guest: we had secretary blinken in committee yesterday and i talked to one of our lead negotiators and they are working overtime traveling to the middle east and talking to the arab states. i hope we can get a cease fire and turn that into a permanent cease-fire. hopefully we can get saudi arabia to recognize israel. they will only do that if there is a two state solution. host: congressman abe berra thank you very much. host: the house is gaveling in.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. may 23, 2024. i hereby appoint the honorable celeste malloy to act as speaker pro tempore on this day, signed, mike johnson, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the player will be loved by -- offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. eternal god, we pray to you as wepter this memorial day weekend. that you would bless our efforts to honor our fallen heroes. in the fanfare of parades and picnics, barbecues and summers beginning, may we take time to

recall the countless sacrifices that were made to defend our freedoms and uphold our liberty. these noble men and women have stood firm. in the face of wars, alarms, and up against the anguish of adversity they would not be moved. may they rest knowing that they gave themselves fully to the work you, o lord, set before them to accomplish. grant them peace and knowing that neither their labor nor their sacrifice was in vain. god of the ages, may we be the guardians and guarantors of their val russ legacy -- valorous legacy. guide us in these moments that we would remain true to the ideals they devoted their lives to preserve. inspire in us the same depth of commitment to our country. the same fidelity to our fellow americans. and the same unhesitating character to humble ourselves in service to you and to this nation.

in your everlasting name we pray. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house the approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be read by the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. mr. williams: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15

requests for one-minute speeches. on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. williams: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. williams: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize commander john fay, tremendous career serving his country and commemorating his retirement from the u.s. navy. for 24 years he has dedicated his life to serving our great nation, and keeping it a great nation. from executive officer john worked his way through the ranks. today he's highly decorated holds various personal, unit, and service awards. in september 2021 he joined the blue angles and accumulated an impressive 168 career arrested landings. he's a humble leader and true patriot fueled by love for his family and country.

john's wife and children have played a crucial role in his service. we must also honor the unwavering support and countless sacrifices they made over the years. on behalf of a grateful nation and this congress, i thank john and his family for their jeffless -- selfless service. his life is one to be copied. as john would say, go navy. beat army. in god we trust. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> this past saturday, may 18, marked the 15th anniversary since the end of the civil war on sri lanka. mr. krishnamoorthi: the conflict saw the death, disappearance, abuse, and displacement of tens of thousands of tamil people of sri lanka. i want to take this time to remember and honor the lives lost and reaffirm my and congress' solidarity with the people of all communities in sri

lanka in their search for reconciliation and reform. i also want to recognize the bravery and commitment of those who continue to seek justice and accountability. i urge the sri lankan government and international community to advocate for the protection of rights of all peoples of sri lanka and work with all parties toward a sustainable political solution to prevent recurrence of such violence and tragic loss. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, america's farm families work around the clock to feed, fuel, and clothe our nation and the world. yet their livelihoods are often at the mercy of unpredictable forces beyond their control. since the last farm bill was passed in 2018, producers have

faced record inflation, rising input costs, fractured supply chains, labor shortages, natural disaster and more. our current safety net is tattered. our farmers have been bearing the burden of these challenges alone, risking the viability of their operations. the 2024 farm bill is the opportunity to implement significant changes to the farm safety net, equipping our farmers to meet their needs. a robust farm safety net provides stability to our producers to ensure farmers can continue operations in uncertain times. a stable, reliable food supply is essential for ensuring national security. the importance of our agriculture industry cannot be overstated. by investing in our farmers and strengthen the safety net we can ensure america and american families remain food secure. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today i want to honor the life and legacy of my friend and mentor, former california state senator alan sorotti mr. schiff: a champion of california's environment, arts, and civil rights, he paved the way for the creation of the california coastal commission so our coastlines could remain accessible for all. his passion of the arts led him to establish the california state summer school for the arts. he was also a tireless advocate for disability rights, civil rights, and gave back through his work with numerous nonprofit, including those connecting unhoused seniors to shelter. beyond politics and the arts, he was also a lover of jazz. he was a true renaissance man. i'd like to extend my deepest sympathies to his family, michelle, and to all who loved him. as we mourn the loss of an

incredible public servant, let us celebrate his enduring leggacy. alan was a model public servant and i had such admiration and affection for him. may he continue to inspire us all and may his memory be a blessing. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cline: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i planned today to congratulate a poultry judging team in my district, but i need to address what happened at quantico marine base in triangle, virginia, because what happened there is the chickens coming home to roost from the broken biden border policy. madam speaker, on may 3, 2024, two jordanian foreign nationals that entered the united states unlawfully attempted to breach the quantico marine corps base

in triangle, virginia. press reports indicate they were in a van posing as delivery men and tried to ram their way through. i'm quoting from a letter that our governor has sent to the president because he has not received a briefing on what happened in the commonwealth of virginia. the american people didn't learn about what happened at quantico for two weeks. during that time we don't know who else had entered this country illegally, what else their designs were, but it's proven that the bide -- broken biden border policy is having an effect on the national security of this country anti-president needs to take action now or congress and the senate needs to take action on h.r. 2. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. tlaib: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. tlaib: madam speaker, after

the 2008 financial crisis, congress tasked our financial regulatory agencies with implementing a rule that bans pay packages for bank executives that incentivize excessive risk taking. more than 13 years later we are still waiting for this rule to be finalized. as the banking failures last year proved, these incentives continue to pose a serious threat to our financial system. that's why i introduced the fair fund act which requires large financial institutions to defer a portion of executive compensation that would get paid out unless there was a misconduct or some sort of firm failure after a period of between two and eight years depending on the size of the institution. in the case of misconduct or failure, deferred funds would be used to cover the cost of any fines levied on the bank and make depositors hole. i urge my -- whole. i urge my colleagues to hold these bank executives accountable. this is a huge financial risk we continue to have not only on

small businesses but retirees and so many others who are connected to these risk taking very much neglect shall negligent action by the executives. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: madam speaker, as we are on the precipice of another memorial day in this country, we have so much to be thankful for and grateful for as we pause to remember those that have fallen to defend our country, our way of life, our constitution. so from the fields of valley forge to tripoli, to our own homeland of the civil war, san juan hill, the trenches of france, pearl harbor, normandy, iwo jima, the 38th parallel, the jungles of vietnam, iraq and

afghanistan and others we are grateful for those that stood up and stood in the line of fire for us for our values. indeed, from john 5:13, greater love has no one than this. to lay down one's life for one's friends. we owe them a lot. we can never pay that back other than to be grateful and to remember those that have fallen for our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute mr. schneider: madam speaker, i rise today to talk about the affordable connectivity program a critical program that helps millions access affordable internet. families rely on the internet to do their jobs, go to school, to meet with their doctors, sustain contact with family and loved ones. access to the internet is essential in the 21st century.

a.c. the affordable connectivity program, helps more than 23 million households afford internet access. in illinois more than 700,000 households, one in seven, enrolled in a.c.p., including 21,000 in just my district. despite the success, republicans refuse to extend this program. we cannot delay. through their inaction republicans are forcing millions of families to face higher internet bills or worse to have the internet access cut off entirely. if speaker johnson would bring the a.c.p. extension to the floor for a vote, i know it would pass overwhelmingly. instead, republicans are wasting time voting on bogus messaging bills. i implore speaker johnson let's save the affordable connectivity program. bring it to the floor for a vote for an extension. we can get this done. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. weber: i seek unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. weber: madam speaker, saturday marked the six year anniversary of the footing at santa fe high school where 10 innocent lives were lost at the hands of evil. we will never forget that tragic day that forever changed santa fe, texas. as a community we have witnessed the resilience of santa fe, the community's strength, courage, and unity have been inspiring. we honor the victims by remembering their lives each and every day. thank you for the bravery of the first responders and everyday heroes who showed remarkable courage on that day and in the days that followed. .. six years have passed, madam speaker. there's not a day that goes by that i don't think about each life that was taken on may 10, 2018. that day will be engrained in my memory and our community until the end of time.

let us continue to work to get to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. on tuesday, the large majority of us came together to pass the federal disaster tax relief act. mr. delgado: the bill -- mr. deluzio: it's something i've been pushing for along with many others. these palestinian de-- the east palestine derailment was a disaster for many families. just over the state line from our neighbors in ohio. it's ridiculous to me that folks who were hurt by this toxin train derailment have to pay taxes on norfolk southern's payments to them.

let's remember, it was the railroad's negligence and incompetence that caused this whole mess in the first place. i was glad we passed a bill to help folks who were hurt. now, if the senate follows suit as they should, these payments will be exempted from federal taxes as they should be. let's keep going, the whole big -- to hold big railroads accountable and make freight rail safer. madam speaker, we can do that by passing my bill, the railway safety act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. tokuda: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. tokuda: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in celebration of asian american, native hawaiian and pacific islander heritage month. our community is a diverse diaspora but too often we are lumped together as one monolithic minority group. often forced to choose identity between asian, pacific islander or, for me, the very worst, other. we are so much more than other.

we are the fastest growing population in the country. we're made up of 70 ethnic groups. we speak over 100 different languages and dialects. we are the descendants of people, cultures and traditions that are centuries older than this country we now call home. and we deserve to be seen, to be heard, to be recognized for who we are, where we come from, and what we stand for. we are so much more than other. during this month and every month, i challenge my colleagues to join us in uplifting the achievements, the voices and the struggles facing our community and commit to working towards a future where we are all truly seen, engaged and represented. mahalo and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to thank my

colleagues, congresswoman sheila cherfilus-mccormick, senator tim caine and many others members of both chambers who are urging house foreign affairs committee chair mike mccaul and senate foreign relations committee ranking member james reesh to lift the hold on the state department's request for $94 million for the multinational security support mission in haiti. congressional republicans' refusal to support this mission is a serious obstacle to restoring peace, security and democratic governance in haiti. as kenyon president visits washington this week, it is crucial that we find a path forward on these funds. establishing the m.s.s. is vital to advancing u.s. national security interests, demonstrating american leadership in the caribbean, and providing a lifeline to the haitian people.

we must act decisively and together. haiti has a fighting chance to mitigate the chaos, plunging and plaguing its communities, if we support the mission now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. in accordance with section 517 of the foreign assistance act of 1961, as amended, 22 u.s.c., 2321-k, i am providing notice of my intent to designate kenya as a major nonnato ally -- non-nato ally. i am making this designation in recognition of kenya's men years of contributions to the united states -- many years of contributions to the united states african command area of responsibility, and globally and in recognition of our own national interests and deepening bilateral defense and security cooperation with the government of kenya. kenya's one of the united states

government's top counterterrorism and security partners in the sub-saharan africa. and the designation will demonstrate that the united states sees african contributions to global peace and security as equivalent to those of our major non-nato allies and other regions. i appreciate the support of congress in this action. signed, sincerely, joseph r. biden jr., the white house, may 23, 2024. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins, seek recognition? mr. higgins: madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1243, i call up the bill, h.r. 192, to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the united states from voting in elections in the district of columbia, and ask for its immediate consideration.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 118. h.r. 192. a bill to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the united states from voting in elections in the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1243, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on oversight and accountability, printed in this bill, is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and accountability or their respective designees. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins. mr. higgins: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. higgins: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of h.r. 192, an act to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the united states from voting in elections in the district of columbia, our nation's capital. in reporting out h.r. 192, the house committee on oversight and accountability holds that congress must act to exert its constitutional responsibility to oversee the district of columbia and make certain necessary amendments to the district's law. since the voters entrusted republicans with control of the house in the 118th congress, the oversight committee has conducted long overdue oversight of our nation's capital city, including holding hearings on the district of columbia.

specifically to the topic we're discussing today, the oversight committee held a joint hearing with the committee on house administration on election integrity in the district. at that hearing, the committee examined the district government's voting rights amendment act, which allowed noncitizen residents to vote in d.c. local elections. this act includes illegal immigrants and even foreign diplomats whose interest may be opposed to the interest of americans. this radical change to our election laws upset lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, madam speaker. d.c. mayor bowser with held her signature on the -- withheld her signature on the act, something she'd done only a handful of times in her tenure. on february 9, 2023, 260 members of this house voted to overturn the d.c. act through a

resolution of disapproval. in that vote, 42 house democrats voted to block the d.c. law. however, the bipartisan resolution of disapproval was not considered in the democrat-controlled senate. so d.c.'s noncitizen voting law went into effect. this, in my opinion and the opinion of many americans across the country, is unacceptable. the primary factor that differentiates american citizens from noncitizens is the right to vote. d.c. residents should be confident that their local government vote is not being diluted by noncitizen residents or illegal immigrants casting votes. article 1 of the constitution grants congress exclusive jurisdiction over the nation's

capital and the rules of the u.s. house charge the committee on oversight and accountability with the duty to oversee the municipal affairs of the district of columbia. i urge my colleagues to support representative pfluger's commonsense bill to ensure that only united states citizens have the right to vote in local d.c. elections, and to support the repeal of d.c.'s radical law. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. had the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. raskin: and i rise today to oppose h.r. 192. yet another attack on home rule in the district of columbia. i wish we were here today talking about climate change, which is a dagger at the throat

of humanity. we've seen record drought in the midwest, record forest fires in the west, record flooding in the east, hurricanes of record velocity in the distinguished gentleman from louisiana's block offed gulf coast. there were mosquitoes in the north pole last summer. the sea levels are rising everywhere. but we're not here to talk about that emergency. do i have a book for my friend, mr. higgins, written by one of my constituents about what's been taking place on the louisiana coast that i'm going to offer to you today. but we're not talking about climate change. we're not talking about gun violence, despite the fact that america now has rates of gun violence and gun-related mortality 20 times higher than the nations of the european union. gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children

and young people under 18 in america. it's out of control. but we're not talking about that. we are exercising our constitutional authority, as my distinguished colleague from louisiana says, to oversee the district of columbia and today what's caught our eye is that they have legislation which passed, which has become law in the district of columbia, which allows permanent residents and other noncitizens to register to vote. so, they have nearly a half million registered voters in the district of columbia, 512 of them are noncitizens. around a little bit more than .1% of registered voters are noncitizens. their primary election in 2024 has already begun. the d.c. voters got their ballots or began receiving ballots in the mail on april 29

and the district has already begun accepting ballots. the d.c. council had transmitted the local resident voting rights amendment act of 2022 to congress for the required review period on january 10, 2023. the house passed a disapproval resolution, as my friend mentioned, on february 9, 2023. the senate did not pass the disapproval resolution. the act began law in march of 2023. so what we're talking about now is passing legislation to overturn a practice that is literally taking place as we speak within the district of columbia. now, the critical point everybody needs to understand is that the district of columbia has no voting representation in the house of representatives. nor does the district of columbia have any voting representation in the united states senate. and their legislation doesn't

apply even to their nonvoting delegate in the house. nor does it apply, of course, to presidential elections. so what we're talking about is should these 500 or so people in the district of columbia be allowed to vote for advisory neighborhood commission, school board and members of the d.c. council and mayoral elections? now, the practice of noncitizen voting, my friend may be interested to learn, is one that actually was adopted in the vast majority of american states at different points in american history, including, i checked, in louisiana, where it existed for around a decade. and it started as far as i could tell with this basic premise, that when the country began, there was a race qualification, there was a gender qualification, there were

property, wealth and religion qualifications in different places. but the basic logic of it was that if you are a white male property owner, it doesn't make any difference what your citizenship status is. and that lasted really up until the civil war. the practice of alien suffrage at the local level was one that became hotly contested before the civil war. the southern states opposed it because they said that the immigrants who were coming in, who were being given the right to vote were anti-slavery, they were abolitionists. the northern states and specifically the republican party in abraham lincoln defended the practice of noncitizen voting. .... this was a major bone of contention, geographically, sectionally in the country with legislation like the kansas-nebraska act and other admissions, statehood admission

struggles. when the south ceded from the union and wrote their own constitution, the very first article of the confederate constitution banned the practice which we are discussing in a very modified form today. they banned anybody from voting in the confederacy who is not a citizen of the confederacy. when the union won the war and the secession was put down, alien suffrage spread across the country. again, the republican party championed it. they championed it in the form of something called declarant alien suffrage, which is for people who were permanent residents of the country who are on the pathway to citizenship. they were given the right to vote, especially in a lot of the western states as those states tried to attract population westward. the practice appears to have been diminished and eliminated

in loot of places around the turn of the 20th century and before world war i. and it survives today in the form that the district of columbia has fastened on to it for local voting on the theory that you want people at the local level to be involved in their kids' schools. you want people to be engaged in local government. we ban noncitizen voting at the federal level. which means we also ban it at the state level because they are linked actually in article 1. what we are talking about is noncitizen voting chosen by a local government at the local level simply for municipal elections. the basic logic there as i understand it from just trying to read up on what the people in d.c. did was that they saw that while noncitizens from canada or

