Donald Beyer

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), who is a distinguished member of the Joint Economic Committee and our preeminent environmental economist.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield the gentlewoman from Wisconsin an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, to add to the distributional impacts, the top 5 percent pay 38 percent of the taxes, but they have more than 60 percent of the wealth. The bottom 10 percent pay very little but live hand-to-mouth, including more than 12 percent of our children. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), the distinguished chair of the House Democratic Caucus.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this budget resolution. This budget is disastrous for the American economy. It will balloon our deficits, lead to higher interest rates, and make the things Americans buy every day more expensive. It will slash critical investments in the things that make us healthier, safer, and more productive, things like cancer research, aviation security, and our National Park System. It will decimate critical programs that support the people we represent, stripping healthcare for millions and making it harder for families to put food on the table and make ends meet. All of this is for billionaires and corporations to get tax cuts they do not need and that our country cannot afford. I am pleased to do this with my friend, Chairman Schweikert. I also believe in math, and I rarely brag, but I am good at math. Americans have been clear. They want lower prices and an economy that works for them. Yet, instead of focusing on making life easier for American families, at every turn, this administration and my Republican colleagues have engaged in a scorched-earth policy, a policy that creates chaos across the country as the richest person on the planet eliminates services that our Nation depends upon. My friend from South Carolina earlier said that the policies would bankrupt our country. What does he mean? Healthcare for our families? Food for the working poor who overwhelmingly live in Republican districts? Sure, get rid of any identified bloat, as every President does, but this is a budget about billionaires, not about every American, the women, men, and children who we represent. Yes, I want to move toward a much smaller deficit budget. I listen to David Schweikert every closing afternoon during his Special Order hours. I hate the higher interest costs, but who pays? Our families or the 1,000 billionaires, that small percentage, 1 percent or less, of the American population that has way more wealth than they could ever spend in lifetimes to come? Republicans have long sung from the altar of fiscal responsibility, yet the plan they put in front of us today is a fiscal sacrilege. It depends on fantasy math and ignores that their deficit-busting tax breaks will add at least $4.6 trillion to our Nation's credit card and even more interest that our families must pay. This interest has real costs. It slows economic growth. It depresses the standard of living. It leads to higher inflation and higher interest rates. It makes it even harder for families already faced with high prices and borrowing costs to make ends meet. Wasteful, woke, and weaponized policies, my friend from Texas said. That is a very small percentage of the Federal budget. You can never achieve what is in this budget resolution on wasteful, woke, and weaponized policies. With this Republican plan, how do they address it? They double down on the policies that will widen the growing wealth gap of this Nation by giving billionaires trillions in handouts and providing pennies to the middle class. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1 percent of Americans, those making over $750,000 a year, can expect to get an annual tax cut of over $32,000. Working families will see a tiny fraction of that. Of course, the other main beneficiaries will be the wealthiest executives of the wealthiest corporations at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high. Americans who rely on government services will be told they need to make sacrifices to pad their profit margins even further. How does that make any sense? To pay for these tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, the Republican budget proposes to cut programs Americans rely on to afford healthcare and to put food on the table. Almost 100 million Americans, including seniors, children, families, and those from every corner of this country, depend on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to afford medical care. Yet, this budget would slash almost $900 billion from these critical programs, ripping away lifesaving coverage and raising healthcare costs for those who rely on them. At a time when prices at grocery stores continue to climb, this budget would make it even harder for the 40 million Americans who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. The budget we are considering today will do nothing to support the economic growth of this Nation. It will benefit the wealthiest at the expense of those who make this country work. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, while we are doing math, when I divide $2 trillion in savings and cuts over 10 years, I get $200 billion a year. Madam Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the whip of the House Democratic Caucus.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. BEYER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ambassador Dame Karen Pierce, who served nearly 5 years as the British Ambassador to the United States and was recently appointed as the United Kingdom's Special Envoy to the Western Balkans. During Ambassador Pierce's time in the United States, she happily embraced her role as the guardian of the special relationship between our two countries. During a time of increasingly strident partisanship, Ambassador Pierce was able to find allies across the political spectrum, receiving praise from all sides for her ability to bring people together. Ambassador Pierce has continued to play a key role in advocating for increasing economic engagement between our two nations--I look forward to a U.S.-U.K. free trade agreement--and she has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to global stability. Whether wrestling with security challenges, strengthening economic ties, or championing democratic values, Ambassador Pierce has exemplified the very best diplomacy leadership. Dame Pierce was indefatigable. It seemed she gathered people to her home in Washington every day and every evening for conversations about the most important matters on the globe. I think I saw more of Karen these last 5 years than I saw of my own family. She was everywhere, and she knew everybody, one of the most important skills of the most important diplomat from our most important ally. Ambassador Pierce's New Year's Eve celebrations will live long in Washington memory. Please join me in thanking Ambassador Pierce and wishing her the best on her next mission to the West Balkans. Her legacy of diplomacy will continue to inspire future generations. Zoning In on Service: Honoring Gerry Hyland's Legacy

