MIL USHOR-2b Engine

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Robert Aderholt (AL-04)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Aderholt released the following statement after voting in support of H.R. 9770, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027. The Continuing Appropriations Act is a clean extension that protects against a partisan shutdown and extends government funding through December 4, 2026.

“By passing a clean continuing resolution, we are honoring our commitment to responsible governance. Through H.R. 9770, Republicans are preventing a last-minute funding crisis while preserving the path to full year FY27 appropriations.

While Senate Democrats have refused to allow markups to progress under regular order, the House Appropriations Committee has passed all twelve appropriations bills out of committee. This clean continuing resolution does not stop appropriations work from continuing, it just removes the threat of a shutdown at the end of the fiscal year.

Last year, we saw the longest government shutdown in history because Democrats held the government hostage and refused to fund key federal programs. We will not let this obstruction of funding happen again. 

Previous shutdowns led to chaos at our airports, thousands of federal workers without paychecks, and disaster relief and first responders without funding. 

H.R. 9770 extends funding critical programs in their current form, including SNAP, WIC, the Disaster Relief Fund, small business support, and more. This legislation not only keeps the government open past the September 30 deadline but also protects essential services and national security.”

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett (USVI)

For Immediate Release                             Contact: Alayah Phipps

July 22, 2026                                                    202-813-2793

PRESS RELEASE

CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT’S LEGISLATION HONORING PETER G. THURLAND, SR. ADVANCES THROUGH NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

U.S. Virgin Islands — Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett (D-VI) announced that the House Committee on Natural Resources advanced H.R. 8121, legislation to designate the Christiansted Bandstand as the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand.” Today’s markup follows a hearing held by the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federals Lands on July 1, 2026. Congresswoman Plaskett issued the following statement:

“This is meaningful progress to ensure that the contributions of Peter Gregory Thurland, Sr. to the Virgin Islands are never forgotten. The Christiansted Bandstand stands today because of his hands and vision. Renaming the Bandstand in his honor ensures that every person who walks past it, and every musician who ever plays on it, will know whose legacy they are standing on.

“Mr. Thurland was a master craftsman, a bandleader, a mentor, and a U.S. Navy veteran. I thank my colleagues on the House Natural Resources Committee for unanimously advancing this bill. This legislation was first championed by Congressman Ron de Lugo in the 103rd Congress, and I am proud to continue this effort to have Peter G. Thurland, Sr.’s name take its rightful place on a landmark he helped create.

“The bill must now be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives before proceeding to the U.S. Senate, and ultimately the President’s desk for signature.”

H.R. 8121 honors the life and legacy of Peter Gregory Thurland, Sr., born in 1892 in Christiansted, St. Croix. On March 31, 1917, Mr. Thurland played with the Christiansted Industrial Brass Band at the transfer ceremony on the Christiansted Wharf. Just a few years after the transfer of the Virgin Islands from Denmark to the United States, Mr. Thurland joined the U.S. Navy Band, and helped build the very bandstand where he would later perform for decades.

In 1938, Mr. Thurland founded the St. Croix Community Band, an institution that has trained generations of local musicians. Through free monthly concerts, the band has given the Christiansted waterfront its enduring soundtrack.

The legislation designates the bandstand located at the Christiansted National Historic Site in St. Croix as the “Peter G. Thurland, Sr., Bandstand” and directs that any reference to the bandstand in federal law, regulation, or documentation be treated as a reference to its new name.

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Last night, U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) voted in support of H.R. 9770, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027, legislation to keep the federal government open through December 4, 2026. The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives and now heads to the Senate for consideration.

“House Republicans took responsible action to keep the government open, protect essential services, and provide certainty for the American people,” Rep. Kelly said. “This straightforward funding extension prevents a costly government shutdown while allowing Congress to continue its work on full-year appropriations bills. The American people expect Congress to govern responsibly, and this legislation delivers stability without partisan poison pills.”

The legislation removes the threat of a September 30 funding lapse while preserving the House’s progress toward completing all 12 full-year appropriations bills. It maintains funding for essential programs and national security priorities and prevents disruptions to services relied upon by millions of Americans.

H.R. 9770 also continues funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief, wildfire suppression efforts, the National Flood Insurance Program, and other critical priorities.