mexico for example shouldn't be able to vote in national elections, because the interests of the united states and canada and mexico may diverge, at the local level everybody presumably has the same basic interests in efficient garbage collection, excellent public schools, and so on. that's why they have done it. it affects a relative handful of people. i'm not quite certain why we would be engaging in legislative action to overturn it except for the purposes of sending some kind of message about it. the gentleman also mentioned diplomatic personnel and undocumented people. as for the diplomatic personnel, a foreign passport may not be used to register to vote in the district of columbia. the person has to have a residential address in the district of columbia. it cannot be an embassy or

another diplomatic site because you can't register at your place of work. i don't know whether the gentleman has any evidence of this happening. i think if there were that would be something we would be interested in. same thing with undocumented people, it would be crazy for an undocumented person to attach their name to a public and transparent document like a voter registration document. i don't know if they have any evidence this has happened. we were not able to find any evidence there were any undocumented people doing so. in other words, the district's use of this practice for local elections and local government functions appears to be in accord with the way it's always been used, which is for permanent residents who are part of the community who are on the pathway to citizenship. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, madam speaker. my friend and colleague has mentioned in his opening

statement that 500 noncitizens are registered to vote in d.c. my colleague is clever to point this out, but i'm quite sure he's also aware that it's been estimated that 50,000 noncitizens are eligible to v vote. as election cycles move forward they will no doubt consider registering and casting their vote should we not turn this law. my colleague also mentioned the topic of representation in our nation's capital. as a constitutional scholar and professor, he is well aware our founders envisioned our nation's capital would necessarily develop a robust citizenry and that those residents would enjoy unique access to the republic's

election lected and appointed highest official, equaling a form of representation that no other citizenry in any other city of sovereign states would enjoy. madam speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to the author of this bill that we are considering today, the gentleman from texas, mr. pfluger. mr. pfluger: i thank my colleague from louisiana. madam speaker, i rise in support of my bill, h.r. 192, that would prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the united states from voting in elections in the district of columbia. i think there has been a lot of talk about our founding fathers. i'd just like to point out i think one of the things that they envisioned was a healthy, functioning republic with accountability. but with d.c. at the epicenter. d.c. not being a state but being a district because they knew

that would change the dynamics of this place. so, i like many others, think this federal district is very special. it's worth having the accountability. that accountability is here in the united states congress. it is congress through the constitution that our founders entrusted the care of d.c. specifically, quote, exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the district. washington, d.c., is going through a tough time. it's not been going well in the last couple of years. in fact, let me just point out that in 2023 this was the deadliest year on record in washington, d.c. 274 people were killed, violent crime spiked by nearly 40%.

there was -- there were proceedings that even the mayor opposed that had to do with violent crime, that had to do with carjackings, lowering the penalties and thresholds and making it a little easier, strategic -- strategy of appeasement the mayor opposed. this congress last year we acted, we did something. what we did we said no, washington, d.c., you are not going to lower those penalties for things like carjackings. you'll never get that through the senate. guess what? the senate passed it and president biden signed it into law because he said that's ridiculous that you would reduce accountability measures in the district of columbia. so here we are. in this case the d.c. city council has made a very shortsighted decision i fear could be a harbinger around the country. that decision, i believe, lessens and cheapens

citizenship. we see that in other areas. but the d.c. city council has moved to allow noncitizens, including illegal aliens, and foreign agents, to vote in local d.c. elections. in fact, not only are they allowed to vote, they are being encouraged. look at this flyer, just sent out by washington, d.c., to encourage people. yes, there may be 500 who are registered. this is a year old. there are 50,000, according to washington d.c. statistics, that are eligible. they are encouraging people to vote for mayor, for attorney general, for members of the state board of education, and more. some may argue yes these are just local elections. well, they are democratic elections that regularly determine taxation, the criminal code i just referenced, and the election of various city council members who decide ordinances like who gets to vote.

not to mention that many of these are decided by close margins. i find it inconceivable the city council and others around the united states would dilute the voting power of their constituents for noncitizens who otherwise might not meet the requirements. might not pay taxes. might not be members of the community that want the same things as those who are citizens. i believe it is cheapening and listening citizenship. as the capital of our democracy washington d.c. ought to be leading the way, setting the example, not incentivizing the exact practice that is our adversaries would relish. look what happened in san francisco where they just swore in is somebody who is not a citizen to be an election administrator. the election administrator will administrate elections in that part of california not just for local and municipal elections, but all the elections.

let's look beyond the democrats' call for this bill to be deemed discriminatory or false claims about its intended purpose. i'm asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look ahead. to put citizenship back in its rightful place as the gold standard. free and fair elections are a prerequisite for a healthy republic. i believe that's what our founders intended. noncitizen voting, whether it's one or a million, dilutes the voting power of the citizen. i believe congress must act clearly and decisively to bar noncitizens from voting any election, including in washington, d.c. i urge my colleagues to support my resolution. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: just a couple of quick points about the distinguished the gentleman's remarks. first of all what we are talking about is making a federal

decision or congressional decision for a locality. the gentleman's native texas had noncitizen voting from 1869 to 1921 for a half century texas had it. and that policy is one that was completely up to them. it was never overruled by the federal government. the gentleman says that foreign agents could vote under this legislation. of course, foreign agents can vote all across the country today. people who register under the foreign agent registration act or fail to register under the act or convicted for that still have the right to vote. i believe michael flynn is still voting despite the fact he failed to register under fara. paul manafort, other people who have been foreign agents don't automatically lose their right to vote base of that. but in the district of columbia if somebody wants to register

from a foreign country, they effectively have to renounce their right to vote in the foreign country because the district of columbia says you can't be voting in another country. incidentally, that's not the rule all over the world. under a treaty americans living in european countries and are effectively domiciled there, defined as having physical residence, plus the indefinite intention to remain, are given the right to vote in european localities. local elections not e.u. elections or national elections. if you are an american living in barcelona or spain indefinitely you get to vote in local elections. they adopted the same logic the people in d.c. adopted. they want people living there indefinitely to be engaged in local government. with that i'm going to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from the district of columbia, congresswoman eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized.

ms. norton: i thank my friend for yielding. i strongly oppose this undemocratic paternalistic bill. this congress republicans have introduced 22 bills to overturn district of columbia election laws. yet republicans have refused to make the one and only change to d.c. election laws that d.c. residents have requested. which is to be given voting representation in the house and senate. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the d.c. council, chairman phil mendelssohn, and d.c. attorney general ron schwab opposing h.r. 192. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. .. ms. norton: i want to discuss democracy and the lack of it in d.c. the nearly 700,000 districts residents have no voting

representation in congress and congress has the ultimate say even on local d.c. matters. my republican colleagues are correct that congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on local d.c. matters. but they are wrong that congress has a constitutional duty to do so. instead, legislating on local d.c. matters is a choice. in federalist 43, james madison said of the residents of the future d.c., and here i'm quoting, a municipal legislature for local purposes derivinged from -- derived from their own suffrages will, of course, be allowed them, end quote. the supreme court held in 1953 that, quote, there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by congress or the district of columbia to full

legislative power, end quote. d.c.'s local legislature, the council, has 13 members. the members are elected by d.c. residents. if d.c. residents do not like what the members vote, they can vote them out of office. that is called democracy. congress has 535 members. the members are elected by residents of their states. none are elected by d.c. residents. if d.c. residents do not like how the members vote on local d.c. matters, they cannot vote them out of office. that is the antithesis of democracy. the merits of h.r. 192 should be irrelevant, since there is never justification for congress legislating on local d.c. matters. however, i will discuss h.r. 192. h.r.'s local resident voting rights amendment of 2022 allows

d.c. residents who are noncitizens to vote only in local d.c. elections. d.c.'s laws are not unique. more than a dozen cities today allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. while the local resident voting rights amendment act applies only to local d.c. elections, there is a long history in the united states, including before its founding, of allowing noncitizens to vote in local, state and federal elections. at various points, 40 states have allowed noncitizens to vote, including texas, the home of the sponsor of h.r. 192. congress only first prohibited noncitizens from voting in federal elections in 1996. the house passed a disapproval resolution on the local resident voting rights amendment act in

february, 2023. the senate did not vote on the disapproval resolution and the local resident voting rights act act became law in march, 2023. voting, including noncitizens, started earlier this month in d.c. primary elections. why did republicans wait to bring h.r. 192 to the floor until voting had already started? they did so to disrupt the elections. the revolutionary war was fought to give consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation. yet d.c. residents cannot consent to any action taken by congress, and they pay full federal taxes without being denied voting representation in congress. indeed, d.c. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state, and more total federal taxes

than 20 states. if h.r. -- if house republicans cared about elections or d.c. residents, they would bring to the floor the d.c. statehood bill. h.r. 51. the washington, d.c., admissions act. which would give d.c. -- mr. raskin: i grant the gentlelady another 20 seconds. ms. norton: would give d.c. residents voting representation in congress and full local self-government. congress has the constitutional authority to admit the state of washington, d.c., it simply lacks the will. d.c. residents, a majority of whom are black and brown, are worthy and capable of self-government. i urge members to vote no on h.r. 192. mr. raskin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, madam speaker. i have not heard my democrat colleagues address the fact that even one noncitizen's vote will

in fact dilute the votes of american citizens. and the gentlelady mentioned republicans' efforts to disrupt d.c. elections. quite to the contrary. , good lady. we seek to restore the integrity of d.c. elections. we have stood in support of an american's right to have their vote fully counted, including most certainly in our nation's capital. when you have 50,000 potential noncitizen voters in the nation's capital poised to cast votes, that is the disruption of the d.c. voting process for the american citizens of d.c. whom we do indeed care for and love and hope to represent.

madam speaker, i recognize -- i'd like to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, three minutes to speak on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker, in america the citizens are the sovereign and we govern through the votes we cast. allowing foreign nationals to cancel out the votes of american citizens makes a mockery of our democracy and it robs americans of our sovereign right to direct our own government and decide our own destiny. the fact that democrats enacted such a law into the capital city of our nation, and in other jurisdictions across the country, and defend it today on this floor speaks volumes of how far that party has drifted to the left and what a grave threat their policies now pose to the most fundamental institutions and rights that we cherish as

americans. and only the american people can change that and only if the sanctity of our elections can be protected. one more point. washington, d.c., is unlike any other town or community in our nation. washington, d.c., belongs to the american people who retain through their constitution the exclusive right to govern it through their elected representatives. this outrageous law is the strongest argument yet for congress to take back america's capital city for america, and to take back america from the radical left. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: here's justice scalia on what the very distinguished gentleman from california just described as radical practice. in general, noncitizen voting has been open, widespread and

unchallenged since the early days of the republic, says justice scalia. what they would like to portray as some kind of outlandish practice is one that has been used at various points in our history by a majority of the states. certainly at the local level. and it was the republican party, again, i re-emphasize, which was the great champion of noncitizen voting and stood up for it against the states that ended up seceding from the union in the civil war. we were debating the very point the gentleman fastened upon when we talked about the census. the supreme court has been emphatic repeatedly that the census counts everyone in america. citizens and noncitizens alike. now, we know they don't like that, they've been trying to get around it in a dozen different ways. but the supreme court has been perfectly clear that everyone is counted in the census, even if they don't have the right to

vote, even if they're not a citizen. with that, i'm going to yield two minutes to the very distinguished gentlelady, ms. ramirez. ms. ramirez: thank you, ranking member. i couldn't agree with you more. i rise in opposition to h.r. 192. look, this is another condescending republican attempt to do three really specific things. meddle in local d.c. elections, disenfranchise black and brown voters who are fully capable of governing themselves, by the way, and erode the trust of americans in our federal elections. in the 118th congress alone, republicans have introduced 17 bills, 17 bills, to overturn d.c.'s election laws. but they've refused to do the one thing that the residents of d.c. have asked for. and that's equal representation through statehood. in the republican tradition of undermining elections, they are pushing this bill while the

primary elections in d.c. are under way. let's be clear. it is all intentional to stoke fear among voters and raise false alarms around the integrity of d.c.'s voting process. h.r. 192 is another sorry republican effort to continue to carry on this baseless maga narrative about noncitizens affecting the outcomes of federal elections. let's put this into context. a 2016 study of our federal elections found only .001% of votes cast where cases were suspected, nat proven, noncitizen voted. even the former president's appointed commission to investigate its claims of voter fraud by noncitizens was disbanded without identifying one single case. in the meantime, 1/3 of working age americans are living through

crushing medical debt, families are spending up to 75% of their income in rent and utilities and scientists agree that the climate crisis may cost $14.-- 14.5 million deaths by 2050. yet here we are again. we need to stop entertaining legislation -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. ramirez: there are real problems that need to be addressed and imre hencive solutions -- comprehensive solutions. i yield back. mr. raskin: we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: madam speaker, i inquire about the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana has 17 flaf minutes -- 17 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from maryland has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. higgins: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, my colleague, mr. van drew. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van drew: thank you, madam

speaker. you know, in what other country than joe biden's america can illegal immigrants waltz over an unsecure border? in what other country can an illegal immigrant get immediate housing, free food, legal counseling, free educational subsidies? in what other country can illegal immigrants get free flights and bus rides and transportation to the city or the town of their choosing? there's none that i know of. there's none that most americans would know of. no country in the world would be that stupid. they'd be stupid enough to allow so many unknown people with unknown desires, with unknown intentions to cross their border. so why is it in our country the only one dumb enough to offer incentives after incentive after

incentive to the millions of illegal immigrants pouring into our border every single year? to understand what's happening here, you have to see the big picture. when you realize the border policy we have right now isn't about bad policy or dumb policy, in fact, the policy is working exactly as the orchestrators want it to work. the left knows they can flood this country with millions of people. if the left can promise those millions of people that the democrats are the party that will feed them, will house them, will transport them, will educate them for free at the american taxpayers' back. and that republicans will take that away. then the democrats can use the millions of illegal immigrants as political pawns to increase their power. it's shameless. it's wrong. it's un-american.

and for years conservatives have warned about this. we've warned about the left attempting to allow illegals to vote in elections. but it was made fun of, it was a joke, it would never happen. it was labeled in fact as a conspiracy theory. yet here we are. here we are today. d.c., our nation's own capital, allowing illegal immigrants to vote in its illegal elections. yesterday's conspiracy, yesterday's conspiracy is today's reality. i strongly support h.r. 192 to prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections here in d.c. this is a dangerous and bad precedent and an un-american attempt at gaining power and it needs to be stopped here and it needs to be stopped now. we have to stand up. if we allow illegal immigrants to vote in elections now, how long is it going to be -- because, ladies and gentlemen, it's going to happen, before

we're back on this floor attempting to stop a state from allowing illegal immigrants to vote in our federal elections? .. american elections should be voted on by american citizens. i yield back. ... the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, madam speaker. h.r. 192 quite simply prohibits noncitizens from voting in d.c. local elections. and repeals the local resident voting rights amendment act. this is common sense. congress has a constitutional duty to oversee our nation's capital. and h.r. 192 represents exact role congress should take in regard to the matters of the district's governance. under the united states

constitution, congress is granted exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever regarding our nation's capital. yes, we recognize, as my colleagues have stated, we should, we recognize the jurisdictional authority within the municipality and a local elected officials of our nation's capital. but when those local elected officials take actions which is injurious to the operations of our nation's capital, then we have constitutional authority and indeed duty to respond. which is why in february of last year 260 members of this house voted to overturn the d.c. act in question as being repealed through this bill. and in that vote 42 house democrats did, indeed, vote to

overturn that d.c. law. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, madam speaker. i'm sorry the gentleman from new jersey has left the chamber because i could reassure and console him very quickly it's against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. that is embodied in federal statute. it is a crime for someone to attempt to do that. that's not what's on the table here today. what's on the table is whether a locality, in this case the district of columbia, should be permitted to allow noncitizens to participate in local elections for things like school board and city council and advisory neighborhood commissions. the gentleman from new jersey should be apprised at some point that the great state of new jersey allowed noncitizen voting between 1776 when the country began in 1820.

