MIL USHOR-2b Engine

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sharice Davids (KS-3)

Davids Also Secures Funds to Expand Truck Driver Training and Tackle Workforce Shortage

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Bill Foster (11th District of Illinois)

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced a resolution that calls on the Secretary of Defense to authorize Dreamers to serve in the armed services.

“For many Dreamers, the United States is the only home they have ever known. Every American deserves the right to serve their country through military service, and Dreamers should be no exception,” said Foster. “Allowing Dreamers to enlist would ensure our armed forces benefit from some of our nation’s best and brightest young minds. I strongly encourage the Secretary of Defense to review the current policy and authorize these patriotic individuals to serve their country.”

A copy of the resolution can be found here. 

Cosponsors of the resolution include Representatives Dina Titus (D-NV), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Marc Veasey (D-TX), and Lou Correa (D-CA).

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Bill Foster (11th District of Illinois)

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, issued the following statement:

“Without a stable, responsible, and independent monetary policy, the United States risks losing the primacy of the U.S. dollar and becoming uninvestable. Trump’s politically-driven ‘investigation’ of the Federal Reserve is a deliberate assault on that independence.

“There is no more important financial role of Congress than preserving the independence of the Federal Reserve, and Democrats, at least, understand what is at stake and are willing to fight to preserve the integrity of the U.S. monetary system.”

“This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress’s oversight role; the Fed through testimony and other public disclosures made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.”

 ###

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 Congressman Mark Messmer (R-Ind.) to call out Congressional Democrats’ record of failure when it comes to lowering costs for hardworking Americans. Leader Scalise also touted the work by President Trump and House Republicans to decrease costs by making housing more affordable, unleashing American energy production, cutting wasteful spending, and addressing increasing health care premiums.

Click here or the image above to view Leader Scalise’s full remarks.
On House Republicans’ work to lower costs:“We have another busy week on the House floor addressing problems that were created under Joe Biden, dealing with cost of living. As our conference chair, Lisa McClain, talked about, we have brought so many bills to start unraveling the damage that Joe Biden created that led to all these cost increases in so many areas, to finally start bringing them down, so we could put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans. You look at a great housing package last week to lower housing costs. Bills that came out of French Hill’s committee to address some of those problems. We have some more bills coming out of the Financial Services Committee to address that problem. This week, we’re bringing a number of bills that came out of Education and Workforce to help workers, to help small business owners, to address some of the rules and regulations that added so much to the cost of things when you go buy things all across the spectrum.”On Democrats’ record of failure on affordability:“It’s really interesting when you hear Democrats yelling and screaming about the cost of things. My question is, where were those Democrats when they were jacking up all those costs on families for four years under Joe Biden? Did Democrats forget, and do they think voters are going to forget, that under Joe Biden for four years, gas prices doubled? Yes, doubled. Did they forget that under Joe Biden for four years, mortgage rates doubled? Where were the Democrats who are complaining now, then when they were helping jack up with all their spending and their corruption that they supported, and then those mortgage rates affected hardworking families under Democrat control here in Washington? Inflation under Joe Biden hit its highest level in 40 years. Where were those Democrats that are talking about it now as it’s finally going down? Where were they when they were jacking it up? Interest rates reached their highest level in 22 years. Oh, and by the way, under Joe Biden and Democrats, when they were running this town, real take-home pay by workers had decreased under Biden by $3,000. Less money in your pockets under Joe Biden, and not a word, crickets, from Democrats in Washington.”On fixing the mess that Joe Biden and Democrats created:“Now, when you hear them, what they’re really complaining about is the fact that Donald Trump is working with a Republican [Congress] to finally mop up the mess they created to lower those costs, think about this: Gas prices at their lowest level in five years. Five years. And by the way, it wasn’t just magic and pixie dust that did that. It was real policies that every Democrat voted no on to lower gas prices. We, Republicans, lowered gas prices. Every Democrat voted no. Not most of them, not some of them. Every single one of them.“We brought a bill to lower health care costs. You’ve heard a lot about that from Democrats, right? There was a bill on the House floor just a few weeks ago to lower health care costs by 11%, according to CBO. Every single Democrat voted no on that bill.“Core inflation is at its lowest level today in five years. Five years. Democrats voted against all the bills that we passed to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, which had a lot to do with lowering inflation. Everybody knows when you saw Democrats go on this crazy spending spree for four years, trillions of dollars in new spending, jacking up inflation, we finally said, we’re going to get control over spending. And not only that, we’re going to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. And guess what? Every Democrat voted no on those bills.“And by the way, what is the ultimate result for families? And we’re just getting started, by the way, we’re not even at one year of President Trump’s next term in office. Real wages, that’s money in your pockets. It was down $3,000 under Joe Biden. Under just the first year of Donald Trump, real wages are up, up, $1,200. More money, real money in the pockets of hardworking families, and every Democrat voted no. I can see why they’re yelling and screaming. They don’t want the American people to know not only what’s happening to finally unravel and mop up the mess they created after four years. They don’t want the American people to know that they have voted no every step of the way to fix the mess they created.”

