[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 208 (Wednesday, December 10, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H5124-H5134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3898, PROMOTING EFFICIENT REVIEW
FOR MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE TODAY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 3383, INCREASING INVESTOR OPPORTUNITIES ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3638, ELECTRIC SUPPLY CHAIN ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3628, STATE PLANNING FOR RELIABILITY AND
AFFORDABILITY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3668, IMPROVING
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION FOR PIPELINE REVIEWS ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF S. 1071, DISINTERMENT OF REMAINS OF FERNANDO V. COTA
FROM FORT SAM HOUSTON NATIONAL CEMETERY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 936 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 936
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3898) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to make targeted reforms with respect to waters
of the United States and other matters, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
amendments specified in
[[Page H5125]]
this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their
respective designees. After general debate 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 Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in part A of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3383) to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 with
respect to the authority of closed-end companies to invest in
private funds. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and amendments specified in this section 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. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services
now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
119-15 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 3. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3638) to direct the Secretary of Energy to prepare periodic
assessments and submit reports on the supply chain for the
generation and transmission of electricity, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in part C of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3628) to amend
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to add a
standard related to State consideration of reliable
generation, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce or their respective designees; (2) the further
amendment printed in part D of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member
designated in the report, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3668) to
promote interagency coordination for reviewing certain
authorizations under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1071) to require
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disinter the remains of
Fernando V. Cota from Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery,
Texas, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 119-16 shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 7. The chair of the Committee on Armed Services and
the chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
may insert in the Congressional Record not later than
December 12, 2025, such material as they may deem explanatory
of S. 1071.
Sec. 8. Notwithstanding clause 13 of rule I, on any
legislative day of the second session of the One Hundred
Nineteenth Congress before January 6, 2026-- (a) the Speaker
may dispense with organizational and legislative business;
and (b) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved if applicable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crawford). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
{time} 1220
General Leave
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule,
House Resolution 936, providing for consideration of six measures.
S. 1071 is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2026
[[Page H5126]]
under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee
on Armed Services or their respective designees, and provides one
motion to recommit.
H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, is under a structured rule. The rule
provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure or their respective designees, provides one motion to
recommit, and makes eight amendments in order.
H.R. 3628, the State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act,
is under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, provides one
motion to recommit, and makes one amendment in order.
H.R. 3638, the Electric Supply Chain Act, is under a structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or
their respective designees, provides one motion to recommit, and makes
five amendments in order.
H.R. 3668, the Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline
Reviews Act, is under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees,
and provides one motion to recommit.
H.R. 3383, the INVEST Act, is under a structured rule. The rule
provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services or
their respective designees, provides one motion to recommit, and makes
five amendments in order.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on six pieces of
legislation. First is S. 1071, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2026.
Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of Chairman Mike Rogers and
Ranking Member Adam Smith, one of the top priorities of the fiscal year
'26 NDAA was to reform the defense acquisition system and equip our
armed services with the technology they need to deter national security
threats.
As anyone who follows this process knows, it can take more than a
decade before new capabilities are finally deployed. Yet, by then, the
threat has changed, the technology is outdated, and the program is over
budget.
This bill cuts red tape and shifts the focus of the defense
acquisition system from compliance to quickly and cost effectively
fielding new capabilities to ensure that our armed forces are the most
lethal and effective fighting force in the world.
Implementing the Peace Through Strength agenda, the fiscal year '26
NDAA codifies all or parts of 15 executive orders and 30 legislative
proposals from President Trump. It fully funds top defense priorities.
It revitalizes the defense industrial base. It grows manufacturing jobs
in America, all while pressing our NATO allies to pay more for their
own defense.
Building upon last year's NDAA, which focused on servicemembers'
quality of life, this bill supports a 3.8 percent pay raise, Mr.
Speaker, for all servicemembers. It improves housing and Department of
Defense schools, and it expands access to healthcare and childcare.
To deter our adversaries, the fiscal year '26 NDAA focuses on
countering threats from China, bolsters Taiwan's defense, and supports
Indo-Pacific allies and partners.
Additionally, this bill continues the focus on countering threats to
our national security from Russia, North Korea, Iran, and other foreign
terrorist organizations. To counter emerging threats, the bill focuses
on rapidly deploying new and innovative technologies to our
warfighters, while strengthening nuclear deterrence and missile
defense.
To further secure our border and fight drug trafficking, the fiscal
year '26 NDAA fully funds the establishment and enforcement of national
defense areas along the southwest border of the United States of
America, authorizes the Department of Defense to provide additional
support to Customs and Border Protection, and authorizes over $1
billion to combat drug trafficking.
Finally, the fiscal year '26 NDAA reforms programs and saves taxpayer
dollars. It saves over $20 billion from DOGE cuts and Department of
Defense workforce reforms, improves congressional oversight of
Department of Defense audit results, and overhauls military
construction to reduce costs and expedite project delivery.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and all of the staff for their
work that went into the fiscal year '26 NDAA which should pass with
overwhelming bipartisan support.
Second, Mr. Speaker, we have H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act. This bill
contains targeted commonsense reforms to the permitting process under
the Clean Water Act, restoring the balance between the need to ensure
both water quality and economic growth.
Simply stated, this bill will cut red tape, reduce costly project
delays and frivolous litigation, and provide greater regulatory
certainty for our Nation's infrastructure builders, energy producers,
farmers, homebuilders, water utilities, and small businesses.
Third, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3628, is the State Planning for Reliability
and Affordability Act. This bill amends the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 to require State utility regulators to consider
sufficient and reliable generation when considering electric utilities'
integrated resource plans.
A stable supply of electricity is critical for most aspects of modern
life, and peak demand growth is now higher than any point in 20 years.
Net-zero mandates of renewable subsidies have disrupted the market,
causing grid reliability issues as demand grows. This bill clarifies
that reliable electricity means dispatchable, baseload energy.
Reliable energy is foundational to everything, and this bill will
help ensure we have reliable, secure generation that keeps the lights
on.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 3638, the Electric Supply Chain Act.
This is a simple bill that directs the Department of Energy to assess
our country's electric grid component manufacturing capacity and
determine potential problems with imported grid components. We can't
afford to fail in securing our electric supply chain. This bipartisan,
commonsense legislation aims to ensure we won't.
Fifth, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 3668, the Improving Interagency
Coordination for Pipeline Reviews Act. This bill aims to speed up the
consideration of pipelines by promoting interagency coordination for
reviewing certain authorizations for LNG facilities and natural gas
pipelines under the Natural Gas Act.
Demand for natural gas in the United States has grown by 47 percent
since 2013. Infrastructure to deliver that gas, however, has only
increased by 26 percent.
{time} 1230
Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, has the
responsibility of authorizing pipelines, and generally, after thorough
review, finds these projects consistent with the public interest.
