Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi Representing the 12th District of California

Washington, D.C. — Today, Speaker Emerita Pelosi joined Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernández (NM-03), DWC Whip Kristen McDonald Rivet (MI-08), DWC Senate Liaison and Caregiving Task Force Co-Chair Debbie Dingell (MI-06), and Caregiving Task Force Co-Chairs Brittany Pettersen (CO-07) & Lateefah Simon (CA-12) in sending a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) demanding HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdraw their proposed rule to gut 90% of Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) that would increase costs for families and eliminate educational resources women and families rely on. The letter was signed by 87 House Democrats.

For 60 years, Head Start has served over 40 million families and children with accessible social services, healthcare, and improved early learning standards. The program provides low-income children, children with disabilities, dual language learners, and children experiencing homelessness with the resources needed to succeed in school. Even after six decades, Head Start remains popular, with four in five Americans saying they’re in support of the program— evidence that Trump’s efforts to gut it are out of step with what Americans want.

The proposed rule would diminish the quality of Head Start services and undermine its ability to develop evidence-based programs that improve education, health, nutrition, parental involvement, and social services—forcing families to either lose these resources or turn to more expensive options elsewhere. Head Start could no longer connect families to jobs, education, and housing opportunities or effectively help children succeed in school.

In the letter, Members highlighted how the proposed rule would undermine Congressional authority and intent:

“The administration claims to be removing red tape and saving money. In reality, this proposed rule would override Congressional intent by removing standards that make Head Start the program that it is today and that Congress explicitly directed HHS to create based on research and consultation with experts.”

The Members also explained how the elimination of National Head Start Standards for education would be detrimental to the programs success:

“Rigorous research has found that Head Start generates substantial long-term economic benefits, including an estimated $1.86 in benefits for every dollar invested. That return depends on strong teachers, strong ratios, and strong services—qualified staff, appropriate classroom size and teacher to child ratios that support learning, developmental screening and follow-up, health and mental health services, family engagement and support services, and evidence-based early learning—not a patchwork of state requirements that would create different standards throughout the country.”

The Members also warned the proposed cuts would erode the safety and the quality of the program and possibly put students in danger:

“The proposed rule would eliminate Head Start’s specific federal requirement that children be supervised at all times, reduce mandatory annual staff training on preventing abuse and neglect, repeal the prohibition on corporal punishment, shaming, humiliation, and seclusion practices, and remove the timelines that ensure a child’s developmental, dental, and medical needs are actually screened and followed up on.”

Lastly, the Members explain how the cuts would roll back its strict student support systems that keep children in school:

“This proposed rule would strip Head Start’s ban on expelling children and its strict limits on suspension which is deeply concerning. These protections exist because preschoolers are already suspended and expelled at rates far above K-12 students. Additionally, disparities in suspension and expulsion are already significant for children of color, boys, and children with disabilities. Federal data show that children of color account for a disproportionate share of preschool suspensions, while children served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) make up 23 percent of enrollment but 74 percent of expulsions.7 Removing these federal protections will not close those gaps. It will widen them.”

Read the full letter here.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) expressed opposition to the proposed University of Michigan (U-M) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) research computing center at the Textile Road site in Ypsilanti Township. In a letter sent to Ypsilanti Township and U-M leadership, Congresswoman Dingell also called on Congress to enact comprehensive guardrails for large-scale AI and data-center development.

“The lesson from the U-M-LANL proposal is clear: the United States and the State of Michigan need the rules now, not later. The public deserves transparency before commitments are made, enforceable protections before construction begins, and a meaningful voice when a project has the potential to fundamentally change a community,” said Congresswoman Dingell. “For all of these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township. My opposition is not opposition to the University of Michigan, it is not opposition to research, and it is not opposition to artificial intelligence. Rather, my opposition is a demand that a project of this size and significance be developed responsibly, transparently, and with the people who will live with its consequences having a meaningful voice. The environmental history of the site makes the need for independent review even more important. The questions about water, electricity, schools, noise, and local authority make meaningful community involvement essential. We should not build first and regulate later. Innovation matters, but protecting our lives, our freedoms, our humanity, and our future must come first.”

The latest letter follows several oversight efforts led by Congresswoman Dingell demanding answers and transparency on the project for her constituents. In June 2026, the congresswoman urged leaders at U-M and Los Alamos National Laboratory to respond to Ypsilanti Township community concerns directly and decisively regarding the proposed project. In August 2026, Congresswoman Dingell released a statement criticizing the selection of Ypsilanti Township as the site for the controversial project and called on U-M leadership to fully address the long-standing concerns of residents at its September town hall.