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Gerald W. ``Gerry'' Hyland, the true pillar of the Mount Vernon community who recently passed away. For 28 years, Gerry served as the Mount Vernon district supervisor, but he was no ordinary public servant. After getting his LLB from George Washington School of Law, he decided that was not taxing enough and proceeded to earn a master's of law in taxation from George Washington School of Law. Gerry was a man who wore many hats, from Air Force colonel to lawyer, but it was his role as a community leader where he truly found his calling. He may have been known as Mr. Pothole, but his impact on the community was anything but shallow. Gerry was known for his sharp legal mind, his dedication to public service, and his uncanny ability to solve problems. His office said that the supervisor never met a pun that he didn't like or a constituent he wouldn't try to help. You might say he had a real knack for zoning in on the issues that mattered most. Gerry always tried to include his constituents in every big decision. It seems Gerry knew the secret ingredient to community engagement, a healthy serving of Hyland sauce. As a master of puns, Hyland left a lasting impression with his humor. Before retiring in 2015, at his final board of supervisors meeting, he shared one last pun that perfectly encapsulated his wit: There once was a supervisor who told 10 puns to his colleagues to get them to laugh, but no pun in 10 did.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Tonko for his leadership, for putting this together, and for leading this bill year after year. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Trump administration's unconscionable and irresponsible attacks on America's scientific integrity. The very foundation of our success as a world power has been our scientific prowess, and now, the Trump administration is threatening to undermine that success. That is why I am here to talk about our bill with Representative Paul Tonko, the Scientific Integrity Act, and to defend the very foundation of what makes America a global leader: our scientific leadership and infrastructure. I am proud to represent the National Science Foundation here in Alexandria, Virginia, the very heart of Virginia. The NSF is an incredible resource and institution. It was established in 1950 by Congress as an independent agency to promote scientific advancement in America. For 75 years, it has repeatedly accomplished that goal. NSF has helped to keep the U.S. at the forefront of scientific discovery. It helped catalyze the internet and develop the technology for MRI machines and 3D printing machines. It helped to create the ``Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles,'' detected gravitational waves, developed LASIK eye surgery, and much, much more. Over its lifetime, the National Science Foundation supported over 350,000 scientists, and of this number, 262 have won Nobel Prizes. Trump has already begun unprecedented attacks on the scientific community with purges of NSF workers and grants, scientific advisers, and the broader scientific workforce. I strongly oppose these efforts to target the National Science Foundation and weaken one of the guiding lights that makes America strong. I am also deeply concerned about this new era of censorship in science. NSF employees were given this list of words to look for in grants and flag them for possible termination. This, by the way, is only a sampling of the words. It is much longer. Mr. Speaker, I invite all who are watching to take a look at this list right next to me. This is just a portion of the full list, but it is a representative sample. Oh, wait. I can't use ``representative.'' It is on the list. What is most frustrating to me is that many of these words are just standard words used in basic science. Why the censorship? I thought Republicans hated the cancel culture. This list contains ``women'' and ``female,'' but no mention of ``men'' or ``male.'' My Republican friends have been telling me that there are only two genders, but now that we can't speak the word ``woman,'' are we down to just one? There is ``black'' and ``indigenous'' on this list, but no ``white.'' It is very clear that the only identity not censored is mine, but why does being a woman or being part of a Tribe make one ineligible for science? Why is the Trump administration attacking Tribal communities? I also don't understand this censorship of indigenous communities. It is also clear that the person who wrote this list has never been a scientist. It is ill-fitting, unwise, and actively harmful for scientific purposes. The inclusion of many of these words, like ``bias,'' ``included,'' or ``excluded,'' clearly shows that none of the people in charge of this list were scientists. If they were, they would know that many of these words are commonly used in scientific papers. Mr. Speaker, imagine being a grant applicant applying to develop the newest MRI technology or to develop a new drug locally, or being on the precipice of discovering a new gene in a plant or about to be taking pictures of two black holes for the first time. Imagine that this is someone's life's work. Now, imagine having to comb through a proposal or dissertation, the work of months or years, just to find every instance of words that don't belong there. It doesn't matter if the instance of the word ``polarization'' refers to the magnetic