so for a half century it was allowed in his state and did not lead to the downfall of the republic. i'm going to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from michigan, ms. stevens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. stevens: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the distinguished ranking member of the oversight committee. also thank you to my colleague the representative from washington, d.c., who tragically and outrageously does not have full voting rights here in this chamber, but whose arguments and points are very well received. my friends, i am rising in stark opposition to h.r. 192. another unbelievable attempt by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to legislate specifically on the district of columbia. we are individual representatives duly elected by

our stints to -- conconstituent want to legislate for this country. our constituents have representation and the district of columbia who we are obsessively seeing our colleagues trying to legislate on does not have representation. why not look at the host of issues this country is facing? we only have so much time in this body. we are almost to the halfway point left of this term. paid leave. increasing maternal mortality. fully funding special education. the climate crisis. a national gun violence epidemic. women's rights. real voting rights for this country. give me a break. this is how we are choosing to use our time a fifth effort to legislate specifically to the nation's capital, the only capital of a country that does

not have full voting rights in a federal chamber? this is outrageous. it is anti-democratic. and frankly what this also is, we have seen this playbook before, my ranking member knows this, this is another attempt to fear monger. another attempt to fear monger around national elections that are coming that supposedly those who are voting shouldn't. we need more people to be vo voting. i fiercely oppose this legislation. i yield. mr. raskin: i want to thank the gentlelady for her remarks. she makes an excellent point. washington, d.c., is the only national capital on the planet earth disenfranchised in its own legislature. which is the vulnerability that's being exploited today by our colleagues. can you imagine if they told the people of paris that they could not be represented in the assembly simply because they breath the same air as representatives coming from

other parts of france. you'd have another french revolution on your hands. i want to thank the people of washington that ms. norton represents who have a valid bona fide political grievance and did not come down here and beat the day lights out of our police officers, wounding and brutalizing and hospitalizing nearly 150 of them. they have gone about it the right way. they petitioned for statehood and trying to defend their rights to govern themselves. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: inquire remaining time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana has 13 minutes. mr. higgins: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, my distinguished colleague mentioned that it's already against the law for illegal to cast a vote. we understand this. but surely the gentleman knows that corruption is born in the heart of man not the mechanisms

of man. we have a duty and responsibility as members of this congress to oversee the actions of the nation's capital city. and it is our duty to mitigate against the violation of law. we recognize that it's against lett for an illegal to cast a vote in a federal election. we know this. but we also -- we know that corruption being born of man, burglary is against the law. we have fences and gates and doors and locks. we mitigate against the actions of man though we know that some of those actions may be against the law. the existence of the statute itself does not overcome the corruption born of the heart of man. we have an obligation as a body to exercise our constitutional

jurisdictional authority in the one municipality in the entire country that falls under that constitutional jurisdictional authority that is our nation's capital. a city whose laws we address today. madam speaker,et' like to yield three minutes to the -- i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, my friend and colleague, mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, to the folks at home i want to just clearly communicate what it is that we are doing here. what we are doing is we are talking about passing a law that prohibits citizens of foreign countries from voting in elections in d.c. it prohibits people that are here illegally from voting in elections. it prohibits spies from china from voting in elections. it prohibits people that are here from russia that have wishes of ill will on the united

states from voting in the elections in d.c. i have heard my friends on the other side say that this would disenfranchise voters in washington. let's think through that for a minute. if you are allowing people that are not citizens of washington, that are not citizens of the united states, to vote here, you are diluting the vote of the people that are citizens of this city. you are diluting it. which policy disenfranchises? it is absurd to hear people make these allegations. look, let's talk about some of the people that largely agree with what we are saying. the mayor didn't sign this. even the mayor of washington, d.c., didn't sign this because she knew this is outrageous. "the washington post" that i wouldn't argue is a bastion of conservative thought, even said that voting, quote, voting is a

foundational right of citizenship. madam speaker, i heard my friends on the other side argue or allege that we are meddling, we are meddling. madam speaker, there is this specificky little document we take an oath to -- specificky little document we take an oath to, i say that in guest, in the -- jest, in that constitution it says congress is quote, exclusive in legislation over all cases over washington. we are doing what we took an oath to do. let's summarize. if you want chinese spies, if you want citizens -- people that are here illegally that also can vote in their actual home country, then you would vote yes -- you would vote no. you would say no, we want stay at this quo. we want spies to vote, russian

embassy employees to vote, people here illegally to vote. that's fine. you vote no. but if you think that d.c. residents their vote should actually count for local elections, then you vote yes. my friends are going to say that, oh, what about voting in federal elections. look, i'm sorry anybody who moved here and found out by surprise that that's not how it works because this was established originally as a federal district, distinguishing it from the states. i'm sorry if folks just woke up and realized that. maybe after they bought their house. but it is unbelievable that we are even here having to debate this once again -- mr. higgins: i yield an additional minute. mr. graves: we are even here having to debate this once again about whether it is appropriate for people that are citizens of foreign countries, people here illegally, people who can vote for putin would get to vote for the mayor of d.c.

unbelievable. that people in this body that are representing hundreds of thousands of citizens of this country believe that that's the appropriate path. i urge adoption of this legislation. i thank my friend from louisiana. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california , mr. garcia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garcia: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker -- ranking member raskin, for the time. wow, this is an incredible debate we have here. of course i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 192. it's interesting that the majority keeps talking about fair elections, having to ensure elections are done the right way when 147 of them wouldn't even vote to certify the last presidential election we had here in this country. a majority of the republican party won't even admit or certify the last election who

actually won the last presidential election. you want to talk about an attack, local, neighbor councils here in washington d.c., and local elections. it is hypocrisy that we are seeing here today in this debate. this is of course nothing more than majority's attempt to attack d.c. over and over again. they want to talk about chinese spies voting in elections. the only chinese spice here in d.c. are the ones being invited by the majority to testify at our oversight committee hearing to actually attack the current president of the united states. this is a ridiculous debate we are having here by the majority. it sounds also that the majority majority's obsessed with the local laws of d.c. i said before if they are so interested in local government, they should resign from congress and run for the local city council or mayor. it's a great job. i was mayor of my community i was on the local city council. that's what they seem to be most interested in doing. instead of wasting our time here, we should focus on thish

real issues that americans are facing. that's why today i want to make a motion to recommit this bill whack to committee and instead call up -- back to committee and instead call up h.r. 16. the dreamers have come to our country as children. no other country, allegiance to the united states. we know this is true. the american dream and promise act is a landmark bipartisan piece of legislation that would give these children and young adults a pathway to lawful permanent residency. this is a transformational law that could impact our country. would change the lives of nearly 2.3 million people in all 50 states. i want to thank the countless members who worked the dream advocates, community members, including this year sylvia garcia. dreamers are our friends, family members, classmates, co-workers. they estimate about $45 billion a year to the american economy, $13 million in taxes every single year, and the data is clear dreamers like all

immigrants make our country stronger. i want to offer this amendment today, i want to get this back on track and get this legislation through. let the dream act come to the floor today and vote to protect these 2.3 million people. and for me, this is personal as an immigrant myself. as someone that has lived with immigrants, i know how important the dream act is to our country and to so many. and instead of wasting our time on this bill, we should be focusing on helping people in this country that are making our country better every single day. and today republicans and democrats once again have the chance to work across the aisle and protect millions of people who have put down roots and invested in our country and our economy and it's the right thing to do. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record and immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. garcia: today i hope my colleagues will join me in voting on this motion. mr. raskin: i want to thank the gentleman and we will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, madam

speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. pfluger, the author of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pfluger: i thank my colleague and thank all those who have risen in support of this. let's think about this in simple terms. go back to our constituents and when you tell them that washington, d.c., is allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, they can't believe it. it's been said by several colleagues on the other side of the aisle that multiple states allowed noncitizens to vote. well, in the case of texas, that was ■literally over100 year ago. and we figured out it was not a good idea. it's absolutely ridiculous that this is even a thought. i said it a little bit ago, but washington, d.c.,'s not exactly -- washington, d.c.'s, not exactly having an easy time with

accountability. violent crime rate spiking by 20%. 2023 being the deadliest year on record here, 2274 people can -- 274 people killed. and you look at what congress had to do, what president biden signed into law to maintain the penalties on violent offenders. specifically in carjackings. because the city council in washington, d.c., decided to lessen those penalties. this congress voted on that last year and the president signed it into law. that's the kind of accountability that americans are wanting. they want that accountability. and to think that americans are in favor of having noncitizens vote in washington, d.c., is ludicrous. that's why this legislation is so important. washington, d.c., should be the standard. it should be the standard. it's a unique case. it's a unique case in our country. because it's not a state. congress has jurisdiction,

constitutionally authorized to us. and we are acting because the city council has overstepped, they have done something that even the mayor is not in favor of. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, to put citizenship on the pedestal that it deserves and to stop lessening and cheapening citizenship in this country. i urge support of h.r. 192 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. raskin: we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: madam speaker, i have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman reserves. sorry. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you very much, madam speaker. i want to start by thanking my friend from louisiana for a very

substantive and dignified debate on this subject. which i know attracts strong views across the aisle. i just want to restate some essential points for people to keep in mind. one is that what we're talking about is local elections in the district of columbia. so the question is, who will get to vote for the school board members and the councilmembers, who will get to vote for the advisory neighborhood commissioners, which is an institution which i think is unique to the district of columbia, which is neighborhoods that have elected representatives who get to weigh in on things like the bar time closings and restaurant licenses and stuff like that. that's really what we're talking about here. the people in d.c. only have one nonvoting delegate to the district of columbia, no voting representation here, no voting representation in the senate. so the noncitizens, the 500 or

so who are registered today, can't even vote for eleanor holmes norton. so it goes to the question of local elections. i'm certain that most members of congress and most americans certainly didn't expect that the house of representatives would be spending so much time debating this relatively minute matter, and i dare say trivial matter, in the context of all of the national emergencies and crises we're facing today. but it does seem to be part of an election year assault on the district of columbia. it's a lot easier to kick d.c. around a little bit than to solve the gun crisis, which has gotten to the point where gun violence is now the leading cause of death in america for young people under the age of 18. it's a lot easier to kick d.c. around a little bit than to confront the climate crisis, which is bearing down on all of

us across the country. so the gentleman has made one very powerful point which is, constitutionally we have the authority to do this. because the people in d.c. are still under the authority of congress, under article 1, section 8, clause 17. that's why they want out. they want us to use our power over the district in all cases whatsoever to modify the boundaries of the district of columbia, and to yield the residential areas to the creation of a new state. and the power of congress to do that was established in 1846, when alexandria and arlington and fairfax county were retroceded to virginia. we can redraw it and d.c. would be larger, population-size, than two other states in the union. they want to exist on a plane of political equality. they want to have the right to go through the same political experience the gentleman talked about in texas. at one point they wanted to

grant noncitizens the right to vote in local elections and at another point they didn't. that's all they're asking for. the right to make their own decisions for themselves. and i dare say no matter how benevolently motivated my good friend from louisiana is or i am as a representative from maryland, no one is more interested in the welfare of the people in the district of columbia than the people who actually live there. and with that, i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, madam speaker. and i express my sincere gratitude to my friend and colleague, representative raskin, for conducting this debate in a vigorous yet respectful manner. and i'm certain that he will agree that this is the manner in which our founders envisioned we may debate. and the subject of congressional

interaction, exercising constitutional authority within the parameters of our nation's capital municipality, this is a legitimate discussion as it's part of our nation's narrative and broad debate. and this is the body, madam speaker, wherein such debate should take place. so i am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle may engage in this as we move forward in this spirit with which we've discussed and debated today. madam speaker, d.c.'s noncitizen voting law does indeed disenfranchise american citizens. it's a dangerous policy that undermines the ability for the citizens of d.c. to have a free and fair election. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, to prohibit those who are not citizens of the united states

from voting in elections in the district of columbia. i urge my colleagues to support this necessary bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1243, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the united states from voting in elections in the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. garcia of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 192, to the committee on oversight and accountability. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. garcia: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garcia: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. mchenry: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material

on the bill, h.r. 5403. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 1243 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5403, the chair appoints the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5403, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal reserve act to prohibit the federal reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual to prohibit the use of central bank digital currency for monetary policy, and for other purposes.

the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in section 2 of house resolution 1243, and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services or their respective designees. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. mr. mchenry: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. today we are considering majority whip tom emmer's h.r. 5403, the cdc anti-surveillance tape act. it's straightforward, at that halts unelected bureaucrats from issuing a digital bank currency or cbdc. we believe the central bank

digital currency would be detrimental to americans' rights to digital privacy. we have seen examples of government, governments around the world, weaponizing the financial system against their own citizens. the chinese communist party use add central bank digital currency to track spending hands of its citizens. the data is being used to reward or punish people based on their behavior. this financial surveillance has no place in the united states. after all we have the bill of rights. they do not. concerningly it appears that the current administration does not agree that financial surveillance has no place in the united states. in 2022, the white house issued an executive order pushing for cbdc research and development. the cording -- correspondencing report -- corresponding report

in the data related to the executive order the president issued does nothing to ease the concerns about financial snooping on citizens. this is why the cbdc surveillance act is necessary. the bill requires authorizing legislation from congress for the issuance of any central bank digital currency. ensuring that it must reflect american values and civil liberties protections. if not, open and private a central bank digital currency is no more than a c.c.p.-style surveillance tool waiting to be weaponized. i want to thank my friend, whip emmer, for his work on spearheading this legislation. along with representatives hill and mooney for their leadership on this issue. i'd also like to thank representative davidson for his commitment to financial privacy in a larger context.

i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: -- the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: madam chair, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i rise in strong support to h.r. 5403, which would not only prohibit the issuance of a central bank digital currency, or cbdc, but would go so far as

to prohibit the federal reserve from holding bank reserves that are critical to operating payment systems and combating inflation. let me start with the harmful implications of the bill's prohibitions on the issuance of cbdc. a cbdc is a type of digital asset issued by a country's central bank, which in the united states is the federal reserve. compared to other digital assets, cbdc's have a greater potential to maintain a stable value, and become a viable means of payment transactions. there are two main types of cbdc's. one, retail cbdc's that consumers could get from the fed or a financial institution to pay for everyday things like a cup of coffee and wholesale cbdc's that would not be used by

individual consumers and instead only used for transactions among financial institutions and the fed. cbdc's are no longer a remote futuristic possibility. 134 countries and currency unions around the world representing 98% of global g.d.p. are currently exploring or implementing a cbdc. some have referred to the development of a cbdc as the next space race, but the united states is way behind the curve. what's more, there is growing concern that china, which has already issued its own cbdc, that has been used by hundreds of millions of people will be able to significantly influence the rest of the world's cbdc's development because the u.s. is so far behind.

