Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)
Today, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries held a press conference, where he reiterated that while Republicans continue their extreme go-it-alone approach, Democrats remain committed to lowering the high cost of living, cleaning up corruption and fixing the GOP healthcare crisis, starting with extending the ACA tax credits.
LEADER JEFFRIES: There are only five legislative days left before the Affordable Care Act tax credits expire. And we have yet to see a Republican plan to prevent tens of millions of Americans from experiencing dramatically-increased premiums, co-pays and deductibles. We know that premium increases in some cases will be $1,000 or $2,000 per month. This is going to make healthcare unaffordable for millions of working class Americans, middle class Americans and everyday Americans. And yet Republicans are continuing to bury their heads in the sand, completely and totally uninterested in finding common ground to make life better for the American people, in this instance by extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits. House Democrats remain ready, willing and able to sit down with our Republican colleagues anytime, anyplace and anywhere in order to enact a bipartisan agreement that protects the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans, to fix our broken healthcare system and to deal with the Republican healthcare crisis decisively, which is crushing the American people.
But Republicans continue to pursue a my-way-or-the-highway approach, which has gotten them nowhere this year, and it’s consistently hurt the American people. All across the country, we are seeing Republican extremism being rejected, most recently in the city of Miami, a city that is more than 70% Latino, in a county, Miami-Dade, that Donald Trump just won in 2024. And a year later, a Democrat was elected as Mayor of Miami for the first time in nearly three decades by 20 points. And yet Republicans continue to ignore the reality that is unfolding all across the country. The American people are rejecting your extremism and embracing our focus on driving down the high cost of living, dealing with the affordability crisis—which is real, it’s not a hoax—and fixing our broken healthcare system. And at this point, all we need are four Republicans in the House. There are 220 of you. All we need are four Republicans to partner with us. Let’s find a path forward, and we can extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)
Today, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on CNN News Central, where he made clear that Democrats will continue to fight to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits and find bipartisan common ground where possible to make life better for everyday Americans.
JOHN BERMAN: Alright, with us now is the House Democratic Leader, Hakeem Jeffries. Congressman, thanks so much for being with us. Those words from the President overnight aside, the reality of where Congress is right now is that the government was shut down for 43 days, and all Democrats really got out of it was this vote yesterday in the Senate that went nowhere. So was it worth it?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, Donald Trump and Republicans made the decision to shut down the government as part of their my-way-or-the-highway approach. As Democrats, we just made clear, we’ll work together with our Republican colleagues, sit down, talk about the things that need to happen for the American people, anytime, anyplace. We repeatedly made that clear. But we also made clear we were not going to support a partisan spending bill that continued to gut the healthcare of the American people and failed to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits when tens of millions of Americans are now about to experience dramatically-increased health insurance premiums. That’s totally unacceptable.
JOHN BERMAN: You talk about needing to sit down and talk, somewhat the need to compromise there. There are two measures now, two discharge petitions, bipartisan, that would extend Obamacare subsidies one by one year, we just heard from Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer on that. Another would extend them by two years, again which has bipartisan support. Why not throw Democratic leadership strength behind one of those two efforts?
LEADER JEFFRIES: As Democrats, when we reconvene early next week, we’ll sit down, we’ll have a conversation to look at the options that are in front of us. One option we know is that 214 Members of the House of Representatives support our petition to trigger an up-or-down vote on a clean extension to the Affordable Care Act tax credits. That means all we need are four Republicans, John. There are 220 of them. All we need are four to join us, and we can deal with this issue in the House of Representatives in a manner that will provide certainty to working class Americans, middle class Americans and everyday Americans who rely on the Affordable Care Act tax credits to go see a doctor when they need one.
JOHN BERMAN: You don’t have those four Republican votes now. Both of the other discharge petitions have enough Republican votes that with all Democratic votes would be enough to pass. So why not support one of those two measures? Are you saying a three-year extension or bust?