field on an MRI machine instead of political polarization. It doesn't matter if the use of the word ``indigenous'' is referring to an indigenous plant or if ``activism'' refers to the state of an enzyme or ``inclusion'' or ``excluded'' refers to the statistical analysis of the variables used. It also doesn't matter if ``black'' refers to the black hole being studied. The study is now going to be flagged by Trump's immature and sometimes, we learned today, even blatantly racist cronies at DOGE, who built a flowchart on how to handle these words. They want to find any way to terminate the program regardless of intent. The fact that these commonly used words are on this list indicates a lack of consideration of basic science. Someone should have spent more time in high school chemistry, physics, or biology class. The list also indicates that the Trump administration is sending NSF on an internal manhunt, one that will waste an incredible amount of time and energy that could be much better used on advancing science. If this list forces scientists to rewrite papers to avoid or minimize use of the words found on this arbitrary list, it further delays our already long grant process and then it hurts science. If this list delays a drug's development or incredible discoveries that keep America at the forefront of scientific development, then it hurts science. If scientists are interrogated by DOGE to determine if their use of polarization refers to a scientific principle or a political principle, then it hurts science. If our scientists have to seriously reconsider whether they even want to apply for the grant in the first place, then it hurts science. If NSF is discouraged from hiring or giving grants to any scientist except White, non-Hispanic men, well, we shouldn't expect many Nobel Prizes in the future. If this treatment of our science and our scientists escalates and pushes scientists out of America or out of the field, then it only hurts our economy, hurts our country, and it helps China. It is time to stop this madness and protect the American success story, and that is why I am here today, to decry these attacks on America, our science, and the National Science Foundation. That is why our Scientific Integrity Act is so important. This bill would call on agencies to develop scientific integrity standards. We need scientists, not corrupt industry hacks, leading our future. We need scientists who seek the truth rather than those who are paid to produce studies that help the businesses who pay them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us on the Scientific Integrity Act and act now to protect America's international leadership.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fix Our Forests Act, and I rise to fight what could be the first successful attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act. I believe that the California people deserve our urgent support to recover and rebuild from the tragic wildfires, and I am disappointed that this was not a productive discussion and a bipartisan discussion to help address what they need. There are many excellent pieces of legislation that we should be looking at for that support, including many that are bipartisan, like the Modernizing Wildfire Safety and Prevention Act. Those bills provide much-needed funding, deliver desperately needed support to firefighters, and address the needs of frontline communities. This bill does not. Instead, it regurgitates long-held logging industry priorities to reshape environmental laws on Forest Service land and allow profit, not science, to dictate forest management decisions. As a co-chair of the Endangered Species Act Caucus, I am particularly troubled by this bill's rollback of Endangered Species Act enforcement by overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' Cottonwood decision. This decision basically says that when new science emerges or develops on endangered species, it must be considered in the Endangered Species Act protections. By the way, the science goes both ways. It can both identify new dangers, but it can also identify successes and reduce stresses to threatened species. The industry has long tried to include the so-called Cottonwood fix in several pieces of must-pass legislation, most recently in the farm bill. They now see in their response to the California wildfires their newest opportunity to undermine Cottonwood. This industry wish list item would exempt Federal land management agencies from reconsultation under the Endangered Species Act. That process ensures that Federal agencies' land management plans incorporate the best available science as it becomes available. It is absolutely essential, but this is also a rare occurrence. It doesn't happen very often. When it does, it is important to consider it. As any student of history and science knows, our shared knowledge is continuously evolving through new inquiry and discovery. If we didn't incorporate new knowledge, then we would still be stuck with the geocentric model of the galaxy, placing the Earth at the center of the universe. Then think about the modern medical system. The modern medical community is built off the 19th century germ theory, which has saved hundreds of millions of lives. Incorporating new scientific knowledge is the bedrock of our modern society. It makes no sense when new science emerges to close our eyes, put our hands over our ears, and deny what the best science tells us. This antiscience ESA poison pill is dropped in, unconnected to wildlife management. Yes, we need good-faith forest management efforts to prevent wildfires, but not environmental rollbacks that allow for logging and other ecologically damaging activities that would worsen, not reduce, the risk of destructive wildfires. We need to take real action to mitigate risks and effects, and I am ready to work with all my colleagues to make that happen.