this is especially problematic given the chinese cbdc has government surveillance baked into. while a united states cbdc would be designed to protect consumer privacy and other deeply held american values. this bill exacerbates these concerns by proposing to make the united states the first and only country in the world to ban a cbdc. by allowing other countries, especially china, to race ahead of us, h.r. 5403 directly threatens the permission to address the house for one minutecy of the united states dollar. today more than half of all international trade and more than 90% of all foreign exchange transactions are done in dollars. the dollars' dominance provides significant benefits to the united states like lower

borrowing costs for consumers. lower capital costs for united states businesses. and the ability to better implement u.s. foreign policy goals. in fact, the dollar's widespread use is what makes our sanctions so powerful. allowing us to block adversaries like russia and iran from doing business. not just with the united states, but with anyone who uses the dollar. that is why countries including china and russia are trying to establish an alternative to the dollar. including developing alternative digital currencies so they can more effectively evade united states sanctions. cbdc's also have the potential to offer benefits compared to united states dollars like faster and cheaper transactions. if the united states sits on the sidelines as other major economies move forward with cbdc

development, another digital currency like the digitallure row would -- euro would very well become the world's currency for international trade. if this weren't bad enough the nonpartisan congressional budget office c.b.o., or congressional budget office, has pointed out the ban on cbdc's in this bill could interpreted to encompass the federal reserve bank's reserves. these reserves are instrumental to several core functions of the fed, including their ability to conduct monetary policy. this means that h.r. 5403 would undermine the federal reserve's set of tools needed to ensure our economy does not enter a recession as inflation comes down. it also means that the bill could disrupt our banging system by prevent strengthing the fed from use -- preventing the fed

from using payment systems to quickly move funds between financial institutions. while some may think that this is merely a drafting error, it appears to be deliberate. during the markup of this bill, democrats pointed out on the record how this overly broad definition of cbdc could harm the fed's broader ability to conduct monetary policy. despite having every opportunity to fix the bill before it was considered here today, republicans have kept the language the same. let's not forget that donald trump has made clear intention to undermine the fed with repeated threats to fire the fed chair when he was in office, and more recently with reports that he would want to set interest rates from the oval office. furthermore, project 2025, which

is an extreme maga transition playbook for a potential trump administration, would abolish the fed. house republicans have already introduced a bill to do just that. i urge members to see this bill for what it is. it is not about protecting consumer privacy. after all, our current financial system has a number of data privacy shortcomings that this bill would do nothing to add address. moreover, there is nothing inherent about a cdbc that would compromise privacy. that is a design feature that is within our control. this bill is, instead, an attempt to stifle u.s. innovation and competitiveness abroad. and to undermine the federal agency that is the most critical

to fighting inflation. unbelievable. i urge members to vote no on this bill. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? ms. waters: yes, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, the majority whip, tom emmer, great leader on the financial services committee and original actor in the space of crypto currentlycy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. emmer: thank you, madam speaker. these last two weeks have been historic for financial innovation in congress. adoption of saab121, the resolution by both chambers and bipartisan passage of the financial innovation and technology for the 21st century act just yesterday shows the digital asset policy is no longer a back burner issue in congress. it is now front and center and

we are just getting started. the policies we recently debated and adoptrd in response to an administration that has failed to provide the clarity an guidance the budding digital asset industry in the united states has been begging for. because of their failures, congress has voted to reverse incoherent regulation and establish new standards that will allow our economy to move deeper into the 21st century economy. today, we continue these efforts to once again do what this administration has failed to do. i am proud to have my legislation, the cbdc anti-surveillance state act on the floor for a vote. this bill was the first anti-central bank digital currency legislative effort introduced in the united states. for the past two congresses i have worked with my colleagues to update, improve, and grow support for it. the bill is simple. it halts the efforts of this

administrative state under president biden from issuing a financial surveillance tool that if not done correctly will fundamentally alter the lives of every american. unlike decentralized crypto currencies, a cdbc is a digital form of sovereign currency designed, issued, and monitored by the federal government. it is government-controlled, programmable money if it's not designed to emulate cash could give the federal government the ability to surveil and restrict americans' transactions and monitor every aspect of their daily lives. this is not hyperbole. we have already seen examples of governments developing these types of tools and use them to weaponize their financial systems against their citizens. in china, the communist party employs a cdbc that can be used to monitor citizens' spending habits. closer to home in the western hemisphere, the canadian government demonstrated the power of federal financial

surveillance and control when it froze the bank accounts of hundreds of truckers protesting the covid vaccine mandate in 2022. it is naive to believe that your government on the weaponize the tools it has to control you. so it shouldn't come as any surprise that the appetite for financial surveillance can be an attractive proposition right here at home. in 2023, the white house issued an executive order placing a, quote, urgency, on cdbc research and development. and the aagency reports to that executive order made it clear that the biden administration is not only itching to create a cdbc, but they are interested in developing and deploying one, potentially undermining the privacy rights of every one of our citizens. congress can't allow this to happen. .. my bill ensures this remains in the hands of the american people, not the administrative state, so that any development of a digital money will reflect our american values of privacy,

individual sovereignty and free market competitiveness. the legislation affirms that if the federal government seeks to create a digital version of the u.s. dollar, they can do -- they can only do that with the explicit authorization of congress. it doesn't stop them. they can do that. but they got to get authorization from congress and they've got to make it open. whatever is ultimately developed must emulate the core tenants of cash. simply put, my digital currency bill or any digital currency issued by the government, again, must be open, permissionless and private. it cannot be used in the way that chinese have deployed their digital yuan to build social credit scores on their citizens based on their purchases and their behavior. these types of tools cannot exist in a free society like ours and we should only accept a digital currency that is consistent with our values, american values. this is what the future global

digital economy needs. if not open, permissionless and private like cash, a cbdc is nothing more than a c.c.p.-style surveillance tool that will ultimately be used to oppress our american way of life. if china embraces it, you know it's something worth standing against. we can and will continue to launch our economy deeper into the digital age without jeopardizing who we are as americans. and this bill is designed to ensure that that happens. i want to thank the 165 members of congress who have joined as co-sponsors of my legislation, in addition to chairman mchenry, chairman hill, chairman davidson and the many others on both sides of the political aisle who have worked tirelessly with me and my team to make sure we keep the united states the beacon of innovation and global economic strength, without undermining what makes our nation so special. i urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: thank you. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is now recognized. ms. waters: i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, who is also the ranking member of the subcommittee on digital assets, financial technology and inclusion. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you, madam chair. i thank the gentlelady from california for yielding. as the ranking member of the subcommittee on digital asset, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 5403, the so-called cbdc anti-surveillance act. at the expense of u.s. global economic leadership, this misguided legislation would effectively prevent the federal reserve from researching or issues a central bank digital currency, also known as a cbdc. unfortunately the facts surrounding the development of a central bank digital currency have been obscured by disinformation and infected by wrong-headed political ideology. earlier this years, former president trump vowed to, quote,

protect americans from tyranny and never allow the creation of a central bank digital currency. god help us. in congress, members of the house and senate have also followed suit, introducing bill after bill to block the development and even the examination of a central bank digital currency, based on unfounded claims that it violates user privacy and will be used as surveillance tool by the federal government. the gentleman is correct when he says that china has developed a cbdc and conducts full spectrum surveillance of their population. that's what they do. china is china. there's no bill of rights, there's no u.s.-like constitution that prohibits their government from doing that. they live in a communist regime. they don't have individual rights. that is not the case here in the united states.

and we have the ability to require any architecture that was developed for a central bank digital currency to preserve the individual rights of citizens in this country. this is like saying, ok, somebody used a car to rob a bank, so we're just going to ban cars because, you know, we don't want them to use it in that fashion. this is a technology, there's an architecture that underlies every cbdc. china does use their cbdc to conduct that surveillance, but we don't want that to be the dominant model. we with a like to have -- we would like to have the federal reserve have the ability to develop a cbdc that actually protects the privacy of american citizens. in my own congressional district, the boston federal reserve recently partnered with the digital currency initiative at m.i.t. on project hamilton. an initiative to build a

potential cbdc whose architecture maximizes privacy, cybersecurity and infrastructure resilience, and according to researchers, cbdc architecture can serve as a rigorous privacy-preserving tool. i've also introduced legislation called the e cash act that would -- e-cash act that would require the same security features associated with physical cash, which today is unanimous, into the development of a digital dollar that would be also the goal of a cbdc. currently there are more than 130 countries representing 98% of the global g.d.p. that are currently exploring the implementation or going forward with the implementation of a central bank digital currency. there is a widening gap between the u.s. and its g-7 peers, all

of whom have stronger privacy laws and personal data laws than the united states and who are far more advanced in this development of a cbdc. this bill would halt research in the u.s., but offshore researchers would continue to draw the talent necessary to develop a cbdc. to our detriment. and i think to the detriment of the primacy of the u.s. dollar. my republican colleagues often argue that the u.s. cannot afford to fall behind in digital currency but they insist on the u.s. shutting down a central bank digital currency before we even begin to explore or to research. the best researchers will move to other countries to conduct that research. and even if we did not want to deploy a central bank digital currency, we should want to know what the other 130 countries

that are deploying central bank digital currencies are doing. we should yearn to understand it. we should be exploring the potential of a digital dollar to serve as an alternative to existing forms of payment, and have benefits including instant payment settlement provide a medium for cross-border transactions and for greater financial inclusion. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this wrong-headed bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, the chairman of the digital assets subcommittee, the gentleman who had a great victory yesterday with 17 democrats voting for -- 71 democrats voting for his bill, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hill: i thank the chairman mchenry. thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the central bank digital currency anti-surveillance state act. the constitution of the federal reserve act of 1913 created the foundation of our money and our economic policy in this country.

article 1, section 8 of the constitution states that only congress has the authority to coin money and regulate the value of such money. today congress is exercising its article 1 authority to state clearly that the federal reserve does not have the authority to create a central bank digital currency. this shouldn't be kroaferl. it shouldn't be -- controversial. it shouldn't be partisan. we know that's the case. and so we'll see how the vote falls today, madam speaker. but this legislation is necessary, as you've heard this morning, because we live in a world where government can abuse the tools that they have. as noted by the whip, canadian prime minister justin trudeau, freezing bank accounts of people protesting covid-19 in his country. we've read reports from the select committee on the weaponization of the federal government, but how fincen, a bureau of the treasury department, pressured banks to screen private transactions of their customers for words like

maga or trump on behalf of federal law enforcement. is that really the country we want to live in? they even tracked people, according to that subcommittee, if you shopped at bass pro shop. i shop at bass pro shops all the time in my district. this kind of big brother-style surveillance of our financial lives by government is alarming to americans because it represents the political targeting of citizens in this country. so we don't need a retail central bank digital currency. we have a payment system that can capitalize on the private sector. for example, private sector payment stable coins are a terrific innovation that will become ubiquitous way for people to transact and expand and enhance the dollar dominance of our currency around the world. madam speaker, a vote for this bill is to vote to safeguard our freedom, protect our privacy and preserve the integrity of our financial system. i urge a yes vote and i yield

back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: madam speaker, i'm surprised at my friend, my friend, representative french hill. representative french hill and bill foster sent fed chair powell a letter on cbdcs stating, and i quote, the -- cbdc's stating, and i quote, the federal reserve as the central bank of the united states has the ability and the natural role to develop a national digital currency, with the potential for digital currencies to further take on the characteristics and utility of paper money. it may become increasingly imperative that the federal reserve take up the project of developing a u.s. dollar digital currency. we are concerned that the privacy -- primacy of the u.s.

dollar could be in long-term jeopardy from wide adoption of digital fiat currencies, relying on the private sector to develop digital currency carries its own risks, including loss of control of monetary policy, as well as the ability to implement and enforce effective anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing. now, we know -- well, let me yield. i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, who is also the ranking member of the subcommittee on capital markets. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sherman: today the gross hypocrisy of the crypto advocates is exposed. for several years they were screaming, don't touch crypto because it's innovative. and innovation is wonderful and innovation shouldn't be stopped

and if we don't innovate, other countries will. today the crypto forces bring a bill up that has one purpose. block innovation. why do we block innovation? because there might be a competitive payment system to the crypto payment system. in other words, if the crypto bros need to innovate and create a better payment system, and if they face competition, we need a law to stop them. this is a bad bill if it did what the authors say it will do. but what it will actually do is hard to know because of how poorly drafted it is. it bans a central bank digital currency or anything that comes close to one. it labels or it -- anything that is substantially similar. but the bill itself is a word

salad of anti-government and pro-crypto buzz words. how does it define this digital currency that it prohibits? it simply says digital money is a direct liability of the federal reserve system. well, all our money is a direct liability to the federal reserve system. it bans that presumably if it's electronic. so it bans 20th century technology when the fed buys -- technology. when the fed buys $100 million of treasury bills from a large bank, do you think that they put it all in armored cars and send it to jpmorgan? no. it's electronic. they're paying for it with a digital liability, a direct liability of the federal reserve system. so this bill, saz written, not

-- as is written, not as it's described, would require hundreds of thousands of armored cars if we're going to do the business that we've been doing since the 20th century. so i would ask any judge interpreting this bill, keep in mind not the words in the bill, because, god, that would stop the 20th century technology and all of our major financial transactions, but the purposes of the author. and what is the purposes? the purposes is that we should not have an electric -- electronic payment system that does not achieve two purposes. number one, the crypto bros must make a profit. and number two, it has to be a system that is effective for drug dealers and tax evaders. so judges interpreting this word salad that calls it self a bill -- calls itself a bill should keep those two objectives in mind. ... then we are told we need a new payment system in this country so the government cannot freeze

bank accounts because canada froze bank accounts of anti-vax truckers. i have no idea whether canada should have frozen those bank accounts. but i do know this, because canada froze bank accounts of anti-vax customers, we should have a payment system to make it impossible for american government to freeze accounts of convicted tax evaders, drug dealers, charlatans, then we enter into a new world i call patriotic an arckism. an arckism. the folks who demand america be strong and the government be totally defanged and inept. and unable to do anything. it's a wonderful world. you can believe in a strong america without an american government. or american government unable to freeze the bank accounts of convicted murderers. you are want a strong america, but not a government that is

able to do that. now, this world of a surveillance state if we had a central bank digital currency, keep in mind the use of that currency is entirely voluntary. just as the use of a credit card is voluntary. if you use a credit card, to buy a gun, and then you kill somebody, there is a record. you are also free to use cash. cash has some disadvantages. in the example i just gave those disadvantages are not apparent. those disadvantages include that it's not electronic. that it's bulky. if you have over $10,000 you want to deposit in a bank, a report is made. so we are offered a chance to -- ms. waters: i yield an additional minute. mr. sherman: we have a bill which if interpreted as written

blocks the american economy the way it operates today and has for decades. and would create lots of american jobs, building those armored cars. because the fed would have to deal with nonelectronic transactions. if it's interpreted as intended, it is designed to create a world in which the american government cannot conduct a criminal investigation that follows the money, and if someone is convicted, their bank accounts cannot be frozen because we have a new payment system without bank accounts that are not subject to being frozen. vote against this bill because of what's in it. vote against this bill because of what they wanted to put in it and hoped to put in it but didn't. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: madam chair, in

responding to the gentleman's arguments, i don't know where to begin. the civil liberties protections in the united states are evident. we have a court of law. we have a provision for law enforcement to go after bad actors. this bill has nothing to do with this. it's the direct question of whether or not the federal reserve should be able to track your money without having to go to the courts. just evident in the technology. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, the vice chair of the digital asset subcommittee, and the chair of the housing committee on the financial services committee, great leader in digital assets, thoughtful member of the committee, i yield two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. davidson: i thank you. i rise in strong support of banning central bank digital currency. why do we do this? as congressman hill pointed out, congress clearly has the article 1 authority under the united states constitution over money. and we should exert that. in the absence of exerting that,

with respect to central bank digital currency, the federal reserve is plowing right ahead. they are actively hiring programmers to write code to develop a central bank digital currency. to have colleagues say they won't turn it on, to me is equivalent to having the empire in star wars build the death star by promising not to turn to once it exists it poses a threat. they are not responding to congress right now. they are not. they are not listening to our values that are reflected in our constitution to protect our civil liberties. in fact, our colleagues are encouraging them not to. they are saying in their own words, we have to be more like china. the version of central bank digital currency the version that project hamilton is embracing, is the same version china's developing. it is being developed all over the world with more than 100 countries looking at implementing a central bank

digital currency all under the same model that the bank of international settlements, the central bank for central bankers in switzerland is proposing. it's the same creepy surveillance tool that the chinese communist party is using. centrally managed, centrally filtered. what definition is used here? i'm not sure we could gather that from mr. sherman's comments, but it is the same definition used on march 9 in 2022 when the biden administration released executive order 14067, the definition of h.r. 5403, this bill, is the same definition that we are addressing. chosen by the biden administration. we want to ban that. we don't just want to ban that in terms of the ability to -- mmr. mchenry: yield an additionl minute.

mr. davidson: another fallacy they point out this would turn off research. no, by all means. study t find all the problems with it. and make sure the people know don't go down this path. that is the point of this bill. if congress uses article 1 authority to subsequently set the parameters as is our constitutional obligation, we could do that with a subsequent bill. the reality is the federal reserve is not responding to dialogue. they need to respond to a law. i yield. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. auchincloss. the chair: the gentlewoman from california how much time are you yielding? ms. waters: one minute. the chair: thank you. mr. auchincloss: thank you, madam speaker. the framers of the constitution understood the importance of a strong and stable national currency which is why article 1,

section 8 grants congress the exclusive power to coin money. congress must not forfeit this power to the federal reserve or department of treasury when it comes to issuing a cdbc. they are -- cbdc. my bill, the power of the mint act, introduced alongside my republican colleague and chair of the digital assets subcommittee, congressman hill, would prohibit the issuance of a cbdc without authorization from congress. the rules committee controlled by republicans refused to consider my amendment which would have made the text of the power of the mint act, the base text of this bill. instead of voting on a bipartisan bill i'm confident would have secured a robust majority, we are voting on one now thrown together haphazardly, enenergy the advice of leg counsel. it was voted out of committee on a party-line vote. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. iite yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from north

carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. perry: thank you, madam chair. i thank the chairman of the committee. a rarity for congress the title of this bill actually reflects both the content anti-gravity of the subject sat -- and the gravity of the subject at hand. many my constituents, bosses, were rightly concerned when the president's administration announced its intention to surveil its pocketbooks over transactions as low as $600 a central bank digital currency would be worse. it would give the government unprecedented visibility and control into americans' transactions. what does that mean in practice? it means that it's much easier to pack purchases of things that the government doesn't like, like firearms or other items disapproved by the government. it's much easier for the government to shut down dissenting voices. and much easier for the government to control americans. people on the other side say that would never happen. no, it would never happen that

the government would tell you what kind of car you got to buy, they are not going to make any others. or what kind of stove you cannot buy. that would never happen, either. we should learn the lessons of the oppressed citizens everywhere from can do to the communist chinese before it's too late. i urge adoption. i yield the balance. the chair: thank you. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes, who is also the ranking member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the ranking member. and wow, the oppressed citizens of canada. really? we have gone into conspiracy world here what was otherwise a trajectory of remarkable bipartisan work on this new strange world of crypto currency and assets. now we are talking about the oppressed citizens of can dark the surveillance state. they'll tell you what their cars are doing and appliances.

