MIL USHOR-2b Engine

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Earl L Buddy Carter (GA-01)

Headline: Carter supports House Republican passage of life-saving ICE, Border Patrol funding

WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA) today delivered the following statement after casting a key vote in favor of the Secure America Act, a budget reconciliation bill that fully funds Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through 2029, which passed the House without a single Democrat voting in support:

“Protecting our homeland is the number one responsibility of the federal government, and House Republicans, under President Trump’s leadership, have refused to take our eyes off the ball as we deliver a safe, strong, and prosperous America. Despite Democrats’ months-long attempts to delay and disrupt law enforcement activity, zero illegals have been released into our country in the past year. That is a success, and in our fight to recover from the millions of illegals and drugs the Biden administration allowed to pour into our country unchecked, there is no room for error or for the radical left to turn off the tap once again. 

“That’s why I was proud to support this necessary, life-saving bill, which provides full and stable funding to ICE and Border Patrol through 2029, and will continue to stand with the brave law enforcement agents who fight pure evil in defense of our home, our democracy, our borders, our lives, and our freedoms.  

“Linda Davis. Danny Sharpe. Laken Riley. How many more Georgians must die before Democrats will take our border security seriously?”

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE)

Today, Congressman Adrian Smith (NE-03) released the following statement after the House passage of the Secure America Act:  
 
“I supported the Secure America Act to ensure that our brave federal law enforcement officers have the resources they need to keep Americans safe. This legislation provides long-overdue funding and prevents Democrats from derailing continued efforts to keep our border secure. I look forward to seeing President Trump sign it into law as we continue to work together to defend our nation from the threats we face.”   

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

Revered civil rights organization the focus of false, right-wing allegations of antisemitism

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (9th District of Illinois)

Full Text of Bill (PDF)

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) introduced the No Toxics in Food Packaging Act, legislation to ban some of the most dangerous toxic chemicals from food packaging and food processing materials. The bill targets chemicals that have been linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other serious health risks.

“Consumers should be able to trust that the food they put on their tables is safe. Yet harmful chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and other serious health risks continue to be used in food packaging, exposing Americans to unnecessary dangers. These toxic substances have no place anywhere near our food,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. “This crucial legislation would finally ban some of the most hazardous chemicals used in food packaging and food processing materials. We must act now to protect public health, strengthen consumer safety, and ensure that the American people, not corporate interests, come first.”

“Our measure keeps cancer-causing toxins like PFAS and asbestos out of food packaging and processing materials,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal. “Toxic chemicals linked to breast cancer and hormone disruption should be nowhere near our food. By banning these substances from food packaging, our legislation will give consumers peace of mind that the products in their pantries and fridges are not a risk to their health.”

“Americans are waking up to a vast number of toxic substances that contaminate their food regularly and they are rightfully demanding action, especially in wake of an Administration that has done little to protect American’s health” said Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. “Toxic substances must be banned from food packaging – Americans deserve the peace of mind that the products they buy are not increasing their risk of cancer or hormone disruption. We know that exposure to dangerous ‘forever chemicals’ from food packaging increases health risks. It is time we eliminate that risk altogether. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Congresswoman Schakowsky. We must lower the risk of cancer and other detrimental effects and protect Americans’ health.”

Despite mounting scientific evidence about the dangers these substances pose, many continue to be used in materials that come into contact with food. The No Toxics in Food Packaging Act would prohibit the use of PFAS, ortho-phthalates, bisphenols such as BPA, and other harmful chemicals in food-contact materials, helping reduce unnecessary exposure and better protect public health.

“Federal law has been clear for decades: chemicals shown to cause cancer should not be approved for use in food-contact materials,” said Nancy Buermeyer, Director of Program and Policy at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. “Yet here we are — carcinogens remain authorized in food packaging and processing equipment used every day by Americans. The No Toxics in Food Packaging Act closes that gap and puts a simple principle back where it belongs: your family’s health comes before chemical industry profits.”