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Himes for having this Special Order, and I thank him for his passion. Mr. Speaker, I represent many of those people who protect us on Capitol Hill, members of the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan/ Washington D.C. Police force, the Arlington County Police, police who live in my northern Virginia district. January 6 was not some distant abstract event for my constituents. Democracy was on the line that day, but so were their lives, their bodies, their physical safety, and well-being. As events spiraled out of control on January 6, calls for help went out on police radios, and they were answered by men and women in uniform throughout the Metropolitan, Washington, Virginia, Maryland area, some of whom were off duty. Many were off duty. They chose to get dressed, jump in their cars, and race in to help us, to protect our Capitol, to protect all who work here. Hundreds of those officers still bear the wounds seen and unseen that will never heal. The January 6 pardons and commutations were some of the worst things that Donald Trump has ever done. With these pardons, Trump embraced lawlessness and violence. Trump pardoned the people who beat and tased my constituent, Officer Michael Fanone, who was tased repeatedly in the neck. He described it as being like torture, and it led him to have a heart attack at that very time. Trump pardoned the people who gave a brain injury to my constituent, Officer Jeffrey Smith, days before he died by suicide. Congressman Himes mentioned how he was beat in the head with a pole. His wife, Erin Smith, said those injuries changed him in his final days. He was a different person. Officer Smith's death was later ruled as a line-of-duty death because it resulted from injuries suffered here on our behalf. Trump pardoned the people who attacked my constituent, Officer Brian Sicknick. They sprayed him with pepper spray hours before his death from two strokes. The medical examiner said his death was from natural causes, but what happened to Brian before his death during the attack on the Capitol clearly led to his death. Trump pardoned the people who chanted Nazi slogans, who yelled racial slurs at our Black police officers, and those who called for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Trump's own Vice President, Mike Pence. Mr. Speaker, Trump pardoned a man who was charged with throwing an explosive device at the police in the Capitol. This was a man who had previously been convicted of domestic violence, battery by strangulation. Trump pardoned a man who stomped on an officer's head, who beat other officers with a flagpole, a crutch, pieces of furniture, and sprayed officers with pepper spray. Trump pardoned a man who ripped off the gas mask of a police officer, beat him in the face with it, and crushed him in a door. Trump pardoned hundreds of people who pled guilty to assaulting law enforcement, many of them with deadly weapons. He pardoned or commuted the sentences of over a dozen violent criminals convicted of seditious conspiracy. By pardoning those who carry out these heinous crimes, Trump has made our country less safe. He betrayed law enforcement heroes who protected the Capitol at great personal cost. These pardons send a message that violent crime, even against law enforcement, will be sanctioned by Trump's government if it is carried out in his name. I urge my colleagues to remember the families of the five police officers who died as a result of January 6: Officer Brian Sicknick, Jeffrey Smith, Howie Liebengood, Gunther Hashida, and Kyle DeFreytag. I urge everyone to remember the officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, who put themselves at risk to protect us, and will carry the scars of the seen and unseen as long as they will live. These scars were inflicted by people who will face no further legal consequences for those acts thanks to President Donald Trump. This injustice is a gross betrayal of their service and sacrifice but does not diminish their patriotism. After January 6, many of my colleagues posted messages of support for law enforcement and the Capitol Police. It was on their doors. It was on their walls and in the halls of Longworth and Rayburn and Cannon. It was even on social media. Members like Speaker Johnson called for the prosecution of those criminals who committed those acts of violence against the police who guard the Capitol. Let me quote Speaker Johnson: To the fullest extent of the law. Republicans went on to hold votes on symbolic, nonbinding resolutions expressing support for police. They told us to back the blue. Back the blue. Their silence, or worse, their defense of Trump's pardons are unforgivable. They can never again claim to back the blue with any credibility. Finally, a warning: With these pardons, Trump put violent, dangerous people back into our communities. Many of them did terrible things on other days besides January 6, 2021. All of them had just been emboldened by receiving get-out-of-jail-free cards from this President. Who knows what other criminal acts they will perpetrate next. Unfortunately, we are all about to find out.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to honor the lifetime contributions of Marie Ridder to Virginia and the Nation. Marie, a distinguished journalist and one of the most passionate conservationists I have known, will celebrate her 100th birthday next Monday, January 27. Marie Ridder began her career as a journalist covering the reconstruction of post-World War II Europe, writing for the Philadelphia Bulletin. Over the next few years, she wrote for The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and Knight Ridder publications. Not just a writer, Marie edited for Vogue, Glamour, Mademoiselle, and Conde Nast magazines. I became close with Marie when she hosted my first-ever political event more than 37 years ago. When everyone else was skeptical, including my own family, Marie believed in me. Over the years, Megan and I have visited Marie's home myriad times, always surrounded by the most interesting people. It was there I first met and heard Dr. Howard Dean, perhaps the strongest voice against our invasion of Iraq and for healthcare for all Americans. Marie is passionate about saving our landscapes and our environment. She has been the champion of the Piedmont Environmental Council for decades and led the successful fight against the 1990s Disney effort to blanket the Virginia Piedmont with houses. She has served on the boards of the League of Conservation Voters and the Trust for Public Land. Maria is a master gardener, working in her garden high above the Potomac River in McLean. It was there that she was first bitten by a copperhead