i guess we can't do too much bipartisanship before we have to revert to the madness of conspiracy theories. folks, why did we do what we did yesterday. it split nigh party. people of good will on both sides. the reason a number of democrats supported the bill which is not our preferred bill because in the context of the possibility of innovation you opened options. we don't know what this stuff is going to look like five or 10 years from now. we open options. that's why we did what we did yesterday. today because of conspiracy world, we are closing options. i don't know what a cbdc might look like five or 10 years from now. i suspect having written a white paper on it there might be a portion of the population instead of using joe's stablecoin might value a stablecoin backed by the full faith and credit. i don't know and you don't know. let's keep our options open.

allow for the possibility and research that every other country out there like the united kingdom, not china, but the united kingdom is doing to see if we can open the path f forker innovation. i hear china. we have public service and public safety radically different that have china. don't scare us with china. we can do this right. not in the context of innovation foreclose an option. please vote against this bill which is an anti-innovation bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas , mr. self. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. self: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the cbdc anti-surveillance state act. we must prohibit the federal reserve from issuing this currency. if you don't want to talk about china, let's talk about the united states.

mr. speaker, we just spent months debating the fourth amendment is not for sale act. and the fisa re-authorization. the central debate surrounding these two bills was government surveillance of our citizens. throughout my time in congress i have fought to protect americans from unconstitutional surveillance right here in america. this bill is another tool to protect our citizens' rights. mr. speaker, we don't have to guess what would be the use of this cbdc. we have witnessed various united states government agencies, the i.r.s. to the f.b.i. targeting conservatives for their beliefs. do you want your buc-ee's coffee or monthly mortgage payment or the ammo you purchase for your

hunting trip to be visible to the federal government? i suggest not. we must continue to fight back against the continuing and obvious weaponization of the federal government and prevent the creation of a central bank digital currency. mr. speaker, this could be the final step toward absolute and total surveillance by the federal government. i urge my colleagues to support the freedom of americans and vote for the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: the bill's sponsor has warned that a u.s. cbdc would mirror the surveillance tactics that are baked into the chinese cbdc without explaining why the united states would ever

choose to design a cbdc in a manner that mimics chinese surveillance. privacy protections can be incorporated from the earliest development stages of a cbdc. this is what other privacy focused jurisdictions have been doing with their cbdc development like the european union because their constituents care about privacy, too. in fact, research from the atlantic council has noted that the cbdc's can be designed in a way that offer cash-like privacy through the use of zero knowledge proofs encryption, and other design features where a payment validator processes transactions but does not learn the identities of those involved without the permission of the parties. i reserve the balance of my time. .. . the chair: the gentlewoman

reserves. mr. mchenry: i would like to inquire time remaining on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has 14 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from california has six minutes remaining. mr. mchenry: i yield to representative greene. >> i rise in support of the cbdc antisurveillance state act and prohibit unelected bureaucrats from issuing a digital currency that would destroy americans' right to privacy. they are a digital form of a foreign currency designed and issued by the federal government and recorded on a ledger controlled by the federal government. in other words, if a political enemy of the deep state or say a democrat regime says or does something that is not approved,

the government could prohibit them from using their digital government controlled financial assets or simply take them away. we are talking about americans' money. in the past few years we lived through a time and americans are very aware of it where the government forced social media to sensor americans about their statements about the 2020 election and unconstitutional covid lockdown and violations of americans' medical freedom forcing them to take an experimental vaccine in order to work, go to school, shop, go to restaurants and live. government tracking americans on keywords like maga, trump or americans that care about their second amendment rights is something that has happened in the past few years and is still happening. the very idea of our government controlling our money with the

ability to turn it off whenever they see that it is terrifying. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. the chair: the gentlelady yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i recognize the gentlelady from utah, congresswoman maloy one minute. >> i rise to support the passage of house resolution 5403 antisurveillance state act which i am a co-sponsor. a cbdc can compete with private financial intermediaries and invite more regulation into every economic institution and

open the american people. this is one of the reasons that the utah legislature blocked cbdc as being recognized as legal tender. this is an issue that people are concerned about. we don't need to be like china and americans nand to participate in the economy without giving up our privacy. we have to protect our right to privacy and this bill forbids the that is protecting our own authority and prohibits the federal reserve as a tool to take full control through monetary policy, something americans won't stand for and protects the privacy of coins and bills ensuring they remain private. and rarely do the credit unions, the banks and the utah legislature agree on anything. i yield. the chair: the gentlelady yields.

the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. williams, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. williams: i rise in support of h.r. 5403. this necessary legislation with would prevent the federal reserve from issuing disightal currency. this bill prohibits the fed from using cbdc as a tool to implement. around the world they have tracked the spending habits and in china the c.c.p. uses cbdc to track their citizens and punishes individuals on their spending behavior. we cannot allow this surveillance to be imposed. the issues of cbdc would lead to

decreased competition as the federal government would be indirect competition with banks. this is antibusiness. the government controlled cbdc is an attack on free market competitiveness. support h.r. 5403 and i yield back. in god we trust. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i am struck how republicans have quickly changed their tune on how we should be promoting innovation. here are just a couple of quotes from republicans from the debate just yesterday. representative davidson, his quote, for too long, we have pushed innovation and investment in digital asset projects overseas. we finally have the chance to end this strain and solidify ourselves as the leaders in this

industry. mr. mchenry, your quote, we are falling behind europe. this bill catches up so that we do not lose our innovation policy to the unions, to the folks in the u.k., to singapore, to japan, to hong kong that all have regimes similar to what we're doing. the next generation of internet technology is being written and should be written by american innovators here in the united states. we can allow that innovation to pass us by or as mr. mchenry said or we can seize that opportunity. the double standard is simply stunning. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. mchenry: mr. chair, i would note for the record a couple things. this is private sector innovation, that was yesterday's

bill. 2/3 of the house spoke in favor of that. i know the ranking member of the committee did not not, but 71 of her democratic colleagues voted with almost all the republicans yesterday for private sector innovation on digital assets. i know she did not. today, what they want to do is have a public sector innovation. the regimes i spoke of yesterday fostering private sector innovation are not going down the route of the central bank digital currency. i want to note that for the record. with that, i yield one minute to the chair of the science committee and great leader on financial services committee, mr. lucas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i want to thank chairman mchenry and whip emmer of being leaders in the digital asset policy and for this legislation from offering

digital currency to an individual. as advances drive changes in the payments landscape, it is the responsibility of congress to foster innovation while protecting consumers. a federal reserve physical currency is the only central bank money available to the public. a cbdc would be a digital dollar which recognizes consumer protection concerns. this legislation clarifies that the fed cannot offer direct products or services or maintain accounts on behalf of an individual and specify the congressional authority is needed to set up a cbdc. during the past 15 years congress has transferred a significant amount of authority to the federal reserve. in the case of cbdc congressional approval is essential for transferring with broad implications. thank you for offering this legislation.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: if privacy is the main concern concerning the promoters of this bill, it is unclear that the bill would ban whole sale cbdc's that do not pose privacy concerns because they would not be used by consumers at all. they would be used by banks and other institutions to reduce transactions and improve speed in cross that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks border transactions with other institutions. for these reasons it was the american bankers' association who advocated for the exclusion of whole sale cbdc's from this bill when it was marked up. supporters can explain to the american people why a prohibition on the whole sale cbd krmp would protect their privacy. they resort to baseless

fearmonnerring -- mongering. i yield to mr. sherman. mr. sherman: we are told to reject this. not everything that happens in china needs to be beened by statute in this congress. we are told we need to protect privacy, but this bill is -- you have -- does not prohibit or does not require anybody to use digital currency. you are still going to have cash and a credit card. it's one more option. you may say use of the credit card doesn't give me privacy because my wife found out i spent too much on a tie. you can have credit cards, debit cards and if you don't want to

keep private, don't use it. it's not mandatory. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: bow ties are cheaper than long ties. and i yield to the chair of the oversight services. mr. huizenga: last congress as a member of the digital assets working group, we established clear premises on how any proposed cb dmp c proposal should be evaluated. the u.s. dollars must remain the world's currency and payment systems must continue to be the envy of the world. american taxpayers should benefit, not be disadvantaged by any legislation that congress enacts. second, the private sector must lead the way. digital asset must foster

competition. that's what the bill was about yesterday. further, we must maintain privacy and security protections consistent with other currency transactions utilized today. that is in danger base odd what the fed is proposing. lastly, it should come as no surprise that americans fed developed central bank with skepticism. congress has not grpted the fed this authority nor should it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. ms. waters: reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: at this point, i recognize the gentleman from nebraska, a leader in digital assets, mr. flood for one minute. mr. flood: thank you, chairman mchenry. this bill is necessary because

retail central bank digital currency would be terrifying and powerful tool in the hands of any government entity. i would like everybody in this chamber to think and picture the politician they dislike the most in their mind. imagine that person and all the ill intentions you acrib to them with the power to monitor restrict or halt the financial transactions. it is a horrifying thought and cuts to the core we need to reject a retail cbdc in this country. they claim that arguments like this are alarmists. once a cbdc is built it will endure through every political twist and turn our country has ahead for better or for worse. president reagan said freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. if we issue a retail cbdc it

will never be one election away from extinction. i thank the financial services committee and i yield become. the chair: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: according to an analysis written t.d. cohen, may 23, 2024, we do see risk in the house looking today to pass a related bill that would ban the united states from launching a digital dollar. we view such a ban as negative for the global dominance of u.s. banks and for the global role of the u.s. dollars because the ban would apply to whole sale as well as consumer use. that could give the euro or

other countries that are digitized an edge over being used for global trade as stable coin digital dollars could lose value run while a digital euro would not face that threat. . . mr. mchenry: i'm prepared to close. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield myself the balance of the time. yesterday we debated a republican bill that was substantially deregulate the crypto industry allowing most crypto to operate without a primary regulator and with virtually no regulation. where was the concern about a consumers' privacy then? yesterday republicans threw all of the existing protections for consumers, including privacy, out the window in the name of so-called crypto innovation and

u.s. competitiveness. but when it comes to the one crypto innovation that could impact our national security interest and economy, they want to stop that innovation in its tracks. there is simply no reason to unilaterally tie our own hands in this respect and risk undermining the permission to address the house for one minutecy of the u.s.-prmisy of the u.s. doorar and make it harder for the federal reserve to combat inflation. the stakes of this bill are incredibly high. the strength of the united states dollar, our ability to innovate and compete globally, our ability to enforce sanctions and protect our interest abroad and our ability to stop inflation are all well on the line. so i certainly urge a into vote on this bill, h.r. 5403. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i yield myself the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: i want to reiterate this bill protects american's right to financial privacy. that's the core of this. it was my hope that this bill would be the base text for an amendment process by which we would get my democratic colleagues in committee to agree with that principle. but nonetheless we brought this bill to the floor. it ensures congress not the current or future admini administration, retapes authority over any central bank currentlycy. this is congress making a statement. we have the commitment, current chair of the federal reserve says will not have a consumer facing central bank digital currency under his tenure in the federal reserve. that's a commitment of the current chair. not a commitment from the federal reserve. we have a legal ruling that says

that -- for it to be a consumer facing currency, the fed would have to come back to congress to ask for the authorities. secretary yellen today in news reports says that that is, indeed, the case, in her view. that the fed would have to come back to ask for authorities. we are making an affirmative stance and statement as a congress that is not just the opinion of the chair of the federal reserve, the current chair of the federal reserve, and the current secretary of the treasury, but the stance of the united states government and united states congress. it's important that we recognize civil liberties are highly important and our system in the united states is different than every system around the global. in protecting individuals' civil liberties from governmental encroachment. and we should all agree that a central bank digital currency

should reflect american values of privacy, individual sovereignty, and free market competitiveness. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, very important statement for us. just like the important statement we made yesterday. when 71 of my democratic colleagues voted with almost all the republicans to put forward a regulatory framework for digital assets and crypto currency. great bipartisan outcome. huge number of democratic support, even though the administration said they didn't -- didn't want the bill. even though the minority leader voted against this. even though the ranking member on financial services whipped hard against the bill, we had 71 of my democratic colleagues to solve innovation, consumer protection was at the core of the piece of that legislation. they voted in favor of it. it is my hope they'll see we need civil liberties protection from any government encroachment in the financial realm.

with that i urge adoption of this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in part c of house report 118-516. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a prone and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and anne shall not be subject to demand demand for division of the question. it is in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 118-516.

for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. ogles: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part c of house report number 118-516, offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1243, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. ogles: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment adds a sense of congress that the board of governors of the federal reserve system should not be permitted to develop, create, or implement a central bank digital currency. or use any such tool to implement monetary policy. a maimer concern surrounding a government-run cbdc is the potential for the government to block transactions and control over people's finances. not only that, it would gift federal government unprecedented power to intervene in private transactions, deciding who can

buy and sell and what they can buy and sell. it would also give the government unprecedented access to information about their lives, daley lives, the government keep a record of every transaction. mr. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california -- for what purpose does gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the lady is recognized. ms. waters: i oppose this amendment which doubles down on the republican efforts to prohibit cbdc's which if republicans read their own bill is already prohibited in the bill. this sense of congress only causes further confuse on how the bill should be interpreted as a whole by duplicating things that are already in the bill. by wording them in a slightly different manner. experts from atlantic counsel have warned, i quote, if this bill ever became law the united

states would be the only country in the world to have banned cbdc's. it would be a self-defeating move in the race for the future of money. it would undercut the national security role of the dollar as the decision would only accelerate other countries' development of alternative payment systems that look to bypass the dollar in cross border transactions. this would make u.s. sanctions less effective, end quote. i urge members to oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my t time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my colleague from arkansas, mr. hill. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes mr. hill: i thank the chairman. thank mr. ogles from tennessee for the time. i rise in support of mr. ogles' commonsense resolution.

yes, it doubles down on the views of congress in this bill. no doubt. the underlying bill all right prohibits the use of a central bank digital currency to implement monetary policy. however, this sense of congress further clarifies our intent just as chairman mchenry just noted, the federal reserve is not permitted to develop, create, or implemented a cbdc or use a cbdc to implement monetary policy without authorization of congress. but part of the reason we are here is due to the fed officials have been ambiguous or noncommittal as to public statements related to their legal authorities under the federal reserve act as it relates to a cbdc. i agree with mr. mchenry certainly this chairman, jay powell, has been quite clear to our committee that issuing a retail cbdc is not something he could do without an authorization of congress. that's why i think reiterating

it in this resolution is an important step. i commend the gentleman from tennessee for bringing this amendment. i hope all our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it and the underlying bill. with that i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: bill's prohibition on cbdc's, but according to the nonpartisan c.b.o., i'll quote, the bill's prohibition on the federal reserve's use are issuance of a central bank digital currency could apply to bank reserves. which are a unit of value and a liability of the federal reserve. end quote. as the c.b.o. also acknowledges, bank reserves are a primary tool for the fed in conducting monetary policy. so prohibiting the fed from

holding bank reserves could very well take us backwards, erasing all progress that the fed has made so far in reducing inflation and achieving a soft landing. a vote for this bill is a vote for higher inflation and economic uncertainty. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: there is a reason that china under the rule of the totalitarian chinese communist party has the most developed cbdc program. it's about control. their cbdc enables them to combine intrusive monitoring of the public, control their lives, with their orr wellian -- orwellian credit scores. take what canada did by cutting off money from the truckers. look what china's doing. if we go down this path we are heading towards an orwellian nightmare.

my sense of congress doubles down on the fact that the greenback is the reserve currency of the world. a cbdc undermines that and it should not be pursued. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: this bill is opposed by the following organizations. americans for financial reform, demand progress, public citizen, and take on wall street. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized mr. ogles: my amendment is simple. because it underscores that the federal reserve should not move forward with implementing a cbdc or use any policy that would afford that action. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i believe i have a right to close.