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and below:

Dear Supervisor Stumbo and members of the Ypsilanti Township community:

The proposed University of Michigan-Los Alamos research computing center in Ypsilanti Township has become a deeply troubling example of what happens when a major project moves faster than meaningful community engagement, transparency, and public accountability. The University of Michigan (U-M) has repeatedly failed to adequately communicate with the community, particularly those who live closest to the proposed site. Residents have spent years asking basic questions about the project, its environmental impacts, its water and electricity demands, its noise, its long-term operation, and who ultimately has the authority to make decisions. Instead of receiving clear answers early in the process, the community has too often been left to piece together information without receiving the answers or facts it deserves.

That frustration was on full display at the recent U-M town hall on September 9, 2026, where residents expressed anger and distrust toward university officials. U-M itself acknowledged hearing “enormous anger” and “enormous distrust” from the community.  These concerns are not imaginary or isolated. Local officials and residents have repeatedly questioned the project’s potential effects on water, electricity, property values, quality of life, noise, and the environment. The community should and deserves to be treated as a partner, not as an afterthought, and U-M’s handling of the site-selection process has only deepened that distrust.

Making matters worse, the roles and responsibilities of the entities involved in this project remain unclear and insufficiently transparent. U-M’s current information states that the $1.25 billion project involves $300 million from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), $850 million from U-M, and $100 million from the State of Michigan through a Strategic Site Readiness Program grant. The state has announced that the LANL facility would conduct federally funded research involving national security, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI), and energy security. 

Governmental Authority and Public Accountability

We need to be clear about the roles of federal, state, and local governments in this project. The project involves different layers of authority, including U-M as a public university and the activities authorized by its Board of Regents; the State of Michigan, because the project is supported by $100 million in state funding approved by the Michigan Legislature and is subject to applicable state laws and regulations; a reported agreement between U-M and LANL because of the stated federal research mission; and local government, with respect to the authority state law leaves to the township.

U-M has asserted that, as a state constitutional institution, it is exempt from ordinary local zoning and taxes. That legal question is central to this dispute. If a public university’s constitutional authority permits it to override local land-use decisions, the Michigan Legislature needs to determine whether that framework remains appropriate for projects of this size and potential impact. This should not be decided project by project. Communities deserve clarity about their authority when a state institution proposes an industrial-scale facility in or near their neighborhoods.

No community should have to discover after decisions have been made who has authority over water, electricity, environmental protections, noise, traffic, emergency planning, and other impacts for a project of this size. Those responsibilities must be established publicly and in writing before a project of this magnitude moves forward.

I understand that legislation has been introduced by Michigan State Representatives, including Representatives Jason Morgan, Morgan Foreman, Carrie Rheingans, Jimmie Wilson, and Jennifer Conlin of the Washtenaw legislative delegation, to address some of these issues, and I urge state legislators to support it. Additional work and legislation across all levels of government are necessary to establish clear rules and accountability in this area.

Federal Funding and the University of Michigan-Los Alamos National Laboratory Agreement

We need clarity about the federal agreement between U-M, LANL, and federal partners. Specifically, does a contractual financial commitment exist between Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the University of Michigan, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regarding this proposed facility? If so, what are the roles, responsibilities, financial interests, and contractual obligations of each party?

At the time the program was announced, the University stated in its “Make It In Michigan FAQ National AI Research Center” memorandum:

Has the federal funding already been approved/Is there a chance they won’t have it? Federal funding to support this project has not yet been appropriated. However, Los Alamos National Lab has consistently received its funding because its purpose is so vital to national security. In fact, in January 2023, it was reported that LANL received an unprecedented $4.6 billion budget (Source: Albuquerque Journal).

There is an important distinction between a statement that LANL may contribute $300 million under an agreement and an executed federal appropriation or federal contract that has obligated federal taxpayer dollars for this facility. My understanding from multiple official inquiries that I submitted is that there is no federal money appropriated and there is not a federal financial commitment.

There is an important distinction between a statement that LANL may contribute $300 million under an agreement and an executed federal appropriation or federal contract that has obligated federal taxpayer dollars for this facility. My understanding from multiple official inquiries that I submitted is that there is no federal money appropriated and there is not a federal financial commitment.