Yet many of these federally approved projects often don't come to
fruition because certain States and other agencies fail to issue the
proper certifications.
Under the current process, one State has the ability to veto a multi-
State pipeline project for reasons far outside the scope of water
quality. This results in reliability and affordability issues in
resource-constrained areas in our country.
Natural gas is clean, affordable, and reliable. The United States
also has an abundant supply, and this bill will ensure we have the
pipelines needed to keep up with the continually increasing demand for
electricity generation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H.R. 3383, the INVEST Act. This is a
bipartisan package containing 22 pieces of legislation that have all
been reported favorably out of the House Committee on Financial
Services. This legislation will strengthen public markets, produce more
opportunities for investors, and expand access to capital for small
businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of
legislation. I urge passage of this rule, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
[[Page H5127]]
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember what it was like when you were a kid,
waking up on Christmas and hoping for a certain gift?
Maybe it was a Doctor Barbie or a new bike, but then you ran to the
tree and got socks that were itchy, a knockoff Barbie whose arms fell
off and shoes that didn't quite fit.
Americans know what they need for Christmas as they worry about how
they are going to make Christmas affordable and how they are going to
make it work. Their costs are skyrocketing from the tariffs increasing
costs for toys to grocery bills that are going up and up, and to those
utility bills. It is hard to keep those Christmas lights on given the
rising costs of utilities.
However, nothing in the bill that we are considering today makes
Americans' lives more affordable or merry.
Americans want us to extend the tax credits so their healthcare
premiums don't go from $250 to $2,600 a month. They will for my
constituent's family of five.
How is a parent supposed to buy Christmas gifts for the kids when
they now need to spend an extra $2,000 a month for health insurance?
Instead of lowering costs, what kind of lumps of coal is Congress
working on this week?
We have a bill that rigs the energy system to make it more difficult
to use clean energy. Wind and solar energy are the cheapest forms of
new electricity. The studies prove it over and over, and they are good
for the planet. However, Republicans are defining energy to exclude
renewables.
If it saves you money, Mr. Speaker, and it is good for the air we
breathe, then why wouldn't Congress want us to use more renewable
energy?
Instead of making your life better, Republicans are standing with
their dirty fossil fuel campaign donors and big corporations that
threaten our clean water.
The only thing that we are doing of significance today is the
National Defense Authorization Act. Indeed, the 3 percent pay raise for
servicemembers and reimbursements to travel to see a doctor for rural
bases is really important for our servicemembers and families.
The NDAA's requirement that the Pentagon turn over footage of the
boat strikes in the Caribbean is essential to accountability, but I
would argue it is not enough. Congress must pass a war powers
resolution to prevent a needless and reckless war with Venezuela and
any other country Trump decides to attack on a whim.
Trump says that he is going to war with drug traffickers. This is
hypocrisy of the highest degree. While Secretary Hegseth was busy
blowing up boats of suspected drugs dealers, Trump was pardoning former
Honduran President Hernandez. Hernandez was tried, convicted, and
sentenced for bringing in 400 tons of drugs to America. There was proof
and evidence in a court of law, not random airstrikes and a declaration
of a forever war that Congress has not authorized and the American
people do not want.
My constituents and Americans all across our beautiful country are
outraged that war crimes may have been committed in our name. Two
people clinging to an overturned boat in the ocean are not a threat to
our Navy, the strongest and most powerful on Earth.
Mr. Speaker, don't insult our intelligence or our pride.
Let me tell you something else, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans really
don't want us to talk about today. Speaker Johnson stripped out a
provision in the NDAA that would have provided IVF coverage for
servicemembers. Today's Republican-led bill destroyed any hope for a
Christmas miracle for the servicemen and -women who just want to have a
baby and raise a family.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs).
Mrs. BIGGS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia for yielding me time this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the fiscal year
'26 National Defense Authorization Act.
This year's NDAA is the legislative backbone for President Trump's
Peace Through Strength agenda. It delivers on the commitment to build
the lethal fighting force necessary to deter our adversaries across
every domain and contains provisions critical to both our domestic
readiness and our global security.
As both a Member of Congress and a lieutenant colonel in the Air
National Guard, I understand what it takes to keep our Nation secure,
and I am proud to support key priorities in this bill that deliver on
that mission.
First, I secured a provision to protect the Strategic Rail Corridor
Network, the backbone of how we move troops and equipment in times of
crisis. My provision ensures critical rail lines are defended from
cyber and physical threats which strengthen our ability to respond when
it matters most.
Second, I advanced a reform to cut outdated red tape that slows down
how we deliver critical defense equipment. My provision ensures regular
reviews to clear those bottlenecks. Now we can modernize faster, we can
strengthen our readiness, and we can keep this work in the hands of
American workers.
Mr. Speaker, from protecting our rail lines at home to ensuring our
allies can rapidly acquire the weapons they need to restoring the
warrior ethos of dedication, resilience, and sacrifice, this NDAA is a
win for our warfighters, our security, and for our hardworking
Americans whose skills power our defense.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill and the underlying bill.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes), who is the vice chair of the House
Democratic Caucus.
Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of my proposed
amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2026.
Ohio's 13th Congressional District has long been known as the Rubber
Capital of the World, and both of my amendments uphold that legacy by
investing in American manufacturing to ensure this vital industry
remains globally competitive in the United States.
Drawing from the Retreaded Tire Jobs, Supply Chain Security and
Sustainability Act of 2025, this amendment would ensure that the U.S.
Government uses retreaded tires wherever possible rather than using
cheap foreign imported tires.
This amendment would support more than just my neighbors in Ohio's
13th Congressional District, as retreaded tires make up the largest
remanufacturing sector in the United States while employing over 51,000
American workers. This commonsense amendment is good for both the
economy, the environment, and the United States Government while
protecting good-paying manufacturing jobs right here in the United
States.
Ohio's 13th Congressional District has long been a trailblazer in
polymer science and polymer engineering. Akron's polymer manufacturing
ecosystem provides a local pipeline from education and training to the
workforce.
To build on Akron's generations of success, my second amendment
requires the Secretary of Defense to establish an initiative to
accelerate the research and development of innovative and sustainable
polymer processing and manufacturing to support next generation
technologies built on a resilient polymer supply chain.
This amendment will support the incredible work of partners like the
Akron Sustainable Polymer Tech Hub that is performing groundbreaking
research and development that can revolutionize industries across the
country and around the world.
Further, it will ensure northeast Ohio remains a global leader in
polymer science and polymer engineering, reaffirming our district's
legacy as the Rubber Capital of the World. From sustainable tires to
sustainable polymers, the next generation of rubber and plastics
production will proudly be made in Ohio in our 13th Congressional
District.
Additionally, I have submitted three additional amendments to create
jobs, lower costs, and protect our national
[[Page H5128]]
security in American innovation and manufacturing.