the chair: the gentlelady from california does have the right to close. ms. waters: i urge my colleague- the chair: the gentleman from -- ms. waters: i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. ogles: thank you, sir. i urge adoption of my amendment. it is clear, it is concise, it is simple, and it's just good policy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. waters: a recorded vote is requested. the chair: recorded -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee mlb postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 118-516. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mooney: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part c of house report number 118-516, offered by mr. mooney of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1243, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney, and a member posed, each will control five minutes of the the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mooney: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mooney: central bank digital currency or digital dollar represents one of the greatest government surveillance threats of our time. i'm glad this republican majority is taking it seriously. the federal reserve does not have the authority to issue a

digital dollar without an act of congress first. it doesn't have the ability to build and test ones behind the scenes. my amendment would stop the federal reserve sphrementtation dead in its tracks. the federal reserve is contracting with the private sector to build digital dollars for the unions far beyond what is considered traditional research. the federal reserve is using this at a moment's notice. china is cracking down on pro-democracy dissent. chinese citizens won't have a choice. and in america the biden administration could use the digital dollar to track your gun purchases for example. chairman powell has said the federal reserve would not issue the digital dollar without an

act of congress, but doing so a pilot program is doing the same thing. congress cannot give an i inch when it comes to this. my amendment would block the federal reserve from establishing, carrying out or approving any program intended to test the feasibility of issuing a digital dollar. if the federal government wants to experiment with a surveillance tool that the overwhelming majority of american citizens oppose, that direction must come from a vote in congress. make no mistake central bank digital currency is not about innovation but about control. my amendment prevents the federal reserve from bypassing by closing the program loophole once and for all and i urge my

colleagues to support it. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i urge members to oppose the mooney amendment with explicitly ban cbdc pilot programs like the last amendment we just seres, this amendment bans something that h.r. 5403 already bans. orderly, this amendment would exacerbate the confusing drafting in h.r. 5403 by prohibiting something in two places but in slightly different ways. in fact, all three of these amendments that we are considering with existing provisions in the underlying bill which leads me to believe that republicans simply don't understand what their own bill does. let me again try to explain their own bill.

this amendment and the bill both prohibit the fed from conducting a study on how to design a central bank digital currency using a pilot program in case the public is wondering, the new york fed is currently conducting a pilot through its new york innovation center to test the benefits and drawbacks of a wholesale cbdc in collaboration with u.s. banks and the monetary authority of singapore. this bill does not mean that at the end the fed will issue a cbdc or that americans will have one. in fact, the fed has made it abundantly clear that it wants congress to authorize it to do so. but how is congress going to be able to make this decision if we

don't have any research as to how a cbdc could be designed that reflects our values. again, importantly, to counter misinformation from the other side of the aisle, wholesale cbdc's are not used by individual consumers. they're only used by institutions to transfer funds. so there aren't no consumer privacy issues with wholesale cbdc because consumers are not directly involved. if the point of this bill is to protect consumer privacy, the sponsor should have directed the fed to ensure that it only tests a cbdc that does that. i urge members to oppose this harmful amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady

reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mooney: i yield to my colleague, the gentleman from ohio. mr. davidson: i rise to support mr. mooney's amendment. this demonstrates house republicans unwavering and thorough conviction that it must not develop without express authorization from congress. i think it can go further with this amendment by being clear. pilot? we are not doing that. yes, you are. a pilot project represents the first step that we could take and as you see the federal reserve spending time and resources building a team, actively, hiring and outsourcing. it is consistent that this pilot could be developed to something further. mr. mooney's amendment would not only remove the pipeline the fed

is already building but would ensure to test or research cbdc's are approved by congress. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mooney: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: republicans remain focused on cbc's when i explained that c.b.o. has pointed out that the definition of cbdc can be interpreted to include bank reserves held by the fed. bank reserves are used as the setment the that are facilitated by the fed. this means that prohibiting the federal's -- fed's ability to hold bank reserves would make it difficult if not impossible to administer the payment system causing a massive disruption.

a vote for this bill is a vote to disrupt. republicans are refusing to acknowledge the broader impacts of this bill to undermine the fed, disrupt our banking and payment systems and risk higher inflation. but the american people should know the truth. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mooney: i have no further speakers. i yield become. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: like the underlying bill, this amendment closes out opportunities for innovation and harming our influence throughout the world before we have had a chance to fully study, test and

understand cbdc's this bill and amendment represents the wing of the republican party that is antiscience and scattered the innovation they claim to like. this amendment does not prohibit the issuance of a cbdc but prohibiting the research on how cbdc's work. i can't stress how responsible it is for congress to be passing blanket prohibitions on research based on unwarranted fears. i can understand fears about potential outcomes but cannot understand fear of research. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and h.r. 5403. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to.

it is now -- ms. waters: request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part c of 118-356. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part c of 118-516. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1243, the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. davidson: i thank the chairman. i applaud congressman emmer's

hard work on getting this piece of legislation to the floor. i am encouraged like mr. hill, mr. huizenga, mr. bower, ms. -- bar, miswagner. i wish that extended across the aisle because this is the creepiest surveillance tool known to man. whether a new world, 1984, what i consider the book of revelation, shows the corruption of money from its proper use as a means of exchange into a tool for coercion and control. something that can filter people's access to their own money and ability to use it in a free society. why would we enable. everywhere it is depicted as evil. our own government is doing it. frankly, the underlying text prevents the federal reserve from establishing a central bank

digital currency and this amendment is important we should be clear, we don't want them to design it, build it or do develop work on it and we don't want them to issue it. that authority is reserved for congress. and there may become a part where our form will look different than it is today, but it should look like cash. and saying cash is one option in the system doesn't cut it when the whole architecture becomes conditioned on your ability to be granted access to your own property from a central government. this is a bad system. and it is great today for us to have the opportunity to ban it. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: claim time in

opposition. with this amendment, my republican colleagues are really piling on to make sure the fed is prohibited from even thinking of about cbdc's. this amendment is not adding anything substantive that isn't already in the bill. instead it is making worse the eternal draft inconsistencies. so i urge members to oppose this amendment and the underlying bill. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. davidson: the gentlewoman correctly recognizes we are piling on. we want it to be clear to the word wees else in the executive branch that try to find a way to scheme and maneuver and in spite of supreme court rulings come up with new executive orders whether it is forgiving student debt or launching climate change

initiatives, banning bump stocks, warrantless searches, you name it, they have a way to get passed the intent of congress. we want to close every possible venue. reserves. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. davids daiferredz is the gentleman prepared to close? ms. waters: i will proceed to close -- the chair: does the gentlelady reserve? the gentleman from ohio is ready to close. is the gentlelady -- the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. davidson: we made it clear with the amendments and

statements with the bill text, we need to ban central bank digital currency. do not let them design, develop. we need to prevent the federal reserve from doing this. that is the clear intent of congress. i encourage all of our colleagues to unite in support of this bill and this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: this amendment, like the underlying bill is dangerous and rash. it will prohibit the u.s. from even training for a race that has already began. i urge my colleagues not to cave to baseless fear mongering. i have already explained in depth how the privacy concerns from republicans do not align with the actual facts. i simply urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and

the underlying bill. and i yield. the chair: the gentlelady yields the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment you are ad by -- offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part c of house report 118-516 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. ogles of tennessee. amendment number 2 by mr. mooney of west virginia. amendment number 3 by

mr. davidson of ohio. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 118-516 by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. ogles, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 118-516 offered by mr. ogles of tennessee. the spe the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 204, the nays are 176. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 118-516

by the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 118-516 offered by mr. mooney of west virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 206, the nays are 193. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 118-516 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part c of house

report 118-516 offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 212, the nays are 195. the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: i report the bill as amend by that resolution back to the house with sundry amen furtr amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. did you get that? the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill, h.r. 5403, and pursuant to house resolution 1243 reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on is a separate vote demanded?

if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal reserve act to prohibit federal reserve banks from offering services and products directly to an individual to prohibit the use of cent trail bank digital currency and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. waters: a recorded vote is

requested. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. -- pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on passage of h.r. 5403 will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of the motion to recommit, h.r. 192 and passage of 192 if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 216 and the nays are

192. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is question on agreeing to the motion to recommit on h.r. 192 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. robert garcia, on which the yeas and nays are ordered the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to recommit h.r. 192 offered by mr. robert garcia of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the motion to recommit. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 195 and the nays are 212. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. , please say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 262, the nays are 143. the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that i may here after be considered the primary sponsor of h.r. 4105, a bill originally introduced by representative ken buck of colorado for the purpose of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprintings under clause 7 of rule 12.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. joyce: may i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. joyce: i ask unanimous consent that i may be considered the primary sponsor of h.r. 895, a bill originally introduced by representative ken buck of colorado for the purpose of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprecipitationings under clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i may here after be considered the primary sponsor of h.r. 1402, a bill originally introduced by representative higgins of new york for the purpose of adding co-sponsors and requesting reprintings under clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

without objection, the title of h.r. 192 is amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent i may heave be considered the first response of

h.r. 1408 introduced by mr. higgins of new york adding co-sponsors and asking reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. may 23, 2024. i hereby designate the period thursday may 23,2024 through sunday june 2, 2024 as a district work period under section 3-z of house resolution 5, signed sincerely mike johnson, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to share my displeasure with the mexican government. mr. karl: we have a alabama based company, vulcan materials, which faced continuous harassment and intimidation from the mexican government since mexico illegally invaded and shut down their operations two years ago and the president of mexico has unlawfully seized vulcan's port, undermining trust in the mexican's commitment to foreign trade agreements. if this is the way mexico wants to do business with us, then we should look long and hard at all the businesses dealing with them. this jeopardizes the relationship when we should be prioritizing our strength in the western hemisphere and reducing

our dependence on china. i'm working with the house appropriations committee to warn mexico if they continue ignoring the rule of law, then they will face consequences. upholding the rule of law is essential for effective trade agreements and violators, including mexico, will be held accountable. we will investigate and potentially sanction any private citizen involved in the illegal scam providing vulcan from the profits that have been stolen from them. with that, mr. speaker, i return my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i recognize mike lennox for 100 years.

new orleans has cafe dumond, louisville has mike lennox which started as a simple roadside stand as a working farm along the ohio river, offering fresh fruit, vegetables, and hospitality to those who stopped by. mr. mr. mcgarvey: before long mike's place sold fried fish sandwiches and through wars and recessions, the lennox family has never stopped. the modest roadside stand is now 20 acres that can accommodate 1,000 people from all walks of life with an appetite to getting together with friends and families over the best fried cod and onion rings of america. i want to congratulate mike's grandchildren, bill, teresa, and nancy, who continue to run this beloved louisville institution. let's keep it going for another hundred years. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition?

mr. burchett: i seek recognition unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burchett: thank you, mr. speaker. i remind the members in the back, it's crowded up there, i remind you there are seats in the front to come up here. i want to recognize deejay ted gunner alsley after a career that spanned six decades. he started his career at a.m.1470 at tennessee before working in knoxville and the hit kicker 100 .3 before moving to wivk, 107.7 where he spent the last 28 years. he's interviewed big names in country music over the years like jason al dean, blake shelton and taylor swift. yes, she used to sing country music. when she was 15 years old, she did. gunner loved our veterans and troops and used his job to help them however he can. in 2004 he spent three months with special operations in the combat zone of iraq and started

weekly radio show called "voices from the front" that allowed troops to communicate with their families back home and used by many troops all over the world through the years. he also hosted veterans day parade in knoxville. gunner worked with other charities like st. jude's research hospital and tennessee alzheimer's, and many others. he's a man who truly loves his country and community and also became the first inductee in the tennessee radio hall of fame career class of 2024. congratulations on a great career, gunner. i wish you the best in retirement. i always remember you being good to my daddy who was a world war ii veteran. thank you, gunner, and i yield the remainder of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio. without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise to address a matter of profound importance, the implementation of the bipartisan and bicameral reoppose act. this legislation signed into low april 24 grants the president the authority to seize russian sovereign assets frozen in the united states and transfer them to ukraine for its reconstruction. as co-chair and co-founder of the ukraine caucus i cannot overstate the urgency of this action. russia's invasion of ukraine demands a decisive response from the international community by swiftly implementing the repo act we can provide crucial work to ukraine and will show sovereignty and the ability to rebuilt. and let me say the efforts have worked and together we can establish a compensation system that leverages the frozen assets. the time to act is now. let us show the world america's

resolve and stand resolute with ukraine against putin's aggression and tyranny. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lawler: today i stand before you to honor the memory of luke rothschmidt, a beloved father that passed away this weekend. his sudden departure leaves a void in the hearts of all who knew him. he was behind united for the troops founded by his parents which sends care packages to our brave soldiers overseas. this initiative began with a simple act of love, a care package sent to luke during his deployment with the u.s. army. . . his family effort has brought a

touch of home to tens of thousands of our brave men and women abroad. a revered member of the commute, he was commander of the v.f.w. post 5941 where he was known for his leadership and support for fellow veterans. his commitment to service was unparalleled. luke's legacy is in the lives he touched, the community he strengthened, and country he served. we mourn his loss but celebrate his incredible, impactful life i extend my deepens condolences to the family. he was truly larger than life and his memory will last a lifetime. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? >> i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i rise to congratulate selma's own, asher havan, for winning season 25 of "the voice." a native of my hometown of selma, alabama, asher got his start singing in the church and even performed for president obama during his visit for the 50th anniversary of the selma to montgomery march. throughout this season on the voice, his outstanding vocal abilities have taken america by storm. his first place win makes him not only the first alabaman to win the voice, but also the first openly lgbtq person to earn such a title. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the one, the only, asher havan of selma, alabama, for his first place finish as the winner of the voice. we in selma are so proud of you and we can't wait to see everything that you will continue to achieve. we are, indeed, selma strong.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today regarding the mexican government's unprecedented interference in the lawful operation of alabama's-based balkan material company. mr. strongically they have maintained a presence in mexico since 1980. supporting thousands of american jobs and fostering both economic and infrastructure development in the u.s. and abroad. this month marks the second year since the mexican government illegally invaded and shut down the deep water port in mexico. since then they have faced increasing aggression and harassment by the mexican government, including president lopez. threatening to unlawfully seize the port and limestone cary.

mexican -- mexico's actions not only jeopardize our bilateral relationship, but threat enu.s. jobs and infrastructure development. the alabama delegation stands united behind vulcan. i call on the mexican government to immediately cease this brazen defiance of rule of law and end this unjust interference in legitimate operations of american businesses. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor el paso county attorney a trailblazer whose unwavering dedication to public service has profoundly improved our community. ms. escobar: in november, 2009, she broke barriers as the first woman elected county attorney in el paso, mark ago historic moment in local goffance.

under her leadership the office is a hub of legal expertise, protecting our community's values and interests. her duties include representing and prosecuting juvenile offenses, addressing deceptive trade business practice, and aiding victims of domestic and sexual violence. she's a staunch advocate for victims' rights, prioritizing dignity and full legal support, including to undocumented individuals and the lgbtqia+ community. it is my privilege to recognize her for her exemplary service, leadership, and dedication to our community and wish her and her family the best upon her retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. meuser: mr. speaker, as we approach memorial day, we honor the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice, protecting our great country and preserving the freedoms we hold

dear. as benjamin franklin said it's a republic if you can keep it, kept for 250 years, largely thanks to the patriots who sacrificed so much. let's renew our commitment to the ideals they fought. as abraham lincoln said, we here highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain. may we strive to build a nation where liberty and justice are more than words but a reality. their legacy will live on through our dedication to these principles. on memorial day we will be flying a flag to remember our nation's heroes. it's up to us the people to keep that flag flying and do this by continuing to confirm our strength in america, our patriotism, our economy, and national security. may god bless america and those who died protecting it. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the supreme court recently circulated guidelines to its employees that cautioned against

anything, quote, that might signal a political display, end quote. mr. peters: those guidelines for employees are apparently lost on the justices themselves who fly upside-down american flags, display symbols of insurrection and christian nationalism, and take gifts from political operatives. supreme court justices should set the highest standard and avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. mr. speaker, i'm increasingly concerned about a tax -- attacks on the american system of justice from the inside and out. as an attorney i'm bound by the coat of ethics that states a lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials. which is why it is so shocking to see colleagues who practiced law standing outside of the trial of the former president in attempt to undermine those proceedings as they are going on. they should know bet earn they do know bert. loyalty to donald trump is apparently the only loyalty some attorneys serving in elected office adhere to these days.