The public should not have to rely on conflicting descriptions. That is why I urge U-M and LANL to publicly produce the agreement, identify the legal authority and source of the dollars, identify whether the dollars have actually been appropriated or obligated, and identify every condition that must be satisfied before any federal money can be spent. This is basic transparency for a project involving more than $1 billion dollars and a federal national laboratory.

I will be seeking answers from the University of Michigan in a separate letter regarding the exact agreement between LANL and U-M. The public should be able to understand:

● The date of the agreement;

● The parties who signed it;

● Whether it is legally binding;

● Whether any federal dollars have actually been appropriated, obligated, or transferred;

● What legal authority allows LANL to make the proposed $300 million contribution;

● Whether DOE has approved or authorized the agreement;

● What conditions must be met before any money is provided;

● Whether the $300 million is contingent on site selection or environmental or other regulatory approvals;

● What happens to the commitment if the project is delayed, changed, or cancelled;

● Who is responsible for cost overruns;

● Whether there are any federal guarantees or commitments; and

● Whether there is a federal contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other federal instrument associated with the proposed facility.

Concerns at the Textile Road Site

The selection of the Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township, despite ongoing environmental concerns, requires additional scrutiny. There are specific environmental concerns related to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designation of the site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, including its close proximity to the former General Motors (GM) Willow Run Plant.

The federal cleanup of the site was conducted under CERCLA and its implementing regulations under the National Contingency Plan. Today, EPA maintains a CERCLA record [EPA ID MID980825558] for the Textile Road Site.  EPA has stated that removal and cleanup work was completed and that the site is now in an oversight and management phase. EPA’s administrative record identifies the Textile Road Site as a Superfund site and documents EPA’s response actions under CERCLA. That history requires scrutiny, transparency, and answers for the community.

Likewise, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) maintains the state’s contaminated-site databases and RIDE Mapper, which includes federal Superfund sites and Michigan-regulated contaminated properties.  EGLE also has responsibilities under Michigan’s environmental laws governing environmental remediation.  EPA and EGLE should publicly establish the current environmental status of the site and clearly identify which agency has responsibility for each aspect of monitoring, remediation, and construction oversight.

I will be requesting in a separate letter that EPA and EGLE formally review the current status of the Textile Road Site and determine what environmental protections, monitoring, and restrictions remain in effect. We need answers to the following questions:

● What contamination remains at or near the proposed development site?

● What soil and groundwater monitoring is currently required?

● Who is responsible for conducting that monitoring?

● How frequently are samples taken?

● What contaminants are being tested for?

● Where are the monitoring wells located?

● What are the most recent test results?

● Are there existing land-use restrictions, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other restrictions on the property?

● Could excavation, grading, foundations, utility installation, dewatering, or other construction activities disturb contaminated soil or groundwater?

● What agency has the authority to stop construction if contamination is discovered or disturbed?

● What additional environmental review is required before construction?

● Who will pay for any additional testing, remediation, or environmental response necessitated by the project?

Concerns about nearby schools are also important, and U-M must address potential impacts on nearby students, teachers, and school operations. That should include construction traffic, noise, air quality, emergency planning, environmental risks, and any other foreseeable impacts. Parents should not have to wait until construction begins to find out what a high-performance computing facility could mean for schools in the surrounding area.

Federal and State Guardrails for AI and Data Centers

The concerns raised by this project also point to a much larger national and state issue. The United States and Michigan need comprehensive guardrails for large-scale AI and data-center development. AI development can and should continue, but it must be responsible development that protects communities, clean water, environmental protections, and residential ratepayers.

The recent warnings by AI executives themselves, their employees, and other experts are chilling and require immediate policy action. That’s why I believe at the federal level, Congress must act now to establish appropriate guardrails. At a minimum, these standards should ensure:

● Large data centers, not residential ratepayers, pay the costs of the generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure required to serve them;

● Developers disclose projected electricity and water demand and the sources of those resources;

● Major facilities undergo comprehensive environmental review addressing water, air quality, stormwater, wetlands, wildlife, emissions, backup power, noise, traffic, and cumulative impacts;

● Water use is independently monitored, publicly reported, and subject to enforceable protections for drinking water, groundwater, rivers, and wetlands;

● Noise limits are independently measured and enforceable;

● Nearby schools and residential neighborhoods are protected;

● Emergency-response planning is developed with local officials;

● Communities have meaningful participation and enforceable community-benefit agreements; and

● There is clear public accountability for which governmental entity has authority to enforce each requirement.

