embrace from Maduro.
He has not spoken to President Putin today, and I understand that call to take place this morning, so the answer is no.
unidentified
I have a question about the ACA, but just first very quickly clarifying Caitlin's question.
acknowledge that CPI in January when you took office was 3 percent and in September the last month for which we have data it was also 3 percent so inflation so it's 2.5 percent Not in September.
Again, I have told you now a few times that the President and Republicans will continue to unveil creative ideas and solutions to the health care crisis that was created by Democrats.
And I know Chuck Schumer is putting up a vote today.
This is a political show vote.
Chuck Schumer is not sincerely interested in lowering health care costs for the American people.
He's putting this vote on the floor knowing that it will fail so he can have another talking point that he can throw around without any real plan or action.
If Chuck Schumer actually wanted to lower health care costs, I'm sure the president would welcome him and his entire Democrat caucus to a legitimate coordination on the president's policies of bringing down drug prices, these most favored nation deals.
Why hasn't Chuck Schumer ever come out in support of those?
Those are going to legitimately, they already are, lower drug prices for the American people.
And not a word from Chuck Schumer on it.
So I think that just proves this is completely political.
unidentified
Two quick buttons on Venezuela.
Does the President consider the seizure of the oil tanker an escalation or a step towards war with Venezuela?
I think the president considers the seizure of the oil tanker as effectuating the administration's sanction policies, which I've already discussed previously.
unidentified
Is a potential invasion or potential land strikes in Venezuela aligned with the president's supporters, the MAGA base, does it risk the potential for a prolonged war and U.S. troops involved in that?
Prolonged war is definitely not something this president is interested in.
He's been very clear about that.
He wants peace.
He also wants to see the end of illegal drugs being trafficked into the United States and taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans across our country.
And he's thinking about that every day here at the White House.
With every drug vote that is taken out by this administration, we are saving thousands of lives by deterring those drugs and stopping those drugs from flowing into our country.
He'll be making remarks at the Congressional Christmas ball, which will be taking place here at the White House.
And later this afternoon, he will be signing some congressional bills and executive orders that we, as always, will keep you apprised of.
Thanks, guys.
Present Votes on Health Care00:00:58
unidentified
And today, lawmakers working on several bills on the permitting process for infrastructure projects.
Several votes will be ahead this afternoon on that, but right now, a vote to kill the resolution to impeach President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.
It's the first of 10 expected votes in this round.
This resolution was brought to the floor by Representative Al Green.
There are several present votes by Democratic leaders who put out a statement saying they're focused right now on health care.
Also, over in the Senate failure to pass either the Democratic or the Republican health care insurance measures.
Domestic Military Deployments Risk00:13:57
unidentified
We will show right now a Senate hearing on the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops in cities across the country as this vote continues.
The committee meets today to hear testimony on the deployment of National Guardsmen domestically to assist with immigration enforcement and to help restore law and order in our cities.
I welcome three witnesses today.
We are joined by Mr. Charles Young, the principal deputy general counsel for the Department of Defense.
We have Mr. Roosevelt Ditlipson, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs.
And we will hear from General Gregory M. Guill, Commander of the United States Northern Command.
In recent years, violent crime, rioting, drug trafficking, and heinous gang activity have steadily escalated.
The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics has released data on these trends.
According to the Bureau's National Crime Victimization Survey, the rate of violent crime in urban areas increased by 61% from 2019 to 2024.
61%.
Last year, the rate of violent crime in urban areas was 46% higher than the national rate, and it was 104% higher than the rural rate.
The statistics are clear.
Public safety is at risk in our cities, and we are in need of well-supported and effective law enforcement.
This situation was made all the worse during the Biden administration.
We saw widespread efforts by Democrats to defund the police.
These moves constricted law enforcement effectiveness across the nation.
For one example, consider Seattle in 2020.
Hundreds of violent protesters took over several downtown blocks.
They declared it a police-free zone and demanded that the police budget be cut in half.
And apparently, it did become a police-free zone.
In the absence of all police presence, violence, open drug usage, and shootings escalated.
All the while, the city's elected officials did little to stop the chaos.
This is but one example of what happens without sufficient law and order.
Now, I would be remiss at this time if I did not recognize that in trying to restore that law and order, there are costs.
In particular, I'm reminded of the two West Virginia National Guard members who were shot in this city just before the Thanksgiving holiday.
Today, we remember Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, who lost her life, and we grieve with her loved ones.
Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolf remains hospitalized, but is showing signs of progress, and we likewise pray for his swift recovery.
The public sees these examples of crime in their communities, and they expect more from their government.
They demand and deserve action.
For this reason, President Trump ordered an immediate and coordinated response by deploying the National Guard to some of our nation's most dangerous cities.
These strategic deployments are not only appropriate, but essential.
Current crime rates in our largest cities have become a substantial burden on local and federal law enforcement agencies.
Increasingly, these agencies are unable to keep our communities safe.
They are underfunded and stretched thin, unable to reinstitute law and order on their own.
The Guard is uniquely suited to assist with the fight against crime.
It can provide manpower, resources, and specialized expertise that local police departments may lack.
Additionally, National Guard units are trained for rapid deployment.
They're versatile, able to handle large-scale public safety operations and provide immediate relief to communities in need.
In fact, the National Guard has a strong history of assisting in domestic law enforcement during times of national crisis.
Their expertise in crowd control, search and rescue operations, and logistical support makes them well suited for urban environments struggling with crime-related violence.
Not surprisingly, Democratic governors and left-wing pundits have decried these deployments.
They've raised concerns about violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of military for domestic policing, except in specific circumstances.
Others have said these deployments waste money and reduce troop readiness.
These concerns are both manufactured and misguided, in my judgment.
Mobilizing the Guard is an excellent opportunity for units to enhance cohesion, complete mission-essential tasks, and ensure training is complete.
Moreover, Guardsmen operate with the highest degree of professionalism.
They serve purely in support roles, never crossing the line into law enforcement functions.
They are limited to protecting federal employees and federal buildings, providing logistics and communications to law enforcement operations, and most importantly, to providing a visible security presence, which supports law enforcement and deters crime.
Furthermore, all National Guardsmen serving in our cities operate under the standing rules of the use of force.
These rules prohibit the use of force except in instances of self-defense.
All Guardsmen receive extensive training on these rules.
I'm confident in their ability to operate within them.
I'm proud of the Guardsmen serving in our nation's capital and in cities throughout America.
I thank them for their service and sacrifice and for their commitment to restoring law and order.
Every day, they help Americans feel safe in their communities.
With that, I turn to my colleague, Senator Duckworth.
And Senator Duckworth, I hope your voice is in better shape than mine this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also thank you to Ranking Member Reed, again Chairman Wicker, and Leader Thune for working with me to hold this meeting.
I first want to acknowledge the horrific shooting in D.C., as the Chairman has already acknowledged, resulting in the tragic death of Specialist Sarah Bextrum and injury of Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolf.
These heroes served with honor and showed up to do the mission despite the risks, as our service members always do.
It is a tragedy that never should have happened in the first place.
That is exactly why I led my colleagues to push for this hearing.
Military service involves risks, and our service members accept those risks knowingly, selflessly.
So we better be damn sure that the mission is the right one.
That is clear, that it is a clear and effective mission, that it serves our national security.
If we stand by while this administration pursues another irresponsible, open-ended campaign with no defined mission, no clear authorities, no set timeline, and no transparent end state, we fail our troops.
We failed their families, and we failed the American people.
Today, we must shine a light on the cost of these domestic deployments to the American people and to those who wear the uniform of this great nation.
I look forward to getting answers about where this administration's crusade of misusing the military in American cities is going and hearing how anyone can justify the damage it is doing to our service members, to civil rights, our public trust in the military, and our service members' ability to execute their critical war-fighting missions.
Look, one of the proudest moments in my life was when the first time I ever raised my hand to swear my oath to the Constitution as a member of the Illinois Army National Guard, I cherished every day, every single day that I got to call myself a soldier.
And it's because I love our military so deeply that I refuse to let anyone, including the President, abuse it for their own gain.
Right now, thousands of troops are deployed across the country under false pretenses.
Here in D.C., the National Guard has been performing missions that don't help with their military training, like spreading mulch and picking up trash.
But that, as we've seen, as we have sadly seen, nonetheless carry risk for our service members.
Let me be clear.
Safety in our community is paramount.
But these deployments do not make our streets safer.
They do not keep our families more secure.
In fact, it is just the opposite.
Instead, President Trump has taken our troops away from their core mission just to do his personal bidding, forcing them to patrol tourist areas in D.C. or invade a city where residents are peacefully protesting his inhumane policies.
We know Trump's actions are not about so-called law and order.
If he cared about law and order, he would have quite literally defunded our police by freezing and slashing federal dollars that helped to hire, train, and equip law enforcement.
If this administration cared about law and order, it would not be ignoring the growing number of judges, including those appointed by Trump himself, who've deemed these deployments illegal.
In Illinois, a judge from the Northern District found that DHS's account of the situation on the ground, and I quote, was simply unreliable, end quote.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a three-judge panel that featured two Republican-appointed judges, including a Trump appointee, upheld this view that, and I quote, the facts do not justify the president's action, end quote.
These judges went further, explaining that political opposition is not rebellion and reaffirming that First Amendment activity in Illinois is not the sort of threat that would justify a military deployment.
Similarly, another Trump-appointed federal judge, this time in Oregon, wrote that the administration had no credible evidence that the protests had gotten out of control and that the president's basis for deploying the Guard was unfettered to the facts.
Our troops deserve to know why they are being asked to do such legally unprecedented and deeply unpopular things on American soil.
And make no mistake, this is deeply unpopular.
Most Americans don't want this.
Poll after poll has found that a majority of Americans oppose deploying troops for missions that should be handled by law enforcement.
This all raises a core question for our hearing today.
Why is this administration so focused on turning our military against Americans here at home?
Our military's number one priority must be readiness.
We face real growing threats from China, Russia, Iran, and more bad actors on a global stage.
The Department of Defense needs to be laser focused on preparing our troops to defend America's interests abroad, not performing tasks that are meant to be done by civilian law enforcement here at home.
No one else can do the critical work of keeping our families safe from these actual threats, and our troops are already stretched thin for time and resources, yet these deployments are burning priceless readiness, morale, and resources on open-ended, unjustified missions.
So far, this administration is estimated to have spent over $341.3 million on the deployments to Illinois, LA, Oregon, D.C., and Memphis alone, not including the cost of thousands of troops along the border.
But these costs are tabulated in more than taxpayer dollars and cannot be overstated, nor can the risks that come with politicizing our troops for one man's gain.
So let me close with this.
Enabling the president, any president, to send military troops into American cities under transparently flimsy pretext to meet his whims will have a dangerous and profoundly damaging impact on our nation's military.
Our heroes did not sign up for this.
They signed up to defend Americans' rights to free speech, not to intimidate Americans from exercising that right.
They were willing to die to defend this country, not to defend one man's partisan agenda.
We cannot stay silent as our troops' willingness to sacrifice this abuse or as President Trump erodes the hard-won trust our military has earned from the American public.
Because while our armed forces have a sacred role in our country, public trust can be easily lost when the commander-in-chief uses them so recklessly, especially when that commander-in-chief has already gone so far as to suggest that the military uses American cities as, and I quote, training grounds for, again, I quote the President, the war within.
Look, these days I may no longer be wearing my Army uniform, but it is still hanging up in my closet.
But as a senator and as a member of this committee, my core mission remains the same as when I was in the National Guard, to keep America as strong and as safe as she should be.
The power to deploy our troops domestically must remain exceptional, accountable, and rooted in law, not in one man's judgment about what constitutes disorder.
That's why I'm here today.
That's why I'm so outraged.
That is why I am so determined to make sure that, for the sake of our troops, we get some answers today.
Let me observe that my Air Force uniform is also hanging up in my closet, but there's no way I could get into it at this point.
I also, let me just mention for the purposes of our audience that these three witnesses were chosen by the leadership of this committee by consensus, and we welcome them here today.
Union calendar number 260, H.R. 3628, a bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to add a standard related to state consideration of reliable generation and for other purposes.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a five-minute vote.
unidentified
And several five-minute votes now.
This one on whether to require state energy authorities mandate utilities have a 10-year plan to provide reliable electricity.
As the House works on several bills dealing with the permitting process for infrastructure projects.
Also, let you know on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate failed earlier to pass either the Republican or Democratic plans to help with rising health care insurance costs.
Current subsidies that were put in place during the COVID pandemic will expire at midnight on December 31st.
As members vote, we'll show more of the Senate hearing on the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops across the country.
Protecting Federal Personnel Safely00:12:21
unidentified
To legal parameters in all of our activities while faithfully executing the President and Secretary's direction.
To do otherwise would jeopardize good order and discipline and would be dangerous and irresponsible.
Recent executive orders and presidential memorandums have directed DOW to provide specific support in several key areas.
Currently, the National Guard is deployed in several states under both Title 10 and Title 32 authorities, providing support for a diverse set of missions, including federal protection missions in California, Illinois, and Oregon, support to federal law enforcement in Tennessee, and restoring law and order in our nation's capital.
We are committed to ensuring that all National Guard personnel are properly trained and equipped for these missions.
Every single service member undergoes specialized training before being entrusted with the duty to protect American citizens.
We emphasize de-escalation techniques, respect for civil liberties, and adherence to the rules for the use of force.
We also work closely with state governments and other federal agencies to ensure a coordinated and effective response to domestic challenges.
The Department of War understands the concerns surrounding the use of National Guard in domestic operations.
We are committed to transparency and accountability in all of our activities.
We strive to balance readiness for both domestic and overseas missions, adapting our training and resourcing to meet evolving needs.
My office is committed to ensuring that these resources are used effectively and responsibly, as we have throughout President Trump's time in office.