By preventing a shutdown, the legislation protects federal workers, contractors, disaster-response operations, and the broader economy from unnecessary disruption and potentially billions of dollars in avoidable costs. 

In 2025, Senate Democrats blocked House GOP-passed continuing resolutions a total of 14 times, which led to a six-week government shutdown.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose)

(Washington, DC) – Yesterday, Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) of the Committee on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (CA-18) of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright demanding answers regarding a political appointee remaining on paid administrative leave nine months after they were removed from their position. The appointee in question, Ms. Cathy Tripodi, served as the Director of DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstration (OCED). She was removed from her position in October 2025.

“The American people expect the leaders who hold political appointment at the Department to do the work for which they are being paid at significant public expense,” the Ranking Members wrote in their letter. “Unfortunately, it appears this foundational expectation and the public trust was violated by recent personnel-related decisions.”

The lawmakers call into question whether Secretary Wright’s handling of Ms. Tripodi’s departure represents a misuse of taxpayer dollars, writing: “It appears that the Department allowed Ms. Tripodi to continue to earn her taxpayer-funded $190,000 per annum salary, potentially with benefits, for close to a full year after her removal from the OCED Director position. If she performed no work for the Department during the time she remained on the payroll, that would constitute a serious misuse of public funds. If she was working or detailed elsewhere while the Department paid her salary, such an arrangement raises serious questions of its own. In either case, the Department owes Congress and the American people a full and timely explanation.”

The letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Wright,

We write to exercise appropriate Congressional oversight over, and request information and documents about, a troubling personnel matter that has unfolded under your leadership at the Department of Energy (“the Department”). We send this letter and exercise this oversight based on the long-held understanding and core principle that political appointees privileged to serve at the Department assume public trust, hold public office, and earn taxpayer-funded salaries. The American people expect the leaders who hold political appointment at the Department to do the work for which they are being paid at significant public expense. Unfortunately, it appears this foundational expectation and the public trust was violated by recent personnel-related decisions.

Specifically, we recently learned that Ms. Cathy Tripodi, a political appointee of the Administration who served as Director of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) at the Department, remained on paid administrative leave for nearly nine months after she was removed from her at-will position. It appears that the Department allowed Ms. Tripodi to continue to earn her taxpayer-funded $190,000 per annum salary, potentially with benefits, for close to a full year after her removal from the OCED Director position. If she performed no work for the Department during the time she remained on the payroll, that would constitute a serious misuse of public funds. If she was working or detailed elsewhere while the Department paid her salary, such an arrangement raises serious questions of its own. In either case, the Department owes Congress and the American people a full and timely explanation.

This situation represents the latest in a series of developments since you were sworn in as Secretary in February 2025 that have caused ongoing concern and that collectively call into question the decisions being made at the Department. Among these developments are forced indiscriminate firings and resignations of employees; the cancellation of billions of dollars for projects as political retaliation against “blue” States, which you sought to deny was the basis of such cancellations despite the admission in court by the U.S. Department of Justice that such retaliation was indeed the deciding rationale; the pursuit of ideologically-driven market interventions that distort energy markets and raise energy costs for consumers; and the illegal transfer of appropriated funds in ways that violate Congressional spending laws. The consequences of these troubling developments have fallen on the American people in the form of relentless energy price increases that are compounding our Nation’s current affordability crisis.

Your tenure as Secretary to date is also marked by significant turnover at the Department among political appointees, which includes the departures of Mr. Steven Winberg as Deputy Under Secretary for Infrastructure and Mr. Wells Griffith as Under Secretary for Energy, both of whom departed within months of assuming their respective positions. Most notably for the purposes of this letter, Ms. Tripodi – who previously served at the Department during the President’s first term and who was among the current Administration’s earliest political appointments at the Department – was reportedly removed in October 2025 from her position as OCED Director. 