If Congress does not act swiftly to enact appropriate measures, we should pause further development until clear guardrails are put in place. Importantly, a moratorium cannot just be words, it requires action. That time must be time spent working toward a comprehensive solution. No community should have to accept a massive facility first and figure out the rules afterward.

Congress must also examine the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure and determine how existing laws should be strengthened to protect communities. We need to know who is paying for these facilities, who ultimately pays for the electricity and infrastructure they require, how much water they consume, how that water is monitored, what environmental safeguards are in place, and which federal agencies have responsibility for oversight. We cannot simply move full speed ahead without clear rules and regulations and meaningful oversight and accountability.

The State of Michigan has an equally important responsibility. Michigan should slow down and establish a data center “bill of rights” with clear, legally enforceable standards for energy, water, environmental protection, ratepayer protection, local participation, and community benefits before approving additional large-scale AI and data-center projects. These standards should apply to every major facility, regardless of who owns it or where it is located. Michigan cannot write the rules after communities have already absorbed the impacts.

Additionally, every major facility must be subject to transparent analysis of projected electricity and water demand, legally enforceable requirements ensuring developers bear the costs they create, and comprehensive environmental review. Water use should be independently monitored and publicly reported, facilities should prioritize closed-loop water systems, and projects should establish continuous safeguards for drinking-water supplies, groundwater, rivers, and wetlands. There should be enforceable requirements for what happens if actual water use exceeds projections or monitoring identifies an adverse impact. Noise standards should also be independently measured and enforceable, with baseline measurements, operating limits, monitoring requirements, and a clear process for resolving violations.

Communities should have enforceable community-benefit agreements established early in the development process, with measurable commitments for local hiring, union construction, workforce development, infrastructure investments, environmental protections, emergency planning, and public reporting. Those commitments must be contractual, measurable, and enforceable, with strong consequences when they are not met. Non-disclosure agreements cannot be allowed. They stifle discussion or limit the community’s ability to access vital information regarding the project.

A temporary pause on new large-scale AI and data-center development should also be considered while these standards are established, so that Michigan does not continue approving projects before the necessary rules and protections are in place.

This week, Congress will vote to pass the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would require states to consider policies to ensure large-load customers bear the costs of the generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades necessary to serve them. This is a step toward ensuring local communities are not subsidizing the energy demands of large data-center projects through residential utility bills. I will be supporting this legislation, but it is far from enough and much more needs to be done at all levels of government.

A National Responsibility

This is also far bigger than one project. AI and high-performance computing are transforming our economy, but technological advancement cannot mean abandoning basic principles of public accountability. We can support innovation while insisting on responsible development. We can support research while protecting residents. And we can welcome investment while making sure residential ratepayers, water users, and local communities are not the ones left carrying the costs.

The fact that a project may have important research goals does not eliminate the obligation to answer legitimate and critical questions. AI is one of the most consequential technologies we have ever created, with extraordinary potential to improve lives. But we cannot ignore the risks, that if left unchecked, could threaten humanity itself.

We need clear guidelines on national security, healthcare, education, employment, law enforcement, elections, consumer protection, intellectual property, cybersecurity, environmental impacts, and the use of AI by government agencies. We cannot wait until something goes terribly wrong to establish guardrails. We need strong standards for human oversight of AI, safety, transparency, accountability, biocybersecurity, energy use, and the data centers that power it. 

Where We Go From Here

The lesson from the U-M-LANL proposal is clear: the United States and the State of Michigan need the rules now, not later. The public deserves transparency before commitments are made, enforceable protections before construction begins, and a meaningful voice when a project has the potential to fundamentally change a community.

For all of these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township. My opposition is not opposition to the University of Michigan, it is not opposition to research, and it is not opposition to artificial intelligence. Rather, my opposition is a demand that a project of this size and significance be developed responsibly, transparently, and with the people who will live with its consequences having a meaningful voice. The environmental history of the site makes the need for independent review even more important. The questions about water, electricity, schools, noise, and local authority make meaningful community involvement essential.

We should not build first and regulate later. Innovation matters, but protecting our lives, our freedoms, our humanity, and our future must come first.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Joe Neguse (D-Co 2)

Washington, D.C. — For the second time in two weeks, current and former Members of the House of Representatives are challenging the Trump administration’s ongoing attempt to unconstitutionally exercise control over election administration and create chaos in the upcoming midterm elections. Today’s action follows the Litigation Task Force’s successful advocacy before the Supreme Court and the denial of Donald Trump’s attempts to restrict mail-in ballots. 