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

“I thank the gentleman for recognizing me. I presume this is a message amendment. I presume that because I know that the gentleman who offered it is bright, knowledgeable, and knows this amendment is clearly unconstitutional. I’m sure he’s read the Constitution. He talks about it from time to time, and, of course, the language of the Constitution is very clear for exactly the reason that the founders did not want us to be able to monetarily penalize them for judgments with which we disagreed because they wanted an independent judiciary; ‘a nation of laws, not of men.‘ A nation of laws that are not compromised by threats of cutting salaries, changing lifestyles so that the judiciary would be unlike England, who had a king who made the laws, [but] that it would be the Parliament and the courts. So, I would suggest that we withdraw this amendment. With all due respect to my friend from Texas, because surely, he would not want to go against the Constitution of the United States of America.
 
“I also want to say that I am honored to serve as the Ranking Member. I’d rather be Chairman, but I’m honored to serve as the Ranking Member with the distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Joyce. And, if he would like me to yield to him now, I will. If not, I want to thank him for his leadership of our committee, which has been collegial and positive, and I think has led to this resolution today. But I urge strenuously – and by the way, let me mention to the gentleman from Texas, he is protected by the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman, Mr. Sessions, from the great state. I want to tell him that the gentleman who offered this amendment is protected by that same Constitution of the United States from having this done to him. And surely, he would want to do unto others as he would want done to him. I urge strenuously [for] the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered remarks on the House Floor in support of the Fiscal Year 2026 FSGG Appropriations bill. Below are a video and transcript of his remarks:

Click here to watch a video of his remarks.

“I thank the former Chair and Ranking Member for yielding. I thank her for her work. I thank Mr. Cole for his work. Anybody who knows me knows that I am opposed to CRs, but I am for keeping the government open if those are the only alternatives. Mr. Speaker, this would not be my bill, but I think probably most of the Members on this Floor can say that. But it is a bill that cooperatively has been made better, I think, as it has passed through the House and the Senate in conference. It provides increases for several key programs for the American people; that includes a $13 million increase over the Fiscal Year 25 enacted level for entrepreneurial development programs at the Small Business Administration. The Ranking Member mentioned that program, but critically important to our communities and to the small business community. This bill also increases funding for elections security grants by $30 million. I created that program along with Bob Ney from Ohio when we passed the Help America Vote Act. We all want to make sure our elections are run well.

“At that point in time, we distributed to the states over $3 billion. This is $45 billion – $45 million for 50 states. Not a lot of money, but it is proper for the federal government to help pay for the elections that are run by the locals that include United States Senators and Members of Congress. The judiciary, Mr. Chairman, receives $584 million, or 6.2% increase over [Fiscal Year] 25 enacted, which is what they asked for. And the reason we wanted to do that is to make sure that the courts can act efficiently, effectively, and justly. We also included $142 million, or a 19% increase for court security. Unfortunately, and we see in our streets today, we are living in [an] era in which violence is too often [resorted] to. Crucially, the bill fixes the funding hole for federal public defender services – which are constitutionally required – providing an increase of $315 million, or 22%, over the [Fiscal Year] 25 enacted level to meet constitutional responsibilities. Other programs at the Department of Treasury, including the Community Development Financial Institutions [Fund], so critical for small communities and communities of little means, were flat funded in their Fiscal Year 25 enacted level instead of being eliminated. So, while it is not everything we would want, it is a vast improvement over what was requested.