{time} 1240
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes) on the success of her amendments in
the legislation. The National Defense Authorization Act is something
that I am proud to work on year-round on the Armed Services Committee.
I give a lot of credit to Ranking Member Adam Smith, Chair Mike
Rogers, and the members of the House Armed Services Committee for
working together in very much a bipartisan fashion to make sure that
American citizens are protected, not just here in America, but that our
troops have the resources they need around the world to protect
themselves so that we can be free here in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I also applaud the idea of innovation and research, which we should
be doing in our military, but we should also be doing the same in every
aspect of our economy.
That is why it is so disturbing that Republicans continue to want to
look backward rather than forward with regard to our energy future.
They refuse to engage, invest in, and celebrate the innovation that is
going on with regard to renewable energy and how they are indeed the
cheapest forms of energy.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to enter into the Record an
article from June 17, 2025, in Scientific American, titled: ``Wind and
Solar Energy Are Cheaper Than Electricity from Fossil-Fuel Plants. Even
without subsidies, renewable energy is staying competitive. . . .''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[June 17, 2025]
Wind and Solar Energy Are Cheaper Than Electricity From Fossil-Fuel
Plants
(By Benjamin Storrow & E&E News]
Climatewire--Renewable energy doesn't need subsidies to
compete with fossil fuels when it comes to building new power
plants.
That's a key takeaway in Lazard's annual report on
electricity generation costs. The investment bank's report
measures the levelized cost of energy for various forms of
electricity generation. The report is closely watched, and
often criticized, in the energy industry, where it helps
guide investment decisions.
This year's edition, which was released Monday, is notable
because it comes as President Donald Trump and congressional
Republicans are trying to eliminate tax credits for wind and
solar. The political debate is playing out at a time when
energy forecasters are projecting a rapid increase in
electricity demand due to data centers and artificial
intelligence.
Lazard calculates an energy resource's levelized cost, or
LCOE, by dividing a project's lifetime energy production by
its cost. This year's report concludes that renewables are
the ``most cost-competitive form of generation,'' even
without subsidies.
``As such, renewable energy will continue to play a key
role in the buildout of new power generation in the U.S.,''
the bank wrote. ``This is particularly true in the current
high power demand environment, where renewables stand out as
both the lowest-cost and quickest-to-deploy generation
resource.''
But that finding comes with an important caveat.
Persistently low natural gas prices, rising renewable energy
costs and higher electricity demand have made existing gas
plants economically attractive compared with renewables,
Lazard found. Onshore wind projects, for instance, have an
LCOE ranging from $37 per megawatt hour to $86 per MWh.
Utility scale solar projects had a range of $38 to $78 per
MWh. A new combined-cycle natural gas plant, by contrast, had
a cost of $48 to $109. But an existing gas plant had a cost
range of $24 to $39 per MWh. Even existing coal plants are
potentially competitive, having a range of $31 to $114 per
MWh. (New coal plants remain economically challenged at $71
to $173 per MWh.)
The result is that existing fossil fuel plants could
generate more power to meet short-term rises in electricity
demand, said Harrison Fell, an associate professor at North
Carolina State University who tracks electricity markets.
``To the extent we need to add a lot more, wind and solar
plus storage looks competitive to gas, even without
subsidies,'' he said. ``But if we're in a world with
decreased regulation of coal-fired generation, for example,
we could see some expansion of capacity there.
LCOE has long been a contentious metric in energy circles.
Among its critics are analysts at J.P. Morgan, academics at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, more recently,
the environmental group Clean Air Task Force. They argue that
LCOE is an inadequate tool for measuring renewables and
dispatchable technologies, like nuclear or gas, because it
does not account for the systemwide costs of providing backup
to wind and solar.
Lazard has sought to address those concerns by adding a new
calculation to its report that accounts for the cost of
providing backup power to wind, solar and short duration
storage batteries. It finds that those prices range from as
low as $71 per MWh for unsubsidized wind in the Midwest to as
high as $164 for solar-plus-storage in the mid-Atlantic.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 3628 does not address the fact that energy prices are rising.
They are 13 percent higher since Trump took office. Trump has called
the affordability crisis a Democratic hoax. He insults our intelligence
once again every time we open a utility bill or open that notice about
what healthcare premiums would be next year.
When we go to the grocery store, we know the affordability crisis is
not a hoax. It was created by Trump and his policies, his tariffs, and
all of those cuts to our medical programs that Republicans jammed
through this summer and their refusal to put before the floor the
extension of those tax credits.
In the area of renewable energy, Republicans also continue to close
their eyes to how we make life more affordable for Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Kamlager-Dove), who is also a member of the Democratic Caucus
Executive Committee.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, with the NDAA before us, we had an
opportunity to do right by the Afghan allies who risked their lives to
protect American servicemembers throughout our 20-year involvement in
Afghanistan.
After months of bipartisan work and real progress, a key provision of
my Enduring Welcome Act, legislation that passed the Foreign Affairs
Committee with strong bipartisan support, was set to be included in the
NDAA.
The amendment is straightforward. It aims to reestablish the Office
of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts that the Trump
administration dismantled earlier this year.
It would simply allow the CARE office to continue the critical work
of helping our Afghan allies escape retaliation and death from the
Taliban. Just days before it was set to become law, Republicans quietly
stripped this amendment from the NDAA, breaching standard legislative
procedure so they could sell out our Afghan allies to protect
themselves politically from Trump's wrath. They threw our allies and
our military under the bus.
Trump's weaponization of the horrific shooting of the National
Guardsmen, before we had even gathered the full facts, to scapegoat
Afghan allies and immigration communities, has been repugnant. The
administration swiftly suspended asylum decisions, halted the issuance
of special immigration visas, and prioritized Afghans for deportations.
Republicans who just last year spent every day ending in y
criticizing the Biden administration for not doing enough to protect
our Afghan allies, where are they now? They are silent and compromising
their principles without a fight, just like they have done time and
time again this Congress.
Some of these very colleagues served in Afghanistan themselves and
uniquely understand the profound debt we owe to our Afghan allies,
Afghans who saved American lives. Abandoning them at the eleventh hour
is shameful, unprincipled, un-Christian, and un-American.
Honoring our promise to Afghan allies is not only a moral
responsibility. It is a matter of national honor, global credibility,
and our word as Americans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, if we fail to uphold that promise, we
put the future safety of our servicemembers at risk by sending a
dangerous message to the world that the United States cannot and should
not be trusted.
[[Page H5129]]
I will be voting ``no'' on the rule for many reasons, but chief among
them is the cowardice my colleagues have shown when they place blind
loyalty to the President above American principles, obligations, and
safety. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the
underlying piece of legislation, especially the National Defense
Authorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of things since, as usual,
the Democrats continue to blame President Trump for everything.