Thank you for this opportunity.
I look forward to answering the committee's questions.
Mr. Young, you're recognized for your opening statement.
unidentified
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reid, and distinguished members of this committee, good morning.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on the important topic of National Guard mobilizations.
The overarching concern in all of our National Guard deployments is to ensure that our communities remain safe places where our citizens can enjoy their constitutionally protected rights in peace and where federal officers can perform their valid federal functions without fear of being physically harmed.
When the Department of War receives a presidential mobilization order, Supreme Court precedents requires that we presume that he exercised his statutory and constitutional authorities as the Commander-in-Chief in a manner consistent with the law.
These lawful orders, given in exigent circumstances, requires the Department of War to rapidly muster a response to prevent loss of life of limb and property in emergency situations.
The Department issues carefully tailored guidance to commanders and mobilized National Guard personnel, focusing their mission on the protection of federal functions, personnel, and property.
In doing so, the Department has operated well within the law established by long-standing Supreme Court precedent and long-standing Department of Justice legal opinions.
The Department of War has also received, evaluated, and responded to numerous requests for assistance from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice under well-established statutory frameworks for assisting other federal agencies in performing their federal functions and in assisting state and local law enforcement authorities.
The dedicated women of our National Guard have selflessly stepped forward to heed the call of duty and have served our nation with distinction.
From all reports, they are well received by the citizens they serve and have comported themselves in an exemplary manner.
As a result of their service, our communities are safer.
Our federal law enforcement officers can more safely perform their legal functions, and obstructions to the proper execution of federal laws are being removed.
And now, General Guillo, you are welcome here and recognized for your opening statement.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reid, and the distinguished members of the committee.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear today alongside Mr. Ditlofson and Mr. Young regarding the deployments of the National Guard in Title X status within the United States.
I'd like to start by acknowledging the essential role of the Army and Air National Guard teammates play in defending the homeland every day.
Right now, Guardsmen under the command and control of NORAD and U.S. NORTHCOM are defending against ballistic missile threats, protecting national airspace, supporting federal law enforcement, and helping seal and repel illegal activity at the southern border.
In fact, there isn't a single NORAD or U.S. NORTHCOM mission that doesn't rely on our National Guard teammates.
I'll center my comments this morning on United States Northern Command's roles and responsibilities in commanding and controlling Title X forces conducting the Federal Protection Mission in support of federal law enforcement agencies.
At the direction of the President and the Secretary of War, Army National Guard personnel operating in Title X status are tasked with protecting federal functions, which includes property, entities, and federal personnel performing federal functions.
Union Calendar No. 258, H.R. 3638, a bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to prepare periodic assessments and submit reports on the supply chain for the generation and transmission of electricity and for other purposes.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a five-minute vote.
unidentified
In the third of 10 votes underway now, this on whether to require the Energy Secretary to submit findings of the most recent assessment of the electric supply chain to House and Senate energy committees within one year of an enactment, it would require the Energy Secretary conduct periodic assessments of the supply chain for electricity generation and transmission.
As members vote, we'll show more of the Senate hearing on the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops across the country.
From the outset, I have directed that every service member participating in Federal protection missions be thoroughly trained on their authorities and limitations.
It is essential that everyone involved in this mission understands precisely what they are authorized to do, but perhaps more importantly, what they are authorized not to do.
To be clear, Title 10 forces are prohibited from conducting traditional law enforcement activities, including arrest, seizure, search, or evidence collection in connection with the enforcement of laws.
Their mission is to take reasonable measures to protect the destruction or defacement of federal government property, including preventing civilians from attacking Federal facilities, stopping ongoing interference with Federal functions by civilians, or preventing civilians with a demonstrated intent to interfere with the Federal functions from such interference.
The mission also includes protecting Federal personnel from harm or threat of death or bodily injury.
As such, service members may temporarily restrain civilians, conduct cursory searches, or take other similar measures to ensure safety of the persons on the property.
To date, only one civilian has been temporarily detained by military personnel.
That occurred on June 13th when, despite verbal warnings, an individual crossed a clearly marked boundary surrounding the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles.
In accordance with applicable law and policies, that individual was only detained until they could be handed over to proper law enforcement personnel.
Title 10 forces are present to protect federal property and federal personnel in the execution of their responsibility to enforce federal law, not to replace them.
Local, state, and federal law enforcement remain fully responsible for public safety and policing, while the objectives of the military professionals performing this mission are safety and continuity of the federal functions, and if necessary, de-escalation, not confrontation.
I met a young Marine in Los Angeles this summer, and when I asked him to describe his assigned mission, he told me that it was to ensure that the American citizens exercising their right to peaceful assembly and protest were able to do so safely.
I think that sums up both the mission and the professionalism of the service members assigned to this mission very well.
The Federal Protection Mission is an example of the Department's unique capability to support partners during extraordinary circumstances.
NORIDA and U.S. Northcom are proud of the command's ability to rapidly deploy trained, disciplined forces when and wherever they are needed, and the well-trained, professional, and ready National Guard is crucial to that effort.
Again, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today.
What does it offer that law enforcement and other Federal agencies cannot do?
unidentified
First and foremost, Chairman, they are extremely disciplined and they can very quickly be trained to conduct any mission that we task of them.
When they come in, we train them on what they're authorized to do, which is rooted in the May Day opinion and their 12406 authorities, and also the Secretary's directive action, which is to prevent destruction and defacement of the federal facilities and to protect the execution of federal functions.
They can do that because they're disciplined, they're well trained, and they very well understand the limits of their authorities.
My first question was the benefits to the community and what they could bring, but what about the individuals that are being deployed?
Do they benefit from this also?
unidentified
Yes, sir, they do.
We work very closely with the TAGs from each state to ensure that the training they receive not only benefits them in their federal function that they're performing for us, but also in their state role.
So in the conduct of the mission, they get not only training on the standing for the rules of use of force and also the civil disturbance operations that they could potentially execute, but they get small unit training.
They get all of their medical training complete.
They get all of their weapons qualifications and many other small unit tactics that benefit them in both statuses.
Also, at this time, the majority of those serving in this role are volunteers, so it helps them in their pursuit of career.
And then it also allows us to trade out people who are assigned but maybe have school or other functions to ensure that the people that are serving not only are very good at their job, but they want to be there and they're there on voluntary status.
Tell us what the Posse Comitatus Act is and how this deployment, this type of deployment we're talking about today, does not violate the posse comitatus.
The House is in the committee of the whole House on the State of the Union for further consideration of H.R. 3383, which the clerk will report by title.
When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, December 10th, 2025, Amendment No. 5 printed in Part B of House Report 119-399 offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, had been postponed.
Pursuant to clause 6 of Rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in Part B of House Report 119-399 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order.
Amendment number one by Mr. Self of Texas.
Amendment number three by Ms. Waters of California.
Amendment number five by Ms. Waters of California.
The unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number one printed in part B of House Report 119-399 by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Self, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the no's prevailed by voice vote.
Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a two-minute vote.
Two-minute vote.
unidentified
And a few amendment votes now on the Invest Act.
These will be two-minute votes.
The first from second-term Congressman Keith Self of Texas.
As lawmakers take up amendments to a bill that combines 22 financial services bills aimed at increasing investor opportunities, encouraging more businesses to go public, and broaden access to capital.
Expecting final passage on the bill to follow the three amendments.
Also, let you know over in the Senate, both the Democratic and Republican proposals to deal with expiring health care subsidies failed to advance.
Here in the House, as Jake Sherman with Punch Bowl News reports, House Democrats are discussing lining up behind the Gottheimer discharge petition, which would extend enhanced Obamacare premium subsidies for a year.
The House Republican leadership is, quote, losing control of the floor.
Discharge petitions now the way to govern in the closely divided House.
Again, that from Jake Sherman.
Expecting final passage on the invest bill to follow these three amendments as we take you back to the hearing on National Guard deployments while members vote.
A response force and a nationwide deployable quick reaction force.
These forces, let me ask Ms. Diddlefin, what is the purpose of these forces, Mr. Diddlefin?
unidentified
Thank you for the question, Mr. Ranking Member.
These two situations, the National Guard Response Force and the National Guard Quick Response Force, are already pre-existing functions that are being reorganized and re-equipped to a higher level and modernized to be able to serve their functions better.
So these are already existing capabilities within the National Guard, and we're just changing the manner in which they are task organized to be more effective.
There is a, when this program was rolled out, Mr. Young, there was a suggestion that one of its main purposes is deterrence, which touches upon a basic right of Americans to come together peacefully and demonstrate in cities and towns across the country.
The unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number three, printed in Part B of House Report 119-399 by gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, on which further proceedings are postponed and on which the no's prevail by voice vote.
Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a two-minute vote.
unidentified
And Sylvia Garcia's amendment to the Invest Act requires advisors and hedge funds to perform know-your-customer verifications.
It effectively requires foreign hedge funds to abide by the same rules as U.S.-based hedge funds.
It's modeled after a financial crimes enforcement network final rule aimed at combating illicit finance and national security threats in the investment advisor sector.
We'll go back now to the hearing with the National Guard.
Judge Breyer in California federal courts, who declared the actions of National Guard and other military as unconstitutional, I believe one of the areas that they were protecting was MacArthur Park, which is not a federal facility, or at least they were making sweeps through MacArthur Park.
But you concur with Judge Breyer's conclusion that the president acted unconstitutionally.
unidentified
No, Senator, I would say that I concur with the Ninth Circuit's decision that the President acted lawfully, and I disagree with the District Court's decision.
I respect the District Court's decision, and it's my understanding that the actions in MacArthur Park were designed to protect the federal officers that were otherwise there that were not uniformed military personnel that were performing a valid legal federal function.
General Guillo, first of all, thank you for your service and your very difficult job of maintaining a balance between your military responsibilities and many of the orders you're given.
If you were, if the president declared an organization a terrorist organization or DTO, which is on a secret list, and you were ordered to attack them on U.S. foil, would you carry out that order?
unidentified
Senator Reed, as with any order I get, I would assess the order, consult the legal authorities to ensure that it was a lawful order, and I would, if I had questions, I would elevate that to the chairman and the secretary, as they welcome at all times.
And if I had no concerns and I was confident in the lawful order, I would definitely execute that order.
The unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number five, printed in Part B of House Report 119-399 by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the no's prevailed by voice vote.
Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.
A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a two-minute vote.
unidentified
And the last amendment before a final passage vote on the Invest Act, this is from California's Maxine Waters.
It defines and prohibits fees charged by SEC registered individuals and entities that are not clearly disclosed or proportional to the services provided, as we show more now from the National Guard hearing.
I've never received any illegal orders throughout my career.
And in your long and illustrious career as a lawyer, I'm sure you've had a client who's asked you whether some course of action is lawful or not, and you've had to tell them, no, that's not lawful, right?
Is there a presumption of lawfulness of orders in the military?
unidentified
Yes, sir.
There is a presumption of lawfulness not only in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but the Supreme Court precedents that's long established, going back more than 150 years, says that whenever a statutory authority is given to the President,
that it's presumed that he is acting in accordance with that law and long-standing Supreme Court precedent that deals with the necessity for a valid presumption of lawfulness in an order that's issued by the President.
Let's turn to some other basic questions of constitutional law.
I know that you're familiar with them from your time in the department.
Does the President, not just this President, but does any President have the constitutional authority to federalize the National Guard to protect innocent life and property?
unidentified
Senator, the answer to that is in the Constitution, the states relegated their authority to Congress to be able to call forth the militia in times of exigent circumstances.
Congress, in turn, granted that authority to the president through federal statute, which remains in effect today and is the basis for these current deployments.
And that authority extends even to states that refuse to mobilize their National Guard or where governors oppose the President executing that constitutional authority.
The committee of the whole House on the State of the Union has under consideration H.R. 3383.
And pursuant to House Resolution 936, I report the bill as amended by the resolution back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union reports that the Committee has had under consideration the bill H.R. 3383 and pursuant to House Resolution 936 reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the chair will put them in gross.
The question is on adoption of the amendments.
Those in favor, please say aye.
Those opposed, please say no.
The ayes have it.
The amendments are adopted.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
A sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a five-minute vote.
National Guard Deployments Debate00:07:56
unidentified
In the seventh of ten votes in this round, this is on final passage of a bill that combines 22 financial services bills that attempt to increase investor opportunities, encourage more businesses to go public, and broaden access to capital.
Two more votes expected after this on the Permit Act dealing with clean water programs.
As members' vote, we'll take you back to the Senate hearing on President Trump's deployment of the National Guard.
By putting soldiers with rifles and military vehicles onto our streets, even as crime in many of these cities has actually fallen.
This is a regime that does not use facts as the basis for their decisions.
We are not here today because local law enforcement failed.
We are here because the Trump regime chooses to treat ordinary public safety challenges as a pretext for a sweeping show of force.
Again, this isn't about the effectiveness of local law enforcement.
How do we know?
Because this regime has cut over $800 million in Department of Justice grants to state and local law enforcement for community safety initiatives like policing and violence prevention.
We'll hear a lot of illegal stuff, I call it, today, Title 10 versus Title 32, the reach of Section 12406, Pasa Comitadas.
But behind those legal debates is a basic question about how we think about the use of power in our democracy.
When Americans step out of Union Station in Washington, D.C., for example, do we want them to see soldiers on street corners, military trucks at intersections, and the visible sign of a police state?
Or do we want them to see the openness, the energy, and the confidence of a democracy that does not need to put troops on its streets to feel secure?
And right now, the daily relationship between Americans and the D.C. National Guard is being fundamentally altered.
These deployments are challenging, are changing how people experience their own capital city and how they view our military.
This is not normal.
Don't tell me it's normal to have National Guard in where are the cities?
LA, Portland, Chicago, D.C., Memphis.
Don't tell me this is normal.