As the respective Ranking Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the House of Representatives, we have a duty to conduct oversight of the Department, including over personnel decisions affecting the execution of its mission and the upholding of public trust for the American people. Last October, we had no reason to believe that Ms. Tripodi’s removal represented anything beyond a discretionary Presidential personnel matter. However, it now appears that the Department’s handling of her departure under your leadership and other personnel matters may have implicated and may represent the misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Late last month, we learned that Ms. Tripodi remained on paid administrative leave at the Department long after her reported removal from the OCED Director position. Ms. Tripodi had been relieved of her duties nearly nine months earlier in October 2025, and by all accounts her work at the Department had ended at that time. As a political appointee, she lacked civil service protections. There was no legal or administrative barrier to terminating her employment with the Department on the day she was removed. Even so, she apparently remained on the Department’s payroll for nearly nine months, presumably without performing any work. Her government annual salary of $190,000, according to the most recent publicly available information from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), was significant by any standard, and certainly by the standards of most American families. Our understanding upon learning about this situation was that Ms. Tripodi’s paid administrative leave was scheduled to end on or around the end of the month of June 2026. However, it is unclear whether any additional financial benefits or severance pay accompanied the end of her leave.

Since January 2025, the Administration has moved quickly to remove a significant number of highly respected, expert career employees. The Department’s leadership has eagerly participated and embraced these career employee removals. Yet the same urgency through which these Federal workforce reductions have been carried out under the current Administration does not appear to have been applied in the case of Ms. Tripodi. If Ms. Tripodi did not perform any work for the Department during the period she remained on the payroll, that is a troubling double standard – particularly for an Administration that repeatedly invokes “waste, fraud, and abuse” as justification for its broad, unprecedented reductions in force, terminations of career civil servants, and curtailment of programs that serve the public interest. If, on the other hand, Ms. Tripodi was employed or detailed outside the Department – for example, at a National Laboratory or a Department contractor – while continuing to draw her Department of Energy salary, such arrangement raises serious conflict-of-interest and dual-compensation concerns, and it is difficult to understand why the Department would pay a former appointee to work outside its domain. We do not know which of these scenarios may apply in this case, and the Department should tell us.

Keeping a political appointee who has been relieved of her duties on the payroll for nearly nine months is difficult to justify as being in the public interest, whether she performed no work during that time or was paid by the Department while working elsewhere. As skyrocketing energy costs increasingly burden American families, the Department should be able to explain what public purpose this arrangement served. We expect you to account for how it occurred and to identify who was responsible.

We intend to obtain the answers that we seek through this letter. Please respond to the following questions and document production requests no later than two weeks from today, 5:00 PM on Wednesday, August 5, 2026:

1.     How long was Ms. Tripodi on paid administrative leave at the Department? Please disclose the initial date that she was placed on paid administrative leave and the final date of her paid administrative leave.

2.     How much salary did Ms. Tripodi earn during her time on paid administrative leave? To what government benefits was Ms. Tripodi entitled during her time on administrative leave, what benefits did she receive, and what was the total value of those benefits?

3.     Did Ms. Tripodi receive any severance pay, or any other financial benefit, at the end of her paid administrative leave?

4.     Which Department official(s) authorized Ms. Tripodi’s placement on paid administrative leave?

5.     Why did the Department place Ms. Tripodi on paid administrative leave after she was removed from her position as OCED Director? What was the legal justification for her placement on paid administrative leave and what specific statutory and regulatory basis served to authorize such leave? 

6.     Have any other political appointees at the Department been placed on paid administrative leave since January 20, 2025? Please identify each political appointee who has been placed on paid administrative leave since that date, the initial date of their administrative leave and the final date of their administrative leave, and the specific reason(s) and legal basis for placing them on administrative leave.

7.     During the period she remained on the Department’s payroll following her removal as OCED Director, was Ms. Tripodi detailed or otherwise assigned at any time to any other entity, including but not limited to a Department of Energy National Laboratory, a contractor, another Federal agency, or any other organization? If so, please identify each such entity, the date(s) of the detail or assignment, the nature of the work performed, which DOE official(s) authorized it, and the source(s) of funding for her salary during that time.

8.     During the period she remained on the Department’s payroll following her removal, did Ms. Tripodi hold any other employment or receive any other compensation from any source? If so, please identify each source of employment or compensation and the dates involved.

9.     Did the Department’s ethics official(s), or ethics official(s) placed anywhere else in the Federal Government, review any detail, assignment, outside employment, or other activity of Ms. Tripodi during this period in question for compliance with applicable conflict-of-interest and ethics requirements? If so, please describe each such review and its outcome. If not, please explain why no such review was conducted.