snake and rushed to Sibley Hospital for the antivenom. When she was struck again by a copperhead a few years later, the emergency room doctor noted that he had only treated two snake bites in his career. Both were on Ms. Ridder. It will come as no surprise that he was yet again the attending physician on her third snake bite. This is the same garden where Marie or her gardener--it is not clear who--killed an invasive deer with a bow and arrow. I do my best to avoid that garden. Marie's public service history is both remarkable and intriguing. She was deputy national director of Head Start, where she also served as the direct liaison for First Lady Lady Bird Johnson for 4 years. Later, she led the Sasha Bruce House, a compassionate home for the lost children of our Capital City--the abused, abandoned, neglected, and runaways. Marie has won many awards in her fight for democracy. In 2019, I was privileged to honor her with the Clara Mortenson Beyer Women and Children First Award for her outstanding accomplishments and commitment to empowering women. Megan and I are most fortunate to count Marie Ridder as our beloved friend. America is the longtime beneficiary of her creativity, energy, and tireless commitment to others. When you earn her trust, Marie will even tell you about her date with the bachelor John F. Kennedy.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to help manage the Special Order hour to recognize our wonderful friend who is now leaving us in the U.S. House, Ms. Jennifer Wexton. I rise with respect and admiration and love for Jennifer. Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of Jennifer in December of 2013 when she won a crowded primary to succeed a State senator who had just been elected attorney general. I mostly saw her on local TV, these ads that showed up again and again. That was a very cold month and a very special election. When she won, I was just starting this race for U.S. Congress, and she was a real inspiration to me at that very time. A couple years later, Gerry Connolly and I served with Barbara Comstock. We were a sometimes good, sometimes tense team from northern Virginia, but we really wanted to take back the House, and we thought the best possible candidate to take on Barbara Comstock was this wonderful State senator from Loudoun County. I remember calling Jennifer and saying, why don't you--not give up your senate seat, but jump into this race and take on Barbara, she has only been in for 2 years. Jennifer has the wisdom of a great politician and knows that timing is everything in politics. She said, no, absolutely not. Donald Trump went on to win that election. Barbara Comstock went on to win it easily. Maybe a bunch of us got something started in her mind because 2 years later, there was a tough, six-way primary, with a number of very good women in that race, and Jennifer prevailed in that primary, went on to beat Barbara with 56 percent, a two-term incumbent. Jennifer has just been a delight and a great resource for Virginia ever since. Mr. Speaker, she actually went to the University of Maryland, but we forgive her because she went to law school at William & Mary. She redeemed herself. I am very proud to represent her parents that live in Alexandria, Virginia. She has a great husband, two sons. Somehow, contrary to the two- parent working families that we have everywhere in America, she was able to work it out with Andrew so that he would be the full-time caretaker at home for the kids, which is relatively unique in current American culture, but it worked beautifully. They got the right people in the right jobs. I am also thrilled that for many, many years, I worked on campaigns against Frank Wolf who actually was a distinguished Member of this House, but I started in 1982 and Frank served for 34 years. All that just goes to say that this district was founded in 1952 at the post-war expansion. Joel Broyhill won in 1952 and held the seat for 22 years. For 66 years, only 6 of those 66 years was that seat held by a Democrat; Joe Fisher was only elected in the Watergate landslide of 1974 and ousted in the Reagan landslide of 1980. Then, after 66 years, finally, we get Jennifer Wexton who comes back, turns the seat blue, gives us great representation, and I believe she is the first Loudoun County Member in the history of the country ever to represent Loudoun County in the U.S. Congress. I have loved working with her, as has Abigail Spanberger, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Gerry Connolly, all of us have come together on northern Virginia issues, and on Virginia issues, to make enormous progress. She is tough, but kind, and the toughness has really come out in the last year when Jennifer first believed that she had been diagnosed with Parkinson's. We saw a toughness and a resoluteness, but then when that diagnosis turned out to be much more serious, she called all of us to let us know that she wasn't quitting, that despite the, at least short-term, deterioration in her physical condition, she was resolute. She was full of courage. She was full of commitment, and through these long difficult days, she has been here every single day, cast every single vote, been here patiently listening, contributing whatever she could, using the latest technology to speak up. With her aide at her side, she has been a vital part of this Congress through the super nuclear policy. We hate to see her go. It is a great loss to this institution. It is a loss to Virginia not to have her in this body. She wisely looked at the next primary, the primary to succeed her, looked at all the different candidates and chose one that she thought would best represent her, and I think most people would believe that he only won that primary because he was blessed by Jennifer Wexton. We will all have more to say, but I yield to our dear friend and colleague from across the aisle, our just newly reelected Member from Virginia Beach, Congresswoman Kiggans.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman once again for staying late and for his 32 years of service just in this institution not counting all the others. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger), a force of nature and who many of us hope will be the first woman Governor in Virginia's history.