Just as a reminder, the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and
White House until January 2023. They controlled the Senate and White
House until January 2025. Every State in this country has a public
service commission, so it doesn't make any sense to blame President
Trump for what is happening with energy prices when, if you look, it is
the States that are controlled by Democrats that have the highest
energy prices.
I would suggest that we have a little honest reflection here as we
talk about different types of things and where inflation comes from. I
would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the
American citizens of the deficits that they ran when they had the
House, Senate, and White House. When they passed the Inflation
Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan, as they call it, it cost
trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars.
By the way, it was the Democrats who chose not to extend the
subsidies beyond this year when they had the House, Senate, and White
House, not the Republicans. It was the Democrats who did that. They
voted for it, not us.
Let's just be honest. President Trump is doing a good job. He is
making sure that the rules of engagement are set so that the American
citizens are protected and the pangas go to the bottom of the ocean.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As I said earlier, Americans know what kind of job the President is
doing because they are paying those bills every month. Every month,
they know that tariffs are causing this inflation, and it is a self-
inflicted wound. It wasn't Russia invading Ukraine. It wasn't a
pandemic. It was Trump and his tariffs that are not rooted in any kind
of true economic policy.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 6074, which
would extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits for 3
years, through 2028.
Yes, they are extensions of time. We would like to see them
permanent, but in negotiations, we have always worked on extensions so
that we can address issues together in a bipartisan manner.
Millions of Americans are already receiving those notices of health
plans where the price is going to skyrocket. I get stopped on the
streets where people tell me what they are seeing when they open those
bills, and they are drastic. For some, it is a few hundred dollars, but
for others, it is $1,000, $2,000. They wonder how they are going to pay
just for health insurance. What happens when something goes wrong and
they have to pay that doctor's bill?
{time} 1250
There are only 8 days left to fix this problem, but Republicans still
have no viable healthcare plan of their own.
We heard that they took out a chalkboard and started throwing ideas
on there. None of the ideas were to extend the tax credits, which is
the quickest and easiest way to make sure that Americans don't see
those skyrocketing plans.
Instead, they want to maybe get rid of the Affordable Care Act. They
want people to be forced into junk plans, which could force Americans
into bankruptcy. By the way, Trump made sure that if you don't pay your
healthcare bill, it will go on your credit report. He actually went out
of his way to make sure that that happens.
The PQ vote today will be Republicans' 22nd opportunity to vote to
prevent the health insurance costs of over 20 million Americans from
rising significantly. I hope they finally decide to side with their
constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of West Virginia). Is there
objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), the author of this
legislation and a champion in this regard, to discuss our proposal.
Ms. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because in just 3 weeks, the
Affordable Care Act tax credits that helped millions of Americans
afford their premiums will expire. These tax credits have been a
lifeline for families and small businesses across the country. They
have allowed people to see their providers, to fill their
prescriptions, and to get the procedures that they need.
These tax credits are enormously popular because they work. Our
uninsured rate is lower than ever. That is why Democrats have been
fighting for months to extend these successful tax credits and prevent
healthcare costs from skyrocketing.
Every House Democrat has signed onto a discharge petition to extend
these tax credits for 3 years. If we defeat the previous question, we
can vote on that extension today, but if Republicans let these tax
credits expire, premiums will soar. Healthcare will be out of reach for
tens of millions of Americans. Families will be forced to go uninsured
or make incredibly tough choices just to make ends meet. This is life
or death for people.
Healthcare should be a right for everyone, not an unaffordable luxury
for the wealthy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question and to join us in extending these tax credits today.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, if you are over 65, you are not eligible
for the tax credit. If you or your spouse work for someone who even
offers health insurance, you are not eligible for the tax credit.
People on CHIP are not eligible for the tax credit. People on Medicaid
are not eligible for the tax credit. If my colleagues think that
expanding this tax credit is going to fix the problem, let me just give
you a couple of examples from my personal life.
I am covered under the Affordable Care Act today. Do you know what I
do when I go to the pharmacy? I don't file it on my health insurance. I
pay cash because the cash price is less than the copay on my health
insurance. The plans, for the most part, are junk. It is junk, and we
are not going to continue to send billions upon billions of dollars to
the insurance companies.
The President has made it very clear. We will give the people money
to help them purchase their health insurance, but we need more
competition in the system so that people could actually buy a good plan
that works for them instead of this junk that I have.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, 20 million people rely on this tax credit, so the fact
that my colleague doesn't need to rely on it and that he has enough
cash so that he can go and buy the prescriptions outright is great for
him.
Mr. Speaker, what about those 20 million Americans, many of whom are
in his district, who rely on the Affordable Care Act tax credits? Not
only that, but Americans want us to do this work. If you were listening
to the constituents in the gentleman's district--by the way, a lot of
those Republicans aren't having townhalls because their constituents
are speaking out.
Mr. Speaker, 74 percent of Americans want us to extend those tax
credits. I think it is the easiest thing and the quickest thing that we
can do. We are not saying we shouldn't continue to make improvements.
In fact, I have
[[Page H5130]]
bigger ideas of how we should fix the healthcare system. However, this
is the system we have today. With weeks left, it is easy. It is an easy
fix. All we need is four Republicans--four Republicans--to have the
courage to stand up for their constituents. Whether we see that or not
is yet to be seen.
My Republican colleagues send tweets out. We see Republicans signing
letters that they want the ACA extended, but we don't see them doing
what counts on the floor of the House, which is signing their names to
that discharge petition and voting for their constituents and
healthcare that is affordable for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Stansbury), my ``sister''; ``hermana.''
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more that we need a fix to healthcare
now--not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, but today. Put your
cards on the table, my friends. We want to see your fix to healthcare.
We are ready to pass an extension of the ACA, and the people of this
country cannot wait.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on the floor.
There is so much going on in this rule: the NDAA, the INVEST Act, a
bunch of so-called permitting bills that will gut environmental
protections. But I rise, in particular, to advocate for an amendment
that I submitted to this package to stop the President from bulldozing
more public buildings, including further changes to the White House
that they are planning right now.
The President has already bulldozed the East Wing of the White House,
a public treasure visited by millions, to build a private ballroom for
himself and his billionaire friends. There were no hearings, no public
input, and no regard for the law. Now the White House is quietly
soliciting bids to repaint another White House building and to demolish
four more historic Federal buildings here in Washington, D.C.
They are shopping our shared heritage to the highest bidder. Yes,
those bidders just happen to be some of the President's personal
friends and campaign donors. This is corruption happening in broad
daylight, right in front of our eyes.
Mr. Speaker, these Federal properties belong to the American people,
not to Trump's real estate empire.