154 current and former Members from the House of Representatives, Democratic and Republican, filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to halt the Trump administration’s efforts to build and make available a massive illegal database containing the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans. The expanded system, which links information from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration, unlawfully puts Americans’ most sensitive personal information at risk while relying on questionable data that federal agents have raised concerns may be inaccurate. Those errors could result in eligible U.S. citizens being improperly flagged and removed from voter rolls, potentially denying an untold number of Americans their constitutional right to vote.

The coalition filed its amicus brief in League of Women Voters v. Department of Homeland Security, arguing that the administration’s efforts to create and use this database violate the law on two main grounds. First, the database violates the Privacy Act, enacted by Congress in the 1970s in part to prevent the creation of a “centralized Federal information system” that would consolidate Americans’ sensitive information stored across federal agencies. And second, Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the creation of state-by-state citizenship lists, most recently by failing to advance the SAVE Act and SAVE America Act, and so the Trump Administration is unconstitutionally violating the separation of powers by attempting to achieve through lawless executive action what it failed to achieve through legislation.

Click HERE to read the brief in its entirety.  

The bipartisan group is led by Assistant House Minority Leader Joe Neguse, who leads the House Democrats’ Litigation Task Force; Task Force Co-Chairs Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia and Judiciary Ranking Member Jamie Raskin; as well as House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, House Administration Ranking Member Joe Morelle, and Homeland Security Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson.

The Republican lawmakers that joined this court filing include former Representatives Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (2005-2017), Barbara Comstock (2015-2019), Mickey Edwards (1977-1993), James C. Greenwood (1993-2005), Steve Gunderson (1981-1997), John LeBoutillier (1981-1983), Susan Molinari (1990-1997), Claudine Schneider (1981-1991), Peter Smith (1989-1991), and David Trott (2015-2019). 

Keep scrolling to see what the leading lawmakers had to say about the matter: 

“House Democrats’ Litigation Task Force will continue to vindicate our constitution and fight back against Donald Trump efforts to disenfranchise American citizens,” said House Assistant Minority Leader Joe Neguse. “The president’s plan to create federal lists that dictate who can and cannot vote in elections is not only violative of laws enacted by Congress but also relies on questionable data Homeland Security agents themselves have said will result in an untold number of lawful citizens losing their right to vote. It is an attempt to sow chaos ahead of the 2026 midterms and must be struck down by the Supreme Court — immediately.” 

“Trump’s asking the courts to let his Administration create the very federal database Congress repeatedly declined to authorize: a comprehensive Orwellian system that collects and shares Americans’ most sensitive personal information while creating the risk of wrongly purging eligible voters from the rolls. I’m proud to stand strong with my colleagues urging the Supreme Court to protect individual Americans’ privacy and voting rights—and the integrity of our free and fair elections—from this outrageous and illegal power grab,” said Ranking Member Jamie Raskin. 

“The Trump Administration is trying to create a massive database of Americans’ sensitive personal information that could disenfranchise voters across the country. This system relies on incomplete data that directly targets the right to privacy and the right to vote. We are urging the Supreme Court to stop this immediately and protect Americans’ right to vote,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.

“No matter how hard he tries, Donald Trump will never succeed in taking over our elections,” said Leader Jeffries. “I am grateful to Reps. Neguse, Garcia, Raskin, Morelle and Bennie Thompson and the Litigation Task Force for leading House Democrats in this latest effort to stand up to Donald Trump’s ongoing unlawful and unconstitutional effort to sow chaos ahead of the midterms, deny eligible Americans the right to vote and exert undue federal control over our elections.” 

“Democrats and Republicans agree – this Administration cannot ignore Congress. Once again, Trump is mounting a wildly illegal attack on our elections. Presidents do not control our elections. The American people do,” said Ranking Member Joe Morelle.

“There’s a reason our Constitution gives states and Congress the power to manage our elections: to stop despots like Donald Trump,” added Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson. “The Supreme Court must stop Trump’s illegal actions to create error-ridden citizen databases to disenfranchise voters and rig our elections.”

Background 

The Litigation Task Force launched in the first month that followed President Donald Trump’s chaotic return to office. We immediately set out to push back against an administration showing no respect for the Constitution or rule of law—and haven’t stopped since.