It is not normal for a president to attack blue cities controlled by Democratic mayors or governors in blue states.
This regime has pushed boundaries that prior presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, respected for generations.
And that has to do with the non-politicizing of the military.
The American people deserve answers to what we're doing in deploying all these troops to our cities.
And, you know, I just want to ask Mr. Young, you know, the President at one point said that protesters should be shot in the street.
Is that a legal order?
unidentified
He said, I'm not aware of the president giving any order to that nature or effect.
So we have a president who doesn't think that the rule of law applies to him and he wants to show force.
And the question I have for Mr. Didlipson is, you know, I'd like to know what kind of assessments were done as to the impact of these kinds of deployments that have already used up $340 million to date and more as long as these troops are going to be continued to deploy to the cities that I've mentioned and others.
Like what kind of assessment done by whom as to what the impact of these deployments are on our readiness and other questions that should be of significance?
Union calendar number 145, H.R. 3898, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make targeted reforms with respect to waters of the United States and for other matters and for other purposes.
Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.
It's afficient number having risen.
The yays and nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic means pursuant to clause 9 of Rule 20.
This five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered.
This is a five-minute vote.
unidentified
And votes on water project permitting now.
A procedural vote here, the last chance to make changes to the bill concerning the Clean Water Act.
It would change the permitting process for infrastructure projects under that act and change the definition of what qualifies as water of the U.S. in this process.
After this final passage expected, earlier, House members voted down a resolution to impeach President Trump brought to the floor by Congressman Al Green.
That vote was 237 to 140, with 47 Democrats voting present.
And over in the Senate, two votes failing that were aimed at alleviating rising health care insurance costs.
We could see work from the House next week as current health insurance subsidies are set to expire at the end of this year.
As members continue to vote, we'll bring you more of the Senate hearing on National Guard deployments.
Resort to utilizing the National Guard because they were citizens and from the communities that were involved.
National Guard Dynamics00:03:51
unidentified
And these books that I have here are just books on the role of federal military forces in domestic disorders.
And there's tons of examples of that.
It's quite voluminous.
There's lots of examples over the course of the nation's history.
And most of the deployments that are done are done in the cooperation or with the cooperation of state authorities.
State authorities ask for it.
State authorities are in control.
Most of them are state-funded, many times and state-operated.
But there are times when, say for instance, in Katrina and needing to be able to address a disaster that was coupled with civil disturbance, the scope and magnitude of the circumstances or the nature of it necessitate federal funding, but they're still under state control.
But the Constitution recognized that there would be certain exigent times at which time the country and the president would need to be able to act quickly and be able to mobilize the militia to be able to respond to the threats that were present.
And they're enumerated not only in the Constitution, but in the statute that you wrote.
And so in this particular case, we have two different sections that are utilized.
Can you chair for just a minute, please, how critical it is to be able to differentiate between those two uses for the National Guard and the training that goes in to the Guardsmen and their officers about how to understand the differences, please.
unidentified
Yes, Senator.
The distinction is critical.
When National Guard personnel are in a Title 32 status, they're subject to the control, direction, and authority of state officials.
The governor is their commander-in-chief.
When they are ordered to federal service, that by federal law, 32 U.S.C. 325, that relationship with the state is severed by federal law.
And the president becomes their commander-in-chief through the commander of NORTHCOM.
And that then governs the rules for the use of force.
When they're in state authority, they're following state rules, state law, state responsibilities.
When they're in a Title 10 status, they're following the standard rules for the use of force that are under General Guillot's concern, sir.
I begin again, as many others have, just by expressing condolences to the family of Sarah Beckstrom, 20-year-old specialist from Webster County, West Virginia.
She enlisted in the West Virginia Army National Guard when she was a senior in high school.
Andrew Wolfe, the staff sergeant, 24 years old, who is, thank God, recovering in critical condition but recovering from Martinsburg, had been in the Guard, also enrolled in his senior year in high school.
I also want to mention to other colleagues a name that hasn't been mentioned, Alabama Staff Sergeant Jacob Hill, 30-year-old, who had served in the Guard for 13 years.
He died during the deployment to D.C. in a non-duty medical emergency when he was stationed at a residing in a hotel in Virginia.
Normalization Of Military Domestic Deployment00:15:21
The D.C. deployment has been the subject of a litigation, and I want to read the ruling of the court in District of Columbia versus Donald J. Trump from November 20, 2025, six days before the two soldiers were assassinated.
Here is the ruling of the court.
First, the DOD defendants have exceeded the bounds of their authority under Title 49 of the D.C. Code and thus acted contrary to law in deploying the D.C. National Guard for non-military crime deterrence missions in the absence of a request from the city's civil authorities.
Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.
A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a five-minute vote.
unidentified
And final passage now on the Permit Act that changes the permitting process for infrastructure projects under the Clean Water Act.
It also changes the definition of what qualifies as water of the U.S. One more vote after this to nullify President Trump's executive order that excludes federal workers who are in the national security realm from union rights.
While we wait for members to vote here on the floor, I'll take you back to the National Guard hearing.
They should have been celebrating Thanksgiving with their families at home rather than patrolling near Farragut Square in Washington.
And if those legal orders are withheld, there's something additionally we owe these families in addition to the prosecution of the assassin.
The civil officials responsible for an unlawful deployment will owe these families a deep, deep apology for the losses that they have suffered.
The prosecution of the assassin is important, but responsibility and acceptance of responsibility from civil servants issuing illegal orders is also important.
It's deeply important.
I would encourage my colleagues to read this 61-page order that was issued.
I think it's quite persuasive.
We'll see how it stands up on appeal.
But I had the deep feeling on the day that the sad news broke about the shooting that the two West Virginians should have been home with their families celebrating Thanksgiving that day rather than here on a mission of questionable legality.
General Hugh, I want to ask you a question in my remaining seconds.
You talked about the training that Guard members receive.
What training do Guard members receive when they're deployed in these missions about dealing with folks who present with mental health issues?
Local law enforcement receive very significant training on this topic.
I wonder what training our National Guard members receive on this topic.
unidentified
Senator, those that are deployed in Title 10 status receive two primary types of training before they're allowed to go on mission.
The first is on the standing rules for the use of force to ensure that at first they learn how to de-escalate and then use non-any force as a last resort, but first non-deadly force before deadly force only when all lesser means have been attempted and failed and they're protecting themselves or the fellows.
I'm now over time, but is in either of the two kinds of training that you were describing, do these Guard members receive the critical training about dealing with folks with mental health instances?
I spoke with Mayor Bowser the other day and she talked about the fact that the Metro PD all receive significant mental health training because a significant percentage of the instances where they're interacting with folks who might be a danger to themselves or others are driven by mental health issues.
It was her impression and mine as a former mayor and governor that that's not the kind of training that our National Guard members receive.
Thank each of you for being here and your decades of service to our country and our warfighters.
I want to start today by recognizing Specialist Sarah Bestrom, Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe, two heroes who were tragically attacked by a monster keeping our nation's capital safe.
I also want to ask every American to keep Specialist Spectrum family in their prayers as they deal with the pain of losing a child.
As a parent and a grandparent, I can't imagine what that's like.
And, of course, all of our prayers go for a full recovery for Staff Sergeant Wolfe.
These are two heroes like all of our National Guardsmen volunteered to keep our country safe and stepped up to clean up Democrat-run cities all around the country that were running rampant with soaring crime and lawlessness.
We've seen record low crime and real results as people are finally comfortable living in their own homes, again in places like Chicago, Memphis, and our nation's capital.
Finalies in my state are finally comfortable coming to Washington, D.C. again because they feel safe.
For each of you, can you just give me an example some of the work the Guard's done and what you're most proud of?
Sergeant Enith with you, General.
unidentified
Senator, I'm proud of all of the Guard forces that have come under Title X command and control.
Their discipline, their adherence to all policies, and their cooperation with local law enforcement and state law enforcement in each of the regions where they are employed, to me is very impressive.
It's much appreciated from our standpoint, and I think it shows that they continue to be citizen soldiers, even in Title X status.
Senator, as the former general counsel for the National Guard Bureau with 20 years of service there as well as service in the West Virginia Guard, first I would share your sympathies for the family of Special Spectrum and Staff Sergeant Wolfe.
I would say that I've seen the National Guard in my time, in my 20 years, having advised on National Guard issues, do exceptional things.
Discharge calendar number three, House Resolution 432.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2550, to nullify the executive order relating to exclusions from federal labor management relations programs and for the purposes.
Members will record their votes by electronic means.
This is a five-minute vote.
unidentified
And the last expected vote in this series is lawmakers vote on the rule for Maine Democratic Congressman Jared Golden's bill being brought up via a discharge petition.
The bill seeking to repeal President Trump's executive order that stripped union rights from federal workers who are involved in national security.
If the rules approve, members will hold debate later, followed by a final passage vote, which is scheduled to be the last vote of the day.
While members vote here, we'll show more from the Senate hearing on Trump administration deployments of National Guard troops.
Patrick Henry, a standing army we shall have also to execute the execrable commands of tyranny.
Finally, Samuel Adams, a standing army, if it shall be established, will undoubtedly be permanent and the people will become slaves.
I want to sort of broaden this discussion from the specific to the more general.
What concerns me about the cases we're talking about today is the normalization of deploying the military domestically.
We've got laws about it, and you guys can thread the needle and talk about how this or that deployment is okay or not okay.
But the idea of deploying federal troops into American cities, particularly against the wishes of the governor, Mr. Devilson, you said something that was borderline humorous.
You said, we'll work closely with state and local governments.
That didn't happen in Illinois or in California.
So we're talking about a broader issue here that I think is extremely dangerous.
And the reason it's particularly dangerous in the present moment is we have a president who has a very low bar as to what constitutes an emergency.
I live in Maine on the border of Canada.
There is no emergency with Canada.
And yet this president declared an emergency in order to impose tariffs on Canada, which is wrecking their economy.
So the idea that we are saying that the president has the power to, in his own mind, decide what an emergency is and then deploy troops into our cities, I think is exceedingly dangerous.
And the people who founded this country thought so too.
So I just think we can talk about the legality of a particular deployment here or there, but the principle is what's so dangerous, and the founders of this country understood that in many, many ways.
For example, in the Constitution, the Army, we are only allowed to fund the Army for two years.
That was for a purpose, in order to limit the whole idea of a standing army.
We now have a standing army.
We have an all-volunteer army.
And then we have this quick reaction force, which has essentially become a special army on behalf of the President.
And I'm not necessarily, I mean, I do criticize this President for his low standard of what constitutes an emergency, but this is a dangerous precedent for any president.
And that's what concerns me about this, gentlemen.
And Mr. Young, you're familiar with the concepts and the principles of the Constitution.
Speak to the more general question that I'm raising, not the specifics of Washington or Los Angeles, but the idea of the normalization of use of troops in our streets, I think, is extremely dangerous, and the founders of our country would, I think, agree.
unidentified
Thank you, Senator.
I would just say that immediately after the passage of the Constitution, Congress passed a law that would delegate their authority to determine when the militia could be called forth, and they delegated that authority to the President.
George Washington himself, whom you quoted, immediately put that to use.
And George Washington mustered 13,000 militiamen and marched them to Pennsylvania to suppress what was...
Whiskey Rebellion is in Pennsylvania, where they tarred and feather tax collectors.
And the President sent them there to protect federal functions and the officers who were performing their duty, very similar to what was there.
And that original statute, sir, it had a provision in it that a federal judge would need to make the determination that the laws were not being able to be enforced.
And after George Washington moved the troops to Pennsylvania, Congress came back and amended that and took that out and put it within the discretion of the President.
And it wasn't long after that that the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court reviewed that muster.
The Supreme Court went in and reviewed an actual mobilization of the militia to deal with an exigency.
What's bothering everybody is this president keeps using the term the enemy within.
And he's not talking about al-Qaeda and he's not talking about the Russians and he's not talking about the Chinese.
We can't tell quite who he's talking about, but the use of the term the enemy within as a justification for deploying troops, maybe it's a question of judgment and what the standard is.
And it just strikes me, I mean, you seem unconcerned about this.
unidentified
Well, Senator, if I may, I think the Supreme Court has directly asked that question in the context of the President's ability to mobilize the militia.
And if I may, I would answer by giving you some of the language of the Supreme Court.
And it says, by whom is the emergency to be judged?
Is the President the sole and exclusive judge as to whether an emergency has arisen?
Or is it to be considered an open question which every officer may decide for himself or contested by every militiaman who should refuse his order?
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the authority to decide whether 194 the resolution is adopted without objection.
Americans pay several hundred billion in taxes each year to fund the salaries and benefits of more than two million federal civilian employees.
These workers are paid to carry out the critical mission and functions of the federal government.
But the more than 340 million Americans who foot the bill do not directly manage federal executive branch employees.
They elect a president to do that.
The president directs the workforce of the executive branch so he can fulfill his constitutional duty to ensure the laws of the land are faithfully executed.
When president Trump ran for office last year, he told the American public that if elected, he would return federal employees to their offices, reform the bureaucracy and restore much-needed accountability to the workforce.
The American people chose to elect him to do just that.
But even before president Trump took office, federal collective bargaining legal authorities were weaponized to sabotage what Americans had voted for.
On their way out the door, lame-duck Biden administration officials signed collective bargaining agreements with federal employee union bosses specifically designed to tie the hands of the incoming president Trump.
In january, at our very first hearing this congress, the House Committee ON Oversight AND Government Reform heard testimony from president Biden's Social Security commissioner, Martin O'malley.
He cut a deal with union bosses after the november election.
After the election and just before leaving the agency to run for chair of the Democrat National Committee, the deal locked in telework levels for tens of thousands of Social Security Administration employees for the entirety of the incoming Trump administration.
To be clear, this was done specifically to trump-proof the workforce, to force the incoming president to continue the failed management policies the public had just voted to end.