My amendment, which is based on the bill that I will file in the
coming days, is urgent. It stops the President and any Federal official
from unilaterally demolishing, selling, remodeling, or giving away the
buildings that we own as the American people. It restores enforcement
and accountability that existing laws already provide but that this
administration is ignoring, and it increases the penalties to ensure
accountability.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court is on the verge of overturning 80
years of precedent, stripping away independent agencies of the power to
say ``no'' to a President. When that happens, the guardrails will
disappear.
Mr. Speaker, we will stand here on the House floor and say to the
executive branch: In the people's House, you do not have this
authority. You do not have it now. You did not have it then. We will
make sure that the law is clear.
We are reaffirming the separation of powers before the Supreme Court
attempts to dismantle it, and we cannot wait another day. We know the
bulldozers are coming.
Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member who believes in coequal power on
both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' to this amendment. Stand up for
the Constitution, stand up for our shared history, and stand up for the
American people.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how
much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 16\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New Mexico has 10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will make sure that my colleague understood what I
said and meant when I said that when I go to the pharmacy, I pay cash
instead of using my insurance card.
The retail cost of the drug is less than the copay on the insurance.
Mr. Speaker, that is just the reality of the system that Americans
are forced to live in.
I thought I might share with you another bill that I kept, where the
total charge was $111. As I said, I am covered under the Affordable
Care Act. My copay for that doctor's visit was $60. The insurance
provider and adjustments were a total of $51. Of that, the insurance
company paid $7.99 and just discounted the doctor's bill by $43.01.
Again, on a $111 charge, I paid $60, the doctor got beat down by $43,
and the insurance company paid $7.99.
{time} 1300
Let me just tell you, the Affordable Care Act needs to be replaced
with something that actually works for the American citizens. I think
the worst thing that has ever happened is when it obtained the name of
ObamaCare because then it became about President Obama instead of about
what the actual law and the flaws in the piece of legislation are.
Let's just be clear: If we could fix it, we would. However, giving
more cash to the health insurance industry that already has record
profits and record stock prices is not going to reduce the premium for
American citizens as a whole or is it going to improve the quality of
care. We have to get competition back into the market.
If it wasn't named ObamaCare, we might have been able to fix it. We
might have been able to fix it, but the Democrats are scared to do
anything, because their primaries, to change ObamaCare. They are sure
not going to give President Trump a vote to fix the mess that they
made. They don't want him to get the credit for fixing the mess that
they made, so they simply won't vote for anything that would actually
work.
Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to some other issues. I want to get
back to the National Defense Authorization Act.
It is a dangerous time in the world right now. It is a dangerous time
with all of the things happening in China, with all of the aggression
of Russia, with all of the things happening in the Western Hemisphere.
The National Defense Authorization Act is probably the most important
piece of legislation that we pass on an annual basis in this country.
We have two good leaders, Adam Smith and Mike Rogers, and we have a
committee that has been able to work together in a bipartisan fashion
to put this piece of legislation on the floor of the House of
Representatives. It is time to pass this rule. It is time to pass this
bill.
As you have heard from some of my Democratic colleagues, they have
amendments that they are very proud of in this legislation. I am glad
it is a bipartisan piece of legislation. Let's pass this rule. Let's
pass this bill, and let's move on.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that my colleague would have been around to hear
from Brick. Brick lives in Utah. He is a constituent of Representative
Kennedy. He doesn't have the luxury of being able to go into a pharmacy
and pay with cash. He has a rare genetic disease, and under the
Affordable Care Act, his life is saved every day. It would cost him
$150,000 to pay for the infusions that he needs to receive on a regular
monthly basis or else he dies.
It would not help to go in and try to pay with cash when you talk to
the worker who I met with. Her son needs transfusions or else he would
not be able to play as a regular kid because he would bleed to death,
and she cannot afford that either.
The Affordable Care Act, how it is structured, I am willing to take
it out. Let me tell you, I am a Medicare for All girl because I think
we should get rid of the insurance companies. But we have it now, and I
am not going to pull the rug out from under Brick or Julian or any of
those other people who rely on it.
Let's talk about what the Affordable Care Act did before we had it.
Once we got the Affordable Care Act, it stopped insurance companies
from charging sick people more in premiums than healthy people.
Let's talk about preexisting conditions. I am a breast cancer
survivor,
[[Page H5131]]
and I know so many other survivors. Guess what. I would not be able to
get health insurance because you could not get insured if you had a
preexisting condition. Let's face it, they were treating being a woman
of childbearing age as a preexisting condition until we had the
Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act demands that insurance companies cover most
preventive services. It gives States the flexibility to expand their
Medicaid programs, which 40 States have. You know what? Americans want
us to keep the Affordable Care Act right now. They want us to extend
those tax credits, and we should do that.
We should do that because the other thing it covers is IVF. I know
that my colleague has a wonderful family he loves. His daughter is
participating in a cheerleading competition. I need to tell you,
Representative Scott, I truly appreciated your comments last night with
regard to the IVF provision because it should not be the case that a
provision that has been negotiated by both Chambers, by the leadership
of the committees of jurisdiction, is overturned merely because
leadership--I think that means Speaker Johnson--decides to strip it.
As we noted earlier, 13 percent of couples say they need fertility
service to help them become pregnant or prevent a miscarriage.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to enter in the Record the
article titled: ``Military families face unique barriers to fertility
care, and new legislation aims to close the gap.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[Federal News Network, Nov. 11, 2025]
Military Families Face Unique Barriers to Fertility Care, and New
Legislation Aims to Close the Gap
(By Terry Gerton)
``When you look at the prevalence of infertility in the
military, it seems like it's higher than the civilian
population,'' said Dr. Michael Wittenberger.
Terry Gerton: Welcome back to this special Veterans Day
edition: The best of the Federal Drive with Terry Gerton on
Federal News Network. The White House is working to lower the
cost of IVF, putting fertility care in the spotlight. But
military families often face extra hurdles when trying to
start a family, whether it's deployments, relocations, or the
demands of service. New legislation aims to close that gap.
To help us understand the medical side of this issue, Federal
News Network's Eric White spoke with Dr. Michael
Wittenberger, a reproductive endocrinologist and Navy veteran
who spent years treating veterans and their families.
Eric White: So obviously, they're not the only ones that
can struggle with infertility, but what is it in particular
about military families, where they have even more of an
issue getting treatment for it' What are some of the
roadblocks of the jobs that they entail that kind of getting
in the way' What is what is that you have seen'
Michael Wittenberger: The military by its nature is just a
different organization completely than what most people are.