In addition, please provide the following information to our Committees:

1.     All documents and communications (including, but not limited to, emails, text messages, instant messages, Signal messages, comments, notes, analyses, legal and other memoranda, letters, telephone logs, meeting minutes, calendar entries, PowerPoint slides, and presentation materials) within the Department regarding the decision to place Ms. Tripodi on paid administrative leave.

2.     All documents and communications (including, but not limited to, emails, text messages, instant messages, Signal messages, comments, notes, analyses, legal and other memoranda, letters, telephone logs, meeting minutes, calendar entries, PowerPoint slides, and presentation materials) within the Department regarding the end of Ms. Tripodi’s paid administrative leave.

3.     All documents and communications (including, but not limited to, emails, text messages, instant messages, Signal messages, comments, notes, analyses, legal and other memoranda, letters, telephone logs, meeting minutes, calendar entries, PowerPoint slides, and presentation materials) between the Department and the White House Liaison and Deputy White House Liaison, assigned to the Office of the Secretary inside the Department, regarding Ms. Tripodi’s paid administrative leave.

4.     All emails sent from Ms. Tripodi’s official government email account at the Department, and all emails received by Ms. Tripodi’s official government email account at the Department, between October 1, 2025, and the final date of her paid administrative leave.

5.     All text messages, instant messages, and Signal messages sent from Ms. Tripodi’s official government-issued equipment, and all text messages, instant messages, and Signal messages received by Ms. Tripodi’s official government-issued equipment, between October 1, 2025, and the final date of her paid administrative leave.

6.     A copy of the written administrative leave policies, and any associated guidance or memoranda, adopted for the Department that applied during the period Ms. Tripodi was placed on paid administrative leave, and the current version of such policies and related documentation as of the date of this letter, if different.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Scott McKee with the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Appropriations at (202) 225-3481 or Adam Rosenberg with the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology at (202) 225-6375. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.  

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Alma Adams (12th District of North Carolina)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Representatives Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. (NC-12),LoisFrankel (FL-22),Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12),Teresa Leger Fernández (NM-03), and Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE), introduced the Black Women’s Equal Pay Day Resolution, marking July 21^st as Black Women’s Equal Pay Day and recognizing the deep, persistent wage gap that Black women continue to face in the United States. 

Every year, the date of Black Women’s Equal Pay Day is set to mark the amount of time Black women would have to work to earn what white, non-Hispanic men earned by the end of the previous year. In 2025, Black women earned roughly 65 cents for every dollar white men earned. 

“Today, we confront an unacceptable wage disparity facing Black women, and recommit ourselves to correcting it,” said Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee Ranking Member, Congresswoman Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. “For generations, Black women have been compelled to work twice as hard for half the reward. They have faced entrenched barriers, systemic discrimination, and a persistent denial of opportunity. We cannot ask another generation of Black women to wait months, even years, for the pay they rightfully deserve. I am proud to introduce this resolution, and I call on this Congress to act with the urgency this injustice demands.”

“Equal pay is more than a slogan—it’s about whether women can pay their bills, take care of their families, enjoy a good quality of life, and eventually retire with dignity,” said Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Emerita Lois Frankel. “In 2025, for the second year in a row, the gender pay gap widened, and for Black women the disparity is even greater. It’s long past time for Congress to close the wage gap and ensure every woman is paid fairly for her work.”

“The wage gap has widened for two years in a row – the first time we’ve seen such an increase since the 1960s,” said Rep. Watson Coleman. “And as we navigate a nationwide affordability crisis, Republican policies have stripped away tools to narrow the pay gap and made it harder for black women to earn good-paying jobs. Black women are foundational to the progress and survival of this nation yet for far too long have been prevented from reaping the fruits of their labor. It’s imperative that we address the racist, sexist policies that cause structural economic inequality in America so Black women are paid what they’ve earned.”

“Women hold this country together. We raise families, care for loved ones, teach our children, heal the sick, grow businesses, harvest our food, and serve our communities,” said Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández, Chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus. “Yet, year after year, our work is still valued less than men’s. That is not just unfair—it is a choice our country continues to make. Black Women’s Equal Pay Day reminds us that while all women continue to fight for equal pay, Black women face an even steeper climb. We are well into Summer before their equal pay day rolls around—that’s too late, it’s too tiring and smothering to fathom the disrespect this late date signifies. Congress must finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and make equal pay the law of the land so that Black women, and all women earn the pay they deserve.” “Even in the ‘land of opportunity,’ Black women must work 50 percent longer to achieve the same earnings as white men,” said Senator Blunt Rochester. “This resolution sheds light on the challenges facing minority communities across the country and reaffirms our commitment to closing the pay gaps. I’m proud to see all my Senate Democratic colleagues join me in making a concerted effort to improve the quality of life for Black women everywhere.”