LEADER JEFFRIES: What I’m saying is that we’re open to having a conversation with my Republican colleagues about finding common ground and a path forward. We know that conversation is not going to take place with Speaker Johnson or House Republican leaders because they’ve been clear. All they want to do is rip away the Affordable Care Act tax credits and take away healthcare from the American people.This is the same group of folks who earlier this year enacted their One Big Ugly Bill, where they cut Medicaid by the largest amount in American history and in the process took healthcare away from 14 million Americans. And hospitals and nursing homes and community-based health clinics are closing all across the country. So as we’ve always said, we’ll sit down, talk to our Republican colleagues anytime, anyplace, particularly those who have now expressed an interest in dealing with this healthcare issue and finally perhaps addressing the Republican healthcare crisis that’s breaking the American people.
JOHN BERMAN: But you won’t commit to supporting either one of those measures now, yes or no?
LEADER JEFFRIES: No, I haven’t ruled anything in or I haven’t ruled anything out because we have to have a conversation with ourselves as a House Democratic Caucus familyand of course Republicans if they’re interested in good faith in trying to find common ground.
JOHN BERMAN: So there was a vote on a resolution yesterday in the House, pushed by some, a handful of Democrats, to impeach President Trump. You and Democratic leadership voted present on this. In June, on a separate push, you voted no. You voted to block it affirmatively. So why did you move from no on impeachment in June to sort of meh yesterday?
LEADER JEFFRIES: Well we issued a statement that speaks for itself, but essentially we’ve said impeachment is a serious issue, it requires a serious process, and that process was missing as it relates to the resolution that we voted on yesterday.
JOHN BERMAN: Finally, the President pardoned Congressman Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Texas last week. He was charged in federal crimes, basically taking $600,000 in bribes. After that pardon, you sort of welcomed it and welcomed Congressman Cuellar back into the fold. There’s an op-ed in the New York Times today written by a couple of former federal prosecutors who worked for Special Counsel Jack Smith, who took issue with your moves after the pardon. They said “Hakeem Jeffries welcomed the pardon and engaged in shameful pandering, apparently to maintain Mr. Cuellar’s party loyalty. Most disturbingly, Mr. Jeffries did so by attacking the legitimacy of the criminal case against Mr. Cuellar, publicly dismissing the indictment against him as ‘very thin.’” What do you say to this? Because Democrats have been very critical of a lot of the pardons that President Trump has made, but in this case, where it may benefit you, you seem to support it.
LEADER JEFFRIES: I didn’t welcome the pardon. I basically made a factual observation based on how I saw the indictment that in my view it was thin. These prosecutors are free to go out there and defend whatever they want to defend, say whatever they want to say. They have a track record that they need to be able to articulate and justify to the American people. I’m unfamiliar with these particular individuals, so I can’t really comment on what they may have said. But the reality is anyone, any American, whether you’re a Congressperson, an everyday American, whether you serve in office, don’t serve in office, you are entitled to the presumption of innocence.You are innocent until proven guilty. It’s shocking to me that these people would take issue with that reality.
JOHN BERMAN: Well, they were charged. I mean, it’s not an issue of being innocent till proven guilty here. He was charged. Congressman Cuellar was charged and it never went to trial because of the pardon. It’s not an issue of innocence or guilt now, it’s an issue of pardoning someone before there is that determination, correct?
LEADER JEFFRIES: No, it’s an issue that if you if you are charged but you’re not convicted, you are presumed innocent. That’s what the whole presumption of innocence is all about.
JOHN BERMAN: All right, Leader Hakeem Jeffries, we appreciate your time this morning. You have a busy few weeks before the end of the year. Thank you.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week, U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) voted in favor of permitting reform bills that will help to secure America’s electrical grid, lower energy prices, and unleash reliable and affordable power for American families.
Rep. Kelly is a Co-Chair of the Congressional Natural Gas Caucus and a Co-Founder of the Congressional Propane Caucus.
“To lower energy costs and expand American energy production, an all-of-the-above energy approach must not forget about all that is below,” said Rep. Kelly. “Today, we voted to cut red tape, strengthen our nation’s electrical grid, and lower costs for American families.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Julia Brownley (D-CA)
Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Julia Brownley (D-CA) issued the following statement on her vote against the motion to table H.Res. 939, a resolution to impeach President Donald J. Trump.
“From inciting a violent insurrection in his first administration to eroding the very pillars of our democracy in his second, Donald Trump continues to desecrate the oath he swore to uphold and protect.