“No one should have to worry about cancer-causing chemicals in their food, yet food packaging used every day contains notorious toxics such as methylene chloride, asbestos, formaldehyde and TCE. For decades, the FDA has neglected its responsibility to enforce the legal ban on the use of carcinogens in food,” said Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at Environmental Defense Fund. “We applaud Rep. Schakowsky, Rep. DeLauro, and Sen. Blumenthal for introducing the No Toxics in Food Packaging Act to get these harmful chemicals out of our food supply for good.”

Additional cosponsors of the No Toxics in Food Packaging Act include U.S. Representatives Nanette Barragán (CA-44), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-At Large), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), as well as U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

The legislation is endorsed by the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Environmental Defense Fund, California Environmental Voters, CalPIRG, Center for Environmental Health, Consumer Reports, Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Plastics, Center for Food Safety, Clean Earth 4 Kids, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Clean Water Action.

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ted Lieu (33 District of California)

WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County) issued the following statement after the House passed a provision he authored to enhance subnational diplomacy. The House-passed provision establishes an Office of Subnational Diplomacy, which will be responsible for working with subnational governments — state, county, city, and municipal — within the United States to improve the ability of those governments to attract foreign investment, counter foreign malign influence within the United States, and contribute to the foreign policy priorities of the United States. The Office will be led by a Coordinator to carry out a set of defined roles and responsibilities. The Office will be co-located with the Office of Foreign Missions – Los Angeles.

“I’m pleased that the House has passed my provision to formally establish the Office of Subnational Diplomacy under the Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment. Diplomatic relationships between local officials and international partners are a fundamental engine for economic and cultural exchange in our country. We must make sure the federal government can support cities and states as they navigate these relationships. I look forward to continuing to advocate for strong subnational diplomacy.”

Congressman Lieu is a champion of subnational diplomacy and has authored bills to empower the State Department to support these efforts. In 2022, Congressman Lieu authored an article on the importance of subnational diplomacy for the Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation. Read Subnational Diplomacy: The Key to Strengthening U.S. International Relations.

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ted Lieu (33 District of California)

LOS ANGELES – On Saturday, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County) held the 2026 Youth Town Hall and announced that applications for the 36th Congressional District’s Youth Advisory Council are now open and will be accepted through Friday, June 26, 2026. The Youth Advisory Council provides a unique opportunity for students to meet with a diverse group of peers, discuss issues of importance and consider ways of getting involved locally. They will recommend bills for the Congressman to cosponsor and brainstorm bill ideas of their own. The group will work directly with Congressman Lieu’s staff to collaborate on key issues impacting young people in California’s 36th district. Students in 9th through 12th grade that live or attend school in the district are eligible to apply.

“I’m pleased to announce that applications for our 2026-2027 Youth Advisory Council are now open! Our district is home to many bright young individuals who are passionate about public service and eager to get involved, and our Youth Advisory Council provides a forum for them to do just that. Each year, I am grateful to work with these inspiring individuals to ensure young voices are heard in Washington. I look forward to welcoming a new group of students to our Youth Advisory Council and encourage all interested students to apply!”

Interested students can apply here. You can view the 2025-2026 Youth Advisory Council’s Youth Town Hall here. 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

In wake of Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s request to the federal government for expedited disaster assistance for Virginia farmers, U.S. Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) is part of a Virginia Congressional delegation effort to urge U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins to approve expedited disaster assistance. In two letters to Secretary Rollins, Griffith writes with Virginia lawmakers to detail the importance of a Secretarial Disaster Designation to help Virginia farmers recover.

Commenting on his request to Secretary Rollins, Congressman Griffith issued the following statement:

“Agriculture is a focal point of the economy for Ninth District communities. This spring, farmers in our region faced a mix of frost and freeze events that resulted in devastating crop losses. Local farming businesses are in danger of suffering harmful economic consequences.

“Accordingly, I am helping lead federal engagement that urges Secretary Rollins to provide disaster relief for Virginia farmers. 

“As someone who serves rural and agricultural communities, I will continue to advocate for policies that help Virginia farmers, cattlemen and foresters.”