The military mission takes precedence, and so the military
mission often will require that service members are separated
from their families. That can be while they are watch-
standing, it can be on workups, it can be on deployment. So
there's frequent separations between the partners that are
trying to get pregnant. And so using different surveys, there
seems to be an increase in the difficulty for military family
members in planning and executing a family. And when you look
at the prevalence of infertility in the military, it seems
like it's higher than the civilian population. So in addition
to these frequent interruptions and the continuity between
partners, there's a number of other things that are inherent
to just the military. There's different jobs that you have,
and there's different expectations for different duty
assignment. It's expected while you're on sea duty that you
don't try to get pregnant because you're expected to deploy
even though you may be in port and you may not be deployable
at that moment. At the time that you're there, you're
expected not to get pregnant. The other half is okay to get
pregnant, but again, there's other things like access to
care. When I retired in 2022, I was one of three active-duty
reproductive endocrinologists and infertility specialists in
the entire Navy. That's serving, you know, the approximately
500,000 active-duty Navy and Marines on both coasts and
around the world. So you can imagine when there's just a
couple or three specialists that there's going to be
bottlenecks in care. And a lot of times the sailors, the
marines, the service members are going to located remotely so
there's not going to a local catchment where they can be seen
and taken care of. So another barrier to care is really just
a delay in diagnosis for many of them for getting the care,
they'll be out in an area they can't access care, so they
have to wait to come back to a military training facility
that actually has a reproductive endocrinologist to try to
get access to care. So, you know, a lot of different barriers
potentially to care for the military family.
Eric White: I guess we can start with your interaction with
these patients. Was that a frustration that you heard a lot
in treating service members, you know, ``it took me two
months to get this appointment''? Did some of them seek help
outside of their respective military branch?
Michael Wittenberger: I would say that's always been a
concern of people trying to access care, is that the delay to
get in and see a specialist is hard or that they need to go
out and see fertility specialist in the civilian world. The
problem with that is that in both cases, TRICARE, they
completely covered the diagnostics of trying to diagnose you
with infertility, but the treatment options are very limited
with TRICARE for active duty. They consist basically of any
treatment option that uses coitus as a form of conception. So
that means anything with artificial insemination, IVF,
fertility preservation in many cases is not covered by
TRICARE. So yes, the military members try to access care on
the outside. And they find out that they have to cover the
bill, and so that's a huge financial burden for them. Even
within the military, there's a thought that if they can get
care at the military treatment facility with a reproductive
endocrinologist as active duty, that it'll be covered. Well,
that's only partially true. So TRICARE has an exception to
the lack of coverage that allows them to, for graduate
medical education purposes, provide some additional care,
like artificial insemination and the monitoring for IVF, the
medications for IVF. So it does slightly reduce the cost of
IVF, but since there's no embryology team in any of the
military services, there's still a lot of expenses that the
patient needs to contract with the civilian embryology lab or
IVF center to actually cover.
Eric White: And so let's finish up here with some of the
solutions that have been proposed and other ones that you
think could be implemented. There's legislation in the House
from Rep. Sarah Jacobs that is aiming to increase access for
military families to this treatment. What do you know about
that? And what else could be done to make this an easier
process for those that are looking to serve their country,
but also want to fulfill their familial wishes?
Michael Wittenberger: Sarah Jacobs is a fellow San Diegan,
so it's good to see that she's really pressing for this. My
understanding of the legislation is that it's been
reintroduced in April of this year. It was previously passed
through the House, and I think Tammy Duckworth introduced it
into the Senate, and both of those were passed and put into
last year's NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. And
then it was scrubbed at the last minute. And so now they're
reintroducing . . . and my understanding is that this
includes basically standard-of-care treatment for active-duty
TRICARE recipients and their dependents, which just means
that there's IVF included in this, there's artificial
insemination included in this. And I think it's three cycles
of IVF, unlimited embryo transfers; it doesn't matter if
you're single or you're partnered, it's inclusive there. Now,
the great travesty, I think, here is when you look at what's
currently available to our warfighters that are out there
sacrificing their lives potentially to build a country for
their families, that maybe they end up sacrificing their
families. But as soon as they exit . . . active duty, if they
separate, if they retire, now they're in the VA system and
there's a huge discrepancy at what's provided by the VA
versus what's providing for active-duty members. So the VA,
if you have a fertility-related diagnosis, if you're
currently experiencing infertility in the active-duty forces
and you separate and you have fertility-related diagnosis,
now you're eligible for up to six cycles of IVF. Even if you
don't have a fertility-related diagnosis, you're
automatically eligible for artificial insemination. So, you
know, the bottom line really is that if you're active duty
and your priority is to start a family and you have a
fertility-related diagnosis, it may actually benefit you to
leave active duty and go into the VA system to get that care
covered without the financial burdens that it causes.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, that new legislation was just
torpedoed by the Republican Speaker of the House. What he did was
eliminate the possibility of the joy that comes from bringing a new
baby into this world. He dashed that hope.
What kind of leader is Speaker Johnson when he ignores the Senate,
his own Members, his own rank and file, and the committee chairs to
support his own limited view of what a family should be?
What about President Trump? He said he was the IVF President. I don't
see any outrage from him about Speaker Johnson torpedoing Congress'
work to benefit military families.
In Congress and in the White House, making a statement on social
media like Trump did about IVF is pointless if it isn't combined with
legislation and votes.
Republicans, Johnson is your leader. You have the power to push him
on
[[Page H5132]]
this. You have the power to give this gift of possibility to military
families. Don't let him push you around. Our servicemembers will give
their lives for our country, but Speaker Johnson will deny them the
possibility of a child.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that we have a Speaker of the House with
the character of Mike Johnson. He is a friend of mine. He is a very
devoted individual in many, many ways, and I am thankful that he is the
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
I might ask my colleague if she is prepared to close. I don't have
any further speakers, Mr. Speaker, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have some other issues I wanted to talk about with my
wonderful colleague from across the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of the forever wars that
President Trump is leading us down into. As I said in my opening, he
says it is to combat drug trafficking, and I agree, we should be
arresting and putting these drug dealers away for life.
I don't like the President of Venezuela. He is an authoritarian, a
dictator. He is the opposite of what democracy should be like. But
let's face it, this isn't about drug dealing because Trump keeps
pardoning convicted drug dealers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter in the Record the
December 8, 2025, article titled: ``Trump pardons major drug
traffickers despite his anti-drug rhetoric.''
``The President has granted clemency to about 100 people accused of
drug-related crimes during his time in office, a Post analysis shows.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Trump Pardons Major Drug Traffickers Despite His Anti-Drug Rhetoric
(By Meryl Kornfield and Emily Davies, Dec. 8, 2025)
The president has granted clemency to about 100 people
accused of drug-related crimes during his time in office, a
Post analysis shows.
On President Donald Trump's first full day in office this
year, he pardoned Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who was
convicted of creating the largest online black market for
illegal drugs and other illicit goods of its time.
In the months since, he has granted clemency to others,
including Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover and Baltimore drug
kingpin Garnett Gilbert Smith. And last week, he pardoned
former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had
been sentenced to 45 years in prison for running his country
as a vast ``narco-state'' that helped to move at least 400
tons of cocaine into the United States.