as members of the house and members of the bar, we must do better. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor 100 years of the united states' border patrol. what began as a small unity of mounted watchmen has become one of our nation's most important law enforcement agencies. mr. guest: the border patrol is tasked with protecting the american people. securing our borders. and enhancing our nation's economic prosperity. the mission has become increasingly more difficult because of the open door policies enacted by this administration. and while i condemn the policies that have led to the border crisis, i continue to stand with

the frontline men and women of the united states border patrol. these men and women place themselves in harm's way to stop the flow of illegal immigration. to stop human trafficking. and drug trafficking into our country. these officers deserve our thanks, our support, and most importantly our prayers. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. ross: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ross: mr. speaker, i rise today during mental health awareness month. a time to reflect on the stark reality that more than one in five adults in america live with a mental illness. but adults aren't the only one who is struckle with their mental health. children, teens, and young adults face unprecedented mental health challenges every day, but

are far less likely to get the support that they need. and while mental health is important all year long, during may we raise awareness, educate others, and remind those struggling, you are not alone. i was proud to secure $6 million in federal funding for wake head's new mental health and well-being hospital to improve access to mental health care in my community. let's continue to fight for a future where every american has access to the resources that they need to live a healthy and fulfilling life. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. dean: mr. speaker, the

judicial code of conduct advises that a united states judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. just days after january 6, the alitos flew an upside-down american flag. an image that sickened me. an image that was adopted as a stop the steal emblem. the united states flag code states that an upside-down flag can be displayed only as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger olive or property. dire distress, not a political dispute. not a political fight with your neighbor. justice alito has served on the bench for 18 years. he knows better. no matter why the alitos flew our flag in this disrespectful way, justice alito has failed to avoid impropriety.

and even the appearance of impropriety itself. i call on justice alito to recuse himself from all cases involving january 6 and the 2020 election. this justice knows better. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does next the gentlewoman from from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. scanlon: seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. scanlon: thank you, mr. speaker. over 60 million americans live with a disability, including many of our seniors and veterans. when they travel these passengers deserve a safe and dignified flying experience, but i have heard all too often from constituents living with disabilities that their air travel experience can be anything but safe and dignified. inaccessible rest rooms and aircraft, damage to wheelchairs, or absence of assistance devices

can make air travel unpleasant or even impossible. i was proud to vote for the bipartisan f.a.a. re-authorization act which expands the rights of passengers with disabilities and makes important strides for consumer protection and accessibility. including protections for powered wheelchairs, safer handling of assisted -- ass assistive device, new aircraft with accessibility standards, deadlines for d.o.t. to investigate and respond to disability related complaints, improved accessible the -- accessibility for airline mobile apps and important updates to emergency medical kits on planes. many of these are key provisions from the carrier access amendment act which i fought since coming to congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. kennedy: i rise to honor the 50th anniversary of a trailblazing advocacy organization, the ms. foundation for women. for a half century they have been at the forefront of the fight for gender and racial equity in our country. mr. goadman: since its founding in new york city by gloria steinam, patricia, and marleau thomas the ms. foundation has invested over $90 million in 1,600 organizations fighting for equal justice worldwide. from working to end domestic violence to fighting for women's rights in the workplace and helping to lead the charge against the aids epidemic, the ms. foundation has always been at the forefront of critical national issues. in the fight for reproductive justice and freedom alone, following the disastrous dobbs decision, the ms. foundation has distributed more than one million -- $1 million in grants to organizations across the country to help vulnerable women

and women of color access the health care they need. for the past 50 years the ms. foundation has been devoted to making the united states a more just place for all people. and i look forward to working alongside them for the next 50 years. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to seek unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. khanna: mr. speaker, i rise today to sounded alarm on the housing crisis in the united states of america. over half of u.s. renters are paying more than 30% of their income in rent. .. stop wall street from buying up single family homes. i have a bill to end the corporate subsidies.

second, cap rent so it doesn't go higher than inflation. the president can do this because many corporate landlords are reliant on financing from our federal agencies. third, let's make sure that we build seven million new affordable housing units. finally, let's make sure those with prior criminal records are banned from public housing and we have a tenants bill of rights. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, i rise to honor the dean of our state senate, lou delasandro will be retiring after serving the people of district 20 for 26 years. new hampshire's working families and middle class have no

champion than lou. mr. pappas: he has created jobs and strengthened our economy and will be felt for decades to come. the legacy is as much as the bills he passed and laws that bear his name and the generations of young men and women he taught and coached and mentored leaving a lasting impression on them all. in addition to being a lifelong public servant, he's an educator and coach and someone so dedicated to his family including his amazing wife, pat. his work has made a tremendous difference. i thank him for his years of service and as he says, i hope lou has a great, great american day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. four the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i seek consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. ivey: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise this memorial day weekend to honor navy special warfare first class christopher jay chambers and navy special operator second class nathan gauge ingram who tragically died in a mission in the arabian sea january 11 of this year. i knew chris personally and was a native of prince george's and was a loved son. he participated in the boys and girls club and a member of the cheverly swim team. he impacted the lives of many including my kids, while he coached them during their swim team participation. he attended bishop mcnamara high school and graduated in 2001 from the university of maryland, college park. he began his service in the united states navy in 2012, graduating from seal training in 2014, a decorated service member, his awards include the navy marine corps achievement medal with combat c and three

navy marine corps achievement medals and survived by his parents charles and lois chambers, his wife alyssa chambers and daughter kennedy chambers. nathan gauge ingram of texas enlisted in 2019 and went on to graduate in seal training in 2021. as we approach this memorial day, let us honor chris and nathan and all brave service members who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation. we thank them for their service and our prayers are forever with their families and loved ones. mr. speaker, with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. under the speaker's announced policy of january 9, 2023, the gentleman from california, mr. kiley, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. kiley: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. rutherford. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. rutherford: i thank my good friend from california for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate mr. matthew kapinski of jacksonville, florida. for his 42 years of dedicated service to the u.s. army corps of engineers, and to our nation. he graduated from the united states military academy at west point in 1984 and was commissioned as the second lieutenant in the u.s. army corps of engineers and then spent active duty assignments in louisiana, north carolina, and in your state, kevin, california. he continued his service in the u.s. army reserves as commander of a company and served active duty with the 350th civil affairs for operation iraqi freedom in 2003 and 2004. he retired from the army reserves in september of 2008 at

the rank of lieutenant colonel. matt graduated from stanford university with his masters in environmental engineering and science and began his civilian career in 1994 working at the presidio of san francisco. following that role, he worked for the army corps at the san francisco district in the planning division and then to the savannah division as the project manager and eventually the jacksonville district as a senior project manager. since 2007, matt has been the executive assistant and congressional liaison for the jacksonville district where he served as the main point of contact for all congressional inquiries related to the district's civil works and military programs. i can tell you in that role, he also supported jacksonville district commanders, the south atlantic division commanders, chief of engineers, and the assistant secretaries of the

army for civil works in their annual testimony before congress and in their written responses to inquiries from congress. during this time matt served temporarily as the acting deputy commander of the jacksonville district and chief of the military inner agency and international branch. through his expert knowledge of the civil works process, matt consistently provided timely and accurate information and service to the public, to members of congress and their staff, and really was just an amazing resource for all of us in northeast florida. matt has received numerous rewards and recognition of his outstanding efforts including the superior civilian service medal and the legion of merit. and i ask that members join me today to thank mr. kapinski for his contributions to the corps

of engineers, his local community, and the united states of america. and i sincerely wish matt and his wife every success in the future and a very restful retirement. mr. speaker, with that, i yield back. mr. kiley: thank you to my colleague from florida. today the education and the work force committee held a hearing with the presidents of three universities, ucla, northwestern , and rutgers. and at the hearing i joined the anti-defamation league in calling for the resignation of at least one of them. but i want to provide some reflection on what transpired today and what has transpired at several hearings we've now had.

we've had the chance to hear testimony and question seven university presidents now and in addition to those three, columbia, penn, harvard and m.i.t. two of those presidents from penn and from harvard have already resigned following the hearings. and what's striking about these hearings is just how difficult it is for these university presidents to answer in a straightforward way to the clearest questions of right and wrong. and it's striking the way that they have been unable to take the most commonsense steps on their campuses to stop lawlessness and to curb this terrible rise in anti-semitism. and when you look at the folks who testified today, or for that matter, any of the seven presidents we've heard from, i don't think there's any of us who would suggest that these

individuals are themselves anti-semitic or prejudiced. and yet they seem to believe that appeasing anti-semites, appeasing anti-semitic organizations on their campus and therefore institutionalizing or normalizing, to use the words of league uses, they believe that's what they have to do in order to keep their jobs. so this is itself a fundamental failure of leadership and reason to doubt the fitness of any of these particular individuals to lead major universities. but it also speaks to the overarching challenges we now face in american higher education where they feel the need, these leaders of our top universities, to cater to the

most bigoted and backwards forces at the expense of their own students' safety, well-being, and education. so i think it is vitally important that the education and the work force committee continues to shine a light on the horrible things that are unfolding at american universities while at the same time trying to direct our higher education system in the direction of badly needed reforms because we've seen how many long-standing problems have gotten us to this point. but to go into a little more detail about what transpired today, i asked each of the three university presidents, the president of rutgers, the president of northwestern, and the chancellor of ucla if physically blocking a student from entering their campus on

the basis of the student's race, ethnicity, or religion is an expellable offense. and i was rather taken aback by the responses, not one of them could give a simple yes. that is by its very nature an expellable offense. instead, they said it depends upon the circumstances, the context, and so forth. i found that to be a rather shocking response. i think the correct response would have been well, yes, of course, if the facts show that someone is physically blocking a student from entering campus, is using force to deny them access to our university that they're paying tuition to, and they're explicitly doing so in order to exclude people of that person's race, ethnicity or religion, that is by its very nature something that would mean you

should never be able to set foot on that campus again, any individual who would engage in such conduct, but yet not one of them could give that response. what's worse is this, of course, is not a hypothetical situation. it's something we saw happen repeatedly at several campuses and in particular at ucla. so i played a video clip for the chancellor that showed exactly this happening. a jewish student, a star of david, trying to gain access to his campus to go to class who has his student i.d. card in his hand, and a group of self-appointed enforcers lock arms and form a blockade to block the student, putting his hands in the air to show he means no harm and they physically by force stop him from entering his own

university. i asked the chancellor of ucla, who are these people who formed this blockade, are they students? he didn't know. i asked, have they been disciplined? he didn't know. it seems very clear they got away with this absolutely monstrous conduct that should have no place in the united states of america. to make things even worse, a member of the committee, the representative from minnesota, congresswoman omar, actually tried to minimize what had happened. in her questions, she suggested that this wasn't such a big deal because there are other pathways available to that student. so apparently it's ok to block people from moving about their freedom of movement based upon their jewish identity if there are other places they're allowed to walk. absolutely unbelievable.

but ucla's response to this situation was of course deeply problematic in a number of other ways. the situation there was allowed to build and build and build, the encampment got larger and larger, and eventually things spiraled out of control until eventually the chancellor did the right thing and called upon law enforcement to come and enforce the rules for those who refused to leave. but it never should have gotten to that point. indeed, we now know that the police chief had advised the university not to allow an encampment. and yet ucla allowed it anyway. . . the chance already claims there is a system wide u.c. policy that prevented them from moving more quickly. if this is so, the university of

california needs to change its policy. if it's really true that the university will not seek the assistance of law enforcement until violence actually manifests itself, that is a deeply problematic policy on a number of levels. number one, it allows for the violence to happen until you actually do anything to protect students. number two, it allows for all manner of other illegal activity to continue unabated so long as those engaging in it characterize their actions as a protest. we saw all kinds of illegal activity in this anti-semitic encampment at ucla. self-appointed students he set up checkpoints as i mentioned before. stopping jewish students from being able to get to class.

and the university did very little, it would seem, to stop this from happening. the chancellor don't tell me what happened to the students caught on video who were responsible. this particular university leader, chancellor, has served for 17 years and is retiring. and will not be at that university very soon. i will leave it to the judgment of the u.c. system to decide what the consequences for him in particular should be. with just a few months remaining in his tenure. i will say there is now news just today that a new encampment has started at ucla and i would suggest that the chancellor needs to learn from what just happened and make sure that that is taken care of in short order. but generally i don't think it's

my role to be deciding which university leaders should stay and which should go. ideally that would be decided upon using the appropriate channels. that when you have cleanly fireable conduct, the board of regents, governance boards, will take appropriate action. where i would draw the line on a broad level, on a general level and say that anyone who crosses that line is unfit to lead a university, is the line that was drawn by the anti-defamation league as well as the brandeis institute and others. in a specific case of the president of northwestern who also testified today. what was different about what happened at northwestern from some other universities, and i believe northwestern was the first prominent university to do this, is that the university

president actually ended the encampment by giving the lawless members of that encampment what they wanted. he agreed to their demands. i want to go through in detail just to have it on the record what those demands were. first i'll read you the statement from the anti-defamation league as well as the brandeis center and stand with us. it says as follows. as the three leading organizations in the united states holding colleges and universities accountable for creating hostile environments for jewish students, we are shocked and dismayed by the agreement northwestern university president reached on behalf of northwestern university with encampment protestors yesterday. for the last seven months and longer, jewish northwestern students have been harassed and intimidated by blatant anti-semitism on campus. worsening since october 7. yesterday at the time this was

written the president signed an agreement with the perpetrators of the harassment rewarding them for their hate. for days protestors openly mocked and violated northwestern's code of conduct and policies by erecting an encampment which they fanned the flames of anti-semitism and wrecked havoc on the university community. their goal was not to find peace but make jewish students feel unsafe on campus. rather than hold them accountable as he pledged he would, the president gave them a seat at the table and normalized their hatred against jewish students. it is clear from his actions he is unfit to lead northwestern and must resign. the president capitulated to hatred and bigotry and empowered and emboldened those who have used intimidation, harassment, and violence to achieve their ends. instead of issuing fines and suspensions in accordance with university policies, he aregarded protest groups with

scholarships, professorships, and a renovated community home. instead of permanently shutting down the encampment and making campus safe for all, he told protestors they could stay until june 1. instead of reaffirming a long-standing university policy of rejecting the anti-semitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign, he created new pathways to its implementation. instead of holding the perpetrators accountable, he committed northwestern to actively defend protect, and shield students from anyone else such as potential future employers who may choose to hold the protestors accountable for their harassing and crimetory -- discriminatory conduct. the statement concludes, a prestigious institution that is supposed to be preparing our students for the future catastrophically failed to teach responsibly -- responsibility, respect for community values, and the fundamental principle that no one is above the law. regardless of how deeply or passionately they believe in their own cause.

they reiterate, we call on the president to resign immediately and trust if he fails to resign the board of trustees will step in as the leaders of the university, and remove him. that statement was issued a couple weeks ago before the testimony that we heard today. and the president still has not resigned and the board of regents still has not removed him. it can only be concluded that the board of regents is endorsing the insti institutionalization, the normalization of anti-semitism that the president is responsible for by appeasing these demands. there is the substance of the demands which are deeply rooted in anti-semitism and then there is also the means by which they were achieved.

those means being force. this is what i found particularly upsetting about the agreement reached by this president, the president of northwestern, and the president of rutgers. they congratulated themselves for it. they said this was the way to negotiate a peaceful resolution. as a matter of fact, the exact words of the president were that this was a -- they negotiated with their students through dialogue rather than force. through dialogue rather than force. engaging our students with dialogue rather than force. every part of that statement is utterly preposterous. first of all a lot of them weren't students. i believe he even admitted to that. second of all, this was not dialogue. the president for one thing did not even consult with ice own anti-semitism -- with his own

anti-semitism committee to ask if they were ok with this agreement. six members of that committee resigned after he reached the agreement with the encampment. when he was asked at the hearing today if he had consulted with jewish students, he said that was impractical. what an utterly preposterous statement. he decides to change university policy in response to the demands of an anti-semitic encampment, he says it's impractical to even consult with jewish students? engaging our students with dialogue rather than force. it wasn't just students. it was not die no. it was one-sided -- dialogue. it was one-sided. and the entire negotiation, as it was, was predicated on force. the only reason he talked to them at all is because they set up an illegal encampment that was used to terrorize students and they refused to lead when they -- leave when they were

ordered to. what precedent does that set? what incentive does that set for others who want to achieve their objectives, even if they are unobjectionable objectives? the way to get what you want on this campus is to use force, is to divide the walls, defy the law, refuse to leave when you are told to? to try to be as disruptive as possible. what's worse is that after northwestern university's president did this, we have seen this chain reaction where other universities are doing the same thing. one of which is rutgers, whose president was with us today. and he reached a similar agreement. he said something similar. he said, we engaged our students in a conversation. that led to a peaceful resolution.