BACKGROUND

Copies of both letters can be found here and here.

In April, Congressman Griffith voted in favor of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. This bill would help support the agricultural needs of Ninth District farmers, ranchers and rural communities.

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN)

WASHINGTON – Workforce Protections Subcommittee Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (MN-05) delivered the following opening statement at today’s Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing entitled, “On Call for America: Strengthening Access Through Locum Tenens Providers.”

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.

“Today’s hearing is being presented as a discussion about expanding access to health care, particularly in rural communities.   I think it’s fair to say that we all agree that rural America is facing serious and unique health care challenges.  Too many communities struggle with provider shortages, hospital closures, and limited access to care.  Those problems deserve serious discussion and real solutions.

“However, misclassifying health care workers and stripping them of their worker protections and benefits will not solve any of those struggles.

“Across the country, hospitals and health care businesses are increasingly looking for ways to cut labor costs by shifting away from direct employer-employee relationships.  Instead, they are relying more heavily on outsourced subcontractors, temporary staffing arrangements, and workers [misclassified] as independent contractors.  The result is often the same:  employers reduce their responsibilities and their bottom line, while workers lose critical rights and protections.

“My colleagues may argue that automatically classifying some physicians and advanced practice providers as independent contractors will increase flexibility and help address workforce shortages.  But flexibility should not come at the expense of fundamental workplace safety and security. 

“When classified as independent contractors, worker[s] can lose access to overtime pay, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and the right to collectively bargain for better working condition[s]. Those protections exist for a reason, even for highly educated professionals such as physicians and nurse practitioners.  They help ensure that the people caring for our families can earn a living wage, work in safe environments, and have a voice on the job.  And it’s important to recognize that these temporary staffing arrangements often create challenges for patient care. 

“Despite temporary staffing arrangements becoming increasingly more common, many workers report receiving little or no orientation before beginning assignments.  They may not know where supplies are located, how to navigate patient record systems, or who to contact when problems arise. 

“The data shows that temporary nurses are assigned the most difficult units and are expected to perform without adequate support.  Those conditions are difficult for workers and potentially hurt patients or reduce quality of care. 

“For the sake of the workers and the patients, Congress should not be promoting these types of temporary staffing arrangements in health care.   

“Unfortunately, H.R. 8347 would do just that.  It would create a special carveout that allows employers to avoid responsibilities that apply in virtually every other workplace.  And it would replace long-standing legal standards with a blanket rule that makes it easier to classify health care professionals as independent contractors, regardless of the realities of their working relationship. 

“We all agree that rural health care has unique needs.  Rural hospitals often operate on thin margins and face persistent staffing shortages.  And unfortunately, these challenges have been exacerbated by the cruel cuts of Medicaid and student loans included in H.R. 1. 

“The nearly $1 trillion cuts made to [Medicaid] threaten the financial stability of rural hospitals and clinics that already operate on razor-thin margins, increasing the risk of service reductions, workforce shortages, and even facility closings. 

“As people lose access to health coverage and federal funding declines, rural families may face longer travel times for care, fewer health care providers, and greater barriers to accessing essential services such as emergency care, maternity care, and behavioral health treatment. 

“Instead of weakening protections for the health care workforce, Congress should explore targeted investments, workforce development programs, provider training opportunities, loan repayment assistance, and other measures to help recruit and retain health care professionals in underserved communities.

“The dedicated workforce we are talking about today is the backbone of our health care system.  They deserve policies that value their contributions, protect their rights, and support high-quality patient care.  

“Thank you, and I yield back.”

###

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

June 09, 2026

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, are demanding answers from the U.S. Forest Service about its current and planned use of glyphosate-based herbicides on federal forestlands.

Their letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz follows a yearlong Mother Jones investigation that raised serious questions about the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, on public and private forestlands, particularly in areas recovering from wildfire in California. The reporting detailed plans for large-scale spraying in national forests, including areas near trails, campgrounds, waterways, and communities, while also highlighting concerns about the scientific basis and oversight behind the agency’s continued use of the chemical.