“I am resolute in my conviction that Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy and must be held accountable for his unlawful actions and egregious executive overreach.
“I voted to impeach Donald Trump twice, and I strongly believe that he needs to be impeached again and removed from office. That is why I voted no on today’s motion to table the impeachment resolution.
“While House Republicans have made no effort to use their constitutional oversight responsibilities to hold this corrupt administration accountable, House Democrats are fighting to defend the integrity of our democratic institutions and to stop Donald Trump’s radical agenda, which endangers the health, safety, and economic well-being of American families.
“Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress promised to lower the cost of living on day one. Yet, under their despicable leadership, costs continue to rise. The President calls the affordability crisis created by his administration a ‘hoax,’ but the American people know better because they are the ones paying the price for Donald Trump’s skewed priorities and reckless policies.
“Impeachment is a solemn constitutional procedure — and a mechanism to hold corrupt officials accountable for flagrant abuses of power and breaches of public trust. As the American people continue to raise their voices against the corruption of this administration, it is my hope that my colleagues across the aisle will join us in finally holding Donald Trump accountable. Only then can we return to the important work of making groceries, health care, and the American Dream a more affordable reality for all Americans.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Julia Brownley (D-CA)
Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Julia Brownley (CA-26) and Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (ME-1) reintroduced the Zero Food Waste Act, legislation that would create a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to reduce food waste nationwide. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) reintroduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate.
“It is unacceptable that as food insecurity grows across our country, nearly half of all food produced in the U.S. goes to waste, costing consumers billions of dollars and fueling the climate crisis. This level of waste is especially troubling when so many families are struggling to put food on the table, and when food production and food waste are major drivers of greenhouse gas emissions. We can and must confront these two critical, interconnected challenges, and we must do so with urgency,” said Congresswoman Julia Brownley. “The Zero Food Waste Act will give local governments the tools they need to cut waste and build more sustainable, resilient food systems that better support families and strengthen our communities. I am also grateful to Senator Booker and Congresswoman Pingree for their partnership as we work to curb food waste, support those in need, and protect our environment for generations to come.”
“Families are stretching every dollar right now, yet enormous amounts of perfectly good food are still being thrown away instead of reaching people who need it. The Zero Food Waste Act aims to fix that disconnect. Our bill tackles hunger and rising food costs head-on by helping communities recover surplus food, expand local nutrition programs, and build systems that make better use of the resources we already have,” said Congresswoman Pingree, co-founder of the Bipartisan Food Recovery Caucus. “Reducing waste also means cutting methane emissions from landfills and easing the environmental burden of producing food that never gets eaten. Our bill will strengthen local economies by creating jobs in food recovery, composting, and waste-reduction infrastructure and ultimately move us closer to meeting our national food waste reduction goals.”
“On top of already strained grocery budgets, food waste costs each American consumer around $700 per year. Nearly 40 million tons of food go to waste each year, which is a costly misuse of the significant resources that go into growing, transporting, buying, and preparing food, said Senator Booker. “The Zero Food Waste Act will create grants to make sure foods that otherwise would’ve needlessly gone to the landfill get eaten, upcycled into other products, or composted instead. We can keep more money in Americans’ pockets, simply by making sure the food we grow gets eaten or put to good use,” said Senator Cory Booker.
“Congress has the ability to support significant food waste reduction efforts through the Zero Food Waste Act, which would create the first EPA grant program specifically intended to fund the planning, measurement, and implementation of food waste reduction projects. The $650 million authorized for the program under the Act will enable local, state, and tribal governments across the U.S. to operationalize the food waste solutions that make the most sense in their region. The Zero Food Waste Act is an important opportunity for Congress to take action on food security, economic development, and the environment.” sail Emily Broad Leib, Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic.
Background
In the U.S., nearly half of all food produced is lost or wasted, which means an estimated $408 billion is spent on growing, processing, transporting, storing, and disposing of food that is never consumed. Landfills are now the third-largest source of methane in the U.S., and food is the single largest input by weight in our landfills and incinerators.