Overall, Trump--who campaigned against America's worsening
drug crisis and promised to crack down on the illegal flow of
deadly drugs coming across the border--has pardoned or
granted clemency to at least 10 people for drug-related
crimes since the beginning of his second term, according to a
Washington Post analysis. He also granted pardons or
commutations to almost 90 others for drug-related crimes
during the four years of his first term, the analysis showed.
At the same time, Trump has threatened military action
against Venezuela over accusations that the country's
government is supporting the drug trade and has pushed the
Pentagon to conduct targeted strikes on boats suspected of
smuggling drugs in the Caribbean. The contrasting actions
have come under fire from Democrats and other critics, who
say Trump's broad use of clemency contradicts promises to get
tough on drugs.
``President Trump is claiming to be taking action to stop
the flow of narcotics into the United States,'' Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-Virginia) said on the Senate floor Tuesday,
describing the crimes of Ulbricht and Hernandez. ``. . . How
does this protect Americans from the flow of narcotics
entering our country?''
Asked about the contrast, White House press secretary
Karoline Leavitt said the pardon of the Honduran president
doesn't make it difficult to defend the administration's
lethal strikes on suspected drug traffickers.
``I think that President Trump has been quite clear, in his
defense of the United States homeland, to stop these illegal
narcotics from coming to our borders, whether that's by land
or by sea, and he's also made it quite clear that he wants to
correct the wrongs of the weaponized Justice Department under
the previous administration,'' she told reporters last
Monday.
Asked about Trump's spate of drug-related pardons and
commutations, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told
The Post that Trump had exercised his constitutional
authority, and she attacked former president Joe Biden.
``The only pardons anyone should be critical of are from
President Autopen, who pardoned and commuted sentences of
violent criminals including child killers and mass
murderers--and that's not to mention the proactive pardons he
`signed' for his family members like Hunter on his way out
the door,'' Jackson said.
Trump and his aides have baselessly claimed that Biden's
staffers routinely used an autopen to sign pardons and other
documents without his knowledge.
Trump has wielded one of the greatest powers of the
presidency, clemency, far more this year than he did in his
first term. He has pardoned almost all of the approximately
1,500 Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack defendants. He also
has pardoned about a dozen members of Congress, mostly
Republicans, including most recently Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-
Texas), who was charged last year with bribery, money
laundering and conspiracy.
By comparison, Trump granted clemency to more than 230
people in his first term, just two of those in his first
year.
The pardon frenzy has given rise to a lucrative cottage
industry, The Post previously reported. Public disclosures
show that lobbyists have spent more than $2.1 million this
year on firms that advocate for pardons, clemency and other
forms of executive relief--more than double the total spent
in 2024. The records also show that individuals seeking
pardons have paid up to $1 million to hire people close to
the president to plead their case.
Experts say the administration's efforts to strike boats
near Venezuela have not proved effective in limiting the flow
of drugs entering the country because the passage is not
ordinarily used to traffic drugs to the United States. Drugs
containing fentanyl, which have contributed to most recent
drug deaths, are typically manufactured in Mexico and
smuggled into the U.S. across the land border. The
administration has not provided detailed evidence that the
boats they have sunk had drugs on board and were heading for
the United States.
The administration has claimed that the strikes are an
effective deterrent for other drug traffickers. Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters last week that they
paused the strikes ``because it's hard to find boats to
strike right now, which is the entire point, right?
Deterrence has to matter.'' However, experts say there is no
available evidence to support the theory that trafficking is
down.
``Drug trafficking is like water,'' said Regina LaBelle, a
Georgetown University drug policy professor and former acting
director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
``It's going to find a way to get in.''
Critics of the war on drugs have also long asserted that
the government has insufficiently addressed the root cause of
deaths in the U.S.: addiction. Advocates have urged the
government to invest more in overdose prevention measures,
such as naloxone and treatment options.
The rate of overdose deaths has been on the rise for
decades, fueled by fentanyl since around 2015, until the end
of Biden's term, when the rate declined.
Advocates warn that cuts to Medicaid and government-
supported treatment options could lead to an increase. The
Drug Policy Alliance, a left-leaning group, has estimated
that at least $345 million was cut this year from federal
programs that fund addiction and overdose prevention
services.
``At a time we're escalating these military campaigns and
divesting from this health infrastructure, it highlights the
contradiction in claiming that these military actions are
saving American lives from overdose,'' said Theshia Naidoo,
the Drug Policy Alliance's managing director of foreign
policy advocacy.
U.S. officials have long asserted that Venezuela President
Nicolas Maduro conspired to traffic drugs into the U.S.,
formally indicting him in 2020. Secretary of State Marco
Rubio cited the indictment in a Fox News interview on
Tuesday, emphasizing that it was handed up in the Southern
District of New York and arguing that ``it was undisputed.''
``Until the president decided to do something about it, no
one disputed that Maduro was in the drug trafficking
business,'' he said.
Hernandez was also indicted in the Southern District of New
York.
Jeffrey Singer, a drug policy expert at the Cato Institute,
said Trump has been all over the map on drug policy, pointing
to Trump signing a law last month that stiffened restrictions
on hemp, a form of the cannabis plant, after saying he backed
Florida's ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana
when he was a candidate.
``There's no consistency,'' Singer said. ``He pardons a
drug trafficker but orders the shooting onsite of drug
traffickers who are not in this country. In fact, based on
that logic, it makes you wonder, why are we wasting our time
arresting people in this country for drug trafficking? Why
don't we just shoot them?''
Several Republican lawmakers also expressed skepticism
about the Hernandez pardon. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North
Carolina)
[[Page H5133]]
told reporters Tuesday that he thought it was ``a horrible
message.''
``It's confusing to say, on the one hand, we should
potentially even consider invading Venezuela for a drug
trafficker, and on the other hand let somebody go,'' Tillis
said.
Trump and the White House have attributed several of his
recent pardon decisions to an assertion that criminals were
treated unfairly, part of the framing of Trump's view that
the justice system has been weaponized against him and
others. Trump posted on Truth Social Nov. 28 that he had been
told by ``many people that I greatly respect'' that Hernandez
had been ``treated very harshly and unfairly.''
Liz Oyer, who served as the Justice Department's pardon
attorney under Trump before he fired her, said presidents
have long used their clemency powers to shorten the sentences
of nonviolent drug offenders who have served substantial time
and shown signs of rehabilitation.
But Hernandez does not meet that standard, she said, noting
his brief time behind bars and the lack of evidence that he
has accepted responsibility for his crimes. ``The pardoning
of drug kingpins is virtually unheard of,'' said Oyer, who
was fired after she said she refused to restore gun ownership
rights to actor Mel Gibson.
Hernandez's pardon--along with Trump's decision to pardon
Ulbricht--underscores what Oyer described as the erosion of
the traditional clemency vetting system, replaced by a
process increasingly shaped by money, access and political
influence.