Text of the resolution can be found HERE.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03)

Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03) touted her App Store Freedom Act (H.R. 3209) during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on “Legislative Proposals to Strengthen Consumer Protection in a Changing Marketplace.” The bipartisan bill, introduced alongside Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-FL-03) last year, would open up the mobile app marketplace to real competition.
“Smartphones are the front door to modern life, but Apple and Google control that door. Together, their operating systems power more than 99 percent of U.S. smartphones. Apple controls all native iOS app distribution in this country, while Google controls roughly 90 percent of Android app distribution,” Congresswoman Trahan said. “That’s not a competitive market, it’s a duopoly. Apple and Google can force developers into their payment systems, charge commissions of up to 30 percent, block customers from hearing about lower prices, and give their own apps an edge. That means consumers pay more for less choice and less innovation.”
During the Committee hearing, Trahan spoke about the importance of the legislation. Footage of her remarks can be accessed HERE or by clicking the image below. A transcript is embedded below.

During her remarks, Trahan pointed out that just two companies – Apple and Google – control almost all of the app distribution on iOS and Android devices. Together, they have taken steps to eliminate competition, allowing them to set their own rules, charge extreme fees to app developers, and copy, punish, or outright block apps that they view as conflicting with their own business priorities.
The App Store Freedom Act would ensure that consumers have the ability to install third-party app stores, sideload apps, and delete pre-installed ones they don’t want. It would also give developers free, equal access to the tools they need to compete and stop dominant app stores from forcing developers into proprietary payment systems or punishing them for offering better deals elsewhere.
“H.R. 3209 does not set prices or pick winners,” Congresswoman Trahan continued. “It makes powerful gatekeepers compete, so consumers – not corporations – decide which apps and services work best for them.”
The bipartisan bill is backed by a broad coalition of small and medium sized developers and pro-consumer and pro-competition advocacy groups.
—————————————
Congresswoman Lori Trahan
Remarks as Delivered
House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing on “Legislative Proposals to Strengthen Consumer Protection in a Changing Marketplace”
July 22, 2026
Well. Thank you, Ranking Member Schakowsky, I also want to thank the Chairman.  Today I’m so glad to see H.R. 3209, the bipartisan App Store Freedom Act, on today’s agenda, and I’m grateful to my co-lead Congresswoman Kat Cammack for her tireless work on this bipartisan legislation.
Smartphones are the front door to modern life, but Apple and Google control that door. Together, their operating systems power more than 99 percent of U.S. smartphones. Apple controls all native iOS app distribution in this country, while Google controls roughly 90 percent of Android app distribution. That’s not a competitive market, it’s a duopoly.
Apple and Google can force developers into their payment systems, charge commissions of up to 30 percent, block customers from hearing about lower prices, and give their own apps an edge. That means consumers pay more for less choice and less innovation. A new economic analysis published this week quantifies the harm. Americans spend $52.3 billion annually through Apple and Google’s app stores. If competition pushed down app store fees, consumers could save about $8.9 billion each year.
The App Store Freedom Act targets only the largest gatekeepers and offers a pro-market fix.
It lets consumers choose alternative stores and default apps, install apps outside the dominant stores, and remove unwanted preloaded apps. It stops forced payment systems and gag rules, and it gives developers fair access to operating-system features so they can compete on merit. 
Opponents say exclusivity is the price of security. It’s not. They argue that opening app distribution and alternative app stores will invite malware, scams, and threats to children. And sure, alternative distribution can create risks if poorly managed, but the status quo is already unacceptable.  Documented scams and unsafe apps like nudify apps routinely slip through Apple’s and Google’s security reviews. The answer is strong safeguards, not permanent monopoly control.
To be absolutely clear, nothing in this bill forces someone to use an alternative app store.  Apple and Google can keep operating and vetting their own stores. It does not require them to provide support for third-party apps, and it preserves intellectual-property and national-security safeguards.
We know openness and security can coexist. Google’s Play Protect scans Android apps from outside its store and Apple secures software outside the Mac App Store. Competition could also produce safer choices, including stores designed specifically for families and children.
Security is an engineering challenge, not a monopoly entitlement.
H.R. 3209 does not set prices or pick winners. It makes powerful gatekeepers compete, so consumers – not corporations – decide which apps and services work best for them.
Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Bilirakis today is an important first step. I urge the committee to continue to work with Congresswoman Cammack and myself to break the duopoly and allow competition in the mobile app space. American consumers have waited long enough.
###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (IL-14)