“Even still, Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues may notice my lack of enthusiasm for this final bill. This bill is $1 billion, or 9% cut to the Internal Revenue Service below the Fiscal Year 2025 enacted [level] is particularly concerning to me, and I made this point I think every time we consider this bill, and I might say that we tried to overcome this deficiency and have not yet done that. It includes a $438 million, or 8%, cut to enforcement. Now, what does cutting enforcement [mean]? It means that we have gone from 9% in looking at tax returns over $1 million to 6/10 of a percent. What incentive is that to people who make a lot of money and who try to avoid taxation? The little guy has to pick up the tab. Mr. Speaker, that cut will cost the American people dearly by making it easier for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations to avoid paying the taxes they owe under existing law. Nevertheless, this bill is better than what it otherwise would have been. IRS data indicates that every $1 produces $7. [A] Harvard study shows that for the top 10% every dollar invested in enforcement brings us $12 in additional revenue in taxes owed but not paid. Who will have to pick up the tab? As I said, hardworking Americans who dutifully pay their taxes. If you’re serious about fiscal responsibility as I am and as I think many are – if you’re serious, you have to be serious about collecting revenue that’s due in owing. That means funding the IRS, which has been understaffed and under-resourced [for] far too long.

“Now, I’m concerned not only by the IRS, but also the FBI. For two decades, I’ve worked to help the FBI move out of the crumbling, unhealthy J. Edgar Hoover building and into a new consolidated headquarters that meets its security and operational needs. The Administration has decided to move the FBI from [an] inadequate 51-year-old building to [an] inadequate 28- year-old building. The Reagan Building’s exposed location and its design as an accessible public-private facility would greatly undermine the FBI’s security. I will continue to work on that throughout the year that I have remaining to me. There was language in the CJS bill that I wanted the Rules Committee to include the same exact language saying simply that we would oversee the plans of the GSA and the FBI before we spent money. That was the responsible thing to do. I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, that we did not do it, but I am going to support this bill.”

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered remarks on the House Floor in support of his amendment to the FY 2026 FSGG Appropriations bill that would ensure the General Services Administration (GSA), in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), submits a contracted and completed architectural and engineering plan for the Ronald Reagan Building to ensure any future FBI Headquarters meets the highest security tier for federal buildings. Below are video and transcript of his remarks:
 

Click here to watch a video of his remarks.

“I thank the gentlelady for her comments, and I thank her for her support of my amendment, and I regret that my amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee. But, that is not uncommon. An overwhelming majority of Democratic amendments are rejected irrespective of merit, and I suggest to you that this amendment comports with the debate that I heard in the Rules Committee [hearing] yesterday. And the substance of that debate was, ‘We need oversight. We need to make sure that we know what we’re doing.’ We need to make sure that what the Administration or any administration is asking for comports with the policies of the Congress of the United States. If we defeat the previous question, we will offer an amendment to the rule that allows the House to simply consider an amendment concerning the FBI headquarters. And I will speak more on that matter later, of course, but I’m deeply concerned that moving the FBI to the Reagan Building, as this Administration plans to do, would greatly undermine the FBI’s security.

“This is a picture of the Murrah building in Oklahoma in 1995. A guy named McVeigh drove a step van up to the street of the Murrah building and blew it up, killing 168 people, injuring over 800 people. (Points to poster) That is a major artery in front of the Murrah building. The Reagan Building was designed as an open and public-private building – let me see the Reagan Building – as a public-private building with public access, public accommodation, [the] public coming into the building for eating. It has a big cafeteria. It has a big parking lot that the public uses and is used by City Hall, which is located right in the middle – or not in the middle, but surrounded by the Reagan Building. The amendment that I have simply says, ‘Let’s not spend any money on moving the F.B.I. to this building’ – which the Murrah building makes very clear, and is why the FBI Director came to me in 2009 to have this facility, the FBI building, moved to a place where you can have security.

“We have some numbers of security organizations. They are all located either in the suburbs or at Bolling Air Force Base. Bolling Air Force Base, of course, is a secured piece of much, much acreage and so they are not subject to that risk. All of these agencies, including the CIA at Langley, including other agencies, four of which are in Virginia, are so that those agencies can be as secure as we can possibly make them and we will not lose people – FBI agents, CIA agents, NSA agents, whoever – and that we will have those facilities in a secure place. And all this amendment says [is]: ‘Show us the plan to keep our people secure.’ [As] the gentlelady, my friend from North Carolina, said, and I believe she’s accurate, we’re all concerned about the lives of people, be they government employees or not.