For decades, pardons and commutations were reviewed by
career Justice Department officials charged with assessing
whether applicants merited a second chance. While presidents
of both parties have sidestepped that system to benefit
allies, Oyer said the breadth and consistency of Trump's
interventions mark a departure from past practice, amounting
to a parallel clemency pipeline that largely bypasses the
safeguards meant to prevent abuse.
Longtime Trump ally Roger Stone--who also received a pardon
from Trump after being convicted of lying to Congress about
interference in the 2016 election--wrote in a blog post that
he forwarded a ``compelling letter from Hernandez to
President Trump because a review of the case led me to the
clear conclusion that the charges against Hernandez were both
politically motivated and false.''
In a text message, he denied receiving any money for his
advocacy.
Former Libertarian Party chair Angela McArdle advocated for
Ulbricht's pardon and is seeking pardons for others convicted
of crypto-related crimes. She said she thought Trump granted
Ulbricht's release because it was an olive branch to the
third party that he had campaigned to vote for him and ``a
big middle finger to the people who wanted Ross locked up.''
``I think he understood that Ross Ulbricht was a political
prisoner,'' she said. ``It was the same Southern District of
New York that locked Ross up that went after President
Trump.''
{time} 1310
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Trump said he would lower costs for
Americans on day one. Guess what he actually did on day one. He
pardoned Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who was convicted of creating
the largest online black market for illegal drugs and other illicit
goods.
He pardoned Larry Hoover, who imported tons of illegal drugs in a
major city, $100 million a year into that city.
Mr. Speaker, Trump is lying to the American people, and he thinks he
can play war. War is not something you play with. We do not want
another Afghanistan or Iraq where a Republican starts a war that lasts
20 years, costs trillions of dollars, and too many lives. Where is the
Republican outrage about these pardons for drug traffickers who kill
the people we love in our communities?
I am very glad, as I noted earlier, to see some oversight in calling
for the release of the video, but we must be doing more.
My Republican colleagues need to join Democrats in asserting that
Congress, and Congress alone, has the authority to declare war.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
submit for the Record a PBS News article titled: ``Obama reveals how
many civilians died in U.S. drone attacks'' under him. It states in
here that various human rights groups suggest the range was as high as
1,100 killed by Barack Obama's drone strikes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
[From PBS Newshour, July 1, 2016]
Obama Reveals How Many Civilians Died in U.S. Drone Attacks
Washington--The Obama administration said Friday that
between 64 and 116 civilians have been killed by drone and
other U.S. strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Africa since
President Barack Obama took office in 2009.
But the administration's first such public assessment put
the civilian death toll significantly lower than estimates by
various human rights groups. These range as high as 1,100
killed.
Seeking to create a precedent for his successor, Obama also
signed an executive order that details U.S. policies to limit
civilian casualties and makes protecting civilians a central
element in U.S. military operations planning.
The order requires an annual release of casualty estimates.
It says the government should include ``credible reporting''
by non-government groups when it reviews strikes to determine
if civilians were killed.
But the directive won't necessarily be binding on the next
president, who could change the policy with an executive
order of his or her own.
While sketchy details often emerge about individual drone
strikes, the full scope of the U.S. drone program has long
been shrouded from view. It is a key tool of Obama's
counterterrorism strategy.
The civilian casualties disclosed do not reflect U.S. air
attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria, countries deemed
``areas of active hostilities.''
Human rights groups have long claimed that the
administration undercounts civilian casualties and the new
information is unlikely to satisfy them entirely.
The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, for
instance, has estimated anywhere from 492 to about 1,100
civilians killed by drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and
Somalia since 2002. Human rights groups have long claimed
that the administration undercounts civilian casualties and
the new information is unlikely to satisfy them entirely.
Federico Borello, executive director of Center for Civilians
in Conflict in Washington, applauded Obama for the executive
order. He said his group probably would call on Congress to
codify it into law so that future presidents cannot throw it
out.
``This is something that we've been working on for 10
years,'' he said. Having civilian protections ``in the heart
of military planning is a big deal.''
Reprieve, an international human rights organization based
in New York, says the administration's previous statements
about the drone program have been proven to be false by facts
on the ground and the U.S. government's own internal
documents.
``But more importantly, it has to be asked what bare
numbers will mean if they omit even basic details such as the
names of those killed and the areas, even the countries, they
live in,'' Reprieve said in a statement ahead of the
administration's announcement.
It said the administration almost show how it define
targets, given that it has ``shifted the goalposts on what
counts as a `civilian' to such an extent that any estimate
may be far removed from reality.''
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Mexico has 30
seconds remaining.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have half a minute to speak, and we have 22 days to
act where we need to pass those tax credit extensions.
For months, we have been urging you to do it. Let's get it done. The
bills that we are considering here today, some of them have already
passed last week. We should be doing the Americans' goals. We should be
extending those tax credits. We should be doing it now. I call on four
Republicans to join us and sign that discharge petition. Help us give
Americans a healthy Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the House can advance six pieces of
legislation under this rule.
S. 1071, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2026,
significantly improves the defense acquisition system. This bill
implements the peace through strength agenda and restores lethality to
our Armed Forces. It further secures America's borders and improves the
quality of life for our servicemembers.
The fiscal year 2026 NDAA reforms key programs and saves taxpayer
dollars resulting in a ready, capable, and lethal fighting force. This
legislation will deter China, defend Israel, and
[[Page H5134]]
counter Russia, North Korea, Iran, and other foreign terrorist
organizations.
Finally, this bill strengthens our nuclear deterrence, supports the
Golden Dome initiative, and grows our Nation's strategic space
capabilities. This is a bipartisan, must-pass piece of legislation that
all my colleagues should support.
H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, contains targeted, balanced reforms to the
permitting process under the Clean Water Act that will cut red tape,
reduce project delays, and provide regulatory certainty.
H.R. 3628, the State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act,
will require State utility regulators to ensure we have reliable,
secure baseload energy that keeps the lights on.
H.R. 3638, the Electric Supply Chain Act, will direct the Department
of Energy to ensure we are securing our electric supply chain.
H.R. 3668, the Improving Interagency Coordination for Pipeline
Reviews Act, aims to speed up the consideration of pipelines by
promoting interagency coordination for reviewing certain authorizations
for LNG facilities and natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas Act.
Lastly, H.R. 3383, the INVEST Act, will strengthen public markets,
produce more opportunities for investors, and expand access to capital
for small businesses.
The bills before us this week give this body the chance to provide
for our defense, to make energy more affordable and reliable, and
provide opportunities and access to capital.
They are all worthy of support, and I urge my colleagues to join me
in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:
An Amendment To H. Res. 936 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Mexico
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 6074) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to extend the enhancement of the health care premium tax
credit. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6074.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________