again, an utterly preposterous statement. the entire negotiation was predicated on force. it was not a conversation. it was a one-sided agreement with only those who are willing to resort to the use of force in order to get their way. i was glad to hear today by the way, it was confirmed by president hallway, he is no longer under consideration to be the next president of yale university, of which i am alum. there are many of us who are deeply concerned about the message it would send if yale, which has had many of its own problems when it comes to anti-semitism on campus, accepted as its new president someone who was just responsible for institutionalizing anti-semitism at his own university. but there have been others as well throughout the country,

several of which are in my state of california. there has been one instance, at least, where there's been accountability. the president of so momma state, after reaching an agreement with the encampment there with a number of deeply anti-semitic provisions like cutting off study abroad to israel and even scrubbing university materials of any reference to israel, and then even appointing the encampment as a permanent governing council to enforce the agreement, that university leader was placed on leave and now resigned. that was the right thing for the leader of the california state university system to do. however, there are other campuses in california, in the u.c. system that have reached similar capitulation agreements with the lawless encampments on their campuses. who have followed this same script of rewarding the use of force, of institutionalizing and

normalizing anti-semitism, of sending -- setting a precedent that the way to get your way on their campuses is to break the rules, break the law, refuse to do what you are asked to do. and they all need to face discipline as well. there were a number of other remarkable statements at today's hearing with the three university presidents of ucla, rutgers, and of course, of northwestern. in particular, from the president of northwestern. who said i will not be commenting on the speech of our students or faculty or staff. a completely preposterous statement this. individual has commented on all manner of political issues. i was able to find a number of examples. just googling this on my phone

as he said t and the idea that he wouldn't call out or fire or condemn a high ranking university official who makes overtly racist statements that absolutely defies belief. incredibly, when asked by my colleague, burgess owens, if he would have dealt with a kkk demonstrate in the same manner, he said he would not engage in a hypothetical. refusing to even condemn this most offensive of speech. or more than speech, of course, when we are dealing with the conduct that we have seen play out on these campuses. the president also said that, and the president i'm referring to is the president of northwestern, that a police option on that campus was not possible. this is how he justifies just

appeasing the demands of the encampment rather than enforcing the law. while i find that quite difficult to believe that there couldn't have been a sufficient police response coordinating with local law enforcement to just ensure that those who are on the encampment left, but it's absolutely hypothetical when you look at the record of this president, president shell, who defunded police when he was the president of the university of oregon. so the committee i know is committed to continuing this investigation. of anti-semitism across american higher education. .. but it's also important to understand the need for broad reform in higher education based upon what we have learned. and there have been some encouraging signs lately.

we saw, for example, m.i.t. recently said they're no longer going to require so-called diversity statements in the faculty hiring process. and even "the washington post" came out with an op-ed opposing the use of these diversity statements in hiring. i think our work is only just beginning. the hearings that we've seen so far have been deeply disturbing. it's highly important that we continue them and we continue to keep an eye on every university that is failing to adequately address anti-semitism in order to protect the students there, to protect their safety, and to protect their right to an education. but we also need to think about fundamental reform when it comes to academic freedom, when it comes to freedom of speech, when it comes to faculty hiring and when it comes to so many of the other issues related to even the

value of a higher education degree in america today. i truly believe this can be a turning point. america's universities have long been national assets that have helped us become the greatest country in the world, the greatest economy in the world, the nation's leader in innovation on all fronts. and that is now in danger. so i look forward to continuing to work with the committee and colleagues on both sides of the aisle because i want to say we had a number of colleagues across the aisle who asked very good questions and expressed appropriate concerns today as well to work together to reclaim our universities as national assets rather than the liabilities that they've increasingly become.

mr. speaker, i'd like to address a concerning situation in the world of artificial intelligence that has developed over the last couple weeks. following the release of open a.i.'s newest chat g.t.p. model which has demonstrated some truly breathtaking, amazing features and capabilities that are going to have wide-ranging applications that we're only just beginning to understand. but after that release, there has been an exodus from the company of employees who are there to focus on issues related to safety. and the reason for this was stated by jan likey who is the

leader of the team at open a.i. responsible for safety and alignment issues. this is what he said. this is what jan likey said. i joined because i thought open a.i. would be the best place in the world to do research. however, i've been disagreeing with the open a.i. leadership for the corporate priorities for quite some time until we finally reached a breaking point. i believe much more of our bandwidth should be spent on getting ready for the next generation of models in security, preparedness, safety, adversarial, rebustness, superalignment and confidentiality and societal impact and related topics. these problems are quite hard to get right and i am concerned we're not on a trajectory to get there. over the past few months jan writes, my team has been sailing against the wind. sometimes we were struggling for compute and it was getting harder and harder to get this

crucial research done. building smarter than human machines is an inherently dangerous endeavor. open a.i. is shouldering an enormous responsibility on behalf of all humanity. but over the past few years, safety, culture and processes have taken a back seat to shiny products. we're long overdue and getting incredibly serious with the applications of a.g.i., meaning artificial general intelligence. we must prioritize preparing for them as best we can. this is what the outgoing leader of safety and alignment issues at open a.i. recently said on twitter, on x. now, i am not intending to criticize open a.i. i have no basis to assess the veracity of the claims that were just read. and like everyone else, i've been truly dazzled by what the company has been able to

accomplish. but i think that this exodus of safety employees and this particular testimonial for the person leading the alignment team should be a wake-up call for many of us who have perhaps not been giving this issue of safety and alignment in the development of artificial intelligence the attention it deserves. in fact, i don't know if there's ever been a time where the consequences, the stakes of a particular issue are so wildly disproportionate to the small level of attention that's being paid to it. the basic issue here is that as a.i. systems become more advanced, as their capabilities become more sophisticated, the risks are heightened as well,

when it comes to many things, this it comes to privacy or confidentiality, when it comes to potential misuses which are limitless. and when it comes to the alignment of those capabilities with the well-being of the machine's creator, with the well-being of humanity. this is an issue that the company has been focusing on at open a.i. they have, of course, this whole team there. there's been some discussion of what percentage their overall compute has been dedicated to it. if you believe the testimony here, it is less and less. but the company itself, as well as perhaps to a greater degree, other leading a.i. companies understand this to be an extremely important issue. especially as these models scale up and become more sophisticated and new capabilities emerge, sometimes perhaps in an

unsophisticated way. the important thing that's been understood by many is we need to make sure our ability, our sophistication in aligning those systems with our own objectives proceeds in a way that is commensurate to their capabilities. and i am concerned that that is no longer the case, that perhaps things are developing more quickly on the capabilities than on the safety end. and what i think the wake-up call we need to take from what's happened at open a.i. is that we simply can't rely on any particular company, or even all of them collectively, to prioritize safety to the extent that is needed. and so i do thinking there is some role for us here in

congress to catalyze safety research to try to assure the proper incentives for companies to invest in safety as much as they are investing in product development and other things. now, there are some states, and perhaps even some folks here, who are already proposing new regulations that would hamstring this new technology, that would stand in the way of developing more advanced models. personally, i think that is the wrong approach for a number of reasons. first of all, it's not at all clear it's going to actually be successful in limiting the development of these technologies. and if it is, it would only apply to us in the u.s. and our jurisdiction, where potential adversaries in other countries could continue to develop this

technology unabated and in a way that poses a risk to the united states, our competitiveness, and our national security. but moreover, to try to block the further development of a.i. will limit the man fold -- mani fold values that are limitless and will become more advanced in the fields of medicine or transportation. and basically any field that you can think of. we have seen applications already, and these applications will only become greater and greater that have enormous potential to save lives, to extend lives, and to enhance the quality of life. and so the position from a humanist point of view should be one of not trying to hold the

development of that potential back, but rather trying to assure that it proceeds in a manner that unlocks the benefits while mitigating the risks. and those risks will perhaps become most pronounced as we work towards what is commonly called a.g.i., which was preferenced in that series of tweets, artificial general intelligence. now, there's a lot of debate on this topic among people who know a lot more about it than i do, but there are many who believe that it's not that far away, that it's much closer than we might have thought even a few years ago, that is, the creation of an a.i. system that has the capacity to outperform human intelligence across multiple domains or across all domains. and what's more, once a.g.i. is achieved, if indeed it is achieved, then the capabilities

could well accelerate in a very rapid manner from there on out. so that's why many who focus on issues related to a.i. safety have emphasized the need to get the safety question right urgently before that threshold is crossed. and indeed when sam altman, the c.e.o. of open a.i. was here last year, i asked him straight up how close are you to developing a.g.i.? and he basically said, they're one big breakthrough away. but that was a while ago. so i don't think anyone really knows how close we are or what that will look like, but i think there is an urgent need to prepare for that day by doing everything we possibly can to assure that as capabilities develop in an unpredictable way, we have done the groundwork to make sure that those capabilities are aligned to our

objectives and serve human purposes and don't have the potential to serve other purposes or to misinterpret their commands in a way that has grave consequences. so i've introduced a bipartisan bill that i think is a modest proposal that will help us get there. it will have the national institute of health create a grant program that will fund basic research into a.i. safety. and i think that is something that would be helpful, that would be a start. in fact, i ran the idea by the c.e.o. of open a.i. itself, sam altman. he thought it was a good idea. and i think it would help us get moving in the right direction, but i think it's also important at the same time we make sure the companies themselves have the right incentives to

prioritize safety and alignment in the way that is needed. so i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. and we also have an a.i. task force being led by our colleague jay obernolte from california who has done some tremendous work in this area. and i think it's urgently important that we begin to think about our role in assuring that artificial intelligence ushers in the best possible future while mitigating the risks that are in front of us. and now, mr. speaker, i'd like to take a few moments to recognize some truly outstanding individuals from my district.

mr. speaker, it is my distinct honor to include the members of the folsom police department's special investigation unit for the police honor roll. the s.i.u. team consists of one sergeant, brandon monsor, and three detectives, william maslic, justin kaine, and andrew graham, whose responsibilities include markets prevention and weapons enforcement along with fungtive apprehension. i believe their work surrounding fentanyl poisonings throughout the last year is truly worthy of recognition. along with several other areas in this country the city of folsom has seen an increase in fentanyl related deaths. these are the result of individuals who carelessly furnish this product to often unsuspecting customers on the illicit drug market in. early 2023, the s.i.u. team

decided to address this issue by developing criminal homicide cases against drug dealers who knowingly sold this dangerous product. this was no small task as these types of cases had never been attempted or prosecuted in sacramento county. they began by coordinating with the sacramento district attorney's office to determine the type of evidence that would be required to bring this type of case to conclusion. these cases are inherently doiflt prosecute, they require swift and relentless action on notification of an overdose, a significant amount of digital evidence and out of the box investigation techniques in. july, 2023, s.i.u. detectives were note foifd a potential fentanyl poisoning within the city of folsom. the victim was a 24-year-old female who recently moved to the area to begin work as a preschoolteacher. the detectives worked all night to identify her supplier, develop probable cause to arrest him for homicide and coordinate with the district attorney's

office. approximately 48 hours later, her supplier was arrested for murder, the first case of its kind in sacramento county. since that first case, the s.i.u. team has successfully arrested three other individuals for manslaughter or homicide after knowingly supplying this dangerous drug to customers. they remain the only investigative unit in our region to bring this type of case to the sacramento district attorney. the special investigation unit has truly distinguished themselves p and had an incredible impact on the community we serve. i believe they have very much earned the right to be recognized in the third district police honor roll. mr. speaker, i rise to honor rebecca perez, an english

teacher at loyalton high school in loyalton, california. she's a remarkable and gifted educator who enriches the lives of her students and our community alike. before accepting her position at her hometown high school eight years ago, she taught in title i schools in southern california for five years. she's one of those teachers who changes lives for the better. her advanced placement students have scored record passing rates at loyalton high school. as a former educator i understand the essential role a teacher plays in the lives of their students and rebecca has high expectations for her students. she provides excellent support to ensure they can meet those expectations. knowing that reading literature and participating in thoughtful discussions are essential for rural students to get a glimpse and understanding of the bigger world, its diverse cultures and complexities, drives rebecca's work. she serves on the board of her church and as a 4-h leader. her big laugh and huge smile

makes students and parents alike feel they have come home and are deeply cared for. her positive leadership at loyalton is reflected in a sign she made for her classroom. it says, get excited people. whether teaching english, providing academic advisement, leading this accreditation process, serving as senior class adviser or coaching young people, rebecca brings infectious, joy and excitement to those around her. loyalton high school shines so bright because of her work and we are forever grateful she's chosen to teach at loyalton. therefore in honor of her passion, dedication and commitment to her student's success it is my privilege to recognize rebecca perez as ethe truly outstanding teacher that she is mr. speaker, i wish to take a moment to rk nice the outstanding and prominent

educators of california's third congressional district. i would like to briefly highlight a teacher from the bishop unified school district, elena stoll who dedicated 34 years of her career to educating the students of her smunt. she graduated from bishop high school in 1983 and returned in 1990 to serve and spent two decades as a primary teacher. she later became a reading specialist and obtained her master's degree in education administration with an emphasis in reading. ms. stoll has worked tirelessly on strengthening bishop's reading intervention program, and creating systemic improvements across the grade spans. she approaches her work pertaining to students with high levels of enthusiasm and love and strives to meet best practice standards. she's known for her unique ability to motivate others to meet the high standards set by her performance. i commend ms. stoll for her

exceptional dedication to education and promoting student success and academic achievement. therefore on behalf of the united states house of representatives, i am pleased to recognize ms. elena stoll for her significant contributions to the bishop unified school district and the sthiefns bishop community. mr. speaker, i would like to take a moment to recognize ms. elizabeth isaacs. a kindergarten teacher in the folsom-cordova unified school district at oak channelmentry school. she's been employed there since 2015, however, her experience goes back 19 years. her mission is to make the world a better place and she finds herself continuously motivated by the positive impact she has on her student's lives. ms. isaacs teaches in innovative

ways to keep her students engaged and is passionate about instilling her students with the knowledge and tenacity needed to help each child reach their full potential. just the idea that she's contributing toward the development of her students brings her great joy and satisfaction. ms. isaac's students and the opportunity to coach kindergarten have contributing to her unwavering commitment to education. every day she comes to class feeling cherished, challenge and full field. growing up, she learned how education as the power to effect meaningful change in the world. even as a child she enjoy playing school with her siblings where she took on the role, of course, as the teacher. both of her parents were educators and she grew up helping set up bulletin boards in her mother's classroom at white rock elementary in the folsom-cordova unified school district. she appreciated being able to observe her father's lectures as a professor at the school of law in sacramento.

it is an honor to represent exemplary teachers such as ms. elizabeth isaacs in the united states congress. therefore in honor of her passion, dedication and belief in the transformative power of education, in honor of her commitment to her students' success, it is my privilege to recognize ms. elizabeth isaacs as the outstanding teacher that she is. mr. speaker, i would now like to yield to my friend -- i now yield back to the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. under the speaker's announced policy of january 9, 2023, the gentleman from alabama, mr. strong, will control the remainder of the hour and is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader. mr. strong: i thank the gentleman for yield, the

gentleman i'm soon to recognize was raised in your district in california. i rise today to recognize a true american patriot, grammy award winner lee greenwood. may 21 marked the 40th anniversary of his song "god bless the u.s.a.," this song has withstood the test of time and remains an anthem for americans to proudly express their love of god and country. "god bless the u.s.a." is one of the most recognizable patriotic songs in america, unite peemg in times of celebration like the fourth of july and during some of our nation's darkest hours like 9/11. lee wrote "god bless the u.s.a." in 1983 and pun lish -- published it in 1984. he's performed "god bless the u.s.a." for 10 american presidents and traveled on 20u.s.o. tours. not only is he a tireless entertainer, doing more than 160

concerts this year, but he also cares deeply about his family. he cares about america. our military. and our veterans. he is a supporter of helping a hero and has been a part of hundreds of welcome home ceremonies for our brave and courageous wounded warriors. i want to thank grammy award winner lee greenwood for his contribution to this great nation and to end by saying, god bless the u.s.a. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to section 3-z of house resolution 5, the house stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m.

>> tonight, 2024 presidential candidate and former president donald trump meets wh voters in a campan op in the bronx, new york. watch live cere starting 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-spanow our free mobile vio app or online at c-span.org. >> tune in to c-span 2024 national political convention starting with the republican event july 15th. next up, catch the democrats when they convene in chicago kicks off on the 19th. stay tuned to c-span for an uninterrupted unfiltered

glimpse. watch the republican convention live on c-span, the free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics, powered by cable. >> president biden and first lady jill biden are hosting a white house state dinner in honor of kenyan president willia rudo. we'll show highlights of the evening including the kenyan's president's arrival at th northport echo and notable guests and his to the president and his wife. watch tonight at 11:00 p.m., on c-span now our free video app or online at c-span.org. ahead of the dinner use our video app or website to watch the guest arrivals in real time starting 5:00 p.m. eastern.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including charter communication. >> charter is recognized to be one of the best internet providers. and we're just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a publi service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> president biden and first lady jill biden tonight are hosting a white house state dinner honor of kenyan president williamo, and we'll show arrivals at the north portico and ent biden's toast to president ruto and his fe, rachel. watch the white house state dinner tonight at 11:00 eastern