“This amendment says, ‘Present us the information, GSA and FBI, that shows us that, in fact, you can make the Reagan building safe for a security agency.’ If the motion is defeated for the previous question, we will offer that simple amendment and give everybody in this Congress the ability to stand up and say, ‘Yes, we want to know information before we make this critical decision.’ It’s not partisan, it’s not ideological. It is simply doing what the Congress is responsible to do, and that is have oversight and make judgments based upon the best information they can receive. One additional minute? In closing, let me emphasize that this is consistent with what all of us say and was said in the committee yesterday. Miss Houchin said it particularly well, and others on the committee said they want the information necessary to make solid decisions. If we adopt my amendment, that will accomplish that objective. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and for the Hoyer amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”
 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

WASHINGTON, DC – This week, Congressmen Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of Denmark Caucus, Bill Keating (MA-09), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Europe, Don Bacon (NE-02), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation, and Brendan F. Boyle (PA-02), Lead Democrat for the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, introduced the No Funds for NATO Invasion Act to prohibit the use of federal funds for an invasion of any NATO member state or NATO-protected territory.

“The No Funds for NATO Invasion Act makes clear to our allies and partners, as well as those around the world, that it is unacceptable to invade the territory of an ally of the United States. It is important to remember that for almost 80 years, NATO has been the foundation for peace and cooperation between the United States and our European allies. Without question, it has led to greater economic opportunity, enhanced safety and security measures, and peace with our allies that has had a direct impact on every American’s life,” said the Members of Congress. “This bipartisan legislation, which prohibits the use of any funds to invade a NATO member state or NATO-protected territory, demonstrates the strong commitment in the House of Representatives to support our NATO allies. We must cease the inflammatory rhetoric, work together to take advantage of our shared opportunities, and, most importantly, to counter the real threats from those who do not share our values.”

The No Funds for NATO Invasion Act would:

• Prohibit any federal funds from being made available for the invasion of a NATO member state or any territory protected by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
   
• Prohibit any officer or employee of the United States from taking any action to execute an invasion of a NATO member state or any territory protected by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty

Original Cosponsors Include: Dina Titus (NV-1), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Madeleine Dean (PA-4), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Joe Courtney (CT-2), Sarah McBride (DE-AL), Johnny Olszewski Jr. (MD-2), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Christopher R. Deluzio (PA-17), Julie Johnson (TX-32), Wesley Bell (MO-1), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Gabe Amo (RI-1), Jim Costa (CA-21), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Eric Swalwell (CA-14), Marcy Kaptur (OH-9), Jason Crow (CO-6), Brad Sherman (CA-32), Marc Veasey (TX-33), Greg Stanton (AZ-4), Ami Bera (CA-6).

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered remarks at a U.S. House Committee on Rules hearing in support of an amendment to the FY 2026 FSGG Appropriations bill that would ensure the General Services Administration (GSA), in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), submits a contracted and completed architectural and engineering plan for the Ronald Reagan building and ensure any future FBI Headquarters meets the highest security tier for federal buildings. Below are a video and transcript of his remarks:
 

Click here to watch a full video of his remarks.

“Madam Chair, thank you very, very much. I do feel strongly about the Appropriations Committee, on which I’ve served since January of 1983 – with 20 years off to be either the Majority Leader or Minority Whip. Distinguished Members of the committee, I think this amendment speaks to much of what this discussion has been about in terms of accountability, oversight, and making proper fiscally sound decisions. I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on an amendment that I’ve submitted to the committee. 

“For nearly two decades, I’ve worked – since 2009, to be specific – to move the FBI out of the dilapidated J. Edgar Hoover building and into a new consolidated facility that meets the bureau’s operational and security needs. The Reagan Building, where this administration plans on moving the FBI, in my view, does not satisfy that objective. The building is highly exposed [to] 14th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, you all know that they are very, very busy through ways, exposing it to a major pedestrian thoroughfare as well. There’s also a passageway connecting the building to the Federal Triangle Metro station. The Metro, I believe, runs underneath it. Critically, the Reagan Building was designed as an easily accessible – I was on the committee when we did the Reagan building – private, public facility open to the public. Big cafeteria, big parking for the public, and an atrium that is very large. Some of you have been in it for banquets or such things. It was built before 1995. Now, the reason I mentioned 1995 is because we had a tragic event in a federal building. The federal building was called the Murrah Building. (Holds up photo) The Murrah Building was bombed by a single individual in a van in Oklahoma City. I’ve got copies of this for the entire committee, Madam Chair. And 338 people were killed, 1800 people were injured, and hundreds of billions – not billions – hundreds of buildings were damaged in the residual conflagration that occurred.