So we must ask, are we going to uphold the president's constitutional role as head of the executive branch?
Can he truly lead if he is held hostage by union deals to which he never agreed and were intended to undermine his authority?
Should an elected president be able to bring taxpayer-funded federal employees back to work for his entire four-year term?
The American people do not think so.
That is why the House Oversight Committee adopted legislation that would allow the president to manage the workforce without being bound by last-minute union agreements designed to undermine him.
That legislation, the Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act, sponsored by Representative Cloud of Texas, is the bill we should be debating here today.
It is important to remember that public sector unions are fundamentally different from their private sector counterparts.
In fact, none other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a major champion of private sector unions, believed that public sector unions made no sense.
FDI wrote that, quote, the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be translated into the public service, end quote.
Because in the private sector, unions represent workers and sit across the bargaining table from representatives of business owners.
However, federal unions are not negotiating with a profit-seeking corporation.
They are negotiating with the public's elected representatives.
As FDR put it, in the case of the public sector, the employer is the whole people.
Federal unions, in other words, seek concessions not from private owners, but from the taxpayers themselves.
And since federal salaries and benefits are determined by laws, which also establish basic civil service protections for employees, what exactly do federal unions bargain over?
They bargain over conditions of employment like telework.
Unions also seek contract provisions that limit management's ability to hold employees accountable through disciplinary procedures or performance management processes.
I urge my colleagues to buck federal union bosses, put Americans first, and oppose the so-called Protect America's Workforce Act.
I rise in strong support of the Protecting America's Workforce Act, which will restore collective bargaining rights to more than 1 million federal workers.
I want to thank Congressman Golden for all of his work to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor and so many members across our caucus who are supportive.
Now, we know this bill is a historic win, which overcame opposition from Speaker Johnson and certainly anti-worker allies across the government.
In March, President Trump signed an executive order terminating collective bargaining rights for federal police officers, firefighters, nurses, food inspectors, and so many more.
Now, the nurses who care for our veterans, the flight and safety inspectors at the FAA, nuclear power plant safety workers, and countless others lost their right to have representation in the workplace.
This is unfair and it's wrong.
Workers deserve the right to make their voices heard with a union.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was the mayor of my city, Long Beach, California, before I came to Congress, and I was so proud to partner with our city unions, always making sure that the city and services ran effectively.
Our federal unions are the same.
They make sure that our civil service is independent and nonpartisan, serving the citizens and not whichever party is currently in power.
They make sure we attract and retain highly talented workers, and they make sure that our agencies follow the law.
President Trump is targeting federal unions to further his power grab and to continue to push an agenda which leaves working families behind and instead supports billionaires.
Unions make our class stronger, they make our government stronger, and they make our economy stronger.
We should be working every day to strengthen the right to organize, not to undermine it.
This bill is a historic victory, and I commend Congressman Golden and everyone who's worked on it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2550.
The proposed legislation is designed to nullify President Trump's lawful executive order to exclude agencies within the national security missions from collective bargaining agreements.
Article 2 of the Constitution is crystal clear.
The executive power is invested in the President of the United States.
Let me repeat, all authority in the executive branch flows from the people to the duly elected executive.
Anyone operating outside of the pleasure of the president in the executive branch is simply part of an unconstitutional fourth branch of government.
The president holds the sole authority.
Yet for decades, federal collective bargaining agreements have been allowed, and some even designed to restrict the president's ability to lead the government we elected him to run.
That's why President Trump, acting fully within the authority granted by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, amended Jimmy Carter's 1979 executive order to exempt additional agencies from burdensome collective bargaining agreements.
Agencies such as the Department of Defense, State, Justice, Homeland Security, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as many others.
The less disdain for the Constitution cannot be more clear.
We saw this during Trump administration one with the resistance movement.
During the Biden administration, we saw the Autopin controversy, where they even went around the executive.
The Biden administration spent the final months, even after being voted out of office, frantically signing union contracts, which were explicitly designed to sabotage the incoming administration and prevent the president elected by the people from carrying out the mandate he was given.
These same government unions are not neutral public servants.
In the 2023 to 2024 election cycle, the four largest federal employee unions spent nearly $1 billion on politics.
98.8% of their federal contributions went to the Democratic Party.
Unions like the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, AFSCME, SEIU, and others affected by this executive order have made no secret of their intent to resist this agenda the American people voted for.
As Congress, we need to ensure that the Constitution is upheld.
We need more legislation like the Preserving Presidential Management Authority Act, which simply reaffirms Article II and ensures that no future administration can permanently handcuff its successor.
I urge my colleagues to defend Article II, reject this H.R. 2550, and stand with the American people who sent us here to drain the swamp, not to protect it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2550, bipartisan legislation to restore collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of unionized federal employees.
This legislation reaffirms a core principle.
A government that serves the people must also respect the rights of those who serve within it.
Federal employees work tirelessly every day, often behind the scenes.
They process Social Security benefits, safeguard our food, safeguard our water, care for our veterans, and respond whenever a disaster strikes.
Their work is essential, and its impact reaches every community across this nation.
Mr. Speaker, by restoring their collective bargaining rights, we strengthen a system that keeps government effective, stable, and responsive, all without compromising security or mission readiness.
Reinstating these rights is not a concession.
It is a commitment, a commitment to treat federal workers with dignity, to reinforce a resilient public service, and to honor the commitment of the men and women who show up for the American people every single day.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I want to thank my friend and colleague from Maine, Jared Golden, for his partnership and, more importantly, for his courage in advancing this initiative.
This bill would nullify President Trump's executive order 14251, which rightly excluded 40 national security agencies from collective bargaining.
Agencies like FEMA, Coast Guard, CDC, the VA cannot afford to be paralyzed by union red tape when lives are on the line.
I want to emphasize this is going to nullify an executive order.
It's going to attack his agenda, the America First agenda that he was overwhelmingly elected to enact.
These unions are not neutral actors.
The number of $1 billion was mentioned by, excuse me, a billionaires was mentioned by my colleague from California.
I'm glad he mentioned the term billion because that's what the partisan machine government union spent in the last election, just under a billion dollars, $980 million of it going to Democrats, which explains, in no small measure, the rationale for the movement of this bill to negate President Trump's executive order.
In its final days, the Biden administration rushed to lock in long-term union contracts designed to tie President Trump's hands for a second term.
H.R. 2550 preserves those deals signed after President Trump was re-elected, but before Inauguration Day.
That undermines the will of the voters and the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.
It is legislative sabotage, and we shouldn't give in to that.
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 explicitly gives the President authority to exclude agencies from collective bargaining when national security is at stake.
This would undo that.
Presidents from Carter to Reagan to Trump have exercised this authority.
Courts have already sided with President Trump, affirming that in matters of national security, the President enjoys, quote, unique responsibility, close quote.
Arizona knows too well the cost of bureaucratic failure.
The Phoenix VA scandal showed what happens when accountability is lost.
Veterans died waiting for care.
We must not allow unions to dictate policy if it is going to impact national security, if it's going to affect our borders, if it's going to affect our energy, if it's going to affect protecting Americans during pandemics.
In a state where public safety and national defense are daily realities, my state, this bill would put union bosses ahead of the American people and in front of Arizonans.
In 2024 alone, the political arm of the Democrat Party, the four largest public sector unions, spent $900 million plus on progressive politics.
86% of that came from their members' dues.
They're using taxpayer-backed salaries to fund partisan activism, not to serve the American people.
H.R. 2550 strips the president of his constitutional authority, undermines national security, and rewards partisan obstruction.
President Trump is trying to fulfill his duty to protect the American people.
Congress should not stand in his way.
I urge my colleagues to stand with the president, put America's security ahead of union politics, and vote no, and I'll yield.
Thank you, Chairman Comer, for yielding time on this important issue.
I strongly oppose this bill because it would jeopardize our national security and locks in harmful last-minute agreements from the Biden administration.
Union bosses love this bill for one reason, and that's because it protects their telework perks.
It shields them from accountability and gives them effective veto power over a duly elected president with a mandate to clean up a bloated federal bureaucracy.
Specifically, this legislation would nullify President Trump's executive order entitled Exclusions from Federal Labor Management Relations Programs.
The executive order wisely designated various agencies as having a national security focus as their primary functions and exempts them from collective bargaining.
Union officials do not and should not have the right to use their collective bargaining power to undermine President Trump and jeopardize our national security.
One example of this, just fairly recently, is ICE not being able to modify cybersecurity policies without giving its union bosses an opportunity to negotiate delaying needed cybersecurity updates.
In another example, union bosses threatened to block the Office of Personnel Management from implementing basic IT security controls.
There's a troubling pattern where union bosses block measures that they don't like, forgetting that they work for the American people and not the other way around.
The President's executive order also improves care for veterans.
On August 6, 2025, the VA announced that it is terminating most union contracts to comply with the executive order.
Employees at the VA currently spend 750,000 hours engaging not in care for veterans, but in union activities.
That is every single year.
The President's executive order will lead VA employees to spend more time helping veterans and less time in union activities.
But it goes even further.
This bill forbids the Trump administration from unwinding any collective bargaining agreement signed before March 26, 2025.
After Democrats lost the 2024 elections, the Biden administration hurried to ink multi-year deals that they knew they would never have to enforce, deliberately tying the hands of their successors and rewarding union leadership on their way out.
One example is especially egregious in a deal with the Social Security Administration, a deal that allows maximum telework, prohibits management from reducing it, and applies 98.5%, applies to 98.5% of the agency's workforce.
I'd like to also thank, of course, the distinguished gentleman from the great state of California, Representative Garcia, for his leadership.
And of course, thank Representative Golden for his leadership in pushing this legislation forward.
I rise today in strong support of the Protect America's Workforce Act, legislation that will restore the collective bargaining rights of more than a million hardworking federal employees.
Patriotic public servants who've been targeted viciously by the Trump administration from the very beginning of his time in office, unnecessarily and in ways that undermine some of the core promises, Mr. Speaker, that Donald Trump made to the American people last year.
Donald Trump and Republicans promised that you would focus on lowering costs on day one.
But costs haven't gone down in the United States of America.
Costs have gone up.
Inflation on the way up.
Housing costs out of control.
Child care costs out of control.
Electricity bills out of control.
Grocery costs out of control.
And health care costs skyrocketing out of control, including because of the Republican refusal to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Instead of Donald Trump and Republicans, Mr. Speaker, keeping your core promise to the American people to make their life better, instead, you've been focusing on a variety of other things that relate simply to jamming your extreme right-wing ideology down the throats of the American people, including by targeting organized labor, hardworking men and women, including those who are part of the federal workforce.
What is it that federal employees do each and every day to make sure that they're providing services to the American people?
Well, the list is too numerous to mention, but we know that hardworking federal employees are public servants.
Each and every day are working hard to make sure that hard-earned Social Security benefits are delivered to the American people, that Medicare benefits are delivered to the American people, that the food that we eat is disease-free, that we can enjoy our national parks all across the country, that aviation safety and the ability to get from your point of departure to your point of destination,
flying airplanes in order to see your loved ones, that that's safe.
Of course, our hardworking federal employees are working hard to make sure that veterans receive their earned benefits.
These people, instead of being targeted by Donald Trump and Republicans, should be supported for the work that they do on behalf of the American people.
We also know that when it comes to improving the quality of life of everyday Americans, that there's a lot of repair work that must occur to restore the American dream that is disappearing from folks all across this country.
The American people know that the Trump administration and Republican policies have been a disaster.
In this great country as Democrats, we believe that when you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to live an affordable life, a comfortable life, live the good life.
What exactly does that mean?
Good paying job, good housing, good health care, good education for your children, and at the end of the day, a good retirement.
That's the good life.
That's the American dream.
And for far too many people, it's out of reach.
But we know that perhaps no force has been more proactive in delivering access to that American dream than the men and women of organized labor, decade after decade after decade.
Why would Donald Trump and Republicans focus, Mr. Speaker, on targeting hardworking public employees, targeting unions, and targeting the men and women of organized labor?
Is it because my Republican colleagues are too consumed with enacting massive tax breaks for your billionaire donors, which is what the one big ugly bill was all about, but have zero interest in lifting up the quality of life of hardworking American taxpayers, including, but not limited to, the men and women of our federal workforce?
It was my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues believed in freedom.
Well, collective bargaining essentially is the freedom to negotiate the best possible work environment to allow these public employees to continue to deliver services that are effective and efficient for the American people.
And yet, instead of focusing on driving down the high cost of living in America, which is out of control, yes, there is an affordability crisis in the United States of America, notwithstanding the fact, Mr. Speaker, that Donald Trump apparently believes it's a hoax.
The American people know it's not a hoax.
Instead of focusing on trying to find common sense solutions to make life better for the American people, Donald Trump and my Republican colleagues continue to just jam their extreme ideology down the throats of the American people while working overtime to benefit your billionaire donors.
That's why I'm thankful for this bipartisan effort to restore collective bargaining rights for more than a million public servants who are part of the federal government.
And I urge a yes vote.
Do the right thing by the federal workforce.
Do the right thing by the men and women of organized labor.
And do the right thing when it comes to ensuring that everyone has a path to experiencing the American dream.
That was a long minute, Mr. Speaker, for the leader of the Democratic Party to advocate for more work from home policies from our federal employees.
I think the American people have spoken loud and clear.
They support our federal employees like the Republican Party, but we expect them to show up for work, not get paid from home and not be accessible by phone or by computer or by email.
And that's what we heard from the leader of the Democrat Party.
This bipartisan bill reverses an illegal executive order that stripped collective bargaining rights from roughly 67% of the federal workforce, so more than two-thirds of the federal workforce.
Removing their limited bargaining rights does not improve efficiency.
It threatens the integrity of our civil service.