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Spanberger very much for speaking from the heart, as she always does. I want to put just a little more context into Ms. Wexton also because Congressman Scott mentioned that she had been a prosecutor. She was actually deputy Commonwealth attorney for 4 or 5 years in the early 2000s, with a number of major cases to her credit that she had prosecuted. When she got to the Virginia Senate, she was one of the real champions for the Medicaid expansion because we had made that possible, but it had to be adopted State by State. It was Jennifer's leadership in the State Senate that made that huge difference. She especially fought for people with disabilities. Interestingly, when she was elected in 2018, we are very proud that was the day that Jennifer Wexton, Abigail Spanberger, and Ms. Luria, three Virginia women, took back the U.S. House. She was the first Member ever to put a transgender flag on the door of her office. This is a difficult thing even today, but then it was spectacular. Most of us here have been involved in suicide prevention for a long time. When you realize that perhaps 75 to 80 percent of transgender teenagers have major suicide ideation, this was a bold and very loving thing to do. I am particularly impressed because Jennifer came with Abby, her chief of staff, the only chief of staff. This is an office famous for very low turnover because they all are dedicated and devoted to Jennifer. Jennifer even graciously has given Abby to her successor. She will be here to keep the 10th District running well. Most people don't know this, but she is a proud citizen, an American of Italian heritage. She was born Jennifer Tosini. In a place run by Nancy Pelosi for all those decades, this was a very smart thing to be an Italian American here. Her birthday is May 27, which means probably once every 6 years, her birthday is on Memorial Day, which is a very good thing, a time when we memorialize everyone who sacrificed for our country. Jennifer, I don't want to give away your birth year. She was born in those tragic weeks between the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. I know that you were just a baby, but I sometimes think that, on some level, that notion of being born into the heritage of two of the great public servants, the great martyrs, the great people who lived their lives to serve others became part of who you are all your life. I think that Bobby Scott probably said it best. You are a woman of strength, character, and grace. I think I speak for all Virginians, maybe all Americans, in thanking you for your wonderful, grateful years of service for the people of Virginia and for all Americans. By the way, Mr. Speaker, before yielding back, I would like to point out that Jennifer Wexton did an eloquent, beautiful speech today in the Virginia House. It is available on her Twitter account or her X account, @RepWexton. To all of you watching, please look at this speech. That will be so much better than anything that we would have said tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for staying late and for her thoughtful remarks. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the dean of the Virginia delegation, recently reelected by the steering committee this afternoon, and hopefully to be the next ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize World Turkish Coffee Day, celebrated annually on December 5th, as a moment to honor a cherished tradition transcending borders, cultures, and generations. Turkish coffee, renowned for its rich flavor, unique preparation, and social significance, holds the prestigious designation of being listed on UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. This timeless beverage is more than just a drink--it is a cultural bridge that fosters connections and encourages conversations. The preparation and sharing of Turkish coffee symbolize hospitality, friendship, and the spirit of togetherness. For centuries, it has been an integral part of countless traditions, from engagement ceremonies to gatherings with loved ones. Today, I also want to highlight the contributions of Turkish Americans, who have brought this rich cultural heritage to communities across the United States, including right here in Northern Virginia. Through their entrepreneurial spirit, Turkish Americans have introduced Turkish coffee to a global audience, opening businesses, fostering intercultural dialogue, and enriching the cultural tapestry of our Nation. Their contributions remind us of the strength we draw from diversity and the beauty of shared traditions. As we celebrate World Turkish Coffee Day, let us acknowledge the legacy of Turkish coffee as a living symbol of heritage and humanity. May its spirit of unity and friendship continue to inspire us all. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the cultural significance of Turkish coffee and the invaluable contributions of Turkish Americans to our society.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Wesley Housing as they mark 50 years of service to our community. I am incredibly appreciative of the vision, dedication, and tireless work that the team at Wesley Housing does to address the critical need for affordable housing in Northern Virginia. Wesley Housing was established by Virginia Peters in 1974 in response to a community-led poverty study that revealed the lack of viable housing solutions for many families. Since its inception it has cemented itself as an independent nonprofit committed to changing lives through access to safe and affordable rental housing units. From its groundbreaking in 1979 with the first property in Fairfax County, Wesley Housing has grown into one of the mid-Atlantic region's largest and most respected providers of affordable housing. To date, the organization has developed or acquired 2,915 units across 40 properties, positively impacting the lives of over 25,000 individuals and families. But Wesley Housing's influence extends far beyond the walls of its buildings. Through collaborative partnerships and a holistic approach to resident support, the organization empowers families to build better lives, break the cycle of poverty, and overcome deep-seated racial inequities. Wesley Housing's commitment to excellence and its transformative work in the region have earned the