In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the EPA announced a goal of reducing the U.S.’s food waste by 50% by 2030. To achieve that goal, the federal government must increase its support for state and local efforts to eliminate food waste.
The Zero Food Waste Act would create a new EPA-administered grant program for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and for nonprofits, to support three types of grants: planning grants, measurement grants, and reduction grants. Planning grants could be used to investigate the kinds of food waste mitigation projects or policies that would be most impactful within a given community. Measurement grants could be used to better understand the amount of food waste generated in the state or community.
Reduction grants could be used to fund an assortment of different types of projects. For instance, food waste prevention projects could stop the generation of food waste. Recycling projects could reuse food waste as a feedstock for other non-food products, such as composting. Rescuing projects could redirect surplus food to places like food shelters. Upcycling projects could make new food from ingredients that would otherwise go to landfills. Additionally, localities could use the grant funding to implement food waste landfill disposal or incineration restrictions designed to stop food waste.
The Zero Food Waste Act is endorsed by The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), World Wildlife Fund, and ReFED.
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 on President Trump’s Executive Order that restricts states from regulating artificial intelligence.
“The Trump Administration failed badly twice to ban states from regulating artificial intelligence in the absence of a federal framework. The Administration’s new executive order on AI is an unconstitutional attempt to do an end run around their failed efforts and is a clear overreach of executive authority.
“An executive order cannot create law and cannot preempt state authority. Any attempt to impose binding legal requirements or dictate national policy on states without congressional action will be challenged in the courts. Only Congress can establish a national framework that preempts state laws.
“Congress on a bipartisan basis has refused to preempt states with nothing. I welcome any effort by the Administration to work with Congress to establish a federal framework for AI. I have repeatedly called for this foundational work so we can create durable, responsible legislation.
“Executive overreach wastes time and is never a substitute for lawmaking. Congress must lead on establishing a federal framework that continues to allow innovation in AI while providing reasonable, common-sense safeguards. And for that to happen, House Republican leadership must pull their heads out of the sand.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell sent a letter to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Director Mehmet Oz, MD, in response to a final rule that will reduce payment of the Medicare home health benefit, constraining the ability for seniors to receive much-need in-home care.
In her letter, Dingell requests a meeting with Administrator Oz to discuss how CMS and Congress can work together to support Medicare beneficiaries who rely on the home health benefit, as well as strengthen home care services across the country more broadly.
“In 2021, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Home Health Quality Reporting Program found that approximately 3 million Medicare beneficiaries utilized home health care. These services enable individuals to receive care in their own homes and communities, which research shows is the preferred option for many patients,” Dingell said. “CMS issued a final rule that includes policies that would result in about a 1.3% payment reduction of the home health benefit for 2026. While this is a smaller reduction than was initially proposed, reducing payments to home health agencies (HHAs) by any amount is unacceptable. These payment cuts would not only be disastrous, but they also do not align with CMS’ intent to ensure budget neutral payment rates, given that total Medicare home health expenditures have declined year-over-year.”
“Access to home health care enables seniors and individuals with disabilities to receive the specialized care that allows them to safely transition from the hospital to the home. This benefit is often cost-saving, more convenient for patients and their families, and allows patients to receive quality care in-line with what they would receive in a hospital or a skilled nursing facility,” Dingell continues. “An analysis from the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare found that the mortality rate and emergency room admission rate for patients not receiving timely access to this care is increasing annually, in line with cuts that are growing annually.”
“I urge you to work with Congress and home health providers to ensure that funds directed to the home health benefit are used to improve the program for beneficiaries, including by addressing mortality and emergency room admission rates, rejections of home health referrals, and barriers to home care in rural areas,” Dingell concludes. “Further cuts to this system will be devastating. We must work together to improve, modernize, and expand access to the home health benefit for patients, providers, and their families.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) today sent a letter to the University of Michigan demanding they hold an urgent community forum in Ypsilanti Township in response to questions and concerns from residents about its planned $1.25 billion joint high-performance computing and AI research center in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Since the announcement of the new development, Dingell has worked with all stakeholders to encourage community engagement, public input, and transparency. The University of Michigan has a responsibility to directly engage with the Ypsilanti Township community. The lack of information has caused significant stress and anguish for residents, who are dealing with daily anxiety and growing mistrust because their questions remain unanswered.