“The Director of the FBI came to me – I was then the Majority Leader, this was 2009 – and said to me, ‘We’ve got to have a new building. The building’s falling down.’ There is no disagreement. The building was falling down in 2009. We’re now 17 years later. The building needs to be torn down and replaced, sold, perhaps, to the private sector. The Director of the FBI said we need to meet security standards. We cannot be on a street where a bomb can go off and devastate our people. The Congress has provided that the Interagency Security Committee Facility Security Level Five standards be applied in this case. My amendment would require the FBI and GSA – the CJS bill that we passed covers the CJS, the bill that I, the Ranking Member of Financial Services, covers GSA. GSA will actually build or rebuild, or refashion the Reagan building, if, in fact, that occurs.  What this amendment says [is] to submit to the Appropriations Committee an architectural and engineering plan that can resolve the Reagan Building’s security deficiencies, which everybody agrees, including, Madam Chair, the Four Corners of the Financial Services Committee in the Senate and in the House. I don’t believe that anybody has given me a reason substantively why this amendment is not appropriate. Any classified portions of that plan would be submitted through the classified annex. So, there may be classified parts of it. The CJS bill, which passed the House with strong bipartisan support – 375 to 47, and the final passage of 392 to 28 – had this language in it. The language that I’m asking you to adopt for the Financial Services bill that deals with GSA is the same in the CJS bill dealing with the FBI.

“This is simple due diligence, Madam Chair, I believe. Congress has already appropriated about $850 million to develop the site GSA selected, which happens to be in Greenbelt. Not in my district, but in Maryland. Clearly, we have a responsibility not to waste the taxpayers’ money on a 28-year-old building. Now, the FBI building is about 50 years old, but [a] 28-year-old building that can accommodate the FBI. Most importantly, we have a responsibility to provide for the safety of the brave men and women of the FBI who will be serving in the future in any such building. None of us wants to see a repeat of the Oklahoma bombing. The decision to move to the FBI building would make that horrific prospect, in my opinion, more, not less likely. We must do everything we can to ensure the FBI gets the facility it needs to perform its vital law enforcement and national security mission. (Holds up another photo) I’m giving this packet to you.

“First of all, let me say six of the seven security agencies are located outside D.C. Why? Because you cannot get the setback of 150ft that the security all around requires, and the campus type thing. So, the NSA, the two [buildings] are located on military bases, which are secure in and of themselves, the DIA and NSA. The National Geospatial [Intelligence Agency] is at Fort Belvoir, National Reconnaissance [is] in Chantilly, Virginia, in a site, as you can see from the pictures, I show you that. And then I show you the site that the GSA selected. (Begins to point at different parts of the photograph) It is a site with a parking lot on it and wetlands on it over here, and Metro here, which Congress required proximity for the FBI employees or any employees. I’ll show you that as well. That’s the site that GSA selected. Again, it’s in Maryland. The other five of those six are in Virginia. So, Madam Chair, I believe this is not a partisan [issue]. It simply says in the amendment, and I quote, ‘No money will be spent until the contracted and completed architectural engineering plan for the Federal Bureau of Investigation new headquarters building for review to the Appropriations Committee. Any classified portion of the architectural engineering plan should be submitted through a classified briefing.’ So – I’ll stop (laughs).

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09)

MEMPHIS – Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-9) will be among the speakers at Friday’s ribbon cutting for Northside Square, a major mixed-use project on the site of the former Northside High School. Congressman Cohen secured $1 million in fiscal year 2024 community project funding for Northside Square through the annual appropriations process to convert the vacant school into a community hub with affordable housing.

What: A ribbon cutting and celebration of Northside Square

Who: Speakers will include Congressman Cohen, Mayor Paul Young, representatives of The Works Inc. and ComCap Partners, prospective tenants and others

When: Friday, January 16, at 10:30 a.m.

Where: 1212 Vollintine Avenue (38107)

Please RSVP to Congressman Cohen’s communications director at Bartholomew.Sullivan@mail.house.gov

# # #