“Given the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use,” Huffman and Pingree wrote.

In the letter, Huffman and Pingree request information on how frequently glyphosate is used on Forest Service land, what criteria determine when and where spraying occurs, which forests are treated, and how current acreage compares to five and ten years ago.

The lawmakers also ask whether the Forest Service has assessed glyphosate residues in soil, water, or wildlife in and around treated areas; evaluated potential human health harms; established a publicly accessible database of herbicide use; and coordinated with state, tribal, local, and water officials before application.

The letter further presses the agency on worker safety and exposure risks, including protections for Forest Service employees, firefighters, trail crews, contractors, and others who may enter treated areas. Huffman and Pingree also ask whether there have been reported worker illnesses, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints tied to glyphosate applications.

Finally, the lawmakers request details on whether the Forest Service has explored or piloted nonchemical or lower-toxicity alternatives to herbicide applications, what those findings showed, and what barriers may be limiting broader adoption.

The full letter is available here and is copied below.

The Mother Jones investigation found that the Forest Service is moving forward with major glyphosate spraying projects in California, including in post-fire recovery areas. It also highlighted that the Forest Service continues to rely on a 2011 risk assessment that cited a now-retracted study on glyphosate safety, which the journal withdrew after determining the named authors were not solely responsible for the paper and that it relied entirely on Monsanto data.

+++

Dear Chief Schultz,

We are writing to request information regarding the U.S. Forest Service’s current and planned use of glyphosate-based herbicides on federal forestlands. Recent reporting has raised questions about the scale, frequency, and oversight of glyphosate application on Forest Service land, as well as the scientific basis for its continued use on forest land. Given the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use.

Please provide the following information:

1. Current Usage:

• How frequently are glyphosate applications conducted on Forest Service land, and what criteria determine when and where spraying occurs?

  • Is glyphosate used after seedlings are manually seeded or replanted or as a substitute for manual reforestation?

  • In post-fire applications, is glyphosate usage limited to areas where natural regeneration is likely, such as in low or moderate burn severity regions?

  • In post-fire applications of glyphosate, has the Forest Service analyzed the erosion impacts of glyphosate use and the corresponding reduction in soil stability?

• In which forests is glyphosate used, and for what purpose?

• What is the current acreage treated annually with glyphosate on Forest Service lands, and how does that compare to five and ten years ago?

2. Monitoring, Reporting, and Public Transparency

• Has the Forest Service conducted or commissioned assessments of glyphosate residues in soil, water, or wildlife in and surrounding treated areas?

• Has the Forest Service evaluated potential human health harms associated with the use of glyphosate?

• Does the Forest Service maintain a publicly accessible database of herbicide use, including quantities, locations, and application methods? If not, will the Forest Service establish such a database?

• What coordination occurs with state health and environmental departments, tribal governments, local governments, and water districts before glyphosate application?

3. Public Health and Environmental Risk Evaluation and Worker Safety

• What steps does the agency take to protect workers, campgrounds or other public facilities, nearby communities, and sensitive ecosystems during and after herbicide application?

• What protections are in place for Forest Service employees, firefighters, trail crews, and others who may need to enter treated areas?

• Have there been any reported worker illness incidents, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints associated with glyphosate applications?

4. Consideration of Alternatives

• Has the Forest Service explored or piloted non-chemical or lower-toxicity alternatives to herbicide applications? If so, what were the findings, and what barriers—financial, operational, or regulatory—limit broader adoption of these alternatives?

Given the public’s deep interest in the stewardship of our federally forested land, clear information on these questions would help build trust and ensure that management decisions reflect the best available science.

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. We look forward to better understanding how the Forest Service is evaluating glyphosate use and considering safer or more sustainable approaches to forest management.

Sincerely,

###

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

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) delivered opening remarks at the House Appropriations Full Committee Markup of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies FY 2027 bill. Below are a video and transcript of his remarks:

 

Click here to watch a video of his remarks.

“Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have been through markups on this bill as a member of the committee for about two and a half decades, and as Majority Leader and or Whip for the balance of my 45 years. So, this bill – as has been pointed out by our subcommittee Chair and by the Ranking Member in the first markup – means a lot to me. I went on this committee the day I went on the full committee and we chose committees, because I believe it is the committee that is at the heart of the strength and security of America. Certainly, the defense bill falls in that category, but no more than this bill. For as I’ve quoted Bill Natcher over and over again: ‘As long as you take care of the health of your people and the education of your children, you’ll continue to live in the strongest and best nation on earth.’

“Mr. Chairman, lamentably, I do not believe this bill reflects the kind of investment in that strength that this country needs. I want to thank my friend, the Ranking Member, for whom the annual Labor, Health, Education bill has been at the center of her work in this Congress. Her focus, as mine has been, is on children and women’s health, education, and yes, the welfare of our workers. This is the last Labor, HHS, Education appropriation I’ll be working on with all of you. I wish it could be one where we meet those promises and deliver what working families expect from us. The subcommittee Chairman mentioned, and as has been mentioned so often by our subcommittee Chairman and the full Chairman, you have to make tough choices. I think we all agree with that as appropriators. But the tough choices were made as to how much revenue you’re going to have available and what you’re going to pay for.

“In the ‘Big, Bad Bill,’ as we call it – you call it the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ – according to your desires, if dynamic scoring were applied – and that’s what you have suggested – that would have cost us $4.7 trillion in revenue. Static scoring would have been, ironically, less, $3.8 trillion. Either number is an extraordinary number and would fund the appropriation bill for at least three years. Sadly, we don’t make hard choices. What we do is we give significant tax cuts from no money that we have in excess, but from children, national security – although we don’t really do it out of national security because we make exceptions for national security, but not necessarily for children [or] people with health problems. No hearing was had with the Education Secretary. No hearing with the Department of Labor, not a single hearing with any NIH Institute director. So, there was no question [posed] to an NIH Institute director, ‘What are the consequences of these cuts?’ And I want to join the Ranking Member in congratulating our subcommittee Chairman in making sure there wasn’t a cut in NIH [funding]. I think that’s a good policy, and I thank him for his leadership on that. Instead of working, however, in a bipartisan manner to produce a bill that helps our people access health care, education and employment opportunities, the majority is using this bill to, in many ways, dismantle, as the Ranking Member said, the Affordable Care Act.

“To start, this bill rescinds funding from P.C.O.R.I., which saves the taxpayer and helps bring costs down across our health care system, and it takes $2 billion in user fees from the state health care exchanges, squandering money we’ve already collected and making it harder for those without employer provided coverage to get [the] insurance they need. Moreover, the Fiscal Year 2027 bill would severely disinvest in the youngest Americans and their families. I spoke during the subcommittee markup about the positive impact of $315 million for preschool development grant programs and $150 million for the full-service community school programs; amendments will be offered for that. Representative Torres and I each have an amendment to that effect, which I hope we will adopt. I also have an amendment to protect scientists, doctors, and medical researchers at NIH and other health and research agencies from being targeted and fired based upon political considerations, not scholarship and science. And I hope we can come together under the vision and leadership of our Ranking Member to restore the funding cuts across this bill, which includes the $3.7 billion from the Department of Labor, including the Job Corps. And I understand Mr. Zinke will have an amendment to address that problem, and I applaud him for it. $4 billion from HHS and $8.1 billion from the Department of Education. Education is the seed corn; we’re destroying that.

“Mr. Chairman, this bill is just another example in a long list of appropriations bills that the majority has put forward with one simple message to the American people: you’re on your own. You want to make sure your preschools get the support and education they need to start kindergarten, ready to learn? You’re on your own. You want to provide your family with affordable health care coverage through your state’s exchange? You’re on your own. Want to access hands-on skills training for the Job Corps and get a pathway to a good career? You’re on your own. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to change the rhetoric from ‘You’re on our own,’ to ‘We’re on your side.’ Let’s do it. I yield back.”