“For months, there has been anxiety and distress in the Ypsilanti Township community about this proposed joint project with Los Alamos for a data center. I first learned of the project from Ypsilanti Township, and still have very little background information from U-M,” Dingell wrote. “When Ypsilanti Township asked if I would host a town hall, I attempted to coordinate with U-M but was told officials were unable to answer questions or provide information. Therefore, without the ability to share facts, I could not hold the town hall I requested.”
“Despite repeated requests, U-M has still not met with residents in Ypsilanti Township. I participated in a meeting with Township officials, who expressed strong feelings that they did not want this data center at the designated site. I also attended a meeting with several senior U-M officials and the Ypsilanti Township supervisor, clerk, and trustees, where concerns about the site of the project were discussed and asked that alternative sites be considered,” Dingell continued. “At that meeting, the request for U-M to engage directly with the community was reaffirmed. Yet instead of meeting in Ypsilanti Township, U-M hosted an open house in Ann Arbor. Holding a meeting miles away from the affected community, which sent the message that Ypsilanti Township’s concerns are secondary and further undermines trust in the process. This week, the Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees passed a resolution to immediately claw back the funding previously awarded for the proposed data center project.”
“There are too many unanswered questions, and Ypsilanti residents deserve clarity and to be part of this process. It is long past time for U-M to hold a public meeting in Ypsilanti Township to explain its vision, present any plans under consideration, and answer the outstanding questions from residents,” Dingell concluded. “I urge U-M to immediately host a public forum in Ypsilanti and take these unresolved concerns seriously. If U-M wants to gain the trust of the community, there must be real public input in the process, this must be an open, transparent dialogue, and it must occur before any further decisions or commitments are made.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)
Dingell Statement on Motion to Table Impeachment Resolution
Washington, December 11, 2025
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) released the following statement on her ‘no’ vote on the motion to table H.Res. 939.
“The president has not upheld his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am concerned by his continued efforts to undermine and upend our institutions and democracy. I strongly support referring this matter to the Judiciary Committee, which has the responsibility to conduct thorough hearings and investigations into the president’s unlawful actions. I cannot continue to proceed like everything is fine, when it is so clearly not. I remain focused on doing what I can to minimize the harm this administration is doing by working on the day-to-day issues that matter and the people in my district are feeling, including health care and affordability. I am concerned about all these issues and am committed to listening to and serving the people I represent.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)
Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and Jack Bergman (R-MI) today reintroduced the Veterans Affairs Peer Review Neutrality Act to improve quality of care at VA medical facilities across the country by ensuring neutrality and accountability in the VA’s peer review process.
Dingell and Bergman first introduced the legislation following a report, requested by Dingell, by the Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General that revealed leadership failures at the John D. Dingell VA Medical Center in Detroit.
The Veterans Affairs Peer Review Neutrality Act would require that those who participate in the peer review process are not directly involved in the case itself, ensuring there is no conflict of interest. It would ensure that the peer review process is conducted according to a specific set of parameters to avoid issues for both patients and their doctors.
“It’s critical that we reassure our veterans that we are personally engaged, have been from the beginning, and will remain so throughout this process,” said Dingell. “We remain committed to ensuring that all veterans being treated at the John Dingell VA Medical Center, as well as other centers throughout the country, are getting the best care possible. This bill is meant to improve efforts to ensure veterans receive care that is carefully and accurately peer reviewed for the betterment of the VA healthcare system as a whole.”
“Conflicts of interest simply have no place in the VA’s peer review process. Our Veterans deserve to have confidence that the care they receive at VA medical facilities is being evaluated with fairness and professionalism,” said Bergman. “This bill strengthens that process to ensure it remains objective, consistent, and centered on the needs of those who served.”
The Veterans Affairs Peer Review Neutrality Act would:
Prohibit those with a conflict of interest from participating in the peer review process
Ensure that all peer reviews are approved by a neutral party at a separate VA facility than the one originating the review
Require VA facilities fill all vacant medical center director positions within 180 days and require the VA to notify Congress within 90 days if a medical center director is given a different position, as well as provide necessary information.