These rights exist for one essential reason, to shield federal employees from political pressure so they serve the American people, not the agenda of any one president or political party.
No worker should have to take a political loyalty test to receive or keep his or her job.
The Protect America's Workforce Act restores a balanced, targeted framework that respects national security while reaffirming the rights of those who serve us.
I urge all members to support this legislation and restore these protections for over 1 million federal workers.
Again, this particular legislation is about no political loyalty tests having to be administered to workers in the federal government.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Ranking Member Garcia, Congressman Golden, for the opportunity to speak on the Protecting Americans Workforce, America's Workforce Act.
I represent 27,000 federal employees who have been through an incredibly challenging year, marked by reckless doge firings, chaotic rehirings, and unprecedented uncertainty.
They've been stripped of their ability to collectively bargain through President Trump's March executive order.
They've been subjected to harassment and questioning of their political loyalties for nonpartisan positions.
They live in constant fear that they may lose their job due to illegal reduction in force efforts that the administration has been trying to get away with.
As a result, we are losing talented and highly skilled workers at rates we can't afford.
And for Naval Base Kidsap, which includes Sub-Base Banger and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, an intermediate maintenance facility, that is a national security issue.
I'm a proud former union member and the daughter of a union member's, and I will always fight to protect union rights.
And what's true about Kidsap, where I grew up, is that we are not red or blue, but we're a union town.
That's why I was proud to co-sponsor this bill, a proud signer of the discharge petition.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just in support of H.R. 2550, but in support of the right to collectively bargain.
This is not a policy idea.
It's a lifeline that ensures fair wages, safe workplaces, and the basic dignity every worker deserves.
Unions like AFGE, Laborers, and IBW stand on the front lines defending American federal workforce.
AFGE represents federal workers, and in my district, there are 10,000 of them.
These men and women care for veterans help seniors receive timely social security payments and serve as correctional officers at Canaan Prison, just to name a few.
When their collective bargaining rights are stripped, they are left without the stability, fairness, and respect they deserve.
Likewise, the laborers' union, who build and maintain the infrastructure this country runs on, and the IBW, who work in dangerous conditions at military bases and power plants, depend on these rights to ensure proper training and enforce a safety protocol that prevents accidents and saves lives.
Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to help bring the Protect America's Workforce Act to the floor today, and I look forward to its passage.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2550, Protecting America's Workforce Act.
Earlier this year, an executive order changed the collective bargaining status of tens of thousands of federal workers.
These are career public servants, many of them veterans, who show up every single day to serve our country.
Every American deserves a voice in the workplace, and that includes the people who keep our government running and open.
Ensuring collective bargaining rights strengthens our federal workforce and helps deliver more effective, accountable service to the American people.
We must ensure that collective bargaining agreements already in place remain, as well as ensuring that good government goes hand in hand with that.
I was proud to join colleagues across the aisle as being the 218th signature to advance this bill forward.
I want to thank Congressman Fitzpatrick and Golden for leading this effort, as well as my fellow congressman here, Mr. Bresnahan, as well as Congressman Lalota for their leadership on this front.
Gentleman from Missouri is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2550, the Protect America's Workforce Act.
We all count on a federal workforce that shows up every day to serve, not to bend to political pressure or wonder if speaking up will cost them their jobs.
But that's exactly the risk if collective bargaining rights are wiped out.
It pushes aside a system that's been built over generations to protect workers, protect taxpayers, and keep politics out of public service.
Taking away the voice of federal workers doesn't make government stronger.
It makes it easier for retaliation, harder for whistleblowers, and worse for the people we represent.
I urge my colleagues to do right by the people who serve our country every day by restoring basic fairness and bringing us back to a system that has worked under both parties for decades.
I rise in strong support of the Protect America's Workforce Act.
In my community, Mr. Speaker, public service is a way of life.
More than 80,000 of my neighbors work directly for the federal government.
These civil servants protect our national security, care for our veterans, process social security claims, advance medical research, and respond when disaster strikes.
They've also been on the front lines of President Trump and Rust Vote's Project 2025-inspired efforts to, quote, traumatize the federal workforce.
Stripping collective bargaining rights is a direct assault on our nonpartisan civil service.
This bill says not on our watch.
That's why I signed the discharge petition on my first day in office.
This bill restores basic rights for federal employees, defends the merit-based civil service, and honors the spirit of public service that defines my community and communities across the country.
Supporting Federal Workers00:15:25
unidentified
I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back.
Gentlelady from Nevada is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for your leadership.
I rise in very strong support of the Protect America's Workforce Act.
Since day one, President Trump has worked to dismantle the institutions that protect workers and weaken the power of organized labor.
He dismissed commissioners from the federal agency responsible for enforcing workforce civil rights, and he stripped the National Labor Relations Board of its quorum.
Then in March, he moved to take away unionization rights from thousands of government workers, including those at the Departments of Defense, State, and Veteran Affairs.
We count on these public servants to be on the front lines, keeping our communities running and our constituents safe.
In return, they deserve to have their rights protected.
And that's why I'm a strong supporter of this legislation that will overturn the President's dangerous and illegal executive order, eliminating collective bargainings.
I urge my colleagues to do the same and vote in favor of this important legislation.
The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Thank you to the gentleman for yielding.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Despite repeatedly claiming to be the most pro-worker president and administration in history since taking office, President Trump took action earlier this year that stripped collective bargaining rights from nearly 1 million federal employees.
These workers are the backbone of our nation, from nurses caring for veterans, law enforcement officers keeping our communities safe, teachers educating the next generation, and countless others who ensure America runs every day.
That's why I was proud to co-sponsor the Protect America's Workforce Act alongside my Congressional Labor Caucus co-chairs and our over 120 members to counter what is arguably the largest act of union busting in American history.
I urge every member of this chamber to join the Congressional Labor Caucus in supporting this crucial legislation.
Let's stand with federal workers in restoring their union rights against these unprecedented attacks on their livelihoods.
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for one minute.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to urge us to pass this discharge petition.
Earlier this year, Donald Trump did an illegal executive order stripping a million federal workers from their collective bargaining rights, rights they've had since 1962.
We've seen this in my home state.
In 2011, Governor Scott Walker launched one of the most aggressive attacks on workers' rights, stripping collective bargaining rights.
What happened?
Our School of Education had a two-thirds drop in people applying to be teachers.
We lost long-term public employees, and that affected services.
This bill will restore long-standing collective bargaining protections and ensure that any future administration cannot demolish these rights again.
To our federal employees across the country, we hear you, we value you, and we're fighting with you.
We stand on behalf of the federal workers that are negatively affected by the president's actions.
I rise today outraged at the ongoing assault on the rights and protections of the federal workers who serve our nation, over 48,000 of them in Hawaii alone.
Just yesterday, this House passed the NDAA meant to strengthen our national defense.
However, the NDAA means nothing if we cut down, takeaway rights, and fail to protect the very workforce that makes national defense possible.
Earlier this year, President Trump issued an executive order dismantling collective bargaining agreements for more than one million federal employees.
Let's be clear.
The health care we fight to make affordable and accessible, the services we promise our veterans, the readiness we demand of our agencies, none of it is real if we undermine the employees who deliver these services on the front lines.
Without them, these are just empty promises, just words.
Collective bargaining, grievance procedures, and whistleblower protections are the foundation of the strong civilian workforce that our national security veterans and communities across this country rely on.
Our Harvard Hawaii Government Employees Association calls this president's actions a direct challenge for people.
Our Hawaii Government Employees Association calls the President's action a direct attack on working Americans.
That is why I stand firmly with our union Ohana across the country in rejecting these union-busting efforts and urging passage of the Protect America's Workforce Act.
Mr. Speaker, she mentioned health care and the health care system that she's talking about that she says has failed is Obamacare, what they voted for and they created.
So I just find it ironic.
I hope every taxpayer in America who gets up in the morning, drives to work, works hard, pays their taxes, is listening to this debate because there's a difference here.
And what the president is trying to do is make government more efficient.
And what the argument I'm hearing here, and I think the people who work hard and pay taxes here, there's not a single government agency that is at any time inefficient.
Every single federal employee is at 100% efficiency and doesn't need to be held accountable and can work from home and do whatever they want.
We support the federal workforce.
We want to make the federal workforce harder.
We want the taxpayers to get their money's worth out of the hard-earned taxes that they send to Washington.
And what this legislation is doing and the goal is to try to hinder the president's ability to get the backs of the American taxpayer and ensure that every government agency is efficient and every federal employee is working hard, just like the taxpayers who work hard and pay taxes and send their tax dollars here to Congress for us to appropriate.
So I think that's an important part of the discussion that needs to be mentioned on the floor.
And I hope that a lot of people in America who are working hard, frustrated with Washington, are watching this debate.
I also, like Chairman Comer, agree and I hope that the American public are watching this debate right now and certainly what they would see if they were watching this debate is not just Democrats advocating for passage but Republicans advocating for passage.
In fact, this is a bipartisan effort to protect federal workers in this country.
We've heard now from multiple Republicans from the chairman's party who have actually advocated with Democrats to ensure that our president doesn't strip basic protections from our federal workers.
We're talking about our federal nurses, our firefighters, law enforcement, medical professionals, the men and women that are working across our airports that are taking care of our nuclear reactors in this country.
They deserve the right to organize.
And so I do agree.
I hope the American public is watching and listening to our Republican colleagues and our Democrats support our federal workers.
And with that, I'd like to yield one minute to Representative Taliban.
Mr. Speaker, our federal workforce deserves a voice.
We know the executive order was the largest act of union busting in our nation's history.
It stripped away collective bargaining rights of over a million federal employees in over 40 federal agencies.
The agencies covered by the executive order employ over 82 percent of unionized federal workforce.
There are workers in every single congressional district.
These are workers that protect our food, our water, our air, our skies, and care for our veterans, our children, and our seniors.
They are our neighbors.
Many people in this chamber know that the union may have helped them achieve the dream that they have of serving here as well as being able to take care of their families.
Many of us are recipients, indirectly or directly, because of unions.
Collective bargaining isn't a privilege, Mr. Speaker, that can be just signed away.
It's a fundamental right.
When working people have a voice on their job, services improve, accountability grows, and we all benefit.
The bill doesn't just restore fairness, Mr. Speaker.
It restores dignity and due process.
So please, I urge my colleagues to protect America's workforce.
First, I want to thank Congressman Golden for bringing us together on this important bill.
As co-chair of the Congressional Labour Caucus, I know how critical labour rights are, not only for workers in unions, but for all American workers.
We are all better off because of unions.
Health care, retirement, safe workplaces, holidays, the length of the work week, vacations were negotiated for all of us.
We have them because unions negotiated them.
And we are here because President Trump signed an executive order seeking to end collective bargaining rights for unionized federal employees across several agencies.
Congress granted, Congress, not the executive branch, granted collective bargaining rights for federal employees decades ago, and they have been upheld for years by the administration of both parties.
And now thousands of employees have had their rights taken away.
Let's get one thing clear.
Our federal employees are absolutely essential to keep the country running.
Our federal employees are absolutely essential to keeping our country running.
They're firefighters, they're nurses, they're doctors, they're air traffic controllers, food inspectors, law enforcement, public safety officials.
They impact every part of our lives, and we take them for granted.
We cannot hurt them.
We must support them.
I thank my Republican colleagues who have joined us on this bill and encourage those who have not yet recognized this is an opportunity for all of us to work together.
Let us show government employees we have their backs.
Gentleman from New York is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
As our government employees had their rights violated and were treated poorly, spending is up.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Protect America's Workforce Act.
I'm a proud co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation to restore collective bargaining rights to hundreds of thousands of federal workers.
I was raised in Syracuse, New York, in a union household.
My mother was a proud CWA member at New York Telephone and my father a proud union member at New York Central Railroad.
I also served as the president of a 400-member teachers association union representing teachers, nurses, school psychologists, and social workers.
Those who have a union worker in their family understand the guarantee that comes with a union card, fair pay, solid benefits, a secure retirement, and a real path to the middle class.
The indiscriminate stripping of collective bargaining rights through executive action was in a legal gray area, if not outright unlawful.
This legislation ends that ambiguity.
It should never have been a partisan issue.
I'm grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, the President has been fighting back against the deals that public sector unions have negotiated for themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer by invoking an existing legal authority.
H.R. 2550 directly threatens that progress by overturning the President's executive order that exercises one of the few tools available to him under the law to more effectively manage the federal workforce.
Now, it's no secret that accountability problems in the federal workforce are legendary.
It takes a Herculean effort to fire a poorly performing federal worker or one who is engaged in misconduct.
Collective bargaining agreements often create procedural hurdles to firing such employees above and beyond steps required in law and regulation.
For example, unions can bring removals before private arbitrators instead of appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The Trump administration is exercising its electoral mandate to address this problem.
For instance, the President has embarked on an ambitious overhaul of the performance management system and is pursuing more streamlined disciplinary procedures.
The reality is that pre-existing union agreements the president never signed onto can subvert these efforts.
They provide barriers to accountability beyond basic employee protections that exist in law.
But perhaps the most inappropriate aspect of federal collective bargaining agreements come from provisions governing the use of official time, which is when federal employees are paid by taxpayers to do union business.
Indeed, many federal employees spend all their time doing union business.
More than 3 million federal employee work hours were spent doing union business time in 2024 alone, according to the OPM report.
The cost to American taxpayers in salary and benefits was more than $200 million.
There was an additional $31 million cost for related expenses, primarily the provision of federal meeting space.
The only reason we know this is that the Trump administration collected and reported this 2024 data.
House Oversight Committee Republicans have attempted to legislate annual public reporting on the use and abuse of official time.
However, Democrats have consistently opposed even this ounce of accountability.
They have another opportunity to change their ways by supporting the current version of this legislation, H.R. 5749, the Official Time Reporting Act.
However, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not interested in supporting legislative reforms to bring accountability to the federal workforce and public sector unions, they should, at the very least, not roll back existing progress made under this administration.
I therefore call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with the American taxpayer by supporting the administration's efforts to bring accountability to the executive branch's workforce and oppose H.R. 2550.
Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.
A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a 15-minute vote.
unidentified
And House lawmakers now here are voting on final passages of a bill that seeks to repeal President Trump's executive order that stripped union rights for federal employees involved in national security work.
This is the last vote of the day.
While members here vote, we'll take you now to the White House press briefing from earlier today.
As we approach the end of the year, it is a great time to reflect on how much progress our country has made under President Trump's bold leadership.
Given the complete mess that President Trump inherited from Joe Biden and radical left Democrats in Congress, what this administration has accomplished since January 20th has been nothing short of remarkable.
While most politicians promise big on the campaign trail and break those promises once they get into office, President Trump promised big and has delivered even bigger.
On the economic front, after inheriting the worst inflation crisis in over four decades, President Trump's pro-growth policies are making tremendous progress to make America affordable again.
Under the painful Biden years, inflation reached a record high 9% and devoured Americans' purchasing power.
In President Trump's term thus far, inflation has dropped to an average of just 2.7%, marking critical progress.
The Trump administration is working hard every single day to bring down the cost of living through bigger paychecks and lower prices.
Real wages are finally on the rise again and on pace to increase to roughly $1,200 for the average American worker this year.
To put that into perspective, real wages declined by almost $3,000 under the Biden administration.
That means Americans right now are on track already to make up one-third of the $3,000 in lost wages under Joe Biden.
There's much work to do, but this has already been significant progress.
President Trump has also delivered resoundingly on his promise to end Joe Biden's insane war on American energy and make sure our country has reliable and affordable energy produced right here at home.
As a result, the nationwide average for regular gas just fell to its lowest level in nearly five years.
According to data from GasBuddy released on Monday, average gas prices have now dipped below $3 per gallon in 37 states, below $275 per gallon in 22 states, and below $2.50 per gallon in five states.
Just a few years ago, we saw record high price gases of nearly $5 per gallon.
American families faced constant pain at the pump, and those costs caused the price of everything else to go up as well.
In fact, the average cost for a gallon of regular gas in the country was the most expensive price during a presidential term in U.S. history under Biden's disastrous leadership, even with them recklessly draining our strategic reserves to try and artificially decrease prices.
But thanks to President Trump, those days are long behind us.
In the months ahead, Americans can expect prices to fall even further.
We know that when gas gets cheaper, everything else gets cheaper too, and that's what this president is focusing on.
Americans can also expect another boost to their bank accounts in the months ahead as 2026 tax refund season is upon us after the holidays and is projected to be the largest ever thanks to President Trump's passage of the One Big Beautiful bill.
According to recent analysis from Piper Sandler, when Americans file their taxes early next year, their refunds could be about one-third larger than usual or roughly an extra $1,000 per filer.
That is money straight into the pockets of the American people.
It's only because of President Trump and Republicans' leadership that Americans will now pay no tax on tips overtime in Social Security.
President Trump and Republicans believe hardworking Americans deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money, but Democrats, on the other hand, every single one of them, voted against these massive tax cuts.
So remember that the next time Democrats try to talk about affordability.
Democrats don't have a single clue about how to make America more affordable.
They just spent the last four years creating the very affordability crisis that President Trump is fixing right now.
And if given the chance of power ever again, the Democrats will implement those same policies and jack inflation right back up to where it was.
Finally, at the border, President Trump has restored America's sovereignty and made our country safe again.
This is the single greatest and fastest national security victory in modern American history, and it's not even close.
The latest preliminary numbers released from the month of November show we have the most secure border in our nation's history.
This is a remarkable achievement.
November encounters came in even lower than the previous historic low in October, if you can believe it.
There were only 30,367 total encounters nationwide.
That's lower than the previous record set in October.
And for the seventh consecutive month, U.S. Border Patrol released zero illegal aliens into the United States.
Let me repeat: seven months of zero illegal aliens being released into our country.
This is a historic achievement, and it's one that every law-abiding American citizen should be grateful for.
At this point, in 10 months, under President Trump's unmatched leadership, we've seen less apprehensions overall than we saw in just one month under Joe Biden.
Again, let me repeat: in 10 months under President Trump, we've seen less apprehensions at the southern border than we saw in one month under the previous president.
Again, remarkable results.
All in all, the economy is back on track and ready to boom over the next three years.
Biden's inflation crisis is over.
Prices are coming down.
Wages are rising.
The border is fully secure.
And America's best days are to come.
President Trump has kept his word and delivered for the American people over the past year.
And he will not stop fighting, as you heard from him directly this week, until our country and every state in this country is better than ever before.
So, with that, I will take your questions today.
I know there's a lot of news.
We'll start with our new media seat, Mr. Bowling.
It's great to see you here.
He's of Real America's Voice.
He's also the host of Edge, his interview and commentary podcast.
Caroline, thank you very much for this inviting me to the new media seat.
As you point out, affordability crisis.
It strikes me energy prices have been coming down aggressively since President Trump's second term, approaching $55 a barrel for oil, gasoline, as you point out, under $3 a barrel nationally, first time in five years.
By the way, that $55 barrel oil is about half of the peak under the last four years in the last administration, half the price.
Wholesale prices come down yet.
Affordability crisis, a lot of the folks in this room, a lot of legacy media, some of the people in the front row, seem to want to call this an affordability crisis right now, forgetting the fact that over the last four years prior, we hit 9% inflation.
Wages, as you point out, were stagnant at best, sometimes had dipped.
That's a real affordability crisis there, but they weren't really calling it that then.
You point out how President Trump is changing the affordability in America, but how will he ensure that the legacy media doesn't flip the script and change it so that they're using affordability as their word, their idea, versus what the American people who know much better.
Yeah, well, it's a great question, Eric, and it's a point of frustration for the President and for myself, I will say.
That's part of the reason I just kicked off this briefing today, setting the record straight with facts about the economic mess that the president inherited from his predecessor, Joe Biden.
And he's focused on digging our country and our economy out of that hole every day.
Things are getting better and they will continue to.
And President Trump understands better than any politician in this city the pain that the American consumer has been feeling for years now because of the last administration's policies.
Heard him in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania this past week campaigning and talking to these voters, saying I was elected to fix this problem and I am fixing it.
Don't forget who created it, and that's the Democrats.
And I think when you hear the president talk about affordability, he's saying the Democrats are the greatest con artists in history, because they are now trying to claim ownership of an issue that they created, and every data point and every economic metric does in fact show that the economy is improving, and so I do wish more people would report on those facts.
I do wish that more people would remind the American public how we got here and why.
It does not mean this president is discarding the feelings of the American people.
He gets it better than anyone, which is why his entire administration has been focused on the issue of the economy and energy prices since day one.
If I may follow up it's reported that around 10,000 commercial driver's license operators have been pulled by your transportation secretary, a department.
Will the president apply that same metric for the reason was they don't, the operators weren't speaking or reading English to a level that was safely, people thought they would safely be able to operate trucks on our roadways.
It's estimated in California around 40% of Uber drivers, Uber and Lyft drivers, don't speak English proficiently and the number's 45 in Minnesota.
Will this same rule or metric apply to the gig economy like Uber and Lyft?
So I don't have any announcements on further regulations, if you will, from the Department of Transportation with respect to this issue.
However, I will just reiterate the Trump administration's position is that truck drivers, particularly those driving big rigs on our nation's road and highways, who have a great responsibility to keep the American public and their fellow citizens safe, should be speaking English and should have an ability to read English proficiently.
I think that's a very common sense policy to have.
And we've unfortunately seen, and the Department of Transportation has uncovered and is actively working to fix these state-sponsored commercial trucking driving driver licenses, which were going to people who are not qualified to be driving these massive trucks on American roads.
And they're endangering the lives of our fellow citizens.
We've unfortunately seen many vehicle accidents across the country where people have lost their lives because of drivers that were just simply unqualified to be driving these trucks.
So I know this is something DOT and Secretary Duffy take very seriously.
What I will tell you, Peter, is that the Trump administration is focused on doing many things in the Western Hemisphere.
The President has taken a new approach that has not been taken by any administration for quite some time to actually focus on what's going on in our own backyard.
And there are two things that are very important to this administration.
Number one, stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the United States of America, which we know has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The president promised on the campaign trail that he would demolish the foreign terrorist organizations and drug cartels around the world, especially right here in our own hemisphere.
And you have seen that he is delivering on that promise.
With respect to the oil and what happened yesterday, the Department of Justice requested and was approved for a warrant to seize a vessel because it's a sanctioned shadow vessel known for carrying black market sanctioned oil to the IRGC, which you know is a sanctioned entity.
So the president is committed to stopping the illegal flow of drugs into our country.
He's also fully committed to effectuating this administration's sanction policy, and that's what you saw in the world saw take place yesterday.
And because he said the president is trying to do a lot of things at once, he talks a lot about how he thinks the way to bring down prices for everything would be to bring down the cost of energy.
Would he use this seized Venezuelan oil to try to help Americans with affordability here in the United States?
Well, what I can tell you right now, the vessel has been seized, as you know.
And the Department of Justice did that in conjunction with the Coast Guard and the Department of War.
The vessel is currently undergoing a forfeitor process right now.
The United States currently has a full investigative team on the ground on the vessel, and individuals on board the vessel are being interviewed, and any relevant evidence is being seized.
With respect to the oil, that's a different issue.
As you know, Peter, the vessel will go to a U.S. port, and the United States does intend to seize the oil.
However, there is a legal process for the seizure of that oil, and that legal process will be followed.
The president is prepared to take action on health care, and he wants Republicans on the Hill to do the same.
As you have seen, Senate Republicans put forth their own legislation earlier this week.
As for the subsidies that are set to expire, I would like to remind you and everybody at home why this is on the brink of happening.
Democrats wrote Obamacare.
They passed it without a single Republican vote, and then they ballooned it with these expensive COVID subsidies that completely distorted the health insurance market.
And then they doubled down, extending those subsidies and setting their own expiration date right now in 2025, which the administration is obviously well aware of.
And we are working, the president is working with his health care policy team here at the White House, as well as Republicans on Capitol Hill, to find a solution.
unidentified
He said he's working to find a solution.
He wants to see a solution to lower health care costs.
He does.
But these subsidies are expiring at the end of the year.
So what is the plan and what is he going to do to put this in place in the next two, three weeks?
Again, a Democrat written program and approved program, which has led to higher health care costs in this country.
So it goes back to the issue of affordability.
Democrats are now pretending they want a solution to this issue, but they created the problem.
The president and Republicans are currently coming up with creative solutions and ideas to lower health care costs for the American people, and you'll continue to hear more from them on that.
The president has not yet engaged in those calls, and when he does, I'm sure you will hear from him directly, as you always do after foreign leader calls or from somebody here at the White House.
I do know with respect to the conflict in the peace deal in Thailand and Cambodia and some of the conflicts you've seen arise, reports of that in the press over the past couple of days.
The president addressed it in Pennsylvania.
The administration is obviously tracking this at the highest levels and is very much engaged.
I spoke with Secretary Ruby about it this morning.
unidentified
Will senior U.S. officials be meeting Saturday with European and Ukrainian officials to discuss the peace plan?
Look, the United States and the Trump administration continue to be very much engaged in trying to bring the Russia-Ukraine war to an end.
The President had a call with Europeans yesterday.
His special envoy Witkoff and his team continue to talk with both sides literally as we speak.
If there is a real chance of signing a peace agreement, if we feel like those meetings are worthy of someone on the United States' time this weekend, then we will send a representative.
It's still up in the air whether we believe real peace can be accomplished and we can truly move the ball forward.
The president is extremely frustrated with both sides of this war and he's sick of meetings just for the sake of meeting.
He doesn't want any more talk.
He wants action.
He wants this war to come to an end.
And the administration has spent more than 30 hours just in the past couple of weeks meeting with the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Europeans and speaking with them as well.
So we'll see about the meetings this weekend and stay tuned.
President Zelensky's latest proposal that was sent over yesterday.
He's aware of it, yes.
Ed.
unidentified
Thanks, Caroline.
So the Fed chairman, the President says that he's interviewing candidates.
So I just want to be clear.
So the PIC has not been locked in, and could we get an announcement before Christmas?
The president put out his own statement on this, which I do think highlights his exact thinking.
What you see from the president on Truth Social is most of the time what you hear from the president behind closed doors privately.
He told President Xi that NVIDIA will only be shipping H200 products to approved customers in China under conditions that will allow for continued strong national security.
The administration continues to maintain a strict export control regime, and we are ensuring that the Blackwell chip and other advanced technologies stay right here in America.
And these H-200 chips will only be sent to China after undergoing a security inspection here in the United States.
Elizabeth.
unidentified
Thank you, Caroline.
New York City Mayor Levster Mondani, you put out a video recently telling immigrants in New York City they have the right to stand up to ICE.
Are you concerned this will inspire New York City residents to resist ICE operations and what will the Trump administration do if this happens?
The Trump administration is definitely concerned about the rise in violence and attacks and physical threats that we have seen against our brave men and women who wear the ICE uniform.
Again, these are agents who are just simply doing their jobs.
They are enforcing our nation's immigration laws.
And we've seen more than a 1,000% increase in violent attacks on them and their families.
They've been doxxed.
They've been harassed.
Many of them have been physically assaulted and attacked.
So we condemn that wholeheartedly.
I know the administration has done a lot to protect our ICE agents and the president stands firmly behind them in conducting these enforcement operations.
And there's a lot of talk from Democrat politicians in New York, but the Trump administration will continue to do our jobs in every state, and that's to remove illegal aliens and public safety threats from American communities.
Not to my knowledge, as you know from the White House podium.