WASHINGTON – This week, Rep. Lauren Underwood’s bipartisan NIH IMPROVE Act to ensure consistent funding for research on disparities in maternal care and mortality passed the House with unanimous support. The legislation is co-led by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA).

The NIH IMPROVE Act is part of the Momnibus, a comprehensive package of 14 pieces of legislation designed to address every clinical and nonclinical driver of our nation’s maternal health crisis.

“80% of maternal deaths are preventable—and the NIH IMPROVE Initiative is a key tool to stop them. I am so pleased that this critical legislation for moms and families has passed the House. The Momnibus continues to make incredible progress, and this leap puts us one step closer to seeing the entire package signed into law,” said Rep. Underwood. “Since 2019, IMPROVE has invested more than $200 million in life-saving research that will help end our nation’s maternal health crisis, which disproportionately impacts Black moms. This bipartisan legislation will advance maternal health research by permanently authorizing funding for this initiative and make sure NIH can continue this critical work.”

In early 2019, Co-Chairs Adams and Underwood met with then-Director Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to urge the agency to do more to prioritize research that will help solve our maternal health crisis. In response, NIH launched the Implementing a Maternal Health and Pregnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE) Initiative later that year. Since then, Rep. Underwood has increased funding for the program five-fold through the appropriations process. For more information and a complete list of awards, click here. 

The IMPROVE Initiative supports research to reduce preventable causes of maternal deaths, understand and reduce disparities, and improve health care for women before, during, and after pregnancy. It includes a special emphasis on health disparities and populations that are disproportionately affected, such as racial and ethnic minorities, very young women and women of advanced maternal age, and people with disabilities. 

However, this critical research program lacks a sustained funding source, threatening research outcomes and conclusions. The NIH IMPROVE Act would authorize $63.4 million annually for six years to carry out the IMPROVE Initiative and support research on potential causes of maternal mortality and severe morbidity. This funding would be used to target disparities associated with maternal mortality and severe morbidity, reduce preventable causes of maternal deaths, and build an evidence base for improved care and outcomes in underserved maternal care deserts.   

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)

Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) and House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) led 70 House Democrats in demanding that the National Park Service (NPS) immediately address its reported backlog of 1,400 grant approvals, which has delayed more than $360 million in funding for critical projects that keep national parks safe and accessible to the American public.

In a letter addressed to NPS Acting Director Jessica Bowron, the lawmakers warned that the grant approval bottleneck is delaying routine but essential work, including trail maintenance, wildfire mitigation, and other projects during peak visitation and wildfire risk season.

The Members pointed to a new grant process that requires two political appointees to manually review every grant and agreement over $50,000. Members stressed this review process has resulted in more than $360 million in delayed NPS funding. The Members also noted this process bears similarities to review processes that were rolled back at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after findings they violated federal court orders.

“These delays are unacceptable. Nonprofit programs to clear trails have been delayed at the critical start of peak visitation season, while prescribed burns and other wildfire control programs are at risk of the same fate during peak wildfire risk season,” wrote the Members. “Choosing to make such grants contingent on review by unqualified political appointees puts the safety of the American people at risk, whether they choose to visit our national parks or simply live near them.”

The letter is signed by Representatives Becca Balint (D-VT), Nanette Barragán (D-CA), Wesley Bell (D-MO), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Salud Carbajal (D-CA), Andre Carson (D-IN), Ed Case (D-HI), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Herb Conaway (D-NJ), Jim Costa (D-CA), Angie Craig (D-MN), Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD), Laura Friedman (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Robert Garcia (D-CA), Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-IL), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), Pablo Hernández (D-PR),  Steven Horsford (D-NV), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Julie Johnson (D-TX), Robin Kelly (D-IL), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), April McClain Delaney (D-MD), Jennifer McClellan (D-VA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Dave Min (D-CA), Kelly Morrison (D-MN), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Seth Moulton (D-MA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Scott Peters (D-CA), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Lateefah Simon (D-CA), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), Mark Takano (D-CA), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Dina Titus (D-NV), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jill Tokuda (D-HI), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Gabe Vasquez (D-NM), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), George Whitesides (D-CA).