organization numerous accolades over the years. In 2022, the Housing Association of Nonprofit Developers (HAND) named Wesley Housing ``Nonprofit Developer of the Year'' for the third time, recognizing the organization's ongoing contributions to affordable housing. Other prestigious honors include the SatisFacts' Resident Superior Award, which Wesley Housing has won seven consecutive years due to exceptional ratings from residents, and recognition from Affordable Housing Finance, which ranked Wesley Housing among the ``Top 50 Affordable Housing Developers'' in 2021. I am honored to celebrate Wesley Housing's important milestone and want to express my deepest gratitude to the entire team, its partners, and the countless individuals who have benefited from its life-changing work. Wesley Housing's continued success is a testament to the power of community-driven solutions and its unwavering commitment to improving the lives of those who need it most.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I also stand in opposition to this bill, which would provide the administration sweeping, unilateral authority to designate nonprofits as terror-supporting organizations and strip them of their tax-exempt status with no due process and without sufficient evidence. The authorities provided in this bill are unnecessary and dangerous in the wrong hands. The legislation would do nothing to improve our ability to combat terrorism, as there are already numerous legal mechanisms which effectively monitor and penalize nonprofits that provide support for terrorist organizations. No one serving in this institution wants a single dollar to find its way into the hands of a terrorist group, and it is inappropriate to suggest otherwise, but in the hands of a responsible government, the powers provided in this bill are merely redundant. However, Mr. Speaker, history is uncertain. Democracies, even ours, can wax and wane. Sometimes we have great Presidents, and sometimes we do not. Under the leadership of an unscrupulous authoritarian, it is not hard to imagine how an administration could use the powers in this bill to hinder or dismantle organizations that its leader does not like. Mr. Speaker, some 15 years ago, before I was here, there was a huge controversy over the IRS under Barack Obama investigating nonprofit organizations that may not have actually been nonprofits, that they were political organizations and campaign organizations promoting ideologies doing nothing to help the American people. It turns out there were as many on the left doing this perhaps as on the right. However, my Republican friends were apoplectic about this because they said that a President could unscrupulously cross out and take away the tax-exempt status of these NGOs that are their rightful thing. It is fair right now to consider that Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents could misuse this power. I voted for it with concerns a couple of weeks ago, but that was before organization after organization met with me, called my office, and sent letters. Community foundations across this region, hardly terrorist-supporting organizations, are terrified that their nonprofit status will be taken away from them unjustly and inappropriately. It is deeply unfortunate that this was matched with a very good, commonsense legislation that Congresswomen Dina Titus, Claudia Tenney, and I are co-leading on postponing fines and fees on taxpayers who have been unlawfully detained as hostages. This is what passed the Senate overwhelmingly. In pairing this deeply controversial legislation, we have all woken up to that potential, not just because of Donald Trump, but because the nonprofits could be affected by it and are aware of its impact. It happened immediately after it came out of the Ways and Means Committee. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 9495, and I hope that we can find a path forward to provide desperately needed relief for the Americans who have been wrongfully detained overseas.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I stand with my colleagues today to help raise the alarm about our unsustainable and reckless nuclear posture. Sadly, we have come a long way in the wrong direction since Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev pledged to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Many of my friends in this Chamber, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, speak passionately and eloquently about our fiscal trajectory and the rising national debt. I share their concerns and believe we need to be clear-eyed about the scale of the increasingly serious debt problem and we must seriously consider the merits of additional spending in a difficult fiscal environment. Yet, many seem to forget this issue when it comes to the larger defense budget and, specifically, our nuclear weapons modernization program. The CBO estimates that it will cost us over $1.5 trillion over the next 30 years and $800 billion over the next 10 years. Please remember that our current estimates in defense costs are always wrong, and they are always wrong on the low side. We always underestimate significantly, sometimes dramatically. Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the need for nuclear deterrence, particularly with Russian saber-rattling and an expanding Chinese nuclear arsenal, our spending priorities and nuclear strategy are becoming divorced from reality, a reality of scarce resources and a variety of competing national security priorities. We are on track in the next NDAA to authorize billions of additional dollars in spending on a host of unnecessary nuclear programs that have, at best, a marginal benefit to our national security and, at worst, destabilize the fragile peace we have today. For example, the measure being negotiated would likely have us continue to pour billions of dollars into a new nuclear sea-launched cruise missile program, which is a costly solution to a nonexistent problem. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Russia or China would be any more deterred from using nuclear weapons if we were able to field yet another low-yield weapon. We already deploy a vast array of such weapons. The reality is that our current nuclear arsenal presents more than enough of a deterrent to our adversaries, and we simply do not have the resources to spend lavishly on redundant nuclear weapons systems while also maintaining and modernizing our conventional military capabilities. I am deeply concerned that, while we continue to overspend on our nuclear arsenal, we are neglecting to engage in meaningful nuclear disarmament diplomacy on the international stage, which is the only real way to safeguard the country and the world from the horrors of nuclear war. I applaud the Biden administration for offering last year to discuss, without preconditions, a new nuclear arms control framework with Russia and a separate bilateral nuclear risk reduction arrangement with China, but we need to do more in Congress to support these efforts and encourage the next administration to carry the torch. At the very least, before the expiration of the New START Treaty in 2026, the U.S. should propose to Russia that both sides maintain the current limits of the numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons until a more comprehensive agreement can be reached. Looking ahead, the cornerstone of future arms nuclear talks should be the adoption of a no first-use policy when it comes to our own nuclear arsenal. Currently, the U.S. President has the ability to order the launch of hundreds of nuclear warheads within 15 minutes with no oversight or input required from anyone else, including Congress. Vesting this much power into one person, Democrat or Republican, is irresponsible, dangerous, and unnecessary. Given our massive conventional military advantages over our adversaries, there is no plausible circumstance that could justify the use of nuclear weapons to respond to a nonnuclear threat. Removing the specter of U.S. nuclear weapons first in a conflict would be an important first step toward increasing strategic stability and slowing down or stopping the global race to develop new nuclear capabilities and advanced conventional-strike weapons. In an increasingly unstable word, it is incumbent on all of us to reduce the existential risk of nuclear war in every way we can. Let me explain my use of the term ``existential.'' It is about actual existence. While we fret over who won or lost in a given election, we must not forget that the real danger and the real challenge is the continuation of humanity itself. Will we live as a species, or will we die? That is the simple question before us.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ms. Essie Norris for her over thirty years of dedicated volunteer service with incarcerated women and men at the Alexandria City Jails. Ms. Norris was drawn to the jail ministry by a powerful scripture in Matthew 25:43-45, where Jesus said, ``I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.'' This scripture served as a clear call to action for her. In 1992, when Elsie Taylor Jordan, a prominent community leader and Sheriff with the Alexandria City Police Department, launched the Prison Ministry at a Women's church meeting at Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1992, Ms. Norris immediately joined to support the mission. The ministry's goal was to remind the inmates that, despite their circumstances, they were not forgotten by God and that a community of faith was there to encourage them through their time in the Alexandria Jail. A year later, her sister and daughter joined her, singing, praying, and testifying about God to the incarnated men and women there, and together, they have continued to carry this legacy of service on. Initially, the ministry visited every Sunday, with Essie pouring her heart into the work. As other community ministries emerged, the Ebenezer Baptist Church scaled back visiting twice a month, and now they visit once a month. One of the most memorable experiences for Ms. Norris and her family was their visit to Lorton Prison with the Missionaries of Ebenezer Baptist Church--an experience that profoundly shaped them. Today, I am honored to recognize and celebrate Ms. Essie Norris for her work as a Prison Ministry. Her work has made a lasting impact in Northern Virginia and is a testament to her dedicated faith.

Mr. BEYER

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I also stand in opposition to H.R. 9495, which would provide this administration and any future administration with sweeping, unilateral authority to designate nonprofits as terror- supporting organizations and strip them of their tax-exempt status with no due process and without sufficient evidence. The authorities provided in this bill are unnecessary and extremely dangerous if they ever fall into the wrong hands. This legislation would do nothing to improve our ability to combat terrorism because there are already numerous legal mechanisms that effectively monitor and penalize nonprofits that provide support to terrorist organizations. No one in this esteemed body wants any nonprofits to direct even $1 to a terrorist organization, and it is inappropriate to suggest otherwise. In the hands of responsible government, the powers provided in this bill are redundant and duplicative. However, history is uncertain. Democracies, even ours, can wax and wane. Sometimes we have great Presidents, and sometimes we do not. Under the leadership of an unscrupulous or authoritarian President, it is not hard to imagine how that administration could use the powers in this bill to hinder or dismantle organizations they don't like. Remember, there would be no due process, no right of appeal, no right to see the evidence against them, no path to cure. It is deeply unfortunate this bill was combined with commonsense legislation--led by my friends, Representatives Dina Titus and Claudia Tenney, and me--that would have allowed the IRS to waive or postpone fines and fees on taxpayers who have been unlawfully detained or held hostage overseas and not been able to pay their taxes on time. I was pleased to see that piece of legislation unanimously pass the Senate earlier this year. However, its pairing with these deeply controversial provisions in H.R. 9495 risks those provisions ever becoming law. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 9495, and I hope that we can find a path forward to provide desperately needed relief for Americans who have been wrongfully detained overseas.

Mr. BEYER. I have never been given that reason, no.