As a government employee, I'm not privy to comment on future elections, but I do think the president has made his thoughts on Ms. Crockett quite clear, and I do believe he thinks she is wholly unqualified for the office that she is seeking.
The White House, the administration, opposed this activism from a judge who is really acting as a judicial activist, which we've unfortunately seen in many cases across the country.
Abrego Garcia is present in our country illegally.
He is a proven human trafficker.
He is a proven gang member.
The administration has evidence of that.
And as you saw from the Department of Homeland Security, they issued a statement saying they'll continue to fight this legal battle in court.
I have one on Venezuela to follow up, but first on affordability, since you were talking about the economy at the beginning, if the economy is as strong as the president has said it is, then why is he telling parents two weeks before Christmas that they should only buy two or three dolls for their children?
Look, what the president is saying is that if we want products made right here in America, if we want them to be made from American small businesses, which is a large part of the reason the president has effectively implemented tariffs, then we're going to have better quality products right here in the United States.
Maybe you'll pay a dollar or two more, but you will get better quality and you'll be supporting your fellow Americans by buying American.
And that's what the President was saying.
Again, with respect to affordability, every economic metric, Caitlin, and I wish you would report more on it, does in fact show that the economy is getting better and brighter than where it was under the previous administration.
I will repeat, inflation, as measured by the overall CPI has slowed to an average 2.5% pace.
Real wages are increasing roughly $1,200 for the average worker.
Gas prices are down in almost every single state across the country.
Again, in 22 states, it's below 275.
You look at the tax cuts.
Those are going to go into effect next year.
So the best is yet to come.
The president is digging our country out of the economic hole that the previous administration put us in, and that's what he's talking about.
As measured by the overall CPI, it has slowed to an average 2.5% pace.
This is down from what the president inherited.
The president inherited 2.9% in January.
Today, it's at about 2.5 percent.
So, we're trending in the right direction with more to come.
And I would remind you: when President Trump left office in his first term, inflation was 1.7 percent, and the previous administration jacked it up to a record high 9 percent.
So, again, in 10 months, the president has clawed us out of this hole.
He's kept it low at 2.5 percent, and we believe that number is going to continue to decline, especially as energy and oil prices continue to decline as well.
My predecessor was standing at this podium, but now you want to ask me a lot of questions about it, which I'm happy to answer.
But I will just add there's a lot more scrutiny on this issue from this press corps than there was.
Well, and the previous administration said that too.
My predecessor stood up at this podium and she said inflation doesn't exist.
She said the border was secure, and people like you just took her at her word.
And those were two utter lies.
Everything I'm telling you is the truth, backed by real factual data, and you just don't want to report on it because you want to push untrue narratives about the president.
Well, I think the President's comments yesterday about the sale of CNN and new leadership is evidenced by my exchange with the CNN reporter in this room.
Their viewership has gone down, their ratings has declined, and I think the president rightfully believes that network would benefit from new ownership.
With respect to this deal, he has great respect for both companies who are bidding against one another, and I won't weigh in any further than that.
To your first question on South Korean beef or beef export to South Korea, I will check with our trade team and we will get you an answer on that.
To your second question with respect to Japan and China, the President has a phenomenal relationship with the new Prime Minister of Japan, as you know.
He was pleased to meet her when we went to Asia a couple of months ago, and they have spoken a few times since.
They continue to be engaged with one another, and Japan is a great ally of the United States, as evidenced by their personal relationship and our continued trade relations with Japan.
With respect to China, the president also has a good working relationship with President Xi, which he believes is a good thing for our country.
And he believes that the United States should be in a position to have a good working relationship with China while maintaining our very strong alliance with Japan.
unidentified
Yesterday, President Trump, while speaking about drug production in Colombia, he said that the President of Colombia better wise up or he's going to be next.
What was he meaning exactly?
Yet the other thing is that President Gustavo Pedro of Colombia responded to that statement by issuing a formal invitation to President Trump to go to Colombia and to see firsthand how the authorities in Colombia are fighting against drugs.
Do you think that President Trump would consider that?
I will let the President speak directly to it on whether or not that's something he would entertain.
But as for his comments yesterday towards President Petro, he has been saying some very alarming and frankly insulting things towards the United States of America, and the President does it like it.
Yes, in the blue.
Caroline?
unidentified
Yes, go ahead.
Thank you.
The president's been spotted out and about a number of times with bandages on his hands.
Could you please explain what that is about?
Secondly, he noted on True Social the other day that he had aced three cognitive tests.
Could you please clarify when those tests took place?
The president has spoken about that quite extensively throughout the years.
As for the bandages on the hand, we've also given you an explanation for that in the past.
The president is literally constantly shaking hands.
The Oval Office is like Grand Central Terminal.
He is meeting with more people than any of you even know about on a daily basis.
He's also on a daily aspirin regimen, which is something his physical examinations has said in the past as well, which can contribute to that bruising that you see.
unidentified
Thank you, Caroline.
Back to the oil tanker.
Just want to know, was this a one-off, or is it safe to say the administration is taking a more active look at the oil industry in Venezuela, whether targeting other oil shifts or perhaps Venezuelan oil production facilities in Venezuela?
Well, I won't broadcast any future actions from the administration, but I will just reiterate that the Trump administration is executing on the President's sanction policies and the sanction policies of the United States.
And we're not going to stand by and watch sanctioned vessels sail the seas with black market oil, the proceeds of which will fuel narco-terrorism of rogue and illegitimate regimes around the world.
Andrew Max.
unidentified
Caroline, two for you.
First, when the president announced the farm relief program the other day, Secretary Rollins afterwards, right out there, told us that the program would be paid for by the Commodity Credit Corporation, an existing program.
The president keeps saying that it's being paid for by tariff revenue.
Why does he keep saying that if the secretary who's running the program says that's not the case?
And also about his doll comments from the other night.
The president's a billionaire.
He's probably the wealthiest person to ever serve as president.
Is it a good look for him to be telling parents, oh, you should only buy two or three dolls for your kids when he's one of the wealthiest people in the country or in the government?
Do you think the people in that room in Pennsylvania who the president was speaking to don't know the president's a billionaire?
I think that's a very well-established fact.
And actually, I think it's one of the many reasons they re-elected him back to this office, because he's a businessman who understands the economy and knows how to fix it.
And he's doing it right now just like he did in his first term.
Sure, go ahead.
To the gentleman behind you, Andrew, yes, go ahead.
unidentified
Go ahead.
Thank you, Caroline.
On Gaza, we heard the President say yesterday that the Board of Peace members are going to be announced early next year.
What is the administration doing to move the parties in the region closer toward phase two of his peace plan for Gaza?
Well, first of all, I would be remiss if I didn't highlight what a success it is that 10 months into the president's administration, you're asking me about a peace plan in Gaza, because that's a legitimate reality on the ground right now in the region.
And it's only because of this president's leadership that that was able to take place, that all the living hostages were returned.
All but one body of the deceased hostages has been returned, and we're still, of course, working on the last one.
As for this next phase of the peace process, there is a lot of quiet planning that's going on behind the scenes right now for phase two of the peace deal.
And when the United States is ready to make those announcements public on the Board of Peace, the ISF, and the Palestinian technocratic government, we will be making those announcements at the appropriate time.
But the reason that the negotiators and the teams on the ground have been rather quiet about this is because I've spoken with them this morning.
They are trying to be deliberate and thoughtful about this.
Peace in Gaza, in the Palestinian Strip, is something, the Gaza Strip rather, is something that people have been trying to accomplish for 70 years.
So this is a complex problem.
And this administration wants to be very thoughtful about it.
And we want to ensure an enduring and lasting peace.
And when those announcements are ready, they will be made.
unidentified
Thank you.
There have been reports that Vladimir Putin called Maduro today to reaffirm his support.
I wanted to ask if it is concerning to the president that Putin has Mr. Warmer Brace Maduro.
Again, I have told you now a few times that the President and the Republicans will continue to unveil creative ideas and solutions to the health care crisis that was created by Democrats.
And I know Chuck Schumer is putting up a vote today.
This is a political show vote.
Chuck Schumer is not sincerely interested in lowering health care costs for the American people.
He's putting this vote on the floor knowing that it will fail so he can have another talking point that he can throw around without any real plan or action.
If Chuck Schumer actually wanted to lower health care costs, I'm sure the President would welcome him and his entire Democrat caucus to a legitimate coordination on the president's policies of bringing down drug prices, these most favored nation deals.
Why hasn't Chuck Schumer ever come out in support of those?
Those are going to legitimately, they already are, lower drug prices for the American people.
And not a word from Chuck Schumer on it.
So I think that just proves this is completely political.
unidentified
Two quick buttons on Venezuela.
Does the president consider the seizure of the oil tanker an escalation or a step towards war with Venezuela?
I think the president considers the seizure of the oil tanker as effectuating the administration's sanction policies, which I've already discussed previously.
unidentified
Is potential invasion or potential land strikes in Venezuela aligned with the president's supporters, the MAGA base, does it risk the potential for a prolonged war and U.S. troops involved in that?
Prolonged war is definitely not something this president is interested in.
He's been very clear about that.
He wants peace.
He also wants to see the end of illegal drugs being trafficked into the United States and taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans across our country.
And he's thinking about that every day here at the White House.
With every drug boat that is taken out by this administration, we are saving thousands of lives by deterring those drugs and stopping those drugs from flowing into our country.
You will all excuse me, you'll all hear, excuse me, you will all see the president tonight.
He'll be making remarks at the Congressional Christmas ball, which will be taking place here at the White House.
And later this afternoon, he will be signing some congressional bills and executive orders that we, as always, will keep you apprised of.
Well, a little bit of background if it's all right.
You know, I think you have to look at Obamacare on how it passed.
I guess it's been the law now, what, roughly 15 years or so.
And health care costs have increased.
Access has decreased in a lot of ways.
And it has not helped access to health care for working families.
It really just hasn't.
It's been a get-rich opportunity for a lot of the insurance companies, but a lot of folks out there really are still struggling right now.
And in the ACA, the affordable care, I think, affects, what, roughly 10% policyholders is what I understand.
So it's a small population, but to that population, it is important.
So what I can tell you is I do believe one, and I'll speak for me, I believe Obamacare was a mistake.
I would like to see us get rid of that and go to a market-based solution that improves health care coverage, that lowers cost, and that ultimately provides better outcomes.
The issue you have right now is you have, you know, for that ACA population, that small population that's impacted by it, is that you have this deadline that is approaching right now and trying to find a fix so that there's not a sticker shock or a cost expense to those who do qualify and who are getting it and counting on it right now.
So there's sort of three camps, I guess.
There's a camp, as you characterize, I guess, as the moderates who want to expand the ACA or want to extend the ACA, although I think they're asking for some reforms with it as well.
And then there are some who are a little more hawkish on ending the ACA, being done with it.
I'm really between the two positions, frankly.
I do believe that it is, we need, you know, I just got here.
I'd have been here, what, you know, 11 months so far.
So we're trying to clean up a mess that has now been in place for 15 years.
And so we need to be sensible in how we go about it and make sure that we're making good decisions.
So The short answer is: I'm open to finding ways to continuing some kind of subsidy for a very, very limited period with an understanding that it's going to result in this eventually going to a market-based system.
Mimi, before Obamacare, health insurance was less expensive.
I mean, I remember when I bought health insurance, when my family members are paying for health insurance, you could actually afford health insurance.
The co-pays were more reasonable.
The cost, what you actually were charged when you went to the doctor, when you went to the ER, were more reasonable.
Look at the world post-Obamacare.
You go to the ER.
I mean, I had emergency surgery a couple months ago to get my gallbladder taken out.
I mean, you get this sticker shot of how much it is.
Then you see all these discounts and this.
There's all this, you know, kind of smoke and mirrors and medical billing.
I mean, think about this.
And I'm not trying to go too far afield, but I think it's appropriate to kind of set the table on where we are on health care costs.
Every consumer choice generally you make in your life, you know what you're getting and you know what you're paying, right?
You go to the department store and you buy a pair of pants or whatever, you know, there's a price, you pay it, you get your pants.
You go to the you know, go to McDonald's, you order food, you pay for it, you get it.
When you go for a medical procedure, most people, if they're being honest, will tell you they have no idea what they're ultimately going to have to pay.
They may know about their copay, they may know about deductibles, and that sometimes that doesn't even make sense.
But you go in, you show up, you don't know necessarily what you're going to pay.
So the whole system needs to be reformed.
So it's not just about insurance, it's about cost containment.
Again, that would take up a longer show, that one subject than we have right now.
House Concurrent Resolution 66: Concurrent Resolution directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the enrollment of the bill, Senate 1071.
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, we marked a solemn day, Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.
On December 7th, 1941, our great nation was suddenly attacked by the Imperial Japanese Navy, killing more than 2,400 American service members and civilians and propelling us into World War II.
On the 84th anniversary of the attack, we remember those brave souls who lost their lives that day and we honor those who survived.
There are only 12 remaining survivors, and they are all over 100 years old.
Unfortunately, none were able to make the trip to Hawaii this year for the remembrance ceremony, but we are forever indebted to their sacrifices.
We will forever honor all the Americans who were at the Naval Base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii that day.
Mr. Speaker, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, quote, no matter how long it may take us to overcome the premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory, end quote.
And we did.
God bless those who lost their lives that day, and God bless America.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the life of retired Ocano County Police Chief Mike Rayburg, who recently lost his courageous battle with cancer.
Chief Rayburg protected and served the people of Ocano County for over three decades.
He was known by both the people of Ocano County and his peers for his integrity, compassion, and strong commitment to his job, family, and the community that he loved so much.
He will be remembered for his infectious laughter, mentoring of newer police officers, the stories he loved to tell, and the practical jokes he would play on his fellow officers.