I the fight to protect American election security: last Tuesday, the Task Force urged the Supreme Court to block Trump’s Executive Order seeking to exert control over mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. As noted above, less than a week later, the Court agreed and barred the USPS from putting the challenged mail-ballot requirements into effect for the 2026 midterm election.  

For more information on the Litigation Task Force’s efforts to protect Americans against the unlawful actions of the Trump administration, visit litigationandresponse.house.gov. 

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Al Green (TX-9)

(Washington, DC) — On Tuesday, September 15, 2026, Congressman Al Green, Ranking Member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, shared remarks in a Financial Services Hearing entitled, “The Annual Testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the International Financial System.”

You can access and listen to Congressman Al Green’s remarks by clicking here. The hearing remarks highlighted are also accessible on various social media platforms, including Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly known as Twitter).  

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Rick Larsen (2nd Congressional District Washington)

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jared Huffman Representing the 2nd District of California

---

---

Previous Article

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steve Scalise (1st District of Louisiana)

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) joined Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), and Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) to discuss how House Republicans are continuing their work to root out fraud and protect taxpayer dollars for hardworking American families. Leader Scalise also highlighted Democrats’ record of voting against anti-fraud legislation and emphasized the importance of what’s at stake this November.

Click here or the image above to view Leader Scalise’s full remarks.
On Republicans making life more affordable for American families:“This is a very busy and important week in the House. We have over 75 pieces of legislation that we’re going to be moving out of the House. So there’s a lot that we’re doing. And frankly, we’re going to continue working to make life more affordable for working families. “And every step of the way, we’ve been having Democrat opposition. Democrats do not care about working families. They’ve proven it time and time again with their votes. And I think you’re going to see that in the next 49 days when we go before voters and talk about the differences between us and them, who’s actually fighting to make life more affordable for working families. “And then you look at the socialist agenda of the Democrats, these communists, and what they want to do. They want to repeal the working families tax cut, which means they want to take money out of the pockets of working families, reverse the benefits of things like no tax on overtime that 30 million Americans benefited from. [Chairwoman] Lisa [McClain] talked about the 35 million seniors who have benefited from no tax on Social Security. You think about no tax on tips, almost 10 million Americans benefiting from that. Average income, by the way, of a tip worker is $32,000 a year.”On Democrats voting against condemning fraud: “Democrats want to take that money out of their pocket, send it to Washington to continue committing fraud. Yes, fraud. They have supported every measure to continue fraud in America when we’ve tried to root out fraud. In fact, this week we’re bringing more bills to root out fraud in America, and we’ll expect to see Democrats oppose it like they’ve opposed every other measure to stop fraud and the theft of taxpayer dollars. We all know about the learing centers. We all know about so much other waste, fraud, and abuse that we’ve been able to not only root out, but as we root it out, we’ve been able to give that money back to working families. “Democrats want to reverse those gains. I want to tick off a few numbers because I think it’s important. 97% of Democrats voted against supporting fraudulent payments before they go out the door. Just checking to make sure they’re not fraudulent. Almost every Democrat said nope, let the money, your tax dollars, go out the door even if you know it’s fraudulent. “90% of Democrats voted against deporting illegals who commit fraud. So somebody comes here illegally, then they steal your taxpayer dollars. And we said, okay, shouldn’t that be enough? If you steal the taxpayer dollars of hardworking Americans, you should be sent back to your country. Democrats said, nope, they should be able to stay in America and keep stealing money. “90% of Democrats voted against that protection for taxpayers. Almost 90% voted against establishing an office dedicated to combating fraud throughout the federal government.” On Democrats embracing socialism:“We had a bill on the floor just 2 weeks ago to say, shouldn’t we just denounce socialism? We all know the ills of it all around the world, throughout America, throughout the world’s history. You’ve seen how socialism has led to death, poverty, squalor. And yet almost every Democrat voted against that bill because they support socialism. They support communism. Now their party has been taken over. It’s insane to see what’s happened.”

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Al Green (TX-9)

(Washington, DC) — On Tuesday, September 15, 2026, Congressman Al Green delivered remarks on the House floor as he brought H.Res. 1486 before the House as a privileged resolution, prompting a vote on the impeachment of President Donald John Trump.

You can access and listen to Congressman Al Green’s speech on his official YouTube page or by clicking here. The floor speech highlighted is also accessible on various social media platforms, including Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly known as Twitter). 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Joaquin Castro (20th District of Texas)

---

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)