Full text of the letter follows below, and a signed copy is available here.

***

Dear Acting Director Bowron:

We write to request that National Park Service (NPS) immediately adjust its grant review process to address a reported 1,400 active grant approval backlog. According to public reports, NPS currently requires all grants and cooperative agreements valued at $50,000 or above to be manually reviewed by two political appointees. Those appointees serve at the department level and are not solely tasked with ensuring timely review of NPS grants and agreements, creating a severe bottleneck that has left more than $360 million in NPS funding behind schedule.

These delays are unacceptable. Nonprofit programs to clear trails have been delayed at the critical start of peak visitation season, while prescribed burns and other wildfire control programs are at risk of the same fate during peak wildfire risk season. Ensuring that those and similarly routine programs are funded during critical times of the year should be part of the regular operation of the National Park System. Choosing to make such grants contingent on review by unqualified political appointees puts the safety of the American people at risk, whether they choose to visit our national parks or simply live near them.

During the first Trump administration, the Government Accountability Office investigated DOI’s grants review process that was also run through an unqualified political appointee. They found that the appointee, an old football friend of then-Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, centralized grants review for all bureaus at DOI. He “closely scrutinized applications focused on certain topics, such as endangered species and climate change, rather than considering the merit of individual grant applications or program policy factors, such as leveraging resources between similar programs.” When he rejected grants, he kept his decisions off the books, hiding the truth from the American people and suggesting willful malfeasance.

The NPS decision bears striking similarities to other manual review processes that have been rolled back at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Last year, DHS instituted a manual grant review process that – similar to the reported NPS process – required additional review above a value threshold. That process delayed more than 1,000 FEMA contracts, grants, and disaster assistance awards. The delays came amid historic flooding in Texas and in the heart of the Atlantic hurricane season. After repeated findings that the process violated federal court orders, the DHS approval system was rolled back earlier this year.

We urge you to do the same at NPS, while also providing a full accounting of the current NPS grant and cooperative agreement backlog. It is a core responsibility of NPS to ensure that routine, lifesaving programs are funded on time and in full, while offering full transparency on the status of any delayed approvals. We request an update on NPS’ plans for its grant review process, as well as a full list of all grants and cooperative agreements in the approval backlog, no later than July 28, 2026.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (3rd District of Ohio)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (OH-03) today testified before a joint Democratic oversight shadow hearing hosted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, detailing her successful lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to rename the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and highlighting how the Administration continues to prioritize costly vanity projects over the needs of the American people.

During the hearing, titled “Monumental Waste,” Beatty recounted her legal challenge to protect the Kennedy Center and defend the rule of law after Trump-appointed trustees unlawfully stripped ex officio board members of their voting rights and voted to rename the institution.

“My testimony is about not allowing this unlawful act, protecting the rule of law, and standing up for the only living memorial to John F. Kennedy,” Beatty said. “It’s about whether powerful people can rewrite history, seize public institutions, and silence dissent.”

As an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, Beatty filed Beatty v. Trump in December 2025 after being muted during the board meeting in which trustees voted to rename the Kennedy Center. In May 2026, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled in her favor, restoring her voting rights, ordering Trump’s name removed from the building, and blocking the Administration’s planned two-year closure of the Kennedy Center.

Beatty also reflected on witnessing the removal of the unlawful signage outside the Kennedy Center after the court’s order.

“Justice has prevailed. I have not been silenced, I am no longer prevented from attending and voting in board meetings, and the name has come down,” Beatty said.

Beatty concluded by contrasting the Administration’s focus on vanity projects with the economic challenges facing American families.

“In these difficult times, American people deserve better than a President who is more focused on slapping his name on buildings than helping lower the cost of groceries,” Beatty said. “I would have much rather been here focusing on affordability and helping working families, rather than discussing Trump’s vanity projects and petty acts of defiance.”

Watch Congresswoman Beatty’s opening testimony HERE. 

 

###