Chief Rayburg represents the very best we have in northeastern Wisconsin, someone who spent his life in service to his community and did so with a smile on his face.
My prayers are with his wife Annie and their four children during this difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Mike Rayberg for his life of service to the people of Ocano County.
The legacy he leaves behind will live on in our communities for years to come.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Mr. Speaker, winter is here and families across the St. Louis region and the country are opening their utility bills with a knot in their stomach.
Right now, reckless tariff policies and economic uncertainty out of the White House are driving up costs across the country, squeezing working people who are already stretched thin with higher prices at the grocery store, higher rent, and stagnant wages.
That's why now, more than ever, programs like the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, are so critical.
Yet earlier this year, the Trump administration wanted to eliminate LIHEAP, a program that supports over 200,000 people in my home state of Missouri.
We should be focused on lowering costs and strengthening essential programs, not cutting critical life-saving programs that people rely on to stay warm in the winter.
Heating a home is not a luxury, and families in St. Louis should not be left out in the cold.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In recent years, the number of publicly listed companies in this country has declined, particularly among small and mid-sized businesses.
A key reason for this is that traditional public offerings have become too expensive.
Compliance costs and government red tape have made a traditional IPO out of reach for many American businesses.
That's why I've introduced my Regulation A Plus Improvement Act.
This bill will update our regulations so more small and mid-sized companies can raise capital from a wider range of investors and with less government red tape and compliance costs.
This is a common sense step to make our public markets more accessible, more dynamic, and more competitive.
Our capital markets are the envy of the world, but we must continue to modernize outdated regulations that have not kept up with the times.
I'm committed to ensuring businesses of all sizes in northeast Indiana and across the country have the tools that they need to grow, create jobs, and keep our economy strong.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency is quietly denying us protection from forever chemicals.
While Secretary Kennedy claims he will make America healthy again, the EPA announced it would overturn historical reporting requirements on toxic substances known as PFAS.
Exposure to small amounts has been linked to cancer, fertility issues, and immune system failure.
This year alone, the EPA has delayed enforcement on drinking water limits for PFAS, fired EPA scientists researching new forever chemicals, terminated grants for PFAS studies, and approved pesticides known to have PFAS.
Across the political spectrum, legislators have come together to protect our children from dangerous PFAS chemicals.
Now, this administration is allowing them to be used on cereal grains, peas, beans, tomatoes, oranges, almonds, and more.
Not only is this administration making our groceries more expensive, but they're making it less healthy.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in my life, Indiana University has won the Big Ten football championship outright, beating formerly number one Ohio State 13-10.
The pundit said Ohio State brought the third most talented roster in the country.
Indiana was ranked 72 at the start of the season.
But our Hoosiers refused to be defined by those numbers.
They responded with discipline, toughness, and a belief in one another that reshaped Indiana football.
This championship is a testament to the student athletes who committed to the rebuild, the staff who kept driving, and our Hoosier fans who stayed loyal for generations awaiting this moment.
Mr. Speaker, as a former chairman of IU's Alumni Association and on behalf of 805,000 living IU alumni, we celebrate this historic achievement for our university.
Congratulations to Coach Signetti and our Hoosiers for bringing the Big Ten title home.
At the end of last week, President Trump published his National Security Strategy.
Could have been called his National Insecurity Strategy.
To say it's bad is a misstatement, understatement.
It's disastrous.
During Europe's largest land war since World War II, the strategy saves its harshest criticisms for our allies rather than Russia with war criminal Putin who started the war.
The document elevates strongman leadership models over democratic values, something unheard of in America.
It is focused on spheres of influence and suggests that the strongest person in the region gets to decide the rules.
These are not American values.
Previous national security strategies upheld America's commitment to democracy and human rights, strengthened our alliances, and countered powerful first adversaries like Russia and China.
This strategy abandons that tradition in favor of a narrow transactional approach.
Notably, the word corruption is absent from the entire strategy.
It is well known that global corruption fuels instability, weakens governments, and its absence is extremely dangerous and allows bad actors to flourish.
The national security strategy abandons our allies, our principles, and the values that have guided American leadership for decades.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sheriff Richard Coleman as Sheriff of the Year for South Georgia from the Georgia Association of Black County Officials.
This statewide recognition is part of Gabco's annual tradition of highlighting county leaders whose work strengthens public service and advances opportunity across Georgia's 159 counties.
Sheriff Coleman is a Savannah native, and he's a proud 30-year Georgia certified peace officer.
He is a graduate of Saul C. Johnson High School, holds a bachelor's degree in criminal justice administration, and has a master's degree in public administration.
With extensive experience across all levels of law enforcement, Sheriff Coleman is certified Georgia Law Enforcement Executive Administrator and a former chief of police.
His distinguished career includes roles such as Chief of Internal Affairs, Assistant Chief of Police, and Police Operations Commander.
Sheriff Richard Coleman is committed to continuing his service for the people of Chatham County.
This past weekend, the Kennesaw State University football team brought home the Conference USA title in just their second year competing at the Football Bowl subdivision level.
The OWLs achieved this feat just one year after only a two-win season, displaying a remarkable turnaround.
Kennesaw State University has made the 11th district, the state of Georgia, immensely proud, and we're excited to have the Conference USA Football Championship trophy in Cobb County for the first time.
Without objection, the gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Mr. Speaker, putting food on the table is about to get exponentially harder thanks to the $187 billion Republicans cut from SNAP in their big, ugly law.
These harmful cuts impact roughly 35,000 Rhode Islanders.
We saw the devastating consequences of SNAP uncertainty when Republicans let funding for the program lapse during the government shutdown.
Demand at food pantries across my district shot up.
Thankfully, Rhode Islanders do what they always do and stepped up to care for their neighbors.
I've joined volunteers at the Mount Hope Community Center in Providence, the Elisha Project in Pawtucket, the Malagros Project in Winsocket, and St. Raymond's Church Food Pantry in Providence.
I heard directly from Rhode Islanders about the pain of rising grocery costs and their fears about losing SNAP.
Many will be working for months to recover from the hardship of just one month of late SNAP payments.
Today I rise to honor Caxton McGrew, Bastion Nowick, and Luke Hinkleman as the winners of the 2025 Congressional App Challenge for our district and name them as Ohio's 13th Congressional District Champions of the Week.
Their app, Eagle Express, is an innovative system that allows students and teachers to better track and complete transactions within their school's token-based incentive program.
The app will help teachers better manage students and students better manage their finances.
Named after STEM High School's mascot, beak bucks allow teachers to award points to students for positive behavior in the form of paper money that they can redeem for prizes.
But Caxton, Bastion, and Luke felt this was inconsistent and susceptible to forgery and fraud.
Their app, Eagle Express, establishes online wallets for students to virtually track their beak bucks, balances, and redeem them for prize rewards.
Eagle Express also streamlines the process for teachers creating more efficient ways to track and allocate beak bucks.
Mr. Speaker, stories of innovation like these raise my spirits and make me more optimistic for the future of our district and the rest of the country.
Caxton, Bastion, and Luke are impressive examples of what our children can do when we invest in their futures and set them free to explore their interests.
I once again want to extend my congratulations for being named 2025 App Challenge winners for Ohio's 13th congressional district.
We cannot wait to see what the future holds for these three young people.
I would like to thank President Trump and his Secretary of Defense for acting resolutely when it became apparent a boat full of illegal drugs, including fentanyl, was coming across the Caribbean Sea.
Every year in this country, about 80,000 people have been dying.
It used to be over 100,000 people are killed from illegal drugs.
And for far too long, WIPY presidents sat there, watched it happen, didn't do anything.
Finally, President Trump stepped up to the plate when he heard that there was a boat coming with enough fentanyl to kill millions of Americans.
He acted resolutely.
I'm sure he had lawyers who told him he could, lawyers who told him he couldn't.
But he says, I'm going to err on the side of saving tens of thousands of American lives.
Thank you, President Trump.
I recently found out that I knew somebody whose son died of fentanyl overdose and how horrible that must be.
The rest of their life must be devastated.
So I'm glad President Trump feels their pain and he's acting strongly in this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this year's massive $900 billion military spending bill.
This legislation gives more money to the so-called Department of War than to our Department of Education, Transportation, and Health and Human Services combined.
Mr. Speaker, can you ask my Republican colleagues to get serious about helping the American public?
I know you seek to be judged by the content of your character.
It is certainly poor character to be not supporting our military service members and their families.
And this mammoth bill does not do that.
Certainly is poor character to block health care coverage for IVF, despite the fact that IVF is critical for helping active duty personnel grow their families.
Certainly is poor character to ban initiatives associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion, even though these cuts will undermine military readiness.
This bill, this mammoth bill, expands the administration's power to attack immigrants, including for our Haitian neighbors.
The few good things in this legislation do not outweigh the cruelty and the harm that will undoubtedly come if it is signed into law.
The public does not support this bill, and neither do I, and that is why I am a no vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm for our Republic and our Constitution.
Every one of us here in Congress swore a solemn oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We did not give any president a blank check for war.
President Trump is over his skis.
Article 1 of our Constitution, the first the founders saw fit to forge into the foundation of our nation, gave Congress the power to declare war and send our troops into battle.
No one person can send our brave sons and daughters into conflict on a whim.
Instead, what have we witnessed?
A dangerous, aggressive buildup of U.S. military power in the Caribbean?
And where is the money coming from to do that?
What is it being taken from?
Lethal strikes against vessels off the coast of Venezuela are increasing.
Then, the Secretary of Defense allegedly gave an order to kill everybody on a boat.
And what is the legal authority under which those orders were given?
These strikes both are an escalation abroad and a direct attack on our U.S. Constitution here at home.
Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to authorize the funds to pay for war.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly supported this year's national defense bill.
We must conduct vigorous oversight to halt this executive branch unilateral warmaking.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
unidentified
Mr. Speaker, I just introduced bipartisan legislation to stop utility companies from paying bonuses to their CEOs.
This bipartisan bill is for folks in upstate New York working hard to pay their bills and raise their families, good, honest people who are sick and tired of being screwed over, ripped off, and left behind in an economy that is rigged against them.
There's a retired nurse in Endicott raising her grandkids on a fixed income, and right now she's trying to decide between the NYSEG bill and the toys on the kids' Santa's list.
A senior in Cochecton who stopped taking her prescriptions because she can't afford the meds and the NYSEG bill.
A public school teacher in Ithaca who had to pick up a second job to make ends meet and still worries about losing her home this winter.
While these families are scraping by, the foreign-owned utility monopolies are jacking up rates again and doling out millions of dollars to CEOs sitting in boardrooms halfway around the world.
Enough is enough.
My bipartisan bill says we're not going to take it anymore.
We're not going to let you take money out of our pockets to line the pockets of corporate executives in Spain.
To the Congress of the United States, in accordance with Section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended 22 U.S.C. 230-21-K, I am providing notice of my intent to designate the Republic of Peru as a major non-NATO ally, MNNA.
The United States and the Republic of Peru maintain a strong relationship built on mutual interest and shared security priorities, including regional stability, counter-narcotics, and economic ties.
Designating the Republic of Peru as an MNNA will enhance United States security cooperation in South America, recognizing the Republic of Peru's commitment to peace, security, and partnership with the United States.
The designation of the Republic of Peru as a MNNA symbolizes its strategic partnership with the United States in peace and security.
Among other opportunities, the MNNA designation will foster expedited licensing for satellite technology, cooperative research and development, commercial leasing for defense articles, and counterterrorism efforts between our two nations.
I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action signed Donald J. Trump, the White House, December 10, 2025.
To the Congress of the United States, Section 202D of the National Emergency Act 50 U.S.C. 1622D provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration.
The President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.
In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the National Emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017 is to continue in effect beyond December 20, 2025.
The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source in whole or in substantial part outside the United States continue to threaten the stability of international political and economic systems.
Human rights abuse and corruption undermine the values that form an essential foundation of stable, secure and functioning societies, have devastating impacts on individuals, weaken democratic institutions, degrade the rule of law, perpetuate violent conflicts, facilitate the activities of dangerous persons, undermine economic markets, and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy,
and economy of the United States.
Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption.
Signed sincerely, Donald J. Trump, the White House, December 10, 2025.
To the Congress of the United States, Section 202D of the National Emergency Act 50 U.S.C. 1622D provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of his declaration.
The President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.
In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the National Emergency with respect to global illicit drug trafficking declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021 is to continue in effect beyond December 15, 2025.
The trafficking into the United States of illicit drugs, including fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually, as well as countless more nonfatal overdoses with their own tragic human toil.
Drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and their facilitators are the primary source of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals that fuel the current opioid epidemic, as well as drug-related violence that harms our communities.
International drug trafficking, including the illicit production, global sale, and widespread distribution of illegal drugs, the rise of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, as well as the growing role of Internet-based drug sales, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.
Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 with respect to global illicit drug trafficking.
Signed sincerely, Donald J. Trump, the White House, December 10th, 2025.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.
Ceasefire on C-SPAN00:02:06
unidentified
Today, House lawmakers considered and voted on several bills concerning the permitting process for infrastructure projects, federal standards on energy reliability, electricity supply chain reports, and expanding opportunities for investment.
They also considered a measure to repeal an executive order made by President Trump that stripped union rights from federal employees who are involved in national security work and a Democratic resolution from Representative Al Green to impeach President Trump for, quote, high crimes and misdemeanors.
When the House returns, watch live coverage here on C-SPAN.
I do want to talk about the economy, sir, here at home, and I wonder what grade you would give A.
unidentified
A plus.
A plus, Tonight, watch an exclusive interview with President Trump by Political White House Bureau Chief host Dasha Burns, talking about the Ukrainian-Russia war, the economy, health care, immigration, and the future of the Republican Party.
Tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN and online at c-span.org.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue.
Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides.
Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
And we're just getting started.
Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.